Whole blood cytokine release assays reveal disparity between capillary blood sampling methods.

INTRODUCTION: The use of whole blood in rapid cytokine release assays (CRAs) is becoming an established technique for screening immune responses following natural infection or vaccination, especially in the context of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Establishing an accurate capillary blood sampling method to replace the need for venipuncture could make CRAs more accessible. In this study, capillary blood was collected via two different methods alongside traditional venipuncture to investigate whether the method of blood draw affects cytokine quantification when performing CRAs. METHODS: Adults previously vaccinated with SARS-CoV-2 vaccines donated three blood samples: one by venipuncture, one by finger prick, and one by a microneedle device. Whole blood was aliquoted and incubated overnight with SARS-CoV-2 peptides or left unstimulated. Cytokine release in plasma was measured by multiplex array. RESULTS: In unstimulated samples, little to no cytokines were detected in blood collected via venipuncture or by microneedle devices. Conversely, capillary blood collected by finger prick showed detectable levels of all cytokines analysed, with significantly inflated levels of TNFα, IL-10 (p < 0.0001), IL-2, GM-CSF, and IL-13 (p < 0.01), and 53% of these samples were also positive for IFN-γ. Following peptide stimulation, 25% of samples collected via finger prick showed dysregulated production of IFN-γ, TNFα, IL-2, and IL-10, with lower cytokine production than unstimulated controls. Contrastingly, this was seen in just 4% of venous blood samples and in none of the microneedle samples. CONCLUSIONS: Capillary blood draw via a microneedle device results in highly comparable immune responses to those seen via venipuncture at baseline and following peptide stimulation, suggesting this is a viable method for rapid whole blood CRAs. Conversely, differential cytokine production is observed following capillary blood draw via finger prick.

Differential cellular and humoral immune responses in immunocompromised individuals following multiple SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations.

Introduction: The heterogeneity of the immunocompromised population means some individuals may exhibit variable, weak or reduced vaccine-induced immune responses, leaving them poorly protected from COVID-19 disease despite receiving multiple SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations. There is conflicting data on the immunogenicity elicited by multiple vaccinations in immunocompromised groups. The aim of this study was to measure both humoral and cellular vaccine-induced immunity in several immunocompromised cohorts and to compare them to immunocompetent controls. Methods: Cytokine release in peptide-stimulated whole blood, and neutralising antibody and baseline SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific IgG levels in plasma were measured in rheumatology patients (n=29), renal transplant recipients (n=46), people living with HIV (PLWH) (n=27) and immunocompetent participants (n=64) post third or fourth vaccination from just one blood sample. Cytokines were measured by ELISA and multiplex array. Neutralising antibody levels in plasma were determined by a 50% neutralising antibody titre assay and SARS-CoV-2 spike specific IgG levels were quantified by ELISA. Results: In infection negative donors, IFN-γ, IL-2 and neutralising antibody levels were significantly reduced in rheumatology patients (p=0.0014, p=0.0415, p=0.0319, respectively) and renal transplant recipients (p<0.0001, p=0.0005, p<0.0001, respectively) compared to immunocompetent controls, with IgG antibody responses similarly affected. Conversely, cellular and humoral immune responses were not impaired in PLWH, or between individuals from all groups with previous SARS-CoV-2 infections. Discussion: These results suggest that specific subgroups within immunocompromised cohorts could benefit from distinct, personalised immunisation or treatment strategies. Identification of vaccine non-responders could be critical to protect those most at risk.

Identifying key priorities for research to protect the consumer with food hypersensitivity: A UK Food Standards Agency Priority Setting Exercise.

