Sally Noone1, Jaime Ross1, Hugh A Sampson1, Julie Wang2. 1. The Elliot and Roslyn Jaffe Food Allergy Institute, Division of Allergy and Immunology, Department of Pediatrics, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY. 2. The Elliot and Roslyn Jaffe Food Allergy Institute, Division of Allergy and Immunology, Department of Pediatrics, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY. Electronic address: julie.wang@mssm.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies report epinephrine use for positive oral food challenges (OFCs) to be 9-11% when generally performed to determine outgrowth of food allergies. Epinephrine use for positive OFCs performed as screening criteria for enrollment in therapeutic trials for food allergy has not been reported. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the characteristics and treatment for positive OFCs performed for screening subjects for food therapeutic trials. METHODS: Retrospective review of positive screening OFCs from 2 treatment trials, food allergy herbal formula-2 (n = 45) and milk oral immunotherapy (n = 29), conducted at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai was performed. RESULTS: The most common initial symptom elicited was oral pruritus, reported for 81% (n = 60) of subjects. Overall, subjective gastrointestinal symptoms (oral pruritus, throat pruritus, nausea, abdominal pain) were most common (97.3% subjects), followed by cutaneous symptoms (48.7%). Of the 74 positive double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge, 29 (39.2%) were treated with epinephrine; 2 of these subjects received 2 doses of epinephrine (6.9% of the reactions treated with epinephrine or 2.7% of all reactions). Biphasic reactions were infrequent, which occurred in 3 subjects (4%). CONCLUSIONS: Screening OFCs to confirm food allergies can be performed safely, but there was a higher rate of epinephrine use compared with OFCs used for assessing food allergy outgrowth. Therefore, personnel skilled and experienced in the recognition of early signs and symptoms of anaphylaxis who can promptly initiate treatment are required.
BACKGROUND: Previous studies report epinephrine use for positive oral food challenges (OFCs) to be 9-11% when generally performed to determine outgrowth of food allergies. Epinephrine use for positive OFCs performed as screening criteria for enrollment in therapeutic trials for food allergy has not been reported. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the characteristics and treatment for positive OFCs performed for screening subjects for food therapeutic trials. METHODS: Retrospective review of positive screening OFCs from 2 treatment trials, food allergy herbal formula-2 (n = 45) and milk oral immunotherapy (n = 29), conducted at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai was performed. RESULTS: The most common initial symptom elicited was oral pruritus, reported for 81% (n = 60) of subjects. Overall, subjective gastrointestinal symptoms (oral pruritus, throat pruritus, nausea, abdominal pain) were most common (97.3% subjects), followed by cutaneous symptoms (48.7%). Of the 74 positive double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge, 29 (39.2%) were treated with epinephrine; 2 of these subjects received 2 doses of epinephrine (6.9% of the reactions treated with epinephrine or 2.7% of all reactions). Biphasic reactions were infrequent, which occurred in 3 subjects (4%). CONCLUSIONS: Screening OFCs to confirm food allergies can be performed safely, but there was a higher rate of epinephrine use compared with OFCs used for assessing food allergy outgrowth. Therefore, personnel skilled and experienced in the recognition of early signs and symptoms of anaphylaxis who can promptly initiate treatment are required.
Authors: Kirsi M Järvinen; Sujitha Amalanayagam; Wayne G Shreffler; Sally Noone; Scott H Sicherer; Hugh A Sampson; Anna Nowak-Wegrzyn Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Vaishali S Mankad; Larry W Williams; Laurie A Lee; Ginger S LaBelle; Kevin J Anstrom; A Wesley Burks Journal: Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 6.347
Authors: Nandinee Patel; Kok Wee Chong; Alexander Y G Yip; Despo Ierodiakonou; Joan Bartra; Robert J Boyle; Paul J Turner Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2021-04-20 Impact factor: 10.793