Myocarditis is a challenging and potentially life-threatening disease associated with high morbidity in some paediatric patients, due to its ability to present as an acute and fulminant disease and to ultimately progress to dilated cardiomyopathy. It has been described as an inflammatory disease of the myocardium caused by diverse aetiologies. Viral infection is the most frequent cause of myocarditis in developed countries, but bacterial and protozoal infections or drug hypersensitivity may also be causative agents. The prompt diagnosis in paediatric patients is difficult, as the spectrum of clinical manifestation can range from no myocardial dysfunction to sudden cardiac death. Recent studies on myocarditis pathogenesis have revealed a triphasic nature of this disease, which influences the diagnostic and therapeutic strategies to adopt in each patient. Endomyocardial biopsy remains the gold standard for diagnosing myocarditis, and several non-invasive diagnostic tools can be used to support the diagnosis. Intravenous immunoglobulin has become part of routine practice in the treatment of myocarditis in paediatric patients at many centres, but its true effect on the cardiac function has been the target of many studies. The aim of this review is to approach the recently discovered facets of paediatric myocarditis regarding its progression to dilated cardiomyopathy.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Introduction: Several biological agents for the treatment of severe asthma have been approved for self-administration on an outpatient basis in the last years. However, data on the impact of home administration in outcomes such as asthma control and quality of life in real-life settings are sparse. Being this knowledge crucial for clinical practice, this study aimed to assess asthma control and quality of life in patients who transitioned from day hospital administration of biological therapy to home administration. Methods: A single-center prospective analysis of 33 patients treated with biologics for severe asthma, who switched from hospital to home treatment was performed. Asthma Control Test (ACT), Control of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Test (CARAT), Asthma Life Quality (ALQ) and the number of exacerbations were assessed 3 months before and 3 and 6 months after of homeuse.Results: ACT and CARAT did not show statistical differences comparing to the baseline values (21.8 ± 2.7 and 23.8 ± 5.5) within 3 months (22.1 ± 2.4, p=0.609; 23.2 ± 5.3, p=0.572) or 6 months (23.4 ± 0.9, p=0.553; 23.7 ± 6.2, p=0.149) of home administration. Also, ALQ score did not show meaningful variations between baseline (9.5 ± 3.2) and after 3 months (11.2 ± 4.4, p=0.275) and 6 months (10.3 ± 3.8, p=0.209) of home-use. Regarding asthma exacerbations, we did not record a significant difference comparing to the baseline values of 3 months/patient exacerbations (0.2 ± 0.4) and after 3 months (0.2 ± 0.5, p=0.786) or 6 months (0.2 ± 0.4, p=1.000) of change in modality treatment. There was no cases of anaphylaxis or other serious adverse effects in those patients treated at home. Conclusions: Transition of day hospital administration of biologic treatment for severe asthma to home administration did not lead to any deterioration of asthma control or quality of life. Our results emphasized the efficacy and safety of home administration of biologic treatment and provide support on changing the paradigm of the administration of biological treatment in severe asthma.

No abstract

No abstract