Search

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: The basis for qualification for venom immunotherapy (VIT) is the fulfilment of both the clinical and immunological criteria. Diagnostic tests that confirm the immunological criterion of an IgE-mediated sensitization include skin prick tests (SPT), intradermal tests (IDT), and serum specific IgE (sIgE) for the culprit venom. Objective: This study aimed to assess the usefulness of SPT as the immunological marker in the diagnosis of insect venom sensitization in children with history of systemic reaction (SR) to insect sting evaluated by means of I-IV-grades Mueller's scale. There are no such studies in children. Methods: This cross-sectional study sample consisted of 416 children aged 3–18 years (mean age 10.6 ± 3.8), 76% males, all with the history of a systemic reaction (SR) after a Hymenoptera sting (48% of grade III/IV according to Mueller scale), diagnosed between 1999 and 2019 in the tertiary referral centre. The standard diagnostic tests were used. Specificity, sensitivity, and positive and negative predictive values were computed to assess the diagnostic properties of the clinical tests to distinguish between mild and severe SR. To assess the relative value of an individual test in predicting the qualification to VIT we incorporated the Shapley value (SV). Results: Positive SPT results were found in up to no more than 3% of children; among them less than 1% had only positive SPT and were negative for sIgE and IDT. Approximately 85% of the children had detectable venom sIgE, followed by positive IDT (75%). Almost 70% of children had positive both sIgE and IDT results. In children with grade III/IV reaction, about 80% of children had positive results of both of these tests. sIgE and IDT had sensitivity >0.80, whereas SPT had high specificity (>0.97) in differentiating between mild and severe SR. Relative value of diagnostic tests in predicting qualification to VIT varied between venoms. Bee venom IDT had higher SV (0.052) than sIgE (0.041). In contrast, wasp venom sIgE had higher SV (0.075) than IDT (0.035). Conclusion: SPTs are not an useful immunological marker of venom sensitization in children, and eliminating SPT does not result in a loss of diagnostic accuracy. Limiting diagnostics to venom sIgE and IDT would shorten the procedure and reduce costs. Future studies are needed to determine if venom sIgE as the first line diagnostic test, with IDT added only if the venom sIgE is undetectable, is an optimal diagnostic process.

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.

Background: Since the publication of The World Allergy Organization (WAO) Diagnosis and Rationale for Action against Cow's Milk Allergy (DRACMA) Guidelines in 2010, a number of other guidelines, expert opinions, and position papers relating to the management of cow's milk allergy (CMA) have been published. We aimed to systematically review the quality of the guidelines on CMA diagnosis and management in children and/or adults published between 2010 and 2020. Methods: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science, World Health Organization Global Index Medicus, and Turning Research into Practice databases as well as website guideline repositories were searched from January 2010 until May 2020. Any clinical practice recommendations and/or guidelines focusing on the diagnosis and management of CMA in children and/or adults developed or endorsed by professional scientific societies or organizations were included. The guidelines were evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool, a 23-item tool organized within 6 domains and 2 global rating items. Results: We included 12 guidelines; 8 were developed by national and 4 by international organizations. The quality scores for each domain varied: of all domains, the clarity of presentation domain had the highest median score (92%; Q1-Q3 81–100%), whereas rigor of development had the lowest median score (30%; Q1-Q3 15–67%). The median scores (Q1-Q3) for individual domains were as follows: scope and purpose 82% (70–99%), stakeholder involvement 63% (21–79%), rigor of development 30% (15–67%), clarity of presentation 92% (81–100%), applicability 68% (57–75%), and editorial independence 75% (69–100%). The median overall score was 70% (58–89%). Only 1 guideline (from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE]) achieved top ratings (100%) in five domains and the overall score. Three guidelines (from the NICE, the British Society for Allergy & Clinical Immunology [BSACI] and WAO) achieved the highest ratings (100%) in at least 3 domains and the overall score. Conclusion: The majority of identified guidelines were of good or very good quality. However, the weakest point was the rigor of development domain, mostly due to unclear description of strengths and limitations of the body of evidence and the procedure for updating the guidelines.

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.

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.

