The 2020 update on anaphylaxis in paediatric population.

The objective of the review is to present recent updates on anaphylaxis in paediatric population worldwide. The article summarizes the results of epidemiological studies, diagnostic methods and treatments. We present a new WAO definition of anaphylaxis (2019), which broader criteria excluding dermal symptoms should facilitate faster life-saving adrenaline use. Adrenaline remains the best treatment to manage severe symptoms and to prevent biphasic reactions. There is ongoing effort to increase adrenaline use, such as modified autoinjectors, individual training, and diversified dosing. There are five independent risk factors of lethal anaphylaxis in children, including history of asthma, almost immediate onset of symptoms, unwell appearance, tachycardia and hypotension. We also report improvements in diagnostics, like component-resolved diagnostics, and novel therapies stimulating immunotolerance. We signal the development of ICD-11 with updated coding of anaphylaxis, which corresponds better to clinical observations.

Is the clinical manifestation of anaphylaxis in children influenced by the trigger of reaction?

INTRODUCTION: The number of anaphylaxis diagnoses in children is rising, being still based on the clinical picture. AIM: To determine whether triggers of anaphylaxis influence its clinical characteristics in children and adolescents. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study group included 114 children (5 months-17 years, mean age: 8.0 ±4.8 years), (66%: boys) with the episode of anaphylaxis up to 1 year back. Medical data were entered to the NORA Registry by means of a validated structured on-line questionnaire. RESULTS: Three most frequent triggers of anaphylaxis were: insect venom (47.4%), food (35.1%), drugs (5.3%), with a predominance of food (egg white, cow's milk, nuts and peanuts) in the 0-6 years age group, while insect venom (bee predominance) in the 7-17 years age group (p = 0.016). Clinical manifestations differed between food vs. venom allergic reactions and presented as gastro-intestinal (GI) (61.4%) (p = 0.004), respiratory (RS) (93.9%) (p = 0.036), and cardiovascular (CVS) (74.6%) (p = 0.022) symptoms. Among objective symptoms, vomiting was the most common symptom in the 0-2 years age group (47.1%) (p = 0.006), while hypotension in those aged 7-12 years (40%) (p = 0.010). Severity of symptoms evaluated as Mueller's grade (IV - 74.5%) and as Ring and Messmer's grade (III - 65.8%), depended on the trigger (p = 0.028, p = 0.029, respectively). Life-threatening symptoms occurred in 26 children (fall of the blood pressure - 22%, loss of consciousness - 4.4%). CONCLUSIONS: The clinical manifestation of anaphylaxis in children is both trigger and age dependent, irrespective of the gender. A typical patient with food anaphylaxis was younger, presenting predominantly GI symptoms, while a typical patient with venom anaphylaxis was older, with mostly cardiovascular symptoms.

Intervention in anaphylaxis: the experience of one paediatric centre based on NORA reports.

Introduction: Intramuscular adrenaline administration is the primary intervention in anaphylaxis. Aim: To analyse the data on intervention in children admitted due to anaphylaxis to the tertiary paediatric centre and compare them to the data from the Network for Online-Registration of Anaphylaxis. Material and methods: A validated structured on-line questionnaire was used to collect data concerning the first and second-line intervention in anaphylaxis. The study was conducted in cooperation with the European Anaphylaxis Registry. Results: The study group comprised 114 children (76 boys, 66.87%) aged 5 months-17 years with the predominance of moderate-to-severe anaphylaxis (grade III in Ring and Messmer's, and grade IV in Mueller's scale). In 103 (90.4%) children the first line of medical intervention was provided by medical staff. In the first-line intervention 39 (34.8%) children were given adrenaline. Five (4.4%) children were given the second dose of adrenaline and were admitted to the intensive care unit. In the second-line intervention adrenaline was given to 12 (15.6%) children. In one third it was at least the second reaction to the same trigger. Children treated with adrenaline were older (9.3 ±4.8 years), in comparison to those not treated (7.3 ±4.6 years, p = 0.034). Directly after the episode of anaphylaxis the children got the prescription for the adrenaline autoinjector in 35.1%, emergency training in 7.9%, and counselling on the avoidance of the anaphylaxis trigger in 30.7%. Grade III R&M reaction increased 3-fold the odds of AAI prescription (95% CI: 1.08-8.15). Conclusions: There is a strong need to continue education on proper management of anaphylaxis in children.

An Infant Formula with Partially Hydrolyzed Whey Protein Supports Adequate Growth and Is Safe and Well-Tolerated in Healthy, Term Infants: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Equivalence Trial.

The current study evaluates the safety and tolerance of a partially hydrolyzed whey protein-based infant formula (PHF) versus an in intact cow's milk protein formula (IPF). Breastfed infants were included as a reference group. In a multi-country, multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, controlled clinical trial, infants whose mothers intended to fully formula feed were randomized to PHF (n = 134) or IPF (n = 134) from ≤14 days to 17 weeks of age. The equivalence analysis of weight gain per day within margins of +/-3 g/d (primary outcome), the recorded adverse events, growth and gastro-intestinal tolerance parameters were considered for the safety evaluation. Equivalence of weight gain per day from enrolment until 17 weeks of age was demonstrated in the PHF group compared to the IPF group (difference in means -1.2 g/d; 90% CI (-2.42; 0.02)), with estimated means (SE) of 30.2 (0.5) g/d and 31.4 (0.5) g/d, respectively. No significant differences in growth outcomes, the number, severity or type of (serious) adverse events and tolerance outcomes, were observed between the two formula groups. A partially hydrolyzed whey protein-based infant formula supports adequate infant growth, with a daily weight gain equivalent to a standard intact protein-based formula; it is also safe for use and well-tolerated in healthy term infants.

