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.     

The value of inhalation challenge testing as an office procedure.

One hundred seventy-three bronchial challenge tests were performed as an outpatient procedure on 35 selected clinic patients. The incidence of positive tests was sufficiently high and the procedure tolerated well enough to suggest this as a practical office procedure if carefully done in properly chosen patients.     

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.     

Liposuction surgery: an office procedure

The author describes liposuction surgery and points out the merits of performing the procedure in an office setting.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Prospective study of mustard allergy: first study with double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge trials (24 cases)

BACKGROUND: Mustard allergy accounts for 1.1% of food allergies in children. However, double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge trials (DB PCFCs) have not yet been proposed. OBJECTIVE: To carry out DB PCFCs to determine the real frequency of mustard allergy in patients sensitized to mustard. METHODS: A prospective study was conducted in 30 subjects aged 3-20 years presenting positive prick tests to ground mustard seeds (Brassica nigra), mustard flour (B. juncea), metabisulfite-free strong mustard seasoning (B. juncea) and a commercialized allergenic extract (B. nigra). Twenty-seven subjects were screened for mustard-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE). PCFCs were carried out either DB or single blind (SB) with up to 1340 mg of metabisulfite-free seasoning. RESULTS: The mean diameter of the wheal induced by prick tests with the allergenic extract was lower (n.s.) than that induced by the native mustard products: 5.8 mm (1.5-15) vs 6.9 mm (0.5-18) for B. nigra ground seeds, 7.8 mm (1-20) for B. juncea flour and 9.7 mm (3-20) for the strong mustard seasoning. The diameter of the wheal induced by the allergenic extract was significantly different from that induced by the mustard seasoning (P < 0.005). The mean of mustard specific-IgE values was 8.7 KU/l (0.35-72.4). Seven of 30 food challenges were considered positive. Mean prick test results in the positive and negative PCFC subgroups were 5.5 mm vs 5.9 mm for the commercialized extract, 10.9 mm vs 5.8 mm for B. nigra ground seeds (P < 0.01), 9.9 mm vs 7.1 mm for B. juncea flour (n.s. P > 0.25) and 11.5 mm vs 9.1 mm for the metabisulfite-free mustard seasoning (n.s. P > 0.1). Mean specific IgE values determined by CAP system radioallergosorbent test (Phadebas Pharmacia) were higher but not significantly so (P > 0.25) in the subgroup with mustard allergy (12.3 K/l vs 7.6 KU/l). CONCLUSIONS: About 23.3% of the sensitized subjects were allergic to a routine dose of mustard. Positive prick tests and the presence of specific IgE were not predictive. SB PCFC or DB PCFC is required before recommending avoidance diets.     

Double-blind, placebo-controlled rush immunotherapy with a standardized Alternaria extract

Specific immunotherapy is ineffective with unstandardized mold extracts. A double-blind, placebo-controlled study was performed in 24 patients (5 to 56 years of age) only allergic to Alternaria. The extract was standardized by isoelectric focusing, crossed immunoelectrophoresis, crossed radioimmunoelectrophoresis, RAST inhibition, and skin tests and contained allergen Alternaria major allergen a I and antigen B. Thirteen patients received the active treatment, and 11 received the placebo. Immunotherapy was started by a 2-day rush protocol; maintenance injections were administered for 1 year. The patient's self-evaluation of the treatment was significantly (p less than 0.001) lower in the placebo-treated group. Global symptom-medication scores, including asthma and rhinoconjunctivitis, were significantly (p less than 0.005) lower in the actively treated group. Nasal challenges with Alternaria extract were performed before immunotherapy and after 1 year of treatment. There was no difference in the placebo-treated group and a significantly (p less than 0.01) increased mean provocative dose in the actively treated group. Skin tests were significantly reduced in the actively treated group. Specific IgG increased significantly in the actively treated group and were stable in the placebo-treated group. There was a significant correlation between nasal challenges and nasal symptom-medication scores (p less than 0.03) or the patient's self-evaluation of efficacy (p less than 0.05). This study demonstrated that patients only sensitized to Alternaria benefit from specific immunotherapy with a standardized Alternaria extract.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Double-blind, placebo-controlled immunotherapy with a high-molecular-weight, formalinized allergoid in grass pollen allergy

Specific immunotherapy is effective in grass pollen allergy with standardized extracts and formalinized allergoids; but systemic reactions are not uncommon. A high-molecular-weight (greater than 85,000 daltons), formalinized allergoid was investigated in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study to assess its safety and efficacy. Twenty patients received a placebo and 39 the allergoid using a rather aggressive protocol. Five patients developed a mild and transient systemic reaction with high doses of allergoid and one had a more severe reaction requiring treatment. Nasal challenges performed with orchard grass pollen grains showed that the threshold number of grains eliciting nasal symptoms was significantly (p less than 0.01) greater in the treated group. This group had significantly (p less than 0.01) less nasal symptoms during the season and specific IgG levels were significantly (p less than 0.01) elevated. There was a significant (p less than 0.01) correlation between nasal challenges and nasal symptoms during the season but no correlation between IgG and symptoms. There was no dose-dependent effect of allergoids.     

