No abstract

The application of the anaphylaxis protocol substantially improved the physicians' skills to manage this emergency in the PEU. Epinephrine administration showed no significant adverse effects.

No abstract

Background: The novel disease caused by the new coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 has caused an unprecedented global pandemic. Care providers of asthmatic children are increasingly con-cerned; as viral infections are one of the primary triggers of asthma flare-up. However, the effect of SARS-CoV-2 as well as the generated worldwide lockdown on asthmatic children is unknown.Objective: The aim of this study was to analyze the effects of pandemic SARS-CoV-2 in pediat-ric asthma control.Material and Methods: A retrospective, open, transversal study was performed at five tertiary hospitals. Recruited patients were aged <18 years and had physician-diagnosed asthma. Information regarding the 2019 and 2020 seasons were provided.Results: Data were collected from 107 children (age range: 3–18 years, mean age: 12 years). Well-controlled asthma was observed in 58 (54.2%) patients in 2020 versus 30 (28%) in 2019, and 15 (14%) patients had poorly controlled asthma in 2020 versus 28 (26.2%) in 2019. In 2020, a decrease in exacerbations caused by allergies to pollen, dust mites, molds, and through other causes not related to SARS-CoV-2 infection was observed. An increase in exacerbations was observed due to animal dander, stress, physical exercise, and SARS-CoV-2 infection. Children had a reduced need for asthma-controlling medication, made fewer visits to healthcare pro-viders and had lesser need of treatment with oral corticosteroids if compared with the same season of 2019.Conclusion: Pediatric asthma control improved, the need for controller medication declined, and fewer visits to healthcare providers were made during the pandemic if compared with the 2019 season.

Two children presented contact dermatitis after black henna tattoo due to added additives such as paraphenilendiamine.

Background: Oral immunotherapy is a frequent treatment for the management of food allergies, but adverse events (AE) are common. This study assessed the outcome of cow's milk oral immunotherapy (MOIT) in severe cow`s milk-allergic patients treated with omalizumab in a real-life setting.Methods: OmaBASE was a national, multicenter, open, and observational registry that collected clinical, immunologic, and treatment from patients with food allergy receiving omalizumab.Results: Data derived from 58 patients aged 10.3 years (IQR 6.3-13.2) and median milk-specific IgE 100 kU A /L at the start of omalizumab treatment. Most had experienced anaphylaxis by accidental exposures (70.7%) and had asthma (81.0%).Omalizumab in monotherapy induced tolerance to ≥6000 mg of cow's milk protein (CMP) to 34.8% of patients tested by oral food challenge. Omalizumab combined with MOIT conferred desensitization to ≥6000 mg of CMP to 83.0% of patients.Omalizumab withdrawal triggered more AE (P = .013) and anaphylaxis (P = .001) than no discontinuation. Anaphylaxis was observed in 36.4% of patients who discontinued omalizumab, and more in those with sudden (50.0%) rather than progressive (12.5%) discontinuation. At database closure, 40.5% of patients who had completed followup tolerated CMP without omalizumab (7.2% 1500-4500 mg; 33.3% ≥6000 mg). Conclusion:Milk oral immunotherapy initiated under omalizumab allows the desensitization of subjects with severe cow's milk allergy even after omalizumab discontinuation. However, discontinuation of omalizumab can lead to severe AE and should be carefully monitored.

Background: Allergy to mollusks has been the focus of fewer studies than allergy to crustaceans. Furthermore, allergy to mollusks is less well characterized. Objectives: To describe the clinical characteristics of mollusk-allergic patients, to identify the responsible allergens, and to assess crossreactivity. Methods: We performed a prospective multicenter study including 45 patients with mollusk allergy, which was diagnosed based on a suggestive clinical history and a positive skin test result with the agent involved. Fractions were identified using SDS-PAGE and immunoblotting. The proteins responsible were subsequently identified using mass spectrometry. ELISA inhibition studies were performed with mollusks, dust mites, and crustaceans. Results: We found that 25 patients (55%) were allergic to cephalopods, 14 (31%) to bivalves, and 11 (24%) to gastropods. Limpet was the third most frequent cause of allergy (15% of cases). In 31 patients (69%), the manifestation was systemic; 10 (22%) exhibited oral allergy syndrome, and 7 (15%) experienced contact urticaria. Most major allergens were found between 27 kDa and 47 kDa. ELISA inhibition assays revealed a high degree of inhibition of cephalopods and bivalves from all the groups of mollusks, mites, and crustaceans. Mass spectrometry identified tropomyosin, actin, and myosin as the major allergens. Conclusions: Cephalopods, especially squid, are the mollusks that most frequently trigger allergic symptoms. The very frequent occurrence of allergy to limpets is striking, given their low consumption in our area. It is worth highlighting the heterogeneity observed, exemplified by the gastropods. Tropomyosin appears to be responsible for the high cross-reactivity found between mollusks, mites, and crustaceans. Three new mollusk allergens were also identified, namely, actin, enolase, and a putative C1q domain-containing protein.

Because of widespread latex manufacturing in the last decades, latex allergy has become an important clinical problem, not only in high-risk groups (healthworkers) but also among the general population. Latex is used to produce a large variety of natural rubber products (medical equipment, household gloves, condoms, balls and balloons,footwear, baby pacifiers…) employed in the ordinary life, with high risk for patients allergic to latex. Among general population, children affected by myelomeningocele or spina bifida, have a higher risk to develop latex allergy. Clinical manifestations range from local reactions(contact dermatitis, urticaria), rhinoconjunctivitis, asthma, pharyngeal edema to severe systemic reactions such anaphylactic shock. Furthermore, latex can crossreact with some plant foods, and patients suffering from latex allergy often associate food allergy.