Cow's milk allergy skin tests: fresh milk, commercial extracts, or both?

Idit Lachover-Roth, Nadav Giorno, Tzipi Hornik-Lurie, Anat Cohen-Engler, Yossi Rosman, Keren Meir-Shafrir, Ronit Confino-Cohen
{"title":"Cow's milk allergy skin tests: fresh milk, commercial extracts, or both?","authors":"Idit Lachover-Roth,&nbsp;Nadav Giorno,&nbsp;Tzipi Hornik-Lurie,&nbsp;Anat Cohen-Engler,&nbsp;Yossi Rosman,&nbsp;Keren Meir-Shafrir,&nbsp;Ronit Confino-Cohen","doi":"10.1186/s13223-023-00763-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The diagnosis of food allergy is based on a history of immediate allergic reaction following food ingestion, and skin prick test (SPT) demonstrating sensitization with commercial extracts (CE) or fresh food (FF). For most food allergens, the SPT with FF is considered more accurate and predictive. Regarding cow's milk, the results are inconclusive. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of SPT with fresh milk compared to CE (cow's milk and casein) for evaluation of cow's milk allergy (CMA).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study summarized the medical records of children, diagnosed with CMA. The data include demographics, skin tests and oral food challenge results, as well as atopic comorbidities.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Records of 698 patients with the diagnosis of CMA were reviewed, 388 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Overall, 134 patients (34.54%) had an additional atopic disease. The SPT wheal size with fresh milk was significantly larger than with CE (cow's milk and casein) at first evaluation or before oral food challenge (OFC). Combination of SPT results (CE and FF) gave the maximal odds ratio for reaction during OFC and SPT with fresh milk alone gave the minimal OR (34.18 and 4.74, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>SPT with CE for CMA evaluation is more reliable than SPT performed with fresh milk. In patients suspected of having IgE-mediated CMA, before deciding on performing OFC, it is advised to perform SPT with at least two different extracts, and always include casein. Fresh milk can serve as a backup if commercial extracts are not available. In cases that the SPT with fresh milk is 3 mm or less, there is 93.3% chance that the OFC will pass without reaction. Trial registration This study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of Meir Medical Center, IRB Number 0083-18 MMC.</p>","PeriodicalId":7702,"journal":{"name":"Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical Immunology : Official Journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology","volume":"19 1","pages":"6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9847062/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical Immunology : Official Journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13223-023-00763-w","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The diagnosis of food allergy is based on a history of immediate allergic reaction following food ingestion, and skin prick test (SPT) demonstrating sensitization with commercial extracts (CE) or fresh food (FF). For most food allergens, the SPT with FF is considered more accurate and predictive. Regarding cow's milk, the results are inconclusive. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of SPT with fresh milk compared to CE (cow's milk and casein) for evaluation of cow's milk allergy (CMA).

Methods: This study summarized the medical records of children, diagnosed with CMA. The data include demographics, skin tests and oral food challenge results, as well as atopic comorbidities.

Results: Records of 698 patients with the diagnosis of CMA were reviewed, 388 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Overall, 134 patients (34.54%) had an additional atopic disease. The SPT wheal size with fresh milk was significantly larger than with CE (cow's milk and casein) at first evaluation or before oral food challenge (OFC). Combination of SPT results (CE and FF) gave the maximal odds ratio for reaction during OFC and SPT with fresh milk alone gave the minimal OR (34.18 and 4.74, respectively).

Conclusions: SPT with CE for CMA evaluation is more reliable than SPT performed with fresh milk. In patients suspected of having IgE-mediated CMA, before deciding on performing OFC, it is advised to perform SPT with at least two different extracts, and always include casein. Fresh milk can serve as a backup if commercial extracts are not available. In cases that the SPT with fresh milk is 3 mm or less, there is 93.3% chance that the OFC will pass without reaction. Trial registration This study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of Meir Medical Center, IRB Number 0083-18 MMC.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

牛奶过敏皮肤测试:新鲜牛奶,商业提取物,还是两者都有?
背景:食物过敏的诊断是基于食物摄入后立即过敏反应的历史,皮肤点刺试验(SPT)显示与商业提取物(CE)或新鲜食物(FF)致敏。对于大多数食物过敏原,带有FF的SPT被认为更准确和预测。关于牛奶,研究结果尚无定论。本回顾性研究旨在评估鲜奶SPT与CE(牛奶和酪蛋白)评估牛奶过敏(CMA)的准确性。方法:总结诊断为CMA患儿的病历。这些数据包括人口统计、皮肤测试和口腔食物挑战结果,以及特应性合并症。结果:回顾698例诊断为CMA的患者的记录,388例符合纳入标准。总体而言,134例患者(34.54%)有额外的特应性疾病。在第一次评估或口服食物挑战(OFC)前,鲜奶组的SPT轮尺寸显著大于CE组(牛奶和酪蛋白)。综合SPT结果(CE和FF)得出OFC期间反应的最大优势比,而单独使用鲜奶进行SPT的OR最小(分别为34.18和4.74)。结论:用CE进行SPT对CMA的评价比用鲜奶进行SPT更可靠。对于怀疑患有ige介导的CMA的患者,在决定进行OFC之前,建议使用至少两种不同的提取物进行SPT,并且总是包含酪蛋白。如果没有商业萃取物,鲜牛奶可以作为备用。如果含有新鲜牛奶的SPT小于等于3mm, OFC通过无反应的几率为93.3%。本研究方案经Meir医学中心伦理委员会审查和批准,IRB号0083-18 MMC。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信