I'm not sure that I have hard data to answer any of the questions associated with SLIT, but I question translating the anecdotal information you got re: threshold dosing to a valid statement regarding the entire peanut-allergic population.
I'm thinking that the people with LOWER thresholds probably are self-selecting OUT of the pool for most studies even if they qualify, and recall that there is some tantalizing reasearch suggesting that the lower the reaction threshold, the more probable very severe reactions become for an individual. Obviously there are ethical constraints in exploring that particular portion of the patient population with any degree of certainty...
just noting that they seem to exist. I have no idea what that tail of the bell curve looks like; but
if this is a normal distribution, then it stands to reason that as many as 5-10% of people with a clinial peanut allergy might have that kind of low-and-sometimes-variable threshold. Since, clearly, there are about that many PA people with thresholds so high that they really CAN just take a bite of something to "see" if it is contaminated. KWIM?
DD reacts to amounts that can't be seen with the naked eye, for example. So she's probably at some several-decimal-places out, 5-sigma location on the anecdotal bell curve that was mentioned to you, Boo. Would we ever put her through an oral challenge to particpate in a study? Probably not, even if the researchers running it
would do it (which is doubtful in light of her particular history).
Does that mean that we're contributing to selection bias in the patient population that undergoes these things? Yes, undoubtedly.
One thing that our allergist has
hinted at, but that I've never had the opportunity to fully explore with him is the idea that there is a patient population for which desensitization in an aggressive sense is just... well,
ill advised. I'm thinking that this isn't necessarily a tiny percentage, and that a drifting reaction threshold or unpredictable and low-threshold reactions might play into it.
I'm guessing that those people
might participate in SLIT where they would opt OUT of participation in other types of protocols. They aren't "weeded" out, in other words, they just never show up in the first place, is what I'm thinking.
So who is more likely to opt "in" to a desensitization protocol or study to start with? They are clearly "self-selected" from the general population, and it's unlikely that it represents a true population sample, but more probable that some set of factors makes families either more or less likely to opt in to begin with. My guess?
People who see an initial challenge as quite low-risk (maybe even "NO" risk) relative to the benefits of the study/treatment. Who are those people?
Well, most of them probably have higher thresholds and want to be "not allergic" anymore. I'm thinking that families like yours or mine, where there is clear risk in our minds from participating, are less usual.I simply cannot imagine a parent who has seen very
rapid severe anaphylaxis to a tiny amount (as in, seconds to full collapse) being willing to sign on for a challenge even under optimal conditions.
I'm reminded of MommaB's DS, who finally gave up on even SLIT because of repeated reactions.
I don't know what makes peanut 'different' (or perhaps even if it IS actually different) from other allergens in this respect.
I'm just skeptical that half a peanut (which is probably, what... 150mg? 200?) is the "average" threshold dose for the general population of PA persons. Then again, maybe it is and I just don't want to think about what it means that my kid seems to have a threshold dose several orders of magnitude lower than that. That's possible, I guess, since it makes me feel lonely and vulnerable, and not-terribly optimistic about efforts to improve labeling.