Food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome (FPIES) is a non-IgE mediated food allergy presenting with delayed onset of projectile vomiting in the absence of cutaneous and respiratory symptoms. The pathophysiology of FPIES remains poorly characterized. The first international consensus guidelines for FPIES were published in 2017 and provided clinicians with parameters on the diagnosis and treatment of FPIES. The guidelines have served as a resource in the recognition and management of FPIES, contributing to an increased awareness of FPIES. Since then, new evidence has emerged, shedding light on adult-onset FPIES, the different phenotypes of FPIES, the recognition of new food triggers, center-specific food challenge protocols and management of acute FPIES. Emerging evidence indicates that FPIES impacts both pediatric and adult population. As a result, there is growing need to tailor the consensus guidelines to capture diagnoses in both patient groups. Furthermore, it is crucial to provide food challenge protocols that meet the needs of both pediatric and adult FPIES patients, as well as the subset of patients with atypical FPIES. This review highlights the evolving clinical evidence relating to FPIES diagnosis and management published since the 2017 International FPIES Guidelines. We will focus on areas where recent published evidence may support evolution or revision of the guidelines.

The diagnosis of cow's milk allergy (CMA) in infants and young children remains a challenge because many of the presenting symptoms are similar to those experienced in other diagnoses. Both over- and under-diagnosis occur frequently. Misdiagnosis carries allergic and nutritional risks, including acute reactions, growth faltering, micronutrient deficiencies and a diminished quality of life for infants and caregivers. An inappropriate diagnosis may also add a financial burden on families and on the healthcare system.Elimination and reintroduction of cow's milk (CM) and its derivatives is essential for diagnosing CMA as well as inducing tolerance to CM. In non-IgE mediated CMA, the diagnostic elimination diet typically requires 2–4 weeks before reintroduction, while for IgE mediated allergy the time window may be shorter (1–2 weeks). An oral food challenge (OFC) under medical supervision remains the most reliable diagnostic method for IgE mediated and more severe types of non-IgE mediated CMA such as food protein induced enterocolitis syndrome (FPIES). Conversely, for other forms of non-IgE mediated CMA, reintroduction can be performed at home. The OFC cannot be replaced by the milk ladder after a diagnostic elimination diet. The duration of the therapeutic elimination diet, once a diagnosis was confirmed, can only be established through testing changes in sensitization status, OFCs or home reintroduction, which are directed by local protocols and services' availability. Prior non-evidence-based recommendations suggest that the first therapeutic elimination diet should last for at least 6 months or up to the age of 9–12 months, whichever is reached first. After a therapeutic elimination diet, a milk-ladder approach can be used for non-IgE mediated allergies to determine tolerance. Whilst some centers use the milk ladder also for IgE mediated allergies, there are concerns about the risk of having immediate-type reactions at home. Milk ladders have been adapted to local dietary habits, and typically start with small amounts of baked milk which then step up in the ladder to less heated and fermented foods, increasing the allergenicity.This publication aims to narratively review the risks associated with under- and over-diagnosis of CMA, therefore stressing the necessity of an appropriate diagnosis and management.

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: The immunopathogenesis of cow's milk protein allergy (CMPA) is based on different mechanisms related to immune recognition of protein epitopes, which are affected by industrial processing. Purpose: The purpose of this WAO DRACMA paper is to: (i) give a comprehensive overview of milk protein allergens, (ii) to review their immunogenicity and allergenicity in the context of industrial processing, and (iii) to review the milk-related immune mechanisms triggering IgE-mediated immediate type hypersensitivity reactions, mixed reactions and non-IgE mediated hypersensitivities. Results: The main cow’s milk allergens – α-lactalbumin, β-lactoglobulin, serum albumin, caseins, bovine serum albumins, and others – may determine allergic reactions through a range of mechanisms. All marketed milk and milk products have undergone industrial processing that involves heating, filtration, and defatting. Milk processing results in structural changes of immunomodulatory proteins, leads to a loss of lipophilic compounds in the matrix, and hence to a higher allergenicity of industrially processed milk products. Thereby, the tolerogenic capacity of raw farm milk, associated with the whey proteins α-lactalbumin and β-lactoglobulin and their lipophilic ligands, is lost. Conclusion: The spectrum of immunopathogenic mechanisms underlying cow's milk allergy (CMA) is wide. Unprocessed, fresh cow's milk, like human breast milk, contains various tolerogenic factors that are impaired by industrial processing. Further studies focusing on the immunological consequences of milk processing are warranted to understand on a molecular basis to what extent processing procedures make single milk compounds into allergens.

