The reported incidence of immediate hypersensitivity reactions (IHR) including anaphylaxis after COVID-19 vaccination is 10-fold higher than for other vaccines. Several patient groups are theorized to be at particular risk. Since specific vaccination guidelines for these patients are based on expert opinion, we performed a retrospective monocentric analysis of the tolerability of adenoviral vector and mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines in a cohort of patients allegedly at high risk of IHR. Reactions were assessed immediately on-site by allergists during a monitored vaccination protocol and after 3–7 days through telephone interviews. The cohort included 196 patients (aged 12–84 years) with primary mast cell disease (pMCD, 50.5%), idiopathic anaphylaxis (IA, 19.9%), hereditary angioedema (HAE, 5.1%) or miscellaneous indications (24.5%). Twenty-five immediate reactions were observed in 221 vaccine doses (11.3%). Most occurred in IA or miscellaneous patients. None fulfilled anaphylaxis criteria and most were mild and self-limiting. Reaction occurrence was significantly associated with female sex. In total, 13.5% of pMCD patients reported mast cell activation-like symptoms within 72 h post-vaccination. All pediatric pMCD patients (n = 9, 12–18 years) tolerated both mRNA-based vaccine doses. In summary, adenoviral vector and mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines were safe and well-tolerated in patients with pMCD, HAE, and IA. No anaphylaxis was observed. The mild and subjective nature of most reactions suggests a nocebo effect associated with vaccination in a medicalized setting. Patients with pMCD could experience mild flare-ups of mast cell activation-like symptoms, supporting antihistamine premedication.

Background. A novel coronavirus identified in 2019 leads to a pandemic of severe acute respiratory distress syndrome with important morbidity and mortality. Initially, children seemed minimally affected, but there were reports of cases similar to (atypical) Kawasaki disease or toxic shock syndrome, and evidence emerges about a complication named paediatric inflammatory multisystem syndrome temporarily associated with SARS-CoV-2 (PIMS-TS) or multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C). Case Presentations. Two cases were compared and discussed demonstrating varying presentations, management, and evolution of MIS-C. These cases are presented to increase awareness and familiarity among paediatricians and emergency physicians with the different clinical manifestations of this syndrome. Discussion. MIS-C may occur with possible diverse clinical presentations. Early recognition and treatment are paramount for a beneficial outcome.

Pediatric eosinophilic esophagitis (ped-EoE) is an immune-mediated pathology affecting 34 per 100.000 children. It is characterized by an esophageal inflammation caused by an immune response towards food antigens that come into contact with the esophageal lining. Depending on the age of the child, symptoms can vary from abdominal pain, vomiting and failure to thrive to dysphagia and food impaction. The diagnosis of this chronic disease is based on the symptoms of esophageal dysfunction combined with an infiltration of more than 15 eosinophils per high-power field and the exclusion of secondary causes. The treatment modalities include the 3Ds: Drugs, allergen avoidance by Diet and/or esophageal Dilation. In this review we focused on the efficacy of dietary approaches in ped-EoE, which currently include the elemental diet (amino acid-based diet), the empiric elimination diet and the allergy test-directed elimination diet. Although several reviews have summarized these dietary approaches, a lack of consistency between and within the elimination diets hampers its clinical use and differences in subsequent reintroduction phases present a barrier for dietary advice in daily clinical practice. We therefore conducted an analysis driven from a clinician’s perspective on these dietary therapies in the management of ped-EoE, whereby we examined whether these variations within dietary approaches, yet considered to be similar, could result in significant differences in dietary counseling.

IgE-mediated food allergy has an estimated prevalence of 6%–10% in developed countries. Allergen avoidance has long been the main focus in the prevention of food allergy and late solid food introduction after 6–12 months of age was recommended in high-risk infants. However, the rising prevalence of food allergy despite delayed exposure to allergens and the observations that IgE-mediated sensitization to food products could even occur before the introduction of solid foods resulted in a shift towards early solid food introduction as an attempt to prevent IgE-mediated food allergy. Since then, many trials focused on the clinical outcome of early allergen introduction and overall seem to point to a protective effect on the development of IgE-mediated food allergies. For non-IgE-mediated diseases of food allergy, evidence of early food introduction seems less clear. Moreover, data on the underlying immunological processes in early food introduction is lacking. The goal of this review is to summarize the available data of immunological changes in early food introduction to prevent IgE and non-IgE mediated food allergy.

Graphical Abstract