Reproducibility of food challenge to cow's milk: Systematic review with individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cow's milk (CM) is an increasingly common cause of severe allergic reactions, but there is uncertainty with respect to severity of reactions at low-level CM exposure, as well as the reproducibility of reaction thresholds. OBJECTIVE: We undertook an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis of studies reporting double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges in CM to determine the rate of anaphylaxis to low-level exposures and the reproducibility of reaction thresholds. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and IPD meta-analysis of studies reporting relevant data. Authors were contacted to provide additional data and/or clarification as needed. Risk of bias was assessed using the National Institute for Clinical Excellence methodologic checklists. RESULTS: Thirty-four studies were included, representing data from over 1000 participants. The cumulative ED01 and ED05 (cumulative doses causing objective symptoms in 1% and 5% of the at-risk allergic population) were 0.3 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2-0.5) and 2.9 (95% CI, 1.6-5.4) mg, respectively. At meta-analysis, 4.8% (95% CI, 2.0-10.9) and 4.8% (95% CI, 0.7-27.1) of individuals reacting to ≤5 mg and ≤0.5 mg of CM protein had anaphylaxis (minimal heterogeneity, I2 = 0%). Then 110 individuals underwent repeat double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges; the intraindividual variation in reaction threshold was limited to a ½-log change in 80% (95% CI, 65-89) of participants. Two individuals initially tolerated 5 mg CM protein but then reacted to this dose at a subsequent challenge, although neither had anaphylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: About 5% of CM-allergic individuals reacting to ED01 or ED05 exposure might have anaphylaxis to that dose. This equates to 5 and 24 anaphylaxis events per 10,000 patients exposed to an ED01 or ED05 dose, respectively, in the broader CM-allergic population. Most of these anaphylactic reactions would be mild and respond to a single dose of epinephrine.

Predicting the allergenicity of legume proteins using a PBMC gene expression assay.

BACKGROUND: Food proteins differ in their allergenic potential. Currently, there is no predictive and validated bio-assay to evaluate the allergenicity of novel food proteins. The objective of this study was to investigate the potential of a human peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) gene expression assay to identify biomarkers to predict the allergenicity of legume proteins. RESULTS: PBMCs from healthy donors were exposed to weakly and strongly allergenic legume proteins (2S albumins, and 7S and 11S globulins from white bean, soybean, peanut, pea and lupine) in three experiments. Possible biomarkers for allergenicity were investigated by exposing PBMCs to a protein pair of weakly (white bean) and strongly allergenic (soybean) 7S globulins in a pilot experiment. Gene expression was measured by RNA-sequencing and differentially expressed genes were selected as biomarkers. 153 genes were identified as having significantly different expression levels to the 7S globulin of white bean compared to soybean. Inclusion of multiple protein pairs from 2S albumins (lupine and peanut) and 7S globulins (white bean and soybean) in a larger study, led to the selection of CCL2, CCL7, and RASD2 as biomarkers to distinguish weakly from strongly allergenic proteins. The relevance of these three biomarkers was confirmed by qPCR when PBMCs were exposed to a larger panel of weakly and strongly allergenic legume proteins (2S albumins, and 7S and 11S globulins from white bean, soybean, peanut, pea and lupine). CONCLUSIONS: The PBMC gene expression assay can potentially distinguish weakly from strongly allergenic legume proteins within a protein family, though it will be challenging to develop a generic method for all protein families from plant and animal sources. Graded responses within a protein family might be of more value in allergenicity prediction instead of a yes or no classification.

Allergen labelling: Current practice and improvement from a communication perspective.

