Milk Desensitization and Induction of Tolerance in Children
Phase: NA
Conditions: Cow Milk Allergy
Sponsor: McGill University Health Centre/Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre

Revised July 20, 2018 
 
TITLE OF STUDY 
Milk Desensitization and Induction of Tolerance in Children 
 
 
 
 
Milk Allergy is a very common problem in children. Milk-induced symptoms effect up-to 20% of children, with 
detrimental effects on nutrition during critical periods of growth. Moreover, approximately 2-5% of children make IgE 
antibodies against cow’s milk, which are responsible for severe allergic reactions and anaphylaxis. Milk is the second 
most common food causing life-threatening anaphylaxis in North America and Europe, and the most common food to 
cause life- threatening symptoms world-wide. Due to the ubiquitous nature of dairy products in our diet, milk is 
extremely difficult to avoid. Treatment of milk allergy is currently based on strict avoidance, and patients must carry 
injectable adrenalin (e.g. Epipen). Our study will assess a novel and potentially life-changing therapy, by actively 
treating milk allergy with Oral Immunotherapy. This may allow patients to safely consume dairy products. Treatment 
with oral-immunotherapy has been piloted in the USA and Europe, but there is no current research into milk-
immunotherapy in Canada, depriving our population of a potential cure for this very common problem. We propose to 
perform a well-defined clinical study, using proper control groups and immunological measures to properly 
understand the ideal patients and the safest and most efficacious methodologies. If successful, this study will clearly 
increase the margin of safety for children and young adults who suffer from life-threatening milk allergy. It can also 
increase the consumption of dairy products within this population, providing nutritional benefits including improved 
bone mineralization and growth. We will also disseminate optimal milk- specific oral-immunotherapy protocols to 
practitioners for general use. 
 
 
Background: Cow’s Milk Allergy (CMA) is a very common problem in children with important nutritional impact. 
Moreover, IgE mediated cow’s milk allergy is among the most common causes of severe allergic reactions and 
anaphylaxis. Due to the ubiquitous nature of dairy products in our diets, milk is extremely difficult to avoid. In spite of 
this, treatment of CMA is currently is based on strict avoidance, as well as instructions for patients to carry injectable 
adrenalin (such as an Epipen). This study will assess a novel and potentially life-changing therapy, by actively treating 
CMA using Oral Immunotherapy, which may allow patients to safely consume milk and other dairy products. 
Treatment with oral immunotherapy (OIT) has been performed in the USA and Europe, but there are few rigorous, 
blinded clinical trials, with adequate controls and outcomes. In addition, there is no current research into OIT for CMA 
in Canada, depriving our population of a potential cure for this very common problem. A well defined clinical trial 
with adequate controls and immunological outcomes is essential for understanding the ideal patients and the safest and 
most efficacious methodologies, and for dissemination of successful milk specific OIT protocols to practitioners for 
more general use. 
2.0 Hypothesis: Children who are allergic to milk can be treated via a supervised program of oral immunotherapy 
(OIT). Successful treatment will be indicated by the ability to ingest dairy products daily with no adverse symptoms. 
This will be accompanied by a decrease in specific IgE to milk, an increase in IgA and IgG4 blocking antibodies and 
by increases in milk-specific Regulatory T-cells (Treg) and Regulatory B-cells (Breg). 
2.1 Specific Objectives: 1) To determine the efficacy of Oral immunotherapy (OIT) treatment for children with 
IgE mediated cow’s milk allergy (CMA) 
2) To determine the safety of OIT for treatment of children with IgE-mediated CMA 
3) To determine if successful OIT for children with CMA is associated with increases in blocking antibodies, 
including milk specific IgA and IgG4 
4) To determine if successful OIT for children with CMA is associated with increases in Treg and/or Breg. 
 
Experimental Approach: This is a randomized control study with a cross-over design. Eighty four  boys and girls 
with between 6 to 20 years of age, diagnosed with IgE-mediated cow’s milk allergy using strict skin testing and 

Revised July 20, 2018 
 
serological criteria, will be recruited for this study. 42 will undergo oral immunotherapy, while 42 will be followed as 
natural history controls but will be offered similar therapy, should it be successful, at the completion of one year. OIT 
subjects will initaiate therapy with a 2-day rush desensitization treatment using oral doses of milk, in our Clinical 
Investigation Unit. They will then continue the highest tolerated dose of milk at home for two weeks. Subsequently, they 
will return for weekly increases in doses until a maximum of 200 ml of milk is ingested daily. The primary clinical 
outcome will be a comparison of the amount of milk consumed safely on oral challenge performed prior to OIT, when 
the OIT dose has reached its maximum (200 ml or highest tolerated dose) and after one year of therapy. Patients will also 
be followed with clinical symptom scores and adverse event diaries and we will monitor immunological parameters 
such as changes in milk-specific IgE, blocking antibodies (IgG4 and IgA) and regulatory T and B cells. We expect that 
we will be able to see important improvement in the ability to safely ingest milk and other dairy products, and this will 
be accompanied by significant decreases in IgE and increases in Regulatory T and B cells. 
 
 
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 
 
1.0 Food allergy, a common, significant problem: Foods are reported to be extremely common triggers of anaphylaxis, 
accounting for 33.2% to 56% of all anaphylaxis cases (1, 2). Food-induced anaphylaxis is an increasing reason for hospital 
admission, primarily in the first 2 decades of life. At present, the only treatment for food allergy is to avoid the causative 
food, while the principle treatment for an allergic reaction is prompt administration of intramuscular epinephrine (3, 4). Cow 
milk allergy (CMA) is the most common food allergy in children. CMA is associated with severe and frequent allergic 
reactions, life-threatening anaphylaxis, and multiple nutritional deficiencies. Due to the ubiquitous use of cows’ milk in 
Western diets, it is almost impossible to avoid (5). Studies suggest that quality-of-life of patients and families with milk 
allergy is highly impaired (6). The large burden of this disease requires development of new treatment strategies apart from 
avoidance to alleviate this problem. This proposal will examine oral immunotherapy to cow’s milk as a treatment for CMA. 
We will perform the first Canadian placebo-controlled trial of milk oral immunotherapy (OIT), and evaluate the clinical and 
immunological parameters that will help determine the ideal protocols, and predict ideal candidates to have maximal impact 
of this treatment strategy on the large population of children and adolescents with CMA in Canada. 
 
1.2 : Adverse reactions to cow’s milk protein: Adverse reactions to cow’s milk are frequently reported, although only a 
small number can be properly substantiated. For example, in a European telephone survey of more than 40,000 contacts, the 
most common identified food sensitivity was milk; up to 38.5 % of children with food allergy (n=438) were reported 
sensitive to milk, and 26% of food–sensitive adults in this survey identified problems with milk (7, 8). This included both 
perceived symptoms and physician diagnoses. To make the issue more complex, when assessing reports of milk allergy, 
several immunological and biochemical mechanisms are implicated. For example, deficiency of the enzyme lactase leads to 
lactose intolerance, a common cause of milk-induced gastrointestinal symptoms (abdominal bloating, pain, diarrhea) in 
many individuals. This rarely, if ever, causes life-threatening symptoms, and lactase enzyme-supplemented products are 
common, thus obviating nutritional problems. Other disorders (such as FPIES, the Food induced Enterocolitis and 
Proctocolitis Syndrome) can cause intestinal symptoms such as vomiting, diarrhea and/or GI bleeding in infants and young 
children. This may involve immune mechanisms, such as T-cell mediated reactions to milk, and while FPIES can cause 
severe symptoms, the problem almost always resolves in early childhood (9, 10). 
 
In contrast, IgE-mediated allergy is the cause of adverse reactions to milk associated with the most serious potential 
consequences. IgE antibodies are the common denominator in all allergic diseases, including food allergy, hay fever and 
asthma. IgE-mediated CMA can present with rapid onset of symptoms, starting within seconds following ingestion of dairy 
products. Symptoms can involve a single organ, such as skin (rash, eczema, and hives), or the intestinal tract (vomiting and 
abdominal pain), but milk ingestion can also cause life-threatening anaphylaxis, which involves the skin (swelling, hives, 
edema) mucous membranes (angioedema), respiratory tract (congestion, cough, wheezing, bronchospasm), intestinal tract 
(severe cramping, vomiting, diarrhea) and cardiovascular system (dizziness, hypotension, shock). Studies on food allergy- 
induced fatalities have consistently identified cow’s milk among the most common causes of food induced mortality, along 
with tree nuts and peanuts (11). 

