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., Competing Interests: The conduction of these guidelines was funded by WAO and the McMaster University GRADE Centre. Direct funding by for-profit companies was not accepted. The guideline panel members received travel reimbursement for attendance at in-person meetings but received no other payments. The funding was also used as salary support for the information scientist running the original searches, and for research assistants and students conducting the systematic reviews. Some members of the method team who contributed to the systematic review conduction participated without remuneration to fulfill requirements of an academic degree or program. COIs of all participants were managed according to WAO policies based on guidance by the National Academy of Medicine2 and GIN3. Before commencing the project, all the participants were asked to disclose any financial and nonfinancial interests relevant to the guidelines by completing the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of interest forms. An independent and anonymous WAO committee revised the disclosed interests looking for COIs. The revision committee reviewed the forms and deliberated on including panel members aiming to achieve a diversity of expertise and perspectives, while minimizing the inclusion of panel members with the same or similar conflicts. Specifically, the committee placed a high value on addressing conflicts from direct financial interests from for-profit companies related to the guidelines' field. Throughout the guidelines’ development, the members of the panel and method team were asked to update the interest disclosure forms, which were again revised by the WAO committee. At the time of appointment, most of the guideline panel, including one of the guideline panel co-chair (HJS), had no conflicts of interest. The other co-chair (AF) was aware of economic support by for-profit entities provided to WAO in the form of educational grants; therefore, he abstained from voting on all recommendations in the DRACMA guidelines. The method team members deemed to have a real, potential, or perceived conflict of interest related to the topic of a systematic review were excluded from partaking in that review. Likewise, guideline panel members with manageable real, potential, or perceived conflict of interest abstained from voting on recommendations related to that interest, while being still able to provide intellectual input and clinical expertise. The Evidence-to-Decision (EtD) tables for each recommendation list individuals who were excused from voting. One proposed panel member was found with disqualifying competing interests and was excluded from the DRACMA project entirely.S Arasi, S Bahna, A Bognanni, J Brozek, D Chu, L Dahdah, P Dziechciarz, E Galli, R Kamenwa, H Li, A Martelli, R Pawankar, H Schunemann, R Targino, L Terracciano, and A Warner have no conflicts to disclose. Relationships reported related to the submitted work: IJ Anstotegui – Abbott, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bial, Faes Farma, Hikma, Menarini, Merck, Mundipharma, Roxall, Sanofi, Stallergenes, UCB. A Assa'ad – Aimmune Therapeutics, DBV Technologies, Astella, ABBVIE, Novartis, Sanofi, FARE, NIH and an intellectual property patent licensed to Hoth. R Berni Canani – Ch.Hansen, Danone, DVB, Humana, iHealth, Kraft Heinz, Mead Johnson, Nestlè, Novalac, Nutricia, Sanofi. M Bozzola – Danone. C Dupont – Nestle Health Science, Nestle France, Nutricia, Novalac, Sodilac, Abbott, Danone, and stock ownership at DBV Technologies. M Ebisawa – DBV Technologies, Mylan, ARS Pharmaceuticals, Novartis. A Fiocchi – Abbott, Danone. G Lack – FARE, National Peanut Board (NPB), The Davis Foundation, Action Medical Research, UK Food Standards Agency, Medical Research Council, DBV Technologies, Mission Mighty Me, Novartis, Sanofi-Genyzme, Regeneron, ALK-Abello, Lurie Children's Hospital. A Nowak-Wegrzyn – Nestle, Nutricia, Novartis, Gerber, Aimmune. N Papadopoulos – Novartis, Nutricia, HAL Allergy, Menarini/Faes Farma, Sanofi, Mylan/Meda, Biomay, AstraZeneca, GSK, MSD, ASIT Biotech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gerolymatos International SA, Capricare. M Said – Nestle, Nutricia, Abbott, Bayer for Anaphylaxis Australia. R Shamir - Abbott, Else, Nestle. J Spergel – DBV Technologies, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Aimmune. H Szajewska – Ausnutria, Cargill, Danone, Else Nutrition, Hipp, Nestle, and Nestle Nutrition Institute. Y Vandenplas – Abbott Nutrition, Biogaia, Biocodex, By Heart, CHR Hansen, Danone, ELSE Nutrition, Friesland Campina, Hero, Hypocrata, Nestle Health Science, Nestle Nutrition Institute, Nutricia, Mead Johnson Nutrition, Orafti, Phacobel, Phathom Pharmaceuticals, Sari Husada, United Pharmaceuticals (Novalac), Wyeth, Yakult. C Venter – Reckitt Benckiser, Nestle Nutrition Institute, Danone, Abbott Nutrition, Else Nutrition, and Before Brands, DBV Technologies. A Warner - Nutricia/Danone, Abbott, Reckitt Benckiser/Mead Johnson, Nutricia/Danone for Allergy UK. S Waserman – Novartis-basic science work on peanut allergy, Aimmune-peanut OIT trial, Medical Advisor to Food Allergy Canada, and Pfizer, Bausch, Kaleoconsultant for epinephrine autoinjectors. GWK Wong – Nestle, Danone., (© 2024 The Author(s).)

