The etiology of different forms of urticaria in childhood.
ABSTRACT Urticaria is a common disease in children. In contrast to the ease of its diagnosis, etiologic factors are often difficult to determine. In order to study whether differences exist among various forms of urticaria in childhood and whether the patterns of different types of urticaria differ between adults and children, we extensively studied the possible causes of urticaria in children. Fifty-four children (23 girls and 31 boys; ages 1-19 years) with various forms of urticaria were included in the study. In all cases, questions about food allergies, food additive intolerance, drug intake, signs of infection, causes of physical urticaria, insect bites, and personal and family history of atopy were asked. Clinical characteristics of the disease, such as duration, recurrence, and associated angioedema and symptoms of anaphylaxis were also investigated. Detailed laboratory tests, including serologic, autoimmune, and allergic analyses, were conducted to reveal the probable etiologies of urticaria. Of the study patients, 68.5% and 31.5% were diagnosed as having acute and chronic urticaria, respectively. The patient group with chronic urticaria was older and included more boys than the acute group. In the acute urticaria group, infection was the most frequently documented cause (48.6%), followed by drugs (5.4%), and food allergies (2.7%), whereas in chronic urticaria, physical factors were the leading cause (52.94%). The most frequently documented infection was urinary tract infection, followed by serologically determined infections of Chlamydia pneumoniae and Helicobacter pylori. In this study we found indications that infections were frequently associated with urticaria, which suggests that urticaria management should include a survey of certain infectious agents in addition to a detailed history.
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The recognition and symptomatic management of urticaria and angioneurotic edema usually are quite simple. Good long-range results, however, in the treatment of such cases require the physician to exert every effort to determine the etiology of the hives in each individual case. The recent literature (since 1945) has been reviewed in an attempt to find new, helpful information which might be of aid in evaluating the more difficult cases. A procedure for the management of these patients has been described.Journal of Allergy 12/1954; 25(6):525-60.
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The aim of this paper was to define, for the first time in Italy, normal levels of total serum IgE in a general population sample of North Italy. Total serum IgE in 1905 subjects, living in Po Delta area (near Venice), were measured by PRIST method. Normal values were derived from 558 subjects without asthma and/or asthmatic/rhinitic symptoms, noncurrent smokers, skin prick-test negatives ('normals'). Cut-off values to differentiate 'normals' from the remaining part of the sample ('others'), from asthmatic, and from rhinitic subjects, were established with the IgE value midway between the upper limit of the 95% confidence intervals (CI) of the geometric mean for 'normals' and the lower limit for 'others', asthmatics, and rhinitics, respectively. Geometric mean of normal children-adolescents was 45 kU/L (SD: 2.6; 95% CI: 38-63). In normal adults geometric mean was 29 kU/L (SD: 3.3; 95% CI: 25-40) in males and 19 kU/L (SD: 3.8; 95% CI: 16-22) in females. The diagnostic sensitivity of IgE test was low, while the specificity was very high. A good positive predictive value in discriminating 'normals' from 'others' was found, on the contrary, we found a good negative predictive value in discriminating 'normals' from asthmatics or from rhinitics. In conclusion, our results confirm that it is necessary to provide separate total serum IgE reference values for what concerns age in children-adolescents and in adults, and gender, in adults. Low serum IgE are helpful to exclude allergic asthma or rhinitis level of total.European Journal of Epidemiology 02/2001; 17(3):231-9. · 5.12 Impact Factor
- New England Journal of Medicine 02/2002; 346(3):175-9. · 51.66 Impact Factor