Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The effect of follow-up after a negative double-blinded placebo-controlled cow’s milk challenge on successful reintroduction

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Pediatrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Cow’s milk allergy is a common food allergy in children with an incidence of 1–3%. The gold standard to diagnose cow’s milk allergy is a double-blinded placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC). Previous studies show that reintroduction of cow’s milk is unsuccessful in 10–12% of patients. The aim of this retrospective study is to evaluate the effect of follow-up on the reintroduction of cow’s milk. We analyzed the data of patients with a negative DBPCFC for cow’s milk between 2014 and 2016 in three different departments. Questionnaires were used to compare the three ways of follow-up (no follow-up, follow-up in person or by telephone). Of the 336 children with a negative DBPCFC for cow’s milk, 128 questionnaires (41%) were returned. Reintroduction of cow’s milk was unsuccessful in 13.3% of the patients. There was no significant difference found between children with (73.8%) or without (26.2%) follow-up, or between follow-up by phone or personally. Whether this finding is caused by small numbers within this retrospective study should be investigated in future prospective studies.

Conclusion: Follow-up does not influence the reintroduction success rate of cow’s milk after a negative double-blinded placebo-controlled food challenge.

What is Known:

Diagnosis of cow’s milk allergy by double-blinded placebo-controlled food challenge is the gold standard.

• After a negative double-blinded placebo-controlled food challenge, reintroduction of cow’s milk in the child’s diet is unsuccessful in 10–12% of the children.

• Recurrence of symptoms, aversion to the examined food, and fear are seen as the main reasons for unsuccessful introduction.

What is New:

• Reintroduction after a negative double-blinded placebo-controlled food challenge is not influenced by different ways of follow-up.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

CMA:

Cow’s milk allergy

DBPCFC:

Double-blinded placebo-controlled food challenge

CHC:

Child health care center

References

  1. Dambacher WM, de Kort EH, Blom WM, Houben GF, de Vries E (2013) Double-blind placebo-controlled food challenges in children with alleged cow’s milk allergy: prevention of unnecessary elimination diets and determination of eliciting doses. Nutr J 12:22

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Eigenmann PA, Caubet JC, Zamora SA (2006) Continuing food-avoidance diets after negative food challenges. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 17:601–605

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Flammarion S, Santos C, Romero D, Thumerelle C, Deschildre A (2010 Jun 1) Changes in diet and life of children with food allergies after a negative food challenge. Allergy. 65(6):797–798

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gua J, Wang J (2017) Rate of food introduction after a negative oral food challenge in the paediatric population. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 5(2):475–476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Høst A (2002) Frequency of cow’s milk allergy in childhood. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 89(6 Suppl 1):33–37

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Isolauri E, Sütas Y, Salo MK, Isosomppi R, Kaila M (1998) Elimination diet in cow’s milk allergy: risk for impaired growth in young children. J Pediatr 132:1004–1009

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Koletzko S, Niggemann B, Arato A, Dias JA, Heuschkel R, Husby S, Mearin ML, Papadopoulou A, Ruemmele FM, Staiano A, Schäppi MG, Vandenplas Y (2012) Diagnostic approach and management of cow’s-milk protein allergy in infants and children: ESPGHAN GI committee practical guidelines. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 55:221–229

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mehta H, Groetch M, Wang J (2013) Growth and nutritional concerns in children with food allergy. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol 13:275–279

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Sampson HA (2001) Utility of food-specific IgE concentrations in predicting symptomatic food allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol 107:891–896

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. van der Valk JP, Gerth van Wijk R, Vergouwe Y, de Jong NW (2015) Failure of introduction of food allergens after negative oral food challenge tests in children. Eur J Pediatr 174:1093–1099

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Máxima Medical Centre (MMC), De Run 4600, Veldhoven, The Netherlands

    Michael Schrijvers

  2. Catharina Hospital, Michelangelolaan 2, 5623 EJ, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

    Tom Hendriks & Imke Annelieke Bertrams-Maartens

  3. Zuid Zorg, Child Health Centre, De Run 5601, Veldhoven, The Netherlands

    Hanneke Mars

Authors
  1. Michael Schrijvers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tom Hendriks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hanneke Mars
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Imke Annelieke Bertrams-Maartens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Author 1 collected the data, performed the analysis and wrote the paper. Author 2 and 3 conceived and designed the analysis. Author 4 conceived and designed the analysis and wrote the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Schrijvers.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This study was submitted to the Medical Ethical Committee of the Maxima Medical Centre for approval. The Committee concluded that no Ethical Approval was required as it concerned a retrospective study.

Additional information

Communicated by Nicole Ritz

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schrijvers, M., Hendriks, T., Mars, H. et al. The effect of follow-up after a negative double-blinded placebo-controlled cow’s milk challenge on successful reintroduction. Eur J Pediatr 178, 1113–1117 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-019-03385-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-019-03385-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation