ABSTRACT
Food allergy is a global public health problem that until recent years lacked any aetiological treatment supported by academy, industry and regulators. Food immunotherapy (AIT) is an evolving treatment option, supported by clinical practice and industry trial data. Recent AIT meta-analyses have highlighted the difficulty in pooling safety and efficacy data from AIT trials, due to secondary heterogeneity in the study. An EAACI task force (CO-FAITH) initiated by the Paediatric Section was created to focus on AIT efficacy outcomes for milk, egg and peanut allergy rather than in trial results. A systematic search and a narrative review of AIT controlled clinical trials and large case series was conducted. A total of 63 manuscripts met inclusion criteria, corresponding to 23, 21 and 22 studies of milk, egg and peanut AIT, respectively. The most common AIT efficacy outcome was desensitization, mostly defined as tolerating a maintenance phase dose, or reaching a particular dose upon successful exit oral food challenge (OFC). However, a large degree of heterogeneity was identified regarding the dose quantity defining this outcome. Sustained unresponsiveness and patient-reported outcomes (e.g. quality of life) were explored less frequently, and to date have been most rigorously described for peanut AIT versus other allergens. Change in allergen threshold assessed by OFC remains the most common efficacy measure, but OFC methods suffer from heterogeneity and methodological disparity. This review has identified multiple heterogeneous outcomes related to measuring the efficacy of AIT. Efforts to better standardize and harmonize which outcomes, and how to measure them must be carried out to help in the clinical development of safe and efficacious food allergy treatments.
Subject(s)
Allergens , Desensitization, Immunologic , Food Hypersensitivity , Humans , Desensitization, Immunologic/methods , Food Hypersensitivity/therapy , Food Hypersensitivity/immunology , Allergens/immunology , Allergens/administration & dosage , Treatment Outcome , Clinical Trials as Topic , Advisory CommitteesABSTRACT
Access to Eliciting Doses (ED) for allergens enables advanced food allergen risk assessment. Previously, the full ED range for 14 allergenic foods, including milk, and recommendations for their use were provided (Houben et al., 2020). Additional food challenge studies with cow's milk-allergic patients added 247 data points to the original dataset. Using the Stacked Model Averaging statistical method for interval-censored data on the 697 individual NOAELs and LOAELs for milk generated an updated full ED distribution. The ED01 and ED05, the doses at which 1% and 5% of the milk-allergic population would be predicted to experience any objective allergic reaction, were 0.3 and 3.2 mg milk protein for the discrete and 0.4 mg and 4.3 mg milk protein for the cumulative dose distribution, respectively. These values are slightly higher but remain within the 95% confidence interval of previously published EDs. We recommend using the updated EDs for future characterization of risks of exposure of milk-allergic individuals to milk protein. This paper contributes to the discussion on the Reference Dose for milk in the recent Ad hoc Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Risk Assessment of Food Allergens. It will also benefit harmonization of food allergen risk assessment and risk management globally.
Subject(s)
Food Hypersensitivity , Milk Hypersensitivity , Allergens , Animals , Cattle , Female , Milk , Milk Hypersensitivity/epidemiology , Milk Proteins , Risk AssessmentABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Anaphylaxis , Milk Hypersensitivity , Cattle , Female , Animals , Humans , Milk/adverse effects , Milk Hypersensitivity/complications , Anaphylaxis/etiology , Reproducibility of Results , Allergens/adverse effects , Proteins , Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicSubject(s)
Allergens , Food Hypersensitivity , Allergens/analysis , Food Hypersensitivity/diagnosis , Food Labeling , HumansABSTRACT
Regional and national legislation mandates the disclosure of "priority" allergens when present as an ingredient in foods, but this does not extend to the unintended presence of allergens due to shared production facilities. This has resulted in a proliferation of precautionary allergen ("may contain") labels (PAL) that are frequently ignored by food-allergic consumers. Attempts have been made to improve allergen risk management to better inform the use of PAL, but a lack of consensus has led to variety of regulatory approaches and nonuniformity in the use of PAL by food businesses. One potential solution would be to establish internationally agreed "reference doses," below which no PAL would be needed. However, if reference doses are to be used to inform the need for PAL, then it is essential to characterize the hazard associated with these low-level exposures. For peanut, there are now published data relating to over 3000 double-blind, placebo-controlled challenges in allergic individuals, but a similar level of evidence is lacking for other priority allergens. We present the results of a rapid evidence assessment and meta-analysis for the risk of anaphylaxis to a low-level allergen exposure for priority allergens. On the basis of this analysis, we propose that peanut can and should be considered an exemplar allergen for the hazard characterization at a low-level allergen exposure.
