Celery allergens in patients with positive double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge

BACKGROUND: Recently, for the first time, allergy to celery was confirmed by double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC). Api g 1, Api g 4, cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants (CCD), and a 60 kDa allergen have been described as celery allergens. OBJECTIVE: To get insights in IgE responses of patients with a positive DBPCFC to celery tuber (celeriac) compared with patients with a negative challenge test. METHODS: Specific IgE to native and heated celery tuber and to recombinant Api g 1, the major celery allergen, were determined by enzyme allergosorbent test and immunoblotting. IgE binding to Api g 1, Api g 4, and CCD was confirmed by inhibition experiments that used recombinant Api g 1, recombinant Api g 4, pure N-glycans, and extracts of celeriac, lychee fruit, and pollens of birch, mugwort, and timothy grass as inhibitors. RESULTS: Immunoblotting with sera from 22 patients with a positive DBPCFC to celeriac confirmed the presence of known allergenic structures: The major allergen Api g 1 (16 kDa) was recognized by IgE from 13 of 22 patients (59%). Another major allergen was CCD, determined by IgE reactivity in 12 of 22 patients (55%). Celery profilin, Api g 4, was recognized by IgE from 5 of 22 patients (23%). CONCLUSION: Our DBPCFC-positive patients exclusively presented IgE to known celery allergens, although the prevalences were slightly different than were previously reported. No obvious differences were found in patients with positive IgE antibody but negative challenge test. IgE binding to all 3 structures in celeriac extract was inhibited by birch pollen extract, whereas mugwort pollen extract could only inhibit IgE reactivity to Api g 4 and CCD. Inhibition experiments with a purified carbohydrate moiety clearly showed that the IgE epitope mannose-xylose-fucose-glycan (Manalpha1-6[Xylbeta1-2]Manbeta1-4GlcNAcbeta1-4[ Fucalpha1-3]GlcNAc) or a closely related structure is present in celeriac extract and is important in patients with clinical allergy to celery.     

Screening the allergenic repertoires of wheat and maize with sera from double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge positive patients

BACKGROUND: Food allergy to wheat and maize is an increasing factor of deterioration of life quality, especially childhood and can, in rare cases, even induce anaphylaxis. Although omega-5 gliadin from wheat and maize lipid transfer protein have been characterized as major cereal allergens on the molecular level, the list of food allergens is far to be complete. METHODS: To identify the IgE-binding repertoires of wheat and maize we screened respective cDNA libraries displayed on phage surface with sera from patients with a confirmed food allergy. The study included six patients with a positive double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) to wheat, nine patients with a positive DBPCFC to maize, and six patients with anaphylactic reactions after ingestion of wheat. RESULTS: The enriched sequences encoding IgE-binding proteins showed heterogeneous repertoires for both, wheat and maize. The selected wheat repertoire yielded 12, the maize repertoire 11 open reading frames. Among these we identified allergens belonging to already characterized allergens families, such as gliadin, profilin and beta-expansin. Besides, we found novel proteins with high cross-reactive potential, such as thioredoxins, as well as sequences that had so far not been related to cereal allergy at all. The IgE-binding capacity of some selected proteins was evaluated in vitro and cross-reactivity was demonstrated by competition ELISA. CONCLUSION: With regard to the heterogeneity of the characterized sequences as well as to the biochemical nature of the new allergens detected we conclude that wheat and maize-related food allergy is more complex than so far anticipated.     

Lipid-transfer protein is the major maize allergen maintaining IgE-binding activity after cooking at 100 degrees C, as demonstrated in anaphylactic patients and patients with positive double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge results

