Posts Tagged ‘eosinophilic gastroenteritis’

When Leonard Noon reported his first tentative experiments with immunotherapy for hayfever, in 1911 (see p. 164), he believed that pollen contained a toxin. Most people were

‘immune’ to this toxin, he said, in the same way that people might be immune to measles or diphtheria, but hayfever sufferers lacked this immunity. Noon thought that his

steadily increasing doses of pollen, injected just under the skin, were inducing immunity to the pollen toxin, in the same way that a smallpox vaccine could induce immunity to

smallpox.
Noon’s theory was all wrong, as we now know, but the important thing was that the treatment seemed to work. In fact it transformed the lives of some patients, especially those

who were very severely affected by hayfever. One spoke of a ‘marvellous cure’, another of going for walks to kick my old enemy the hay’.
So doctors kept using Noon’s treatment, and in time — when it became clear that Noon’s theory was flawed — medical researchers began trying to figure out how the injections

really worked.
Surprisingly, they have still not succeeded, even though a great deal is now known about the changes that can occur in people undergoing immunotherapy. Despite a wealth of

detailed knowledge (see p. 166), it remains impossible to say exactly how conventional immunotherapy reduces allergic reactions. Surprising discoveries about the effects of

conventional immunotherapy are being made all the time.
New methods of immunotherapy are still being devised today, and there are three different approaches being taken.
Firstly, there are doctors experimenting with modifications of the technique devised by Noon. For example, instead of injecting the allergen extract, some doctors are giving it

to their patients in capsule form. to be swallowed. Others are giving it as a liquid, to be placed under the tongue and held there for a few minutes, then swallowed (see p.

169). Sound scientific trials show that both these methods work well, at least with some allergens.
There are also experiments with speeded-up immunotherapy
(see p. 166), called ultrarush techniques — at the outset, injections are given at hourly intervals, or even more frequently (in hospital, of course, where severe reactions can

be dealt with immediately). Doctors have found that they can induce a remarkably rapid tolerance of the allergen in this way.
The second approach is to apply modern medical knowledge about allergic reactions and so develop entirely new methods of immunotherapy (see p. 168-9). Such research involves

working out, from first principles, novel ways of modifying the immune response in general, or the reaction to one allergen in particular.
This theory-led approach is certainly successful for classical allergies such as hayfever and perennial allergic rhinitis, where there is a good understanding of the basic

mechanism (i.e. the malfunctions of the immune system that produce the disease). But for those diseases where the underlying mechanism is only partially understood, such as

atopic eczema, this approach is not necessarily the best one. And for diseases such as food intolerance, where the cause of the illness remains largely unknown, it is a complete

non-starter.
The third type of approach is to devise a technique by trial and error, and then puzzle out the ‘how’ question later. This is the same sort of path as Noon originally took, and

some believe that this kind of pragmatic experimental approach — practising a method which seems to be effective, even though it’s a mystery how it works — is as valid now as it

was in 1911. Others disagree.
210 complementary therapies The two most widely used methods that have been developed in this way are Provocation-Neutralisation and Enzyme- Potentiated Desensitisation.

Although these techniques are practised by doctors with a conventional medical training, they remain ‘outside the pale’ as far as orthodox medicine is concerned. The

controversies that surround them are discussed below.
Enzyme- Potentiated Desensitisation (EPD)
This technique has been developed by a British doctor, Dr Len McEwen, who began work on it in the 1960s. It is now practised in many parts of the world, as well as Britain,

including the United States, Germany and Italy.
EPD is used for a far wider range of problems than conventional immunotherapy, being given to people with food intolerance and chemical intolerance, as well as to those with

true allergies. This — along with the fact that it is unclear how it works —contributes to the controversies that surround it, because these conditions do not have the same

basic causes.
Dr McEwen began with the observation that, when immune cells are aroused during inflammation — whether caused by allergy or some other stimulus — they release large amounts of

an enzyme called beta-glucuronidase. This enzyme increases the immune response to the allergen or antigen that provoked the inflammation.
Dr McEwen experimented with injecting beta-glucuronidase into the skin, along with very small amounts of allergen, believing that in such circumstances the enzyme might have the

opposite effect, and reduce the immune reaction to the allergen. Eventually he discovered a combination of enzyme and allergen which seemed to have the desired effect.
EPD has been tested, in a rigorous scientific manner, and the results suggest that it can work for hayfever and asthma, as well as for childhood migraine and hyperactivity in

children when these are triggered by foods.
In one trial with hayfever patients, researchers measured the levels of anti-pollen IgE following EPD treatment, and it did not rise during the pollen season as it normally does

in those with hayfever. This kind of finding is impressive because it is unlikely to be due to placebo effect. Not all studies have produced positive results, however.
In addition, doctors using EPD claim that it is very effective for patients with allergies who have not done well on the standard course of immunotherapy injections (see p.

