To assess the overall quality of life (QOL) of mothers who have a child with a food allergy, we compared 280 mothers who had a child aged 0 to 6 years with a food allergy (FA group) and 187 mothers who had a child without any food allergies (non-FA group). The Japanese version of the World Health Organization Quality of Life-26 (WHOQOL26) was used to assess QOL. Approximately 70% of children in the FA group were mainly treated at pediatric institutions that specialized in allergy. Although the mothers in the FA group often felt uncomfortable or stressed during daily life, they knew how to handle their stress and how to rest, and they also had assistance from their husbands in caring for the children. When we compared the results of WHOQOL26 after adjusting for confounding factors, there were no significant differences between mothers in the FA group and those in the non-FA group. If a child with food allergy receives adequate treatment at a pediatric institution specializing in allergies, this can prevent impairment of the overall QOL for the mother by enhancing her ability to respond to restrictions in daily life. Our study suggested that WHOQOL26 may not reflect the influence of food allergy sufficiently. Therefore, it may be necessary to use QOL measures specifically developed for the mothers of children with food allergies in order to assess the influence of such allergies.

View full abstract

Objective: To investigate the effects of ingestion methods in oral food challenge tests for hen's eggs and cow's milk on the associated symptoms and treatment. Method: While maintaining the total challenge dose, a dose titration method of 5 installments every 15 minutes (5-installment method) was changed to 3 installments every 30 minutes (3-installment method). The results of 126 positive 5-installment hen's egg challenge tests and 108 positive 3-installment tests were reviewed retrospectively and compared. In addition, the results of 17 positive 5-installment cow's milk challenge tests and 23 positive 3-installment tests were reviewed retrospectively and compared. Results: There was no difference in the rate of symptoms induced or treatment required between the 5-installment and 3-installment methods. Furthermore, there was no difference in the severity of symptoms induced between the 5-installment and 3-installment methods. Conclusion: We believe that the 3-installment method is as safe as the 5-installment method and a more convenient way to conduct the oral food challenge test.

View full abstract

Background: The workshop at nursery and elementary schools on food allergy, preventive measures for mis-ingestion of the offending food and emergency care in case of anaphylaxis using Epipen^® trainers must be important. Objective: To study the effect of workshops on food allergy and emergency care using Epipen^® trainers for the staff of nursery and elementary schools. Methods: The questionnaire survey was conducted before and after the workshops, then the results were analyzed statistically. Results: Seven workshops were performed in Osaka and Hyogo prefecture since May to September 2013 for 552 staff consisting of 203 cooks (37%), 118 teachers in charge of health education (21%), 99 school teachers (18%), 60 dietitians (11%), 20 nursery teachers (4%), 43 others (8%) at nursery and elementary schools and 9 paramedics (2%). The rate of those who know how to inject Epipen^®: nursery teachers 16 (80%), dietitians 45 (75%), paramedics 6 (67%), school teachers 56 (57%), teachers in charge of health education 64 (54%) and cooks 14 (7%). After the workshop on symptoms of food allergy, what to do in case of emergency, how to inject and when to inject Epipen^® in emergency using Epipen^® trainers, the rate of staff who understand well increased all with statistical significance. Conclusion: Workshops on emergency care using Epipen^® trainers for the staff of nursery and elementary schools were significantly effective and should be repeated especially for the staff who could encounter the scene of emergency.

View full abstract

Recently, the concept of "Evidence-Based Medicine" has been widely accepted in clinical practices. The randomized controlled trial has been considered to be one of the most important tools for developing evidence; however, some researchers report the results of their randomized controlled trials with malicious intention and/or inappropriate methodology. Therefore, physicians should read medical articles with special care to determine whether the new therapy can be applied to their patients or not. This essay explains points of the CONSORT statement 2010, and ways to interpret results of randomized control trials critically.

View full abstract

[in Japanese]

View full abstract