Reactions to peanut at first introduction in infancy are associated with age ≥8 months and severity of eczema.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown the efficacy of the early introduction of peanut to prevent peanut allergy. Due to the exclusion of infants with sensitization to peanut, it remains unclear what the optimal timing of introduction is. METHODS: The PeanutNL study was performed in 6 pediatric allergology centers in the Netherlands. Infants referred for the clinical early introduction of peanut to prevent peanut allergy underwent skin prick tests for peanut and an oral peanut challenge at a median age of 6 months. RESULTS: One hundred sixty two of 707 infants (23%) who had never eaten peanut before were sensitized to peanut, of which 80 (49%) had wheals of >4 mm. Sixty seven of 707 infants (9.5%) had a positive oral challenge to peanut at first introduction. Multivariate analysis revealed that age (p < .001) and SCORAD eczema severity scores (p = .001) were significant risk factors. Introduction of peanut at ≥8 months in infants with moderate and severe eczema resulted in an increased risk (odds ratio 5.24 (p = .013) and 3.61 (p = .019), respectively) of having reactions to peanut as compared to introduction before 8 months. A family history of peanut allergy and previous reactions to egg were not identified as independent risk factors. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that peanut should be introduced before the age of 8 months to reduce the risk of reactions at first exposure in infants with moderate and severe eczema. Furthermore, since children with severe eczema have the highest risk of reactions, the clinical introduction of peanut should be considered, at the latest at the age of 7 months.

Introduction of Heated Cow's Milk Protein in Challenge-Proven Cow's Milk Allergic Children: The iAGE Study.

The introduction of baked milk products in cow's milk (CM) allergic children has previously been shown to accelerate induction tolerance in a selected group of children. However, there is no standardized baked milk product on the market. Recently, a new standardized, heated and glycated cow's milk protein (HP) product was developed. The aim of this study was to measure safety and tolerability of a new, well characterized heated CM protein (HP) product in cow's milk allergic (CMA) children between the age of 3 and 36 months. The children were recruited from seven clinics throughout The Netherlands. The HP product was introduced in six incremental doses under clinical supervision. Symptoms were registered after introduction of the HP product. Several questionnaires were filled out by parents of the children. Skin prick tests were performed with CM and HP product, sIgE to CM and α-lactalbumin (Bos d4), ß-lactoglobulin (Bos d5), serum albumin (Bos d 6), lactoferrin (Bos d7) and casein (Bos d8). Whereas 72% percent (18 out of 25) of the children tolerated the HP product, seven children experienced adverse events. Risk factors for intolerance to the HP product were higher skin prick test (SPT) histamine equivalent index (HEP) results with CM and the HP product, higher specific IgE levels against Bos d4 and Bos d8 levels and Bos d5 levels. In conclusion, the HP product was tolerated by 72% of the CM allergic children. Outcomes of SPT with CM and the HP product, as well as values of sIgE against caseins, α-lactalbumin, and ß-lactoglobulin may predict the tolerability of the HP product. Larger studies are needed to confirm these conclusions.

Successful introduction of milk after a negative double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge test is independent of the total dose and milk product used during the challenge test.

BACKGROUND: Failure of milk introduction after a negative food challenge test is reported in a substantial number of patients. For this reason, guidelines recommend that the total dose of milk protein for a food challenge test should be comparable to a normal serving. OBJECTIVE: Our aim is to compare the success rate of milk introduction after a negative double-blind placebo-controlled challenge test performed with different doses of milk protein and different milk products. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of 485 patients challenged with a low or high dose of milk protein. Pasteurized milk and milk protein powder were used for the low-dose challenge tests, and condensed milk for the high-dose challenge tests. Successful introduction was defined as regular milk consumption, and discontinuation of further introduction due to the reappearance of symptoms as unsuccessful introduction. We also evaluated the association between milk products and successful introduction. RESULTS: The outcome of 288 (59.4%) double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge tests was negative. There were no significant differences between the low and high dose of milk protein in patient characteristics, percentage of patients lost to follow-up (15% vs 20%), in whom introduction had not yet been performed (4% vs 3.1%), reappearance of symptoms (18% vs 17%), and successful introduction (88.0% and 83.4%). Age, gender, specific immunoglobulin E for milk, dose of milk protein, and atopy were not associated with successful introduction. Children who experienced symptoms during the introduction were less likely to consume milk (P < .001). There was a nonsignificant trend toward higher successful introduction rate if pasteurized milk was used as test material compared to milk protein powder, and condensed milk. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Successful introduction of milk after a negative challenge test is independent of the total dose of milk protein, and milk product used during the challenge test.