10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Oral food challenges in a specialised allergy outpatient clinic in Sao Paolo, Brazil

      abstract
      1 , , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1
      Clinical and Translational Allergy
      BioMed Central
      Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Meeting 2014
      9-11 October 2014

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background Oral food challenge (OFC) is the most reliable method to diagnose food allergy in suspected children. The aim of this study was to describe the profile of patients undergone to OFC in the Division of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Federal University of Sao Paulo, especially for cow/s milk (CM). Methods A retrospective study of chart analysis of 171 patients undergone to 220 OFC, between June/2007 and Feb/2014. Food tests comprised CM, egg, soy,peanuts, nuts, seafood, meat, chicken, tartrazine, chocolate, wheat and coconut. Patients were evaluated according to the type of CM's challenge (open or double-blind placebo-controlled), aim of the procedure (diagnosis or follow up tolerance), symptoms, body mass index, time of breastfeeding, age at first reaction, family history of food allergy, presence of other atopic diseases (asthma, allergic rhinitis and atopic dermatitis) and skin prick test. Results 65% of patients were male (n=111) with median age of 3 years and 2 months. The most common tested foods were CM (n=148), egg (n=22) and soy (n=19). CM's challenges were: negative in 109 (74%), inconclusive in 4 (3%) and positive in 34 (23%) tests (27 open food challenge and 7 double-blind placebo-controlled). From patients who had a positive OFC, 52% had referred cutaneous symptoms, 22% gastrointestinal symptoms, 19% respiratory symptoms and 7% claimed to have had anaphylaxis. When they undergone to OFC, cutaneous symptoms were observed in 68% and 5% had an anaphylaxis episode. 35% of children elicited symptoms after less than 1ml ingestion of CM. 67% of all reactions were classified as mild (skin and/or upper respiratory tract) and 18% as severe reaction (skin and lower respiratory tract). Among the group that passed OFC, 17% (n=18/109) were in a CM free diet just because of wheezing or recurrent respiratory tract infection. Conclusion Although there are some difficulties in performing OFC in the routine, there are multiple discrepancies between referred symptoms and diagnosis of food allergies. CM responds for the great majority of food allergy in this population.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Conference
          Clin Transl Allergy
          Clin Transl Allergy
          Clinical and Translational Allergy
          BioMed Central
          2045-7022
          2015
          30 March 2015
          : 5
          : Suppl 3
          : P78
          Affiliations
          [1 ]Federal University of Sao Paolo, Sao Paolo, Brazil
          Article
          2045-7022-5-S3-P78
          10.1186/2045-7022-5-S3-P78
          4412562
          3c11346d-c5c6-40a1-93c3-a069f2d25a53
          Copyright © 2015 Ana Carolina et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

          This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

          Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Meeting 2014
          Dublin, Ireland
          9-11 October 2014
          History
          Categories
          Poster Presentation

          Immunology
          Immunology

          Comments

          Comment on this article