Most milk- and egg-allergic children can tolerate milk and egg in baked forms. Some allergists have extended the use of baked milk (BM) and baked egg (BE) to advocating for the stepwise introduction of small amounts of BM and BE to children who are reactive to larger amounts of BM and BE. Little is known about the practice of introducing BM and BE and existing barriers to this approach. The purpose of this study was to gather a current assessment of the implementation of BM and BE oral food challenges and diets for milk- and egg-allergic children. We conducted an electronic survey of North American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology members offering BM and BE introduction in 2021. The response rate was 10.1% of distributed surveys (72 of 711). Surveyed allergists had a similar approach to both BM and BE introduction. Demographic features of time in practice and region of practice were significantly associated with the odds of introducing BM and BE. A wide variety of tests and clinical features guided decisions. Some allergists determined BM and BE to be appropriate for home introduction and offered this for BM and BE more often than other foods. The use of BM and BE as a food for oral immunotherapy was endorsed by almost half of respondents. Less time in practice was the most significant factor associated with offering this approach. Published recipes were used and written information was widely provided to patients by most allergists. The wide practice variabilities reveal a need for more structured guidance about oral food challenges, in-office versus home procedures, and patient education., (Copyright © 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., Competing Interests: The authors report no competing interests., (© 2023 The Authors.)

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., (© 2022 The Authors.)

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., Competing Interests: AS has no potential conflict of interest to declare. AH has participated as a speaker for companies manufacturing infant formulas, ie, Danone, Nestle, Nestle Nutrition Institute, Nutricia, and Mead Johnson. MR has participated as a speaker for companies manufacturing infant formulas, ie, Danone, Nestle, Nestle Nutrition Institute, Nutricia, and Mead Johnson. LD have no conflicts of interest to declare. AF reports currently sponsored research by Danone/Nutricia, the Netherlands, Sanofi/Regeneron, U.S.A., Hipp, Germany, Ferrero, Italy. He is on advisory boards of Danone, Stallergenes, France, Menarini, Italy, Abbott, U.S.A., DBV, U.S.A. - France, Novartis, Switzerland, and Hipp. ANW has participated as consultant and/or speaker for companies manufacturing infant formulas, ie, Danone, Nestle, and Nestle Nutrition Institute. RS has participated as consultant and/or speaker for companies manufacturing infant formulas, ie, Abbott, Danone, Else Nutrition, Nestle, Nestle Nutrition Institute. JMS has participated as consultant for Abbott Nutrition and Nutricia. YV has participated as a clinical investigator, and/or advisory board member, and/or consultant, and/or speaker