164). This fits in with other studies suggesting that the immune changes brought about by EPD are fundamentally different from those induced by traditional immunotherapy.
Patients with true food allergy have been given EPD, and while it does not enable them to eat their culprit food, it does
seem to reduce their reaction to accidental exposures.
Doctors in the Netherlands are using EPD as a treatment for people with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS), and report that it helps about 50% of patients.
One point in favour of EPD is that it uses very small amounts of allergen, and is therefore very safe — anaphylaxis has never occurred with this technique.
Provocation-Neutralisation
‘After following conventional methods [of immunotherapy] for thirteen years, I heard Carleton H. Lee deliver a paper on provocative testing in 1965, at a meeting of the American

College of Allergists in Chicago. I was naturally sceptical, but tried his suggestions when I returned to my office. The results can only be described as astounding. Many

patients with unresolved allergic problems responded markedly and rapidly. Many with resistant asthma or perennial allergic rhinitis improved greatly or cleared completely when

food injection therapy was added to their inhalant injection therapy.’ So wrote Dr Joseph B. Miller — a distinguished allergist and paediatrician, and a Professor of Medicine at

the University of Alabama, in 1972.
The technique which he learned from Carleton H. Lee was controversial then and, although Miller developed it with great care and precision during the years that followed, it

remains controversial now.
There are two elements in provocation - neutralisation: testing and treatment. Both are used for a wide range of problems — not just classical allergic diseases, but also food

intolerance and chemical intolerance. As with EPD (see left), this is one of the controversial aspects of the technique.
Although provocation-neutralisation involves an injection technique that looks, superficially, very much like conventional immunotherapy (see p. 164), there are several

important differences. Firstly, the allergen extract used (in the case of true allergies) is a very dilute extract, so that far less of the allergen is injected than in

conventional immunotherapy. Likewise, in the case of food intolerance and chemical intolerance, the extracts of the offending substance are used in highly dilute form.
Secondly, the idea of the neutralising dose — which is the central plank of provocation-neutralisation — is quite different from anything in conventional immunotherapy. Broadly

speaking, the conventional technique (see pp. 165-6) works by slowly reeducating the immune system with a gradually increasing dose of the allergen. Only after a succession of

injections does the immune system start to behave differently on encountering the allergen. By contrast, in provocation-neutralisation treatment, the neutralising dose is

claimed to have an instantaneous and direct effect on the body, ‘turning off’ symptoms that have already begun. This is the neutralisation aspect of the technique. The doctors

who practise this technique do not claim to know how the neutralising dose might work.
According to the theory of provocation-neutralisation, the strength of the extract that acts as a neutralising dose is specific for a particular allergen and a particular

person. It can only be worked out by a rather slow procedure involving a series of injections. These are intradermal injections – they place the allergen extract in the skin, at

a slightly deeper level than a skin-prick test. (For treatment, rather than testing, subcutaneous injections are used – these go deeper than intradermal injections, placing the

allergen extract just underneath the skin. Neither hurts very much.)
Ideally, the neutralising dose should be decided on by measuring the size of the wheal (a raised area of skin around the injection site), and whether it grows, stays the same

size, or disappears. The doctor or nurse carrying out the procedure can, in theory, work out the neutralising dose just by careful examination of the skin wheals.
However, it is part of the tradition of provocation-neutralisation techniques that verbal feedback from the patient is also taken into account – so if the patient says that an

injection has turned off the symptoms, that reinforces the belief that the neutralising dose has been found.
The problem with this aspect of provocation-neutralisation is that expectations, and the power of suggestion, can become involved. So if the doctor or nurse says ‘you may find

that this next injection makes the symptoms go away’, that is often exactly what happens – because the forces of placebo effect (see p. 233) come into play. Unfortunately,

verbal interactions such as this are a key aspect of the provocation-neutralisation procedure in many clinics.
Just the same hazard besets provocation - neutralisation if it is used to test for the existence of allergy or intolerance, because it is quite common for practitioners to tell

patients which allergen (or other offending substance) is being injected and to ask if any symptoms are provoked by the injection. This is not good practice – if someone expects

to react to a particular substance, they are quite likely to produce symptoms through purely psychological mechanisms (see pp. 232-3).
Quite apart from this, the question of allergy testing with provocation-neutralisation techniques is contentious, because the pioneers of the technique, such as Professor

Miller, never advocated using provocation - neutralisation in this way. Using it as a routine test for sensitivity reactions was a later development, and there are many doctors

today who, while they practise provocation-neutralisation as a treatment, say that it does not work well as a test for sensitivity reactions. While they agree that injecting a

dose
which is either stronger or weaker than the neutralising dose may provoke actual symptoms (this is the provocation aspect of the technique) they don’t think the reaction is

reliable enough to form the basis of a test for allergies. Nor do they think that using skin-wheal measurements alone (i.e. silent testing) turns the technique into an accurate

test for allergies. That is not what the provocation-neutralisation technique was designed for – it is about treatment, not testing.
The evidence from research
Recent research from the Nova Scotia Environmental Health Centre in Canada confirms that testing by provocation injections is not reliable. The subjects in this study were all

