Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology 1/2014

Open Access 01.12.2014 | Research

Home-based oral immunotherapy (OIT) with an intermittent loading protocol in children unlikely to outgrow egg allergy

verfasst von: Kyoko Sudo, Shoichiro Taniuchi, Masaya Takahashi, Kazuhiko Soejima, Yasuko Hatano, Keiji Nakano, Tomohiko Shimo, Hayato Koshino, Kazunari Kaneko

Erschienen in: Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology | Ausgabe 1/2014

Abstract

Background

Home based oral immunotherapy (OIT) for food allergy has often been used for young children in Japan, the majority of whom are believed to outgrow the allergy by the school age, therefore the true efficacy of the therapy has been controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a newly developed slow- type home-based oral immunotherapy (OIT) regimen in children with hen’s egg (HE) allergy, who had low likelihood of outgrowing the allergy, with treatment involving only elimination diet.

Method

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 43 children with egg allergy (30 males; median age 6) who fulfilled Burks et al.’s criteria of being unlikely to outgrow the allergy. Thirty children who agreed to start OIT were assigned to the treatment group, and 13 who did not want to participate immediately were assigned to the untreated group; the patients underwent an elimination diet for 1 year, during which they were monitored. The OIT regimen involved the intake of the maximum tolerated dose 2 to 3 times a week at home, with initial dose introduction followed by dose build-ups with medical supervision. We statistically evaluated the rate of children who changed their threshold up to 32 g of egg – defined as, oral tolerance induction– in both the groups for 1 year and in the OIT group for 2 years, as well as the rate of children who fulfilled Savage et al.’s criteria of clinical tolerance after reaching the abovementioned remission stage.

Results

The rate of children who achieved oral tolerance induction to 32 g of egg after 1 year in the OIT group (9/30) was significantly higher than that in the untreated group (0/13). The total rate within the OIT group was significantly increased from 9/30 at 1 year to 17/30 at two years without any severe adverse reaction; of the above 17 children, we followed 14 children, and noted that 11 of these were able to obtain clinical tolerance.

Conclusion

The home-based OIT with an intermittent loading protocol was very safe and effective in children with a low likelihood of outgrowing egg allergy.
Hinweise

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.​1186/​1710-1492-10-11) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Competing interests

All authors have declared that they have no conflicts of interests.

Authors’ contributions

Conception and design, KS and ST; acquisition of data, KS, ST, MT, KS, YH, KN and TS; analysis and interpretation of data, KS, ST and HK; drafting of the manuscript, KS and HK; critical revision, KS, ST and HK; statistical analysis, HK; and supervision, ST and KK. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Background

Hen’s egg (HE) allergy is one of the most frequent food allergies in Japan, affecting approximately 1 - 5% of young children [1]. Although two- thirds or more of these children are believed to outgrow the allergy by approximately 6 years of age [13], some children continue to experience persistent allergic reactions [38]. The proportion of children who are not likely to outgrow HE allergy varies in several studies [3, 4, 612]: Savage et al. noted that 81% by age of 4, 45% by 8, 24% by 12, and 9% by 16 still suffer from the persistent HE allergy [3] while Kaneko suggested that these differences result from the varied characteristics of the study population, and indicated that high serum egg- immunoglobulin (-Ig) E level, older age, and the presence of complicated allergy symptoms are predictors of HE allergy persistence [13]. In the present study, we adopted the criteria suggested by Burks et al. [14] to eliminate the children with HE allergy who were likely to outgrow the allergy from our study population. Thereafter, we aimed to elucidate the true efficacy, safety, and convenience of an oral immunotherapy (OIT) regimen through a trial involving an intermittent loading protocol designed to reduce children’s burden while maintaining satisfactory efficacy.

Methods and patient selection

1)
Subjects
 
The survey was retrospectively performed based on the medical records of 118 children who presented to the day clinic at Kansai Medical University hospital, Osaka, with HE allergy during July 2006 and November 2012. We excluded the following patients from the subjects: the children who exhibited a negative result in an open food challenge test for HE; those who had persistent atopic dermatitis and unstable asthma; those who did not return for a repeat appointment or returned only once after the challenge test; those who fulfilled Burks et al.’s criteria of being likely to outgrow the allergy, i.e., those aged < 5 years, those with a low titers of serum egg white- specific IgE antibody level (<5 UA/ml for children at ≥6 years of age and < 12 UA/ml for children at 5 years of age) [14].
As a result, 75 patients were excluded from the study: negative result in an open food challenge test for HE in 18; persistent atopic dermatitis in 2; unstable asthma in 1; no return for a repeat appointment in 3; return only once after the challenge test in 5; likelihood to outgrow the allergy in 46 (Figure 1).
Thus, the data for statistical analysis was based on the clinical outcomes of 43 children (median age, 6 years [range, 5-12 years], male/female, 30/13), including 30 children who agreed to follow the OIT regimen, and therefore were assigned to the treatment group, and 13 who did not want to participate immediately and were assigned to the untreated group. For ethical reasons, this allocation was not performed in a random manner and was based on the children’s and parents’ decision. The baseline characteristics of these subjects are shown in Table 1; no significant differences were noted between the 2 groups, except for “skin symptoms during challenge test”.
2)
Oral food challenge test
 