BACKGROUND: In a previous study a 9-kd lipid-transfer protein (LTP) was identified as the major allergen of raw maize in a population of 22 anaphylactic patients. However, the stability of this protein in cooked maize is unknown. OBJECTIVE: We investigated the allergenicity of 5 maize hybrids and its modification after different thermal treatments by using sera from anaphylactic patients and patients with positive double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges. METHODS: Five maize hybrids were extracted by using different methods, obtaining the water-soluble, zein, total zein, glutelin, and total protein fractions. The IgE-binding capacity of the different extracts, both raw and after thermal treatment, was investigated by means of SDS-PAGE immunoblotting. A 9-kd heat-stable allergen was purified by means of HPLC and sequenced. Changes in its secondary structure during and after heating from 25 degrees C to 100 degrees C were monitored by means of circular dichroism. RESULTS: All raw maize hybrids showed similar protein and IgE-binding profiles. The SDS-PAGE of all the heat-treated hybrids demonstrated a decreased number of stained bands in respect to the raw samples. The IgE immunoblotting demonstrated that the major allergen of the water-soluble, total zein, total protein, and glutelin fractions was a 9-kd protein identified by means of amino acid sequence as an LTP and a sub-tilisin-chymotrypsin inhibitor (in total zein fraction). The IgE-binding capacity of this 9-kd protein remained unchanged after thermal treatments, even though circular dichroism demonstrated an altered secondary structure. CONCLUSIONS: Maize LTP maintains its IgE-binding capacity after heat treatment, thus being the most eligible candidate for a causative role in severe anaphylactic reactions to both raw and cooked maize.     

Sublingual immunotherapy for hazelnut food allergy: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study with a standardized hazelnut extract

BACKGROUND: Food allergy may be life-threatening, and patients affected need to receive accurate diagnoses and treatment. Hazelnut has often been implicated as responsible for allergic reactions, and trace quantities can induce systemic reactions. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerance of sublingual immunotherapy with a standardized hazelnut extract in patients allergic to hazelnut. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Inclusion criteria were a history of hazelnut allergy and positive skin prick test and double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge results. Patients were then randomly assigned into 2 treatment groups (hazelnut immunotherapy or placebo). Efficacy was assessed by double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge after 8 to 12 weeks of treatment. Blood samples were drawn for measurement of specific IgE, IgG(4), and serum cytokines before and after treatment. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients were enrolled and divided into 2 treatment groups. Twenty-two patients reached the planned maximum dose at 4 days. Systemic reactions were observed in only 0.2% of the total doses administered. Mean hazelnut quantity provoking objective symptoms increased from 2.29 g to 11.56 g (P = .02; active group) versus 3.49 g to 4.14 g (placebo; NS). Moreover, almost 50% of patients who underwent active treatment reached the highest dose (20 g), but only 9% in the placebo. Laboratory data showed an increase in IgG(4) and IL-10 levels after immunotherapy in only the active group. CONCLUSION: Our data confirm significant increases in tolerance to hazelnut after sublingual immunotherapy as assessed by double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge, and good tolerance to this treatment.     

Roasted hazelnuts--allergenic activity evaluated by double-blind,placebo-controlled food challenge

BACKGROUND: Allergy to hazelnuts is a common example of birch pollen related food allergy. Symptoms upon ingestion are often confined to the mouth and throat, but severe systemic reactions have been described in some patients. The aim of the study was to evaluate the reduction in allergenicity by roasting of the nuts. METHODS: Double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges (DBPCFC) with roasted hazelnuts (140 degrees C, 40 min) were performed in 17 birch pollen allergic patients with DBPCFC-confirmed food allergy to raw hazelnuts. The effect of roasting was further evaluated by skin prick test (SPT), histamine release (HR), measurement of specific IgE, and IgE-inhibition experiments. RESULTS: In 5/17 patients the DBPCFC with the roasted nuts were positive. The symptoms were generally mild and included OAS (oral allergy syndrome) in all patients. Roasting of the nuts significantly reduced the allergenic activity evaluated by SPT, HR, specific IgE, and IgE-inhibition. Immunoblotting experiments with recombinant hazelnut allergens showed sensitization against Cor a 1.04 in 16/17 patients and against Cor a 2 in 7/17 patients. None of the patients were sensitized to Cor a 8. Challenge-positive patients did not differ from the rest in IgE-binding pattern. CONCLUSIONS: All the applied methods indicated that roasting of hazelnuts reduces the allergenicity, but since 5/17 birch pollen allergic patients were DBPCFC-positive to the roasted nuts, ingestion of roasted hazelnuts or products containing roasted hazelnuts can not be considered safe for a number of hazelnut allergic consumers. For patients with a history of severe allergic symptoms upon ingestion of hazelnuts, thorough and conscientious food labelling of hazelnuts and hazelnut residues is essential.     

