Browsing by Author "Atanasković-Marković, Marina (6506020842)"

Background: Multiple drug hypersensitivity (MDH) has been defined as a hypersensitivity to two or more chemically different drugs. Two types of MDH have been reported: the first one, which develops to different drugs administered simultaneously and the second type, in which sensitizations develop sequentially. In children, studies which diagnose MDH on the basis of positive allergologic tests to 2 or more chemically different drugs are lacking. Methods: We conducted a prospective study evaluating children with histories of MDH by skin tests, patch tests, serum-specific IgE assays, and drug provocation tests. Results: A MDH was diagnosed in 7 (2.5%) of the 279 children evaluated who completed the study. The responsible drugs were β-lactams (penicillins and cephalosporins) in 5 episodes, ibuprofen and anticonvulsants in 3, and erythromycin, fentanyl, methylprednisolone, and cotrimoxazole in 1. Sensitivity to 2 chemically different drugs was diagnosed in 6 children and to 3 drugs in 1 child. Two of the 7 children presented the first type of MDH, whereas 5 displayed the second one. Conclusions: MDH can occur in children, even to drugs other than antibiotics. It is crucial to evaluate children with histories of MDH using both in vivo and in vitro allergologic tests, including challenges. In fact, such approach allows the physician to confirm the diagnosis of MDH in a small percentage of children with histories of MDH, as well as to rule it out in the great majority of them. © 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S.

Background: Multiple drug hypersensitivity (MDH) has been defined as a hypersensitivity to two or more chemically different drugs. Two types of MDH have been reported: the first one, which develops to different drugs administered simultaneously and the second type, in which sensitizations develop sequentially. In children, studies which diagnose MDH on the basis of positive allergologic tests to 2 or more chemically different drugs are lacking. Methods: We conducted a prospective study evaluating children with histories of MDH by skin tests, patch tests, serum-specific IgE assays, and drug provocation tests. Results: A MDH was diagnosed in 7 (2.5%) of the 279 children evaluated who completed the study. The responsible drugs were β-lactams (penicillins and cephalosporins) in 5 episodes, ibuprofen and anticonvulsants in 3, and erythromycin, fentanyl, methylprednisolone, and cotrimoxazole in 1. Sensitivity to 2 chemically different drugs was diagnosed in 6 children and to 3 drugs in 1 child. Two of the 7 children presented the first type of MDH, whereas 5 displayed the second one. Conclusions: MDH can occur in children, even to drugs other than antibiotics. It is crucial to evaluate children with histories of MDH using both in vivo and in vitro allergologic tests, including challenges. In fact, such approach allows the physician to confirm the diagnosis of MDH in a small percentage of children with histories of MDH, as well as to rule it out in the great majority of them. © 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S.

IgE-mediated food allergy affects 6-8% of children. Our study aimed to define the correlations between the results obtained with skin prick tests (SPTs) using commercial extracts and fresh foods, and the correlations between these result and those obtained with specific IgE (sIgE) and/ or challenge. Children aged from 2 months to 6 years were recruited prospectively. Overall 571 children were positive to one food. In all children we performed SPT using commercial extracts of suspected food and fresh foods and sIgE. If SPT and sIgE test results did not correspond to the history, we performed open oral food challenge. Sensitivity of SPT with commercial extracts for all tested food was poor (3-35%), while sensitivity of fresh food skin prick tests (FFSPT) was excellent (50-100%), and showed correlation with open oral food challenge (p<0.001). Our results suggest that fresh food extracts are more effective in detecting sensitization and with levels of sIgE greater than class 3 could predict clinical reactivity, without the need for potentially hazardous food challenges. Copyright © Spring 2017, Iran J Allergy Asthma Immunol. All rights reserved.

Background: Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) can cause hypersensitivity reactions in children. These reactions are mainly cutaneous, self-limiting, and benign, but life-threatening severe cutaneous adverse reactions can occur. Infections can lead to skin eruptions and mimic drug hypersensitivity reactions, if a drug is taken at the same time. The aims of our study were to confirm or rule out the diagnosis of hypersensitivity reactions to AEDs in children and to detect an infection which mimics these reactions. Methods: A prospective survey was conducted in a group of 100 children with histories of hypersensitivity reactions to AEDs by performing patch tests, delayed-reading intradermal test, and, in case of negative results, challenge test. In all children, a study was performed to detect infections by viruses or Mycoplasma pneumoniae. Results: Maculopapular exanthema and delayed-appearing urticaria were the most reported hypersensitivity reactions to AEDs. Sixty-six (66%) of 100 children had confirmed hypersensitivity reactions to AEDs. Fifty-nine children had positive patch test. No children had positive challenge tests. The most common AEDs causing hypersensitivity reactions were carbamazepine (45.4%) and lamotrigine (43.6%). Thirty-two children had positive tests for viruses or M pneumoniae, and nine of them had also a positive allergy work-up. Conclusion: Considering that there are no specific tests to distinguish between a viral infection and hypersensitivity reactions to AEDs in the acute phase, a diagnostic work-up should be performed in all children with suspected hypersensitivity reactions to AEDs, as well as infectious agent study, to remove a false label of hypersensitivity. © 2019 EAACI and John Wiley and Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