Table 1
Baseline characteristics of patients in the study group
Characteristic
Group
P value
 
OIT (N = 30)
Untreated (N = 13)
Age at the challenge test
   
 Median
6.00
7.00
0.967
 Range
5.00 - 12.00
5.00 - 8.00
 
Initial total IgE antibody level (UA/ml)
   
 Median
905.5
618.9
0.272
 Range
108.5 - 9978.0
82.8 - 2054.0
 
Initial egg-specific IgE antibody level (UA/ml)
   
 Median
17.95
17.80
0.905
 Range
5.25 - 100.00
5.23 - 100.00
 
Duration since last episode (years)
   
 Median
2.00
2.00
0.807
 Range
0.00 - 6.00
0.50 - 6.00
 
Condition of elimination -*
   
 Partial
6.7
7.7
1.000
 Complete
93.3
92.3
 
Presence of other food allergies -*
   
 No
13.3
30.8
0.217
 Yes
86.7
69.2
 
Frequency of allergic symptoms at accidental ingestion -*
   
 Never
20.0
30.8
0.104
 Once
13.3
30.8
 
 2-10 times
60.0
38.5
 
 >10 times
6.7
0.0
 
Grade of anaphylaxis at accidental ingestion -*
   
 1
73.3
69.2
0.893
 2
20.0
30.8
 
 3
0.0
0.0
 
 4
6.7
0.0
 
Frequency of emergency visit at accidental ingestion -*
   
 Never
83.3
92.3
0.482
 Once
10.0
0.0
 
 2-5 times
6.7
7.7
 
Grade of anaphylaxis at challenge test -*
   
 1
46.7
53.8
0.207
 2
20.0
46.2
 
 3
33.3
0.0
 
 4
0.0
0.0
 
Symptoms during the challenge test -*
   
 Respiratory: cough, asthma, difficulty in breathing
36.7
38.5
1.000
 Skin: rash, hives, eczema
60.0
23.1
0.045
 Gastrointestinal: vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain
26.7
23.1
1.000
Dislike of eggs -*
   
 No
90.0
100
0.542
 Yes
10.0
0.0
 
*Percentage within the group.
All egg-food challenges were open challenges, and were performed in hospital settings and supervised by physicians. Clinical features of a reaction to HE were investigated for clinical purposes via an open challenge test as described in our previous study [15]. Briefly, a double-blind placebo-control food challenge is the gold standard for clinical studies, but is a time-consuming test for general practice. We could not assess the subjective symptoms by the open challenge test. Therefore, if the patients had subjective allergic symptoms such as nausea, abdominal pain, sore throat, or itching, we increased the loading dose before the objective symptoms appeared. During the challenge, full emergency equipment was at hand. The children’s parents provided informed consents prior to enrollment in the study. Patients taking anti-histamines were asked to avoid them for at least 72 h before the challenge, but topical steroids were allowed. Patients were admitted to our day clinic in the morning in a fasting state. Challenge material for open challenges was cooked egg (an omelet baked by using a Japanese rectangular fry pan), and the omelet was further steamed for 10 minutes in the purpose of heating egg-white protein completely. The initial challenge dose and the following doses were customized according to the history of the last reaction, but were similar in most patients (omelet: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, and 32 g). When the patients tolerated the first dose, the following one was given every 30 min. When a reaction to a very low dose was suspected, the first challenge dose was 0.5 g. The challenge was interrupted if children demonstrated unambiguous clinical reactivity or after the administration of 63 g of egg. All children were then observed for at least 3 more hours after the end of the feeding. If a child exhibited obvious allergic symptoms, such as rash, coughing, vomiting, or diarrhea to HE under loading doses of less than 32 g, he/she was considered to have positivity to HE. Otherwise, they were considered negative.
3)
Home-based OIT with an intermittent loading dose
 
All the subjects were outpatients. Cooked egg which was used in the preliminary open challenge test was prepared in the same manner as the material administered for OIT [16]. A medium- sized whole egg was used to make a rectangular omelet – one of the most popular food preparations in Japan – that weighed approximately 64 g and could be cut into half with ease. The directed dose – either 1, 2, 4, 8, or 16 g – was easy to prepare consistently during the study. The omelet was further steamed for 10 minutes in order to heat egg white completely. The initial dose of OIT was set at a sub-threshold dose, which was usually half or one- fourth of the threshold dose determined during a preliminary open challenge test. For example, if the threshold dose was 2 g, the child would begin with 1 g or 0.5 g, according to the severity of the symptoms presented in the preliminary challenge test. In cases where no adverse reactions were noted, the initial dose was administered intermittently at least twice a week at home for 2 months as a maintenance dose. The children were challenged to ingest a double dose under medical supervision at every 2-month follow-up visit. The escalation phase was repeated in the same manner until the child was able to ingest 32 g of the cooked egg, the content of which is approximately half of a medium- sized HE – this was defined as the minimum dose required to achieve oral tolerance induction to one of the most popular Japanese food preparations. The children were encouraged to continue ingesting a further increased dose as a less well-cooked omelet (for example, omelet without steaming and soft-cooked) even after achieving the remission stage.
4)
Laboratory tests
 