Carrot allergy: double-blinded, placebo-controlled food challenge and identification of allergens

BACKGROUND: Allergic reactions to carrot affect up to 25% of food-allergic subjects. Clinical manifestations of carrot allergy and IgE responses to carrot proteins, however, have never been studied in subjects with carrot allergy confirmed by means of double-blinded, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC). OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this investigation were to confirm clinically relevant sensitizations to carrot by means of DBPCFC, to validate current diagnostic methods, and to identify IgE-reactive carrot proteins in patients with true allergy. METHODS: DBPCFCs were performed in 26 subjects with histories of allergic reactions to carrot. Patients underwent skin prick tests with carrot extract, fresh carrot, and various pollen extracts. Specific IgE to carrot, celery, birch, and mugwort pollen and to rBet v 1, rBet v 2, and rBet v 6 were measured through use of the CAP method. Carrot allergens were identified by means of immunoblotting and blotting inhibition. RESULTS: Twenty of 26 patients had positive DBPCFC results. The sensitivity of the determination of carrot-specific IgE antibodies through use of the CAP method (> or =0.7 kU/L) was 90%, the sensitivity for skin prick testing with commercial extracts was 26%, and the sensitivity for prick-to-prick tests with raw carrot was 100%. The Bet v 1--related major carrot allergen Dau c 1 was recognized by IgE from 85% of patients; 45% were sensitized to cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants and 20% to carrot profilin. In 1 subject, a Bet v 6--related carrot allergen was recognized. In 4 patients, IgE binding to Dau c 1 was not inhibited or was weakly inhibited by rBet v 1 or birch pollen extract. CONCLUSION: This study confirmed the allergenicity of carrot by means of DBPCFC. DBPCFC-positive patients had exclusively specific IgE antibodies to birch pollen--related carrot allergens, Dau c 1 being the major allergen. The lack of inhibition of IgE binding to Dau c 1 by birch allergens in a subgroup of patients might indicate an secondary immune response to new epitopes on the food allergen that are not cross-reactive with Bet v 1.     

Outcome of double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge tests in 107 children with atopic dermatitis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Little is known about late phase clinical reactions during oral food challenges and the value of specific IgE in terms of sensitivity and specificity. METHODS: We therefore analysed retrospectively the clinical outcome of 387 oral provocations during double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge tests in 107 children with atopic dermatitis. RESULTS: Eighty-seven (81%) children showed a positive clinical reaction to at least one challenge. The vast majority of children (94%) showed clinical symptoms to one or two allergens. One hundred and thirty-one of 259 (51%) of verum challenges and 1/128 (0.8%) placebo challenge were assessed as positive. Oral provocations with hen's egg showed the highest percentage of positive reactions (70%). Sensitivity of specific IgE to the four allergens tested was 90%, specificity 30%. Sensitivity of the parental history as a predictive factor was 48%, specificity 72%. Ninety-two of 131 (70%) children with positive verum provocations showed early reactions, 33 (25%) late and six (5%) combined early and late reactions. In 84/131 (64%) positive provocations one organ system was involved, while in 44 (34%) provocations two and in three (2%) challenges three organ systems were involved. Skin reactions were the most frequent clinical manifestation leading to positive reactions followed by gastro-intestinal and respiratory symptoms. There was no correlation between titration dose and specific IgE. The subgroup of non-sensitized children did not differ in terms of sex, age or titration dose from the total study population. CONCLUSION: Double-blind, placebo-controlled oral food challenges are helpful in distinguishing children with clinically manifested symptoms from those with food sensitization. Accurately identifying children with a clinical relevant food allergy may help to prescribe specific diets on a scientific basis, avoiding dietary limitations which may be unnecessary or even harmful.     