Revised July 20, 2018 
 
 
1.3 : Diagnosis of IgE mediated CMA: IgE-antibody mediated CMA is caused by the presence of specific IgE antibodies 
against milk. It can affect all ages, from early in the first year of life through adulthood, and is the primary immunological 
mechanism that can cause anaphylaxis. When strict diagnostic criteria are applied, combining medical history and diagnostic testing, the 
rate of true IgE-mediated milk allergy in infants is estimated to range between 2 to 5% (2). The diagnosis of IgE- mediated CMA is 
predicated upon a history of initiation of the classical symptoms within seconds to less than 2 hours after ingestion of dairy products. 
This is further confirmed by the presence of a positive reaction on allergy skin testing using validated techniques, and/or by the 
presence of specific IgE to milk proteins on serological testing. A confirmatory oral challenge to milk in the setting of an allergy 
clinic can also be performed; this is employed in the research setting, and is also clinically useful to confirm unusual symptoms or to 
determine if the child has outgrown the allergy. It is important to note that skin testing or blood testing alone, without a clinical 
history of a reaction, is a poor measure of milk allergy, as children with no personal history of reaction can successfully pass a 
challenge in spite of the positive testing (5). 
 
1.4 Pathophysiology of anaphylaxis and allergy: If a child has confirmed allergy, the symptoms that ensue are due to the 
presence of IgE antibodies on mast cells in the dermis, on mucosal surfaces, in the airways and gastrointestinal tract and in 
the vasculature (11). Mucosal Mast Cells (and circulating basophils) harbor IgE molecules on specialized receptors, Fc 
epsilon R1. Once an antigen such as milk is trapped by bound IgE, it triggers the mast cell to release a complex cascade of 
protein and lipid-based mediators that may induce swelling, redness, uricaria, bronchospasm, dizziness and shock that can 
accompany anaphylaxis. The mediators of anaphylaxis include histamine, leukotrienes, platelet-activating factor as well as 
other cytokines and chemokines (3). At present, the primary treatment for these reactions is injectable adrenalin (11). Strict 
avoidance of the food is currently the single effective strategy to preventing allergic reactions (3). 
 
1.5 The impact of CMA: IgE mediated milk allergy is associated with a high frequency of unwanted reactions (12). In US 
surveys, it was ranked as second or third most common food requiring adrenalin treatment in children with food allergy (13, 
14). This was due to the high frequency of dairy ingredients in common foods as well as medication and supplements (15, 
16). Complete avoidance of dairy is thus difficult for families, and for the affected children and young adults. 
 
The natural history of IgE mediated milk allergy is variable. It was reported that symptoms of CMA resolve for 
approximately 80% - 90% of children before the age of 5 (17). However, more recent studies indicate a later resolution of 
milk allergy and fewer children outgrowing CMA . In a study by Skripak et al, the median age for tolerance to cow's milk 
was 7 years + 11 months and at least 15% - 20% of their population retained their sensitivity into the second decade of life 
(18). This represents resolution at older ages than earlier studies (5). In addition, at least 20% of children who are diagnosed 
with CMA will have life-long allergy (5). The consequences of later resolution and prolonged allergy include important 
nutritional deficiency especially at critical times of bone growth and mineralization (19-21), in addition to the high risk of 
life-threatening events that accompany the increased exposures experienced by teens and young adults. 
 
As there is a global increase in food allergy in general, and particularly in milk allergy, the issues reviewed above are not 
insignificant. To date, the primary treatment of any food allergy, including CMA, is strict avoidance in order to minimize the 
risk of allergic reactions. Although the symptoms of CMA resolve spontaneously for many patients, a significant number 
remain. The ubiquitous presence of milk products makes strict avoidance of milk more difficult than most other foods. In 
addition, the nutritional consequences of avoiding all dairy products, such as poor bone growth and osteoporosis, are much 
more protean than if one needs to avoid other common food allergens such as peanuts. We thus need to determine a better 
strategy for treating those with milk allergy. In developing treatments, we need to determine what are the optimal protocols, 
and what are the changes in the immune response to CMA that predict successful treatment. Defining these immunological 
differences may help develop novel treatments to help individuals to resolve their symptoms of CMA. 
 
1.6 Treatment of CMA: Immunotherapy has been utilized for inhalant allergies, such as for grass, tree or ragweed hay 
fever, for over a century (22). Allergen immunotherapy is based on injection of incrementally increasing amounts a specific 
allergen over a prolonged period. However, attempts at food based immunotherapy led to severe adverse effects including 
fatalities (23). Treatment of food allergy and prevention of anaphylaxis based on allergen immunotherapy was not re- 
attempted until recently (22). Instead of injected immunotherapy, recent studies have attempted oral administration of 

Revised July 20, 2018 
 
graded amounts of the food over a period of weeks to desensitize patients. 
 
To date several studies have examined oral immunotherapy (OIT) for milk, eggs, and peanut allergies. Several uncontrolled 
studies have been published, although few controlled trials of oral immunotherapy to milk have been performed. A recent 
meta-analysis found only 4 studies of oral immunotherapy for CMA that included control groups (24). The authors found 
that the protocols were overall successful, with up to 10 fold improvements in milk tolerance in treated patients compared to 
untreated or placebo treated controls. These protocols reveal encouraging results with significantly increased thresholds to 
ingesting milk after oral immunotherapy (25-28). However, all studies had relatively small sample sizes. The authors of the 
meta-analysis also observed that for each study, treatment was accompanied by a significant number of reactions to milk 
(24). Most reactions were mild to moderate, and none were life-threatening. The authors concluded that more controlled 
studies should be performed to determine the safest and most efficacious protocols, whereby patients have the maximum 
benefit with risks minimized. 
 
1.7 Questions regarding OIT treatment for CMA: There are no known guidelines describing the optimal patient 
candidates for desensitization nor are there criteria for the safest and most effective dosing schedules. To date, published 
milk desensitization protocols start treatment with very small doses, and the doses are increased weekly or bi-weekly. 
Alternatively, “rush” protocols which performs the initial increases rapidly in hospital over a 1-3 day period are employed, 
in order to speed up treatment. Rush protocols appear to be effective, although may be associated with more side effects 
during the in-hospital period. Conclusions as to the optimal protocols are limited by the low number of studies performed 
with each one. Therefore, major questions exist regarding the efficacy of the immunotherapy, the quantity/ frequency of 
allergen consumption required to cause desensitization and the optimal protocol that can balance efficacy and minimize side 
effects. 
 
In addition, there are major gaps in the understanding of the immunological changes that accompany successful OIT. 
Individuals who outgrow food allergy have decreased size of allergy skin testing, and exhibit decreases in specific IgE 
antibodies to milk. Perhaps counter-intuitively, serum IgE against milk does not have to be undetectable, nor the skin test 
completely negative before a patient can tolerate milk (29). No firm cut-offs for skin test or IgE that will predict tolerance 
exist, although guidelines have been established that help predict who may undergo oral challenges successfully (30). In 
order for a child who has CMA to safely ingest milk, other changes in the immune system clearly are required to counter- 
balance the IgE antibodies that cause the disease. We will review several of the proposed immune system changes that are 
associated with tolerance to CMA. 
 
1.8 Pathogenic and blocking antibodies: Antibodies are produced by B-lymphocytes (B-cells). To produce antibodies, B- 
cells must interact with T-lymphocytes, and receive specific signals from cell-cell contact and from intracellular 
communication molecules know as cytokines. For example, to synthesize IgE, B-cells must receive Interleukin (IL) 4 and/or 
IL-13 from T-cells. Importantly, patients who become tolerant to an allergen naturally or via immunotherapy exhibit an 
increase in antibodies of the IgG4 class (31). IgG4 may be a sign of tolerance, or may actually act as a “blocking antibody” 
to counteract IgE. Recently, in subjects being desensitized for peanut allergy, peanut specific IgA was also found to increase 
with treatment. IgA and IgG4 are produced when B-cells are exposed to IL-10 and Transforming Growth Factor  (TGF), 
and both IgG4 and IgA may act as blocking antibodies, especially in the intestinal tract (32). It is not yet known if milk 
specific IgA increases with milk OIT. In this proposal we will follow the progression of milk specific IgE, IgA and IgG4 and 
correlate these with clinical outcomes. 
 
1.9 Regulatory T-cells: T-cells are crucial coordinators of immune responses. They play an essential role in host defense 
and inflammation, via Effector T-cells (Teff) designated by surface molecules CD4+CD25-. T-cells are also key players in 
immune regulation via Regulatory T-cells (Treg) designated as CD4+CD25+. Human studies report that food allergens 
induce specific Teff cells, and studies have shown that Teff cells can proliferate in response to milk proteins in allergic 
individuals. In developing tolerance to milk, it is possible that Teff are diminished. Alternatively, tolerance to milk may be 
associated with increases in Treg that are specific for milk, which inhibit immune-mediated allergic reactions to milk 

Revised July 20, 2018 
 
proteins. A potential suppressive role of Treg in food allergies was exemplified both in animal models (33, 34) and in 
human studies. At least two studies demonstrated increased Treg cells in peripheral blood in children who spontaneously 
outgrew milk allergy (35, 36). Our laboratory has shown that antigen-specific Treg attenuate airway inflammation in   a 
mouse model of asthma (37, 38). This is due in part to production of regulatory cytokines, including IL-10 and TGF. It is 
not known if increases in Treg during the natural outgrowth of milk allergy are mirrored by similar increased in Treg 
following in active oral immunotherapy. In a limited study of 10 children, Mori et al reported no changes in total Treg 
expression in subjects undergoing milk OIT. However, this study was limited by small sample size, relatively short period of 
follow up (6 months), and they did not examine antigen specific Treg. Thus, we will investigate the effect of 
immunotherapy to milk on the levels of milk-specific Teff and Treg cells. We will carefully monitor the numbers of Treg, by 
analyzing blood cells that have the characteristics of CD4+CD25+ and the key regulatory molecule Foxp3. We will also 
determine if children who have undergone OIT have decreased T-eff responses to milk than children who have not been 
treated, and determine the cytokines that are produced by the Treg. 
 
1.10 Regulatory B-cells in food allergy: B-lymphocytes are cells specialized for producing antibodies, and play a crucial 
role in the pathogenesis of milk allergy by producing IgE, the primary trigger for CMA associated with anaphylaxis. In 
addition to this already important role, B-cells likely play other crucial roles in the ability tolerate milk proteins. B-cells can 
produce cytokines such as IL-13, which may contribute to allergic inflammation in lungs and sinuses (39) and increase IgE 
production. Additionally, as with T-cells, B-cells can play an active role as regulatory cells (B-reg) in various infectious and 
inflammatory processes. B-reg produce regulatory cytokines, such as IL-10 and TGF, similarly to T-reg, which can 
influence the production of IgG4 and IgA. An imbalance in B-reg has been shown to be important to the pathogenesis of 
Multiple Sclerosis (40). Recently, Noh et al showed that children with eczema and sensitivity to milk had fewer milk 
specific B-reg than children who could drink milk without worsening of their skin symptoms (32, 41). No studies have 
examined the correlation between B-reg and IgE-mediated milk allergy and anaphylaxis. Since B-cells can make both 
pathogenic IgE (which requires IL-13) and regulatory antibodies IgG4 and IgA, (which require IL-10) understanding the 
contribution of B-reg to milk desensitization is an important facet of clarifying the immunological network that is in play in 
this disease. Thus we will examine the total numbers of B-reg (designated by the surface markers CD19 and CD5 as well as 
the cytokines IL-10 and TGF) and determine changes in these cells in children undergoing oral immunotherapy to milk 
compared to an observation group of untreated children with milk allergy. 
 
1.11 Vitamin D in desensitization: Several environmental factors have been implicated in the pathogenesis of food 
allergies. One of the factors that can be measured and manipulated is vitamin D level. There is growing interest in the 
potential role of sunlight/vitamin D status on allergic conditions. Some ecological studies suggest a protective effect of 
vitamin D on the development of food allergies, (42, 43) others fail to substantiate this association; some even suggest an 
inverse effect, i.e. high levels of vitamin D are associated with increased food allergy risk(44). Because of our northern 
climate, fluctuations in vitamin D may play a role as a confounding variable in our study. As such, vitamin D levels will be 
measured with and correlated with symptoms, milk-specific IgE and IgG4 levels as well as T and B reg levels. 
 
1.12 Both immunoglobulin (Ig) isotype and conserved Fc glycosylation sites often dictate the downstream activity of 
an Ab where complexity and degree of glycosylation contribute to its ability to bind Fc receptors (FcRs) and activate 
complement. Most information on the effects of glycosylation center on IgG in cancer therapy and autoimmunity. In 
cancer therapy, glycosylation modifications that enhance affinity for activating FcRs are utilized to facilitate immune-
mediated tumor cell killing. In autoimmunity, disease severity has been linked to alterations in the presence, location, 
and composition of Fc glycans. Significantly less is understood about the role of glycosylation in the setting of allergy 
and asthma. However, recent data demonstrate that glycosylation of IgE at the asparagine-394 site of Cε3 is necessary 
for IgE interaction with the high affinity IgE receptor but, surprisingly, glycosylation has no effect on IgE interaction 
with its low-affinity lectin receptor, CD23. Variations in the specific glycoform may modulate the interaction of an Ig 
with its receptors. Significantly more is known about the functional effects of glycosylation of IgG than for other Ig 
isotypes. Thus, the role of glycosylation is much better understood in the areas of autoimmunity and cancer therapy, 
where IgG is the dominant isotype, than in the field of allergy, where IgE predominates.  Participant serum and/or 
plasma will be assessed for IgE glycosylation  by Dr Galit Alter's laboratory at Harvard University 

Revised July 20, 2018 
 
 
1.13 Does oral immunotherapy (OIT) give patients the ability to normally ingest dairy products? In treating allergic 
conditions, we may achieve either temporary desensitization, or complete tolerance. Desensitization refers to a change in 
the amount of food antigen needed to cause allergic symptoms; it is a temporary state and is dependent on regular exposure 
to the substance in question, as is done for penicillin allergic patients who require drug desensitization. When the treatment 
with penicillin is ended, the patient loses the ability to safely ingest it within days to weeks, unless the therapy continues. In 
contrast, tolerance refers to long-term immunologic changes associated with the ability to ingest a food without symptoms 
and without ongoing therapy. Both scenarios are an improvement over the status quo; desensitization as therapeutic goal 
allows individuals more freedom from the risk of accidental ingestion in everyday settings; however, frequent if not daily 
exposure to the food would be required to maintain the desensitized state. Limited reports of three subjects suggested a loss 
of protection within 48h to weeks after elimination of the food from the diet (45-47). A more recent trial suggested that as 
long as participants ingested the maintenance dose of milk at least twice a week no allergic reactions were likely to 
occur(48). Achieving long-term clinical tolerance would allow safe food ingestion without ongoing therapy by inducing 
lasting immunologic changes; given the abundance of dairy products in our diet, it is crucial, to determine if we can achieve 
tolerance using our clinical protocol. We will utilize oral food challenges at the end of oral immunotherapy and one month 
following cessation of therapy to evaluate this question. 
 
1.14 Project Feasibility: Our team at the McGill University Health Center is well positioned to carry out this project. We 
have a very active program studying food allergy, with projects that encompass peanut allergy, sesame allergy, patients with 
multiple severe food allergies and we have extensive clinical and research data bases that catalogue food allergy patients. 
The division of pediatric allergy and immunology at MUHC is the largest academic allergy faculty in Canada and has 
extensive experience in performing food challenges and management of patients with milk allergy. Dr. Ben Shoshan has 
coordinated several large clinical studies and has hands on experience in investigating and managing severe food allergies 
(49-56). Dr. Mazer is a clinician scientist with expertise in food allergy and his laboratory is recognized as a leading 
Canadian laboratory in understanding B-cells and Treg in allergic inflammation (37-39, 57-60). The Research Institute of the 
MUHC includes laboratories studying T and B-reg in a variety of chronic conditions, including Diabetes, Multiple Sclerosis 
and Rheumatoid arthritis. Thus we have an expertise that is unique in Canada, and the experience that will ensure that the 
operating procedures for sample preparation and processing are in place. 
 
1.15 Summary: 
Ingestion of dairy products has tremendous health benefits for children and is a crucial source of nutrients for optimal 
growth and bone health. Children with persistent milk allergy not only cannot benefit from these important health effects but 
may suffer severe, untoward reactions and even fatalities with ingestion of small amounts of milk. At present no treatment is 
available in Canada, and avoidance is almost impossible. Successful oral immunotherapy will provide improved patient 
safety and undoubtedly contribute to improved quality of life through optimal nutrition. The uniqueness of our study 
includes, for the first time in Canada assessment of oral immunotherapy to milk, use of a control group and the thorough 
molecular and immunologic investigation of our subjects to provide data that will allow others to adapt these protocols 
safely. The integrated multidisciplinary team at the MUHC covers all facets of epidemiology, allergy, basic immunology and 
nutrition and has a proven track record in food allergy research. 

Revised July 20, 2018 
7 
 
 
2.0 Hypothesis: Children who are allergic to milk can be treated via a supervised program of oral immunotherapy (OIT). 
Successful treatment will be indicated by the ability to ingest dairy products daily with no adverse symptoms. This will be 
accompanied by a decrease in specific IgE to milk, an increase in IgA and IgG4 blocking antibodies and by increases in 
milk-specific Regulatory T-cells (Treg) and Regulatory B-cells (Breg). 
 
2.1 Specific Objectives: 1) To determine the efficacy of Oral immunotherapy (OIT) treatment for children with IgE 
mediated cow’s milk allergy (CMA) 
2) To determine the safety of OIT for treatment of children with IgE-mediated CMA 
3) To determine if successful OIT for children with CMA is associated with increases in blocking antibodies, including 
milk specific IgA and IgG4 
4) To determine if successful OIT for children with CMA is associated with increases in Treg and/or Breg. 
 
2.2 Rationale: CMA is a very common problem in children with important nutritional impact. Moreover, milk is among 
the most common foods associated with severe allergic reactions and anaphylaxis, and is extremely difficult to avoid. 
Treatment of CMA is currently is based on strict avoidance, which is difficult to adhere to due to the ubiquitous nature of 
dietary dairy products. Treatment with oral immunotherapy (OIT) has been performed in the USA and Europe, but there are 
few rigorous, blinded clinical trials, with adequate controls and outcomes. However, there is no current research into OIT for 
CMA in Canada, depriving our population of a potential cure for this very common problem. A well defined clinical trial 
with adequate controls and immunological outcomes is essential for understanding the ideal patients and the safest and most 
efficacious methodologies, and for dissemination of successful milk specific OIT protocols to practitioners for more general 
use. 
3.0 Research Methods 
3.1 Subject Selection: Eighty four boys and girls, between 6 to 20 years of age, diagnosed with IgE-mediated 
milk allergy, will be recruited for the study. Participants will be recruited from the allergy clinic at the Montreal 
Children’s Hospital, Hopital Ste Justine, and the Centre de santé et de services sociaux de Chicoutimi. 
Inclusion criteria: Children 6 years and older who satisfy all the following criteria will be included: 
a. A history suggestive of IgE-mediated allergy to milk. An IgE-mediated reaction to a specific food is defined as a 
minimum of 2 mild symptoms and/or 1 moderate and/or 1 severe symptom that began within 1-20 minutes after ingestion or 
contact. Mild IgE-mediated symptoms include: pruritus, urticaria, flushing, or rhinoconjunctivitis. Moderate symptoms 
include angioedema (of face or lips), throat tightness, gastrointestinal complaints (vomiting, cramping, pain and/or diarrhea), 
or airway involvement (cough, nasal blockage, mucous ); severe symptoms include bronchospasm, wheezing, hypoxia, 
cyanosis, low blood pressure, or circulatory collapse (shock) (appendix A ,table 1) (61). 
b. The presence of at least one of the following confirmatory tests: 
 
(a) Positive skin prick test to milk (weal diameter 3 mm larger than that of the normal saline control). The 
allergen used will be commercially available milk extracts (Omega Labs, Montreal, QC). Skin tests will traced in ink, 
tape transferred to paper and wheal diameter measured by computer assisted planometry. 
 
(b) Detection of serum specific IgE (>0.35 kU/L) to milk or any of its proteins, measured by fluorescence enzyme 
immunoassay (Immunocap, Phadia, Uppsala, Sweden). The range for Immuncap is 0.35 – 100 and changes over time can be 
monitored effectively. 
 
Following explanation of all facets of the protocol, informed consent and assent forms will be signed by the parents or 
legal guardian and subject, if applicable (Appendix B). 
 
Exclusion criteria. 
1. Patients with uncontrolled asthma or other uncontrolled respiratory diseases . 
2. Malignancies, autoimmune diseases and/or severe primary or secondary immune deficiencies. 
3. Patients receiving immunosuppressive therapy. 
4. Patients receiving β-blockers (including topical formulations). 
5. Associated diseases contraindicating the use of epinephrine: cardiovascular disease or severe hypertension. 

Revised July 20, 2018 
8 
 
 
 
Through a process of stratified randomization (according to sex), participants will be randomly assigned to one of 2 
study groups. The first group will receive active desensitization, and the second group will not receive any treatment 
but will be followed up regularly (Appendix A Table 2). Desensitization will be offered to the observation groups 
following the trial, should the outcome be successful in the treatment group. 
 
3.2 Oral challenge test to milk. Prior to initiating desensitization and following treatment, the subjects will undergo a 
placebo controlled oral challenge to milk. These challenges will determine the level at which the children react and will 
be the baseline to follow their improvement in oral tolerance following therapy. 
 
Oral challenges will be single blinded and will be performed with fresh cow’s milk, with increasing doses taken orally 
every 10 to 15 minutes up to a total of 150ml of milk ( doses of 0.1, 0.3, 1.0, 3.0, 10.0, 30.0, 45ml, 60 mL) (49;82). (83). 
Patients will receive 2 challenges per day, 1 placebo and 1 with the active substance (milk). Nurses in the Medical Day 
Unit/Center for Investigative Medicine will prepare the food and randomize the placebo challenges. Unless 
contraindicated, the placebo will be soy or rice-based milk . If the challenge is negative after 150 ml of milk, results 
will be confirmed by means of open challenge, using 250ml of yogurt or ice cream 1 hour after completion of the 
blinded portion(29) according to the recommendations of the European Academy of Allergology and Clinical 
Immunology (5). After completing the challenge, patients will be kept under observation for at least 2 hours. Only 
objective symptoms will be considered to be indicative of a positive allergic reaction (29). Food challenges will be 
scored as positive if a single symptom or any of the following objective clinical reactions will be observed: urticaria, 
angioedema, wheezing, rhinitis, vomiting, diarrhea, protracted abdominal pain, exacerbation of atopic dermatitis, or 
shock. A single episode of vomiting will not be considered as a positive reaction, while severe and repetitive vomiting 
will. If the challenge is negative, ie, the subject is asymptomatic, he/she will be excluded from the study. Based on our 
experience, approximately 80% of those subjects ages 6 or greater, with positive history and positive skin tests, 
approached will fail the oral challenge and thus be eligible. 
 
3.3 Oral Immunotherapy to Cow’s Milk Protein: The desensitization protocol will be performed at the Medical Day 
Unit / Center for Investigative Medicine, under the direct supervision of the medical and nursing staff, and with full 
cardiopulmonary resuscitation measures available for the treatment of possible allergic reactions that could occur 
during the procedure. Oral and intravenous doses of diphenhydramine and intramuscular epinephrine and IV 
corticosteroid  will be at the bedside at all times(3). 
 
The desensitization process is adapted from Martorelli 2011 al (26) (Appendix B). We have based our protocol on this 
study, as it was used for infant desensitization and was associated with high resolution of allergy and low incidence of 
side effects. 

Revised July 20, 2018 
 
3.3.1 2 Day Initial Rush Desensitization: After placement of an intravenous catheter, the desensitization will begin with a 
first dose of 1ml of diluted milk (1/100). If tolerated, subjects will then receive approximately doubling doses every 60 
minutes until they reach 8 ml of 1/100 dilution, or the highest tolerated dose without adverse reaction. Those who reach the 
8 ml dose will be administered 1.6 ml of a 1/10 dilution of whole cow’s milk. On the second day the dose of 1.6 ml of the 
1/10 dilution is repeated, and then doubling doses every 60 minutes are administered till a dose of 12 ml 1/10 dilution of 
milk is reached. If 12 ml (1/10) is tolerated, the final dose on day 2 will be 2.5 ml undiluted milk. 
The patients will not be admitted, but will remain under observation for 2 hours after the final dose each day, with the 
possibility for increasing this period if required. A full list of doses can be found in Appendix B. 
 
