Objective eliciting doses of peanut-allergic adults and children can be combined for risk assessment purposes

Flying with nut and other food allergies: unravelling fact from fiction

There is a common perception that peanut/tree nut particles can be transmitted through aircraft ventilation systems and pose a significant risk to passengers with food allergies. In fact, food-induced allergic reactions are around 10-100 times less common during flights than 'on the ground', perhaps because of the multiple precautions food-allergic passengers take when flying. We review the evidence for strategies to help prevent accidental allergic reactions while travelling on commercial flights (review registered at PROSPERO, ref CRD42022384341). Research studies (including aircraft simulations) show no evidence to support airborne transmission of nut allergens as a likely phenomenon. Announcements requesting 'nut bans' are not therefore supported, and may instal a false sense of security. The most effective measure is for passengers to wipe down their seat area (including tray table and seat-back entertainment system). Food proteins are often 'sticky' and adhere to these surfaces, from where they are easily transferred to a person's hands and onto food that might be consumed. Airline companies can help to facilitate this through pre-boarding. Passengers at risk of anaphylaxis should be prescribed two adrenaline [epinephrine] autoinjector devices, to carry on their person at all times-including when flying. Airlines should consider including a separate supply of 'general use' adrenaline autoinjectors in the onboard medical kit for use in an emergency. All airlines should have clear policies relating to food allergies which are easily available from their websites or on request. These policies should be applied consistently by both ground staff and cabin crew, in order to provide reassurance to food-allergic passengers and their caregivers.

Oral Immunotherapy for Children with Cow's Milk Allergy

Cow's milk allergy (CMA) is one of the most common IgE-dependent food allergies in children. Some children develop severe and persistent CMA, with near-fatal reactions after exposure to trace amounts of cow's milk (CM). Because milk and dairy products are included in various processed food products, it is difficult to completely remove milk, which negatively affects the quality of life of children with CMA. Oral immunotherapy (OIT) can alleviate food allergen-induced anaphylaxis under continuous ingestion of a little of the causative food. Children with severe CMA may benefit from OIT, but the treatment requires a long time and poses a risk of anaphylaxis. Moreover, in recent years, new therapies, including omalizumab, sublingual immunotherapy, and epicutaneous immunotherapy, have played the role of optional OIT. In this review, we present the current methods of and other attempts at OIT, and discuss OIT for safely treating CMA.

Using data from food challenges to inform management of consumers with food allergy: A systematic review with individual participant data meta-analysis

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.

A Food, a Bite, a Sip: How Much Allergen Is in That?

Detailed information about the amount of allergenic protein ingested by the patient prior to an allergic reaction yields valuable information for the diagnosis, guidance and management of food allergy. However, the exact amount of ingredients is often not declared on the label. In this study the feasibility was studied for estimating the amount of allergenic protein from milk, eggs, peanuts and hazelnuts in frequently consumed composite and non-composite foods and per bite or sip size in different age groups in the Netherlands. Foods containing milk, egg, peanut or hazelnut most frequently consumed were selected for the age groups 2–3, 4–6 and 19–30 years. If the label did not yield clear information, the amount of allergenic protein was estimated based on food labels. Bite or sip sizes were determined in these age groups in 30 different foods. The amount of allergenic protein could be estimated in 47/70 (67%) of composite foods, which was complex. Estimated protein content of milk, egg, peanut and hazelnut was 2–3 g for most foods but varied greatly from 3 to 8610 mg and may be below threshold levels of the patient. In contrast, a single bite or sip can contain a sufficient amount of allergenic protein to elicit an allergic reaction. Bite and sip sizes increased with age. In every day practice it is hard to obtain detailed and reliable information about the amount of allergenic protein incorporated in composite foods. We encourage companies to disclose the amount of common allergenic foods on their labels.

Peanut allergy diagnosis: A 2020 practice parameter update, systematic review, and GRADE analysis

Given the burden of disease and the consequences of a diagnosis of peanut allergy, it is important that peanut allergy be accurately diagnosed so that an appropriate treatment plan can be developed. However, a test that indicates there is peanut sensitization present (eg, a "positive" test) is not always associated with clinical reactivity. This practice parameter addresses the diagnosis of IgE-mediated peanut allergy, both in children and adults, as pertaining to 3 fundamental questions, and based on the systematic reviews and meta-analyses, makes recommendations for the clinician who is evaluating a patient for peanut allergy. These questions relate to when diagnostic tests should be completed, which diagnostic tests to utilize, and the utility (or lack thereof) of diagnostic testing to predict the severity of a future allergic reaction to peanut.

Can my child with IgE-mediated peanut allergy introduce foods labeled with "may contain traces"?

Peanut IgE-mediated food allergy is one of the most common food allergies in children with a prevalence that has increased in the past decades in Westernized countries. Peanut allergies can trigger severe reactions and usually persist over time. Peanut-allergic children and their families are often confronted to processed foods with precautionary allergen labeling (PAL) such as "may contain traces of peanuts," which are frequently used by the food industry. Patients are generally confused as to whether eating such foods entails a risk of allergic reaction, which can ultimately lead to dietary restrictions and decreased quality of life. Thus, guidance toward eviction of foods with PALs such as "may contain traces of peanuts" is a recurring problem that peanut-allergic patients address during pediatric allergy consultations with varying attitudes among allergists. Many studies have evaluated peanut contamination in foods with PALs, with generally less than 10% of foods containing detectable levels of peanuts, albeit heterogeneous amounts, with in rare occasions levels that could trigger allergic reactions in certain patients. The risk of reacting to foods with traces varies significantly with threshold, with patients with the lowest reaction thresholds at highest risk, and a dramatic reduction of risk as threshold increases. Thus, risk stratification based on individual reaction threshold may help stratify patients' risk of reacting to foods with PAL. In clinical practice, a single-dose 30 mg peanut protein oral food challenge may be an option to stratify peanut-allergic patients' risk when introducing foods with PAL, as illustrated by three clinical cases.