Hazelnut allergy: a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge multicenter study

BACKGROUND: Tree nuts are a common cause of food allergy in Europe. However, few studies deal with real food allergy to hazelnuts in subjects believed to be allergic to this food. OBJECTIVE: We sought to select subjects with a history of allergic reactions on ingestion of hazelnut and determine how many of these have true allergy by means of the double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC). METHODS: Eighty-six subjects with a history of symptoms after hazelnut ingestion were recruited from 3 allergy centers (Milan, Zurich, and Copenhagen). All subjects underwent skin prick tests (SPTs) with aeroallergens and hazelnut, as well as having their specific hazelnut IgE levels determined. Diagnosis of clinical relevant food allergy was made on the basis of the DBPCFC. RESULTS: Sixty-seven (77.9%) of 86 subjects had a positive DBPCFC result; 8 were placebo responders, and 11 were nonresponders. Of the 11 nonresponders, 4 had positive open-challenge test results. Of the DBPCFC-positive subjects, 87% also had positive skin test responses to birch pollen extract. Specific IgE determination for hazelnut (positive CAP response >/=0.7 kU/L [ie, class 2]) showed a sensitivity of 0.75, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.92, a specificity of 0.16, and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 0.05. Skin tests with commercial hazelnut extract produced a sensitivity of 0.89, a PPV of 0.92, a specificity of 0.05, and an NPV of 0.05. Skin tests with natural food produced a sensitivity of 0.88, a PPV of 0.94, a specificity of 0.27, and an NPV of 0.15. CONCLUSION: This study shows that hazelnut is an allergenic source that can cause real food allergy, as confirmed by DBPCFC. Skin and IgE tests demonstrated reasonable sensitivity and PPV but a very low specificity and NPV, thus implying that these should not be used to validate the diagnosis of food allergy to hazelnut.     

Sensory testing of recipes masking peanut or hazelnut for double-blind placebo-controlled food challenges

BACKGROUND: In a double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC), it is necessary that recipes comprising the allergen cannot be distinguished from placebo. AIMS OF THE STUDY: We investigated whether the method of paired comparisons, a sensory difference test, could be used to test the suitability of recipes for a DBPCFC. METHODS: We used two recipes, each with three concentrations of peanut or hazelnut flour. The recipe for peanut consisted of mashed potatoes with 2.7, 8.9, or 26.8 mg of peanut flour, and the recipe for hazelnut of oatmeal porridge with 74, 247, or 742 mg of hazelnut flour. Corresponding amounts of protein in the provided 15 g portions of each recipe were 0.7, 2.3, and 6.8 mg for peanut, and 11.6, 39, and 117 mg for hazelnut, respectively. Recipes were offered together with a placebo, and evaluated on sensory features by 81 healthy volunteers. RESULTS: The sensory test was easy to perform. Volunteers were not able to detect peanut flour in mashed potatoes, but they recognized hazelnut flour in oatmeal porridge on visual features. CONCLUSIONS: Sensory testing by means of the method of paired comparisons is a useful method to evaluate masking of foods for DBPCFC.     

Statistical issues in clinical trials that involve the double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge

The double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge is a rigorous tool that has become popular for evaluating adverse reactions to foods. The standard use of the double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge has been to document food allergies for individual patients, but it recently has been gaining acceptance as a procedure for investigating the effectiveness of therapies to prevent/minimize food-induced anaphylaxis. The purpose of this study was to describe the statistical design and analysis issues for clinical trials that use the double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge in measuring sensitivity to food allergens. Nonparametric tests for within-group and between-group comparisons are described, as well as a discrete-time survival analysis. The statistical methods are applied to simulated data from a clinical trial that compares control therapy and experimental therapy groups. The results indicate that the experimental therapy is significantly better than control in improving the tolerance to peanut flour in patients with peanut allergy. Although simple nonparametric tests for within-group and between-group comparisons are easy to apply, a discrete-time survival analysis provides the best approach because of its flexibility in accounting for important independent variables (regressors) and longitudinal data. Statistical software packages can be adapted to perform such analyses.     

