The European Anaphylaxis Registry confirmed food as the major elicitor of anaphylaxis in children, specifically hen's egg, cow's milk, and nuts. Reactions to insect venom were seen more in young adulthood. Intensive care unit admissions and grade IV/fatal reactions were rare. The registry will serve as a systematic foundation for a continuous description of this multiform condition.

When questioned, about 10% of the parents report suspected hypersensitivity to at least one drug in their children. However, only a few of these reactions can be confirmed as allergic after a diagnostic workup. There is still a lack of knowledge on drug hypersensitivity (DH) epidemiology, clinical spectrum, and appropriate diagnostic methods particularly in children. Meanwhile, the tools used for DH management in adults are applied also for children. Whereas this appears generally acceptable, some aspects of DH and management differ with age. Most reactions in children are still attributed to betalactams. Some manifestations, such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-associated angioedema and serum sicknesslike reactions, are more frequent among young patients as compared to adults. Risk factors such as viral infections are particularly frequent in children, making the diagnosis challenging. The practicability and validity of skin test and other diagnostic procedures need further assessment in children. This study presents an up-to-date review on epidemiology, clinical spectrum, diagnostic tools, and current management of DH in children. A new general algorithm for the study of these reactions in children is proposed. Data are presented focusing on reported differences between pediatric and adult patients, also identifying unmet needs to be addressed in further research.

Hypersensitivity reactions to betalactams (BLs) are classified as immediate or nonimmediate. The former usually appear within 1 h of drug‐intake and are mediated by specific IgE‐antibodies. Nonimmediate reactions are those occurring more than 1 h after drug‐intake, and they can be T‐cell mediated. The diagnostic evaluation of allergic reactions to BLs has changed over the last 5 years, for several reasons. Major and minor determinants are no longer commercially available for skin testing in many countries. In immediate allergic reactions, the sensitivity of skin testing and immunoassays is decreasing and new in vitro methods, such as the basophil activation test, are gaining importance for diagnosis. For nonimmediate reactions, skin testing appears to be less sensitive than previous results, although more studies need to be carried out in this direction. Nevertheless, the drug provocation test is still necessary for diagnosis.

Hypersensitivity reactions to betalactams (BLs) are classified as immediate or nonimmediate. The former usually appear within 1 h of drug-intake and are mediated by specific IgE-antibodies. Nonimmediate reactions are those occurring more than 1 h after drug-intake, and they can be T-cell mediated. The diagnostic evaluation of allergic reactions to BLs has changed over the last 5 years, for several reasons. Major and minor determinants are no longer commercially available for skin testing in many countries. In immediate allergic reactions, the sensitivity of skin testing and immunoassays is decreasing and new in vitro methods, such as the basophil activation test, are gaining importance for diagnosis. For nonimmediate reactions, skin testing appears to be less sensitive than previous results, although more studies need to be carried out in this direction. Nevertheless, the drug provocation test is still necessary for diagnosis.

Ara h 2- and Cor a 14-specific IgE are useful to estimate the probability for a positive challenge outcome in the diagnostic work-up of peanut or hazelnut allergy making some food challenges superfluous.

Allergen microarrays provide a new tool to diagnose symptomatic CM and HE allergy. They show performance characteristics comparable to the current diagnostic tests and may be indicated in small children in whom only small blood volumes are obtainable. However, they are not capable of replacing double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges in most cases.

BackgroundBullous pemphigoid (BP) in infants is a rare but increasingly reported autoimmune blistering skin disease. Autoantibody reactivity is usually poorly characterized. Current guidelines do not address specific aspects of the infantile form of BP. The objectives of this study are to define clinical and diagnostic characteristics of infantile BP and develop a treatment algorithm.MethodsDetailed characterization of a current case series of five infants with BP from our departments. Comprehensive analysis of all reported cases (1–12 months) with respect to clinical and laboratory characteristics, treatment and outcome.ResultsIn total 81 cases were identified (including our own). The mean age was 4.5 months. Moderately severe and severe disease was seen in 84% of cases. Involvement of hands and feet was present in all cases. Immunofluorescence microscopy was comparable with BP in adults. Where analyzed, the NC16A domain of bullous pemphigoid 180 kDa antigen/collagen XVII (BP180) was identified as the major target antigen. BP180 NC16A ELISA values in our cohort were significantly higher than in a control cohort of 28 newly diagnosed adult patients.50% of patients were treated with systemic corticosteroids, 20% with a combination of systemic corticosteroids and dapsone or sulfapyridine and 10% with topical corticosteroids alone. 14% of patients needed a combination of multiple immunosuppressants. All but one patient reached remission. Relapses were rare.ConclusionsPresentation of infantile BP is often severe with blistering of hands and feet present in all cases. Pathogenesis and diagnostic criteria are comparable to adult BP, yet BP180 NC16A ELISA levels seem to be significantly higher in infants. The overall disease outcome is favorable. Based on the results of this study we propose a treatment algorithm for infantile BP.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13023-014-0185-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Summary Epicutaneous patch testing is the diagnostic standard for the detection of allergic contact dermatitis. The present guidelines are aimed at residents and board‐certified physicians in the fields of dermatology and allergology as well as other medical specialties involved in establishing the indication for patch testing and its execution in patients with contact dermatitis and other forms of delayed‐type hypersensitivity. The target audience also includes other health care providers and insurance funds. Based on a systematic literature search and a formal consensus process (S3), the guidelines were developed by dermatologists in collaboration with pediatricians, occupational medicine physicians, nursing staff as well as patient representatives. The systematic methodological approach and appraisal of evidence upon which the recommendations are based are outlined in a separate method report that also contains evidence tables. The guidelines address general aspects of patch testing as well as medicolegal issues. The recommendations given relate to topics such as the indication for patch testing, informed patient consent, as well as the choice of test substances, test chambers and test site, duration of exposure, reading times and interpretation of test reactions. Furthermore, recommendations are provided with respect to endogenous and exogenous factors, specific patient groups (children, pregnant women, immunosuppressed individuals) as well as possible risks and adverse events associated with patch testing using contact allergens. Note: This publication is part 1 of the short version of the S3 guidelines for “Epicutaneous patch testing using contact allergens and drugs” (registry no. 013 – 018; date: March 20, 2019; valid until December 31, 2021). Part 2 of the short version will be published in the next issue. The long version of these guidelines can be accessed at http://www.awmf.org. The method report is available as online publication (https://www.awmf.org/leitlinien/detail/ll/013-018.html) and contains the evidence tables in its appendix.