Subject(s)
Anaphylaxis , Food Hypersensitivity , Allergens , Arachis , Food Hypersensitivity/diagnosis , Food Labeling , Humans , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Risk AssessmentABSTRACT
Despite the intensive use of sesame in the Middle Eastern diet, studies on this allergen in this region are lacking. A survey on the occurrence of sesame in Lebanese food products that did not contain this allergen as an ingredient, a food consumption survey conducted in Beirut schools, and the most recent sesame eliciting dose estimates were used to build a probabilistic risk assessment model providing estimates of sesame-induced allergic reactions per eating occasion and per week in Lebanese children and adolescents. Of 1270 food samples analysed, 34% contained sesame proteins (0.44-3392 mg kg-1). Sesame was detected in 47% of unlabeled bulk samples, 43% of samples with PAL, and 27% of samples without PAL. "Sfouf" had the highest concentration of sesame proteins (mean 549 mg kg-1), highest mean exposure per eating occasion (78 mg sesame proteins for children and 103 mg sesame proteins for adolescents), and posed the highest predicted risk per eating occasion (>20%) and per week (>13% individuals predicted in simulation experience at least 1 reaction). Bakery products (notably "sfouf") may pose a serious risk to sesame-allergic children and adolescents in Lebanon. Enhanced guidance on the use of PAL is needed to better protect allergic consumers.
Subject(s)
Allergens/chemistry , Food Contamination , Food Hypersensitivity , Sesamum/chemistry , Adolescent , Child , Food Analysis , Humans , Lebanon , Plant Proteins/chemistry , Plant Proteins/immunology , Risk AssessmentABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Desensitization, Immunologic , Food Hypersensitivity/epidemiology , Food Hypersensitivity/therapy , Food/adverse effects , Administration, Oral , Allergens/administration & dosage , Allergens/immunology , Anaphylaxis/epidemiology , Anaphylaxis/etiology , Animals , Arachis/immunology , Food Hypersensitivity/diagnosis , Humans , Peanut Hypersensitivity , Recurrence , Reproducibility of ResultsABSTRACT
National population-based food consumption surveys are used in food allergen risk assessment. It would be beneficial if food intake data is interchangeable between countries to bridge potential gaps present in national survey data, which is only possible when risk assessment outcomes for comparable food product groups between countries are fairly similar. Additionally, merged food intake data would enable risk assessments that cover scenarios for various countries, if based on the most critical situation. Therefore, we systematically compared risk assessment outcomes for a broad range of food groups based on United States and Dutch population food consumption survey data. We calculated risks for 14 allergenic foods for 9 concentrations (1-10,000 ppm) to assess comparability. Depending on the assumed allergen concentration, risk assessment outcomes for 20% (10 out of 49) food groups differed considerably. We consider the number of potentially relevant risk differences too high to conclude that food intake data from the US and The Netherlands can be used interchangeably. To allow risk assessments that cover scenarios for several countries, we recommend development and use of a food intake dataset based on the highest intake levels for each food group of the involved countries to facilitate risk management efforts and harmonization.
Subject(s)
Allergens , Feeding Behavior , Food Hypersensitivity/etiology , Animals , Food Analysis , Netherlands , Risk Assessment , United StatesABSTRACT
Risk is a concept inherent in every medical procedure. It can be defined as the probability of an adverse event in a defined population over a specified period of time. In the frame of food allergy management, it might be related to a diagnostic procedure, a treatment, or the consumption of foods. The risk of an adverse event can also be augmented by individual factors. This rostrum article discusses various aspects faced by children with food allergies in the light of risk, and their practical implications. Identifying personal risks for severe reaction, such as unstable asthma, and correcting them whenever possible also contribute to a reduction of the risk inherent to food allergy. Among the facets discussed, oral food challenges (OFC) are the most common diagnostic procedures implying an inherent risk. The risk of OFCs can be minimized by correct indication and timing of the test, a safe setting, as well as by ensuring that the patient is otherwise well without potential stressor potentially increasing the risk of a more severe reaction. Oral immunotherapy (OIT) has been studied as a potential treatment for increasing the threshold dose for reaction, and thus reducing the risk of accidental reaction. Nevertheless, the procedure is not devoid of risk as the patients may and do often react during the course of the procedure. Ingestion of trace amounts in processed foods, mainly in community settings such as restaurants, schools, or day care, represents a potential risk of reactions, although for a minority of patients. Precautionary allergen labeling (PAL) is a widespread strategy to reduce the potential risk of reactions due to traces. However, PAL is currently inefficient due to inconsistent labeling, also not indicating a clear maximum amount possibly present in the manufactured food. Finally, cost-effectiveness needs to be considered in risk management, as many risk reduction procedures are clearly not cost-effective.