Blood samples were collected before starting home-based OIT, during the remission stage, and at the stage that the child achieved ad libitum egg consumption.
5)
Analyses
 
Statistical analyses of 2 aspects were performed: [1] the rate of oral tolerance induction (defined as achieving an intake of 32 g of well-cooked omelet without any reaction) in the OIT and control groups at 1 year; [2] the same rate in the OIT group at 1 year and at 2 years. We also analyzed the number of children who obtained clinical tolerance after oral tolerance induction after 2 years of OIT, according to Savage et al.’s most inclusive definition – tolerating ad libitum egg consumption including raw egg with no adverse reaction in the past 12 months, and egg IgE levels of <6 UA/ml [3]. Furthermore, we statistically analyzed the same factors indicated in Table 1 among the children in the OIT group, to determine whether the baseline characteristics differed between the subjects who achieved oral tolerance induction or clinical tolerance to a whole HE and those who failed to do so.
6)
Statistics
 
We statistically evaluated the clinical outcome of the OIT group (30 children) and the untreated group (13 children) at 1 year, at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05, to detect a significant difference between the 2 groups. Baseline characteristics of the patients were tested by using Fisher’s exact test and the Mann-Whitney U test. Fisher’s exact test was used to evaluate between-group differences with regard to achieving oral tolerance induction by 1 year. We also evaluated the differences in achieving the abovementioned remission stage by 1 year and by 2 years within the OIT group by using the sign test. All analyses were performed with IBM SPSS Statistics, version 11.0 (SPSS Inc. Chicago, IL, USA).
7)
Ethical issue
 
The ethics review board of Kansai Medical University approved the study (#1210), and informed consent was obtained from the parent of each child.

Results

Clinical outcomes

Study enrollment and outcomes are shown in Figure 1. Nine of 30 children (30%), and 0/13 (0%) children successfully achieved oral tolerance induction by 1 year in the OIT group and untreated group, respectively; there was a statistically significant difference between the 2 groups, as shown in Figure 2. Some children who did not achieve the abovementioned remission stage by 1 year achieved one by 2 years, and the total rate within the OIT group was significantly increased to 17/30 (56.6%) by 2 years (Figure 2). The 9 children who achieved oral tolerance induction by 1 year were among those 17 children. The period required for those 17 children to reach the abovementioned phase was 75 – 726 days (median, 351 days). The levels of egg white-specific IgE decreased significantly in both the groups; however, the OIT group exhibited a greater decrease as compared with the untreated group (median egg white-specific IgE level, 17.0 -5.3 vs. 17.8 - 12.7 UA/ml, respectively). Four children took more than 2 years to reach the remission stage, and we did not include them in the statistical analysis. We further followed the 17 children who had achieved oral tolerance induction for > 1 year to assess whether they could achieve clinical tolerance to whole HE according to the definition described earlier. Three of these children were excluded at the point of termination of the study; one patient whose egg IgE level was unknown because he refused to have a blood sample taken, although he achieved ad libitum egg consumption, based on the clinical criteria; one patient for whom oral tolerance induction was achieved within 1 year of study termination, and who was not observed for the entire 12-month period; and one patient in whom OIT was discontinued as inflammatory bowel disease suddenly developed after accidental ingestion of a milk product to which he was severely allergic. Thus, we followed 14 children after the remission stage and 11 (78.6%) of these children obtained clinical tolerance. The duration from oral tolerance induction to the ad libitum consumption of any form of egg for >1 year in the patients was 366 – 988 days (median, 818 days).

Baseline characteristics in OIT group between remission and failure groups

Although there were no significant differences between the subjects who had achieved oral tolerance induction and those who had failed to do so, there were several significant differences between the subjects who had obtained stabilized clinical tolerance and those had not. Factors such as initial egg white-specific IgE level (p = 0.012), grade of anaphylaxis at the challenge test (p = 0.020), and respiratory symptoms during the challenge test (p = 0.023) showed significant differences, as shown in Table 2.
Table 2
Differences in baseline characteristics between the subjects who obtained clinical tolerance and those who failed
Characteristic
Group
P value
 
Tolerance (N = 11)
Failure (N = 19)
 
