Search

Cow's milk allergy (CMA) is one of the most common presentations of food allergy in early childhood. Management of CMA involves individualized avoidance of cow's milk and other mammalian milk and foods containing these. Optimal elimination of cow's milk avoidance includes: label reading; information about safe and nutritious substitute foods; appropriate choice of infant formula or a plant-based food; establishing tolerance to baked milk and monitoring nutritional intake and growth. Substitute formulas are divided into soy formula (not hydrolyzed), milk-based extensively hydrolyzed formulas, rice based extensive, and partially hydrolyzed formulas and amino acid-based formulas. The use of other mammalian milks is not recommended for the management of cow's milk allergy due to a high level of cross-reactivity and nutritional concerns. For toddlers who are eating well, children, and adults, a suitable plant-based beverage may be a suitable alternative to a specialized formula, following careful nutritional considerations. Families need to be instructed on finding suitable nutritious foods and how to prepare suitable meals at home. Individuals with CMA also need to know how to identify and treat acute severe reactions.

Background: Cow's milk allergy (CMA) is the most common food allergy in infants. The replacement with specialized formulas is an established clinical approach to ensure adequate growth and minimize the risk of severe allergic reactions when breastfeeding is not possible. Still, given the availability of multiple options, such as extensively hydrolyzed cow's milk protein formula (eHF-CM), amino acid formula (AAF), hydrolyzed rice formula (HRF) and soy formulas (SF), there is some uncertainty as to the most suitable choice with respect to health outcomes. Furthermore, the addition of probiotics to a formula has been proposed as a potential approach to maximize benefit. Objective: These evidence-based guidelines from the World Allergy Organization (WAO) intend to support patients, clinicians, and others in decisions about the use of milk specialized formulas, with and without probiotics, for individuals with CMA. Methods: WAO formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to include the views of all stakeholders and to minimize potential biases from competing interests. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline-development process, including updating or performing systematic evidence reviews. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used, including GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, which were subject to review by stakeholders. Results: After reviewing the summarized evidence and thoroughly discussing the different management options, the WAO guideline panel suggests: a) using an extensively hydrolyzed (cow's milk) formula or a hydrolyzed rice formula as the first option for managing infants with immunoglobulin E (IgE) and non-IgE-mediated CMA who are not being breastfed. An amino-acid formula or a soy formula could be regarded as second and third options respectively; b) using either a formula without a probiotic or a casein-based extensively hydrolyzed formula containing Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus GG (LGG) for infants with either IgE or non-IgE-mediated CMA.The issued recommendations are labeled as “conditional” following the GRADE approach due to the very low certainty about the health effects based on the available evidence. Conclusions: If breastfeeding is not available, clinicians, patients, and their family members might want to discuss all the potential desirable and undesirable consequences of each formula in infants with CMA, integrating them with the patients' and caregivers’ values and preferences, local availability, and cost, before deciding on a treatment option. We also suggest what research is needed to determine with greater certainty which formulas are likely to be the most beneficial, cost-effective, and equitable.

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 essential.

Background: Anaphylaxis is a growing public health problem in Australia. To determine the extent of the problem, we linked multiple health datasets to examine temporal trends in anaphylaxis events across the health system in Western Australia (WA). Methods: We identified an anaphylaxis cohort from 1980 to 2020 using linked datasets from ambulance, emergency departments, hospital inpatients and deaths. Age-standardised anaphylaxis event rates were calculated from 2010 to 2020. Dataset-specific rates for anaphylaxis were also examined, to show differences in health care utilisation. Annual percent change in rates (2010–2019) were estimated using age-adjusted Poisson regression models. Results: A total of 19 140 individuals (mean age 31 years; 51% female) experienced 24 239 anaphylaxis events between 2010 and 2020. From 2010 to 2019, the average annual percent increase (95% CI) in rates was 5.3% (4.8–5.8%), from 70.3 to 113.9, with rates reducing to 76.5/100 000 population in 2020. Adolescents and young adults aged 5–14 years and 15–24 years had the greatest increase of 6.9% (5.6–8.1%) and 6.8% (5.6–8.0) respectively, with those over 25 years increasing by approximately 5% per year and children 1–4 years showing the lowest annual increase of 2.6% (1.1–4.2%). The highest absolute rates were seen in under 1 year (269.7/100 000; 2019). There has been an acceleration of trends from 2015 to 2019, underpinned by large increases in 15–24 and 25–34 years. All databases, show similar increasing trends, with ambulance attendance (33.7 per 100 000), emergency presentation (89.8 per 100 000) and hospital admissions (46.2 per 100 000), for anaphylaxis highest in 2019. However, whilst ambulance and emergency presentations have grown by 8.9% (95%CI 7.9–9.8%) and 6.6% per year (95%CI 6.0–7.2%), respectively, hospitalisations appear to be steadying with only a 0.9% (95%CI 0.2–1.6%) yearly rise. Conclusion: Rates of anaphylaxis continue to increase, with WA having higher rates than previous estimates for Australia. Whilst rates are still high in infants, lower trends in children compared to older ages may indicate better prevention of allergy. Results show more people experiencing anaphylaxis now receive care in emergency and ambulance, rather than hospital. Further exploration of the patient care journey through prehospital and inpatient care is required, to understand the changing health demands of people who experience anaphylaxis.