for Abbott Nutrition, Biogaia, By Heart, CHR Hansen, Danone, ELSE Nutrition, Friesland Campina, Nestle Health Science, Nestle Nutrition Institute, Nutricia, Mead Johnson Nutrition, Phathom Pharmaceuticals, United Pharmaceuticals (Novalac), Wyeth. CV has participated as a speaker for companies manufacturing infant formulas, ie, Danone, Nestle, Nestle Nutrition Institute, Nutricia, and Mead Johnson. CV also received grant funding from Reckitt and the National Peanut Board. HS has participated as consultant and/or speaker for companies manufacturing infant formulas, ie, Ausnutria, Cargill, Danone, Else Nutrition, Hipp, Nestle, Nestle Nutrition Institute. WAO DRACMA guideline group: S Arasi, S Bahna, Bognanni, J Brozek, D Chu, L Dahdah, E Galli, R Kamenwa, H Li, A Martelli, R Pawankar, H Schunemann, R Targino, L Terracciano, and A Warner have no conflicts to disclose. Relationships reported related to the submitted work: IJ Anstotegui – Abbott, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bial, Faes Farma, Hikma, Menarini, Merck, Mundipharma, Roxall, Sanofi, Stallergenes, UCB. A Assa’ad – Aimmune Therapeutics, DBV Technologies, Astella, ABBVIE, Novartis, Sanofi, FARE, NIH and an intellectual property patent licensed to Hoth. R Berni Canani – Ch.Hansen, Danone, DVB, Humana, iHealth, Kraft Heinz, Mead Johnson, Nestlè, Novalac, Nutricia, Sanofi. M Bozzola – Danone C Dupont – Nestle Health Science, Nestle France, Nutricia, Novalac, Sodilac, Abbott, Danone, and stock ownership at DBV Technologies. M Ebisawa – DBV Technologies, Mylan, ARS Pharmaceuticals, Novartis. A Fiocchi – Abbott, Danone. G Lack – FARE, National Peanut Board (NPB), The Davis Foundation, Action Medical Research, UK Food Standards Agency, Medical Research Council, DBV Technologies, Mission Mighty Me, Novartis, Sanofi-Genyzme, Regeneron, ALK-Abello, Lurie Children’s Hospital. A Nowak-Wegrzyn – Nestle, Nutricia, Novartis, Gerber, Aimmune. N Papadopoulos – Novartis, Nutricia, HAL Allergy, Menarini/ Faes Farma, Sanofi, Mylan/Meda, Biomay, AstraZeneca, GSK, MSD, ASIT Biotech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gerolymatos International SA, Capricare. M Said – Nestle, Nutricia, Abbott, Bayer for Anaphylaxis Australia. J Spergel – DBV Technologies, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Aimmune. H Szajewska – Ausnutria, Cargill, Danone, Else Nutrition, Hipp, Nestle, and Nestle Nutrition Institute. Y Vandenplas – Abbott Nutrition, Biogaia, Biocodex, By Heart, CHR Hansen, Danone, ELSE Nutrition, Friesland Campina, Hero, Hypocrata, Nestle Health Science, Nestle Nutrition Institute, Nutricia, Mead Johnson Nutrition, Orafti, Phacobel, Phathom Pharmaceuticals, Sari Husada, United Pharmaceuticals (Novalac), Wyeth, Yakult. C Venter – Reckitt Benckiser, Nestle Nutrition Institute, Danone, Abbott Nutrition, Else Nutrition, and Before Brands, DBV Technologies. S Waserman – Novartis-basic science work on peanut allergy, Aimmune-peanut OIT trial, Medical Advisor to Food Allergy Canada, and Pfizer, Bausch, Kaleo consultant for epinephrine autoinjectors. GWK Wong – Nestle, Danone., (© 2021 The Authors.)

