About this Journal Submit a Manuscript Table of Contents
Journal of Allergy
Volume 2012 (2012), Article ID 515267, 11 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/515267
Clinical Study

Late Type of Bronchial Response to Milk Ingestion Challenge: A Comparison of Open and Double-Blind Challenge

Allergy Research Foundation, Effenseweg 42, 4838 BB Breda, The Netherlands

Received 3 May 2011; Accepted 4 August 2011

Academic Editor: Carina Venter

Copyright © 2012 Zdenek Pelikan. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background. In some asthmatics the food allergy, for example, to milk, can participate in their bronchial complaints. The role of food allergy should be confirmed definitively by food ingestion challenge performed by an open challenge with natural foods (OFICH) or by a double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC). Objectives. To investigate the diagnostic value of these techniques for confirmation of a suspected milk allergy in bronchial asthma patients. Methods. In 54 asthmatics with a positive history and/or positive skin tests for milk the 54 OFICH, and DBPCFC, were performed in combination with spirometry. Results. The 54 patients developed 39 positive late asthmatic responses (LAR) and 15 negative asthmatic responses to OFICH and 40 positive LARs and 14 negative responses to DBPCFC. The overall correlation between the OFICH and DBPCFC was statistically significant ( ). Conclusions. This study has confirmed the existence of LAR to milk ingestion performed by OFICH and DBPCFC in combination with spirometry. The results obtained by both the techniques did not differ significantly. The OFICH with natural food combined with monitoring of objective parameter(s), such as spirometry, seems to be a suitable method for detection of the food allergy in asthmatics. The DBPCFC can be performed as an additional check, if necessary.

1. Introduction

Food allergy is a clinical manifestation of an immunologic process in which foods or their components acting as antigen(s) stimulate the production of specific antibodies or sensitize the particular T lymphocyte subsets and then interact with them [111]. This interaction then induces a number of intracellular and extracellular processes, defined as a hypersensitivity mechanism(s), resulting in the manifestation of the clinical symptoms [123].

Principally, various types of hypersensitivity can be involved in food allergy; however, the immediate type (IgE-mediated) hypersensitivity has mostly been investigated and documented [19, 1119, 2428]. Nevertheless, in recent years evidence has been found for possible involvement of other hypersensitivity types, such as late type (Type III) and delayed type (Type IV) in the food allergy [13, 58, 14, 15, 23, 24, 2939]. The exact immunopathologic mechanisms underlying various clinical manifestations of food allergy are, however, not yet fully clarified [13, 79, 15].

Food allergy can occur in two basic forms: a primary form, where the foods act as the primary and sole cause of the activation of the immunologic mechanism(s), and a secondary form, where food participates in an already existing hypersensitivity mechanism(s) activated by different antigens, for example, inhalant antigens. The secondary form occurs more frequently [1, 69, 11, 18, 40, 41]. Although the provocation tests with foods are not always performed routinely, they may be considered to be the definite confirmation of involvement of particular foods in the patient’s complaints [113, 18, 20, 22, 25, 27, 28, 40, 4251].

Provocation tests with foods can be performed using three basic techniques, the open food ingestion challenge (OFICH), double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC), and the single-blind food ingestion challenge (SBFIC), all of them having a number of advantages and disadvantages [113, 1822, 2528, 40, 4258].

The DBPCFC is generally considered to be “a golden standard” [113, 16, 2528, 48, 49, 51, 58]. However, under some circumstances and for some reasons the OFICH may be more preferable to DBPCFC [1, 2, 611, 2022, 25, 40, 4346, 52, 53]. The purpose of this study was (a) to verify the possible involvement of milk allergy in some patients with bronchial asthma, (b) to compare the results attained by both the techniques, OFICH and DBPCFC, and to assess their suitability and diagnostic values for the confirmation of food allergy involvement in patients with bronchial asthma, by monitoring the objective parameters, such as lung function using spirometry.

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Patients

Fifty-four patients suffering from perennial bronchial asthma suspected of participation of milk allergy, examined at our Department of Allergology & Immunology, Institute of Medical Sciences “De Klokkenberg,” Breda, The Netherlands, and developing 39 positive late or 15 negative asthmatic responses to OFICH, volunteered to participate in this study.

These patients, 18–39 years of age, included 46 subjects suffering from already existing bronchial asthma due to various inhalant allergens in whom the milk has been suspected to participate possibly in their bronchial complaints and/or demonstrating positive skin tests with milk and 8 subjects in whom the milk has been suspected to be a sole cause of their bronchial complaints. They showed positive skin (prick and/or intradermal) tests with milk to various degrees, and in some of them also positive specific IgE antibodies for some foods have been recorded (Tables 1 and 2). They did not suffer from any airway infections and did not use oral corticosteroids or immunotherapy.

tab1
Table 1: Characteristics of the patients and control subjects.
tab2
Table 2: Survey of other diagnostic parameters.

The patients were examined by routine diagnostic procedure, acting also as an exclusion-inclusion check, consisting of (1) general part: disease history, physical examination, basic laboratory tests, X-ray of the chest and sinuses, lung function, blood gases determination, bacteriological examination of the sputum; (2) allergologic part: skin tests with inhalant and food allergens, bronchial histamine thresholds [59], blood leukocyte differential count, determination of the serum immunoglobulins; (3) 95 bronchial provocation tests (BPT) with inhalant allergens [6063]; (4) 54 OFICH with milk suspected from history and/or positive skin tests. The 54 food challenges with milk were then repeated by means of DBPCFC. A 5-day interval was always inserted between the consecutive tests to prevent the carryover effects and to allow the patient’s recovery.

