Medline ® Abstracts for References 1,28,33

of 'Oral food challenges for diagnosis and management of food allergies'

1
TI
Double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) as an office procedure: a manual.
AU
Bock SA, Sampson HA, Atkins FM, Zeiger RS, Lehrer S, Sachs M, Bush RK, Metcalfe DD
SO
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1988;82(6):986.
 
There is now enough experience with the use of double-blind, placebo-controlled, food challenge (DBPCFC) to recommend its use as an office procedure for most patients complaining of adverse reactions to foods. This manual discusses the practical methods required for the allergist to undertake DBPCFC in the office. Thorough histories supplemented by food allergen skin testing are used to design a DBPCFC that carefully attempts to reproduce the history of food-induced symptoms described by the patient. Precautions that must be taken are delineated before challenge, as is treatment that may be required if a reaction occurs. For those foods to which challenges are positive, longitudinal evaluation with repeated challenge at appropriate intervals help to determine whether or not the problem will resolve over a period of time.
AD
National Jewish Center for Immunology and Respiratory Medicine, Denver, Colo. 80206.
PMID
28
TI
Standardization of double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges.
AU
Bindslev-Jensen C
SO
Allergy. 2001;56 Suppl 67:75.
 
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.
AD
Department of Dermatology, Allergy Centre, Odense University Hospital, Odense Denmark.
PMID
33
TI
Statistical model for assessing the proportion of subjects with subjective sensitisations in adverse reactions to foods.
AU
Briggs D, Aspinall L, Dickens A, Bindslev-Jensen C
SO
Allergy. 2001;56 Suppl 67:83.
 
The outcome from a Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Food Challenge is often of a subjective nature and cannot be measured directly. Reactions to placebo challenges are frequently observed, implying that some of the responses in the study are in fact 'false responses'. In order to adjust for these false responses, previous studies have used various methods, including removing subjects from the analysis who reacted to the placebo. Simply ignoring the false responses can lead to misleading estimates for the true proportion of sensitised individuals. This paper outlines two models which can account for these false responses. In the single challenge study, a simple model is developed which enables the estimation of the rate of false responses in the study, as well as the true proportion of sensitised subjects. This model is very easy to apply in practice. For a repeated challenge study, a more complicated model is developed which again enables the estimation of the rate of false responses and the true proportion of sensitised subjects.
AD
Unilever Research, Colworth House, Sharnbrook, Bedfordshire, UK.
PMID