3.3.2 Escalation phase 
Once subjects reached the dose of 2.5 ml undiluted milk, they will be instructed to repeat this dose at home daily for 2 
weeks. They will then come to the research unit, and will be given an increased dose of 4 ml. This will be continued for 
one week, with incremental increases given weekly for 16 weeks, until a dose of 200 ml is reached. If a patient is unable 
to increase past a particular dose they will continue on this dose until the end of the 16 week acceleration phase. 
 
3.3.3 Maintenance phase 
Patients who reach the maintenance dose of 200 ml will be instructed to continue and consume 200 ml of milk daily for 
1 month. They will then undergo an oral challenge (see above), with the maximum dose of 300 ml. 
 
If this 300 ml dose is tolerated, they will be permitted to consume dairy products without restrictions and attend regular 
follow up visits for 12 months. It will be recommended to consume dairy at least twice weekly, if not more, to maintain 
the desensitization. 
 
Subjects who tolerate less than the 200 ml upper dose will be instructed to continue their maximum tolerated dose for 
the 12 month follow-up period, at which time another blinded milk challenge will be performed to determine if their 
tolerance increased. 
 
3.3.4 Long Term Follow-up: to assess the persistence of milk desensitization from clinical, cellular and molecular 
perspectives, participants will be asked to return to the research center once a year for five years following the end of the 
Maintenance Phase.  At these visits, participants will be asked about their dairy consumption, any reactions they may 
have experienced in the interval between the last visit and changes in their quality of life (as assessed by 
questionnaire).  Participants will also have the following analyses done: SPT, salivary IgA, serum milk-specific IgE, 
IgA and IgG4 concentrations, Glycosylation state, Vitamin D levels, and B and T cell regulatory cell 
phenotyping.  Participants will be reminded of the importance of continuing the consumption of dairy products in the 
maintenance of desensitization.  Participants who have completed the study will be asked to reconsent to the extension.  
Given that these participants may not have scheduled visits to the hospital, to lessen their inconvenience, a delegated 
member of the study team might make a home visit in order to obtain informed consent 
 
3.3.4 Control Subjects: Subjects randomized to no treatment will be followed every 3-6 months as is standard in 
our clinic for milk allergy. They will have skin testing and blood testing as on routine follow-ups, but they will be 
required to fill out symptoms diaries. At the end of the study period, oral desensitization will be offered to the control 
patients who had not spontaneously achieved tolerance. 
 
3.3.4 Documentation: Subjects and families will be asked to complete daily home diaries to document that daily 
doses were taken, as well as to report accidental ingestions, problems with dose administration, or related symptoms. 
Follow-up visits in addition to or in conjunction with the weekly visits for dose escalation will be at 3, 6, 9, 12 months 
from completion of OIT. Each visit will include a medical history and physical examination, SPT, serum milk-specific 
IgE, IgA and IgG4 concentrations, Vitamin D levels, and B and T cell regulatory cell phenotyping will be measured at 
enrollment and at follow-up visits. (see Appendix C). Biweekly or monthly Telephone follow-up of these patients will 
be done prior to and following reaching the maximum tolerated dose. The telephone follow-up will review symptoms 

Revised July 20, 2018 
 
and protocols for how to treat potential reactions. 
 
3.3.5 Adverse reactions to OIT: All patients and their caregivers (if applicable) will be provided self-administered 
epinephrine, along with instructions and indications for administration and education about the nature of possible reactions 
to the desensitization therapy. Home diary forms will be provided to record the dose, date and time taken, symptoms 
occurring after the dose or any other time, and medications taken each day (Appendix D). 
 
Safety measures: The patients' caregivers will be instructed verbally and in writing about the recommendations to be 
followed after desensitization and how to treat possible allergic reactions. They will also given telephone and pager 
numbers of investigators and nurses for direct consultation 24/7. Parents will be instructed to contact the research team 
should any symptoms suggestive on an allergic reaction be present ( appendix E, bottom of page).: 
 
 Withdrawal from therapy: Subjects will be carefully monitored during the in hospital rush therapy phase, as well as 
during the home OIT phase. Instructions for treatment of reactions will be provided as above. Patients who are enrolled 
will be informed that in previously published studies, minor allergic reactions are common in these protocols (mild 
itching, abdominal discomfort) but resolve with increased time on therapy. Subjects will be withdrawn if they cannot 
tolerate the low dose, rush desensitization phase, if they have have more 2 or more moderate or severe reactions during 
the home (maintenance) OIT phase, if they experience a rare or unforeseen complication such as severe flares of eczema 
or chronic gastrointestinal symptoms (e.g.development of eosinophilic esophagitis) and if the parents or subjects wishes 
to voluntarily terminate therapy. 
 
3.3.6 : Variables measured. The following variables will be measured in each patient: 
A. The primary outcome measure will be the presence of desensitization defined by the ability to tolerate 200 ml of 
milk 1 year after the start of the trial. This is a qualitative variable with three categories: total desensitization ( 200 mL of 
cow's milk); partial desensitization (20–200 mL); and failed desensitization (<20 mL milk ). Only patients presenting 
total desensitization were regarded as being successfully desensitized. 
B. Secondary outcome measures will be: 
1. 
Number and severity of adverse reactions occurring after oral exposure to milk during the desensitization 
and follow-up phases. 
2. 
Minimum dose of milk that triggered symptoms during the desensitization protocols or challenge tests. 
3. 
Days until desensitization was achieved. 
4. 
Indices of desensitization : 
a. Change in skin prick test weal size, comparing tape transferred, cpoputor 
measured diameters and areas of the skin tests to milk extract. 
b. Levels of sIgE, sIgA and sIgG4 before desensitization, during follow-up and 
at the end of the study. 
c. T and B reg before desensitization, during follow-up and at the end of the 
study. 
 
Sample Preparatrion and storage: Blood draws will be performed according to the Study Protocol Appendix C. 7-10 ml 
of blood will be drawn into heparinized tubes (green stopper) and 2-3 ml in red stopper tubes. Serum will be separated and 
frozen at -80 until processing for sIgE, IgA and IgG4 levels. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells, including T and B cells, 
will be isolated by Ficoll-Hypaque centrifugation. They will be resuspeded at a concentration of 5 x 106/ ml, and frozen in 
RPMI + DMSO medium in liquid nitrogen until use for measurement of T-and Breg. 
 
3.3.7 : Measurement of Milk specific IgE, IgA and IgG4: Milk specific IgE, IgG4, and IgA antibodies will be 
measured by Immunocap (Phadia, Upsalla, Sweden). This automated, matrix-based ELISA system is able to quantify 
specific antibodies with high accuracy, and is considered the gold standard for specific IgE measurement (62). It is ideal 
for pediatric samples as it requires approximately 120 l of blood per sample. The Immuncap system has been in use at 
the Montreal Children’s Hospital since 2000. 

Revised July 20, 2018 
 
 
3.3.8 Measurement of Regulatory T-cells: Regulatory T-cells will be measured from peripheral blood samples by flow 
cytometry. By definition, Treg are defined as CD4+ cells that co-express the surface marker CD25 and the intracellular 
marker Foxp3. 7-10 ml of blood will be procured from subjects and lymphocytes will be isolated by Ficoll-Hypaque density 
centrifugation. The isolated cells will be cultured at 1 x 106/ ml with milk proteins alpha, beta and kappa-casein as detailed 
in Noh et al (41). Following 48 hours of culture, the cells will be stained with fluorescent antibodies (CD4 APC, Foxp3 – 
Alexa 488, CD25 PE) and casein induced Treg populations will be determined by flow cytometry (LSRII, Becton 
Dickenson, Toronto, ON). Controls will include medium alone and an irrelevant antigen (gliadin). The Treg will be 
expressed as a percent of the total CD4+ T-cells, and the changes in Treg in response to culture with casein fractions will be 
followed over time. We predict that successful OIT will increase Tregs in response to milk protein exposure. 
3.3.9 Measurement of Regulatory B-cells: Regulatory B-cells will be measured from peripheral blood samples by flow 
cytometry. By definition, Breg are defined as CD19+ cells that co-express the surface marker CD5 and the intracellular 
marker Foxp3. 5-10 ml of blood (as above) will be procured from subjects and lymphocytes will be isolated by Ficoll-Paque 
density centrifugation. The isolated cells will be cultured at 106/ ml with milk proteins alpha, beta and kappa-casein as 
detailed in Noh et al(41). Following 48 hours of culture, the cells will be stained with fluorescent antibodies (CD19 APC, 
Foxp3 –Alexa 488, CD5 PE) and casein induced Breg populations will be determined in an LSRII. Controls will include 
medium alone and an irrelevant antigen (gliadin). The Breg will be expressed as a percent of the total CD19+ B-cells, and 
the changes in Breg in response to culture with casein fractions will be followed over time. We predict that successful OIT 
will increase Bregs in response to milk protein exposure. We will also evaluate intracellular regulatory cytokines in CD19+ 
cells, specifically the presence of IL-10, which is expected to increase in subjects following successful OIT to milk. 
 