All challenges were performed in a period without manifest symptoms and during a short hospitalization of the patients. The milk and all dairy products were avoided by the patients for 3-4 weeks before the challenges.

Inhaled glucocorticosteroids ( ), long-acting β2-sympathomimetics ( ), and oral cromolyn ( ) were withdrawn 4 weeks, inhaled cromolyn ( ), nedocromil sodium ( ), and leukotriene modifiers ( ) 2 weeks, and other treatments 48 hours before each of the challenges. The local ethical committee approved this study, and informed consent was obtained from all study participants.

2.2. Allergens

Dialyzed and lyophilized extracts of inhalant allergen as well as foods (Allergopharma, Reinbek, Germany) diluted in PBS were used for skin tests in concentrations 50–500 BU/mL, as indicated in the subsection “Skin tests.” The recommended concentrations by the manufacturer were 100–500 BU/mL for skin prick as well as for intracutaneous tests.

2.3. Skin Tests

The skin prick tests (SPTs) in concentrations of 500 BU/mL were performed [27, 28, 59, 64, 65], and evaluated after 20 minutes and 24 hours. If the SPTs were negative, then intracutaneous (intradermal) tests in concentrations of 100 BU/mL and 500 BU/Ml were carried out [1, 610, 1822, 28, 57, 6065] and evaluated 20 minutes, 6, 12, 24, 36, 48, 72, and 96 hours after the injection. If the SPT were positive (immediate/early skin response), then the intracutaneous tests were performed in concentrations of 50 BU/mL and 200 BU/mL and evaluated 20 minutes, 6, 12, 24, 36,48, 72 and 96 hours after the injection. Histamine diphosphate was used as a positive control, whereas PBS was used as a negative control. A skin wheal (>7.0 mm in diameter) appearing 20 minutes after the injection was considered to be positive immediate skin response, the skin infiltration observed between 6 and 12 hours was considered to be a late skin response, and the skin induration recorded later than 48 hours was designated a delayed skin response [610, 6065].

2.4. Spirometry

The asthmatic responses were monitored by using spirometry (Spirograph D-75; Lode NV, Groningen, The Netherlands), recording the FVC and FEV1, and evaluated by the following criteria: (1) the decrease in FEV1 of less than 10% with respect to the prechallenge values as negative, from 10% to 20% as doubtful, and of 20% or more as positive asthmatic response; (2) the decrease in FEV1 values recorded at least at 3 consecutive time intervals was considered to be a positive response; (3) the response appearing within 2 hours after the challenge was considered to be an immediate asthmatic response (IAR), that occurring between 4 and 24 hours to be a late/asthma response (LAR), and response appearing later than 24 hours after the challenge to be a delayed asthmatic response (DYAR) [9, 18, 22, 6063].

2.5. Food Used for the Ingestion Challenge

The quantities of milk used both for the OFICH and DBPCFC were similar to those consumed usually by the patients in order to obtain the highest degree of reproducibility. The amount of 100 mL of natural milk (3.5 g of protein and 3.5 g of fat per 100 mL) was used for the OFICH. The amount of 20 g of powdered whole milk (containing 3.0 g of protein and 2.9 g of fat) dissolved in 80 mL water was used for DBPCFC. The 5% glucose solution was used as control (placebo) for OFICH. For the DBPCFC, 20 g of tablet inactive ingredients, so-called “excipients” (including lactose, dibasic calcium, sucrose, maize corn, starch, and microcrystalline cellulose) dissolved in 80 mL water, was used as control (placebo). Both the solutions used for DBPCFC, the powdered milk as well as the inactive tablet mass (excipients) were enriched with 4 g of glucose to mask their taste. The control challenges were performed according to the same schedule as those with the experimental foods. The DBPCFC arrangement was in principle triple-blinded, and that both for the technician preparing the test material, and for the nurse performing the challenge, and lastly for the patient himself.

2.6. Schedule of the Food Challenge

The OFICH and DBPCFC challenges as well as the spirometry monitoring of were performed according to the European and international standard procedures [2, 4, 2527, 40, 42, 48, 49, 57, 58] modified by us [610, 1822], by the following schedule: (1) recording of the initial (baseline) values at 0, 5 and 10 minutes; (2) ingestion of the food within 10 minutes, followed by a 1-hour waiting interval to allow the food to be ingested. During this interval the parameters were measured four times to exclude an unexpected or too early reaction; (3) recording of the postchallenge values at 0, 5, 10, 20, 30, 45, 60, 90, and 120 minutes, and every hour up to the 12th hour and every second hour during the 22nd and 38th hour, the 46th and 58th hour intervals [610, 1822].

2.7. Control Group

Twelve patients suffering from perennial bronchial asthma, developing 12 late asthmatic responses (LAR) to BPT with Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus, however demonstrating negative history, skin test, and RAST for the foods, volunteered to participate as controls. In 6 patients the OFICH and in 6 patients the DBPCFC were performed with the most frequently consumed food, usually milk, cheese or peanuts, according to the same schedule as applied in the patients studied.

2.8. Statistical Analysis

Asthmatic responses were analyzed by generalized multivariate analysis of the variance (MANOVA) model [66]. The polynomials were fitted to the mean curves over time (8 time points within 120 minutes and 14 time points up to 24 hours after the challenge), and the appropriate hypotheses were tested by the modified MANOVA computerized system.