Background: Most milk-allergic children tolerate baked milk., Objective: To investigate the effect of more frequent versus less frequent introduction of higher doses of more allergenic (less heat-denatured) forms of milk (MAFM) on progression to tolerance., Methods: Milk-allergic children were challenged with increasing doses of MAFM; baked foods were incorporated into the diet; challenges were repeated at 6- or 12-month intervals over 36 months., Results: A total of 136 children (70% males) were enrolled in the active group (median age, 7 years). At baseline, 41 (30%) reacted to muffin, 31 (23%) to pizza, 11 (8%) to rice pudding, 43 (32%) to non-baked milk; and 10 (7%) tolerated non-baked milk. Children who tolerated baked milk but reacted to non-baked liquid milk were randomized to MAFM challenges every 6 months (n = 41) or 12 months (n = 44). At month 36, 61% children in the 6-month and 73% in the 12-month escalation groups tolerated MAFM. Overall, 41 (48%) children who ingested baked-milk diet became tolerant to non-baked milk; no difference was seen between 6- and 12- month escalations. Among children who reacted to muffin at baseline and continued avoidance, 20% developed tolerance to baked milk and 0% tolerated non-baked milk. None of the 34 children who qualified for inclusion but chose not to take part in the active study became tolerant to any form of milk by history., Conclusions: Majority of children tolerated baked milk at baseline. Baked-milk diets were associated with progressive immunomodulation. Most children who incorporated baked milk into their diet progressed to tolerating MAFM, but there was no advantage to more frequent attempts to escalate to MAFM, per intention-to-treat analysis., (Copyright © 2017 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome (FPIES) is a non-IgE-mediated food allergy., Objective: To better understand provider-level variation in FPIES knowledge and management., Methods: A 23-question online survey was administered to AAAAI members during the spring and summer of 2014., Results: Among 470 respondents, 64% reported "full understanding" of FPIES diagnosis/management; 78.8% reported managing 1 or more patient with FPIES; and 80.4% correctly identified an FPIES case vignette. FPIES was correctly differentiated from infantile colic or food protein-induced allergic proctocolitis by 82.5% and 71.3%, respectively. Among providers currently managing patients with FPIES, 47.5% indicated soy formula, 73.8% breast milk, and 94.5% elemental formula as appropriate substitutes in cow milk (CM)-FPIES. Skin testing is performed by 73.4%; 62.2% obtain serum food-specific IgE testing, 12.7% patch testing, 36.8% oral challenge, and 28% perform no tests. Eighty-four percent provide patients with FPIES with allergy action plans, 72.8% provide a personalized action plan, and 21% prescribe epinephrine autoinjectors. Odds of prescribing epinephrine were lower among those reporting "full understanding" of FPIES (odds ratio [OR], 0.41; 95% CI, 0.21-0.79). Academic providers had higher odds of providing an action plan (OR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.17-4.98) and performing diagnostic oral food challenge (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.99-3.25), but not of correct vignette differentiation of FPIES from other conditions, correct identification of appropriate CM-FPIES substitutes, or timing for food reintroduction. More years in practice were associated with lower odds of reporting full understanding of FPIES diagnosis/management (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.94-0.99)., Conclusions: Nearly one-third of respondents reported poor familiarity with FPIES. Considerable variation exists in the use of diagnostic tests, management, and choice of "safe" nutrition, indicating a strong need for FPIES practice guidelines., (Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic/immune-antigen-mediated disease characterized clinically by symptoms related to esophageal dysfunction and histologically by eosinophil-predominant inflammation. Dietary elimination therapy has been shown to be an effective, drug-free prescription for the treatment of EoE. A range of different dietary elimination therapies have been used. Regardless of the elimination diet chosen, dietary therapy requires in-depth nutrition assessment and management. Elimination diets are not without risk and may impact nutritional status, eating pleasure, and overall quality of life. With adequate guidance, dietary therapy can be effective and nutritionally balanced, and the adverse impact on lifestyle can be minimized. This work group report addresses the potential challenges of implementing an elimination diet for the management of EoE and provides instructions and tools for physicians, dietitians, and other allied health professionals to help guide them in planning elimination diets for both children and adults., (Copyright © 2016 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Current clinical research focuses on food allergen-specific immunotherapy through oral (OIT), sublingual (SLIT), or epicutaneous (EPIT) routes. Immunotherapy relies on the delivery of gradually increasing doses of specific allergens to induce desensitization (defined as temporary antigen hyporesponsiveness that depends on regular food ingestion) and, ultimately, tolerance (defined as the ability to ingest food without symptoms despite prolonged periods of avoidance or irregular