Division of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Center for Science in the Public Interest, Washington, District of Columbia.
Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2022 Mar;128(3):279-282. doi: 10.1016/j.anai.2021.12.005. Epub 2021 Dec 7.
Allergen avoidance is critical for those with immunoglobulin E-mediated food allergy, but can only be successful with accurate product information. Although the Food and Drug Administration maintains the Center for Food Safety and Nutrition Adverse Event Reporting System to collect adverse event (AE) reports related to foods, there is substantial underreporting, and information regarding product labeling issues is limited.
The purpose of this study was to describe allergic reactions associated with accidental oral exposure to sesame and the role of product labeling.
A questionnaire was developed and disseminated to online communities focused on sesame allergy. The questionnaire included questions on clinical characteristics, treatments, outcomes, and labeling issues.
A total of 360 clinical reactions related to sesame were reviewed in 327 individuals. Anaphylaxis occurred in 68.9% of reactions. Hospitalization occurred in 47.8% of events and epinephrine was administered in 36.4% of cases. Events involving a packaged food product occurred in 67.5% of AEs with only 43.8% of these using the term "sesame." An alternative name was noted in 46.0% of products that did not include "sesame" on labeling, most of which was "tahini."
We determined considerable sesame food allergy morbidity, in part owing to inconsistent allergen labeling. Our findings support the development of a more rapid process for the Food and Drug Administration to update the major allergen list and formulation of an improved system for reporting AEs related to foods.
对于免疫球蛋白 E 介导的食物过敏患者，过敏原回避至关重要，但只有在获得准确的产品信息的情况下才能成功。尽管食品和药物管理局维护了食品安全和营养中心不良事件报告系统来收集与食品相关的不良事件报告，但仍存在大量漏报，并且关于产品标签问题的信息有限。
本研究旨在描述与芝麻意外口服接触相关的过敏反应以及产品标签的作用。
开发了一份问卷并分发给专注于芝麻过敏的在线社区。问卷包括有关临床特征、治疗、结果和标签问题的问题。
共审查了 327 名个体中 360 例与芝麻相关的临床反应。有 68.9%的反应发生了过敏反应。47.8%的事件发生了住院治疗，36.4%的病例使用了肾上腺素。在涉及包装食品产品的事件中，有 67.5%的 AE 使用了术语“芝麻”，而只有 43.8%的 AE 使用了“芝麻”。在未在标签上包含“芝麻”的产品中，有 46.0%的产品注意到了替代名称，其中大多数是“芝麻酱”。
我们确定了相当数量的芝麻食物过敏发病率，部分原因是过敏原标签不一致。我们的发现支持食品和药物管理局开发一个更快速的过程来更新主要过敏原清单，并制定一个改进的食品相关不良事件报告系统。