In every patient the postchallenge FEV1 values measured at each time interval were compared with the prechallenge values and evaluated by Wilcoxon matched-pair signed-rank test. The mean postchallenge FEV1 values were compared with corresponding post-challenge control values at each of the time points and analyzed by the Mann-Whitney test. The correlation between the OFICH and DBPCC was evaluated by Wilcoxon matched-pair signed rank test. A value < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

3. Results

In 54 patients suffering from bronchial asthma, 54 open ingestion challenges with milk (OFICH) have resulted in 39 positive asthmatic responses of late type (LAR; ) and 15 negative asthmatic responses (NAR; ) (Table 1, Figures 1 and 2). The LARs began 4–6 hours, reached their maximum 6–10 hours, and resolved within 24 hours after the milk ingestion challenge (OFICH). The LARs were associated with various general and bronchial complaints, predominantly dyspnea (100%), wheezing (79%), cough (28%), oral itching (23%) and gastrointestinal complaints (31%) (Table 2), whereas no general or bronchial complaints were recorded during the NARs. The LARs as well as the NARs correlated with disease history, skin tests and other diagnostic parameters to various degrees (Tables 1, 2, and 3). The 39 patients developing positive LAR for milk in OFICH demonstrated positive skin tests, and positive (suspect) history in 48%, positive skin tests but unknown history in 4%, and positive (suspect) history but negative skin tests in 20%. The 15 patients developing negative asthmatic response (NAR) for milk in OFICH displayed positive skin test and suspect history in 11%, positive skin test but unknown history in 6%, and suspect history but negative skin tests in 11% (Tables 3 and 4). Survey of detailed agreement between the positive and negative asthmatic responses to OFICH with milk and the other diagnostic parameters (disease history, skin tests) in both the groups of patients, those with bronchial asthma to inhalant allergens and suspicion of milk allergy as well as those with bronchial asthma suspected of milk allergy only, is presented in Table 5. All 54 control ingestion challenges with glucose solution were negative ( ) and without any accompanying bronchial or general complaints.

tab3
Table 3: Agreement between OFICH and other diagnostic parameters.
tab4
Table 4: Survey of detailed agreement between asthmatic response types to milk ingestion challenge (OFICH) recorded in patients of both the groups and other diagnostic parameters (disease history and skin tests) for milk.
tab5
Table 5: Survey of the asthmatic responses to inhalant allergens in patients developing positive and negative asthmatic response to OFICH with milk.
515267.fig.001
Figure 1: Late asthmatic responses due to the food ingestion challenge (LAR) in 39 patients with bronchial asthma. The mean percentage changes in the FEV1 calculated from all patients with positive LAR. LAR ( ) recorded after OFICH: experimental food (∆) and control food (x) and after DBPCFC: experimental food (▲) and placebo (+) I: initial (baseline) values; food ingestion: OFICH or DBPCFC; waiting interval: 1 hour; bars: means ± SEM.
515267.fig.002
Figure 2: Negative asthmatic responses due to the food ingestion challenge (NAR) in 15 patients with bronchial asthma. The mean percentage changes in the FEV1 calculated from all patients with NAR. NAR ( ) recorded after OFICH: experimental food (∆) and control food (x) and after DBPCFC: experimental food (▲) and placebo (+) I: initial (baseline) values; food ingestion: OFICH or DBPCFC; waiting interval: 1 hour; bars: means ± SEM.

The 54 patients challenged with milk by means of DBPCFC developed 40 positive LAR ( ) and 14 NAR ( ) (Table 6, Figures 1 and 2). The 38 of the 40 DBPCFC positive LARs correlated with the OFICH positive LARs (=97%; ), whereas 13 of the 14 DBPCFC negative responses (NARs) correlated with the OFICH negative responses (NARs) (=87%; ).

tab6
Table 6: Correlation between OFICH and DBPCFC.

The 3 noncorrelating cases showed 2 OFICH negative responses but DBPCFC positive LARs and 1 OFICH positive LAR but DBPCFC negative response. The overall correlation between the OFICH and DBPCFC responses was statistically significant ( ). All 54 DBPCFC control challenges with “tablet excipients” were negative ( ). No bronchial complaints were registered during the DBPCFC controls; however 1 patient developed diarrhea to a slight degree during this test (=2%).

3.1. Control Group

The 12 patients of the control group, in whom 6 OFICHs and 6 DBPCFCs with milk were performed, did not develop any asthmatic response. No general or bronchial complaints have been registered during these 12 NAR ( ).

4. Discussion

The role of foods and food allergy in bronchial asthma in producing bronchial complaints, especially bronchospasm, through the hypersensitivity mechanisms has already been investigated from various points of views [19, 1113, 15, 16, 18, 20, 22, 26, 42, 45, 53, 55, 56, 67]. The involvement of food allergy in bronchial asthma, classically attributed to the IgE-mediated hypersensitivity upon involvement of IgE antibodies, mast cells, basophils, eosinophils, and Th2 lymphocytes, has mostly been investigated [13, 5, 9, 1113, 15, 16, 24, 26, 29, 39, 44, 67]. Later, some evidence was also gathered for possible involvement of the non-IgE-mediated mechanism(s) upon participation of various cytokines, neutrophils, and Th1 lymphocytes in the food allergy events [59, 14, 15, 23, 24, 2939, 43, 53, 54, 68, 69]. The link between the BALT and GALT and the disturbed homing of T and B lymphocytes (plasma cells) may also play an important role in these processes [1, 14, 15, 24, 29, 33, 39, 68, 69].