intake). Although the majority of the patients treated with OIT achieve desensitization, only a minority achieves tolerance. OIT involves higher maintenance doses of food protein (300 mg-4g) compared with SLIT (2.5-7.5 mg) and EPIT (250-500 mcg). OIT efficacy is higher compared with SLIT, but OIT is associated with higher rate of systemic adverse events compared with SLIT and EPIT. OIT is also associated with a minor risk of eosinophilic esophagitis. Combined treatment of OIT and anti-IgE monoclonal antibody has improved safety but not efficacy compared with OIT alone. Early initiation of peanut OIT in peanut-allergic infants and young children may afford superior efficacy and safety. In this review, we discuss the allergen-specific strategies currently explored for the treatment of food allergy, including immunotherapy with native and heat-modified food proteins. Additional research employs strategies to improve the safety and efficacy of allergen immunotherapy through modifications of allergen structure and addition of immunomodulatory adjuvants., (Copyright © 2017 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is increasingly used worldwide, and several products have been recently registered as drugs for respiratory allergy by the European Medicine Agency and the Food and Drug Administration. Concerning inhalant allergens, the safety of SLIT is overall superior to that of subcutaneous immunotherapy in terms of systemic adverse events. No fatality has been ever reported, and episodes of anaphylaxis were described only exceptionally. Looking at the historical and recent trials, most (>90%) adverse events are "local" and confined to the site of administration. For this reason, a specific grading system has been developed by the World Allergy Organization to classify and describe local adverse events. There is an increasing amount of literature concerning oral desensitization for food allergens, referred to as oral immunotherapy. Also, in this case, local side effects are predominant, although systemic adverse events are more frequent than with inhalant allergens. We review herein the description of local side effects due to SLIT, with a special focus on large trials having a declared sample size calculation. The use of the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities nomenclature for adverse events is mentioned in this context, as recommended by regulatory agencies. It is expected that a uniform classification/grading of local adverse events will improve and harmonize the surveillance and reporting on the safety of SLIT., (Copyright © 2016 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Cow's milk (CM) and hen's egg allergies are among the most common food allergies in children. With evidence of increasing food allergy prevalence and more persistent disease, it has become vital to improve the management of CM and egg allergies. The ability to tolerate baked milk or egg, such as in a cake or muffin, has been associated with an increased chance of tolerance development. Studies report that about 70% of CM- and egg-allergic children can tolerate baked milk or egg and that incorporating baked milk or egg into the diet is well tolerated. Being able to add baked milk or egg into the diet can also increase quality of life by expanding the diet, boosting nutrition, and promoting inclusion in social activities. There is some debate over how baked milk and egg should be introduced, at home or in a supervised setting. Anaphylaxis and treatment with epinephrine during baked milk or egg challenges have been reported. Study of potential biomarkers to predict tolerability of baked milk and egg, such as serum specific IgE levels and skin prick test wheal diameters, is ongoing. Many parents can reliably report that their CM- or egg-allergic child is already consuming baked goods without symptoms. However, for those who cannot report such tolerance, the most prudent approach is to perform a supervised oral food challenge to determine the tolerability of baked milk and egg. The purpose of this article was to review the pathophysiology, clinical data, and safety of baked milk and egg and provide a practical guide to managing CM allergy and/or egg allergy. Recipes for baked milk and egg challenges and guidance on how to add baked milk and egg if tolerated to the child's regular diet are provided., (Copyright © 2015 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome (FPIES) is a non-IgE-mediated gastrointestinal food hypersensitivity that manifests as profuse, repetitive vomiting, often with diarrhea, leading to acute dehydration and lethargy or weight loss and failure to thrive if chronic. FPIES is elicited most commonly by milk and soy proteins; however, rice, oat, and other solid foods may also elicit FPIES. Certain FPIES features overlap with food protein-induced enteropathy and proctocolitis, whereas others overlap with anaphylaxis. FPIES is not well recognized among pediatricians and emergency department physicians; the affected children are often mismanaged as having acute viral gastrointestinal illness, sepsis, or surgical disease, delaying diagnosis of FPIES for many months. The aim of this review is to provide case-driven presentation of the features of FPIES. Although randomized clinical trials on management options are missing, the relevant current literature and authors' experience are reviewed in detail., (Copyright © 2013 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)