http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/AAAAI/37564 (http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/AAAAI/37564)
Hmmmm... not sure what to say to this one.
Nothing earth-shattering there, IMO.
Basically, what this suggests to me is that some kids outgrow naturally, and that the ones who are going to anyway can be hurried along in the process. Oh, and that the ones who are likely to have lower IgE levels and less severe responses in their histories relative to those kids whose allergies seem likely to persist.
Honestly, I can't see the conclusion being warranted much without a placebo group.
It's also becoming clearer that one can FORCE a bit of tolerance, but not achieve full desensitization in someone who isn't destined to outgrow. (See other study, just posted and also presented at AAAAI)
That'd scare me greatly since a toddler's ability to communicate what's happening with the body is obviously limited.
CM, I do not think you can make a generalization. The paper that was presented about OIT not being forever was for milk only.
Ahhhh-- but see, I have insider info on this-- it isn't, according to our allergist (and remember, he's talking to all of the study authors several times a year and knows them well).
It seems as though there is a group for whom desensitization truly works, and then a (larger?) group for whom it works-- but only as long as you keep dosing, and only to improve threshold (which, honestly-- okay, that's fine if that's what it is-- I'd take it, YK?), and then there is a much smaller group for whom not only does it not really help, it MIGHT actually make things worse, either short or long term.
. Nevermind -- saw separate thread!
CM i would worry if I sit within that larger group, surely their tolerence would be affected by other influences, such as health, missing a dose, girls time of month etc.
we are deffo in the never grow out club. but thats ok, who needs a magic wand anyway?! (sob!)
Quote from: CMdeux on February 27, 2013, 12:06:49 AM
It seems as though there is a group for whom desensitization truly works, and then a (larger?) group for whom it works-- but only as long as you keep dosing, and only to improve threshold
That's what I've been getting out of all this as well.
So...if that's the case...then I understand the proposed strategy to have children go through desensitization as young as possible. Younger kids generally (generally!) have less severe reactions. They have more malleable immune systems. And, the kids who are going to outgrow can avoid years of waiting by pushing their way through.
The kids who *won't* outgrow will just go through frustrating therapy that goes nowhere. (Unless it actually makes them
more sensitive, of course. And then they're really screwed. And that's what no one knows.)
This is why we chose FAHF-2. We got the same (or even better) tolerance without any of the side effects. It just seems so much easier and safer than all this pushing the tolerance balloon. If it reduces the severity of reactions, it would be a better all-around therapy for the kids who won't outgrow.
Oh, I don't interpret this to equate the kids who won't outgrow with the kids who won't desensitize.
I think that group crosses the other three. I so love Venn Diagrams, and it frustrates me to no end that I can't just draw on my screen and have it come out in html. :)
Me, too!!! :thumbsup: