The Experts below are selected from a list of 174 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
James F. Geiselman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Clinical Use of IgG Food Sensitivity Testing with Migraine Headache Patients: a Literature Review
Current Pain and Headache Reports, 2019Co-Authors: James F. GeiselmanAbstract:Purpose of Review This literature review describes the relationship between IgG Food sensitivities and their relation to migraine headaches. Recent Findings IgG Food sensitivities have been linked to various symptoms and disorders. While Food sensitivities and intolerances are recognized within the clinical medicine community, diagnosing these sensitivities and intolerances can be challenging because symptoms are usually delayed hours to days and may not occur after every exposure to the allergen. Some reports indicate that Foods such as chocolate, cheese, cow’s milk, eggs, and red wine may be triggers for migraine headaches. Summary The pathophysiology of migraine headaches is not well understood. Some evidence supports the use of IgG Food Sensitivity testing to determine Food sensitivities and intolerances. IgG Food Sensitivity testing may prove to be a beneficial tool for healthcare practitioners, especially for patients experiencing migraine headache symptoms. Utilizing IgG Food Sensitivity testing to create customizable dietary recommendations for patients may allow healthcare providers to treat migraine headaches without the use of medications.
-
The Clinical Use of IgG Food Sensitivity Testing with Migraine Headache Patients: a Literature Review.
Current Pain and Headache Reports, 2019Co-Authors: James F. GeiselmanAbstract:PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This literature review describes the relationship between IgG Food sensitivities and their relation to migraine headaches. RECENT FINDINGS: IgG Food sensitivities have been linked to various symptoms and disorders. While Food sensitivities and intolerances are recognized within the clinical medicine community, diagnosing these sensitivities and intolerances can be challenging because symptoms are usually delayed hours to days and may not occur after every exposure to the allergen. Some reports indicate that Foods such as chocolate, cheese, cow's milk, eggs, and red wine may be triggers for migraine headaches. The pathophysiology of migraine headaches is not well understood. Some evidence supports the use of IgG Food Sensitivity testing to determine Food sensitivities and intolerances. IgG Food Sensitivity testing may prove to be a beneficial tool for healthcare practitioners, especially for patients experiencing migraine headache symptoms. Utilizing IgG Food Sensitivity testing to create customizable dietary recommendations for patients may allow healthcare providers to treat migraine headaches without the use of medications.
David A Williams - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Food hyperSensitivity reactions in soft coated wheaten terriers with protein losing enteropathy or protein losing nephropathy or both gastroscopic Food Sensitivity testing dietary provocation and fecal immunoglobulin e
Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine, 2000Co-Authors: Shelly L Vaden, Bruce Hammerberg, Deborah J Davenport, Susan M Orton, Maureen Trogdon, Tonatiuh L Melgarejo, Steven D Vancamp, David A WilliamsAbstract:: The purpose of this study was to evaluate Soft Coated Wheaten Terriers (SCWTs) affected with protein-losing enteropathy (PLE) or protein-losing nephropathy (PLN) or both for allergy to Food. We performed gastroscopic Food-Sensitivity testing, a provocative dietary trial, and measurement of fecal immunoglobulin E (IgE) in 6 SCWTs affected with PLE or PLN or both. Positive gastroscopic Food-Sensitivity test reactions were noted in 5 of 6 dogs. Positive reactions were found to milk in 4 dogs, to lamb in 2 dogs, and to wheat and chicken each in 1 dog. Adverse reactions to Food (diarrhea, vomiting, or pruritus) were detected in all 6 dogs during the provocative dietary trial. Adverse reactions were found to corn in 5 dogs, to tofu in 3 dogs, to cottage cheese in 2 dogs, to milk in 2 dogs, to farina cream of wheat in 2 dogs, and to lamb in 2 dogs. Serum albumin concentrations significantly decreased and fecal alpha1-protease inhibitor concentration significantly increased 4 days after the provocative trial when compared with baseline values. Antigen-specific fecal IgE varied throughout the provocative trial, with peak levels following ingestion of test meals. We conclude that Food hypersensitivities are present in SCWTs affected with the syndrome of PLE/PLN. Mild inflammatory bowel disease was already established in the 6 SCWTs of this report at the time of study, making it impossible to determine if Food allergies were the cause or result of the enteric disease.
Elena F. Verdu - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Mechanisms by which gut microorganisms influence Food sensitivities
Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 2019Co-Authors: Alberto Caminero, Marlies Meisel, Bana Jabri, Elena F. VerduAbstract:The mechanisms underlying the expression of Food sensitivities remain unclear; however, several studies demonstrate that gut microorganisms, along with other host predisposing factors, dictate the development of these conditions. Gut microorganisms can degrade or modify immunogenic Food antigens or allergens, increasing or reducing their immunogenicity. Dietary Food components that are insufficiently digested by host enzymes become bacterial substrates, leading to the production of metabolites such as short-chain fatty acids, which are involved in gut homeostasis. One key factor in the development of Food sensitivities is intestinal barrier dysfunction, which can be influenced by gut microorganisms and pathogens through different pathways. Mucosal dendritic cells present dietary antigens to naive T helper cells, promoting their differentiation into peripheral T regulatory cells; virus–host interactions abrogate this response, inducing a pathogenic response to antigens. Enteric parasites induce T helper 2 cell immunity and protect against Food allergy; this contradiction is explained by the observation that parasites induce IL-10, which blocks type 2 immunity. Finely tuned mechanisms enable the gastrointestinal tract to break down dietary components into nutrients without mounting, in the majority of cases, a dysregulated immune or functional host response. However, adverse reactions to Food have been steadily increasing, and evidence suggests that this process is environmental. Adverse Food reactions can be divided according to their underlying pathophysiology into Food intolerances, when, for instance, there is deficiency of a host enzyme required to digest the Food component, and Food sensitivities, when immune mechanisms are involved. In this Review, we discuss the clinical and experimental evidence for enteric infections and/or alterations in the gut microbiota in inciting Food Sensitivity. We focus on mechanisms by which microorganisms might provide direct pro-inflammatory signals to the host promoting breakdown of oral tolerance to Food antigens or indirect pathways that involve the metabolism of protein antigens and other dietary components by gut microorganisms. Better understanding of these mechanisms will help in the development of preventive and therapeutic strategies for Food sensitivities. In this Review, the authors discuss how the gut microbiota might incite Food Sensitivity. They focus on direct and indirect mechanisms involving microorganisms and how increased understanding of these mechanisms will help the development of therapeutic strategies for Food sensitivities.
-
Mechanisms by which gut microorganisms influence Food sensitivities.
Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 2018Co-Authors: Alberto Caminero, Marlies Meisel, Bana Jabri, Elena F. VerduAbstract:Finely tuned mechanisms enable the gastrointestinal tract to break down dietary components into nutrients without mounting, in the majority of cases, a dysregulated immune or functional host response. However, adverse reactions to Food have been steadily increasing, and evidence suggests that this process is environmental. Adverse Food reactions can be divided according to their underlying pathophysiology into Food intolerances, when, for instance, there is deficiency of a host enzyme required to digest the Food component, and Food sensitivities, when immune mechanisms are involved. In this Review, we discuss the clinical and experimental evidence for enteric infections and/or alterations in the gut microbiota in inciting Food Sensitivity. We focus on mechanisms by which microorganisms might provide direct pro-inflammatory signals to the host promoting breakdown of oral tolerance to Food antigens or indirect pathways that involve the metabolism of protein antigens and other dietary components by gut microorganisms. Better understanding of these mechanisms will help in the development of preventive and therapeutic strategies for Food sensitivities.
Shelly L Vaden - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Food hyperSensitivity reactions in soft coated wheaten terriers with protein losing enteropathy or protein losing nephropathy or both gastroscopic Food Sensitivity testing dietary provocation and fecal immunoglobulin e
Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine, 2000Co-Authors: Shelly L Vaden, Bruce Hammerberg, Deborah J Davenport, Susan M Orton, Maureen Trogdon, Tonatiuh L Melgarejo, Steven D Vancamp, David A WilliamsAbstract:: The purpose of this study was to evaluate Soft Coated Wheaten Terriers (SCWTs) affected with protein-losing enteropathy (PLE) or protein-losing nephropathy (PLN) or both for allergy to Food. We performed gastroscopic Food-Sensitivity testing, a provocative dietary trial, and measurement of fecal immunoglobulin E (IgE) in 6 SCWTs affected with PLE or PLN or both. Positive gastroscopic Food-Sensitivity test reactions were noted in 5 of 6 dogs. Positive reactions were found to milk in 4 dogs, to lamb in 2 dogs, and to wheat and chicken each in 1 dog. Adverse reactions to Food (diarrhea, vomiting, or pruritus) were detected in all 6 dogs during the provocative dietary trial. Adverse reactions were found to corn in 5 dogs, to tofu in 3 dogs, to cottage cheese in 2 dogs, to milk in 2 dogs, to farina cream of wheat in 2 dogs, and to lamb in 2 dogs. Serum albumin concentrations significantly decreased and fecal alpha1-protease inhibitor concentration significantly increased 4 days after the provocative trial when compared with baseline values. Antigen-specific fecal IgE varied throughout the provocative trial, with peak levels following ingestion of test meals. We conclude that Food hypersensitivities are present in SCWTs affected with the syndrome of PLE/PLN. Mild inflammatory bowel disease was already established in the 6 SCWTs of this report at the time of study, making it impossible to determine if Food allergies were the cause or result of the enteric disease.
Martin H Greenberg - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a double blind study of symptom provocation to determine Food Sensitivity
The New England Journal of Medicine, 1990Co-Authors: Don L Jewett, George Fein, Martin H GreenbergAbstract:BACKGROUND: Some claim that Food sensitivities can best be identified by intradermal injection of extracts of the suspected allergens to reproduce the associated symptoms. A different dose of an offending allergen is thought to "neutralize" the reaction. METHODS: To assess the validity of symptom provocation, we performed a double-blind study that was carried out in the offices of seven physicians who were proponents of this technique and experienced in its use. Eighteen patients were tested in 20 sessions (two patients were tested twice) by the same technician, using the same extracts (at the same dilutions with the same saline diluent) as those previously thought to provoke symptoms during unblinded testing. At each session three injections of extract and nine of diluent were given in random sequence. The symptoms evaluated included nasal stuffiness, dry mouth, nausea, fatigue, headache, and feelings of disorientation or depression. No patient had a history of asthma or anaphylaxis. RESULTS: The responses of the patients to the active and control injections were indistinguishable, as was the incidence of positive responses: 27 percent of the active injections (16 of 60) were judged by the patients to be the active substance, as were 24 percent of the control injections (44 of 180). Neutralizing doses given by some of the physicians to treat the symptoms after a response were equally efficacious whether the injection was of the suspected allergen or saline. The rate of judging injections as active remained relatively constant within the experimental sessions, with no major change in the response rate due to neutralization or habituation. CONCLUSIONS: When the provocation of symptoms to identify Food sensitivities is evaluated under double-blind conditions, this type of testing, as well as the treatments based on "neutralizing" such reactions, appears to lack scientific validity. The frequency of positive responses to the injected extracts appears to be the result of suggestion and chance.