http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/779896This is what our allergist has been hearing from insiders running trials for about seven years now.
Unfortunately.
The other thing (and he disagrees with both Wood and Wasserman here) is that there are some distressing anecdotes within treatment groups/study cohorts where the subjects SEEMED to be doing fine, seemed to be COMPLIANT with treatment protocols... and
still experienced anaphylaxis as a result of an exposure that SHOULD have been fine-- and was, in most cases, authorized/mandated by the protocol. There isn't any way to identify who those subjects are until it happens, but it seems to be a worryingly high number--
maybe as many as 10%, but certainly more than 1%-- of patients undergoing OIT.
With all due respect to Dr. Wood, here... his assessment that 38% of patients who experience "frequent and predictable" symptoms to milk consumption does NOT sound to me like people who are 'reluctant to consume the allergen' and are 'self-selecting avoidance.' That sounds (to me) like it's what he prefers to believe, given that the alternative is both confusing and deeply sobering.
This study is precisely why our allergist has had us
stablize DD's baked egg dose-- and GO NO HIGHER. Initially, we all thought that we'd have her progressing to higher doses, and had fantasies about a life with quiche and omelettes. Well, we're
still waiting on "normal" tolerance with milk, so I seriously do NOT think that this is happening.
How many people
here have had a child seemingly able to pass a challenge-- or tolerate low-level contamination for
months, only to redevelop systemic symptoms over time and with additional exposure? A lot.
It's very troubling. I'm reassured that allergists are at least being TOLD some of this story, though. For too long, they've labeled families "neurotic" when we refuse to continue feeding an allergen after a theoretically passed food challenge.