Cross-sectional studycited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checked A-LEG-13 standard review

Peanut and lupin cross-allergy

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

Overview

Moneret-Vautrin DA et al.. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1999 · PMID 10518837 · DOI 10.1016/s0091-6749(99)70303-9

Many peanut-allergic patients also reacted to lupin flour.

Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate

Study explained simply

What did the researchers want to find out?: Test cross-allergy
How was the study done?: Clinical tests
How many people, animals or samples were studied?: 24 patients
What was actually found?: 7 of 8 reacted to lupin
How large was the observed effect?: Not applicable
What do the results mean in everyday life?: Peanut-allergic people should beware of lupin.
What are the study's limitations?: Small
What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?: Allergy-specific
Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?: High
What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?: Cannot show risk for non-allergic people.

Authors: Moneret-Vautrin DA, Guérin L, Kanny G, Flabbee J, Frémont S, Morisset M
Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol
Year: 1999
Identifier: PMID 10518837 DOI 10.1016/s0091-6749(99)70303-9
Verification: verified – PubMed E-utilities efetch, 2026-10-25
Retracted: no
Corrections: none
Extent checked: abstract only
Conflicts of interest and funding: not stated in abstract

Cross-allergy to lupine in peanut-allergic patients.

Study design: Cross-sectional study – Clinical-laboratory study (skin prick, DBPCFC, IgE, immunoblots)
Population: Peanut-allergic patients
Country: France (inferred from author affiliation; not stated in abstract)
Period: Not stated
Sample size: 24 patients (8 challenged)
Inclusion and exclusion criteria: Peanut allergy

Results: Skin prick positive to lupine in 11 (44%); oral challenge positive in 7 of 8; major lupine allergen (43 kd) present in peanut.
Absolute risks: not reported
Authors' conclusion: Risk of crossed peanut-lupine allergy is high, unlike other legumes; lupine is a hidden allergen.

Descriptive.

Supports allergy part of C-LEG-11 for allergic people.

Same paper: cross-allergy to other legumes rare.

High (lupin is labelled in EU).

Relevant only for peanut allergy.

Multidimensional assessment
Multidimensional assessment
Authenticity of the source	verified
Methodological quality	moderate
Risk of bias	some concerns
Precision of results	low
Directness	direct
Reproducibility	replicated
Consistency with the overall evidence	consistent
Regional transferability	high
Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)	not applicable

None.

Note: according to the archive, the studies were compiled by the archive operators. Whether Dr. Elawady himself cited this study is not established.

What the archive says about the study: Bibliography only.
A. What was actually studied?: Peanut-lupine cross-allergy.
B. What did the authors find?: High cross-reactivity in peanut-allergic patients.
C. What conclusions do the authors themselves draw?: Lupine labelling needed; cross-allergy to other legumes rare.
D. What does the archive derive from it?: Supports legume allergy concern.
E. Is this derivation scientifically justified?: Applies to peanut-allergic people only; the paper notes cross-allergy between legumes is otherwise rare.
Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive): not applicable