Double-blind, placebo-controlled study with a modified therapeutic vaccine of Salsola kali (Russian thistle) administered through use of a cluster schedule

BACKGROUND: The inhalation of Salsola kali pollen is a common cause of respiratory diseases in Europe and North America. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a depigmented and glutaraldehyde-polymerized therapeutic vaccine of S kali. METHODS: The trial was randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled using a rush protocol in the build-up phase. Sixty patients with rhinoconjunctivitis (19 also had mild asthma) were randomly allocated to receive either active treatment (polymerized extract) or placebo. The final distribution was 41 patients in the active and 19 in the placebo group. Side effects were registered. Symptom and medication scores and the number of days free of symptoms during the pollen season were assessed to evaluate the clinical efficacy. A Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire was completed in the previous pollen season (before treatment) and during the pollen season 1 year later (in the trial). Dose-response skin tests were performed at baseline and at the end of the trial. RESULTS: There was a significant difference (P < .05) in symptom and medication scores between both groups during the pollen season, with the active group the one that had fewer symptoms and lower intake of medication. The number of days without symptoms was higher in the active group (P < .05). This group also had a significant improvement in the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire and a reduction in skin sensitivity. No moderate or severe systemic reactions were registered. CONCLUSION: Immunotherapy with this modified vaccine of S kali pollen is safe and efficacious to treat patients clinically sensitive to this pollen. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Patients allergic to S kali (Russian thistle) can be successfully treated with immunotherapy to improve symptoms of allergic rhinitis and asthma, reduce medication use, and improve quality of life parameters.     

Double-blind,placebo-controlled crossover study of folinic acid (Leucovorin®) for the treatment of fragile X syndrome

We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study of folinic acid therapy (dl-Leucovorin®, 15 mg/day) or placebo for males with Fragile X (fra(x)) syndrome. Twenty-one patients were enrolled in the study. The treatment periods were 3 months in length. Patients were followed with chemistry panels and complete blood counts. No differences between placebo and treatment phases were noted in any laboratory parameter. Instruments to measure functioning were the Vineland Adaptive Behavioral Scales, Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised, Conners Parent and Teaching Rating Scales, the ADD-H: Comprehensive Teacher's Rating Scales (ACTeRS), and a questionnaire designed by the investigators. At the crossover point, 2 parents requested to withdraw from the study because they felt their children had made dramatic gains during the first half of the study and had lost those gains after the crossover point. Both parents had accurately predicted that their sons were receiving folinic acid during the first half of the study. However, no statistically significant differences could be demonstrated between the treatment and placebo phases of the study with any instrument when the results were averaged over the entire cohort. After the conclusion of the study, approximately one-half of the parents believed that their children had benefitted from the folinic acid therapy and elected to continue treatment. Thus far, no significant side effects have been noted from long-term folinic acid therapy so we are offering all Fragile X patients a 3-month trial of medication. © 1992 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

Identification of hazelnut major allergens in sensitive patients with positive double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge results

BACKGROUND: The hazelnut major allergens identified to date are an 18-kd protein homologous to Bet v 1 and a 14-kd allergen homologous to Bet v 2. No studies have reported hazelnut allergens recognized in patients with positive double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) results or in patients allergic to hazelnut but not to birch. OBJECTIVE: We characterized the hazelnut allergens by studying the IgE reactivity of 65 patients with positive DBPCFC results and 7 patients with severe anaphylaxis to hazelnut. METHODS: Hazelnut allergens were identified by means of SDS-PAGE and IgE immunoblotting. Further characterization was done with amino acid sequencing, evaluation of the IgE-binding properties of raw and roasted hazelnut with enzyme allergosorbent test inhibition, assessment of cross-reactivity with different allergens by means of immunoblotting inhibition, and purification by means of HPLC. RESULTS: All the sera from the patients with positive DBPCFC results recognized an 18- and a 47-kd allergen; other major allergens were at molecular weights of 32 and 35 kd. Binding to the 18-kd band was inhibited by birch extract, indicating its homology with the birch major allergen, and abolished in roasted hazelnut. The 47-kd allergen is a sucrose-binding protein, the 35-kd allergen is a legumin, and the 32-kd allergen is a 2S albumin. Patients with severe anaphylactic reactions to hazelnut showed specific IgE reactivity to a 9-kd allergen, totally inhibited by purified peach lipid-transfer protein (LTP), which was heat stable and, when purified, corresponded to an LTP. CONCLUSIONS: The major allergen of hazelnut is an 18-kd protein homologous to Bet v 1, and the 9-kd allergen is presumably an LTP. Other major allergens have molecular weights of 47, 32, and 35 kd.