Hypersensitivity to Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs in Children and Adolescents: Cross-Intolerance Reactions.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are used worldwide and are responsible for several types of drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) in all age groups. The 2 major groups of DHRs to NSAIDs are those induced by immunological mechanisms (selective reactions) and those where inflammatory mediators are released through activation of the prostaglandin-leukotriene pathway without specific immunological recognition (cross-intolerance). In the present review, we focus on cross-intolerance reactions, which are the most frequent DHRs and are becoming a topic of major interest in children and adolescents. Paracetamol and ibuprofen are the drugs that most frequently cause DHRs in children; other NSAIDs are responsible for reactions in adolescents. In vivo and in vitro tests are of limited diagnostic value, with some exceptions for the less common selective reactions. In cross-intolerance, the clinical history and controlled administration are in many instances the only way to establish a diagnosis and look for alternatives. The clinical history is diagnostic when consistent symptoms occur repeatedly after exposure to NSAIDs with different chemical structures. Cutaneous and respiratory symptoms often co-occur in young children. The natural history of these reactions in children is unknown, and some patients can develop tolerance over time. Atopy remains a major risk factor for cross-intolerant reactions. The increasing interest in hypersensitivity to NSAIDs with improvements in patient phenotyping and the information provided by pharmacogenetics will improve our understanding and management of these reactions in the near future.

Skin cancer prevention and detection campaign at golf courses on Spain's Costa del Sol.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Skin cancer prevention and detection campaigns targeting specific groups are necessary and have proven to be more effective than those aimed at the general population. Interventions in outdoor tourist spots have proven successful, although none have specifically targeted golf courses. The aims of this study were to describe the risk profile of golfers and golf course workers and evaluate the impact of a skin cancer prevention and early detection intervention. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a cross-sectional descriptive study conducted at 6 golf courses. The intervention included a skin examination and completion of a questionnaire about demographic details, risk factors, and sun exposure and sun protection habits. Participants were also given advice on sun protection measures, self-examination, and use of sunscreens, and were asked about their satisfaction with the intervention and their intention to change their current behaviors. The effect was measured in terms of the diagnoses made, satisfaction with the intervention, reported intention to change, and potential effect in terms of existing risk factors. RESULTS: Of the 351 participants (57% golfers and 43% golf course workers), 70.4% had fair skin, 11.7% had a family history of skin cancer, and 8.5% had a personal history of skin cancer. Skin cancer and actinic keratoses were diagnosed in 10.7% and 40% of the golfers, respectively. The session was rated positively by 99.4% of the participants; 93.9% stated that they intended to improve their sun exposure habits and 93.4% said that they planned to examine their skin more frequently. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings confirm that golf course workers and, in particular, golfers are an important target for skin cancer prevention campaigns. This is the first intervention to specifically target golf courses, and it proved to be both feasible and useful. Its success appears to be attributable to numerous factors: it was conducted at golf courses, had multiple components, and was preceded by a motivational campaign.