suffering fr= multiple chemical intolerance, a condition which – for one reasor or another – makes patients liable to develop symptoms at an,, time. No less than 70% of these

patients experienced symptoms in response to a dummy injection which contained none of the offending substance. Indeed, 15% of patients also produced a skin wheal in response to

some of the dummy injections, confirming that even this reaction may be subject to the power of suggestion (see pp. 232-3).
Looking just at the patients who did not react to the placebo injection (i.e. those least susceptible to suggestion) the test still did not yield any reliable result – a person

might react to one injection with a particular substance, but fail to react to a subsequent injection with the same substance. The authors concluded that their patients were ‘in

a state of heightened sensitivity as the result of the chronic irritation by various environmental components and other external and internal stressors’. In this state of

sensitivity. patients are so close to the brink all the time that the smallest thing can trigger symptoms. So the apparent reactions to the test injections were actually

determined by other factors – some psychological factors (including a psychological response to the prick of the needle) and some external ones, such as exposure to smells or

very small amounts of airborne chemicals.
Another recent research study, carried out by scientists at the University of California, confirmed the finding of the Nova Scotia team as regards testing. Although this study

did not set out to look at the use of the neutralising dose for treatment, some of the patients were given neutralising doses during the testing process and the researchers

observed that ‘in most cases a single neutralising injection relieved the symptoms’. This casual observation clearly needs to be confirmed by more rigorous testing. Oddly

enough, despite this positive observation about the neutralising doses, the overall conclusion of the researchers was to completely dismiss all aspects of

provocation-neutralisation as ‘the result of suggestion and chance’. This conclusion has been widely publicised in the United States as part of a general campaign against

provocation-neutralisation and doctors who practise it.
Other researchers have looked at treatment with neutralising doses, using stringent scientific methods (a double-blind placebo-controlled trial — see p. 90), and found that they

do work. In one such trial, patients with asthma. and allergies to dogs or cats, were treated with injections of the neutralising dose. They showed a reduction in the

sensitivity of their airways, as measured by objective tests. In another experiment, patients with perennial allergic rhinitis and an allergy to house-dust mite were studied,

and the neutralising dose was given as drops of allergen extract placed under the tongue (sublingual drops) – an alternative to injections. The blockage of the nose, as measured

by scientific tests, was reduced by the neutralising dose.
A great many more trials of this kind would be required to convince most doctors that provocation-neutralisation works.
Furthermore, the recent study from California – which observed a number of practitioners of provocation-neutralisation at work with their patients — showed that these

practitioners need to be a lot more rigorous and objective in their approach. However, the fact that provocation-neutralisation is often practised badly does not necessarily

mean that the basic technique is without any value. There are a great many level-headed doctors and patients who, while initially very sceptical about

provocation-neutralisation, have found it surprisingly effective – just as Professor Miller did back in 1965.
Deciding for yourself
So is provocation-neutralisation an option that is worth trying for your condition?
As regards testing, the answer is probably ‘no’. The most reliable tests are skin-prick tests or FAST blood tests for true allergies (see pp. 91-2), an elimination diet for food

intolerance (see p. 194), and avoidance followed by re-exposure (a challenge test) for chemical intolerance.
As regards treatment for true allergies, conventional immunotherapy has been far more thoroughly tested and, if you can get it (not easy in Britain — see p. 164), is probably a

better bet. It is definitely the best treatment for allergy to insect stings.
The major advantage that provocation-neutralisation has over conventional immunotherapy, in the case of true allergies, is that it is far safer. Because such small amounts of

allergen are used, anaphylactic reactions (see p. 58) don’t occur.
When it comes to treatment for food intolerance, complete avoidance of the problem food(s), for a period of a year or two, is usually a very effective treatment (see p. 77).

Other forms of treatment are only needed for people who find that they have
intolerance to a great many different foods (on the basis of an elimination diet, not kinesiology, blood tests and the like — see p. 93) and cannot devise an adequate diet from

the foods they are able to eat. For such people, provocation-neutralisation may be worth a try. Many patients feel that they have gained considerable help from this treatment.

They report suffering fewer symptoms and being able to return to a more nutritionally balanced diet.
In the case of chemical intolerance, the first line of treatment should be to avoid the substances concerned as far as possible, eat a good balanced diet, and take a vitamin and

mineral supplement if nutritional deficiencies are suspected. Treating any underlying hyperventilation (see pp. 226-9) can also help considerably. Only if there are persistent

symptoms, and you are sure these are not due to psychological causes, might provocation-neutralisation be worth a try. Some people with chemical intolerance do find it is

helpful, but whether this is a real effect, or simply placebo, remains uncertain.
If you decide to give provocation-neutralisation a try, find a practitioner who has good medical qualifications, who seems objective and sensible in their approach, and who

doesn’t make implausible claims for the technique. Take note of what other treatments the practitioner offers, and whether these seem rational or not – this is often a good

guide to the care and objectivity with which provocation - neutralisation is carried out.
Ask the doctor how he or she assesses the neutralising dose. and avoid anyone who does not use the traditional method of a series of injections combined with wheal measurement.