BACKGROUND: Allergen information on product labels is crucial in food allergy management, though inadequacy in current labelling practices is one of the major causes for accidental reactions upon consuming prepacked food products. OBJECTIVE: This study analyses current status of communicating allergen information on food labels and provides practical recommendations for improving the label format based on communication theory. METHODS: Product labels (N 288) of seven food categories from private label products and brands were obtained at three retailers in the Netherlands. Information regarding the 14 EU-regulated allergens was evaluated by the frequency of emphasizing allergens in the ingredient list, use of precautionary allergen labelling (PAL), icons and an allergen information section. Effectiveness of communication was assessed evaluating readability and findability of information on allergens using principles of Gestalt and Cognitive Load theories. RESULTS: As requested by EU regulation 1169/2011, emphasizing allergens in the ingredient list was almost 100%, all other presentations of information on allergens on labels was highly diverse. A separate allergen information section was present on most private label products. This section could, but not necessarily did, repeat allergens from the ingredient list and/or give a PAL. Brands often provided a PAL at the end of the ingredient list. Part of the products displayed an icon at different locations of the label. Label background, a lack of cohesion and variation in location of topics hamper the identification of relevant information on allergens by (allergic) consumers. Recommendations include a standardized order for mandatory and voluntary topics on the label and a separate allergen information section. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Overall, consumers encounter a wide and inconsistent range in ways of presentation of allergen information on labels. Standardization according to basic design principles can improve usability and support safe food purchases for allergic consumers.

Poor understanding of allergen labelling by allergic and non-allergic consumers.

BACKGROUND: Understanding consumers' interpretation of allergy information is crucial for effective food safety policies. We evaluated consumer understanding of allergy information on foods in controlled, experimental studies. METHOD: Using 18 packaged foods, we evaluated consumer understanding of information about allergens in two experiments: First, a comparison of foods with no stated allergen versus allergen as a stated ingredient versus a precautionary allergen label (PAL); second, a comparison of three common variants of PAL. In each experiment, consumers with and without self-reported food allergy were asked to estimate the risk of allergic reaction and to rate the comprehensibility of the allergen information. In the second experiment, consumers were also asked which form of PAL they preferred. RESULTS: Risk of reaction was assessed as high and low for foods with the allergen stated as ingredient, or without any mention of allergen. However, risk assessment for PAL varied and was judged as higher by non-allergic than allergic participants (82% vs. 58%, p < .001). Understanding of risk associated with PAL also varied by health literacy (p < .001). Both allergic and non-allergic consumers judged all forms of allergy information to be unclear, especially products with no allergy information for non-allergic consumers. Products with a 'Produced in a Factory' PAL were perceived as less risky than 'May contain' or 'Traces of' PALs (p < .001), less than 40% of participants judged PAL information to be comprehensible, and participants preferred 'May contain' over the other PALs. CONCLUSION: Both allergic and non-allergic consumers find allergen information difficult to interpret on packaged foods and misunderstand PAL, incorrectly distinguishing different risk levels for different PAL wording. Clearer allergy information guidelines are called for, and the use of only one PAL wording is recommended.

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.

Deriving individual threshold doses from clinical food challenge data for population risk assessment of food allergens.

BACKGROUND: Food allergies are a significant public health issue, and the only effective management option currently available is strict avoidance of all foods containing the allergen. In view of the practical impossibility of limiting risks to zero, quantitative allergen risk assessment and management strategies are needed. OBJECTIVE: We sought to develop appropriate methods for informing population-based risk assessments and risk management programs to benefit all stakeholders but particularly patients with food allergy. METHODS: Individual thresholds for food allergens (maximum tolerable doses and minimum eliciting doses) can ideally be established through double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges. If double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge data are not available, data from widely used open food challenges using predefined objective criteria can also provide useful data regarding minimum eliciting doses. For more than 20 years, the Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research and the Food Allergy Research and Resource Program at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln have been collecting individual maximum tolerable doses and minimum eliciting doses that produce objective symptoms from published and unpublished clinical data to better refine knowledge regarding the sensitivity of the population to food allergens. RESULTS: In this article we provide in-depth insights into the methodology applied by the Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research and Food Allergy Research and Resource Program to derive individual maximum tolerable doses and minimum eliciting doses for objective symptoms from clinical food challenge data. More than 90 examples for determining individual allergic thresholds are presented. CONCLUSION: With the methodology presented in this article, we aim to stimulate harmonization and transparency in quantitative food allergen risk assessment and risk management programs, encouraging their wider adoption.