Patients with bronchial asthma upon participation of food allergy, having been challenged with foods, may develop various types of asthmatic (bronchus-obstructive) response. The immediate/early (IAR), late (LAR), and delayed (DYAR) asthmatic responses to food ingestion challenge, described in our previous papers [9, 18, 20, 22] and some of these types reported also by other investigators [13, 1113, 16, 20, 4346, 53, 55, 56, 70], are in principle analogical to the three types of asthmatic response to the bronchial challenge with inhalant allergens [6063]. The IAR, LAR and DYAR due to the food ingestion challenge differ substantially not only with respect to the possibly underlying immunologic mechanisms, but also in their clinical features, time course and association with other diagnostic parameters [1, 2, 79, 12, 13, 15, 18, 20, 2224, 3033, 38, 39, 5356, 70].

The immediate/early asthmatic response (IAR/EAR) to foods, due to the immediate (IgE-mediated) hypersensitivity mechanism, has been investigated most frequently [15, 9, 1113, 16, 24, 26, 39, 40]. The late asthmatic response to foods (LAR) has also been reported in the literature [53, 55, 56, 70]. However, the immunologic mechanism(s) underlying the LAR, especially the possible involvement of IgE-mediated or non-IgE-mediated hypersensitivity, is not yet sufficiently clarified [2, 9, 15, 23, 24, 29, 39]. In our previous studies we also have observed and described the DYAR response to food ingestion challenge, analogical to the DYAR to bronchial challenge with inhalant allergens [63, 71], in which the involvement of cell-mediated hypersensitivity mechanism (Type IV allergy) could be presumed [9, 15, 18, 20, 22, 63]. This presumption may be supported by other investigators’ findings of possible role of various cell types, such as Th1-cells, neutrophils, macrophages, dendritic cells, and a number of cytokines, chemokines, and other factors, in the clinical manifestations of food allergy, especially in its role in bronchial asthma [2, 14, 15, 24, 2931, 3338, 53, 54, 56]. However, there is still a dearth of information concerning the clinical features of the various types of bronchial response resulting from the ingestion (challenge) as well as their association and correlation with other in vivo and in vitro diagnostic parameters in large groups of well-defined patients [1, 2, 69, 1113, 40, 41, 43, 45, 47, 49, 67].

Diagnostic confirmation of the involvement of food allergy in the clinical manifestations, especially in the bronchial asthma, is not always an easy assignment. The diagnostic parameters being customarily used in the practice, such as disease history, skin tests, determination of the total and specific IgE antibodies in the serum (PRIST, RAST, ImmunoCAP), demonstrate various degrees of correlation with the clinical manifestations due possibly to food allergy, such as bronchial asthma. None of these parameters demonstrated sufficient and statistically significant diagnostic value to predict and/or to conform arbitrarily the role of foods and food allergy in bronchial asthma in a given patient [113, 18, 27, 28, 4143, 45, 58, 67, 72].

The role of foods in the bronchial asthma can definitely be confirmed only by the ingestion challenge with the suspected food(s), during which the particular asthmatic response types can be recorded quantitatively in its dynamic course [1, 2, 79, 12, 18, 22, 25, 27, 28, 4244, 46, 4850, 53]. The food challenge is therefore a more reliable test for the detection of a bronchial reaction to foods and its clinical consequences than data obtained from single skin tests and/or RAST/ImmunoCAP tests [1, 2, 9, 12, 18, 22, 26, 39, 42, 4448, 50, 57, 58, 72].

The importance and significance of the food challenge for the diagnostic confirmation of the food allergy has repeatedly been demonstrated in the literature [113, 1622, 2528, 30, 39, 40, 4246, 4850, 5255, 57, 58, 70, 72]. Unfortunately, papers dealing with the role of food allergy and food ingestion challenge in patients with bronchial asthma are not numerous [2, 9, 1113, 16, 1822, 26, 27, 42, 50, 52, 57, 58].

Nevertheless, the food ingestion challenge has also some limitations and contraindications and requires therefore some special conditions, and precautions [1, 2, 6, 9, 11, 13, 22, 24, 28, 40, 4245, 4750, 52, 57, 58]. The absolute contraindication is the suspected anaphylactic shock to the particular food(s), pregnancy, and any life-threatening disorder or situation, whereas the relative contraindication may be considered any state or disorder leading to any undesirable complication(s) or which can distinctly influence the food ingestion challenge results, such as treatment with certain drugs [1, 2, 6, 9, 22, 27, 28, 40, 42, 45, 48, 49, 52, 57, 58]. Food challenges, where the vital organ functions should be recorded, for example, lung function, severe diarrhea, or where a late onset of the response is expected, should be performed during hospitalization under standard conditions, and for a sufficiently long period of time, 56 hours at least [1, 6, 9, 22, 25, 27, 40, 48, 52, 53]. The foods, their parts and the related foods used for the ingestion challenge should be excluded from the diet for a sufficiently long period of time before the challenge, at least 7–14 days [1, 2, 6, 9, 1822, 25, 27, 28, 40, 42, 45, 46, 48, 49, 52, 58].

The food ingestion challenge can be performed by an open challenge (OFICH) with natural foods, by double-blind placebo-controlled challenge (DBPCFC), or rarely by single-blind challenge (SBFIC), each of them having its advantages and disadvantages [113, 16, 1822, 2428, 39, 40, 4252, 57, 58, 67, 70].

