Drug Allergy in Children: Adverse Reactions after Skin Testing.

INTRODUCTION: Skin tests are one of the most widely used diagnostic tools for suspected drug allergies in children. Studies on systemic reactions occurring during skin testing with allergens have mostly been conducted in pediatric and adult patient groups together. However, data on adverse reactions including allergic reactions after drug skin tests in children are scarce. It is aimed to determine the adverse reactions after skin test in children with suspected drug allergy. METHODS: Patients who underwent a drug skin test due to the suspicion of drug allergy between May 2017 and June 2020 were evaluated, retrospectively. Data about adverse reactions seen after skin testing at the testing area in the clinic were analyzed. RESULTS: The study included 1,073 children (585 [54.5%] boys and 488 [45.5%] girls) with a median age of 7.5 years. A total of 12 (1.1%) reactions were detected after skin testing, and 4 (0.4%) of them were allergic reactions. Of the allergic reactions, three were anaphylaxis and one was urticaria. Two of the reactions (1 anaphylaxis and 1 urticaria) were detected after the skin prick test and the remaining 2 were detected after intradermal test. Three of the nonallergic reactions were considered as vasovagal reactions and seven were considered as nonspecific and anxiety-related reactions. CONCLUSION: Although drug skin tests were generally well-tolerated and adverse reactions were rare, severe allergic reactions including anaphylaxis may ensue. Skin tests should be necessarily performed in clinical settings in experienced centers.

'Stay at home': Is it good or not for house dust mite sensitized children with respiratory allergies?

BACKGROUND: Lockdown was imposed for children for 75 days in Turkey to limit the spread of COVID-19. During this period, children have to stay indoors, which might probably increase their exposures to indoor allergens and pollutants. Besides, reduced exposures to respiratory tract infections and outdoor pollutants might be favorable outcomes of this lockdown period. We evaluated the effects of the lockdown on house dust mite (HDM)-sensitized children with respiratory allergies. METHODS: Three-month clinical and medication data of 165 mild-moderate asthmatic children with or without allergic rhinitis (AR), who were grouped according to their HDM sensitization status, were retrieved from patient records. Demographics, asthma control tests, nasal visual analog scores, and outdoor air quality monitoring data were used for assessments in comparisons with the same period in the previous year. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients had asthma, and 81 patients had asthma with AR. Sensitization to HDM was present in 61.8% of the children. Patients experienced reduced numbers of upper respiratory tract infections (P = .008) and reduced asthma exacerbations (P < .001) compared with the same period in the previous year. Asthma control tests were significantly improved (P < .001), and cumulative inhaled corticosteroid usages were significantly reduced (P < .001). Noteworthily, nasal symptoms were significantly worsened in HDM-sensitized asthmatics with AR (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlighted that reduction in respiratory tract infections and outdoor pollution may play roles in asthma control and prevent exacerbations despite continuous indoor allergen exposure. Besides, worsening of nasal symptoms in HDM-sensitized asthmatics with AR implies the importance of indoor avoidance measures for AR control.

Clarithromycin hypersensitivity in children: Is there a link with ß-lactam hypersensitivity?

BACKGROUND: Clarithromycin hypersensitivity is reported as the most common cause of non-ß-lactam antibiotic allergy in children. Clarithromycin is frequently prescribed in cases of suspected ß-lactam hypersensitivity. Oral provocation tests stand as the gold standard to confirm drug hypersensitivity as diagnostic value of skin tests is variable. We analyzed the frequency of true clarithromycin hypersensitivity ratio and its relationship with ß-lactam allergy among children with suspected clarithromycin hypersensitivity and evaluated the diagnostic value of skin tests. METHODS: The study included 160 children referred with suspected clarithromycin hypersensitivity. Clinical history and allergy workups including skin tests or/and oral provocation tests were retrieved from medical records. RESULTS: Oral provocation test confirmed clarithromycin hypersensitivity rate was 5.6% (n = 9/160). Skin tests with clarithromycin showed positivity in 32.6% (n = 29/89) of the tested patients. The sensitivity of clarithromycin skin tests was negligible, and specificity was 73.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 64.7-81.8). Eighty-eight of the patients (55%) reported that they had previously tolerated a ß-lactam antibiotic. ß-lactam hypersensitivity was suspected in 40% (n = 64/160) of the patients (simultaneous [n = 10], sequential [n = 19], distant form [n = 35]) in relation with clarithromycin usage. ß-lactam hypersensitivity (95% CI, 2.1-70.6, p = .005) and sequential usage of clarithromycin after the development of a rash with amoxicillin-clavulanic acid (95% CI, 2.0-96.4, p = .007) were found as risk factors for confirmed clarithromycin hypersensitivity. CONCLUSION: The frequency of confirmed clarithromycin hypersensitivity was found low among suspected patients. Oral provocation test is crucial for definite diagnosis. Confirmed ß-lactam allergy may be attributed as a risk factor for clarithromycin hypersensitivity, particularly clarithromycin treatment after a developing rash with amoxicillin-clavulanic acid in sequential usage.