Potential cofactors in accidental food allergic reactions are frequently present but may not influence severity and occurrence.

BACKGROUND: Cofactors, such as physical exercise and alcohol intake, might be associated with the severity or occurrence of food allergic reactions. OBJECTIVE: To gain insight into the frequency of presence of potential cofactors in accidental food allergic reactions in adults and to what extent these factors influence the severity and occurrence of allergic reactions. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted, with a 1-year follow-up in adult patients with a physician-diagnosed food allergy. Patients were required to fill in a questionnaire after every accidental allergic reactions to food over a 1-year period. The primary outcome measure was the frequency that potential cofactors were present in these allergic reactions. RESULTS: A total of 157 patients were included, of which 46% reported a total of 153 reactions during a 1-year follow-up period. In 74% of the reactions, ≥1 potential cofactor was reported to be present: tiredness (38%), alcohol intake (16%), stress (14%), symptoms of pollinosis (16%), symptoms of asthma (9%), sickness/flu (3%), physical exercise (3%) and use of analgesics (2%). More than one potential cofactor was reported in almost half of all reactions (47%). There was no significant difference in the presence of these factors between mild, moderate and severe reactions (P = 0.522). In the total study population, 9% of the patients used medication that might act as cofactor (antacids, angiotensin receptor blockers [ARBs], beta blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors [ACEIs]) on a daily basis, which however did not influence the occurrence of reactions. Furthermore, 38% daily used allergy-suppressing medication. CONCLUSIONS: Although factors suggested to be cofactors were frequently present during accidental food allergic reactions, we found no evidence for an association between the potential cofactors examined and reaction severity, in a population where most reactions were of mild to moderate severity.

Allergenicity prediction of novel and modified proteins: Not a mission impossible! Development of a Random Forest allergenicity prediction model.

Alternative and sustainable protein sources (e.g., algae, duckweed, insects) are required to produce (future) foods. However, introduction of new food sources to the market requires a thorough risk assessment of nutritional, microbial and toxicological risks and potential allergic responses. Yet, the risk assessment of allergenic potential of novel proteins is challenging. Currently, guidance for genetically modified proteins relies on a weight-of-evidence approach. Current Codex (2009) and EFSA (2010; 2017) guidance indicates that sequence identity to known allergens is acceptable for predicting the cross-reactive potential of novel proteins and resistance to pepsin digestion and glycosylation status is used for evaluating de novo allergenicity potential. Other physicochemical and biochemical protein properties, however, are not used in the current weight-of-evidence approach. In this study, we have used the Random Forest algorithm for developing an in silico model that yields a prediction of the allergenic potential of a protein based on its physicochemical and biochemical properties. The final model contains twenty-nine variables, which were all calculated using the protein sequence by means of the ProtParam software and the PSIPred Protein Sequence Analysis program. Proteins were assigned as allergenic when present in the COMPARE database. Results show a robust model performance with a sensitivity, specificity and accuracy each greater than ≥85%. As the model only requires the protein sequence for calculations, it can be easily incorporated into the existing risk assessment approach. In conclusion, the model developed in this study improves the predictability of the allergenicity of new or modified food proteins, as demonstrated for insect proteins.

Accidental food allergy reactions: Products and undeclared ingredients.

