Sesame eliciting and safe doses in a large sesame allergic population

Background: Sesame is a significant food allergen causing severe and even fatal reactions. Given its increasing prevalence in western diet, sesame is listed as an allergenic food requiring labeling in the United States and EU. However, data on the population reaction doses to sesame are limited. Methods: All sesame oral food challenges (OFCs), performed either for diagnosis or for threshold identification before the beginning of sesame oral immunotherapy (OIT) between November 2011 and July 2021 in Shamir medical center were analyzed for reaction threshold distribution. Safe-dose challenges with 90–120 min intervals were also analyzed. Results: Two hundred and fifty patients underwent 338 positive OFCs, and additional 158 safe-dose OFCs were performed. The discrete and cumulative protein amounts estimated to elicit an objective reaction in 1% (ED01) of the entire cohort (n = 250) were 0.8 mg (range 0.3–6.3) and 0.7 mg (range 0.1–7.1), respectively, and those for 5% of the population (ED05) were 3.4 mg (range 1.2–20.6) and 4.5 mg (range 1.2–28.8), respectively. Safe-dose OFCs showed similar values of ED01 (0.8, 0.4–7.5 mg) and ED05 (3.4, 1.2–22.9 mg). While doses of ≤1 mg sesame protein elicited oral pruritus in 11.6% of the patients, no objective reaction was documented to this amount in any of the challenges, including safe-dose OFCs. Conclusions: This study provides data on sesame reaction threshold distribution in the largest population of allergic patients studied, with no right or left censored data, and with validation using a safe-dose OFC. It further supports the current methods for ED determination as appropriate for establishing safety precautions for the food industry

Updated full range of Eliciting Dose values for Cow’s milk for use in food allergen risk assessment

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

Updated threshold dose-distribution data for sesame

Sesame is classified as a “major” food allergen for which mandatory disclosure is required. Understanding reaction thresholds and how these vary within the allergic population is crucial in providing appropriate dietary advice to patients, providing guidance to the food industry, and informing dosing regimens for oral food challenges (FC). However, the largest data series used to derive a threshold dose-distribution for sesame included blinded challenge data from just 40 individuals.1 Data from low-dose, open FC can be used to supplement that from blinded FC, reducing uncertainty in estimating threshold dose-distributions for allergenic foods which otherwise lack sufficient data.2 We, therefore, undertook a systematic search of the literature and performed dose-distribution modelling of individual patient FC data (including open FC) to update estimated eliciting doses for sesame

Precautionary allergen labeling: Current communication problems and potential for future improvements

While there are EU laws for priority allergenic ingredients information on food product packaging, there is no legislation about Precautionary Allergen Labelling (PAL) for unintended allergen presence (UAP). As a result, PAL is used in different ways by different manufacturers and retailers, which hampers consumers’ interpretation of the information in the PAL. Previous research has focused on the forms of PAL that are used and on the way they are interpreted and used by consumers. This study adds the perspective of producers, retailers and branch organizations. Thirteen interviews with QA- and QC-professionals were conducted to find out more about the reasoning behind their PAL-use and to find out how PAL could be optimized. Results show that harmonization is needed, on different levels: in the way information on UAP is shared between parties involved in the food chain; in the way PAL is presented and phrased; and in the rules and regulations on PAL. More research is needed on possible ways to share (updates on) information on UAP with consumers

Precautionary allergen labeling: Current communication problems and potential for future improvements

While there are EU laws for priority allergenic ingredients information on food product packaging, there is no legislation about Precautionary Allergen Labelling (PAL) for unintended allergen presence (UAP). As a result, PAL is used in different ways by different manufacturers and retailers, which hampers consumers’ interpretation of the information in the PAL. Previous research has focused on the forms of PAL that are used and on the way they are interpreted and used by consumers. This study adds the perspective of producers, retailers and branch organizations. Thirteen interviews with QA- and QC-professionals were conducted to find out more about the reasoning behind their PAL-use and to find out how PAL could be optimized. Results show that harmonization is needed, on different levels: in the way information on UAP is shared between parties involved in the food chain; in the way PAL is presented and phrased; and in the rules and regulations on PAL. More research is needed on possible ways to share (updates on) information on UAP with consumers