The OFICH with natural foods and suitable placebo is relatively simple easy to perform, the results are directly available, and no special processing of the foods used for the challenge is required. In addition, it is eligible in cases where the objective parameters can be recorded. This technique is not suitable for challenges where the results can be influenced by the patient or by the investigator or where the response can only be measured by means of subjective parameters, such as headache, (skin) itching, tiredness, and behavior changes [13, 611, 16, 22, 27, 42, 45, 48, 49, 52, 73].

The DBPCFC, considered by many investigators to be a “golden standard,” has a number of advantages as well as disadvantages [19, 25, 27, 42, 43, 48, 49, 51, 52, 57]. Its important advantage is exclusion of the influencing of results both by the patient and investigator, its usability in cases where the objective parameters cannot be recorded and the response can only be evaluated by means of subjective parameters, such as pain, headache, itching, gastrointestinal complaints, general malaise, behavior changes, and finally when the effects of drugs should be investigated [19, 25, 27, 28, 40, 42, 43, 46, 48, 49, 51, 52, 58].

Nevertheless, this technique has also some disadvantages, such as (a) processing of the food in a manner excluding its identification, which means the food must be colorless, tasteless, odorless. Such a preparation of foods can lead to essential changes of their structure and physical and/or chemical properties and sometimes it is not even possible; (b) providing a suitable placebo that matches the offending food in quantity and other properties is sometimes a technical problem; (c) the content of the capsules to be swallowed is maximally 500 mg; If the foods tested were administered in an amount equal to that used in a daily practice then the capsule number would increase enormously, otherwise the food will be taken in an amount less than the natural consumption; (d) the food administered in capsules excludes the oral cavity, tongue and oesophagus, organs which are often the site of the first reaction to foods; (e) by administering of food in capsules, the digestive process already beginning in the mouth is shifted to the gastric and duodenal mucosa and therefore prolonged; (f) the hidden placebo can sometimes induce a false-positive response [19, 25, 27, 42, 43, 48, 49, 51, 52, 57, 58].

The results of this study confirmed the existence of late type of asthmatic response (LAR) due to the food ingestion, which has already been described in our previous studies [79, 18, 20, 22] and reported by other authors [53, 55, 56, 70]. Although a possible role of an “IgE-mediated” hypersensitivity in the LAR caused by food allergy has already been suggested, the precise mechanism underlying this asthmatic response type is not yet sufficiently clarified [13, 5, 9, 13, 17, 18, 24, 27, 29, 3439, 49, 5355, 70]. These results have emphasized the importance of the food ingestion challenge for the diagnosis of food allergy in patients with bronchial asthma. The definite confirmation of this role should be provided by a food ingestion challenge combined with monitoring of lung function, for example, spirometry, demonstrating the particular types of asthmatic response in their dynamic course.

Regarding the results of this study, together with our previous papers [610, 1822] and other investigators’ findings [2, 25, 28, 4247, 49, 51, 53, 54, 57, 58] the diagnostic value of the food ingestion challenge seems to be superior to other diagnostic parameters. The significant correlation of the OFICH and DBPCFC results, both for the positive and for the negative asthmatic responses would suggest that in bronchial asthma, where the asthmatic responses can be measured by means of objective lung function, the DBPCFC is not superior to the OFICH [610, 2022, 4446, 52].

It can therefore be concluded that the OFICH combined with monitoring of objective diagnostic parameters, such as lung functions, can be considered to be definite confirmation of the suspected role of food allergy and involvement of certain food(s), such as cow’s milk, in bronchial complaints of patients suffering from bronchial asthma. These patients may include both those suffering from bronchial asthma due to the inhalant allergens, in whom the food allergy is suspected as an additional cause of their bronchial complaints, and those in whom the food allergy, for example, for cow’s milk, is suspected as an only cause of the bronchial asthma symptoms. The OFICH is a suitable and reliable technique in all cases of food allergy where the response can be measured by using the objective parameters and recorded for a sufficiently long period of time, such as 24–48 hours. In such cases this technique would be preferable, because it is easier, cheaper, quicker, and less burdening for the patient who will not need to swallow a large number of capsules.

The DBPCFC should be reserved for such cases, in which objective parameters cannot be measured; the response to food can only be expressed by subjective complaints, for example, itching, headache, tiredness, distinct discrepancy among the other diagnostic parameters that occur, or in cases in which the OFICH results are dubious or not reliable. Vice versa, in the cases in which the DBPCFC results seem to be unreliable, the OFICH can be performed as an extra check.

Conflict of Interests

The author has no conflict of interests to be disclosed.