Natural history of Hymenoptera venom allergy in children not treated with immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Differences in treatment approach still exist for children after systemic sting reactions. In addition, there are still some doubts about when systemic reactors should be treated with venom immunotherapy (VIT). OBJECTIVE: To determine the rate of sting recurrence and natural history of Hymenoptera venom allergy (HVA) in children not treated with VIT. METHODS: A total of 219 children diagnosed as having HVA who were not treated with VIT were identified in 3 pediatric allergology centers. Survey by telephone or mail with the use of a standardized questionnaire was conducted. The number of field re-stings, subsequent symptoms, and provided treatment were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 130 of the 219 patients responded to the survey, for a response rate of 59.4%. During the median follow-up period of 72 months (interquartile range, 52-85 months), 44 children (77% boys) were stung 62 times. Normal reactions were most common, occurring in 27 patients (62%). Severe systemic reactions (SSRs) occurred in 8 (18%) of those who were re-stung. The subsequent reaction was significantly milder (P < 0.001), especially in the case of patients re-stung by the same insect (P < .001). None of the children with prediagnostic large local reactions and negative test results for venom specific IgE developed SSRs after re-sting by the culprit insect (P = .03). In children with SSRs, median time from diagnosis to re-sting was 2 times longer than that in those with large local reactions and normal reactions (P = .007). CONCLUSIONS: Most children with HVA not treated with VIT reported milder reactions after a re-sting. Probability of SSR to re-sting increases along with the severity of initial reaction.

[Safety and efficacy of vaccination in children after stem cell transplantation. Part 1]. / Bezpieczenstwo i skutecznosc szczepien ochronnych prowadzonych u dzieci po przeszczepieniu komórek krwiotwórczych. Doniesienie 1.

UNLABELLED: The aim of the study was the evaluation of safety and efficacy of vaccination in children after stem cell transplantation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 21 patients, 1.4-22 (average 7.8) years old, 13 boys and 8 girls after autologous (11-52%) and allogeneic (10-48%) transplantation were included in the vaccination protocol. Indications for transplantation were: neoplastic disease--16, immunodeficiencies--3 and aplastic anaemia 2 cases. Time between transplantation and beginning of vaccination protocol was 0.8-4 (average 1.5) years. Vaccination protocol was constructed on the basis of the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation indications. We have evaluated: (1) quality of recipient immune reconstitution and protection against common pathogens (2) immunogenicity of revaccination schedule; (3) safety of the vaccination programme. RESULTS: With the exception of one patient presenting with repeated fever, lymph node enlargement, muscle and joint pain, no important side effects were observed. Meningococcial meningitis developed in one patient who refused vaccination. The mean concentrations of antibodies in the plasma before and after vaccination were as follows: anti-diphteria (54; 2285), anti-tetanus (136; 3149) and anti-hepatitis B virus (anti-HBs: 24; 474) IU/ml. CONCLUSIONS: (1) Vaccination in patients after transplantation is efficient and well tolerated. (2) Significant increase of antibody level was detected. (3) Any delay in beginning the vaccination can result in life threatening complications.

[What is parents' and medical health care specialists knowledge about vaccinations?]. / Co na temat szczepien ochronnych wiedza rodzice i pracownicy ochrony zdrowia?

AIM: The aim of the study was to become familiar with parents' and Medical Health Care specialists knowledge and attitude towards vaccinations. The influence of information, provided to patients from various sources, on general opinion about immunization and its coverage within the last year were evaluated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Analysis of questionnaires about vaccinations performed among 151 parents and 180 Medical Health Care specialists. RESULTS: Medical Health Care specialists knowledge was considerably higher in comparison to questioned parents. Surprisingly enough, only approximately 90% of Medical Health Care workers knew about prophylaxis of Hib infections. A doctor is the main and the most reliable source of information for parents. Significant impact on parents' attitude to vaccinations is made not only by campaigns promoting vaccinations, but also by widespread opinions about their harmfulness. CONCLUSIONS: The doctor is the major source of reliable information about vaccinations for parents. Therefore, there is the need of continuous improvement of Medical Health Care specialists knowledge, but also the ability of successfully communicating it to parents.

[Immunization in preterm infants--current knowledge]. / Szczepienia ochronne u dzieci urodzonych przedwczesnie--aktualny stan wiedzy.

The immunological system of premature newborns /preterm infants/ is a special challenge for specialists in infectious diseases prevention. The early beginning of immunization in this group is relevant to the necessity of the protection of the premature newborns, who have weaker immunity for infectious diseases than the group of infants born at term. But on the other hand there is justified fear for weaker protection and appearance of unexpected adverse events after immunization in this group of infants. In the review of medical literature covering these problems special attention was paid to the postimmunization response of premature newborns and to the antigens of the following diseases: tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis, poliomyelitis and pneumococci. Such factors as corticotherapy, blood transfusion or blood products may influence the immunization response. We also assessed the safety of immunisation for this group of high risk infants.