4.0.   Statistical Considerations 
A: Sample Size calculation: Given that previous studies have attributed at least 50% improvement in the ability to 
tolerate milk(24) with an α  of 0.05 and a power (1- β ) of 0.80, a sample of 42 cases and 42 controls will be recruited. 
 
B: Statistical Analysis:Statistical analyses will be performed using paired t-tests. A p value of <0.05 will be 
considered significant. Descriptive statistics of the variables including means, standard deviations and frequencies were 
computed for all study variables. The concentrations of milk –specific IgE, IgG and IgA, the size of the skin tests , T 
reg and Breg expression at the different study time-points will be compared with their baseline values using the one- 
sample paired t-test  and to the control using a 2 sample t-test . 
Multiple regression models will be used to assess factors associated with response to desensitization, including 
baseline demographic characteristics; gender; age; baseline SPT and specific IgE, Treg and Breg numbers, and vitamin 
D level. 
 
5. Ethical Considerations 
In the consent form given at study enrolment, participants will be advised that they will be randomly assigned to 
either oral immunotherapy or observation for a one year period. Participants will also be advised that their data will be 
shared only among the OIT study team. Participants in the observation control group who will not receive OIT 
treatment, will be told that they may to undergo such therapy after a year of observation and a positive oral food 
challenge. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Revised July 20, 2018 
 
Appendix A Scale for grading reaction Severity 
Score 
Symptom 
Mild 
Pruritus, 
Urticaria, 
Flushing, 
Rhinoconjunctivitis 
Moderate 
Angioedema, 
Throat tightness, 
Gastrointestinal complaints (cramping, . 
pain,vomiting,diarrhea) 
Respiratory symptoms (Cough, Mucous 
production) 
Severe 
Wheeze, Respiratory Distress 
Hypoxia, 
Cyanosis, 
Hypotension 
Circulatory collapse (Shock) 

Revised July 20, 2018 
 
Appendix B Desensitization protocol 
Study Time Point 
Milk Dilution 
Volume (ml) 
Day 1 
1/100 
1 
1/100 
2 
1/100 
4 
1/100 
8 
1/10 
1.6 
Day 2 
1/10 
1.6 
1/10 
3.2 
1/10 
6.4 
1/10 
12 
Undiluted 
2.5 
Week 2 
Undiluted 
4 
Week 3 
Undiluted 
6 
Week 4 
Undiluted 
8 
Week 5 
Undiluted 
10 
Week 6 
Undiluted 
12 
Week 7 
Undiluted 
15 
Week 8 
Undiluted 
20 
Week 9 
Undiluted 
25 
Week 10 
Undiluted 
30 
Week 11 
Undiluted 
40 
Week 12 
Undiluted 
50 
Week 13 
Undiluted 
75 
Week 14 
Undiluted 
100 
Week 15 
Undiluted 
125 
Week 16 
Undiluted 
150 
Weeks 17-52 
Undiluted 
200 
 
Appendix C  Study Design 
 
Visit 1: Explanation, Informed Consent, Skin testing, Basic Blood testing + Immune Tolerance Evaluation (CBC, biochem, specific 
IgE, IgG4, IgA, Treg, Breg) 
Visit 2: Physical Exam, Blinded Placebo Controlled Food Challenge 
Visit 3, 4: Physical exam, 2 Day in hospital Rush initiation of Oral Immunotherapy 
Visit 5: Two weeks after rush initiation, Physical exam, symptoms diary, first dose escalation 
Visit 6-21: (or more if necessary) Vital Signs, Symptom Diary, Escalation of Oral Immunotherapy 
Visit 22, one week after completion: Physical Exam, Symptom Diary, Basic Blood testing + Immune Tolerance Evaluation (CBC, 
biochem, specific IgE, IgG4, IgA, Treg, Breg) 
Visit 23, One month after completion of OIT escalation: Physical Exam, Symptom Diary, Basic Blood testing + Immune Tolerance 
Evaluation (CBC, biochem, specific IgE, IgG4, IgA, Treg, Breg) 
Visit 24: One month after cessation of OIT: Physical Exam, Symptom Diary, Basic Blood testing + Immune Tolerance Evaluation 
(CBC, biochem, specific IgE, IgG4, IgA, Treg, Breg) Blinded Placebo Controlled Food Challenge 
Visit 25: Three months after cessasation of OIT: Physical Exam, Symptom Diary, Basic Blood testing + Immune Tolerance 
Evaluation (CBC, biochem, specific IgE, IgG4, IgA, Treg, Breg) 
Visit 26: 6 Months after completion of OIT: Physical Exam, Symptom Diary, Basic Blood testing + Immune Tolerance Evaluation 
(CBC, biochem, specific IgE, IgG4, IgA, Treg, Breg) 
Visit 27: 9 Months after completion of OIT: Physical Exam, Symptom Diary, Basic Blood testing + Immune Tolerance Evaluation 
(CBC, biochem, specific IgE, IgG4, IgA, Treg, Breg) 
Visit 28: 12 Months after completion of OIT: Physical Exam, Symptom Diary, Basic Blood testing + Immune Tolerance Evaluation 
(CBC, biochem, specific IgE, IgG4, IgA, Treg, Breg) 

Revised July 20, 2018 
 
 
AVAILABLE FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT 
The study will be based at the McGill University Health Center- Montreal Children’s Hospital and Montreal General 
Hospital. We have access to a Clinical Investigation Unit and specialized nurses that have experience with food challenges 
and treatment of anaphylaxis. Ms. Turnbull has coordinated several previous food allergy studies, and Mr. Lejtenyi is the 
highly experienced in the required assays, as laboratory coordinator for clinical research since 2004. The antibody testing by 
Immunocap will be performed in the clinical laboratory at the Montreal Children’s Hospital. The cell culture studies for 
enumeration of Treg and Breg will be performed in Dr. Mazer’s laboratory at the Meakins Christie laboratories. We have all 
the necessary cell culture facilities and an LSR-II multiparameter flow cytometer that can perform up to 11 color cell 
analysis. We have all the assays in place for the culture of T-cells and B-cells and for measurement and quantification of B- 
reg and Treg. The Food Allergy Epidemiology Unit at the Montreal General Hospital, of which Dr. Ben-Shoshan is a 
member, has extensive experience in coordinating, maintaining and analysing large studies. 
 
 
 
 
CMA is a very common problem in children with important nutritional impact. Moreover, milk is among the most 
common foods associated with severe allergic reactions and anaphylaxis, and is extremely difficult to avoid. Treatment of 
CMA is currently is based on strict avoidance, which is difficult to adhere to due to the ubiquitous nature of dietary dairy 
products. Treatment with oral immunotherapy (OIT) has been performed in the USA and Europe, but there are few rigorous, 
blinded clinical trials, with adequate controls and outcomes. Moreover, there is no current research into OIT for CMA in 
Canada, depriving our population of a potential cure for this very common problem. A well defined clinical trial with 
adequate controls and immunological outcomes is essential for understanding the ideal patients and the safest and most 
efficacious methodology and for dissemination of successful milk specific OIT protocols to practitioners for more general 
use. Successful treatment will improve the quality of life for the individuals suffering from milk allergy, as well as increase 
the margin of safety that can be precarious due to the high prevalence of milk and milk products. They will also be able to 
benefit from the important nutritional impact that includes a ready source protein, and calcium and vitamin D, which are 
crucial components for growth in early childhood. 

Revised July 20, 2018 
 
 
 
LITERATURE CITED: Authors, title, source. Number references consecutively as they appear in the text of the 
Background and Experimental Design sections (pages 6 and 7). 
 
