| Literature DB >> 26839628 |
Abstract
Cow's milk and hen's egg are ubiquitous in diets around the world and can be important sources of protein in young children. Unfortunately, milk and egg allergies are also some of the most common food allergies in childhood. Less allergenic forms of milk and egg due to heating and interactions with a food matrix, as in baked goods, are tolerated by a majority of milk- and egg-allergic patients. Adding baked milk and egg into the diets of milk- and egg-allergic children can broaden diets, increase nutrition, and improve quality of life. Most important, regular ingestion of baked milk and egg can help children outgrow their allergies to milk and egg. This article will review our current understanding of baked milk and egg tolerance and outline how these baked forms accelerates tolerance to regular milk and egg.Entities:
Keywords: Baked egg; Baked milk; Egg allergy; Milk allergy
Year: 2016 PMID: 26839628 PMCID: PMC4727383 DOI: 10.1186/s40413-015-0089-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World Allergy Organ J ISSN: 1939-4551 Impact factor: 4.084
Tolerance of baked milk and resolution of milk allergy
| Type of study | BM tolerant | Resolution of milk allergy | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wood et al. [ | Observational without OFC | 21 % by 5 years | Relative hazard after 5 years: |
| 4.1 in those who reported BM tolerance | |||
| 0.28 in those who reported BM reactivity | |||
| Nowak-Wegrzyn et al. [ | Prospective with OFC | 75 % initially, 80 % by end of follow-on study | 59 % of those ingesting BM (followed for median 37 months) |
| 22 % of control group (followed for median 40 months) | |||
| Caubet et al. [ | Prospective with OFC | 69 % | N/A |
| Bartnikas et al. [ | Retrospective with OFC | 83 % | N/A |
| Mehr et al. [ | Prospective with OFC | 73 % | N/A |
OFC oral food challenge, BM baked milk
*only second cohort; first cohort include subjects from Nowak et al
Tolerance of baked egg and resolution of egg allergy
| Type of study | BE tolerant | Resolution of egg allergy | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sicherer et al. [ | Observational without OFC | 38 % by 6 years | After 6 years: |
| 71 % in those who reported BE tolerance | |||
| 45 % in those not ingesting BE | |||
| 57 % in those who reported BE reactivity | |||
| Des Roches et al. [ | Prospective with OFC | 73 % | |
| Lemon-Mule et al. [ | Prospective with OFC | 70 % initially, | 53 % of those ingesting BE (followed for median 37.8 months) |
| 89 % by end of follow-on study | 28 % of control group (followed for median 67.3 months) | ||
| Clark et al. [ | Longitudinal with OFC | 66 % | N/A |
| Lieberman et al. [ | Retrospective with OFC | 66 % | N/A |
| Cortot et al. [ | Retrospective with OFC | 83 % | N/A |
| Turner et al. [ | Prospective with OFC | 64 % | N/A |
| Tan et al. [ | Prospective with OFC | 63 % | N/A |
| Bartnikas et al. [ | Retrospective with OFC | 84 % | N/A |
| Turner et al. [ | Retrospective with OFC | 66 % | N/A |
| Peters et al. [ | Prospective with OFC or by report | 80 % by OFC | By age 2 years of age: |
| 72 % by report | 49 % of those ingesting BE after OFC at 1 year | ||
| 74 % of those ingesting BE by report at 1 year | |||
| 13 % of those with positive BE OFC at 1 year |
OFC oral food challenge, BE baked egg
Predictability of Baked Milk Tolerance by Testing
| SPT wheal | Specific IgE (kUA/L) | Suggested cut-off for OFCs | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nowak-Wegrzyn et al. [ | CM < 5 mm = 100 % NPV [poor specificity] | CM IgE ≥35 = >50 % PPV | CM IgE 5.0 kU/L |
| CM 15 mm = 50 % PPV | |||
| Caubet et al. [ | N/A | CM IgE 24.5 = 69 % PPV [poor sensitivity] | Casein IgE 5 kUA/L |
| Casein IgE 20.2 = 69 % PPV [poor sensitivity] | CM IgE 10 kUA/L | ||
| Casein IgE 4.95 = 89 % NPV | |||
| Bartnikas et al. [ | CM <7 mm = 100 % NPV | CM IgE >20.6 = 100 % PPV | N/A |
| Casein >15 mm = 100 % PPV | Casein IgE >10.3 = 100 % PPV | ||
| Casein IgE 0.9 = 90 % NPV [poor sensitivity and specificity] |
SPT skin prick test, CM cow’s milk, PPV positive predictive value, NPV negative predictive value, OFC oral food challenge
Predictability of Baked Egg Tolerance by Testing
| SPT Wheal | Specific IgE (kUA/L) | Suggested cut-offs for OFCs | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lemon-Mule et al. [ | EW 15 mm = 60 % PPV | EW IgE 75 = >50 % PPV | N/A |
| OM IgE 50 = 90 % PPV | |||
| Ando et al. [ | N/A | EW IgE 30.7 = 84 % PPV [moderate sensitivity] | EW IgE 7.38 kUA/L |
| OM IgE 10.8 = 88 % PPV [moderate sensitivity] | OM IgE 4.40 kUA/L | ||
| OM IgE 1.16 = 97 % NPV [moderate specificity] | |||
| Cortot et al. [ | EW < 10 mm = 100 % NPV | EW IgE not significant | N/A |
| Lieberman et al. [ | EW not significant | EW IgE 10 = 60 % PPV [poor sensitivity] | N/A |
| Caubet et al. [ | N/A | EW IgE 26.2 = 43 % PPV [poor sensitivity] | EW IgE 2.6 kUA/L |
| EW 0.78 = 97 % NPV [poor sensitivity] | OM IgE 3.3 kUA/L | ||
| OM IgE 12.8 = 64 % PPV [poor sensitivity] | |||
| Tan et al. [ | OM ≥ 11 mm = 100 % PPV [poor sensitivity] | N/A | |
| Muffin <2 mm = 88 % NPV [poor specificity] | |||
| Bartnikas et al. [ | EW <3 mm = 100 % NPV | EW IgE 9.65 = 59 % PPV [poor sensitivity] | OM IgE 0.35 kUA/L |
| EW < 11 mm = >90 %NPV [moderate sensitivity and specificity] | OM IgE 3.38 = 42 % PPV [poor sensitivity] | EW IgE 6.00 kUA/L | |
| EW SPT 11 mm | |||
| Turner et al. [ | EW ≥ 12 mm = LR 9.1 [poor sensitivity] | N/A | |
| Raw egg ≥25 mm = LR 5.8 [very poor sensitivity] | |||
| Peters et al. [ | EW > 11 mm = 82 % PPV | N/A |
SPT skin prick test, EW egg white, OM ovomucoid, PPV positive predictive value, NPV negative predictive value, LR likelihood ratio, OFC oral food challenge