Jonathan O'B Hourihane1, Katrina J Allen2, Wayne G Shreffler3, Gillian Dunngalvin4, Julie A Nordlee5, Giovanni A Zurzolo6, Audrey Dunngalvin4, Lyle C Gurrin7, Joseph L Baumert5, Steve L Taylor5. 1. Paediatrics and Child Health, University College, Cork, Ireland. Electronic address: J.Hourihane@ucc.ie. 2. Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Department of Allergy and Immunology, Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. 3. Food Allergy Centre and Centre for Immunology and Inflammatory Disease, and Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass. 4. Paediatrics and Child Health, University College, Cork, Ireland; School of Applied Psychology, University College, Cork, Ireland. 5. Food Allergy Research and Resource Program, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Neb. 6. Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Centre for Chronic Disease, College of Health and Biomedicine, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia. 7. Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Eliciting doses (EDs) of allergenic foods can be defined by the distribution of threshold doses for subjects within a specific population. The ED05 is the dose that elicits a reaction in 5% of allergic subjects. The predicted ED05 for peanut is 1.5 mg of peanut protein (6 mg of whole peanut). OBJECTIVE: We sought to validate the predicted peanut ED05 (1.5 mg) with a novel single-dose challenge. METHODS: Consecutive eligible children with peanut allergy in 3 centers were prospectively invited to participate, irrespective of previous reaction severity. Predetermined criteria for objective reactions were used to identify ED05 single-dose reactors. RESULTS: Five hundred eighteen children (mean age, 6.8 years) were eligible. No significant demographic or clinical differences were identified between 381 (74%) participants and 137 (26%) nonparticipants or between subjects recruited at each center. Three hundred seventy-eight children (206 male) completed the study. Almost half the group reported ignoring precautionary allergen labeling. Two hundred forty-five (65%) children experienced no reaction to the single dose of peanut. Sixty-seven (18%) children reported a subjective reaction without objective findings. Fifty-eight (15%) children experienced signs of a mild and transient nature that did not meet the predetermined criteria. Only 8 (2.1%; 95% CI, 0.6%-3.4%) subjects met the predetermined criteria for an objective and likely related event. No child experienced more than a mild reaction, 4 of the 8 received oral antihistamines only, and none received epinephrine. Food allergy-related quality of life improved from baseline to 1 month after challenge regardless of outcome (η2 = 0.2, P < .0001). Peanut skin prick test responses and peanut- and Ara h 2-specific IgE levels were not associated with objective reactivity to peanut ED05. CONCLUSION: A single administration of 1.5 mg of peanut protein elicited objective reactions in fewer than the predicted 5% of patients with peanut allergy. The novel single-dose oral food challenge appears clinically safe and patient acceptable, regardless of the outcome. It identifies the most highly dose-sensitive population with food allergy not otherwise identifiable by using routinely available peanut skin prick test responses or specific IgE levels, but this single-dose approach has not yet been validated for risk assessment of individual patients.