Age at challenge test
   
 Median
6.00
6.00
0.081
 Range
6.00 - 12.00
5.00 - 11.00
 
Initial total IgE antibody level - UA/ml
   
 Median
668.0
997.0
0.378
 Range
108.5 - 3801.0
161.5 - 9978.0
 
Initial egg-specific IgE antibody level - UA/ml
   
 Median
14.60
25.50
0.012
 Range
5.25 - 27.80
5.33 - 100.00
 
Duration since Last Episode - yr
   
 Median
2.00
2.00
0.758
 Range
0.50 - 6.00
0.00 - 6.00
 
Condition of elimination*
   
 Partial
9.1
5.3
1.000
 Complete
90.9
94.7
 
Having other food allergies*
   
 No
18.2
10.5
0.611
 Yes
81.8
89.5
 
Frequency of allergic symptoms at accidental ingestion*
   
 Never
27.3
15.8
0.807
 Once
9.1
15.8
 
 2-10 times
54.5
63.2
 
 >10 times
9.1
5.3
 
Grade of anaphylaxis at accidental ingestion*
   
 1
90.9
63.2
0.095
 2
9.1
26.3
 
 3
0.0
0.0
 
 4
0.0
10.5
 
Frequency of emergency visit at accidental ingestion*
   
 Never
100
73.7
0.068
 Once
0.0
15.8
 
 2-5 times
0.0
10.5
 
Grade of anaphylaxis at challenge test*
   
 1
72.7
31.6
0.020
 2
18.2
21.1
 
 3
9.1
47.4
 
 4
0.0
0.0
 
Symptoms during challenge test*
   
 Respiratory: cough, asthma, difficulty in breathing
9.1
52.6
0.023
 Skin: rash, hives, eczema
54.5
63.2
0.712
 Gastrointestinal: vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain
27.3
26.3
1.000
Dislike of Eggs*
   
 No
90.9
89.5
1.000
 Yes
9.1
10.5
 
*percentage within the group.

Safety data during the OIT period

Sixteen of 30 (53.3%) children in the OIT group experienced adverse reactions following challenges involving dose build-ups in the hospital, and the same rate was noted for home OIT intake. Some children experienced accidental ingestion of offending foods other than HE, but we did not include the events that were not related to HE in the analyses.
Table 3 shows the percentage of the adverse events that occurred for a trial in each person either at home or at the outpatient clinic. There were 31 adverse events among the 477 challenges involving dose build-ups in the hospital (6.5%); according to Sampson’s classification [17], there were 25 (80.6%) grade 1 reactions and 6 (19.4%) grade 2, and none of the children experienced grade 3 or 4. The associated symptoms included oral and pharyngeal (17.1%), skin (20.0%), respiratory (20.0%), gastrointestinal (37.1%), and other (5.7%) symptoms. For treatment of these symptoms, 11/16 (68.8%) of the children received medication, including oral anti-histamines (54.8%), topical steroids (6.5%), and nebulized beta-2 agonist (16.1%); none of the children received treatment with epinephrine injection.
Table 3
Adverse events and treatments during oral immunotherapy (OIT)
Situation
 
Symptom type
Total frequency
Oral
GI
Skin
Resp.
Other
 
times per trial per person * × 100(%)
At home
0.485
0.091
0.262
0.100
0.079
0.081
With dose build-up
9.117
1.150
3.450
3.583
1.283
2.350
Situation
Treatment
Oral anti-histamine
Oral betamethasone
Topical steroid
Nebulized β 2 stimulant
Intravenous prednisone
 
times per trial per person * × 100(%)
At home
0.360
0.058
0.010
0.015
0.005
With dose build-up
4.183
0.000
2.433
0.983
0.000
*The number of adverse reactions was divided by the number of trials of each patient, and then an average value for the 30 patients was calculated.
The OIT duration of all patients was 0.50 - 5.25 years (median, 2.54 years); trials at home, 65 - 685 times (median, 331 times); trials with dose build-up, 3 - 32 times (median, 15 times).
GI, gastrointestinal: abdominal pain, vomiting, diarrhea.
Resp., respiratory: cough, wheeze, asthma, difficulty in breathing.
During the maintenance phase at home, there were 45 adverse events among 10380 trials (0.43%). There were 34 (75.6%) grade 1, 10 (22.2%) grade 2, and 1 (2.2%) grade 3 reactions, and none of the children experienced grade 4 reaction. The child who experienced a grade 3 adverse reaction had an exercise- induced anaphylaxis and was admitted to the emergency room. The associated symptoms in these patients included oral and pharyngeal (18.1%), skin (18.1%), respiratory (18.1%), and gastrointestinal (45.5%) symptoms. For the treatment of these symptoms, 16/16 (100.0%) of the children received medication, including oral anti-histamines (75.6%), oral betamethasone (8.9%), topical steroids (2.2%), nebulized beta-2 agonist (4.4%), and intravenous prednisone (2.2%); none of the children received treatment with epinephrine injection.