When the neutralising dose is being assessed, say that you would like it to be done ’single-blind’ – that is, you don’t want to be told anything about what is being injected.

Reporting how you feel to the doctor or nurse during the assessment is fine, but only mention really significant symptoms, or a very definite clearance of the symptoms, if this

occurs. These precautions will help you to be sure that you are getting something which is of genuine benefit, rather than just a very expensive form of placebo treatment.
I always wanted to be a doctor, and I enjoyed
medical school immensely, but once I became a
ell GP, I no longer felt quite so sure about what I was doing. It seemed clear to me that there were a lot of people coming to my surgery who I couldn’t do much for. And there

were others who, while I could treat their obvious medical problems with some success, remained distressed and were not coping well with life. Once I became a senior partner in

this practice, I experimented with having a counsellor come in for one session a week, and then an osteopath for the bad backs. It was popular with the patients, and I saw some

people improve enormously. Now we have stress-management classes too, and one of my colleagues has trained in acupuncture, which he uses for selected patients. We also use

elimination diets for patients with a lot of long-term problems like migraine. Overall, I think of it in terms of having more tools at our disposal - being able to tackle things

from a different angle when standard medicine isn’t hitting the spot.’
Geoffrey, a GP in the north of England, is typical of the reconciliation that is now beginning to occur between conventional medicine and alternative medicine. But he also has

plenty of criticisms to make of the alternative scene. ‘The idea that alternative medicine is “holistic” while conventional medicine isn’t, really raises my hackles. Most GPs

could be magnificently holistic if they had an hour with each patient as alternative therapists usually do. We have just 15 minutes, on average, and we have to pack a lot into

that - including our basic duty to eliminate the possibility of serious organic disease such as cancer. Time pressure is everything now, and it has squeezed the humanity out of

medicine, to a very large extent. But the potential for a holistic approach is there - most doctors have a tremendous store of wisdom and life
experience at their disposal, which could form the basis of a holistic approach to treatment if only there were more time to spend with each patient.’
It is in search of a more unhurried and all-embracing approach to treatment that many people turn to alternative medicine. Frequently, what they get out of the therapy has less

to do with the actual methods used, and still less with the theories behind those methods, but everything to do with spending a quiet hour with someone supportive and caring who

listens to all the complex concerns that surround any illness, gives reassurance or advice, or just offers a `safe space’ in which to talk about life’s difficulties.
Other people turn to alternative therapies due to a more serious disillusionment with orthodox medicine. When patients with inscrutable medical problems -such as persistent

unexplained diarrhoea, joint pain or chronic urticaria - are given a succession of different diagnoses by different doctors, they often lose faith entirely in modern medicine

and reject orthodox treatment in favour of alternatives. This is a great mistake. Modern medicine isn’t perfect, but that is only to be expected, because it is not a fixed body

of knowledge but a process - a continuing journey of questioning, investigation, discovery and improvement. Scientific medicine has come a tremendously long way from the state

of ignorance that prevailed two centuries ago, and it will undoubtedly go farther.
Conventional medicine has a great deal going for it - ask anyone over 50, with severe life-long asthma, what they think of treatment now compared to treatment in the 1950s or

early 1960s. You will hear a hymn of praise to the improvements in both drugs and drug delivery systems. Asthma is just one example -conventional medicine has a lot to offer for

all the classical allergic diseases. Alternative medicine should always be regarded as an adjunct to conventional treatment, not a replacement. That is why many doctors prefer

the term complementary medicine.
A third reason for using alternative medicine is a more philosophical one, a need to understand illness in some larger sense, often part of a general search for meaning in life.

Some types of alternative treatment attempt to offer metaphysical reasons for allergy -rather than the mundane explanations of antibodies and immune cells that are given in this

book - and this can be attractive to some people. There is no harm in this approach, which can prompt you to make a critical review of your life, look at unresolved emotional

issues, or reassess choices that are making you unhappy.
But not all illness, or worsening symptoms, can be explained by emotional causes, and the rigid belief that every illness must have a meaning can be damaging. It easily

degenerates into the wholesale psychologisation of illness, the kind of blame-the-victim mentality which can attribute hayfever to ‘Emotional congestion; fear of the calendar; a

belief in persecution; guilt’ and asthma in babies to ‘Fear of life; not wanting to be here’. Both these diagnoses are taken from the best-selling You
can Heal your Life by Louise Hay, which is very influential among some alternative therapists. This compulsive psychologisation of illness can be profoundly damaging, and if

your complementary therapist is preoccupied by ideas of this kind, you could find yourself on a very long guilt trip indeed.
Apart from the psychological aspects of alternative medicine, there is the question of whether it actually works in a practical sense - whether it provides more than just

emotional support and placebo effect (the benefit that comes from any treatment which you believe in). This is always the central question for scientific medicine in relation to

its own treatments,
and conventional doctors naturally apply the same criteria to alternative medicine. Most of this chapter is concerned with trying to answer that question.
Unfortunately, there are so many different kinds of alternative therapy available today that it is impossible to cover all of them in this book. To complicate matters further,

many complementary therapists now practise two or more different techniques, mixing them to
produce their own unique cocktail of diagnosis and treatment. This eclectic approach can span a remarkable range - you may find a therapist doing distinctly whacky stuff such as

iridology (looking at the eye to diagnose all illness - it has been tested and definitely doesn’t work), combined with something perfectly rational such as an elimination diet.

