Fruit allergy and anaphylaxis in children: Culprit fruits and clinical findings.

Background: Fruit allergy usually presents with mild-to-moderate symptoms but serious systemic reactions, e.g., anaphylaxis, may also occur. Objective: This study aimed to examine the clinical and laboratory characteristics of patients with fruit allergy and fruit-induced anaphylaxis. Methods: Patients diagnosed with fruit allergy at Diskapi Hematology and Oncology Hospital and Bilkent City Hospital between January 2017 and January 2023 were included in the study. The diagnosis of anaphylaxis was made according to the European Allergy and Clinical Immunology Anaphylaxis Guideline. Results: During the study period, skin-prick tests with food allergens were performed on 9432 patients in our clinic, and fruit allergy was detected in 78 patients (0.82%). Five patients with inaccessible medical records were excluded from the study. 40 (54.8%) were boys. The median (interquartile range) age at the onset of symptoms was 72 months (12.5-144 months). Sixty-eight of the patients (93.2%) had a concomitant allergic disease, the most common of which was allergic rhinitis (n = 48 [65.8%]). The 73 patients had a history of reaction to 126 fruits. Twenty-five patients (19.8%) were allergic to multiple fruits. The most common fruit allergen was banana (22/126 [17.4%]), followed by peach (18/126 [14.2%]) and kiwi (17/126 [13.5%]). Mucocutaneous findings were observed most frequently after fruit consumption (120/126 [95.2%]). Anaphylaxis occurred in 17 patients (23.2%) with 21 fruits.The fruits most commonly associated with anaphylaxis were banana (6/21 [28.6%]) and kiwi (6/21 [28.6%]). Conclusion: Fruit allergy generally presents with mild symptoms, e.g., oral allergy syndrome, but severe systemic symptoms, e.g., anaphylaxis, can also be observed. Kiwi and banana are the fruits that most commonly cause anaphylaxis. Although more comprehensive studies are needed to comment on the development of tolerance, especially in patients with anaphylaxis, responsible fruit avoidance is still the most important strategy.

Successful rapid liposomal amphotericin B desensitization in pediatric case series.

Background: Liposomal amphotericin B (LAMB) is a crucial agent in the treatment of invasive fungal diseases caused by a wide variety of yeasts and molds. In the presence of an infection caused by a fungal agent resistant to alternative antifungal drugs, desensitization may be the only option to continue treatment. However, there is insufficient information and consensus with regard to amphotericin B desensitization protocols in the pediatric age group. Objective: We present our experience with five cases of patients in whom successful desensitization protocols were applied with LAMB, along with a review of the literature on pediatric cases. We also provide a sample desensitization protocol that we successfully applied. Methods: Pediatric patients who continued their treatment with the successful rapid desensitization protocol conducted at the Paediatric Allergy and Immunology Clinic of the Ministry of Health Ankara City Hospital between September 2019 and September 2023 were examined. Desensitization protocols were applied based on Castells' desensitization protocol. Results: Five patients ages between 5 and 12 years were referred to us due to the development of anaphylaxis during their treatment with LAMB. Anaphylaxis is diagnosed clinically, according to the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology guidelines: anaphylaxis (2021 update). A 16-step desensitization protocol was prepared by using LAMB solutions at four different dilutions (0.001, 0.01, 0.1, and 1 mg/mL). Each solution consisted of four steps, with a 15-minute infusion for each step. The patients were premedicated with 1 mg/kg/dose methylprednisolone and an antihistamine. Conclusion: The data we present on the successful application of a sample protocol to five cases, particularly in a pediatric setting, are noteworthy valuable contributions to the field, which demonstrates the feasibility and success of rapid desensitization with LAMB in pediatric patients. This can provide important insights and potentially serve as a reference for medical professionals working with similar cases in the future.

Evaluation of the frequency and characteristics of drug hypersensitivity reactions in hospitalized children: Real life-cohort study.

Introduction: There are limited data regarding the characteristics and management of drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHR) in hospitalized children. This study aims to determine the prevalence, clinical features, and management of DHRs in pediatric inpatients. Methods: Children who had pediatric allergy consultation for suspected DHR during hospitalization in Ankara Bilkent City Hospital between August 1, 2020, and July 30, 2021, were included. Patient and reaction characteristics, culprit drugs, and management strategies were recorded. When possible, diagnostic tests (skin or provocation tests) were performed after discharge. Results: Among the 14,090 hospitalized children, 165 (72% male, median age: 106 months) underwent consultation for 192 suspected DHRs with 246 drugs. Cutaneous eruptions were the most common (94.3%). There was anaphylaxis in 40 patients and severe cutaneous adverse drug reaction in 4 patients (drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms in 3, acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis in 1). Antimicrobials were the leading cause (78.4%, n = 193/246). In 48 reactions, 60 (24%) culprit drugs could be readministered with close follow-up or desensitization (n = 12). In total, 186 suspected drugs were discontinued, and 115 were replaced with alternative drugs. After discharge, 38 provocation tests (2 positives) and 36 skin tests (1 positive prick test, 1 positive intradermal test, and 1 positive patch test) were performed. Discussion/conclusions: The incidence of suspected DHR among pediatric inpatients was approximately 1.1%. Skin symptoms were the most common manifestation. Twenty-four percent of suspected drugs could be continued during hospitalization. Patients with DHR during hospitalization should be evaluated with a drug allergy work-up unless there are contraindications to testing.

