A new framework for the documentation and interpretation of oral food challenges in population-based and clinical research.

BACKGROUND: The conduct of oral food challenges as the preferred diagnostic standard for food allergy (FA) was harmonized over the last years. However, documentation and interpretation of challenge results, particularly in research settings, are not sufficiently standardized to allow valid comparisons between studies. Our aim was to develop a diagnostic toolbox to capture and report clinical observations in double-blind placebo-controlled food challenges (DBPCFC). METHODS: A group of experienced allergists, paediatricians, dieticians, epidemiologists and data managers developed generic case report forms and standard operating procedures for DBPCFCs and piloted them in three clinical centres. The follow-up of the EuroPrevall/iFAAM birth cohort and other iFAAM work packages applied these methods. RECOMMENDATIONS: A set of newly developed questionnaire or interview items capture the history of FA. Together with sensitization status, this forms the basis for the decision to perform a DBPCFC, following a standardized decision algorithm. A generic form including details about severity and timing captures signs and symptoms observed during or after the procedures. In contrast to the commonly used dichotomous outcome FA vs no FA, the allergy status is interpreted in multiple categories to reflect the complexity of clinical decision-making. CONCLUSION: The proposed toolbox sets a standard for improved documentation and harmonized interpretation of DBPCFCs. By a detailed documentation and common terminology for communicating outcomes, these tools hope to reduce the influence of subjective judgment of supervising physicians. All forms are publicly available for further evolution and free use in clinical and research settings.

First European data from the network of severe allergic reactions (NORA).

BACKGROUND: Occurrence, elicitors and treatment of severe allergic reactions are recognized and reported differently between countries. We aimed to collect standardized data throughout Europe on anaphylaxis referred for diagnosis and counselling. METHODS: Tertiary allergy, dermatology and paediatric units in 10 European countries took part in this pilot phase of the first European Anaphylaxis Registry, from June 2011 to March 2014. An online questionnaire was used to collect data on severe allergic reactions based on the medical history and diagnostics. RESULTS: Fifty-nine centres reported 3333 cases of anaphylaxis, with 26.7% below 18 years of age. Allergic reactions were mainly caused by food (children and adults 64.9% and 20.2%, respectively) and insect venom (20.2% and 48.2%) and less often by drugs (4.8% and 22.4%). Most reactions occurred within 30 min of exposure (80.5%); a delay of 4+ hours was mainly seen in drug anaphylaxis (6.7%). Symptom patterns differed by elicitor, with the skin being affected most often (84.1%). A previous, usually milder reaction to the same allergen was reported by 34.2%. The mainstay of first-line treatment by professionals included corticoids (60.4%) and antihistamines (52.8%). Only 13.7% of lay- or self-treated reactions to food and 27.6% of insect anaphylaxis received on-site adrenaline. CONCLUSION: This pilot phase of a pan-European registry for severe allergic reactions provides for the first time data on anaphylaxis throughout Europe, demonstrates its potential functionality and allows a comparison of symptom patterns, elicitors and treatment habits between referral centres and countries.