References

  1. H. A. Sampson and A. W. Burks, “Adverse reactions to foods,” in Middleton's Allergy: Principles & Practice, N. F. Adkinson, B. S. Bochner, W. W. Busse, S. T. Holgate, R. F. Lemanske, and F. E. Simons, Eds., pp. 1139–1167, Mosby-Elsevier, Philadelphia, Pa, USA, 7th edition, 2009.
  2. J. G. Ayres and J. C. Baker, “Food-induced asthma,” in Food Allergy and Intolerance, J. Brostoff and S. J. Challacombe, Eds., pp. 529–540, Saunders/Elsevier, Toronto, Canada, 2nd edition, 2002.
  3. S. H. Sicherer and H. A. Sampson, “Food allergy,” Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, vol. 125, no. 2, pp. S116–S125, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  4. S. A. Bock, “Diagnostic evaluation,” Pediatrics, vol. 111, no. 6, pp. 1638–1644, 2003. View at Scopus
  5. H. A. Sampson, “Update on food allergy,” Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, vol. 113, no. 5, pp. 805–819, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  6. Z. Pelikan, “Rhinitis, secretory otitis media and sinus disease caused by food allergy,” in Food Allergy and Intolerance, J. Brostoff and S. J. Challacombe, Eds., pp. 499–528, Saunders/Elsevier, Toronto, Canada, 2nd edition, 2002.
  7. Z. Pelikan and M. Pelikan-Filipek, “Food allergy. I. Definition, other adverse reactions to foods, the mucosal gastro-intestinal barrier,” Dutch Journal of Medicine, vol. 135, pp. 49–55, 1991.
  8. Z. Pelikan and M. Pelikan-Filipek, “Food allergy. II. Non-optimal function of the mucosal gastro–intestinal barrier; types of allergic reaction; symptoms, diagnostic procedure and treatment,” Dutch Journal of Medicine, vol. 135, pp. 55–60, 1991.
  9. Z. Pelikan and M. Pelikan-Filipek, “Bronchial response to the food ingestion challenge,” Annals of Allergy, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 164–172, 1987. View at Scopus
  10. Z. Pelikan, “Nasal response to food ingestion challenge,” Archives of Otolaryngology, vol. 114, no. 5, pp. 525–530, 1988. View at Scopus
  11. J. M. James, J. Bernhisel-Broadbent, and H. A. Sampson, “Respiratory reactions provoked by double-blind food challenges in children,” American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, vol. 149, no. 1, pp. 59–64, 1994. View at Scopus
  12. E. Novembre, M. De Martino, and A. Vierucci, “Foods and respiratory allergy,” Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, vol. 81, no. 5, pp. 1059–1065, 1988. View at Scopus
  13. J. M. James, “Respiratory manifestations of food allergy,” Pediatrics, vol. 111, no. 6, pp. 1625–1630, 2003. View at Scopus
  14. W. E. Fickling and D. A. F. Robertson, “Immunologically mediated damage of the gut,” in Food Allergy and Intolerance, J. Brostoff and S. J. Challacombe, Eds., pp. 293–301, Saunders/Elsevier, Toronto, Canada, 2nd edition, 2002.
  15. L. J. Rosenwasser, “Immunopathophysiology of asthma: mechanisms and relation to food allergy,” Pediatric Allergy and Immunology, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 158–162, 1992. View at Scopus
  16. S. A. Bock, “Respiratory reactions induced by food challenges in children with pulmonary disease,” Pediatric Allergy and Immunology, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 188–194, 1992. View at Scopus
  17. D. Wray, “Oral manifestations of food allergy and intolerance,” in Food Allergy and Intolerance, J. Brostoff and S. J. Challacombe, Eds., pp. 561–570, Saunders/Elsevier, Toronto, Canada, 2nd edition, 2002.
  18. W. M. A. J. Miesen, M. Pelikan-Filipek, J. A. H. Oers, D. M. V. Pelikan, Y. A. Trimbach, and Z. Pelikan, “Basic types of the asthmatic response to the food ingestion challenge,” Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, vol. 99, no. 1, p. S150, 1997.
  19. Z. Pelikan, The late nasal response, its clinical and immunologic features, possible mechanisms and pharmacologic modulation, Ph.D. thesis, Free University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1996.
  20. M. Pelikan-Filipek and Z. Pelikan, “A comparison of double-blind and open techniques of food ingestion challenge upon recording of objective and subjective parameters,” Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, vol. 93, no. 1, p. 303, 1994.
  21. Z. Pelikan, M. Pelikan-Filipek, and H. J. Van Stigt, “Nasal response (NR) to the food ingestion challenge: a comparison of the double-blind (DBPCC), single-blind (SBPCC) and open (OPCC) techniques,” Allergy, vol. 56, supplement 68, p. 21, 2001.
  22. Z. Pelikan, “Asthmatic response (AR) to the food ingestion challenge: a comparison of the double-blind placebo-controlled (DBPCC) and open placebo controlled (OPCC) challenges,” Allergy, vol. 57, supplement 73, p. 86, 2002.
  23. R. Paganelli, R. J. Levinsky, and D. J. Atherton, “Detection of specific antigen within circulating immune complexes: validation of the assay and its application to food antigen-antibody complexes formed in healthy and food-allergic subjects,” Clinical and Experimental Immunology, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 44–53, 1981. View at Scopus
  24. A. Sabra, J. A. Bellanti, J. M. Rais, H. J. Castro, J. M. de Inocencio, and S. Sabra, “IgE and non-IgE food allergy,” Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, vol. 90, supplement 3, pp. 71–76, 2003. View at Scopus
  25. R. Asero, M. Fernandez-Rivas, A. C. Knulst, and C. A. F. M. Bruijnzeel-Koomen, “Double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge in adults in everyday clinical practice: a reappraisal of their limitations and real indications,” Current Opinion in Allergy and Clinical Immunology, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 379–385, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  26. J. M. James, P. A. Eigenmann, P. A. Ecgleston, and H. A. Sampson, “Airway reactivity changes in asthmatic patients undergoing blinded food challenges,” American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, vol. 153, no. 2, pp. 597–603, 1996. View at Scopus
