Guidance
Recommendations for research
- 1 Prevalence and natural history of non-IgE-mediated food allergy
- 2 Clinical predictors of non-IgE-mediated food allergy
- 3 Information needs for children and young people during their care pathway to diagnosis of food allergy
- 4 Values of skin prick testing and specific IgE antibody testing and their predictive value
- 5 Modes of provision of support to healthcare professionals
Recommendations for research
We have made the following recommendations for research, based on our review of evidence, to improve NICE guidance and patient care in the future.
The focus of this guideline was the diagnosis and assessment of food allergy in children and young people in primary care and community settings. Therefore, the management of food allergy after a confirmed diagnosis was not reviewed. The recommendations for research below focus on assessment and diagnosis.
1 Prevalence and natural history of non-IgE-mediated food allergy
How common are non-IgE-mediated food allergies in children and young people in primary care and community settings and when food allergies may be outgrown?
Why this is important
Food allergy has many presentations. IgE-mediated food allergy manifests itself with a relatively homogenous group of presentations. Along with objective tests, measures of prevalence in the relevant settings and later development of tolerance have yielded useful information on the burden of IgE-mediated food allergy. However, non-IgE-mediated food allergy has a more heterogeneous group of presentations and the lack of validated diagnostic tests make it very difficult to assess prevalence without using formal diagnostic food challenges. Until high-quality prevalence studies in primary care and community settings are carried out, the burden of this food allergy will remain unknown. Studies should also evaluate prevalence rates and the resolution of allergies in subgroups, such as by allergies to particular food groups, or by method of infant feeding (exclusive formula, exclusive breastfeeding or mixed).
2 Clinical predictors of non-IgE-mediated food allergy
Which features in the clinical history best predict the presence of non-IgE-mediated food allergy in children and young people in primary care and community settings?
Why this is important
Non-IgE-mediated food allergy often presents with non-specific problems that are common in children and are often non-allergy related, such as colic, reflux, diarrhoea, eczema and faltering growth. Failure to recognise food allergy causes unnecessary morbidity, whereas appropriate food elimination can result in rapid improvement in symptoms. In the absence of a simple diagnostic test, it remains for the history to provide the best diagnostic clues as to which child may benefit from a trial of an elimination diet. A validated, primary care-focused questionnaire, developed by comparison with proven double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge outcomes, would significantly improve the process of diagnosis.
3 Information needs for children and young people during their care pathway to diagnosis of food allergy
What do children and young people with IgE-mediated food allergy and their parents or carers want to know during the process of diagnosis and how is this demand best met?
4 Values of skin prick testing and specific IgE antibody testing and their predictive value
Can skin prick testing and specific IgE antibody testing cut-off points be established to diagnose IgE-mediated food allergy in children and young people, and to predict the severity of reaction?
Why this is important
It is well described that about 1 in 5 people reporting an adverse reaction to food have a true food allergy. Of these, the majority will have non-IgE-mediated allergies. Food challenges are cumbersome and time-consuming and there are some safety risks involved. The availability of skin prick testing and specific IgE testing cut-off points to diagnose food allergy and to predict the severity of reaction would therefore lead to huge cost savings in the NHS and would reduce patient risk. There are published data available from the US, Australia and Europe, but allergists argue that these cut-off points are population-specific and should not be used in the UK.
5 Modes of provision of support to healthcare professionals
What would be the impact of dietetic telephone support to healthcare professionals to aid in the diagnosis and assessment of babies showing non-IgE-mediated food allergy symptoms in primary care and community settings?
Why this is important
There is currently no evidence to assess the impact of early diagnosis of non-IgE-mediated food allergy on the quality of life for babies and their families. The standard method of written referral is not timely (within the first month of presentation), yet there is no evidence whether providing indirect dietary advice via a healthcare professional is acceptable to the family. This system, however, could result in reduced attendances at GP surgeries and health clinics, reduced need for unnecessary medications and treatment, improved health for the whole family and improved skills for the healthcare professionals being supported in the diagnosis. However, it would need increased dietetic support and skills. A community-based randomised controlled trial is needed to compare the standard written dietetic referral method with indirect advice via a healthcare professional following consultation with a dietitian, for families with babies aged under 1 year who present with symptoms of non-IgE-mediated food allergy. Primary outcomes should be an assessment of the quality of life and acceptability of this service to the family. Secondary outcome measures could be related to attendance at GP surgeries, and medications and other interventions implemented.