Double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge with apple

The aim of the study was to develop and evaluate different methods of double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) with apple. Three different DBPCFC models were evaluated: fresh apple juice, freshly grated apple, and freeze-dried apple powder. All challenges were performed outside the pollen season and took place from 1997 to 1999. The freeze-dried apple material was characterized by means of leukocyte histamine release (HR), skin prick test (SPT), and immunoblotting experiments. The study population consisted of birch pollen-allergic patients with a history of rhinitis in the birch-pollen season and positive specific IgE to birch. For comparison of the DBPCFC models, 65 patients with a positive open oral challenge with apple were selected. In the characterization of the freeze-dried apple material, 46 birch pollen-allergic patients were included. The IgE reactivity to apple was evaluated by measurement of specific IgE, HR, and SPT. Golden Delicious apples were used in all experiments. The results of this study showed that it was possible to perform DBPCFC with apple in birch pollen-allergic individuals. The model with freshly squeezed apple juice had a low sensitivity and displayed a high frequency of reactions to placebo, probably due to the ingredients used for blinding. The sensitivity of the models with freshly grated apple and freeze-dried apple powder was 0.74/0.60. An increase in sensitivity is desirable. The freeze-dried apple powder proved to be useful for SPT, HR, and oral challenges, but further investigation of the stability and the allergenic profile of the material is needed.     

Allergy to kiwi: a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge study in patients from a birch-free area

BACKGROUND: Allergy to kiwi fruit is being increasingly reported, but it has never been evaluated by means of a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) study. OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess kiwi allergy on the basis of a DBPCFC and identify the patterns of allergen recognition in sensitized patients from a birch-free area. METHODS: Forty-three patients with allergy symptoms who were sensitized to kiwi were evaluated by means of clinical history, skin tests, IgE determinations, and DBPCFCs. The pattern of allergen recognition was assessed by means of IgE immunoblotting. Sequence analysis of IgE-binding bands was performed by using Edman degradation. RESULTS: DBPCFCs were performed in 33 patients; 4 patients had experienced severe anaphylaxis, and 6 patients declined informed consent. DBPCFC results were positive in 23 patients and negative in 10 patients. The most frequent clinical manifestation was oral allergy syndrome. Twenty-one percent of the patients were not allergic to pollen. Forty-six percent of patients experienced systemic symptoms, and this happened with higher frequency in patients not allergic to pollen (100%). Twenty-eight percent of the patients were sensitized to latex. The IgE-binding bands in kiwi extract more frequently recognized by patient sera were those of 30, 24, 66, and 12 kd, and they could not be associated with any pattern of kiwi-induced allergic reactions. CONCLUSION: The results provide evidence that kiwi allergy is not a homogeneous disorder because several clinical subgroups can be established. No definite allergen-recognition pattern was associated with the type of allergic reactions to kiwi. One of 5 patients with kiwi allergy was not allergic to pollen, and these patients had the highest risk of systemic reactions to kiwi.     

Development and validation of challenge materials for double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges in children

BACKGROUND: The use of double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges (DBPCFCs) is considered the gold standard for the diagnosis of food allergy. Despite this, materials and methods used in DBPCFCs have not been standardized. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to develop and validate recipes for use in DBPCFCs in children by using allergenic foods, preferably in their usual edible form. METHODS: Recipes containing milk, soy, cooked egg, raw whole egg, peanut, hazelnut, and wheat were developed. For each food, placebo and active test food recipes were developed that met the requirements of acceptable taste, allowance of a challenge dose high enough to elicit reactions in an acceptable volume, optimal matrix ingredients, and good matching of sensory properties of placebo and active test food recipes. Validation was conducted on the basis of sensory tests for difference by using the triangle test and the paired comparison test. Recipes were first tested by volunteers from the hospital staff and subsequently by a professional panel of food tasters in a food laboratory designed for sensory testing. Recipes were considered to be validated if no statistically significant differences were found. RESULTS: Twenty-seven recipes were developed and found to be valid by the volunteer panel. Of these 27 recipes, 17 could be validated by the professional panel. CONCLUSION: Sensory testing with appropriate statistical analysis allows for objective validation of challenge materials. We recommend the use of professional tasters in the setting of a food laboratory for best results.     

Clinical characteristics of soybean allergy in Europe: a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge study

BACKGROUND: Soybean is a relevant allergenic food, but little is known about individual threshold doses in soy allergy. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the clinical characteristics of soy allergy in Europe, including a dose-response curve. METHODS: Patients with a history of soy allergy underwent a titrated, double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge. A statistical model was used to calculate the risk of allergic consumers to experience an allergic reaction to soy. Sera were analyzed for specific IgE to soy, peanut, Bet v 1, and Gly m 4. RESULTS: All patients but one responded primarily with subjective symptoms to the challenge followed by objective symptoms in 11 subjects, ranging from rhinitis up to a decrease in blood pressure. Cumulative threshold doses for allergic reactions ranged from 10 mg to 50 g for subjective symptoms and from 454 mg to 50 g for objective symptoms. The pattern of IgE reactivity against proteins with molecular weights of between approximately 10 and 70 kd was highly individual among the patients and did not correlate with the severity of symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: When data are fitted by using a normal distribution statistical model, they predict that 1% of patients with soy allergy would react subjectively and objectively with 0.21 and 37.2 mg of soy protein, respectively. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Both the clinical and immunologic basis of soy allergy in Europe are highly complex, which affects the diagnosis of soy allergy and the advice given to patients with soy allergy in regard to risk management.     

Standardization of double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges

At present, no international agreement on standardized protocols for use in double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge exists. There is a great need for such standardization, both for clinical and for scientific reasons.     

A mutant of the major apple allergen, Mal d 1, demonstrating hypo-allergenicity in the target organ by double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge

BACKGROUND: Allergen-specific immunotherapy for food allergy has been hindered by severe side-effects in the past. Well-characterized hypo-allergenic recombinant food allergens potentially offer a safe solution. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate hypo-allergenicity of a mutated major food allergen from apple, Mal d 1, in vitro and in vivo. METHODS: A mutant of the major apple allergen, Mal d 1, was obtained by site-directed mutagenesis exchanging five amino acid residues. Fourteen patients with combined birch pollen-related apple allergy were included in the study. Hypo-allergenicity of the mutant rMal d 1 (rMal d 1mut) compared with rMal d 1 was assessed by in vitro methods, i.e. RAST (inhibition), immunoblotting and basophil histamine release (BHR) and in vivo by skin prick test and double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC). RESULTS: RAST analysis (n = 14) revealed that IgE reactivity to rMal d 1mut was twofold lower than that of the wild-type molecule (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.7-2.4). RAST inhibition (n = 6) showed a 7.8-fold decrease in IgE-binding potency (95% CI: 3.0-12.6). In contrast to this moderate decrease in IgE-binding potency, the biological activity of rMal d 1mut assessed by SPT and BHR decreased 10-200-fold. Hypo-allergenicity was confirmed by DBPCFC (n = 2) with both recombinant molecules. CONCLUSION: A moderate decrease in IgE-binding potency translates into a potent inhibition of biological activity. This is the first study that confirms by DBPCFC that a mutated recombinant major food allergen is clinically hypo-allergenic. This paves the way towards safer immunotherapy for the treatment of food-allergic patients.     