Discussion

The efficacy of various types of OIT for children with egg allergy has recently been reported with favorable outcomes [14, 1821], though only few studies have been performed by placebo-control randomized manner [21, 22]. One of the characteristics in our study was to select a population with a low likelihood of outgrowing the egg allergy including an untreated group as we attempted to indicate the efficacy of our regimen more strictly. A further characteristic of our study was the long duration of follow-up, which facilitated the assessment of whether the children could achieve not only temporal remission but also clinically stabilized oral tolerance. It has been suggested that for children with moderate to severe egg allergy, a longer period (3 – 5 years) and/or a higher dose loading might be beneficial [21, 22]. Indeed, in our study, some children who did not achieve oral tolerance induction by 1 year were able to achieve one by 2 years, and the achievement rate increased by nearly double (the number of patients who achieved temporal remission by 1 year: 9, those who achieved temporal remission by 2 years: 17). In addition, it should be noted that the longest period required to achieve oral tolerance induction among these 17 children was 726 days and 11 out of 14 patients (78.6%) who reached the abovementioned remission stage within 2 years obtained clinical tolerance. Thus, a long-term observation of at least two years is needed to accurately determine the efficacy of slow- type OIT, in particular, in children with a low likelihood of outgrowing egg allergy.
We analyzed the baseline characteristics between the subjects who achieved oral tolerance induction or clinical tolerance and those who failed to do so. Factors such as the initial egg white-specific IgE level, grade of anaphylaxis at the challenge test, and respiratory symptoms during the challenge test showed significant differences between the subjects who obtained clinical tolerance and those who failed to do so. Interestingly, in an OIT study for milk allergy, Vázquez-Ortiz et al. reported that pre-existing asthma was associated with a group with persistent reactions [23]. However, the underlying mechanism explaining the relationship between asthma and difficulties in OIT is unclear.
Most previous standardized protocols involve multiple dose increasing phase at an initial day or several days, termed as a rush escalation phase, which is either performed in an outpatient clinic or in a hospital, followed by a more gradual weekly to biweekly dose escalation period at home [1, 12, 2427]. Although this approach greatly contributes to desensitization and potential permanent tolerance for patients with food allergies, adverse events occur mainly during the rush escalation phase. Recently, new trials using protocols that omit a rush escalation phase known as home-based OIT, have been used due to the improved safety associated with these methods. Our regimen also omits the rush escalation phase, and is unique in that we used an intermittent loading dose (i.e., 2 to 3 times a week) instead of daily loading as in previous home-based OITs [14, 1820]. In order to ensure safety, we also kept a fixed dose throughout the maintenance period at home, and avoided any escalations, as indicated in previous protocols [14, 1820]. The advantage of intermittent loading is the safety demonstrated by the number of adverse events related to doses administered at home; 45/10380 (0.43%) for home-based OIT throughout the current study period, which is considerably better than that of the previous studies ranging from 0.99% to 24.2% [14, 18, 20, 28]. This is due to an opportunity to omit the loadings on weekends, or sick days; the former lower the risk of developing allergic reaction out of office hours of the clinic and the latter is associated with the increased risk of allergic reaction. Furthermore, the children do not have to experience the daily discomfort of ingesting undesirable food, which would also facilitate better compliance for a long duration of the OIT period.
There are several limitations in our study. First, it was retrospective and not randomized. The observational period of the untreated group was limited to 1 year, which could not be extended because all the patients wanted to start either the slow-type home-based OIT or rush-type OIT after the 1-year observation. Therefore, we could not maintain a control group for the entire duration of the study. Second, the immunological markers assayed were limited to the IgE level, and we were not able to include the IgG4 levels or skin prick test. Finally, the most important limitation was the absence of a double blind-placebo food challenge test after several weeks of complete withdrawal of egg products as the tolerance judgment test, although we adopted the criteria suggested by Savage et al. [3].

Conclusions

Our home-based OIT with an intermittent loading protocol is safe and rather effective for children with a low likelihood of outgrowing the egg allergy. Thus, intermittent loading protocol is a novel approach that expands the possibility of an active treatment to improve the quality of life of patients and their families.

Acknowledgment

This study was supported by the Mami Mizutani Foundation.
Open Access This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​2.​0 ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( https://​creativecommons.​org/​publicdomain/​zero/​1.​0/​ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Competing interests

All authors have declared that they have no conflicts of interests.

Authors’ contributions

Conception and design, KS and ST; acquisition of data, KS, ST, MT, KS, YH, KN and TS; analysis and interpretation of data, KS, ST and HK; drafting of the manuscript, KS and HK; critical revision, KS, ST and HK; statistical analysis, HK; and supervision, ST and KK. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Anhänge

