Physician's appraisal vs documented signs and symptoms in the interpretation of food challenge tests: The EuroPrevall birth cohort

Background: Blinded food challenges are considered the current gold standard for the diagnosis of food allergies. We used data from a pan-European multicenter project to assess differences between study centers, aiming to identify the impact of subjective aspects for the interpretation of oral food challenges. Methods: Nine study centers of the EuroPrevall birth cohort study about food allergy recruited 12 049 newborns and followed them for up to 30 months in regular intervals. Intensive training was conducted and every center visited to ensure similar handling of the protocols. Suspected food allergy was clinically evaluated by double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges using a nine dose escalation protocol. The primary challenge outcomes based on physician's appraisal were compared to documented signs and symptoms. Results: Of 839 challenges conducted, study centers confirmed food allergy in 15.6% to 53.6% of locally conducted challenges. Centers reported 0 to 16 positive placebo challenges. Worsening of eczema was the most common sign when challenged with placebo. Agreement between documented objective signs and the challenge outcome assigned by the physician was heterogeneous, with Cohen's kappa spanning from 0.42 to 0.84. Conclusions: These differences suggest that the comparison of food challenge outcomes between centers is difficult despite common protocols and training. We recommend detailed symptom assessment and documentation as well as objective sign-based challenge outcome algorithms to assure accuracy and comparability of blinded food challenges. Training and supervision of staff conducting food challenges is a mandatory component of reliable outcome data. © 2017 EAACI and John Wiley and Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd

Physician's appraisal vs documented signs and symptoms in the interpretation of food challenge tests: The EuroPrevall birth cohort

Background: Blinded food challenges are considered the current gold standard for the diagnosis of food allergies. We used data from a pan-European multicenter project to assess differences between study centers, aiming to identify the impact of subjective aspects for the interpretation of oral food challenges. Methods: Nine study centers of the EuroPrevall birth cohort study about food allergy recruited 12 049 newborns and followed them for up to 30 months in regular intervals. Intensive training was conducted and every center visited to ensure similar handling of the protocols. Suspected food allergy was clinically evaluated by double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges using a nine dose escalation protocol. The primary challenge outcomes based on physician's appraisal were compared to documented signs and symptoms. Results: Of 839 challenges conducted, study centers confirmed food allergy in 15.6% to 53.6% of locally conducted challenges. Centers reported 0 to 16 positive placebo challenges. Worsening of eczema was the most common sign when challenged with placebo. Agreement between documented objective signs and the challenge outcome assigned by the physician was heterogeneous, with Cohen's kappa spanning from 0.42 to 0.84. Conclusions: These differences suggest that the comparison of food challenge outcomes between centers is difficult despite common protocols and training. We recommend detailed symptom assessment and documentation as well as objective sign-based challenge outcome algorithms to assure accuracy and comparability of blinded food challenges. Training and supervision of staff conducting food challenges is a mandatory component of reliable outcome data. © 2017 EAACI and John Wiley and Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd

Risk Factors for Hen's Egg Allergy in Europe: EuroPrevall Birth Cohort

Background: Hen's egg is one of the commonest causes of food allergy, but there are little data on its risk factors. Objective: To assess the risk factors, particularly eczema, for hen's egg allergy in the EuroPrevall birth cohort. Methods: In the pan-European EuroPrevall birth cohort, questionnaires were undertaken at 12 and 24 months or when parents reported symptoms. Children with suspected egg allergy were invited for skin prick testing, specific IgE assessment, and double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) as indicated. Each egg allergy case (positive DBPCFC or egg-induced anaphylaxis) was allocated up to 2 age- and country-matched controls. Results: A total of 12,049 infants were recruited into the EuroPrevall birth cohort, and 9,336 (77.5%) were followed until 2 years. A total of 86 infants had egg allergy (84 by DBPCFC) and were matched with 140 controls. Independently associated with egg allergy were past/current eczema (adjusted odds ratio, 9.21; 95% CI, 2.65-32.04), Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (1.54 per 5 units; 1.28-1.86), antibiotics in the first week of life (6.17; 1.42-26.89), and current rhinitis (3.02; 1.04-8.78). Increasing eczema severity was associated with an increasing likelihood of egg allergy. Eczema was reported to have started 3.6 (SE, 0.5) months before egg allergy. Age of introduction of egg into the diet was not associated with egg allergy. Conclusions: Similar to peanut allergy, eczema was strongly associated with egg allergy development and the association increased with increasing eczema severity. The age of introduction of dietary egg was not a risk factor. The potential role of antibiotics in early life as a risk factor for egg allergy needs further examination. © 201