BACKGROUND: Accidental allergic reactions to food are frequent and can be severe and even fatal. OBJECTIVE: We sought to analyze the culprit food products and levels of unexpected allergens in accidental reactions. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted in adults (n = 157) with a physician-confirmed diagnosis of food allergy. During a 1-year follow-up, 73 patients reported accidental allergic reactions and the culprit food products. Food samples received (n = 51) were analyzed for a wide range of suspected noningredient allergens, and risk was quantified. RESULTS: A very diverse range of food products was responsible for the unexpected allergic reactions. Thirty-seven percent (19/51) of products analyzed had 1 to 4 culprit allergens identified that were not supposed to be present according to the ingredient declaration. Concentrations varied from 1 to 5000 mg of protein of the allergenic food per kilogram of food product and were greatest for peanut, milk, and sesame. Milk proteins posed the highest estimated risk for objective allergic reactions. The intake of culprit allergens by patients varied considerably. For those cases in which culprit allergens were detected, the intake of at least 1 allergen exceeded the reference dose or a culprit allergen with a yet unknown reference dose was present. Both patient neglect of precautionary allergen labeling statements and omission of using a precautionary allergen labeling statement by food manufacturers seem to contribute to accidental reactions. CONCLUSION: A wide range of food products are causing accidental reactions in patients with food allergy. Eight different allergens not declared on the ingredient lists were detected in the culprit food products, all of which were representative of allergens regulated in the European Union.

Allergenicity assessment strategy for novel food proteins and protein sources.

To solve the future food insecurity problem, alternative and sustainable protein sources (e.g. insects, rapeseed, fava bean and algae) are now being explored for the production of food and feed. To approve these novel protein sources for future food a comprehensive risk assessment is needed according to the European food legislation. Allergenicity risk assessment might pose some major difficulties, since detailed guidance on how to assess the allergenic potential of novel foods is not available. At present, the approach relies mostly on the guidance of allergenicity assessment for genetically modified (GM) plant foods. The most recent one was proposed by EFSA (2010 and 2011); "weight-of-evidence approach". However this guidance is difficult to interpret, not completely applicable or validated for novel foods and therefore needs some adjustments. In this paper we propose a conceptual strategy which is based on the "weight-of-evidence approach" for food derived from GM plants and other strategies that were previously published in the literature. This strategy will give more guidance on how to assess the allergenicity of novel food proteins and protein sources.

Allergen reference doses for precautionary labeling (VITAL 2.0): clinical implications.

BACKGROUND: There has been a dramatic proliferation of precautionary labeling by manufacturers to mitigate the perceived risk from low-level contamination from allergens in food. This has resulted in a significant reduction in choice of potentially safe foods for allergic consumers. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to establish reference doses for 11 commonly allergenic foods to guide a rational approach by manufacturers based on all publically available valid oral food challenge data. METHODS: Reference doses were developed from statistical dose-distribution modeling of individual thresholds of patients in a dataset of more than 55 studies of clinical oral food challenges. Sufficient valid data were available for peanut, milk, egg, and hazelnut to allow assessment of the representativeness of the data used. RESULTS: The data were not significantly affected by the heterogeneity of the study methodology, including little effect of age on results for those foods for which sufficient numbers of adult challenge data were available (peanut and hazelnut). Thus by combining data from all studies, the eliciting dose for an allergic reaction in 1% of the population estimated for the following were 0.2 mg of protein for peanut, 0.1 mg for cow's milk, 0.03 mg for egg, and 0.1 mg for hazelnut. CONCLUSIONS: These reference doses will form the basis of the revised Voluntary Incidental Trace Allergen Labeling (VITAL) 2.0 thresholds now recommended in Australia. These new levels will enable manufacturers to apply credible precautionary labeling and provide increased consumer confidence in their validity and reliability, as well as improving consumer safety.

Reevaluation of the Munro dataset to derive more specific TTC thresholds.

The threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) concept is a risk assessment tool for substances present at low oral exposure and lacking hazard data. In the past, several thresholds were elaborated by Munro et al. (1996) and Kroes et al. (2004). For these TTC thresholds, the Cramer class III threshold is based on a broad spectrum of substances, including organophosphates. For organophosphates a separate threshold was elaborated by Kroes et al. (2004), however without adjustment of the Cramer class III threshold. Moreover, reference was made by Munro et al. (2008) that for organohalogens a separate threshold also may apply whereas the EFSA (2012) considers that carbamate substances with anti-choline esterase activity can be included in the threshold for organophosphates. In this paper, a reevaluation of the Munro dataset (original TTC database) was performed, focused on the thresholds for organophosphates including carbamates, organohalogens and remaining Cramer class III substances. This way thresholds for each of these groups are elaborated. As a results of the current reevaluation of the Munro dataset, thresholds for life-time exposure are elaborated for the group of organophosphates including carbamates, the group of organohalogens and the remaining Cramer class III substances, being 0.30, 1.5 and 4.0 µg/kg bodyweight/day, respectively.

Threshold dose distributions for 5 major allergenic foods in children.

BACKGROUND: For most allergenic foods, insufficient threshold dose information within the population restricts the advice on levels of unintended allergenic foods which should trigger precautionary labeling on prepackaged foods. OBJECTIVE: We wanted to derive threshold dose distributions for major allergenic foods and to elaborate the protein doses at which a proportion of the allergic population is likely to respond. METHODS: For 7 allergenic foods double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges (DBPCFCs) with a positive outcome for allergic reactions were selected from the clinical database of children routinely tested to diagnose food allergy at the University Medical Center Groningen. For each allergen 2 population threshold distributions were determined with the individual minimal eliciting dose and the preceding dose of each DBPCFC for objective symptoms and any symptom (either subjective or objective). RESULTS: Individual positive DBPCFCs were available for peanut (n = 135), cow's milk (n = 93), hen's egg (n = 53), hazelnut (n = 28), and cashew nut (n = 31). Fewer children were challenged with soy (n = 10) or walnut (n = 13). Threshold dose distributions showed a good statistical and visual fit. The protein dose at which 5% of the allergic population is likely to respond with objective reactions was 1.6 mg for peanut, 1.1 mg for cow's milk, 1.5 mg for hen's egg, 7.4 mg for cashew nut, and 0.29 mg for hazelnut. Thresholds for any symptom were on average 2 to 6 times lower than for objective symptoms. The 95% upper and lower confidence intervals of the threshold distributions were overlapping. The peanut threshold distribution on objective symptoms was similar to the distribution of another European center. CONCLUSIONS: Threshold distribution curves and eliciting doses are a powerful tool to compare different allergenic foods and for informing policy on precautionary labeling.

Double-blind placebo-controlled food challenges in children with alleged cow's milk allergy: prevention of unnecessary elimination diets and determination of eliciting doses.

BACKGROUND: Children with cow's milk allergy (CMA) need a cow's milk protein (CMP) free diet to prevent allergic reactions. For this, reliable allergy-information on the label of food products is essential to avoid products containing the allergen. On the other hand, both overzealous labeling and misdiagnosis that result in unnecessary elimination diets, can lead to potentially hazardous health situations. Our objective was to evaluate if excluding CMA by double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) prevents unnecessary elimination diets in the long term. Secondly, to determine the minimum eliciting dose (MED) for an acute allergic reaction to CMP in DBPCFC positive children. METHODS: All children with suspected CMA under our care (Oct'05-Jun'09) were prospectively enrolled in a DBPCFC. Placebo and verum feedings were administered on two randomly assigned separate days. The MED was determined by noting the 'lowest observed adverse effect level' (LOAEL) in DBPCFC-positive children. Based on the outcomes of the DBPCFC a dietary advice was given. Parents were contacted by phone several months later about the diet of their child. RESULTS: 116 children were available for analysis. In 76 children CMA was rejected. In 60 of them CMP was successfully reintroduced, in 2 the parents refused introduction, in another 3 the parents stopped reintroduction. In 9 children CMA symptoms reappeared. In 40 children CMA was confirmed. Infants aged ≤ 12 months in our study group have a higher cumulative distribution of MED than older children. CONCLUSIONS: Excluding CMA by DBPCFC successfully stopped unnecessary elimination diets in the long term in most children. The MEDs form potential useful information for offering dietary advice to patients and their caretakers.