Authors’ original submitted files for images

Below are the links to the authors’ original submitted files for images.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Kurihara K: Immunotherapy for food allergy. Allergol Int. 2010, 59: 9-14. 10.2332/allergolint.09-RAI-0152.CrossRefPubMed Kurihara K: Immunotherapy for food allergy. Allergol Int. 2010, 59: 9-14. 10.2332/allergolint.09-RAI-0152.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Ramesh S: Food allergy overview in children. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 2008, 34: 217-230. 10.1007/s12016-007-8034-1.CrossRefPubMed Ramesh S: Food allergy overview in children. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 2008, 34: 217-230. 10.1007/s12016-007-8034-1.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Savage JH, Matsui EC, Skripak JM, Wood RA: The natural history of egg allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2007, 120: 1413-1417. 10.1016/j.jaci.2007.09.040.CrossRefPubMed Savage JH, Matsui EC, Skripak JM, Wood RA: The natural history of egg allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2007, 120: 1413-1417. 10.1016/j.jaci.2007.09.040.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Benhamou AH, Caubet JC, Eigenmann PA, Nowak-Wegrzyn A, Marcos CP, Reche M: State of the art and new horizons in the diagnosis and management of egg allergy. Allergy. 2010, 65: 283-289. 10.1111/j.1398-9995.2009.02251.x.CrossRefPubMed Benhamou AH, Caubet JC, Eigenmann PA, Nowak-Wegrzyn A, Marcos CP, Reche M: State of the art and new horizons in the diagnosis and management of egg allergy. Allergy. 2010, 65: 283-289. 10.1111/j.1398-9995.2009.02251.x.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Zurück zum Zitat de Boissieu D, Dupont C: Natural course of sensitization to hen's egg in children not previously exposed to egg ingestion. Eur Ann Allergy Clin Immunol. 2006, 38: 113-117.PubMed de Boissieu D, Dupont C: Natural course of sensitization to hen's egg in children not previously exposed to egg ingestion. Eur Ann Allergy Clin Immunol. 2006, 38: 113-117.PubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Ikematsu K, Tachimoto H, Sugisaki C, Syukuya A, Ebisawa M: Feature of food allergy developed during infancy (2)--acquisition of tolerance against hen's egg, cow's milk, wheat, and soybean up to 3 years old. Arerugi. 2006, 55: 533-541.PubMed Ikematsu K, Tachimoto H, Sugisaki C, Syukuya A, Ebisawa M: Feature of food allergy developed during infancy (2)--acquisition of tolerance against hen's egg, cow's milk, wheat, and soybean up to 3 years old. Arerugi. 2006, 55: 533-541.PubMed
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Imai T, Komata T, Ogata M, Tomikawa M, Tachimoto H, Shukuya A: Prolonged type of food allergy. Arerugi. 2007, 56: 1285-1292.PubMed Imai T, Komata T, Ogata M, Tomikawa M, Tachimoto H, Shukuya A: Prolonged type of food allergy. Arerugi. 2007, 56: 1285-1292.PubMed
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Sicherer SH, Sampson HA: Food allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2010, 125: S116-S125. 10.1016/j.jaci.2009.08.028.CrossRefPubMed Sicherer SH, Sampson HA: Food allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2010, 125: S116-S125. 10.1016/j.jaci.2009.08.028.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Benhamou AH, Zamora SA, Eigenmann PA: Correlation between specific immunoglobulin E levels and the severity of reactions in egg allergic patients. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2008, 19: 173-179. 10.1111/j.1399-3038.2007.00602.x.CrossRefPubMed Benhamou AH, Zamora SA, Eigenmann PA: Correlation between specific immunoglobulin E levels and the severity of reactions in egg allergic patients. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2008, 19: 173-179. 10.1111/j.1399-3038.2007.00602.x.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Boyano-Martínez T, García-Ara C, Díaz-Pena JM, Martín-Esteban M: Prediction of tolerance on the basis of quantification of egg white-specific IgE antibodies in children with egg allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2002, 110: 304-309. 10.1067/mai.2002.126081.CrossRefPubMed Boyano-Martínez T, García-Ara C, Díaz-Pena JM, Martín-Esteban M: Prediction of tolerance on the basis of quantification of egg white-specific IgE antibodies in children with egg allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2002, 110: 304-309. 10.1067/mai.2002.126081.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Sopo SM, Onesimo R, Giorgio V, Fundarò C: Specific oral tolerance induction (SOTI) in pediatric age: clinical research or just routine practice?. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2010, 21: e446-e449. 10.1111/j.1399-3038.2009.00922.x.CrossRefPubMed Sopo SM, Onesimo R, Giorgio V, Fundarò C: Specific oral tolerance induction (SOTI) in pediatric age: clinical research or just routine practice?. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2010, 21: e446-e449. 10.1111/j.1399-3038.2009.00922.x.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Itoh N, Itagaki Y, Kurihara K: Rush specific oral tolerance induction in school-age children with severe egg allergy: one year follow up. Allergol Int. 2010, 59: 43-51. 10.2332/allergolint.09-OA-0107.CrossRefPubMed Itoh N, Itagaki Y, Kurihara K: Rush specific oral tolerance induction in school-age children with severe egg allergy: one year follow up. Allergol Int. 2010, 59: 43-51. 10.2332/allergolint.09-OA-0107.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Kaneko H: Japanese pediatric guideline for food allergy 2012. JJACI. 2012, 26: 659-663. 10.3388/jspaci.26.659.CrossRef Kaneko H: Japanese pediatric guideline for food allergy 2012. JJACI. 2012, 26: 659-663. 10.3388/jspaci.26.659.CrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Burks AW, Jones SM, Wood RA, Fleischer DM, Sicherer SH, Lindblad RW: Oral immunotherapy for treatment of egg allergy in children. N Engl J Med. 2012, 367: 233-243. 10.1056/NEJMoa1200435.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Burks AW, Jones SM, Wood RA, Fleischer DM, Sicherer SH, Lindblad RW: Oral immunotherapy for treatment of egg allergy in children. N Engl J Med. 2012, 367: 233-243. 10.1056/NEJMoa1200435.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Okamoto S, Taniuchi S, Sudo K, Hatano Y, Nakano K, Shimo T: Predictive value of IgE/IgG4 antibody ratio in children with egg allergy. Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol. 2012, 8: 9-10.1186/1710-1492-8-9.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Okamoto S, Taniuchi S, Sudo K, Hatano Y, Nakano K, Shimo T: Predictive value of IgE/IgG4 antibody ratio in children with egg allergy. Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol. 2012, 8: 9-10.1186/1710-1492-8-9.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Badina L, Matarazzo L, Longo G, Barbi E: Could slightly cooked egg be a suitable medium for oral immunotherapy in persistent hen's egg allergy?. Allergol Immunopathol (Madr). 2013, 41: 141-142. 10.1016/j.aller.2012.12.003.CrossRef Badina L, Matarazzo L, Longo G, Barbi E: Could slightly cooked egg be a suitable medium for oral immunotherapy in persistent hen's egg allergy?. Allergol Immunopathol (Madr). 2013, 41: 141-142. 10.1016/j.aller.2012.12.003.CrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Sampson HA: Anaphylaxis and emergency treatment. Pediatrics. 2003, 111: 1601-1608.PubMed Sampson HA: Anaphylaxis and emergency treatment. Pediatrics. 2003, 111: 1601-1608.PubMed