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 and aims: The term “Food Allergy” refers to a complex global health problem with a wide spectrum of severity. However, a uniform definition of severe food allergy is currently missing. This systematic review is the preliminary step towards a state-of-the-art synopsis of the current evidence relating to the severity of IgE-mediated food allergy; it will inform attempts to develop a consensus to define food allergy severity by clinicians and other stakeholders. Methods: We undertook a mixed-methods systematic review, which involved searching 11 international biomedical databases for published studies from inception to 31 December 2019. Studies were independently screened against pre-defined eligibility criteria and critically appraised by established instruments. The substantial heterogeneity of included studies precluded meta-analyses and, therefore, narrative synthesis of quantitative and qualitative data was performed. Results: We found 23 studies providing eligible primary data on symptom-specific severity of food allergic reactions, and 31 previously published symptom-severity scoring systems referred to food allergic reactions. There were seven studies which assessed quality-of-life measures in patients (and family members) with different food allergy severity and two studies that investigated the economic burden of food allergy severity. Overall, the quality and the global rating of all included studies were judged as being moderate. Conclusions: There is heterogeneity among severity scoring systems used and even outcomes considered in the context of severity of food allergy. No score has been validated. Our results will be used to inform the development of an international consensus to define the severity of food allergy. Systematic review registration: A protocol was prospectively registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database with the registration number CRD42020183103 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#recordDetails).

Background: Peanut allergy (PA) places significant burden on peanut-allergic individuals and their families, yet limited research in the United States has quantitatively examined the impact on peanut-allergic individuals and their families’ health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The Peanut Allergy Burden Study (PABS) aimed to quantify the impact of PA on the general and disease-specific HRQoL of children, adolescents, and adults with PA, as well as caregivers of children with PA. Methods: A cross-sectional survey design was employed to examine the real-world impact of PA in children, adolescents, and adults with PA, and caregivers of children with PA. Results: Of 153 adult patients, 102 adolescents, and 382 caregivers of peanut-allergic children (n = 382), 6.8% and 24.8% of participants indicated being dissatisfied or somewhat dissatisfied, respectively, with current approaches to avoid or prevent PA reactions. Approximately two-thirds of patients and caregivers indicated that PA interferes at least somewhat with daily living. In terms of general HRQoL, adolescents, adult patients, and caregivers indicated that mental/psychosocial health was more problematic than physical health. PA patients and caregivers indicated worse HRQoL in all domains compared to healthy samples, and worse overall HRQoL, psychosocial, emotional, and social functioning than a sample of chronically ill patients. Results from the allergy-specific HRQoL measures showed that adolescents experienced greater impairment in overall HRQoL due to PA and in allergen avoidance and dietary restriction than adults. Conclusion: PA negatively affects the general and PA-specific HRQoL of both patients and caregivers. The high emotional and psychosocial burden, in particular, demonstrates significant unmet need for patients with PA and their caregivers. Future work on treatment and preventive options to improve HRQoL for PA patients, particularly adolescents and their families, is needed.

Background and aims: The term “Food Allergy” refers to a complex global health problem with a wide spectrum of severity. However, a uniform definition of severe food allergy is currently missing. This systematic review is the preliminary step towards a state-of-the-art synopsis of the current evidence relating to the severity of IgE-mediated food allergy; it will inform attempts to develop a consensus to define food allergy severity by clinicians and other stakeholders. Methods: We will undertake a systematic review, which will involve searching international biomedical databases for published studies. Studies will be independently screened against pre-defined eligibility criteria and critically appraised by established instruments. Data will be descriptively and, if possible and applicable, quantitatively synthesised. Ethics and dissemination: This study does not require any specific ethical approval since it is a systematic review. We plan to report results from this systematic review in a peer reviewed journal. These results will be used to inform the development of an international consensus to define severe food allergy. Author's potential conflicts of interest are clearly stated. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020183103.