(The elimination diet might be presented as a ‘detox diet’, but it is actually being used to detect food intolerances.)
With new forms of therapy springing up all over the place, a healthy scepticism is a distinct asset for the consumer. Be sceptical about any diagnostic test or treatment that is

only being practised by one person in the country, or in the world - when doctors hit on something that works, they want other doctors to try it out. World exclusives in

medicine are usually suspect.
Avoid any practitioner who tells you to stop using your drugs without your doctor’s consent. Likewise, avoid those with a messianic gleam in their eye, an evident disregard for

logic or reasonable discussion, or an amazing cure that fixes everything from acne to AIDS. Very few of those who sell bogus cures and phoney diagnostic tests are complete

rogues. Most are nice people who are quite genuinely convinced that they have indeed found the answer to people’s problems. The powers of placebo effect (see p. 233) can sustain

such a conviction for a very long time.

Skin-prick tests
This is an indirect method of detecting true allergic reactions. It is one of a family of skin tests that use a similar approach. The three different tests in this family are known as: skin-prick tests or prick tests, puncture tests, and scratch tests.
For the skin-prick test - the technique used in Britain - a small drop of liquid containing an allergen, such as grass pollen, is placed on the arm. The doctor makes a small prick in the skin, under the drop of liquid, allowing a minuscule amount of the allergen to get into the skin. A positive reaction is recorded if a red bump develops soon afterwards. For accuracy, the bump must be compared to positive and negative controls (see below).
The puncture method is very similar to the skin-prick test but uses a slightly different technique for breaking the skin. The term prick-puncture test covers both techniques.
With the scratch method, the skin is scratched lightly, and the allergen solution is then applied over the scratch. This method gives less consistent results than prick-puncture testing.
It is important to include a negative control in the test - a skin-prick test with plain salt water (saline). This should not produce much of a bump - if it does, the skin is clearly over-reactive and the tests more difficult to assess. The doctor should also include a positive control - a skin-prick test with histamine, the substance that plays a central role in allergic reactions. This should always produce a bump. If it does not, the skin is decidedly under-reactive, and the tests are invalid.
Taking antihistamines will make the skin under-reactive, and you should stop taking them before the testing, for a period ranging from a day to several weeks - it varies depending on the particular antihistamine. Ask your doctor for specific instructions about stopping these and other drugs before testing.
Skin tends to be over-reactive to testing in people with dermatographism (see p. 52). Blood tests for specific IgE,
such as RASTs (see p. 92), are needed for anyone who has this condition. Eczema sufferers with a rash over large areas of the body may also require blood tests, if there is too little clear skin for testing.
Skin-prick tests can produce both false positives and false negatives (see box below). Some allergic diseases will give a lot of false negatives and relatively few false positives, while for others the reverse is true. The allergen itself influences the rates of misleading reactions: for example, tests for soya allergy are notoriously unreliable, whereas those for peanut are far more accurate. The age of the person being tested also makes a difference. With all these influences at work, interpreting the test responses is a real art, and the doctor’s experience counts for a lot.
All sorts of people offer skin-prick tests, including alternative practitioners. Get them done by a qualified doctor, preferably by an allergist, who will know how to make sense of the reactions.
Note that the purpose of these tests, and of blood tests for specific IgE, is to identify the allergens that are bringing on your symptoms, not to predict how strongly you will react to those allergens. The tests may give some indication of the intensity of your reaction, but they cannot be regarded as a good guide to how you will respond to the allergen in the future.
The safety record of skin-prick tests is very good. Occasionally a systemic reaction (anaphylaxis) occurs with these tests, but there are no records of any deaths. Nevertheless, if you suffer from severe asthma or have experienced anaphylactic shock in the past, it is advisable for the doctor to have adrenaline and resuscitation equipment available. Those with strong allergic reactions to latex may also react badly if they are tested with an allergen that cross-reacts with latex (e.g. cypress pollen), not just when tested with latex itself. Taking beta-Mockers (see box on p. 150) increases the risk of a life-threatening reaction for anyone in these higher-risk categories.
False positives and false negatives
Apart from challenge tests, none of the tests used for allergy works with 100% accuracy. Most give both false positives and false negatives.
