Food hypersensitivity by inhalation

Though not widely recognized, food hypersensitivity by inhalation can cause major morbidity in affected individuals. The exposure is usually more obvious and often substantial in occupational environments but frequently occurs in non-occupational settings, such as homes, schools, restaurants, grocery stores, and commercial flights. The exposure can be trivial, as in mere smelling or being in the vicinity of the food. The clinical manifestations can vary from a benign respiratory or cutaneous reaction to a systemic one that can be life-threatening. In addition to strict avoidance, such highly-sensitive subjects should carry self-injectable epinephrine and wear MedicAlert® identification. Asthma is a strong predisposing factor and should be well-controlled. It is of great significance that food inhalation can cause de novo sensitization

Skin testing versus radioallergosorbent testing for indoor allergens

BACKGROUND: Skin testing (ST) is the most common screening method for allergy evaluation. Measurement of serum specific IgE is also commonly used, but less so by allergists than by other practitioners. The sensitivity and specificity of these testing methods may vary by type of causative allergen and type of allergic manifestation. We compared ST reactivity with serum specific IgE antibodies to common indoor allergens in patients with respiratory allergies. METHODS: 118 patients (3 mo-58 yr, mean 12 yr) with allergic rhinitis and/or bronchial asthma had percutaneous skin testing (PST) supplemented by intradermal testing (ID) with those allergens suspected by history but showed negative PST. The sera were tested blindly for specific IgE antibodies by the radioallergosorbent test (Phadebas RAST). The allergens were D. farinae (118), cockroach (60), cat epithelium (90), and dog epidermal (90). Test results were scored 0–4; ST ≥ 2 + and RAST ≥ 1 + were considered positive. RESULTS: The two tests were in agreement (i.e., either both positive or both negative) in 52.2% (dog epidermal) to 62.2% (cat epithelium). When RAST was positive, ST was positive in 80% (dog epidermal) to 100% (cockroach mix). When ST was positive, RAST was positive in 16.3% (dog epidermal) to 50.0% (D. farinae). When RAST was negative, ST was positive in 48.5% (cat epithelium) to 69.6% (D. farinae). When ST was negative, RAST was positive in 0% (cockroach) to 5.6% (cat epithelium). The scores of ST and RAST showed weak to moderate correlation (r = 0.24 to 0.54). Regardless of history of symptoms on exposure, ST was superior to RAST in detecting sensitization to cat epithelium and dog epidermal. CONCLUSION: For all four indoor allergens tested, ST was more sensitive than RAST. When both tests were positive, their scores showed poor correlation. Sensitizations to cat epithelium and dog epidermal are common, even in subjects who claimed no direct exposure

World Allergy Organization (WAO) diagnosis and rationale for action against Cow\u27s milk allergy (DRACMA) guidelines update – X – breastfeeding a baby with cow\u27s milk allergy

Cow’s milk allergy is rare in exclusively breastfed infants. To support the continuation of breastfeeding an infant after diagnosis with a cow’s milk allergy, it is critical to examine the evidence for and against any form of cow’s milk elimination diet for lactating mothers. In this narrative review, we highlight the lack of high-quality evidence, hence subsequent controversy, regarding whether the minuscule quantities of cow’s milk proteins detectable in human milk cause infant cow’s milk allergy symptoms. Current clinical practice recommendations advise a 2–4 week trial of maternal cow’s milk dietary elimination for: a) IgE-mediated cow’s milk allergy only if the infant is symptomatic on breastfeeding alone; b) non-IgE-mediated associated symptoms only if the history and examination strongly suggest cow’s milk allergy; and c) infants with moderate to severe eczema/ atopic dermatitis, unresponsive to topical steroids and sensitized to cow’s milk protein. There should be a clear plan for home reintroduction of cow’s milk into the maternal diet for a period of 1 week to determine that the cow’s milk elimination is responsible for resolution of symptoms, and then subsequent reoccurrence of infant symptoms upon maternal cow’s milk reintroduction. The evidence base to support the use of maternal cow’s milk avoidance for the treatment of a breastfed infant with cow’s milk allergy is of limited strength due to a lack of high-quality, adequately powered, randomised controlled trials. It is important to consider the consequences of maternal cow’s milk avoidance on reducing immune enhancing factors in breast milk, as well as the potential nutritional and quality of life impacts on the mother. Referral to a dietitian is advised for dietary education, along with calcium and vitamin D supplementation according to local recommendations, and a maternal substitute milk should be advised. However, for most breastfed infants with cow’s milk allergy maternal cow’s milk dietary elimination will not be required, and active support of the mother to continue breastfeeding is essentia

Food Allergy Diagnosis

While food hypersensitivity can be a life-threatening problem, its scope is yet to be fully developed. More work is needed to further define its parameters but basic food hypersensitivity has been significantly clarified in the decade of the 80\u27s to become standard practice for most updated allergists. Studies related to inhalation of food antigens remains within the purview of research centers as does other immunologic processes. The diagnosis of food hypersensitivity remains dependent on the medical history with test like elimination diets, skin testing, and RAST. Double-blind, placebo-controlled, food challenges (DBPCFC) provide the most definitive support for the association between certain symptoms and a specific food