L. Guérin

Cross-allergenicity of peanut and lupine: the risk of lupine allergy in patients allergic to peanuts.

BACKGROUND Peanut allergy is common, but cross-allergy between legumes is rare. Proteins from Lupinus albus are increasingly eaten in the form of seeds or additives to wheat flour. The risk of cross-allergenicity is still insufficiently known. OBJECTIVE We sought to study the risk of cross-allergy to lupine in patients allergic to peanut and to study lupine allergenicity. METHODS Twenty-four patients allergic to peanuts were studied by means of skin prick tests with native lupine flour from Lupinus albus. Double-blind oral challenge tests were performed with lupine flour and peanut in 8 of these patients. Specific IgEs were assayed for peanut, lupine flour, and pollen in 6 sera. RAST inhibition tests for lupine pollen by peanut were performed on 4 of these sera. Peanut and lupine flour immunoblots were carried out for 6 sera, and crossed immunoblot inhibitions for peanut by lupine flour and lupine flour by peanut were carried out for 2 sera. RESULTS The skin prick test responses with lupine flour were positive in 11 (44%) subjects. The challenge test responses were positive in 7 of 8 subjects at the same doses as with peanut. The major lupine flour allergen (molecular mass, 43 kd) is present in peanuts. The RAST inhibition and immunoblot tests indicated cross-reactivity of peanut with the lupine flour and pollen. CONCLUSIONS The risk of crossed peanut-lupine allergy is high, contrary to the risk with other legumes. The inclusion of 10% lupine flour in wheat flour without mandatory labeling makes lupine a hidden allergen, presenting a major risk of cross-reaction in subjects already allergic to peanut products. A high sensitizing potential can also be postulated for this legume.

Identification of oleosins as major allergens in sesame seed allergic patients.

Background:  The prevalence of sesame allergy is increasing in European countries. Cases of severe allergy lack any evidence of specific immunoglobulin (Ig)Es by prick tests and CAPSystem‐FEIA. The reasons for this negativity are unknown.

Sublingual-swallow immunotherapy with standardized 3-grass pollen extract: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is accepted as a safe and effective route for the treatment of grass pollen allergy, but clarification of its clinical and biological efficacy requires more study. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and compliance of SLIT with a standardized 3-grass pollen extract in patients with grass pollen seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, with or without mild asthma. METHODS This multicenter, randomized, double-blind study included 127 patients (aged 12-41 years; mean age, 24.9 years) with grass pollen seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, with or without mild asthma. They received either SLIT with a high-dose, standardized, 3-grass pollen extract or placebo for 10 months before and during the grass pollen season. The efficacy evaluation compared weekly clinical scores (defined as the sum of the symptom score and rescue medication score) to measure rhinoconjunctivitis and asthma for the first 8 weeks of the pollen season. We also evaluated safety and compliance and measured changes in anti-Dactylis specific IgG4 antibody levels. RESULTS There was a trend in favor of the study group in the mean adjusted clinical score. The groups were not comparable on inclusion (P = .02): the SLIT group included more subjects with asthma and had a higher mean IgG4 serum level. Additional exploration according to subgroups with and without asthma found that among the patients without asthma, the SLIT group had a significantly better clinical score (P = .045). Anti-Dactylis specific IgG4 levels increased significantly in the SLIT group. CONCLUSION SLIT with a standardized, high-dose, 3-grass pollen extract is safe and significantly improves the clinical score in patients with hay fever and without asthma during the pollen season.