ABSTRACT
Background: Food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome (FPIES) is a non-IgE mediated food allergy characterized by delayed, repetitive vomiting. FPIES is improving in recognition; however, there remains a lag in diagnosis. This study aimed to further explore this lag, as well as referral patterns and healthcare utilization, to help determine areas for earlier recognition. Methods: A retrospective chart review of pediatric FPIES patients at two hospital systems in New York was completed. Charts were reviewed for FPIES episodes and healthcare visits prior to diagnosis, and reason/source of referral to an allergist. A cohort of patients with IgE-mediated food allergy was reviewed for comparison of demographics and the time to the diagnosis. Results: In total, 110 patients with FPIES were identified. The median time to diagnosis was 3 months, vs. 2 months in IgE-mediated food allergy (p < 0.05). Most referrals were from the pediatrician (68%) or gastroenterology (28%), none were from the ED. The most common reason for referral was concern of IgE-mediated allergy (51%), followed by FPIES (35%). There was a statistically significant difference in race/ethnicity between the FPIES cohort and IgE-mediated food allergy group (p < 0.0001), with a greater proportion of Caucasian patients in FPIES vs. IgE-mediated food allergy cohort. Conclusion: This study demonstrates a lag in the diagnosis of FPIES and a lack of recognition outside of the allergy community, as only one-third of patients were considered to have FPIES prior to an allergy evaluation.
ABSTRACT
Background: Undifferentiated somatoform (US) idiopathic anaphylaxis (IA) is considered a psychogenic disorder characterized by a lack of observable physical findings and poor response to treatment. Although failure to diagnose true anaphylaxis can have disastrous consequences, identification of US-IA is crucial to limit unnecessary expenses and use of health care resources. Objective: To better define the presentation and understand the potential relationship between US-IA and underlying psychiatric comorbidities. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 110 visits by 107 patients to our institution for evaluation and management of anaphylaxis over a 1-year period. The patients were classified as having either criteria positive (CP) or criteria negative (CN) anaphylaxis based on whether they met Second National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease/Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network Symposium criteria for the clinical diagnosis of anaphylaxis. Patient characteristics, including objective and subjective signs and symptoms, and the presence of psychiatric diagnoses were collected and analyzed. Statistical significance was assessed by using the Fisher exact test. A literature review of US-IA and other psychogenic forms of anaphylaxis was performed. Results: Patients with CP anaphylaxis were more likely to present with hypotension, wheezing, urticaria, and vomiting than were patients with CN anaphylaxis. The patients with CN anaphylaxis were more likely to present with subjective symptoms of sensory throat tightness or swelling compared with patients with CP anaphylaxis. No significant difference was detected in the prevalence of psychiatric conditions between the two groups. Conclusion: Patients who met previously established diagnostic criteria for anaphylaxis were more likely to present with objective physical findings than those who did not meet criteria for true anaphylaxis. CN patients who presented for treatment of anaphylaxis were more likely to present with subjective symptoms. Formal diagnostic criteria should be used by clinicians when evaluating patients with suspected anaphylaxis.