Peanut Can Be Used as a Reference Allergen for Hazard Characterization in Food Allergen Risk Management: A Rapid Evidence Assessment and Meta-Analysis

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. Resumen: La legislación regional y nacional exige la divulgación de alérgenos "prioritarios" cuando están presentes como ingrediente en los alimentos, pero esto no se extiende a la presencia involuntaria de alérgenos debido a instalaciones de producción compartidas. Esto ha dado lugar a una proliferación de etiquetas de precaución para alérgenos ("pueden contener") (PAL) que los consumidores alérgicos a los alimentos suelen ignorar. Se han hecho intentos para mejorar la gestión del riesgo de alérgenos para informar mejor el uso de PAL, pero la falta de consenso ha llevado a una variedad de enfoques regulatorios y a la falta de uniformidad en el uso de PAL por parte de las empresas alimentarias. Una posible solución sería establecer “dosis de referencia” acordadas internacionalmente, por debajo de las cuales no se necesitaría PAL. Sin embargo, si se van a utilizar dosis de referencia para informar la necesidad de PAL, entonces es esencial caracterizar el peligro asociado con estas exposiciones de bajo nivel. Para el maní, ahora hay datos publicados relacionados con más de 3000 desafíos doble ciego controlados por placebo en individuos alérgicos, pero falta un nivel similar de evidencia para otros alérgenos prioritarios. Presentamos los resultados de una evaluación rápida de la evidencia y un metanálisis del riesgo deanafilaxia a una exposición a alérgenos de bajo nivel para alérgenos prioritarios. Sobre la base de este análisis, proponemos que el cacahuete puede y debe considerarse un alérgeno ejemplar para la caracterización del peligro en una exposición a un alérgeno de bajo nivel.Instituto de Investigación de Tecnología de AlimentosFil: Turner, Paul J. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Patel, Nandinee. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Ballmer-Weber, Barbara K. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Ballmer-Weber, Barbara K. Clínica de Dermatología y Alergología. Kantonsspital; Suiza.Fil: Baumert, Joe L. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Blom, W. Marty. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Brooke-Taylor, Simon. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Brough, Helen. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Brough, Helen. King's College London. Departamento de Alergia Pediátrica; Reino Unido.Fil: Campbell, Dianne E. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Campbell, Dianne E. Tecnologías DBV. Montrouge; Francia.Fil: Chen, Hongbing. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Chinthrajah, R. Sharon. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Crevel, René W.R. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Dubois, Anthony E.J. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Ebisawa, Motohiro. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Elizur, Arnon. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Elizur, Arnon. Universidad de Tel Aviv. Facultad de Medicina Sackler. Departamento de Pediatría; Israel.Fil: Gerdts, Jennifer D. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Gowland, M. Hazel. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Houben, Geert F. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Hourihane, Jonathan O.B. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Knulst, André C. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: La Vieille, Sébastien. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: López, María Cristina. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Mills, E.N. Clare. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Polenta, Gustavo Alberto. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Investigación Tecnología de Alimentos; Argentina.Fil: Polenta, Gustavo Alberto. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Purington, Natasha. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Said, María. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Sampson, Hugh A. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Sampson, Hugh A. Escuela de Medicina Icahn. División de Alergia e Inmunología Pediátricasen. Nueva York. Estados Unidos de América.Fil: Schnadt, Sabine. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Södergren, Eva. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Södergren, Eva. ThermoFisher Scientific; Suecia.Fil: Taylor, Stephen L. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Remington, Benjamin C. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Remington, Benjamin C. Grupo BV. Consultoría Remington; Holanda

Food allergy population thresholds: an evaluation of the dosing scheme and number of oral food challenges on the accuracy of threshold dose studies

The availability of clinically established DBPCFC minimal eliciting doses determined in food-allergic individuals is increasing and previous work has shown these data can be used to determine population based reference doses for allergen risk management. Despite the large amount of data for peanut, milk, egg and hazelnut, EU and US public health authorities have not established population thresholds for any of the allergenic foods. In the absence of regulatory guidance regarding thresholds, food producers have attempted to manage risk through the widespread application of precautionary “may contain” labelling. In turn, food-allergic consumer quality-of-life has decreased and some food-allergic individuals are ignoring these advisory statements