Subject(s)
Food Hypersensitivity , Allergens , Child , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Food , Food Hypersensitivity/diagnosis , Food Hypersensitivity/therapy , Humans , Risk ManagementABSTRACT
To better understand the risk of exposure to food allergens, food challenge studies are designed to slowly increase the dose of an allergen delivered to allergic individuals until an objective reaction occurs. These dose-to-failure studies are used to determine acceptable intake levels and are analyzed using parametric failure time models. Though these models can provide estimates of the survival curve and risk, their parametric form may misrepresent the survival function for doses of interest. Different models that describe the data similarly may produce different dose-to-failure estimates. Motivated by predictive inference, we developed a Bayesian approach to combine survival estimates based on posterior predictive stacking, where the weights are formed to maximize posterior predictive accuracy. The approach defines a model space that is much larger than traditional parametric failure time modeling approaches. In our case, we use the approach to include random effects accounting for frailty components. The methodology is investigated in simulation, and is used to estimate allergic population eliciting doses for multiple food allergens.
Subject(s)
Bayes Theorem , Food Hypersensitivity/diagnosis , Risk Assessment/methods , Allergens/administration & dosage , Computer Simulation , Humans , Models, StatisticalSubject(s)
Allergens/adverse effects , Dose-Response Relationship, Immunologic , Food Hypersensitivity/etiology , Adolescent , Allergens/administration & dosage , Allergens/immunology , Child , Child, Preschool , Corylus/immunology , Double-Blind Method , Egg Hypersensitivity/etiology , Egg Hypersensitivity/immunology , Female , Food Hypersensitivity/immunology , Humans , Infant , Information Storage and Retrieval , Male , Milk Hypersensitivity/etiology , Milk Hypersensitivity/immunology , Nut Hypersensitivity/etiology , Nut Hypersensitivity/immunology , Peanut Hypersensitivity/etiology , Peanut Hypersensitivity/immunology , Placebos , Risk ManagementABSTRACT
Previously, we published selected Eliciting Dose (ED) values (i.e. ED01 and ED05 values) for 14 allergenic foods, predicted to elicit objective allergic symptoms in 1% and 5%, respectively, of the allergic population (Remington et al., 2020). These ED01 and ED05 values were specifically presented and discussed in the context of establishing Reference Doses for allergen management and the calculation of Action Levels for Precautionary Allergen Labeling (PAL). In the current paper, we publish the full range of ED values for these allergenic foods and provide recommendations for their use, specifically in the context of characterizing risks of concentrations of (unintended) allergenic proteins in food products. The data provided in this publication give risk assessors access to full population ED distribution information for 14 priority allergenic foods, based on the largest threshold database worldwide. The ED distributions were established using broad international consensus regarding suitable datapoints and methods for establishing individual patient's NOAELs and LOAELs and state of the art statistical modelling. Access to these ED data enables risk assessors to use this information for state-of-the-art food allergen risk assessment. This paper contributes to a harmonization of food allergen risk assessment and risk management and PAL practices.
Subject(s)
Allergens/administration & dosage , Allergens/toxicity , Food Hypersensitivity , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Humans , No-Observed-Adverse-Effect Level , Risk AssessmentABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Allergic reactions to meals consumed outside the home are common and can be severe and sometimes fatal. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the risk reduction potentially achieved by increasing an individual's threshold sensitivity to peanut (such as by means of immunotherapy) in scenarios of peanut exposure through shared kitchen materials in a restaurant setting. METHODS: Three versions of popular peanut-containing sauces were selected to represent common ingredients used in Asian cooking. Different combinations of utensils, equipment, sauces, and test conditions were prepared by a professional chef, with or without common cleaning procedures, to represent normal daily practice. Residue amounts of peanut-containing material on kitchen equipment and utensils were measured and used for quantitative risk assessment to model the risk reduction associated with increasing an individual's threshold. RESULTS: Shared utensils had mean residue amounts of 23 to 1519 mg peanut protein (no cleaning) and 3 to 82 mg peanut protein (after water rinse). Shared woks and pans had up to 20 mg peanut protein after rinsing. Individuals who reach a threshold of 300 mg peanut protein have a predicted relative risk reduction of 94.9% to greater than 99.99% with brief cleaning. With no cleaning, relative risk reductions were 63.5% to 91.1% for individuals with a baseline threshold of less than or equal to 100 mg peanut protein who reach a threshold of 300 mg peanut protein, increasing to 91% to 99.7% when reaching a threshold value of 1000 mg peanut protein. CONCLUSION: In all shared kitchen material scenarios that we studied, achieving an eliciting dose of 300 or 1000 mg peanut protein seems clinically relevant for the peanut-allergic population.