  27. C. Bindslev-Jensen, B. K. Ballmer-Welser, U. Bengtsson et al., “Standardization of food challenges in patients with immediate reactions to foods—position paper from the European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology,” Allergy, vol. 59, no. 7, pp. 690–697, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  28. S. A. Bock, “In vivo diagnosis: skin testing and oral challenge procedures,” in Food Allergy: Adverse Reactions to Foods and Food Additives, D. D. Metcalfe, H. A. Sampson, and R. A. Simon, Eds., pp. 151–166, Blackwell, Oxford, UK, 2nd edition, 1997.
  29. J. A. Bellanti, B. J. Zeligs, J. Malka-Rais, and A. Sabra, “Abnormalities of Th1 function in non-IgE food allergy, celiac disease, and ileal lymphonodular hyperplasia: a new relationship?” Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, vol. 90, supplement 3, pp. 84–89, 2003. View at Scopus
  30. M. A. Pérez-Machado, P. Ashwood, F. Torrente et al., “Spontaneous TH1 cytokine production by intraepithelial but not circulating T cells in infants with or without food allergies,” Allergy, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 346–353, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  31. L. Paajanen, O. Vaarala, R. Karttunen, T. Tuure, R. Korpela, and J. Kokkonen, “Increased IFN-γ secretion from duodenal biopsy samples in delayed-type cow's milk allergy,” Pediatric Allergy and Immunology, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 439–444, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  32. T. H. Scott-Taylor, J. O. Hourihane, and S. Strobel, “Correlation of allergen-specific IgG subclass antibodies and T lymphocyte cytokine responses in children with multiple food allergies,” Pediatric Allergy and Immunology, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 935–944, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  33. G. Veres, M. Westerholm-Ormio, J. Kokkonen, A. Arato, and E. Savilahti, “Cytokines and adhesion molecules in duodenal mucosa of children with delayed-type food allergy,” Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 27–34, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  34. K. A. Papadakis, C. Landers, J. Prehn et al., “CC chemokine receptor 9 expression defines a subset of peripheral blood lymphocytes with mucosal T cell phenotype and Th1 or T-regulatory 1 cytokine profile,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 171, no. 1, pp. 159–165, 2003. View at Scopus
  35. M. A. Perez-Machado, P. Ashwood, M. A. Thomson, et al., “Reduced transforming growth factor-beta1-producing cells in the duodenal mucosa of children with food allergy,” European Journal of Immunology, vol. 33, pp. 2307–2315, 2003.
  36. A. C. Hauer, E. J. Breese, J. A. Walker-Smith, and T. T. MacDonald, “The frequency of cells secreting interferon-γ and interleukin-4, -5, and -10 in the blood and duodenal mucosa of children with cow's milk hypersensitivity,” Pediatric Research, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 629–638, 1997. View at Scopus
  37. S. L. Chuang, P. J. Hayes, E. Ogundipe, M. Haddad, T. T. MacDonald, and J. M. Fell, “Cow's milk protein-specific T-helper type I/II cytokine responses in infants with necrotizing enterocolitis,” Pediatric Allergy and Immunology, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 45–52, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  38. P. Österlund and H. Suomalainen, “Low frequency of CD4+, but not CD8+, T cells expressing interferon-γ is related to cow's milk allergy in infancy,” Pediatric Allergy and Immunology, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 262–268, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  39. M. C. Berin and H. A. Sampson, “Food allergy: immunophysiology,” in Mucosal Immunology, J. Mestecky, J. Binnenstock, M. Lamm, W. Strober, J. R. McGhee, and L. Mayer, Eds., pp. 1335–1350, Elsevier-Academic Press, London, UK, 3rd edition, 2005.
  40. S. H. Sicherer, “Food allergy: when and how to perform oral food challenges,” Pediatric Allergy and Immunology, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 226–234, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  41. E. Calamelli, G. Ricci, V. Dell’Omo, B. Bendandi, and M. Masi, “Food allergy in children with asthma: prevalence and correlation with clinical severity of respiratory disease,” The Open Allergy Journal, vol. 1, pp. 5–11, 2008.
  42. R. A. Wood, “Oral food challenge testing,” in Middleton's Allergy: Principles & Practice, N. F. Adkinson, B. S. Bochner, W. W. Busse, S. T. Holgate, R. F. Lemanske, and F. E. Simons, Eds., pp. 1309–1317, Mosby-Elsevier, Philadelphia, Pa, USA, 7th edition, 2009.
  43. S. L. Bahna, “Diagnosis of food allergy,” Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, vol. 90, supplement 3, pp. 77–80, 2003.
  44. H. Baker, D. Luyt, and M. Stern, “Open challenge to nuts in children,” Allergy, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 79–80, 1999. View at Scopus
  45. V. S. Mankad, L. W. Williams, L. A. Lee, G. S. LaBelle, K. J. Anstrom, and A. W. Burks, “Safety of open food challenges in the office setting,” Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, vol. 100, no. 5, pp. 469–474, 2008. View at Scopus
  46. C. Venter, B. Pereira, K. Voigt et al., “Comparison of open and double-blind placebo-controlled food challenges in diagnosis of food hypersensitivity amongst children,” Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 565–579, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  47. L. B. Bacharier, “Are the results of oral food challenges predictable?” Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, vol. 92, no. 2, pp. 195–197, 2004. View at Scopus