Effectiveness of different proteases in reducing allergen content and IgE-binding of raw peanuts

The effectiveness of some non-specific proteases in reducing raw peanut allergenicity was investigated. Peanut kernels were treated by Alcalase, papain, Neutrase and bromelain, respectively. The residues of major peanut allergens Ara h 1, Ara h 2 and Ara h 6 were determined by sandwich ELISA and SDS-PAGE, and the allergenicities of treated peanuts were compared to that of untreated peanuts by western blot. All tested proteases were effective in reducing Ara h 1, but their effectiveness in hydrolyzing Ara h 2 and Ara h 6 varied greatly. The maximal reductions of extractable Ara h 1, Ara h 2 and Ara h 6 were 100%, 100% and 99.8%, respectively, achieved by Alcalase hydrolysis. Alcalase was more effective in overall allergenicity reduction; bromelain and Neutrase were the least effective in reducing Ara h 2 and Ara h 6, respectively. The hydrolysis of original allergens also produced some smaller peptides with strong IgE-binding.

Effect of sleep deprivation and exercise on reaction threshold in adults with peanut allergy: A randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

Peanut allergy causes severe and fatal reactions. Current food allergen labeling does not address these risks adequately against the burden of restricting food choice for allergic patients because of limited data on thresholds of reactivity and the influence of everyday factors.

OBJECTIVE

We estimated peanut threshold doses for a United Kingdom population with peanut allergy and examined the effect of sleep deprivation and exercise.

METHODS

In a crossover study, after blind challenge, participants with peanut allergy underwent 3 open peanut challenges in random order: with exercise after each dose, with sleep deprivation preceding challenge, and with no intervention. Primary outcome was the threshold dose triggering symptoms (in milligrams of protein). Primary analysis estimated the difference between the nonintervention challenge and each intervention in log threshold (as percentage change). Dose distributions were modeled, deriving eliciting doses in the population with peanut allergy.

RESULTS

Baseline challenges were performed in 126 participants, 100 were randomized, and 81 (mean age, 25 years) completed at least 1 further challenge. The mean threshold was 214 mg (SD, 330 mg) for nonintervention challenges, and this was reduced by 45% (95% CI, 21% to 61%; P = .001) and 45% (95% CI, 22% to 62%; P = .001) for exercise and sleep deprivation, respectively. Mean estimated eliciting doses for 1% of the population were 1.5 mg (95% CI, 0.8-2.5 mg) during nonintervention challenge (n = 81), 0.5 mg (95% CI, 0.2-0.8 mg) after sleep, and 0.3 mg (95% CI, 0.1-0.6 mg) after exercise.

CONCLUSION

Exercise and sleep deprivation each significantly reduce the threshold of reactivity in patients with peanut allergy, putting them at greater risk of a reaction. Adjusting reference doses using these data will improve allergen risk management and labeling to optimize protection of consumers with peanut allergy.

Developments in the field of clinical allergy in 2015 through the eyes of Clinical and Experimental Allergy

In the second of two papers, we describe developments in the field of clinical allergy as documented by Clinical and Experimental Allergy in 2015. Epidemiology, clinical allergy, asthma and rhinitis are all covered.

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 ED_5, 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.

Diagnostic Value of Antigen-Specific Immunoglobulin E Immunoassays against Ara h 2 and Ara h 8 Peanut Components in Child Food Allergy

BACKGROUND

Peanut allergy is one of the most severe food allergies in children. The diagnostic gold standard is the oral food challenge (OFC). However, OFC has inherent risks and is time consuming. The measurement of specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE) to peanut components in blood detects peanut sensitization, but the decision point predicting allergy is still unclear. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic value of these tests for the evaluation of child peanut allergy.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, 81 children were referred for peanut allergy. The diagnosis of peanut allergy was based on the clinical context and a positive OFC. Levels of sIgE against whole peanuts or peanut components (Ara h 2 and Ara h 8) were determined by immunoassay.

RESULTS

The Ara h 2 sIgE assay has the best negative predictive value (0.93) and positive predictive value (1) at a cutoff of 0.1 kU/l. Ara h 2 sIgE titers can predict the risk of anaphylaxis (<0.44 kU/l, low risk; >14 kU/l, high risk). The Ara h 8 sIgE assay is not able to discriminate peanut-allergic patients but can be used to evaluate possible cross-reactions to birch pollen with a low risk of anaphylaxis. The best diagnostic strategy is to first determine the Ara h 2 sIgE level and, if negative, evaluate Ara h 8 sIgE.

CONCLUSIONS

We propose an algorithm for a better use of peanut component sIgE immunoassays that should improve their diagnostic value and avoid unnecessary OFC.

Using Component-Resolved Diagnostics in the Management of Peanut-Allergic Patients

Instead of relying on crude peanut extract, component-resolved diagnostics (CRD) uses sensitization to allergenic proteins within peanut. In this review, we describe the recent advances and future perspectives of the use of CRD in the management of peanut-allergic patients. There is strong evidence that sensitization to Ara h 2 is the best predictor for clinically relevant peanut allergy in children and adults. Isolated sensitization to other peanut components is only rarely present in patients with systemic reactions to peanut. It is, however, important to remark that cut-off points of sIgE to Ara h 2 that predict tolerance or allergy vary between different study populations, different age groups and geographical regions, and validation studies performed in different settings are necessary to implement cut-offs in daily practice. Future studies should focus on the role of CRD in risk-assessment early in life, predicting long-term tolerance and monitoring treatment responses following immunotherapy.