Introduction of Peanuts in Younger Siblings of Children With Peanut Allergy: A Prospective, Double-blinded Assessment of Risk, of Diagnostic Tests, and an Analysis of Patient Preferences
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The purpose of the Finding the Risk of Anaphylaxis and Testing Rational In youngEr Siblings (FRATRIES) study was to determine the risk of anaphylaxis, the predictive values of peanut allergy tests, and parents’ preferences in the context of peanut introduction in the younger siblings of peanut-allergic children.The study cohort included 154 peanut-naïve children (median age of 23 months) who each had an older sibling with a diagnosis of peanut allergy. Participants were recruited in Canada through advertising in allergy clinics and through local food allergy web-based communities. Reference cohorts included parents of (1) peanut-naïve children from nonallergy pediatric clinics and (2) peanut-allergic children.This was a prospective cohort study. Peanut-naïve younger siblings underwent double-blind skin prick testing (SPT) followed by parent-led peanut introduction. At least 2 g of peanut protein was ingested to consider the introduction complete. Subjects were observed in a clinic for 2 hours. A phone call 24 hours later inquired about delayed reactions. Parents were then advised to introduce peanut in the younger child’s diet at least once a week. A phone follow-up occurred 1 year later. Questionnaires were dispensed prior to and up to a year after peanut introduction to investigate parental preferences with regard to peanut introduction in this subgroup.Eight participants (5.2%) had an unequivocal IgE-mediated reaction upon peanut introduction, including 5 with anaphylaxis. Peanut-allergic participants were significantly older than the rest of the cohort (median age of 4.0 vs 1.9 years, P = .04). The negative predictive values of SPT with peanut extract, peanut butter, and peanut-specific IgE were 99%, 100%, and 100%, respectively. The absolute positive predictive values of peanut extract SPT, peanut butter SPT, and specific IgE were 88%, 72%, and 62%, respectively. Peanut introduction at home without supervision was associated with high levels of parental anxiety in parents with a previously peanut-allergic child (median of 8.4 on a 10-point Likert scale), compared with introduction under supervision without testing (median of 3.8, P < .001) and home introduction after negative testing (median of 4.3, P < .001). If a provider recommended home peanut introduction without prior testing, 82% of parents would keep avoiding the food.Siblings of children with peanut allergy have an increased risk of anaphylaxis upon peanut introduction, with a potentially higher risk for older children who delayed introduction. Parents with a previously peanut-allergic child have significant anxiety regarding introducing peanut without prior skin testing or without supervision.This study supports previous studies showing that younger siblings of peanut-allergic children have a higher rate of peanut allergy. Recent NIAID guidelines for the prevention of peanut allergy recommend early introduction of peanut for high-risk children but do not make specific recommendations for siblings without other risk factors. In our practice, we do specifically recommend early and consistent peanut introduction in younger siblings of peanut-allergic patients, usually with prior testing. As highlighted in this study, parental anxiety regarding a possible reaction in the younger sibling, as well as the peanut-allergic child, is likely to impact home peanut introduction unless it is done with some level of medical supervision.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».