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

Precautionary allergen labelling: Perspectives from key stakeholder groups

Precautionary allergen labelling (PAL) was introduced by the food industry to help manage and communicate the possibility of reaction from the unintended presence of allergens in foods. However, in its current form, PAL is counterproductive for consumers with food allergies. This review aims to summarize the perspectives of all the key stakeholders (including clinicians, patients, food industry and regulators), with the aim of defining common health protection and risk minimization goals. The lack of agreed reference doses has resulted in inconsistent application of PAL by the food industry and in levels of contamination that prompt withdrawal action by enforcement officers. So there is a poor relationship between the presence or absence of PAL and actual reaction risk. This has led to a loss of trust in PAL, reducing the ability of consumers with food allergies to make informed choices. The result has been reduced avoidance, reduced quality of life and increased risk-taking by consumers who often ignore PAL. All contributing stakeholders agree that PAL must reflect actual risk. PAL should be transparent and consistent with rules underpinning decision-making process being communicated clearly to all stakeholders. The use of PAL should indicate the possible, unintended presence of an allergen in a consumed portion of a food product at or above any proposed action level. This will require combined work by all stakeholders to ensure everyone understands the approach and its limitations. Consumers with food allergy then need to be educated to undertake individualized risk assessments in relation to any PAL present. © 2015 John Wiley and Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd

Predictors for anastomotic leak, postoperative complications, and mortality after right colectomy for cancer: Results from an international snapshot audit

Background: A right hemicolectomy is among the most commonly performed operations for colon cancer, but modern high-quality, multination data addressing the morbidity and mortality rates are lacking. Objective: This study reports the morbidity and mortality rates for right-sided colon cancer and identifies predictors for unfavorable short-term outcome after right hemicolectomy. Design: This was a snapshot observational prospective study. Setting: The study was conducted as a multicenter international study. Patients: The 2015 European Society of Coloproctology snapshot study was a prospective multicenter international series that included all patients undergoing elective or emergency right hemicolectomy or ileocecal resection over a 2-month period in early 2015. This is a subanalysis of the colon cancer cohort of patients. Main Outcome Measures: Predictors for anastomotic leak and 30-day postoperative morbidity and mortality were assessed using multivariable mixed-effect logistic regression models after variables selection with the Lasso method. Results: Of the 2515 included patients, an anastomosis was performed in 97.2% (n = 2444), handsewn in 38.5% (n = 940) and stapled in 61.5% (n = 1504) cases. The overall anastomotic leak rate was 7.4% (180/2444), 30-day morbidity was 38.0% (n = 956), and mortality was 2.6% (n = 66). Patients with anastomotic leak had a significantly increased mortality rate (10.6% vs 1.6% no-leak patients; p 65 0.001). At multivariable analysis the following variables were associated with anastomotic leak: longer duration of surgery (OR = 1.007 per min; p = 0.0037), open approach (OR = 1.9; p = 0.0037), and stapled anastomosis (OR = 1.5; p = 0.041). Limitations: This is an observational study, and therefore selection bias could be present. For this reason, a multivariable logistic regression model was performed, trying to correct possible confounding factors. Conclusions: Anastomotic leak after oncologic right hemicolectomy is a frequent complication, and it is associated with increased mortality. The key contributing surgical factors for anastomotic leak were anastomotic technique, surgical approach, and duration of surgery