  48. S. A. Bock, H. A. Sampson, F. M. Atkins et al., “Double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) as an office procedure: a manual,” Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, vol. 82, no. 6, pp. 986–997, 1988. View at Scopus
  49. A. Nowak-Wegrzyn, A. H. Assa'ad, S. L. Bahna, S. A. Bock, S. H. Sicherer, and S. S. Teuber, “Work group report: oral food challenge testing,” Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, vol. 123, no. 6, pp. S365–S383, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  50. V. M. Tainio and E. Savilahti, “Value of immunologic tests in cow milk allergy,” Allergy, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 189–196, 1990. View at Scopus
  51. B. J. Vlieg-Boerstra, S. Van Der Heide, C. M. A. Bijleveld, J. Kukler, E. J. Duiverman, and A. E. J. Dubois, “Placebo reactions in double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges in children,” Allergy, vol. 62, no. 8, pp. 905–912, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  52. B. Niggemann and K. Beyer, “Pitfalls in double-blind, placebo-controlled oral food challenges,” Allergy, vol. 62, no. 7, pp. 729–732, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  53. N. Papageorgiou, T. H. Lee, T. Nagakura, O. Cromwell, D. G. Wraith, and A. B. Kay, “Neutrophil chemotactic activity in milk-induced asthma,” Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, vol. 72, no. 1, pp. 75–82, 1983.
  54. T. Noma, I. Yoshizawa, K. Aoki et al., “Correlation between antigen-specific IL-2 response test and provocation test for egg allergy in atopic dermatitis,” Clinical and Experimental Allergy, vol. 28, no. 9, pp. 1120–1130, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  55. R. Dahl, “Disodium cromoglycate and food allergy. The effect of oral and inhaled disodium cromoglycate in a food allergic patient,” Allergy, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 120–124, 1978.
  56. D. J. Hill, G. Ball, C. S. Hosking, and P. R. Wood, “Gamma-interferon production in cow milk allergy,” Allergy, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 75–80, 1993. View at Scopus
  57. L. W. Williams, “Skin testing and food challenges for the evaluation of food allergy,” Current Allergy Reports, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 61–66, 2001. View at Scopus
  58. S. H. Sicherer, E. H. Morrow, and H. A. Sampson, “Dose-response in double-blind, placebo-controlled oral food challenges in children with atopic dermatitis,” Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, vol. 105, no. 3, pp. 582–586, 2000. View at Scopus
  59. G. Melillo, S. Bonini, G. Cocco et al., “EAACI provocation tests with allergens,” Allergy, vol. 52, supplement 35, pp. 5–36, 1997. View at Scopus
  60. Z. Pelikan, M. Pelikan, M. Kruis, and M. P. F. Berger, “The immediate asthmatic response to allergen challenge,” Annals of Allergy, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 252–260, 1986. View at Scopus
  61. Z. Pelikan and M. Pelikan-Filipek, “The late asthmatic response to allergen challenge—part I,” Annals of Allergy, vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 414–420, 1986. View at Scopus
  62. Z. Pelikan and M. Pelikan-Filipek, “The late asthmatic response to allergen challenge—part II,” Annals of Allergy, vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 421–435, 1986. View at Scopus
  63. Z. Pelikan, “Delayed-type asthmatic response to bronchial challenge with allergen, I: clinical features,” Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, vol. 104, no. 5, pp. 394–404, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  64. S. Dreborg and A. Frew, “Position paper: allergen standardization and skin tests,” Allergy, vol. 48, supplement S14, pp. 49–54, 1993. View at Scopus
  65. J. Bousquet and F.-B. Michel, “In vivo methods for study of allergy; skin tests, techniques, and interpretation,” in Allergy, Principles & Practice, E. Middleton Jr., C. E. Reed, E. F. Ellis, N. F. Adkinson, J. W. Yunginger, and W. W. Busse, Eds., pp. 573–594, Mosby-Year Book, Toronto, Canada, 4th edition, 1993.
  66. D. J. Houd and C. C. Taylor, Multivariate Analysis of Variance and Repeated Measures, Chapman and Hall, London, UK, 1987.
  67. G. Roberts and G. Lack, “Food allergy and asthma—what is the link?” Paediatric Respiratory Reviews, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 205–212, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  68. K. R. Youngman, N. H. Lazarus, and E. C. Butcher, “Lymphocyte homing: chemokines and adhesion molecules in T cell and IgA plasma cell localization in the mucosal immune system,” in Mucosal Immunology, J. Mestecky, J. Binnenstock, M. Lamm, W. Strober, J. R. McGhee, and L. Mayer, Eds., pp. 667–680, Elsevier-Academic Press, London, UK, 3rd edition, 2005.
  69. J. Bienenstock and R. L. Clancy, “Bronchus-associated lymphoid tissue,” in Mucosal Immunology, J. Mestecky, J. Binnenstock, M. Lamm, W. Strober, J. R. McGhee, and L. Mayer, Eds., pp. 375–384, Elsevier-Academic Press, London, UK, 3rd edition, 2005.
  70. R. P. K. Ford, D. J. Hill, and C. S. Hosking, “Cows' milk hypersensitivity: immediate and delayed onset clinical patterns,” Archives of Disease in Childhood, vol. 58, no. 11, pp. 856–862, 1983. View at Scopus
  71. Z. Pelikan, “Dealyed asthmatic response: a new phenotype of bronchial response to allergen challenge and soluble adhesion molecules in the serum,” Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, vol. 106, pp. 119–130, 2011.
  72. M. Osterballe and C. Bindslev-Jensen, “Threshold levels in food challenge and specific Ige in patients with egg allergy: is there a relationship?” Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, vol. 112, no. 1, pp. 196–201, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  73. Z. Pelikan and M. Pelikan-Filipek, “Effects of oral cromolyn on the nasal response due to foods,” Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surgery, vol. 115, no. 10, pp. 1238–1243, 1989.