4.6 Article

Challenge-proven aspirin hypersensitivity in children with chronic spontaneous urticaria

期刊

ALLERGY
卷 70, 期 2, 页码 153-160

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/all.12539

关键词

aspirin; chronic urticaria; drug allergy; nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundNonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) exacerbated cutaneous disease is defined as the exacerbation of wheals and/or angioedema in patients with a history of chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU). The objective of this study was to define aspirin-hypersensitive' children and adolescents in a clearly defined group of patients with CSU and to describe their clinical features. MethodsEighty-one children with a history of CSU were enrolled over a 3-year period. The daily or almost daily (>4days a week) presence of urticaria was defined as chronic persistent urticaria' (CPU), while the presence of urticaria for 2-4days a week was defined as chronic recurrent urticaria' (CRU). Single-blind, placebo-controlled provocation tests (SBPCPTs) with aspirin were performed for children with CSU. ResultsPatients with CRU had a longer duration of cutaneous symptoms [1.6 (0.5-4) vs 0.6 (0.3-1.5) years], and stress was less frequently experienced as an eliciting factor in patients with CRU compared with the patients with CPU (P<0.016, P=0.024, respectively). SBPCPTs with aspirin revealed that 14 of 58 patients (24%) with CPU and one of 10 patients with CRU (10%) were aspirin hypersensitive. Aspirin hypersensitivity rate was 26.5% in patients <12years of age. All of the 15 aspirin-hypersensitive patients (aged between 6.6 and 17.4years), except for three, experienced an unequivocal angioedema of the lips as a positive reaction in SBPCPT. ConclusionsNearly a quarter of children and adolescents with CSU were hypersensitive to aspirin. For children with chronic urticaria, determination of NSAID hypersensitivity in a well-controlled clinical setting will help to avoid severe drug hypersensitivity reactions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据