|
Abstract: . . . Double blind challenge, 7 active doses, 7 placebo Randomly interspersed, 15 30 min interval 85% defatted roasted peanut flour in mashed potatoes 26/26 had symptoms, 5/26 objective Symptoms: OAS (26), lipswelling (3), nausea (2), vomiting (2) Clinical score: mild, moderate, severe Age (mean) ED obj (g) ED obj (cum) (g) 25 10 - 30 14.43 44 Wensing et al. JACI 2002;110:915-20. Food Allergy Research and Resource Program 2005 Food Allergy Research and Resource Program 2005 Uncertainties Regarding Establishment of Threshold Doses LOAELs vs. NOAELs Uncertainty in using LOAEL to establish threshold dose Patient selection and exclusion of severely affected patients Variability in individual threshold doses . . . . . . 2 nd Threshold Conference Results : Taylor et al. 2004. A consensus protocol for the determination of the threshold doses for allergenic foods: how much is too much? Clin. Exp. Allergy 34: 689-695. 3 rd FARRP Threshold Conference October 4-5, 2004 Camp De Mar, Mallorca, Spain Food Allergy Research and Resource Program 2005 Why model dose-response? It may not be feasible to design studies with sufficient power to give the desired degree of safety assurance (e.g., 268 patients and no reactions are required to say with 95% confidence that the reaction rate is less than 1%). A conventional approach, applying a safety factor to a no effect level cannot easily be applied: many challenge studies do not yield a no-effect level some challenge studies exclude individuals who have suffered a severe response, (are severe reactors the most sensitive?) No agreement yet on uncertainty factors Modelling is an accepted way of defining the probability of rare events with potentially severe consequences Figure 4: Diagram showing one possible definition for a allergen threshold using a log-linear model. Food Allergy Research and Resource Program 2005 Classical Risk Assessment Typical Uncertainty Factors: . . . --3000,2,750,2746,15999
|