Subject(s)
Allergens/analysis , Arachis , Cooking and Eating Utensils , Equipment Contamination , Plant Proteins/analysis , Restaurants , Cooking/methods , Food Contamination , Immune Tolerance , Risk AssessmentABSTRACT
Food allergy and allergen management are important global public health issues. In 2011, the first iteration of our allergen threshold database (ATDB) was established based on individual NOAELs and LOAELs from oral food challenge in roughly 1750 allergic individuals. Population minimal eliciting dose (EDp) distributions based on this dataset were published for 11 allergenic foods in 2014. Systematic data collection has continued (2011-2018) and the dataset now contains over 3400 data points. The current study provides new and updated EDp values for 14 allergenic foods and incorporates a newly developed Stacked Model Averaging statistical method for interval-censored data. ED01 and ED05 values, the doses at which 1%, and respectively 5%, of the respective allergic population would be predicted to experience any objective allergic reaction were determined. The 14 allergenic foods were cashew, celery, egg, fish, hazelnut, lupine, milk, mustard, peanut, sesame, shrimp (for crustacean shellfish), soy, walnut, and wheat. Updated ED01 estimates ranged between 0.03 mg for walnut protein and 26.2 mg for shrimp protein. ED05 estimates ranged between 0.4 mg for mustard protein and 280 mg for shrimp protein. The ED01 and ED05 values presented here are valuable in the risk assessment and subsequent risk management of allergenic foods.
Subject(s)
Allergens/immunology , Food Hypersensitivity/immunology , Allergens/administration & dosage , Animals , Arachis/chemistry , Arachis/immunology , Humans , Juglans/chemistry , Juglans/immunology , Milk/chemistry , Milk/immunology , Nuts/chemistry , Nuts/immunology , Risk Assessment , Sesamum/chemistry , Sesamum/immunologyABSTRACT
Complete avoidance of peanut is difficult and accidental reactions are known to occur. Immunotherapy for peanut allergy is a potential treatment option being developed with the potential to reduce the risk of accidental reactions to peanut in the community. This article covers the epidemiology of unexpected allergic reactions to peanut, and outlines definitions of risk and risk reduction with quantitative risk assessment examples. Well-acknowledged future areas of research still exist, especially in the area of longer-term clinical trials or commercial data, which will strengthen the knowledge surrounding risk and potential options for risk reduction in those with peanut allergy.
Subject(s)
Anaphylaxis/epidemiology , Desensitization, Immunologic/adverse effects , Peanut Hypersensitivity/therapy , Allergens/immunology , Anaphylaxis/etiology , Anaphylaxis/prevention & control , Animals , Arachis/immunology , Humans , Peanut Hypersensitivity/epidemiology , Peanut Hypersensitivity/immunology , Risk , Risk Assessment , Risk Reduction BehaviorABSTRACT
Peer-reviewed probabilistic methods already predict the probability of an allergic reaction resulting from an accidental exposure to food allergens, however, the methods calculate it in different ways. The available methods utilize the same three major input parameters in the risk model: the risk is estimated from the amount of food consumed, the concentration of allergen in the contaminated product and the distribution of thresholds among allergic persons. However, consensus is lacking about the optimal method to estimate the risk of allergic reaction and the associated uncertainty. This study aims to compare estimation of the risk of allergic reaction and associated uncertainty using different methods and suggest improvements. Four cases were developed based on the previous publications and the risk estimations were compared. The risk estimation was found to agree within 0.5% with the different simulation cases. Finally, an uncertainty analysis method is also presented in order to evaluate the uncertainty propagation from the input parameters to the risk.
Subject(s)
Allergens/immunology , Food Hypersensitivity/epidemiology , Models, Statistical , Uncertainty , Bayes Theorem , Computer Simulation , Food Hypersensitivity/immunology , Humans , Monte Carlo Method , Risk Assessment/methods , Risk FactorsABSTRACT
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.