Non-IgE and mixed gastrointestinal food allergies present various specific, well-characterized clinical pictures such as food protein-induced allergic proctocolitis, food protein-induced enterocolitis and food protein-induced enteropathy syndrome as well as eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders such as eosinophilic esophagitis, allergic eosinophilic gastroenteritis and eosinophilic colitis. The aim of this article is to provide an updated review of their different clinical presentations, to suggest a correct approach to their diagnosis and to discuss the usefulness of both old and new diagnostic tools, including fecal biomarkers, atopy patch tests, endoscopy, specific IgG and IgG4 testing, allergen-specific lymphocyte stimulation test (ALST) and clinical score (CoMiss).

Nose and lungs are considered as anatomic and functional unit, as they share morphological, pathophysiological and immunological basis. Allergic rhinitis and asthma often coexist in the same individual, and the treatment of one also improves the symptoms of the other (one airway, one disease). The aim of this review is to discuss the interaction between upper and lower airways, based on recent scientific evidence and, critically, analyze the important implications the new findings have for the future therapy and prevention of these common diseases.

The prevalence of non-allergic asthma in childhood is low, peaking in late adulthood. It is triggered by factors other than allergens, like cold and dry air, respiratory infections, hormonal changes, smoke and air pollution. In the literature, there are few studies that describe non-allergic asthma in pediatric age. Even though it is a less common disorder in kids, it is crucial to identify the causes in order to keep asthma under control, particularly in patients not responding to conventional treatments. In this review, we discuss non-IgE-mediated forms of asthma, collecting the latest research on etiopathogenesis and treatment.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a huge impact on children’s lifestyle and eating behaviour, resulting in an increase of obesity prevalence. The CEBQ (Children’s Eating Behaviour Questionnaire) is a validate questionnaire that investigates children’s eating behaviour. Knowing the psychological consequences of daily routine disruption during lockdown, we evaluated the changes in eating behaviours in a paediatric cohort before and during the lockdown period through the evaluation of the Italian version of the CEBQ. We prospectively enrolled children attending the pediatric clinic of the University of Campania ‘Luigi Vanvitelli’. All parents answered the parent-report version of the CEBQ before lockdown containment. During lockdown, the second survey was carried out by telephone call. The study sample included 69 children. Food responsiveness and emotional overeating subscales showed higher scores during lockdown compared to data before lockdown (p = 0.009 and p = 0.001, respectively). Conversely, desire to drink and satiety responsiveness showed lower scores at follow-up (p = 0.04 and p = 0.0001, respectively). No differences were observed for slowness in eating and enjoyment of food. Delta changes were higher in normal-weight children compared to children with obesity (p = 0.02). Our results confirm that containment measures during the COVID-19 pandemic have acted as triggers on certain eating behaviors that mostly predispose to an obesogenic manner.

Introduction: Recent studies show that neuropsychiatric disorders are the most frequent sequelae of COVID-19 in children. Purpose: Our work aimed to evaluate the impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection on behavior and sleep in children and adolescents. Materials and Methods: We enrolled 107 patients aged 1.5–18 years who contracted COVID-19 between one year and one month prior to data collection, referred to the University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli in Italy. We asked their parents to complete two standardized questionnaires for the assessment of behavior (Child Behavior CheckList (CBCL)) and sleep (Sleep Disturbance Scale for Children (SLDS)). We analysed and compared the results with a control group (pre-COVID-19 pandemic). Results: In the COVID-19 group, the major results were found for sleep breathing disorders, sleep–wake transition disorders and disorders of initiating and maintaining sleep for the SDSC questionnaire, and internalizing scale, total scale and anxiety/depression for the CBCL questionnaire. The comparison of the CBCL results of the cases with the controls revealed statistically significant differences for the following items: internalizing scale, externalizing scale, somatic complaints, total score, thought problems [(p < 0.01)], anxious/depressed problems and withdrawn [(p < 0.001)]. Conclusions: COVID-19 has impacted children’s and adolescents’ mental health. Adolescents were the most affected patient group for internalizing problems, including anxiety and depression.

Alternative proteins denote non-traditional, high-protein foods. These innovative sources aim to compete with conventional animal products by providing protein-rich, sustainable, nutritious, and flavorful options. Currently, five main categories of alternative proteins are being developed: plant-based proteins, cultured meat, single-cell proteins, edible insects, and seaweed. Nonetheless, several chemical and microbiological food safety hazards are associated with these alternatives Incorporating novel protein sources into food products may heighten the prevalence of existing food allergies. This could arise from extracting proteins from their natural matrices and utilizing them at significantly higher concentrations. Additionally, the introduction of new proteins may lead to the development of novel food allergies. Proteins that are currently seldom or never consumed may cause primary sensitisation or trigger cross-reactivity with known allergens. To date, alternative proteins have not been thoroughly studied for their allergenic potential, and there is no standardised method for assessing this risk. This review aims to explore non-traditional protein sources, discussing their nutritional and functional properties, as well as their potential allergenicity based on available research. We conducted a literature search in PubMed and Embase databases. We used specific keywords and MESH terms. A total of 157 studies were included in the review. The studies reviewed in our analysis reveal significant limitations, such as inconsistent methodologies, limited participant numbers, and a lack of long-term data, which hinder the ability to make clear conclusions regarding the safety of these new proteins for individuals with allergies. To address current challenge, future research should integrate food science, regulatory perspectives and advanced technologies.