In vivo assessment with prick-to-prick testing and double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge of allergenicity of apple cultivars

BACKGROUND: Apple cultivars have been reported to differ in allergenicity on the basis of in vitro and skin prick tests with apple extracts. OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate the efficacy of the prick-to-prick method in assessing differences in allergenicity of apple cultivars and to confirm differences by means of double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC). METHODS: Intra-assay and intracultivar variation of prick-to-prick test results were determined in 6 Dutch and 8 Spanish patients with apple allergy by using 5 apples of the cultivars Golden Delicious, Fuji, and Ecolette in duplicate. In addition, 21 cultivars were screened for allergenicity in 15 Dutch patients with birch pollen and apple allergy. Two selected cultivars (Golden Delicious and Santana) were tested with DBPCFCs. The influence of storage conditions on allergenicity was assessed in 5 cultivars. RESULTS: Intra-assay variation of skin prick testing was 3.9%, and intracultivar variation was 4.1%. A ranking of 21 cultivars was made on the basis of prick-to-prick tests in 9 patients. Apple cultivars were classified as of low, intermediate, and high allergenicity, with a significant difference between low and high allergenicity (P < .001). A significant difference in allergenicity determined between Golden Delicious and Santana cultivars (P < .05) was confirmed by means of DBPCFC. With 5 cultivars, controlled atmosphere (2.5% oxygen/1% carbon dioxide) was shown to reduce allergenicity (P < .001) by 15% compared with storage at 2 degrees C. CONCLUSIONS: Prick-to-prick testing with fresh apples is a reproducible method of assessing allergenicity. Apples can be classified as of low or high allergenicity for the majority of patients. This was confirmed by using DBPCFCs. Selection of cultivars and control of storage conditions are both viable strategies for reduction of symptoms in patients with apple allergy.     

Pitfalls in double-blind, placebo-controlled oral food challenges

Although controlled oral food challenges are considered to be the gold-standard in the diagnosis of food related symptoms, especially if performed in a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges (DBPCFC) manner, there are still many unanswered questions and newer aspects, which may explain some pitfalls encountered during oral food challenges. For stopping an oral food challenge and declaring a challenge as positive or negative, symptoms should be objective and/or repetitive. The time interval between administering the food and observing the clinical reaction is an ambivalent factor. Possible reasons for false negative assessments include inadvertent drug use during oral challenges, and the fact that a short-term specific oral tolerance induction (SOTI) may be induced as increasing amounts of the offended food are administered during a titrated oral food challenge. Possible reasons for false positive assessments are the difficulty to maintain an appropriate strict diet throughout the oral challenge procedure, and that the elimination diet implemented before the oral food challenge in children with atopic eczema and suspected food related symptoms may itself be responsible for immediate type clinical symptoms, which had not been reported by the parents before. Finally augmentation factors are among the most plausible explanations for the inadequate reproducibility of an oral food challenge. Although a 100% standardization of the challenge procedure does not seem realistic, efforts should be made to improve the methodology used so far. On the contrary, the possible relation of DBPCFC and SOTI may offer potential advantages for future therapeutic approaches of food allergy.     

Comparison of results of skin tests, RAST, and double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges in children with atopic dermatitis

Forty children with atopic dermatitis were evaluated for clinical evidence of hypersensitivity to foods by double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges. Twenty-four children (60%) experienced 33 positive challenges, manifested by cutaneous symptoms in 31 (94%), gastrointestinal symptoms in 14 (42%), nasal symptoms in nine (27%), and respiratory in six (18%). Results of prick skin tests (STs) and RASTs to eight food antigens frequently eliciting hypersensitivity reactions were compared with those from food challenges to determine the diagnostic accuracy in children with atopic dermatitis. Defining a positive ST as a wheal 3 mm larger than the negative control wheal and a positive RAST as a Phadebas RAST score of 3 or 4, the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive accuracies of these tests were found to be comparable except in the case of wheat antigen where the ST was clearly superior to the RAST. Accepting a RAST score of 2 or more as a positive slightly improved sensitivity in some cases but dramatically decreased specificity. Combining results of STs and RASTs did not improve significantly the diagnostic accuracy over results of the tests used individually. These studies demonstrate no advantage of RAST alone or in combination with prick skin testing over prick skin testing alone in the evaluation of food hypersensitivity in children with atopic dermatitis. Furthermore, skin testing should be considered a good test for excluding immediate food hypersensitivity but only a suggestive positive indicator of hypersensitivity due to the high rate of clinically insignificant positive STs.