Background: Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) can cause hypersensitivity reactions in children. These reactions are mainly cutaneous, self-limiting, and benign, but life-threatening severe cutaneous adverse reactions can occur. Infections can lead to skin eruptions and mimic drug hypersensitivity reactions, if a drug is taken at the same time. The aims of our study were to confirm or rule out the diagnosis of hypersensitivity reactions to AEDs in children and to detect an infection which mimics these reactions. Methods: A prospective survey was conducted in a group of 100 children with histories of hypersensitivity reactions to AEDs by performing patch tests, delayed-reading intradermal test, and, in case of negative results, challenge test. In all children, a study was performed to detect infections by viruses or Mycoplasma pneumoniae. Results: Maculopapular exanthema and delayed-appearing urticaria were the most reported hypersensitivity reactions to AEDs. Sixty-six (66%) of 100 children had confirmed hypersensitivity reactions to AEDs. Fifty-nine children had positive patch test. No children had positive challenge tests. The most common AEDs causing hypersensitivity reactions were carbamazepine (45.4%) and lamotrigine (43.6%). Thirty-two children had positive tests for viruses or M pneumoniae, and nine of them had also a positive allergy work-up. Conclusion: Considering that there are no specific tests to distinguish between a viral infection and hypersensitivity reactions to AEDs in the acute phase, a diagnostic work-up should be performed in all children with suspected hypersensitivity reactions to AEDs, as well as infectious agent study, to remove a false label of hypersensitivity. © 2019 EAACI and John Wiley and Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

Introduction Ingestion is the principal route for food allergens to trigger allergic reaction in atopic persons. However, in some highly sensitive patients severe symptoms may develop upon skin contact and by inhalation. The clinical spectrum ranges from mild facial urticaria and angioedema to life-threatening anaphylactic reactions. Outline of Cases We describe cases of severe anaphylactic reactions by skin contact, induced by kissing in five children with prior history of severe anaphylaxis caused by food ingestion. These cases were found to have the medical history of IgE mediated food allergy, a very high total and specific serum IgE level and very strong family history of allergy. Conclusion The presence of tiny particles of food on the kisser's lips was sufficient to trigger an anaphylactic reaction in sensitized children with prior history of severe allergic reaction caused by ingestion of food. Allergic reaction provoked with food allergens by skin contact can be a risk factor for generalized reactions. Therefore, extreme care has to be taken in avoiding kissing allergic children after eating foods to which they are highly allergic. Considering that kissing can be a cause of severe danger for the food allergic patient, such persons should inform their partners about the risk factor for causing their food hypersensitivity.

Introduction. Empyema thoracis, defined as the accumulation of pus in the pleural space, is rare in the neonatal population. Limited data are reported in the medical literature, and still, no treatment guidelines are available for this age. Case report. We present a term 12-day-old neonate (born healthy) who developed sepsis caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and pneumonia associated with advanced-stage empyema. The child was admitted to our hospital with a few-hours history of difficulty breathing and lethargy. On admission, the child was cyanotic with desaturation and in severe respiratory distress; therefore, the child was intubated, and mechanical ventilation was started. Imaging tests were performed in an emergency, hence chest computed tomography (CT) scan was done without contrast. Suspected congenital pulmonary airway malformation with trapped air collections, significant mediastinal shift on CT scan, and deterioration of the patient’s condition indicated urgent surgery. Intraoperatively, the diagnosis of stage II empyema was established, and decortication of thickened parietal and visceral pleura was performed. Afterward, the baby showed quick and progressive clinical improvement. Conclusion. The diagnosis and management of empyema in neonates may be challenging, especially in the case of unremarkable history, fulminant progression of the disease, and incomplete imaging tests. © 2023 Inst. Sci. inf., Univ. Defence in Belgrade. All rights reserved.

The objective of the paper is to investigate whether probiotic supple-mentation prenatally and/or postnatally could prevent the development of atopic/allergic march after systematically reviewed the litera-ture. The atopic march refers to the natural history of allergic diseases which develop during infancy and childhood. Allergic diseases, including atopic dermatitis, IgE-mediated food allergy, asthma, and allergic rhinitis, have dramatically increased over the last century. It is now known that every fourth child is allergic, but assumed that in 2020 every second child will be allergic. Pub Med were searched for randomized controlled trials regarding the effect of probiotics on the prevention of allergy in children. Type 2 inflammation is the central tenet of the atopic march. Intestinal microflora play an important role in the Th1/Th2 balance. Probiotics are cultures of potentially benefi-cial bacteria that positively affect the host by enhancing the microbial balance and they restore the normal intestinal permeability and gut microecology. Therefore, the use of probiotics prenatally and postna-tally may counterbalance the Th2 immune phenotype, thus preventing the development of the atopic march. Probiotics administration is able to reduce atopic inflammation and to enhance anti-inflammatory markers. Conclusion − The current systemic review suggests that pro-biotics administered prenatally and postnatally could reduce the risk of atopy and food allergy in young children, but they are not helpful in the prevention of asthma. © 2019 by the University Clinical Centre Tuzla, Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina.

[No abstract available]

[No abstract available]