Dose-response in double-blind, placebo-controlled oral food challenges in children with atopic dermatitis

Sicherer, Scott H.; Morrow, Ellen; Sampson, Hugh A.

doi:10.1067/mai.2000.104941

Cited by 220 publications

(158 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

142

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Even though there is a correlation between SPT result or sIgE and likelihood of a clinical reaction, sensitisation level does not always correlate with allergic manifestations. [77][78][79] One study points to between 7.5 % and 19 % asymptomatic sensitisations among Finnish schoolchildren. 80 Skin test reactivity to inhalant allergens is reduced in asymptomatic sensitisations when compared with symptomatic patients.…”

Section: Reading and Interpretationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Skin prick tests and allergy diagnosis

Antunes

Borrego

Romeira

et al. 2009

Allergologia et Immunopathologia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Skin testing remains an essential diagnostic tool in modern allergy practice. A signifi cant variability has been reported regarding technical procedures, interpretation of results and documentation. This review has the aim of consolidating methodological recommendations through a critical analysis on past and recent data. This will allow a better understanding on skin prick test (SPT) history; technique; (contra-) indications; interpretation of results; diagnostic pitfalls; adverse reactions; and variability factors. Skin has an important physiological role in the internal balance homeostasis and constitutes a crucial barrier against external aggressions, with well-known immunological properties. 1 It has been used by allergists for decades as an easily assessed laboratory of the immunological status of the individual.The fi rst skin testing technique was developed by Charles H. Blackley in 1865, a Manchester homeopathic physician with allergic rhinitis. He abraded a quarter-inch area of his skin with a lancet and then applied grass pollen grains. 2 The so-called scratch test was later adopted by Schloss for the diagnosis of food allergy in children. 3 Epicutaneous tests can be divided into scratch tests and prick/puncture tests. The fi rst method, proposed by Blackley 2 , implied a linear scratch without drawing blood and could either be performed fi rst, with the extract then dropped on the abraded skin, or be made through a drop of extract. 4 Although it was used extensively in the past, this technique became progressively obsolete due to patient discomfort, poor reproducibility, possible residual lesions and newer and innocuous procedures. 4 Therefore, scratch test is mentioned here for historical purposes only. It was Sir Thomas Lewis who, in 1924, fi rst applied skin prick tests (SPT). 5 Nevertheless, their generalised use in clinical practice only became a reality about 30 years ago, as a result of technique modifi cations proposed by Pepys. 6 For the purpose of this review and for easier comprehension, skin testing will be referred interchangeably as SPT, whatever device is used for its application.In 1966, Ishizaka's work on immunoglobulin E (IgE) and immediate hypersensitivity reactions 7 established the scientifi c corpus to what was done till then on a strictly empiric basis.As written by Dr Walzer in 1974, "the fact that skin testing has not turned out to be a simple and completely reliable technique does not detract from the fact that, when it is intelligently and skilfully performed, it remains the most effective diagnostic procedure in reaginic allergic disorders". 8 The reliability of skin testing and proper documentation of test results are essential in allergy practice. A recent survey to all physician members and fellows of the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology practicing in the

show abstract

Section: Reading and Interpretationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Skin prick tests and allergy diagnosis

Antunes

Borrego

Romeira

et al. 2009

Allergologia et Immunopathologia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…From this study, the authors concluded that the threshold dose of peanut protein needed to elicit a response in a group of individuals allergic to peanuts varies. In patients with egg allergy, Moneret-Vautrin et al (1998) reported a threshold of < 100,000 µg egg and 54,000 µg ovalbumin and a NOEL of 5,000-10,000 µg egg or 5,400 µg ovalbumin, whereas Sicherer et al (2000) reported a threshold of 100,000 µg egg and 54,000 µg ovalbumin and a NOEL of 100,000 µg of egg (i.e., the first dose tested). These data are important for establishing the relative risk associated with a potential food allergen.…”

Section: Models Of Dose Responsementioning

confidence: 99%

“…No data on level of Cor 1,000 hazelnut meal No data 1,000 hazelnut meal was (hazelnut) a1 allergen in hazelnut (Wensing et al, 2002) the first dose meal (Wensing et al in press) Soybean β-Conglycinin 18.5% of total protein d < 500,000 soy Skin, gastrointestinal, 500,000 was the first dose (Sicherer et al 2000) and/or respiratory (Sicherer et al 2000) reactions Fish Gad c1 0.1% of total protein d 6,000 (codfish or 6 Gad c1 Irritation, itching, No data (Hansen and Bindslevswelling of oropharynx, Jensen 1992) gastrointestinal symptoms, or cutaneous reactions 1,000,000 fish or 1,000 Gad c1…”

Section: Postmarket Surveillancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Oropharyngeal itching 50 peanut protein or 3 Ara h2 (Hourihane et al 1997) (Hourihane et al 1997) (Hourihane et al 1997 Sucrose synthetase < 1% of total protein d < 500,000 wheat or 5,000 allergen Skin, gastrointestinal, 500,000 was the first dose (Sicherer et al 2000) and/or respiratory (Sicherer et al 2000) reactions Tree nuts Cor a1…”

Section: Postmarket Surveillancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Skin, gastrointestinal, 500,000 was the first dose (Sicherer et al 2000) and/or respiratory (Sicherer et al 2000) reactions SDWE, spray-dried whole egg. a Data from Metcalfe et al 1996.…”

Section: Postmarket Surveillancementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Key issues for the assessment of the allergenic potential of genetically modified foods: breakout group reports.

Germolec

Kimber

Goldman

et al. 2003

Environ Health Perspect

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On the final afternoon of the workshop "Assessment of the Allergenic Potential of Genetically Modified Foods," held 10-12 December 2001 in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA, speakers and participants met in breakout groups to discuss specific questions in the areas of use of human clinical data, animal models to assess food allergy, biomarkers of exposure and effect, sensitive populations, dose-response assessment, and postmarket surveillance. Each group addressed general questions regarding allergenicity of genetically modified foods and specific questions for each subject area. This article is a brief summary of the discussions of each of the six breakout groups regarding our current state of knowledge and what information is needed to advance the field.

show abstract

Fish Allergen Detection

Fæste

2009

Molecular Biological and Immunological Techniques and Applications for Food Chemists

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dose-response in double-blind, placebo-controlled oral food challenges in children with atopic dermatitis

Cited by 220 publications

References 24 publications

Skin prick tests and allergy diagnosis

Skin prick tests and allergy diagnosis

Key issues for the assessment of the allergenic potential of genetically modified foods: breakout group reports.

Fish Allergen Detection

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About