Behind the scene: Paracetamol hypersensitivity in children.

BACKGROUND: Paracetamol, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, is commonly being used for fever and pain relief worldwide. The aim of this study was to evaluate children with a suspected history of paracetamol hypersensitivity. METHODS: Sixty patients who were referred to our clinic in between January 2015 and December 2018 with a suspected history of paracetamol hypersensitivity were included. Reactions were classified according to the European Network for Drug Allergy (ENDA)/Global Allergy and Asthma European Network classification and European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI)/ENDA Position Paper. Diagnoses were confirmed by skin tests and oral challenge tests (OCTs). In those with verified paracetamol hypersensitivity, an OCT with a strong COX-1 inhibitor was performed to classify the type of the reaction to refer as either selective or cross-intolerance hypersensitivity. A subsequent OCT with a selective COX-2 inhibitor was performed in those cross-intolerant patients to find out a safe alternative drug. RESULTS: Sixty OCTs with paracetamol were performed to patients with a median age of 8.5 years, and hypersensitivity to paracetamol was verified in 8 patients. Four children were classified as selective responders, and 3 were classified as cross-intolerant after OCT with a COX-1 inhibitor. Overall, skin test positivity for paracetamol was detected in only one patient, in whom OCT with paracetamol was negative. In all 3 cross-intolerant patients, a safe alternative non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug was identified after an OCT with a selective COX-2 inhibitor. CONCLUSION: OCT stands as the gold-standard procedure in verifying the diagnosis of patients with paracetamol-induced drug hypersensitivity, as well as, in defining the type of reactions and finding out safe alternative drugs.

Prevalence of allergic disorders and risk factors associated with food allergy in Turkish preschoolers.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of allergic disorders is on the rise, affecting about 10% of the population. In this retrospective cohort, we investigated prevalence of allergic disorders, associated risk factors, and the outcome of food allergies. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We analyzed data from birth cohorts of two university hospitals' well-child outpatient clinics. Factors related to onset and type of allergic diseases were assessed from demographic, socioeconomic, and clinical data. RESULTS: Analyses were performed on 949 (431F/518M) infants at a mean current age of 28±6 months. Any allergic disease was established among 177 cases (22%); atopic dermatitis in 123 (12.8%), respiratory allergies in 55 (5.7%), and food allergy in 41 (4.3%). The risk for allergic disorders was found to be significantly increased for male gender (OR: 2.31, 95% CI; 1.54-3.46), and positive parental atopy (OR: 1.94, 95% CI; 1.31-2.86). The risk of food allergies was significantly higher in the male gender (OR: 2.47, 95% CI; 1.21-5.02), who consumed egg-white between 6 and 12 months (OR: 2.34, 95% CI; 1.22-4.48), and who were formula-fed before 6 months (OR: 2.16, 95% CI; 1.14-4.10). We found no significant association between the rate of food allergy outgrowth or food induced-anaphylaxis with regards to the timing of introducing egg-white into the diet. CONCLUSIONS: Although the introduction of egg-white into infant diet at 6-12 months of life appeared as an independent risk for any food allergy, none of the patients developed anaphylaxis. Age at symptom onset and outgrowing food allergy were similar compared to those introduced egg-white after 12 months. We recommend promoting exclusive breastfeeding during the first 6 months of life, and avoidance of prolonged restrictive diets for children with food allergy.

Evaluation of Suspected Macrolide Allergies in Children.

OBJECTIVE: Macrolides are often accepted as safe antibiotics due to their low allergenicity. However, studies on macrolides, particularly studies evaluating cross-reactivity in macrolides, are highly rare in children. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical manifestations, confirmation rate, and frequency of cross-reactivity in children admitted with suspicious clarithromycin or azithromycin allergy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 61 children suspected of macrolide antibiotic allergy (clarithromycin, n = 39 and azithromycin, n = 22) were evaluated. Allergy work-up including drug provocation tests were performed in all patients to confirm drug allergy. RESULTS: Macrolide allergy was confirmed in 9.8% (n = 6) of patients (azithromycin, 18.2% [n = 4] and clarithromycin, 5.1% [n = 2]). There was no significant difference between the confirmation rate of clarithromycin and azithromycin (P = .117). Cross-reaction with clarithromycin was confirmed in 2 (33.3%) patients with azithromycin allergy. CONCLUSION: Drug skin tests are not capable of confirming or ruling out macrolide allergy, and oral provocation tests are essential for a definitive diagnosis. Cross-reactivity, albeit rare, can occur between clarithromycin and azithromycin, which are the most frequently used macrolides in children.