Background: While several scoring systems for the severity of anaphylactic reactions have been developed, there is a lack of consensus on definition and categorisation of severity of food allergy disease as a whole. Aim: To develop an international consensus on the severity of food allergy (DEfinition of Food Allergy Severity, DEFASE) scoring system, to be used globally. Methods: Phase 1: We conducted a mixed-method systematic review (SR) of 11 databases for published and unpublished literature on severity of food allergy management and set up a panel of international experts. Phase 2: Based on our findings in Phase 1, we drafted statements for a two-round modified electronic Delphi (e-Delphi) survey. A purposefully selected multidisciplinary international expert panel on food allergy (n = 60) was identified and sent a structured questionnaire, including a set of statements on different domains of food allergy severity related to symptoms, health-related quality of life, and economic impact. Participants were asked to score their agreement on each statement on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. Median scores and percentage agreements were calculated. Consensus was defined a priori as being achieved if 70% or more of panel members rated a statement as “strongly agree” to “agree” after the second round. Based on feedback, 2 additional online voting rounds were conducted. Results: We received responses from 92% of Delphi panel members in round 1 and 85% in round 2. Consensus was achieved on the overall score and in all of the 5 specific key domains as essential components of the DEFASE score. Conclusions: The DEFASE score is the first comprehensive grading of food allergy severity that considers not only the severity of a single reaction, but the whole disease spectrum. An international consensus has been achieved regarding a scoring system for food allergy disease. It offers an evaluation grid, which may help to rate the severity of food allergy. Phase 3 will involve validating the scoring system in research settings, and implementing it in clinical practice.

Background: Allergic diseases have become an increasing health issue worldwide, being one of the fastest growing chronic diseases in Australia and other westernized countries. In 2013, allergic diseases were reported to affect 20% of the Australian population. Despite the high prevalence there was no national strategy to address these complex health issues, to enable the health system to manage the increasing number of patients. This project aimed to develop and implement a national strategy to improve allergy management in Australia, with a view of improving the quality of life of people living with or caring for someone with allergic diseases. Methods: The need for a national strategy to improve allergy management was identified. The Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy (ASCIA) and Allergy & Anaphylaxis Australia (A&AA) worked together as partners to progress a national strategy using a theoretical model to underpin its development. Unrestricted education grants were sought to fund engagement with stakeholder organizations for both development and implementation summits. Several stages of advocacy were undertaken. Results: The National Allergy Strategy was developed as a partnership between ASCIA and A&AA. The Kotter's Change Management Model provided the basis for the steps undertaken to develop and implement the National Allergy Strategy. Two Allergy Summits, one for development and the other for implementation, were held. Several events were held to advocate for federal government funding. Five individual funding grants were achieved to implement National Allergy Strategy projects addressing the most urgent issues. Conclusion: The development of the National Allergy Strategy, a partnership between ASCIA and A&AA, was important in enabling successful advocacy for funding and implementation of important Australia-wide projects. The partnership has also helped facilitate engagement with key stakeholders to help advocate for funding and provide guidance and expertise in project implementation and resource development. The National Allergy Strategy has been successful in attracting funding to implement projects and develop resources urgently needed. The National Allergy Strategy has also provided a framework and a collaborative approach, for advocacy for further funding and future work to be undertaken.

Background: Allergy to cow's milk is the most common food allergy in infants and it is usually outgrown by 5 years of age. In some individuals it persists beyond early childhood. Oral immunotherapy (OIT, oral desensitization, specific oral tolerance induction) has been proposed as a promising therapeutic strategy for persistent IgE-mediated cow's milk allergy. We previously published the systematic review of OIT for cow's milk allergy (CMA) in 2010 as part of the World Allergy Organization (WAO) Diagnosis and Rationale for Action against Cow's Milk Allergy (DRACMA) Guidelines. Objective: To systematically synthesize the currently available evidence about OIT for IgE-mediated CMA and to inform the updated 2022 WAO guidelines. Methods: We searched the electronic databases including PubMed, Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the websites of selected allergy organizations. We included all studies irrespective of the language of the original publication. The last search was conducted in February 2021. We registered the protocol on Open Science Framework (10.17605/OSF.IO/AH2DT). Results: We identified 2147 unique records published between 2010 and 2021, including 13 randomized trials and 109 observational studies addressing cow's milk OIT. We found low-certainty evidence that OIT with unheated cow's milk, compared to elimination diet alone, increased the likelihood of being able to consume ≥150 ml of cow's milk in controlled settings (risk ratio (RR): 12.3, 95% CI: 5.9 to 26.0; risk difference (RD): 25 more per 100, 95% CI 11 to 56) as well as accidently ingest a small amount (≥5 ml) of cow's milk (RR: 8.7, 95% CI: 4.7 to 16.1; RD: 25 more per 100, 95% CI 12 to 50). However, 2–8 weeks after discontinuation of a successful OIT, tolerance of cow's milk persisted in only 36% (range: 20%–91%) of patients. OIT increased the frequency of anaphylaxis (rate ratio: 60.0, 95% CI 15 to 244; rate difference 5 more anaphylactic reactions per 1 person per year, 95% CI: 4 to 6; moderate evidence) and the frequency of epinephrine use (rate ratio: 35.2, 95% CI: 9 to 136.5; rate difference 268 more events per 100 person-years, 95% CI: 203 to 333; high certainty). OIT also increased the risk of gastrointestinal symptoms (RR 6.9, 95% CI 1.6–30.9; RD 28 more per 100, CI 3 to 100) and respiratory symptoms (RR 49.0, 95% CI 3.12–770.6; RD 77 more per 100, CI 62 to 92), compared with avoidance diet alone. Single-arm observational studies showed that on average 6.9% of OIT patients (95% CI: 3.8%–10%) developed eosinophilic esophagitis (very low certainty evidence). We found 1 trial and 2 small case series of OIT with baked milk. Conclusions: Moderate certainty evidence shows that OIT with unheated cow's milk in patients with IgE-mediated CMA is associated with an increased probability of being able to drink milk and, at the same time, an increased risk of serious adverse effects.