INTRODUCTION: Food hypersensitivity (FHS), including food allergy, coeliac disease and food intolerance, is a major public health issue. The Food Standards Agency (FSA), an independent UK Government department working to protect public health and consumers' wider interests in food, sought to identify research priorities in the area of FHS. METHODS: A priority setting exercise was undertaken, using a methodology adapted from the James Lind Alliance-the first such exercise with respect to food hypersensitivity. A UK-wide public consultation was held to identify unanswered research questions. After excluding diagnostics, desensitization treatment and other questions which were out of scope for FSA or where FSA was already commissioning research, 15 indicative questions were identified and prioritized by a range of stakeholders, representing food businesses, patient groups, health care and academia, local authorities and the FSA. RESULTS: 295 responses were received during the public consultation, which were categorized into 70 sub-questions and used to define 15 key evidence uncertainties ('indicative questions') for prioritization. Using the JLA prioritization framework, this resulted in 10 priority uncertainties in evidence, from which 16 research questions were developed. These could be summarized under the following 5 themes: communication of allergens both within the food supply chain and then to the end consumer (ensuring trust in allergen communication); the impact of socio-economic factors on consumers with FHS; drivers of severe reactions; mechanism(s) underlying loss of tolerance in FHS; and the risks posed by novel allergens/processing. DISCUSSION: In this first research prioritization exercise for food allergy and FHS, key priorities identified to protect the food-allergic public were strategies to help allergic consumers to make confident food choices, prevention of FHS and increasing understanding of socio-economic impacts. Diagnosis and treatment of FHS was not considered in this prioritization.

Using data from food challenges to inform management of consumers with food allergy: A systematic review with individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Eliciting doses (EDs) (eg, ED01 or ED05 values, which are the amounts of allergen expected to cause objective symptoms in 1% and 5% of the population with an allergy, respectively) are increasingly being used to inform allergen labeling and clinical management. These values are generated from food challenge, but the frequency of anaphylaxis in response to these low levels of allergen exposure and their reproducibility are unknown. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to determine (1) the rate of anaphylaxis in response to low-level peanut exposure and (2) the reproducibility of reaction thresholds (and anaphylaxis) at food challenge. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis of studies that reported at least 50 individuals with peanut allergy reacting to peanut at double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) and were published between January 2010 and September 2020. Risk of bias was assessed by using National Institute for Clinical Excellence methodologic checklists. RESULTS: A total of 19 studies were included (covering a total of 3151 participants, 534 of whom subsequently underwent further peanut challenge). At individual participant data meta-analysis, 4.5% (95% CI, 1.9% to 10.1%) of individuals reacted to 5 mg or less of peanut protein with anaphylaxis (moderate heterogeneity [I2 = 57%]). Intraindividual thresholds varied by up to 3 logs, although this variation was limited to a half-log change in 71.2% (95% CI, 56.2% to 82.6%) of individuals. In all, 2.4% (95% CI, 1.1% to 5.0%) of patients initially tolerated 5 mg of peanut protein but then reacted to this dose at subsequent challenge (low heterogeneity [I2 = 16%]); none developed anaphylaxis. CONCLUSION: Around 5% of individuals reacting to an ED01 or ED05 level of exposure to peanut might develop anaphylaxis in response to that dose. This equates to 1 and 6 anaphylaxis events per 2500 patients exposed to an ED01 or ED05 dose, respectively, in the broader population of individuals with peanut allergy.

Can we define a level of protection for allergic consumers that everyone can accept?

Substantial progress has been made in characterising the risk associated with exposure to allergens in food. However, absence of agreement on what risk is tolerable has made it difficult to set quantitative limits to manage that risk and protect allergic consumers effectively. This paper reviews scientific progress in the area and the diverse status of allergen management approaches and lack of common standards across different jurisdictions, including within the EU. This lack of regulation largely explains why allergic consumers find Precautionary Allergen Labelling confusing and cannot rely on it. We reviewed approaches to setting quantitative limits for a broad range of food safety hazards to identify the reasoning leading to their adoption. This revealed a diversity of approaches from pragmatic to risk-based, but we could not find clear evidence of the process leading to the decision on risk acceptability. We propose a framework built around the criteria suggested by Murphy and Gardoni (2008) for approaches to defining tolerable risks. Applying these criteria to food allergy, we concluded that sufficient knowledge exists to implement the framework, including sufficient expertise across the whole range of stakeholders to allow opinions to be heard and respected, and a consensus to be achieved.