Cat allergy in children and the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: Cat allergen is among the most common household allergens and can cause respiratory allergies and anaphylaxis in children. Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the characteristics of cat allergies in children and the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on these characteristics. Methods: The study included pediatric patients with cat allergen sensitization demonstrated by skin-prick test (SPT) over a period of 2 years: 1 year before and 1 year during the pandemic. Demographic data, clinical features, and laboratory findings were evaluated from the patients' records. Results: Of 7428 SPTs performed, 566 patients (7.6%) were sensitized to cat allergen (56% boys; median age, 11 years). Fifty-eight percent of the patients (n = 329) presented during the pandemic period, 44.5% (n = 252) had symptoms with cat exposure, and 9% (n = 51/566) had anaphylaxis. Allergic rhinitis and asthma were present in 76% (n = 431) and 46.6% (n = 264) of the patients, respectively. When compared to prepandemic period, patients who presented during the pandemic had higher rates of cat sensitization (15% in pandemic group versus 4.4% in prepandemic group of all SPTs performed; p < 0.05), cat ownership (29.1% versus 13.9%; p < 0.001), and symptoms on cat exposure (51% versus 34%; p < 0.001). Factors that predicted symptom development in the patients who were cat sensitized were induration > 5 mm on SPT (odds ratio [OR] 1.9 [95% confidence interval {95% CI}], 1.1-3.2), cat ownership (OR 9.2 [95% CI, 4.9-17.3]), close contact with a cat owner (OR 7.1 [95% CI, 4-12]), allergic rhinitis (OR 3.1 [95% CI, 1.6-5.8]), conjunctivitis (OR 4.7 [95% CI, 2-10]), and atopic dermatitis (OR 2.2 [95% CI, 1-4.7]). Conclusion: We observed an increase in the prevalence of cat allergy among children during the COVID-19 pandemic. Care must be taken in terms of anaphylaxis in patients who were cat sensitized.

Prognosis of food-induced anaphylaxis in children: A single-center real-life study.

Background: Food allergies are known to resolve over time, but there is little information on the natural history of food-induced anaphylaxis (FIA). Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the natural history of FIA in children and determine the factors that affect prognosis. Methods: Children with FIA who were followed up for at least 3 years, between 2010 and 2020, were included. Patients' families were contacted by telephone to question their child's tolerance status and invite them for reevaluation if uncertain. The patients were grouped as tolerant or persistent according to parent reports or reevaluation results. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the factors that affected persistence. Results: The study included 185 patients (62.2% boys) with 243 anaphylactic reactions to various foods. Fifty-eight patients (31%) gained tolerance within a 3-year follow-up period. Tolerance rates were higher in patients with FIA to milk (40%) and egg (43.9%) compared with to tree nuts (18.8%), legumes (5.6%), and/or seafood (11.1%) (p < 0.001). In a multivariate analysis, risk factors for persistent FIA were multiple food anaphylaxis (odds ratio [OR] 3.755 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.134-12.431]; p = 0.030), total IgE > 100 kU/L (OR 5.786 [95% CI, 2.065-16.207]; p = 0.001), and skin-prick test wheal size > 10 mm (OR 4.569 [95% CI, 1.395-14.964]; p = 0 .012) at presentation. Conclusion: Approximately a third of the patients with FIA developed tolerance within 3 years. Clinicians should remember that children with food allergies, even anaphylaxis, may develop tolerance over time. Regular follow up and reevaluation of tolerance status are necessary to avoid unnecessary elimination.

Evaluation of drug patch tests in children.

Background: Patch tests are used to diagnose nonimmediate T-cell-mediated drug hypersensitivity reactions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the results of patch tests performed with suspect drugs in children. Methods: Patients < 18 years of age who had a drug patch test at the pediatric allergy outpatient clinic of our hospital between January 2014 and January 2020 were included in the study. Age, sex, culprit drug(s), reaction characteristics, and patch test results were recorded from the patients' files. Results: A total of 105 drug patch tests were performed on 71 patients during the study period. The patients' median age was 7 years (interquartile range, 4-11 years), and 57.7% (n = 41) were boys. Twenty-three patients (32.3%) had severe cutaneous adverse reaction (Stevens-Johnson syndrome in 11, drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms in 9, and acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis in 3 patients), 45 (63.3%) had maculopapular rashes, and 3 (4.2%) had fixed drug eruption. A total of 20 patch test results (28%) were positive: 18 of 44 patch tests (40.9%) with antiepileptic drugs and 2 of 48 patch tests (4.1%) with antibiotics. Positive results were obtained in 23% of the patch tests (6/26) in 20 patients with severe cutaneous adverse reactions and in 17.7% of the patch tests (14/79) in 51 patients with mild cutaneous reactions. No adverse reactions occurred during or after the patch tests. Conclusion: In our study, patch test positivity was more common with antiepileptic drugs and in patients with severe cutaneous drug reaction.