Identifying and managing patients at risk of severe allergic reactions to food: Report from two iFAAM workshops.

Food allergy affects a small but important number of children and adults. Much of the morbidity associated with food allergy is driven by the fear of a severe reaction and fatalities continue to occur. Foods are the commonest cause of anaphylaxis. One of the aims of the European Union-funded Integrated Approaches to Food Allergen and Allergy Risk Management (iFAAM) project was to improve the identification and management of children and adults at risk of experiencing a severe reaction. A number of interconnected studies within the project have focused on quantifying the severity of allergic reactions; the impact of food matrix, immunological factors on severity of reactions; the impact of co-factors such as medications on the severity of reactions; utilizing single-dose challenges to understand threshold and severity of reactions; and community studies to understand the experience of patients suffering real-life allergic reactions to food. Associated studies have examined population thresholds and co-factors such as exercise and stress. This paper summarizes two workshops focused on the severity of allergic reactions to food. It outlines the related studies being undertaken in the project indicating how they are likely to impact on our ability to identify individuals at risk of severe reactions and improve their management.

COST Action 'ImpARAS': what have we learnt to improve food allergy risk assessment. A summary of a 4 year networking consortium.

The growing world population and increased pressure on agricultural resources are driving a shortage of dietary protein sources. As a result, industry is developing more sustainable novel food protein sources such as insects, algae and duckweed and using new processing techniques. Consumer exposure to these novel or processed proteins, could cause new food allergies, exacerbating a public health issue which is already directly affecting an estimated 20 million Europeans. Introduction of novel foods should not add to the burden of food allergy and this calls for a reliable, harmonised, evidence-based and validated allergenicity risk assessment strategy. The COST (Cooperation in Science and Technology) Action ImpARAS (Improved Allergenicity Risk Assessment Strategy), a four-year networking project, identified gaps in current allergy risk assessment, and proposed new ideas and plans for improving it. Here, we report on the lessons learned from the ImpARAS network and suggestions for future research. The safe introduction of novel and more sustainable food protein sources, while protecting humans from food allergy, calls for a multidisciplinary approach based on an improved understanding of what determines the relative allergenic potency of proteins, novel testing and assessment methodologies, harmonized decision-making criteria, and a clear ranking approach to express the allergenicity of novel product relative to that of existing known allergenic proteins: (from 'non'/to weakly and to strongly allergenic proteins).

Defining the targets for the assessment of IgE-mediated allergenicity of new or modified food proteins.

Many food innovations rely on the introduction and use of new or modified proteins. New or modified food proteins may lead to major health risks due to their inherent potential to cause food allergy. Currently, the pre-market allergenicity assessment for new or modified food proteins and protein sources relies on methods for identifying allergenic hazards based on characteristics of known allergens. However, there is no general consensus on the allergenicity parameters to use and the criteria that should apply for the evaluation and decisions to be made. In this paper, we propose that the strategy for allergenicity risk assessment of new or modified food proteins and the methodologies applied should be governed by the risk management questions to be answered, reflected in the information needed by risk managers to enable their informed decision making. We generated an inventory of health outcome-related assessment parameters and criteria potentially important for risk management decision-making and we discuss the implications of selecting different optional criteria (e.g. cut-off values) for what could be accepted as safe with regards to the health outcomes in the (at risk) population. The impact of these various options on both method development and risk management practices was investigated.

Assessing food allergy risks from residual peanut protein in highly refined vegetable oil.

Refined vegetable oils including refined peanut oil are widely used in foods. Due to shared production processes, refined non-peanut vegetable oils can contain residual peanut proteins. We estimated the predicted number of allergic reactions to residual peanut proteins using probabilistic risk assessment applied to several scenarios involving food products made with vegetable oils. Variables considered were: a) the estimated production scale of refined peanut oil, b) estimated cross-contact between refined vegetable oils during production, c) the proportion of fat in representative food products and d) the peanut protein concentration in refined peanut oil. For all products examined the predicted risk of objective allergic reactions in peanut-allergic users of the food products was extremely low. The number of predicted reactions ranged depending on the model from a high of 3 per 1000 eating occasions (Weibull) to no reactions (LogNormal). Significantly, all reactions were predicted for allergen intakes well below the amounts reported for the most sensitive individual described in the clinical literature. We conclude that the health risk from cross-contact between vegetable oils and refined peanut oil is negligible. None of the food products would warrant precautionary labelling for peanut according to the VITAL® programme of the Allergen Bureau.

Threshold Dose Distribution in Walnut Allergy.

BACKGROUND: In food allergy, eliciting doses (EDs) of foods on a population level can improve risk management and labeling strategies for the food industry and regulatory authorities. Previously, data available for walnut were unsuitable to determine EDs. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine EDs for walnut allergic adults and to compare with previously established threshold data for peanut and tree nuts. METHODS: Prospectively, adult subjects with a suspected walnut allergy underwent a low-dose double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge. Individual no observed and lowest observed adverse effect levels were determined and log-normal, log-logistic, and Weibull models were fit to the data. Estimated ED values were calculated for the ED5, ED10, and ED50, the dose respectively predicted to provoke an allergic reaction in 5%, 10%, and 50% of the walnut allergic population. RESULTS: Fifty-seven subjects were challenged and 33 subjects were confirmed to be walnut allergic. Objective symptoms occurred in 20 of the positive challenges (61%). The cumulative EDs in the distribution models ranged from 3.1 to 4.1 mg for the ED05, from 10.6 to 14.6 mg walnut protein for the ED10, and from 590 to 625 mg of walnut protein for the ED50. CONCLUSIONS: Our data indicate that population EDs for walnut are slightly higher compared with those for peanut and hazelnut allergy. Currently available data indicate that the ED values for hazelnut could be used as a conservative temporary placeholder when implementing risk management strategies for other tree nuts where little or no food challenge data are available.