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Ojeda P, Ojeda I, Rubio G, Pineda F: Home-based oral immunotherapy protocol with pasteurized egg for children allergic to hen's egg. Isr Med Assoc J. 2012, 14: 34-39.PubMed Ojeda P, Ojeda I, Rubio G, Pineda F: Home-based oral immunotherapy protocol with pasteurized egg for children allergic to hen's egg. Isr Med Assoc J. 2012, 14: 34-39.PubMed
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Meglio P, Giampietro PG, Carello R, Gabriele I, Avitabile S, Galli E: Oral food desensitization in children with IgE-mediated hen's egg allergy: a new protocol with raw hen's egg. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2013, 24: 75-83. 10.1111/j.1399-3038.2012.01341.x.CrossRefPubMed Meglio P, Giampietro PG, Carello R, Gabriele I, Avitabile S, Galli E: Oral food desensitization in children with IgE-mediated hen's egg allergy: a new protocol with raw hen's egg. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2013, 24: 75-83. 10.1111/j.1399-3038.2012.01341.x.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Dello Iacono I, Tripodi S, Calvani M, Panetta V, Verga MC, Miceli SS: Specific oral tolerance induction with raw hen's egg in children with very severe egg allergy: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2013, 24: 66-74. 10.1111/j.1399-3038.2012.01349.x.CrossRefPubMed Dello Iacono I, Tripodi S, Calvani M, Panetta V, Verga MC, Miceli SS: Specific oral tolerance induction with raw hen's egg in children with very severe egg allergy: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2013, 24: 66-74. 10.1111/j.1399-3038.2012.01349.x.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Vickery BP, Pons L, Kulis M, Steele P, Jones SM, Burks AW: Individualized IgE-based dosing of egg oral immunotherapy and the development of tolerance. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2010, 105: 444-450. 10.1016/j.anai.2010.09.030.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Vickery BP, Pons L, Kulis M, Steele P, Jones SM, Burks AW: Individualized IgE-based dosing of egg oral immunotherapy and the development of tolerance. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2010, 105: 444-450. 10.1016/j.anai.2010.09.030.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Vickery BP: Egg oral immunotherapy. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2012, 12: 278-282. 10.1097/ACI.0b013e3283535bae.CrossRefPubMed Vickery BP: Egg oral immunotherapy. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2012, 12: 278-282. 10.1097/ACI.0b013e3283535bae.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Vázquez-Ortiz M, Alvaro-Lozano M, Alsina L, Garcia-Paba MB, Piquer-Gibert M, Giner-Muñoz MT: Safety and predictors of adverse events during oral immunotherapy for milk allergy: severity of reaction at oral challenge, specific IgE and prick test. Clin Exp Allergy. 2013, 43: 92-102. 10.1111/cea.12012.CrossRefPubMed Vázquez-Ortiz M, Alvaro-Lozano M, Alsina L, Garcia-Paba MB, Piquer-Gibert M, Giner-Muñoz MT: Safety and predictors of adverse events during oral immunotherapy for milk allergy: severity of reaction at oral challenge, specific IgE and prick test. Clin Exp Allergy. 2013, 43: 92-102. 10.1111/cea.12012.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Kim EH, Burks W: Managing food allergy in childhood. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2012, 24: 615-620. 10.1097/MOP.0b013e32835741e3.CrossRefPubMed Kim EH, Burks W: Managing food allergy in childhood. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2012, 24: 615-620. 10.1097/MOP.0b013e32835741e3.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Staden U, Rolinck-Werninghaus C, Brewe F, Wahn U, Niggemann B, Beyer K: Specific oral tolerance induction in food allergy in children: efficacy and clinical patterns of reaction. Allergy. 2007, 62: 1261-1269. 10.1111/j.1398-9995.2007.01501.x.CrossRefPubMed Staden U, Rolinck-Werninghaus C, Brewe F, Wahn U, Niggemann B, Beyer K: Specific oral tolerance induction in food allergy in children: efficacy and clinical patterns of reaction. Allergy. 2007, 62: 1261-1269. 10.1111/j.1398-9995.2007.01501.x.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Buchanan AD, Green TD, Jones SM, Scurlock AM, Christie L, Althage KA: Egg oral immunotherapy in nonanaphylactic children with egg allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2007, 119: 199-205. 10.1016/j.jaci.2006.09.016.CrossRefPubMed Buchanan AD, Green TD, Jones SM, Scurlock AM, Christie L, Althage KA: Egg oral immunotherapy in nonanaphylactic children with egg allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2007, 119: 199-205. 10.1016/j.jaci.2006.09.016.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Barbi E, Longo G, Berti I, Neri E, Saccari A, Rubert L: Adverse effects during specific oral tolerance induction: in-hospital "rush" phase. Eur Ann Allergy Clin Immunol. 2012, 44: 18-25.PubMed Barbi E, Longo G, Berti I, Neri E, Saccari A, Rubert L: Adverse effects during specific oral tolerance induction: in-hospital "rush" phase. Eur Ann Allergy Clin Immunol. 2012, 44: 18-25.PubMed
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Barbi E, Longo G, Berti I, Matarazzo L, Rubert L, Saccari A: Adverse effects during specific oral tolerance induction: in home phase. Allergol Immunopathol (Madr). 2012, 40: 41-50. 10.1016/j.aller.2011.05.004.CrossRef Barbi E, Longo G, Berti I, Matarazzo L, Rubert L, Saccari A: Adverse effects during specific oral tolerance induction: in home phase. Allergol Immunopathol (Madr). 2012, 40: 41-50. 10.1016/j.aller.2011.05.004.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Home-based oral immunotherapy (OIT) with an intermittent loading protocol in children unlikely to outgrow egg allergy
verfasst von
Kyoko Sudo
Shoichiro Taniuchi
Masaya Takahashi
Kazuhiko Soejima
Yasuko Hatano
Keiji Nakano
Tomohiko Shimo
Hayato Koshino
Kazunari Kaneko
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2014
Verlag
BioMed Central
Erschienen in
Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology / Ausgabe 1/2014
Elektronische ISSN: 1710-1492
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1710-1492-10-11

