AJCN North Carolina Research Campus
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Galant, S. P.
Right arrow Articles by Lundak, R. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Galant, S. P.
Right arrow Articles by Lundak, R. L.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Galant, S. P.
Right arrow Articles by Lundak, R. L.

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol 30, 512-516, Copyright © 1977 by The American Society for Clinical Nutrition, Inc


ORIGINAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS

A potential diagnostic method for food allergy: clinical application and immunogenicity evaluation of an elemental diet

SP Galant, ML Franz, P Walker, ID Wells and RL Lundak

The use of a simple, hypoallergenic elemental diet would appear well suited for diagnosing food allergy. Vivonex was used in 21 patients (5 to 40 years old) suspected of food allergy or those who had failed to respond to the usual management of inhalant allergy. To study immunogenicity, five New Zealand rabbits were immunized with Vivonex, milk, and egg and were evaluated for the production of precipitin and passive cutaneous anaphylactic antibodies, the latter was evaluated in three Hartley guinea pigs. The clinical study was conducted over a 2- to 3-week period with evaluation of symptom and medication scores, physical examination, and hematological and biochemical measurements made before and after the Vivonex trial, which was a minimum of 1 week. No consistent, significant improvement of allergic manifestations were seen while patients received Vivonex. On the other hand, there were no serious side effects noted either clinically or by laboratory measurements, although four patients discontinued the study because of Vivonex palatibility. Vivonex was not immunogenic by either the precipitin reaction or passive cutaneous anaphylactic response. Although Vivonex did not prove helpful in these severe, refractory allergic individuals, we were encouraged by its safety and acceptance in the outpatient setting. Further studies in young allergic children who are more likely to have clear-cut food sensitivity are being planned.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1977 by The American Society for Nutrition