A false positive means that there is a positive test but no actual reaction when the allergen is encountered (e.g. eaten or inhaled). A false negative means that there is a negative test result despite a genuine reaction (as shown by a challenge test, for example).
A test that gives relatively few false positives has good positive predictive value - in other words, if it suggests you are allergic to something, you probably are.
A test that gives relatively few false negatives has good negative predictive value. If it comes up negative, you are probably not allergic to that allergen.
Some tests for allergic reactions show good positive predictive value but poor negative predictive value, while for other tests the reverse is true.
Fresh is best
The fruit and vegetable allergens that provoke Oral Allergy Syndrome (see p. 63) are chemically unstable, so commercially produced extracts for skin-prick testing quickly lose their potency and give false-negative results. Most allergists now favour using a drop of fresh juice from the fruit or vegetable concerned.
Intradermal tests
These tests (also called ‘intracutaneous tests’) put allergen more deeply into the skin than prick-puncture tests. The skin tends to react more when penetrated to this depth, so there are more false positives. There is also a greater risk of a serious reaction which may require emergency resuscitation. Don’t undergo these tests if you are taking beta-Mockers (see box on p. 150).
Blood tests for IgE
There are blood tests that look at the total amount of IgE (the allergy antibody), which is sometimes useful in diagnosis. But more important are blood tests for specific IgE – against egg or grass pollen or latex, for example. There are different ways of measuring the IgE in the blood, the most commonly used being a radio-allergosorbent test or RAST.
Research shows that RASTs are no more accurate than skin-prick tests in confirming real-life allergic reactions. However, they are useful for patients who can’t discontinue their antihistamines without developing severe symptoms, and for those with dermatographism or very severe eczema (see p. 91).
Patch tests
These tests, used primarily for contact dermatitis, are similar to straightforward challenge tests, because the suspect substances are applied directly to the skin.
The test substances are placed on the skin – usually on your back – in small chambers. They are held in place with sticky tape, and left there for several days. Ideally, the reaction of the skin should be checked three times: after two days, again the next day, and again the day after that. It really is worth going back for all these separate visits, because the accuracy of the test increases greatly with repeated checking.
The substances chosen for testing are a standard set of antigens that most commonly cause contact dermatitis. This standard set will pick up 60-80% of all sensitivity reactions in contact dermatitis. If you have substances that you suspect may be causing symptoms, such as cosmetics, the doctor can usually test for these too.
You should not be tested while you still have a rash, as the testing will probably make the existing rash flare up, even though the test patches are applied well away from the rash.
Use of steroid creams and any light treatments (including exposure of the test area to ordinary sunlight) must stop at least a week before testing starts, or the results will not be accurate.
Interpreting patch tests requires a huge amount of skill, plus extensive knowledge of the finicky details of the different test substances. You need a dermatologist with considerable experience in this area.
False positives (see box on p. 91) can occur, especially if you react very strongly to one of the substances tested – some people develop what dermatologists call an ‘angry back’, and this generates false positives to various other substances being tested at the same time. Should you be told that you are sensitive to a great many different things, you may want to query this reading of the test. Ernest N. Charlesworth, an allergist and dermatologist at the University of Texas, describes patients who ‘develop into environmental cripples’ after being told that they are definitely sensitive to multiple antigens, on the basis of misinterpreted false-positive patch tests.
False negatives (see box on p. 91) are also possible, even with very careful testing. Should this occur, a type of challenge test known as a ROAT (Repeat Open Application Test) is possible. The suspect substance is applied to the inner fold of the elbow twice a day for a week. Get your doctor’s agreement before trying this test.
Endoscopy and biopsy
Miniaturised cameras and sophisticated fibre-optics have allowed modern doctors to do something that their predecessors could never have imagined possible – look right inside the human body. This procedure is called endoscopy, and it has a useful role in a few sensitivity reactions.
Looking inside the sinus cavities can assist in understanding exactly what is going wrong in chronic sinusitis. Inspecting the digestive tract can be valuable in several of the non-IgE immune reactions to food, such as coeliac disease (see p. 70) and eosinophilic gastroenteritis (see p. 72).
