BACKGROUND Food allergy (FA) is a growing health problem requiring physiologic confirmation via the oral food challenge (OFC). Many OFCs result in clinical anaphylaxis, causing discomfort and risk while limiting OFC utility. Transepidermal water loss (TEWL) measurement provides a potential solution to detect food anaphylaxis in real time prior to clinical symptoms. We evaluated whether TEWL changes during an OFC could predict anaphylaxis onset.METHODS Physicians and nurses blinded to the TEWL results conducted and adjudicated the results of all 209 OFCs in this study. A study coordinator measured TEWL throughout the OFC and had no input on the OFC conduct. TEWL was measured 2 ways in 2 separate groups. First, TEWL was measured using static, discrete measurements. Second, TEWL was measured using continuous monitoring. Participants who consented provided blood samples before and after the OFCs for biomarker analyses.RESULTS TEWL rose significantly (2.93 g/m2/h) during reactions and did not rise during nonreacting OFCs (–1.00 g/m2/h). Systemic increases in tryptase and IL-3 were also detected during reactions, providing supporting biochemical evidence of anaphylaxis. The TEWL rise occurred 48 minutes earlier than clinically evident anaphylaxis. Continuous monitoring detected a significant rise in TEWL that presaged positive OFCs, but no rise was seen in the OFCs that resulted in no reaction, providing high predictive specificity (96%) for anaphylaxis against nonreactions 38 minutes prior to anaphylaxis onset.CONCLUSIONS During OFCs, a TEWL rise anticipated a positive clinical challenge. TEWL presents a monitoring modality that may predict food anaphylaxis and facilitate improvements in OFC safety and tolerability.
Charles F. Schuler IV, Kelly M. O’Shea, Jonathan P. Troost, Bridgette Kaul, Christopher M. Launius, Jayme Cannon, David M. Manthei, George E. Freigeh, Georgiana M. Sanders, Simon P. Hogan, Nicholas W. Lukacs, James R. Baker Jr.
Usage data is cumulative from March 2024 through March 2025.
Usage | JCI | PMC |
---|---|---|
Text version | 979 | 136 |
172 | 62 | |
Figure | 404 | 1 |
Table | 217 | 0 |
Supplemental data | 118 | 5 |
Citation downloads | 70 | 0 |
Totals | 1,960 | 204 |
Total Views | 2,164 |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.