1. Liew, W.K., Williamson, E., and Tang, M.L. 2009. Anaphylaxis fatalities and admissions in Australia. J Allergy Clin 
Immunol 123:434-442. 
2. Rona, R.J., Keil, T., Summers, C., Gislason, D., Zuidmeer, L., Sodergren, E., Sigurdardottir, S.T., Lindner, T., Goldhahn, 
K., Dahlstrom, J., et al. 2007. The prevalence of food allergy: a meta-analysis. J Allergy Clin Immunol 120:638-646. 
3.Simons, F.E., Ardusso, L.R., Bilo, M.B., El-Gamal, Y.M., Ledford, D.K., Ring, J., Sanchez-Borges, M., Senna, G.E., 
Sheikh, A., and Thong, B.Y. 2011. World Allergy Organization anaphylaxis guidelines: summary. J Allergy Clin 
Immunol 127:587-593 e581-522. 
4. Simons, K.J., and Simons, F.E. 2010. Epinephrine and its use in anaphylaxis: current issues. Curr Opin Allergy Clin 
Immunol 10:354-361. 
5. Fiocchi, A., Schunemann, H.J., Brozek, J., Restani, P., Beyer, K., Troncone, R., Martelli, A., Terracciano, L., Bahna, S.L., 
Rance, F., et al. 2010. Diagnosis and Rationale for Action Against Cow's Milk Allergy (DRACMA): a summary 
report. J Allergy Clin Immunol 126:1119-1128 e1112. 
6. Gupta, R.S., Springston, E.E., Warrier, M.R., Smith, B., Kumar, R., Pongracic, J., and Holl, J.L. 2011. The prevalence, 
severity, and distribution of childhood food allergy in the United States. Pediatrics 128:e9-17. 
7. Burney, P., Summers, C., Chinn, S., Hooper, R., van Ree, R., and Lidholm, J. 2010. Prevalence and distribution of 
sensitization to foods in the European Community Respiratory Health Survey: a EuroPrevall analysis. Allergy 
65:1182-1188. 
8. Steinke, M., Fiocchi, A., Kirchlechner, V., Ballmer-Weber, B., Brockow, K., Hischenhuber, C., Dutta, M., Ring, J., 
Urbanek, R., Terracciano, L., et al. 2007. Perceived food allergy in children in 10 European nations. A randomised 
telephone survey. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 143:290-295. 
9. Mehr, S., Kakakios, A., Frith, K., and Kemp, A.S. 2009. Food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome: 16-year 
experience. Pediatrics 123:e459-464. 
10. Nowak-Wegrzyn, A., and Muraro, A. 2009. Food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome. Curr Opin Allergy Clin 
Immunol 9:371-377. 
11. Simons, F.E. 2011. Anaphylaxis pathogenesis and treatment. Allergy 66 Suppl 95:31-34. 
12. Boyano-Martinez, T., Garcia-Ara, C., Pedrosa, M., Diaz-Pena, J.M., and Quirce, S. 2009. Accidental allergic reactions in 
children allergic to cow's milk proteins. J Allergy Clin Immunol 123:883-888. 
13. Rudders, S.A., Banerji, A., Corel, B., Clark, S., and Camargo, C.A., Jr. 2010. Multicenter study of repeat epinephrine 
treatments for food-related anaphylaxis. Pediatrics 125:e711-718. 
14. Silva, R., Gomes, E., Cunha, L., and Falcao, H. 2012. Anaphylaxis in children: a nine years retrospective study (2001- 
2009). Allergol Immunopathol (Madr) 40:31-36. 
15. Audicana Berasategui, M.T., Barasona Villarejo, M.J., Corominas Sanchez, M., De Barrio Fernandez, M., Garcia Aviles, 
M.C., Garcia Robaina, J.C., Gastaminza Lasarte, G., Laguna Martinez, J.J., Lobera Labairu, T., Lopez San Martin, 
M., et al. 2011. Potential hypersensitivity due to the food or food additive content of medicinal products in Spain. J 
Investig Allergol Clin Immunol 21:496-506. 
16. Vo, T.H., Le, N.H., Patel, M.S., Phan, L.T., and Tran Minh, N.N. 2012. Acute allergic reactions in vietnamese children 
after drinking a new milk product. Foodborne Pathog Dis 9:156-159. 
17. Oranje, A.P., Wolkerstorfer, A., and de Waard-van der Spek, F.B. 2002. Natural course of cow's milk allergy in 

Revised July 20, 2018 
 
childhood atopic eczema/dermatitis syndrome. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 89:52-55. 
18. Skripak, J.M., Matsui, E.C., Mudd, K., and Wood, R.A. 2007. The natural history of IgE-mediated cow's milk allergy. J 
Allergy Clin Immunol 120:1172-1177. 
19. Barreto-Chang, O.L., Pearson, D., Shepard, W.E., Longhurst, C.A., and Greene, A. 2010. Vitamin D--deficient rickets in 
a child with cow's milk allergy. Nutr Clin Pract 25:394-398. 
20. Fox, A.T., Du Toit, G., Lang, A., and Lack, G. 2004. Food allergy as a risk factor for nutritional rickets. Pediatr Allergy 
Immunol 15:566-569. 
21. Yu, J.W., Pekeles, G., Legault, L., and McCusker, C.T. 2006. Milk allergy and vitamin D deficiency rickets: a common 
disorder associated with an uncommon disease. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 96:615-619. 
22. Pajno, G.B., and Finegold, I. 2011. SIT beyond respiratory diseases. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 107:395-400. 
23. Oppenheimer, J.J., Nelson, H.S., Bock, S.A., Christensen, F., and Leung, D.Y. 1992. Treatment of peanut allergy with 
rush immunotherapy. J Allergy Clin Immunol 90:256-262. 
24. Brozek, J.L., Terracciano, L., Hsu, J., Kreis, J., Compalati, E., Santesso, N., Fiocchi, A., and Schunemann, H.J. 2012. 
Oral immunotherapy for IgE-mediated cow's milk allergy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Exp Allergy 
42:363-374. 
25. Longo, G., Barbi, E., Berti, I., Meneghetti, R., Pittalis, A., Ronfani, L., and Ventura, A. 2008. Specific oral tolerance 
induction in children with very severe cow's milk-induced reactions. J Allergy Clin Immunol 121:343-347. 
26. Martorell Aragones, A., Felix Toledo, R., Cerda Mir, J.C., and Martorell Calatayud, A. 2007. Oral rush desensitization 
to cow milk. Following of desensitized patients during three years. Allergol Immunopathol (Madr) 35:174-176. 
27. Pajno, G.B., Caminiti, L., Ruggeri, P., De Luca, R., Vita, D., La Rosa, M., and Passalacqua, G. 2010. Oral 
immunotherapy for cow's milk allergy with a weekly up-dosing regimen: a randomized single-blind controlled study. 
Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 105:376-381. 
28. Skripak, J.M., Nash, S.D., Rowley, H., Brereton, N.H., Oh, S., Hamilton, R.G., Matsui, E.C., Burks, A.W., and Wood, 
R.A. 2008. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of milk oral immunotherapy for cow's milk 
allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol 122:1154-1160. 
29. Bock, S.A., and Atkins, F.M. 1990. Patterns of food hypersensitivity during sixteen years of double-blind, placebo- 
controlled food challenges. J Pediatr 117:561-567. 
30. Allen, K.J., Davidson, G.P., Day, A.S., Hill, D.J., Kemp, A.S., Peake, J.E., Prescott, S.L., Shugg, A., Sinn, J.K., and 
Heine, R.G. 2009. Management of cow's milk protein allergy in infants and young children: an expert panel 
perspective. J Paediatr Child Health 45:481-486. 
31. Wang, J., Lin, J., Bardina, L., Goldis, M., Nowak-Wegrzyn, A., Shreffler, W.G., and Sampson, H.A. 2010. Correlation 
of IgE/IgG4 milk epitopes and affinity of milk-specific IgE antibodies with different phenotypes of clinical milk 
allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol 125:695-702, 702 e691-702 e696. 
32. Noh, J., Lee, J.H., Noh, G., Bang, S.Y., Kim, H.S., Choi, W.S., Cho, S., and Lee, S.S. 2010. Characterisation of 
allergen-specific responses of IL-10-producing regulatory B cells (Br1) in Cow Milk Allergy. Cell Immunol 
264:143-149. 
33. Adel-Patient, K., Wavrin, S., Bernard, H., Meziti, N., Ah-Leung, S., and Wal, J.M. 2011. Oral tolerance and Treg cells 
are induced in BALB/c mice after gavage with bovine beta-lactoglobulin. Allergy 66:1312-1321. 
34. Schouten, B., van Esch, B.C., Hofman, G.A., Boon, L., Knippels, L.M., Willemsen, L.E., and Garssen, J. 2010. 
Oligosaccharide-induced whey-specific CD25(+) regulatory T-cells are involved in the suppression of cow milk 
allergy in mice. J Nutr 140:835-841. 
35. Karlsson, M.R., Rugtveit, J., and Brandtzaeg, P. 2004. Allergen-responsive CD4+CD25+ regulatory T cells in children 
who have outgrown cow's milk allergy. J Exp Med 199:1679-1688. 
36. Shreffler, W.G., Wanich, N., Moloney, M., Nowak-Wegrzyn, A., and Sampson, H.A. 2009. Association of allergen- 
specific regulatory T cells with the onset of clinical tolerance to milk protein. J Allergy Clin Immunol 123:43-52 
e47. 
37. Kaufman, G.N., Massoud, A.H., Audusseau, S., Banville-Langelier, A.A., Wang, Y., Guay, J., Garellek, J., Mourad, 
M.W., Picirillo, C., McCusker, C.T., et al. 2011. Intravenous Immunoglobulin attenuates airway 
hyperresponsiveness in a murine model of allergic asthma. Clin Exp Allergy 41:718-728. 
38. Massoud, A.H., Guay, J., Shalaby, K.H., Bjur, E., Ablona, A., Chan, D., Nouhi, Y., McCusker, C.T., Mourad, M.W., 