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2014

Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology 1/2014 Zur Ausgabe

Akuter Schwindel: Wann lohnt sich eine MRT?

28.04.2024 Schwindel Nachrichten

Akuter Schwindel stellt oft eine diagnostische Herausforderung dar. Wie nützlich dabei eine MRT ist, hat eine Studie aus Finnland untersucht. Immerhin einer von sechs Patienten wurde mit akutem ischämischem Schlaganfall diagnostiziert.

Bei schweren Reaktionen auf Insektenstiche empfiehlt sich eine spezifische Immuntherapie

Insektenstiche sind bei Erwachsenen die häufigsten Auslöser einer Anaphylaxie. Einen wirksamen Schutz vor schweren anaphylaktischen Reaktionen bietet die allergenspezifische Immuntherapie. Jedoch kommt sie noch viel zu selten zum Einsatz.

HNO-Op. auch mit über 90?

16.04.2024 HNO-Chirurgie Nachrichten

Mit Blick auf das Risiko für Komplikationen nach elektiven Eingriffen im HNO-Bereich scheint das Alter der Patienten kein ausschlaggebender Faktor zu sein. Entscheidend ist offenbar, wie fit die Betroffenen tatsächlich sind.

Intrakapsuläre Tonsillektomie gewinnt an Boden

16.04.2024 Tonsillektomie Nachrichten

Gegenüber der vollständigen Entfernung der Gaumenmandeln hat die intrakapsuläre Tonsillektomie einige Vorteile, wie HNO-Fachleute aus den USA hervorheben. Sie haben die aktuelle Literatur zu dem Verfahren gesichtet.

Update HNO

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.