Innovation in Food Challenge Tests for Food Allergy
- 435 Downloads
Purpose of Review
This review incorporates findings from studies of oral food challenges (OFC) over the last decade and highlights the latest innovations and understanding of the procedure.
PRACTALL guidelines are widely used in OFC research, but there is still no international consensus on the OFC protocol in clinical practice. Guidelines for performing OFC in clinical practice have been updated to include oral food challenges for infants. There have been advances in predictive models for outcomes and severity of reaction during OFC that take into account multiple clinical data as well as newer laboratory modalities. Low-dose OFC and eliciting threshold dose determination are being examined for additional diagnostic and therapeutic use in the management of food allergy. Quality-of-life considerations have also been reviewed, as well as post-OFC assessment and care.
The OFC remains an important diagnostic tool in the management of food allergy and in clinical research. Advances in the field should improve safety and broaden the clinical applications of this essential procedure.
KeywordsFood challenge Food allergy Diagnosis Hypersensitivity DBPCF
Basophil activation test
Double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge
Eliciting threshold dose
Oral food challenge
Quality of life
Skin prick test
Wheat-dependent exercise-induced anaphylaxis
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
- 5.Sampson HA, Gerth van Wijk R, Bindslev-Jensen C, Sicherer S, Teuber SS, Burks AW, et al. Standardizing double-blind, placebo-controlled oral food challenges: American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology-European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology PRACTALL consensus report. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2012;130(6):1260–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 13.• Simberloff T, Parambi R, Bartnikas LM, Broyles AD, Hamel V, Timmons KG, et al. Implementation of a standardized clinical assessment and management plan (SCAMP) for food challenges. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2017;5(2):335–44.e3 This paper proposes specific diagnostic decision points for common foods.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 24.Ahrens B, Niggemann B, Wahn U, Beyer K. Positive reactions to placebo in children undergoing double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge. Clinical and Experimental Allergy: Journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology. 2014;44(4):572–8.Google Scholar
- 25.Miura T, Yanagida N, Sato S, Ogura K, Ebisawa M. Follow-up of patients with uncertain symptoms during an oral food challenge is useful for diagnosis. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2018;29(1):66–71.Google Scholar
- 26.Twomey N, Temko A, Hourihane JO, Marnane WP. Automated detection of perturbed cardiac physiology during oral food allergen challenge in children. IEEE J Biomed Health Inf. 2014;18(3):1051–7.Google Scholar
- 30.Capucilli P, Cianferoni A, Fiedler J, Gober L, Pawlowski N, Ram G, et al. Differences in egg and milk food challenge outcomes based on tolerance to the baked form. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2018.Google Scholar
- 45.Nilsson N, Nilsson C, Hedlin G, Johansson SG, Borres MP, Nopp A. Combining analyses of basophil allergen threshold sensitivity, CD-sens, and IgE antibodies to hydrolyzed wheat, omega-5 gliadin and timothy grass enhances the prediction of wheat challenge outcome. Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2013;162(1):50–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 48.Smith G. Alabama boy, 3, dies of severe reaction during baked milk challenge test. 2017. Available from: https://www.allergicliving.com/2017/08/02/alabama-boy-3-dies-of-severe-reaction-during-baked-milk-challenge-test.
- 51.Thalayasingam M, Loo EX, Tan MM, Bever HV, Shek LP. A review of oral food challenges in children presenting to a single tertiary Centre with perceived or true food allergies. Singap Med J. 2015;56(11):622–5.Google Scholar
- 62.Versluis A, van Os-Medendorp H, Kruizinga AG, Blom WM, Houben GF, Knulst AC. Cofactors in allergic reactions to food: physical exercise and alcohol are the most important. Immun Inflammation Dis. 2016;4(4):392–400.Google Scholar
- 71.• Hourihane JO, Allen KJ, Shreffler WG, Dunngalvin G, Nordlee JA, Zurzolo GA, et al. Peanut Allergen Threshold Study (PATS): novel single-dose oral food challenge study to validate eliciting doses in children with peanut allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2017;139(5):1583–90 A novel approach to evaluating eliciting doses of peanut.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 81.Nowak-Wegrzyn A, Chehade M, Groetch ME, Spergel JM, Wood RA, Allen K, et al. International consensus guidelines for the diagnosis and management of food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome: executive summary-workgroup report of the adverse reactions to foods committee, American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2017;139(4):1111–26 e4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 94.Miceli Sopo S, Monaco S, Greco M, Onesimo R. Prevalence of adverse reactions following a passed oral food challenge and factors affecting successful re-introduction of foods. A retrospective study of a cohort of 199 children. Allergol Immunopathol. 2016;44(1):54–8.Google Scholar
- 97.van der Valk JP, Gerth van Wijk R, Flokstra-de Blok BM, van der Velde JL, de Groot H, Wichers HJ, et al. No difference in health-related quality of life, after a food challenge with cashew nut in children participating in a clinical trial. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2016;27(8):812–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar