[Case Series of 103 Children with SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Portugal]. / Série de Casos de 103 Crianças com Infeção por SARS-CoV-2 em Portugal.

INTRODUCTION: The North Lisbon University Hospital Center was activated for referral of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients on the 11th March 2020. The aim of this study is to describe the experience at the Department of Pediatrics in the approach and the clinical outcomes of infected children. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A descriptive observational study was performed. Children and adolescents (0 to 18 years) with SARS-CoV-2 infection, diagnosed in the emergency room or admitted to the Department of Pediatrics between March 11th and June 18th, were included. Hospital records and Trace COVID-19 platform were reviewed and patient caregivers were interviewed to assess follow up. RESULTS: Among 103 diagnosed children, 83% had a known previous contact with an infected patient, 43% presented fever and 42% presented respiratory symptoms. Ten percent had risk factors and 21% were aged under one year old. Ten percent were hospitalised, one needing intensive care, with paediatric inflammatory multisystem syndrome. Blood tests were performed in 9% and chest radiograph in 7%. No children required ventilation, antiviral therapy or underwent thoracic computed tomography scan. Eight percent of children returned to the emergency room and one child was hospitalised. The clinical outcome is known in 101 patients and is favourable in all. DISCUSSION: Most children had an epidemiological link and little clinical repercussion, even during the first year of life. The expected mild severity in children justified the use of established clinical criteria and recommendations for similar conditions, regarding tests and hospitalizations. No antiviral treatments were given due to lack of evidence of its benefits. CONCLUSION: This strategy contributed to a low consumption of hospital resources and proved safe in this series.

Introdução: O Centro Hospitalar Universitário Lisboa Norte foi ativado para referência de doentes com infeção SARS-CoV-2 em 11 de março de 2020. O objetivo deste estudo é descrever a experiência do Departamento de Pediatria na abordagem e evolução clínica de crianças infetadas.Material e Métodos: Realizámos um estudo observacional descritivo. Incluímos as crianças e adolescentes (0 aos 18 anos) com infeção por SARS-CoV-2 diagnosticados na urgência e internamento do nosso departamento entre 11 de março e 18 de junho de 2020. Consultámos registos internos e a plataforma Trace COVID-19 e contactámos os cuidadores para avaliação de seguimento.Resultados: De 103 crianças diagnosticadas, 83% tiveram contacto prévio identificado com doente infetado, 43% doentes apresentaram febre e 42% sintomas respiratórios. Em 10% havia fatores de risco; 21% tinham idade inferior a um ano. Foram internadas 10% das crianças, uma em cuidados intensivos com síndrome inflamatória multissistémica pediátrica. Foi efetuada avaliação laboratorial em 9%, radiografia torácica em 7%. Nenhum recebeu suporte ventilatório, terapêutica antiviral ou realizou tomografia computorizada torácica. Foram reobservadas em serviço de urgência 8% das crianças, sendo internada uma. A evolução foi conhecida em 101 casos sendo favorável em todos.Discussão: A maioria dos doentes tinha link epidemiológico familiar e pouca repercussão clínica, mesmo no primeiro ano de vida. A menor gravidade esperada na criança motivou a adoção de critérios habituais noutros quadros clínicos semelhantes para a realização de exames complementares de diagnóstico e internamento hospitalar. Não foi administrada terapêutica antiviral em nenhum doente por se considerar haver pouca evidência de benefício.Conclusão: Esta estratégia traduziu-se num baixo consumo de recursos hospitalares e revelou-se segura nesta série.

[Correction to the article "Case Series of 103 Children with SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Portugal", published on Acta Med Port 2020 Dec;33(12):795-802]. / Errata ao artigo "Série de Casos de 103 Crianças com Infeção por SARS-CoV-2 em Portugal", publicado em Acta Med Port 2020 Dec;33(12):795-802.

On page 801, fifth, where it reads: "No início da pandemia, teorizou-se que a vacina BCG pudesse ter um efeito protetor relativamente à COVID-19,27,28 mas não se encontrou até à data evidência para tal, não estando atualmente recomendada a vacinação BCG na prevenção da COVID-19.28,29 No nosso estudo, a maioria dos doentes (76%) tinha sido vacinada. Analisámos separadamente o subgrupo de crianças nascidas após janeiro de 2016, altura em que passaram a ser vacinadas apenas as crianças pertencentes a grupos de risco.30 A taxa de vacinação neste grupo foi de 51%, sendo superior à taxa de 30,1% estimada para crianças nascidas em Portugal com um ano de idade referido a 2019.31" It should read: "No início da pandemia, teorizou-se que a vacina BCG pudesse ter um efeito protetor relativamente à COVID-19,27,28 mas não se encontrou até à data evidência para tal, não estando atualmente recomendada a vacinação BCG na prevenção da COVID-19.28 No nosso estudo, a maioria dos doentes (76%) tinha sido vacinada. Analisámos separadamente o subgrupo de crianças nascidas após janeiro de 2016, altura em que passaram a ser vacinadas apenas as crianças pertencentes a grupos de risco.29 A taxa de vacinação neste grupo foi de 51%, sendo superior à taxa de 30,1% estimada para crianças nascidas em Portugal com um ano de idade referido a 2019.30" Paper published with errors: https://www.actamedicaportuguesa.com/revista/index.php/amp/article/view/14537.

Na página 801, quinto parágrafo, onde se lê: "No início da pandemia, teorizou-se que a vacina BCG pudesse ter um efeito protetor relativamente à COVID-19,27,28 mas não se encontrou até à data evidência para tal, não estando atualmente recomendada a vacinação BCG na prevenção da COVID-19.28,29 No nosso estudo, a maioria dos doentes (76%) tinha sido vacinada. Analisámos separadamente o subgrupo de crianças nascidas após janeiro de 2016, altura em que passaram a ser vacinadas apenas as crianças pertencentes a grupos de risco.30 A taxa de vacinação neste grupo foi de 51%, sendo superior à taxa de 30,1% estimada para crianças nascidas em Portugal com um ano de idade referido a 2019.31" Deverá ler-se: "No início da pandemia, teorizou-se que a vacina BCG pudesse ter um efeito protetor relativamente à COVID-19,27,28 mas não se encontrou até à data evidência para tal, não estando atualmente recomendada a vacinação BCG na prevenção da COVID-19.28 No nosso estudo, a maioria dos doentes (76%) tinha sido vacinada. Analisámos separadamente o subgrupo de crianças nascidas após janeiro de 2016, altura em que passaram a ser vacinadas apenas as crianças pertencentes a grupos de risco.29 A taxa de vacinação neste grupo foi de 51%, sendo superior à taxa de 30,1% estimada para crianças nascidas em Portugal com um ano de idade referido a 2019.30"Artigo publicado com erros: https://www.actamedicaportuguesa.com/revista/index.php/amp/article/view/14537.

Anaphylaxis caused by lipid transfer proteins: an unpredictable clinical syndrome

INTRODUCTION: Lipid transfer proteins (LTPs) are panallergens found in many plant foods. They are a common cause of food-induced anaphylaxis (FIA) in adults living in the Mediterranean area. LTPs have also been proposed as a main cause of food-dependent exercise-induced anaphylaxis (FDEIA). OBJECTIVES: Describe clinical characteristics and allergen sensitization profiles in patients with FIA related to LTP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-three patients were included, aged 3-52 years with a clinical history of FIA and proven sensitization to LTP. Patients were tested with a multiple plant food and pollen panel and specific IgE to LTP allergens. LTP sensitization was assessed by in vivo (Pru p 3, LTP extract) and/or by in vitro tests (specific IgE, ImmunoCAP/ISAC(R)). RESULTS: Median age of first anaphylactic episode was 24 years (range 2-51), 44% had asthma, 74% were atopic and 42% had pollinosis (olive, mugwort, plane tree, wall pellitory and cypress). Co-sensitization to profilins was found in 22%. Overall in our center, LTP-induced anaphylaxis represents 17% of all causes of FIA. Foods implicated in anaphylactic reactions were: fresh fruits 51%, tree nuts 42%, vegetables (including peanut) 40% and seeds 14%. Seven patients had FDEIA. CONCLUSIONS: LTPs are important allergens of FIA in Portugal. Clinical reactivity to several taxonomically unrelated plant foods may raise suspicion toward LTP sensitization. The association of LTP-induced anaphylaxis with pollinosis is relevant in our country. The unpredictable clinical expression depends on the effect of cofactors such as exercise. The management of avoidance plans can be challenging due to LTP being a widely cross-reacting allergen in plant foods

No disponible

Cow's milk oral immunotherapy in real life: 8-year long-term follow-up study.

BACKGROUND: Oral immunotherapy (OIT) has been recognized as a promising treatment for severe and long-lasting cow's milk (CM) allergy. Once maintenance has been achieved, patients should maintain daily intake of CM to ensure desensitization. Clinical experience concerning long-term follow-up is scarce. OBJECTIVE: The authors aimed to assess long-term efficacy and safety of a maintenance phase of OIT in real life. METHODS: Prospective study of all children and adolescents, who underwent CM-OIT and were subsequently followed at our allergy center on maintenance dose (200 mL daily) for at least 36 months after reaching the maintenance phase (from 2009 to 2016). RESULTS: Forty-two patients were enrolled: 60% male, 36% with history of anaphylaxis and 57% with asthma. The median time of follow-up was 69 months (range, 39-105 months) and the median age at the last clinical evaluation was 13 years (range, 6-23 years). Regarding adherence to the protocol: 92% are on free diet (at least 200 mL of CM daily; 7-g protein); 14% had transient interruptions and 7% definitely withdrawn with loss of tolerance. During maintenance, 45% developed mild to severe allergic reactions, and 7% had more than 3 episodes. A positive correlation between the occurrence of allergic reactions and history of anaphylaxis (p < 0.001) was found. The coexistence of asthma was risk factor for the occurrence of allergic reactions during maintenance. CONCLUSION: This real-life study supports long-term efficacy and safety of CM-OIT. Despite daily intake, 41% had symptoms at some moment during the complete follow-up period; a total of 33 symptomatic days in patients with mean follow-up time of 67.5 months. Clinical tolerance depends on daily intake. The protective effect reached can be lost after CM withdrawal. History of anaphylaxis was a risk factor for the occurrence of allergic reactions during the maintenance phase.

Anaphylaxis caused by lipid transfer proteins: an unpredictable clinical syndrome.

INTRODUCTION: Lipid transfer proteins (LTPs) are panallergens found in many plant foods. They are a common cause of food-induced anaphylaxis (FIA) in adults living in the Mediterranean area. LTPs have also been proposed as a main cause of food-dependent exercise-induced anaphylaxis (FDEIA). OBJECTIVES: Describe clinical characteristics and allergen sensitization profiles in patients with FIA related to LTP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-three patients were included, aged 3-52 years with a clinical history of FIA and proven sensitization to LTP. Patients were tested with a multiple plant food and pollen panel and specific IgE to LTP allergens. LTP sensitization was assessed by in vivo (Pru p 3, LTP extract) and/or by in vitro tests (specific IgE, ImmunoCAP/ISAC®). RESULTS: Median age of first anaphylactic episode was 24 years (range 2-51), 44% had asthma, 74% were atopic and 42% had pollinosis (olive, mugwort, plane tree, wall pellitory and cypress). Co-sensitization to profilins was found in 22%. Overall in our center, LTP-induced anaphylaxis represents 17% of all causes of FIA. Foods implicated in anaphylactic reactions were: fresh fruits 51%, tree nuts 42%, vegetables (including peanut) 40% and seeds 14%. Seven patients had FDEIA. CONCLUSIONS: LTPs are important allergens of FIA in Portugal. Clinical reactivity to several taxonomically unrelated plant foods may raise suspicion toward LTP sensitization. The association of LTP-induced anaphylaxis with pollinosis is relevant in our country. The unpredictable clinical expression depends on the effect of cofactors such as exercise. The management of avoidance plans can be challenging due to LTP being a widely cross-reacting allergen in plant foods.

Ultrarush schedule of subcutaneous immunotherapy with modified allergen extracts is safe in paediatric age.

BACKGROUND: Traditional subcutaneous immunotherapy up dosing with allergenic extracts has been shown to be associated with frequent adverse reactions. In recent studies it has been demonstrated that using modified extracts, namely allergoids, it is a safe and effective procedure particularly on accelerated schedules. However data assessing its safety in paediatric age is scarce. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety profile in paediatric population of using modified allergen extracts, in an ultrarush schedule, to reach the maintenance dose in the first day. METHODS: We included children undergoing treatment with subcutaneous immunotherapy during a five-year period, using modified aeroallergen extracts, depigmented, polymerized with glutaraldehyde and adsorbed on aluminium hydroxide using an ultrarush induction phase. The type of adverse reactions during the ultrarush protocol was recorded. RESULTS: We studied 100 paediatric patients (57 males) with a mean age of 11.6 years (5 to 18 years; standard deviation, 3.3), all with moderate to severe persistent rhinitis, with or without allergic conjunctivitis, asthma and atopic eczema, sensitized to mites and/or pollens. All reached the maintenance dose of 0.5 mL in the first day, except 1 child. During the ultrarush protocol the total number of injections was 199. There were 21 local adverse reactions in 11 patients, 11 immediate and 10 delayed; from those, had clinical relevance 1 immediate and 4 delayed. Systemic reactions were recorded in 2 cases, both immediate and mild. CONCLUSION: The ultrarush protocol, without premedication, was a safe alternative to be used in paediatric age during the induction phase of subcutaneous immunotherapy using allergoid depigmented extracts.