A biopsy is often carried out at the same time as endoscopy.
s involves taking a small sample from the affected area, such as
I ning of the gut, and studying it in detail under a microscope.
One purpose of a gut biopsy is to look for characteristic :goes of damage to the lining of the gut – such as the distinctive charges produced by untreated coeliac disease. A biopsy can also reveal what kind of immune cells are present. Abnormal numbers of certain immune cells, for example, eosinophils (see p 19), may suggest a particular diagnosis.
Another way of looking at what kind of immune reactions are going on, used for lung diseases, is a bronchoalveolar lavage – iterally a ‘washing out’ of the airways and lungs, allowing immune cells to be collected and studied. This diagnostic technique is lased for Heiner’s Syndrome (see p. 72).
Tests for food intolerance
The only really effective way of testing for food intolerance is an el ruination diet (see pp. 194-7). This is the gold standard. However, it is neither easy nor quick – which has led to a constant search for alternative tests.
The proposed alternatives are all indirect tests, that is to say, non-dietary. The results of the tests are used as a basis for an avoidance diet. In other words, the foods that give a positive test result are avoided.
Some of these tests use samples of hair or blood, others use pulse testing, pendulums, or muscle strength tests (’applied kinesiology’). A few of these tests do show some promise. Pulse tests, and a blood test called the ‘lymphocyte transformation test’. for example, can give a general indication of sensitivity reactions – sometimes. However, even in the most expert hands, these do not give a result that is accurate enough to be useful.
Of the other tests that are available, most have not been evaluated at all objectively.
Many of them are advertised directly to the public, and one of the problems with this approach is that the testing company starts by assuming that food is the problem. The same is usually true of ‘dietary therapists’ and others in the alternative health field offering tests of this kind.
Almost everyone who undertakes such tests is given a fairly long list of foods which have come up positive in the tests. This does not fit with the evidence from medical trials in which a group of people with irritable bowel or migraine (typical food intolerance symptoms) undertake an elimination diet. A significant proportion of them always find that they do not have food intolerance. Of the rest. many find that they react to one or two foods only. The long lists of foods produced by the commercial tests are, to put it mildly, implausible.
With tests that require a sample of blood, sending off two blood samples from the same person, under different names, is a simple way of assessing the tests’ validity. This exercise has been tried several times with different testing companies, and every time two completely different lists of foods have been sent back.
Covert studies of this kind have also shown that the tests overlook genuine reactions. In one alarming case, a woman with a true allergy to peanuts was assured by a ‘dietary therapist’ that she really could eat peanuts safely.
Many people with food intolerance will tell you that they did well after following a diet based on such tests – and they may well have done. Given that common foods such as wheat and milk are regular offenders in food intolerance, and that these foods very frequently feature on the lists of positive test results generated by commercial testing companies, quite a few people should do well. The problem is that these people may also be avoiding many other foods quite unnecessarily.
Furthermore, if people have sensitivities to some other foods that are not on the list, they will be missing out. They could enjoy a far better level of health if all the foods causing symptoms were Identified and removed from their diet.
In the end, an elimination diet is both cheaper and far more likely to give the right answers.
Testing for IgG antibodies
In diagnosing food intolerance, a few doctors offer tests for a type of antibody called IgG. This antibody is formed to any food molecules that get Into the bloodstream after a meal – and some do, even in entirely healthy people. So finding IgG antibodies to food molecules is not indicative of any disease at all. It occurs in everyone and is perfectly normal.
Nevertheless, some doctors feel that by measuring the level of IgG antibodies to foods, they can get a general idea of the permeability of the gut wall (which might possibly be true) and of particular foods that could be causing intolerance reactions (very doubtful – the tests just tell you what you eat most, and you know that already).
This test does measure something real, unlike some of the alternative tests for food intolerance. But the relevance of what it measures to the health of the individual concerned is partial and indefinite. A recent study of IgG testing for irritable bowel syndrome has confirmed this view.
In short, blood tests for IgG antibodies to food molecules seem like very poor value for money, and potentially misleading, whereas an elimination diet is a far more precise way of pinpointing food intolerances.

