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

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

Quantitative risk assessment of UK food products cross-contaminated with allergens

Allergens in food pose a risk to allergic consumers, especially if they are present in food without declaration or warning. While there is EU regulation for allergens present as an ingredient, this is not the case for unintended allergen presence (UAP). Food companies use precautionary “may contain” labels to inform allergic individuals of a potential risk from UAPs. However, the use or absence of precautionary label has a limited correlation with the level of UAP and consequently the risk of an unexpected allergic reaction. Allergen risk assessment using probabilistic techniques enables estimation of the residual risk after the consumption of a product that unintendedly contains an allergen

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

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

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