Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Sep-Oct;5(5):1319-1324.e12.
doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2016.11.036. Epub 2017 Mar 9.

Trends in Provider Management of Patients with Food Protein-Induced Enterocolitis Syndrome

Affiliations

Trends in Provider Management of Patients with Food Protein-Induced Enterocolitis Syndrome

Matthew Greenhawt et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2017 Sep-Oct.

Abstract

Background: Food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome (FPIES) is a non-IgE-mediated food allergy.

Objective: To better understand provider-level variation in FPIES knowledge and management.

Methods: A 23-question online survey was administered to AAAAI members during the spring and summer of 2014.

Results: Among 470 respondents, 64% reported "full understanding" of FPIES diagnosis/management; 78.8% reported managing 1 or more patient with FPIES; and 80.4% correctly identified an FPIES case vignette. FPIES was correctly differentiated from infantile colic or food protein-induced allergic proctocolitis by 82.5% and 71.3%, respectively. Among providers currently managing patients with FPIES, 47.5% indicated soy formula, 73.8% breast milk, and 94.5% elemental formula as appropriate substitutes in cow milk (CM)-FPIES. Skin testing is performed by 73.4%; 62.2% obtain serum food-specific IgE testing, 12.7% patch testing, 36.8% oral challenge, and 28% perform no tests. Eighty-four percent provide patients with FPIES with allergy action plans, 72.8% provide a personalized action plan, and 21% prescribe epinephrine autoinjectors. Odds of prescribing epinephrine were lower among those reporting "full understanding" of FPIES (odds ratio [OR], 0.41; 95% CI, 0.21-0.79). Academic providers had higher odds of providing an action plan (OR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.17-4.98) and performing diagnostic oral food challenge (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.99-3.25), but not of correct vignette differentiation of FPIES from other conditions, correct identification of appropriate CM-FPIES substitutes, or timing for food reintroduction. More years in practice were associated with lower odds of reporting full understanding of FPIES diagnosis/management (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.94-0.99).

Conclusions: Nearly one-third of respondents reported poor familiarity with FPIES. Considerable variation exists in the use of diagnostic tests, management, and choice of "safe" nutrition, indicating a strong need for FPIES practice guidelines.

Keywords: AAAAI; FPIES; FPIES diagnosis; FPIES knowledge; FPIES management; Provider awareness.

PubMed Disclaimer

LinkOut - more resources