Immune reactions to food
`When I finally found someone who could say what was wrong with me, it was such a relief. I can’t tell you how much ill-health and pain and misery I’d had up to that point. I’m immensely grateful to the doctor who sorted the problem out for me. My life has been transformed.’
Richard has eosinophilic gastroenteritis, one of the rarer immune reactions to food. Like all rare diseases, it can escape diagnosis for a long time. IgE (the allergy antibody – see box on p. 12) is sometimes involved in eosinophilic gastroenteritis, but it is not an essential part of the reaction. Those who, like Richard, do not make IgE antibodies to the problem food will not give positive skin-prick tests. For them, the possibility of food being responsible for their symptoms may well be overlooked*.
Another difficulty for patients such as Richard is that most of the non-IgE immune reactions to food affect babies and children exclusively. A few of them can also occur in adults, but this is very rare, so it’s not something that automatically springs to mind when the doctor is searching for a diagnosis.
Eosinophilic diseases
The key event in these diseases is the arrival of large numbers of immune cells called eosinophils (see p. 19) in the walls of the digestive system. If the eosinophils converge on the tube leading down to the stomach (the oesophagus) the disease is called eosinophilic oesophagitis, and the symptoms include reflux (regurgitation) of food, occasional vomiting, refusing food (in babies), stomach pain and disturbed sleep.
If the stomach is the focus for the eosinophils, this is eosinophilic gastritis, and there is vomiting, pain, poor appetite and therefore poor growth. There can also be obstruction of the stomach outlet which may, in a few babies, produce pyloric stenosis (the main symptom is projectile vomiting).
When eosinophils flock to the intestines as well as to the stomach, the disease is called eosinophilic gastroenteritis. In
terms of symptoms, the picture is not much different from the previous condition, but there can be diarrhoea as an additional symptom, and babies may be irritable and puffy in appearance.
These conditions are most common in babies, but sometimes they continue through childhood. Very occasionally they occur in adults too.
Heiner’s Syndrome
This disease affects babies only, and is very rare. It is a severe form of cow’s milk sensitivity leading to wheezing and haemosiderosis (bleeding into the lungs). The child usually seems sickly, growth is slow, and there may be recurrent bouts of pneumonia. A full diagnosis requires blood tests to check for anaemia, examination of sputum under the microscope, and a biopsy or lavage (see p. 92) from the lung. The only effective treatment is to remove cow’s milk from the diet completely. Needless to say, this must be done under full medical supervision.
Other reactions to food
The cause of these diseases is not fully understood, but the immune system is clearly involved.
Dietary protein entero-colitis syndrome
In babies, the symptoms begin with general irritability and vomiting between one and three hours after a feed. Unless the offending food – usually cow’s milk – is withdrawn promptly, there will be bloating, diarrhoea (usually containing blood), anaemia, and poor growth. Older children have similar symptoms, while adults suffer terrible nausea, plus stomach pains and vomiting.
Nickel in food
Nickel and other metals in food may cause immune reactions for those with sensitivity to such metals (see pp. 55-6). The symptoms are usually in the skin, but there can be a few digestive symptoms too.
Dietary protein enteropathy
The main symptom here is diarrhoea, usually very severe. Often babies vomit their feed as well. Most have little appetite, and if the offending food is not withdrawn they suffer from poor growth, anaemia and other signs of malnutrition. This is because damage to the lining of the gut prevents nutrients from being absorbed properly. Older children show similar symptoms.
Dietary protein proctitis
This is a far less severe problem. The babies with this disorder look healthy, but there is inflammation in the bowel and small amounts of blood are passed with the faeces.
Diagnosis
There are two aspects to diagnosis:
• what kind of disease is it?
• what food or foods are causing the reaction?
Your doctor will probably try to answer the first question by looking inside the digestive tract with special equipment (endoscopy) and by taking a small sample – a biopsy (see p. 92).
A blood sample may also be taken to look for raised levels of immune cells and antibodies. Skin-prick tests or RAST tests (see pp. 91-2) will be tried to rule out the possibility of true food allergy – and because IgE may play a small part in these other forms of food sensitivity (in the eosinophilic diseases, for example).
Often the tests yield no very clear answers, especially in babies, and an exact diagnosis is not possible. But failure to answer the first question does not mean that the second question should be ignored. Pinpointing the culprit food or foods is vital.
Identifying the food is easier the younger the child, simply because the range of foods eaten is so much smaller. Cow’s milk is the most common offender when the disease affects young children – particularly bottle-fed babies, since standard infant formula is made with cow’s milk. Your doctor will prescribe an alternative formula (see box on p. 66) for you to try. For older children and adults, an elimination diet will probably be required to identify the food concerned. Among young children, likely offenders include soya, egg, wheat, rice, chicken or fish. A simple elimination diet, similar to that used for atopic eczema (see p. 198) may be adequate. You must have full medical supervision for this.
In the case of eosinophilic reactions, skin-prick tests may help identify the foods concerned, but are usually of limited value, so an elimination diet is again necessary. Where adults are affected by eosinophilic diseases, sensitivity to several different foods is likely, so identifying the offending foods usually requires the most exacting form of elimination diet, using an elemental diet for the exclusion phase (see box on p. 196). The symptoms are very slow to disappear: it can take up to eight weeks of avoiding the foods before your ailing digestive tract recovers. Don’t give up too soon.
Treatment
Avoidance is the only way here. Special infant formula (see box on p. 66) is required for cow’s milk sensitivity in babies.
In the case of eosinophilic reactions, some doctors may use steroid tablets as an additional treatment, just for a few weeks, to get the inflammation under control. Some new studies show that the anti-leukotriene drugs (see p. 149) are very effective for eosinophilic gastroenteritis.
Controversial topics
According to some doctors, a reaction to food may, on rare occasions, produce vasculitis (inflammation of the blood vessels).
Vasculitis itself is a well-recognised condition. The blood vessels are damaged by inflammation, and become more leaky. Symptoms often begin with a general swelling (angioedema), and an outbreak of small red blotches deep in the skin — especially on the legs — where small amounts of blood have escaped. These blotches later turn purplish, then yellow, before fading. This type of rash is known as purpura. Sometimes there are larger emissions of blood, resulting in spontaneous bruising.
Many different conditions can cause vasculitis, but only a few doctors would agree that food sensitivity is one of them. The inflammation could be caused by circulating immune complexes containing food antigens bound to antibodies (see p. 13). There is evidence, in some patients, of a direct effect on the cells called platelets that cause blood to clot.
Equally controversial is the suggestion that food sensitivity can be the cause of trouble for some children with kidney disorders. Some research groups have found that a few children with certain kinds of kidney disease recover on an elemental diet (see box on p. 196). All those affected have a classical allergic disease such as asthma or atopic eczema as well, and they tend to be sensitive to several different foods, plus pollen or other airborne allergens. Circulating immune complexes might be involved here, but no one is sure.
Some cases of food-related rheumatoid arthritis and palindromic rheumatism (see p. 76) could be due to immune complexes involving food molecules becoming deposited in the joints, but it is not the mechanism in all, or even most, of those affected.