Food allergy affects approximately 2–4% of children and adults. This guideline provides recommendations for managing food allergy from the Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA2LEN). A multidisciplinary international Task Force developed the guideline using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II framework and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. We reviewed the latest available evidence as of April 2021 (161 studies) and created recommendations by balancing benefits, harms, feasibility, and patient and clinician experiences. We suggest that people diagnosed with food allergy avoid triggering allergens (low certainty evidence). We suggest that infants with cow's milk allergy who need a breastmilk alternative use either hypoallergenic extensively hydrolyzed cow's milk formula or an amino acid-based formula (moderate certainty). For selected children with peanut allergy, we recommend oral immunotherapy (high certainty), though epicutaneous immunotherapy might be considered depending on individual preferences and availability (moderate certainty). We suggest considering oral immunotherapy for children with persistent severe hen's egg or cow's milk allergy (moderate certainty). There are significant gaps in evidence about safety and effectiveness of the various strategies. Research is needed to determine the best approaches to education, how to predict the risk of severe reactions, whether immunotherapy is cost-effective and whether biological therapies are effective alone or combined with allergen immunotherapy.

Background: The prevalence of cow's milk allergy (CMA) is approximately 2–4.5% in infants and less than 0.5% in adults. Most children outgrow cow's milk allergy in early childhood, particularly that to the baked milk products. Immunotherapy with unheated cow's milk has been used as a treatment option for those who have not yet outgrown CMA, but the benefits must be balanced with the adverse effects. Objective: These evidence-based guidelines from the World Allergy Organization (WAO) intend to support patients, clinicians, and others in decisions about the use of oral and epicutaneous immunotherapy for the treatment of IgE-mediated CMA. Methods: WAO formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to include the views of all stakeholders and to minimize potential biases from competing interests. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline-development process, including updating or performing systematic evidence reviews. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used, including GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, which were subject to public comment. Results: After a careful review of the summarized evidence and thorough discussions the WAO guideline panel suggests: a) using oral immunotherapy with unheated cow's milk in those individuals with confirmed IgE-mediated CMA who value the ability to consume controlled quantities of milk more than avoiding the large adverse effects of therapy, b) not using oral immunotherapy with unheated cow's milk in those who value avoiding large adverse effects of therapy more than the ability to consume controlled quantities of milk, c) using omalizumab in those starting oral immunotherapy with unheated cow's milk, d) not using oral immunotherapy with baked cow's milk in those who do not tolerate both unheated and baked milk, and e) not using epicutaneous immunotherapy outside of a research setting. The recommendations are labeled “conditional” due to the low certainty about the health effects based on the available evidence. Conclusions: Clinicians, patients, and their family members might want to discuss all the potential desirable and undesirable effects of oral immunotherapy for IgE-mediated CMA and integrate them with the patients' values and preferences before deciding on a treatment option. More robust research is needed to determine with greater certainty which interventions are likely to be the most beneficial with the least harms, and to develop safer, low-cost, and equitable treatments.

Since the World Allergy Organization (WAO) Diagnosis and Rationale against Cow's Milk Allergy (DRACMA) Guidelines were published 10 years ago, new evidence has accumulated about the diagnosis, therapy, and specific immunotherapy for cow's milk allergy (CMA). For this reason, WAO has felt the need to update the guidelines.We introduce here this update. The new DRACMA guidelines aim to comprehensively address the guidance on diagnosis and therapy of both IgE non-IgE-mediated forms of cow's milk allergy in children and adults. They will be divided into 18 chapters, each of which will be dedicated to an aspect. The focus will be on the meta-analyzes and recommendations that will be expressed for the 3 most relevant clinical aspects: (a) the diagnostic identification of the condition; (b) the choice of the replacement formula in case of CMA in infancy when the mother is not able to breastfeed, and (c) the use of specific immunotherapy for cow's milk protein allergy.