BACKGROUND: Eliciting doses (EDs) of allergenic foods can be defined by the distribution of threshold doses for subjects within a specific population. The ED05 is the dose that elicits a reaction in 5% of allergic subjects. The predicted ED05 for peanut is 1.5 mg of peanut protein (6 mg of whole peanut). OBJECTIVE: We sought to validate the predicted peanut ED05 (1.5 mg) with a novel single-dose challenge. METHODS: Consecutive eligible children with peanutallergy in 3 centers were prospectively invited to participate, irrespective of previous reaction severity. Predetermined criteria for objective reactions were used to identify ED05 single-dose reactors. RESULTS: Five hundred eighteen children (mean age, 6.8 years) were eligible. No significant demographic or clinical differences were identified between 381 (74%) participants and 137 (26%) nonparticipants or between subjects recruited at each center. Three hundred seventy-eight children (206 male) completed the study. Almost half the group reported ignoring precautionary allergen labeling. Two hundred forty-five (65%) children experienced no reaction to the single dose of peanut. Sixty-seven (18%) children reported a subjective reaction without objective findings. Fifty-eight (15%) children experienced signs of a mild and transient nature that did not meet the predetermined criteria. Only 8 (2.1%; 95% CI, 0.6%-3.4%) subjects met the predetermined criteria for an objective and likely related event. No child experienced more than a mild reaction, 4 of the 8 received oral antihistamines only, and none received epinephrine. Food allergy-related quality of life improved from baseline to 1 month after challenge regardless of outcome (η2 = 0.2, P < .0001). Peanut skin prick test responses and peanut- and Ara h 2-specific IgE levels were not associated with objective reactivity to peanut ED05. CONCLUSION: A single administration of 1.5 mg of peanut protein elicited objective reactions in fewer than the predicted 5% of patients with peanutallergy. The novel single-dose oral food challenge appears clinically safe and patient acceptable, regardless of the outcome. It identifies the most highly dose-sensitive population with food allergy not otherwise identifiable by using routinely available peanut skin prick test responses or specific IgE levels, but this single-dose approach has not yet been validated for risk assessment of individual patients.
Authors: Geert F Houben; Joseph L Baumert; W Marty Blom; Astrid G Kruizinga; Marie Y Meima; Benjamin C Remington; Matthew W Wheeler; Joost Westerhout; Steve L Taylor Journal: Food Chem Toxicol Date: 2020-11-07 Impact factor: 6.023
Authors: Shelley Dua; Monica Ruiz-Garcia; Simon Bond; Stephen R Durham; Ian Kimber; Clare Mills; Graham Roberts; Isabel Skypala; James Wason; Pamela Ewan; Robert Boyle; Andrew Clark Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2019-07-15 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Benjamin C Remington; Joost Westerhout; Marie Y Meima; W Marty Blom; Astrid G Kruizinga; Matthew W Wheeler; Steve L Taylor; Geert F Houben; Joseph L Baumert Journal: Food Chem Toxicol Date: 2020-03-13 Impact factor: 6.023
Authors: Bert Ruiter; Neal P Smith; Brinda Monian; Ang A Tu; Elizabeth Fleming; Yamini V Virkud; Sarita U Patil; Charles A Whittaker; J Christopher Love; Wayne G Shreffler Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2019-10-22 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Nandinee Patel; Daniel C Adelman; Katherine Anagnostou; Joseph L Baumert; W Marty Blom; Dianne E Campbell; R Sharon Chinthrajah; E N Clare Mills; Bushra Javed; Natasha Purington; Benjamin C Remington; Hugh A Sampson; Alexander D Smith; Ross A R Yarham; Paul J Turner Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2021-02-09 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Rebecca Czolk; Julia Klueber; Martin Sørensen; Paul Wilmes; Françoise Codreanu-Morel; Per Stahl Skov; Christiane Hilger; Carsten Bindslev-Jensen; Markus Ollert; Annette Kuehn Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2021-01-28 Impact factor: 7.561
Authors: Paul J Turner; Nandinee Patel; Barbara K Ballmer-Weber; Joe L Baumert; W Marty Blom; Simon Brooke-Taylor; Helen Brough; Dianne E Campbell; Hongbing Chen; R Sharon Chinthrajah; René W R Crevel; Anthony E J Dubois; Motohiro Ebisawa; Arnon Elizur; Jennifer D Gerdts; M Hazel Gowland; Geert F Houben; Jonathan O B Hourihane; André C Knulst; Sébastien La Vieille; María Cristina López; E N Clare Mills; Gustavo A Polenta; Natasha Purington; Maria Said; Hugh A Sampson; Sabine Schnadt; Eva Södergren; Stephen L Taylor; Benjamin C Remington Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract Date: 2021-08-23
Authors: A E J Dubois; P J Turner; J Hourihane; B Ballmer-Weber; K Beyer; C-H Chan; M H Gowland; S O'Hagan; L Regent; B Remington; S Schnadt; T Stroheker; R W R Crevel Journal: Allergy Date: 2018-02-09 Impact factor: 13.146