Recent guideline recommendations have shifted from recommending prolonged avoidance of allergenic foods in the first 3 years of life to a primary prevention approach involving the deliberate early introduction to infants at risk of developing food allergy. Despite this, some infants, especially those with severe eczema who are at highest risk for developing peanut allergy, fail to receive the preventative benefits of early peanut introduction due to hesitancy and other factors. Difficulty adhering to regular ingestion after introduction further reduces the effectiveness of primary prevention. As emerging real-world evidence has demonstrated that performing peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) among infants is effective and safe, peanut OIT could be a treatment option for infants with peanut allergy. This review discusses the benefits, risks, and barriers to offering peanut OIT to infants who fail primary prevention strategies. We propose the novel concept that infants with peanut allergy be offered peanut OIT as soon as possible after failed peanut introduction through a shared decision-making process with the family, where there is a preference for active management rather than avoidance.

UNASSIGNED: Lupine is a member of the legume family and is often used in many food products in Europe (e.g. pasta, pizza, sauces, etc.) as a wheat or soy substitute. Lupine cross-reacts with peanut, and cases of allergic reactions to lupine in peanut-allergic patients have been reported in Europe mainly. In contrast, lupine as an ingredient in food products is relatively new to the Canadian market.
UNASSIGNED: We describe a 10-year old boy with diagnosed peanut and tree-nut allergy, who developed anaphylaxis to lupine flour in May 2017. A few minutes after eating a pre-made pancake mix that didn\'t contain any of his known allergens (peanuts, tree nuts), he developed oral pruritis followed by throat tightness, severe stomach ache, lightheadedness, cough, hoarse throat, nasal congestion, sneezing, and fatigue. He refused epinephrine, but was given cetirizine. The symptoms resolved after 3 h, but he was still unwell the following day. In a conversation between the mother and the allergist, it was determined that lupine was likely the cause of the reaction. To confirm, he was brought into clinic for skin testing to lupine. Results were consistent with lupine allergy (pancake mix: 10 × 7 mm, lupine bean: 12 × 6 mm). The family has since reported this to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, resulting in a product recall and a consumer advisory bulletin published by Health Canada.
UNASSIGNED: This is the first reported case of allergic reaction to lupine in Canada, and highlights the need for education of Canadian families with peanut allergy as well as allergists, regarding the possibility of cross-reactivity between peanut and lupine and its new presence in the Canadian food supply. In addition, a precautionary label for those with peanut allergy who purchase products containing lupine should be considered. This case illustrates also the need for a clear mechanism for consumers and allergists to report emerging food allergens to regulatory bodies such as Health Canada.

Here, we summarise the current clinical knowledge on Ara h 6 sensitisation and clinical relevance of this sensitisation pattern using five illustrative clinical cases. The literature search yielded a total of 166 papers, and an additional relevant article was found by \'snowballing\'. A total of ten articles were considered relevant for this review. Most studies included patients with a sensitisation to Ara h 6 and cosensitisation to Ara h 2. Only three studies showed patients with a mono-sensitisation to Ara h 6. This illustrates that Ara h 6 mono-sensitisation has been neglected in literature. We present a case series of five children with sensitisation to peanut component Ara h 6. Only one of these five patients showed Ara h 8 cosensitivity. Three out of the five children had a positive double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC), with moderate to strong reactions.
CONCLUSIONS: A mono-sensitisation to peanut component Ara h 6 is uncommon but can cause severe allergic reactions. Therefore, the determination of sIgE to Ara h 6 is warranted in patients with a suspected peanut allergy, especially in the absence of sensitisation to Ara h 1, 2, 3 and 9.
BACKGROUND: • Peanut allergy is common and can cause severe allergic reactions. • The diagnostics of peanut allergy has recently improved with the use of component resolved diagnosis What is new: • A mono-sensitisation to peanut component Ara h 6 is uncommon, but can cause severe allergic reactions • Determination of sIgE to Ara h 6 is warranted in patients with a suspected peanut allergy, especially in the absence of sensitisation to Ara h 1, 2, 3 and 9.