Revised July 20, 2018 
 
Picirillo, C.A., et al. 2012. Intravenous Immunoglobulin attenuates airway inflammation disease via induction of 
Foxp3+ regulatory T-cells. J Allergy Clin Immunol in press. 
39. Hajoui, O., Janani, R., Tulic, M., Joubert, P., Ronis, T., Hamid, Q., Zheng, H., and Mazer, B.D. 2004. Synthesis of IL-13 
by human B lymphocytes: regulation and role in IgE production. J Allergy Clin Immunol 114:657-663. 
40. Rieger, A., and Bar-Or, A. 2008. B-cell-derived interleukin-10 in autoimmune disease: regulating the regulators. Nat Rev 
Immunol 8:486-487. 
41. Noh, J., Noh, G., Kim, H.S., Kim, A.R., and Choi, W.S. 2012. Allergen-specific responses of CD19(+)CD5(+)Foxp3(+) 
regulatory B cells (Bregs) and CD4(+)Foxp3(+) regulatory T cell (Tregs) in immune tolerance of cow milk allergy of 
late eczematous reactions. Cell Immunol. 
42. Sharief, S., Jariwala, S., Kumar, J., Muntner, P., and Melamed, M.L. 2011. Vitamin D levels and food and 
environmental allergies in the United States: results from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 
2005-2006. J Allergy Clin Immunol 127:1195-1202. 
43. Sicherer, S.H., and Leung, D.Y. 2012. Advances in allergic skin disease, anaphylaxis, and hypersensitivity reactions to 
foods, drugs, and insects in 2011. J Allergy Clin Immunol 129:76-85. 
44. Milner, J.D., Stein, D.M., McCarter, R., and Moon, R.Y. 2004. Early infant multivitamin supplementation is associated 
with increased risk for food allergy and asthma. Pediatrics 114:27-32. 
45. Bindslev-Jensen, C., Ballmer-Weber, B.K., Bengtsson, U., Blanco, C., Ebner, C., Hourihane, J., Knulst, A.C., Moneret- 
Vautrin, D.A., Nekam, K., Niggemann, B., et al. 2004. Standardization of food challenges in patients with 
immediate reactions to foods--position paper from the European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology. 
Allergy 59:690-697. 
46. Niggemann, B., Staden, U., Rolinck-Werninghaus, C., and Beyer, K. 2006. Specific oral tolerance induction in food 
allergy. Allergy 61:808-811. 
47. Rolinck-Werninghaus, C., Staden, U., Mehl, A., Hamelmann, E., Beyer, K., and Niggemann, B. 2005. Specific oral 
tolerance induction with food in children: transient or persistent effect on food allergy? Allergy 60:1320-1322. 
48. Itoh, N., Itagaki, Y., and Kurihara, K. 2010. Rush specific oral tolerance induction in school-age children with severe 
egg allergy: one year follow up. Allergol Int 59:43-51. 
49. Ben-Shoshan, M., Harrington, D.W., Soller, L., Fragapane, J., Joseph, L., Pierre, Y.S., Godefroy, S.B., Elliott, S.J., and 
Clarke, A.E. 2012. Demographic predictors of peanut, tree nut, fish, shellfish, and sesame allergy in Canada. J 
Allergy (Cairo) 2012:858306. 
50. Nguyen-Luu, N.U., Ben-Shoshan, M., Alizadehfar, R., Joseph, L., Harada, L., Allen, M., St-Pierre, Y., and Clarke, A. 
2011. Inadvertent exposures in children with peanut allergy. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 
51. Soller, L., Fragapane, J., Ben-Shoshan, M., Harrington, D.W., Alizadehfar, R., Joseph, L., St Pierre, Y., Godefroy, S.B., 
La Vieille, S., Elliott, S.J., et al. 2011. Possession of epinephrine auto-injectors by Canadians with food allergies. J 
Allergy Clin Immunol 128:426-428. 
52. Ben-Shoshan, M., and Clarke, A.E. 2011. Anaphylaxis: past, present and future. Allergy 66:1-14. 
53. Ben-Shoshan, M., Harrington, D.W., Soller, L., Fragapane, J., Joseph, L., St Pierre, Y., Godefroy, S.B., Elliott, S.J., and 
Clarke, A.E. 2010. A population-based study on peanut, tree nut, fish, shellfish, and sesame allergy prevalence in 
Canada. J Allergy Clin Immunol 125:1327-1335. 
54. Ben-Shoshan, M., Kagan, R., Primeau, M.N., Alizadehfar, R., Turnbull, E., Harada, L., Dufresne, C., Allen, M., Joseph, 
L., St Pierre, Y., et al. 2010. Establishing the diagnosis of peanut allergy in children never exposed to peanut or with 
an uncertain history: a cross-Canada study. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 21:920-926. 
55. Ben-Shoshan, M., Kagan, R.S., Alizadehfar, R., Joseph, L., Turnbull, E., St Pierre, Y., and Clarke, A.E. 2009. Is the 
prevalence of peanut allergy increasing? A 5-year follow-up study in children in Montreal. J Allergy Clin Immunol 
123:783-788. 
56. Ben-Shoshan, M., Kagan, R., Primeau, M.N., Alizadehfar, R., Verreault, N., Yu, J.W., Nicolas, N., Joseph, L., Turnbull, 
E., Dufresne, C., et al. 2008. Availability of the epinephrine autoinjector at school in children with peanut allergy. 
Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 100:570-575. 
57. d'Hennezel, E., Ben-Shoshan, M., Ochs, H.D., Torgerson, T.R., Russell, L.J., Lejtenyi, C., Noya, F.J., Jabado, N., Mazer, 
B., and Piccirillo, C.A. 2009. FOXP3 forkhead domain mutation and regulatory T cells in the IPEX syndrome. N 
Engl J Med 361:1710-1713. 

Revised July 20, 2018 
 
 
58. Fawaz, L.M., Sharif-Askari, E., Hajoui, O., Soussi-Gounni, A., Hamid, Q., and Mazer, B.D. 
2007. Expression of IL-9 receptor alpha chain on human germinal center B cells 
modulates IgE secretion. J Allergy Clin Immunol 120:1208- 1215. 
59. Hajoui, O., Zheng, H., Guay, J., Letuve, S., Fawaz, L.M., and Mazer, B.D. 2007. Regulation 
of IL-13 receptor alpha 1 expression and signaling on human tonsillar B-lymphocyte 
subsets. J Allergy Clin Immunol 120:1425-1432. 
60. McCusker, C., Chicoine, M., Hamid, Q., and Mazer, B. 2002. Site-specific sensitization in a 
murine model of allergic rhinitis: role of the upper airway in lower airways disease. J 
Allergy Clin Immunol 110:891-898. 
61. Brown, S.G. 2004. Clinical features and severity grading of anaphylaxis. J Allergy Clin 
Immunol 114:371-376. 
62. Boyce, J.A., Assa'ad, A., Burks, A.W., Jones, S.M., Sampson, H.A., Wood, R.A., Plaut, M., 
Cooper, S.F., Fenton, M.J., Arshad, S.H., et al. 2010. Guidelines for the diagnosis and 
management of food allergy in the United States: report of the NIAID-sponsored expert 
panel. J Allergy Clin Immunol 126:S1-58.