Oral food challenge (OFC) is the gold standard for diagnosis of IgE-mediated and non-IgE mediated food allergy. It is usually conducted to make diagnosis, to monitor for resolution of a food allergy, or to identify the threshold of responsiveness. Clinical history and lab tests have poor diagnostic accuracy and they are not sufficient to make a strict diagnosis of food allergy. Higher concentrations of food-specific IgE or larger allergy prick skin test wheal sizes correlate with an increased likelihood of a reaction upon ingestion. Several cut-off values, to make a diagnosis of some food allergies (e.g., milk, egg, peanut, etc.) without performing an OFC, have been suggested, but their use is still debated. The oral food challenge should be carried out by experienced physicians in a proper environment equipped for emergency, in order to carefully assess symptoms and signs and correctly manage any possible allergic reaction. This review does not intend to analyse comprehensively all the issues related to the diagnosis of food allergies, but to summarize some practical information on the OFC procedure, as reported in a recent issue by The Expert Review of Food Allergy Committee of Italian Society of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology (SIAIP).

Hypersensitivity reactions to polyethylene glycol (PEG) is an emerging challenge and the interest about this disease is growing since PEG is considered one of the possible causes of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID 19) vaccine-associated anaphylaxis. PEG is used in a wide variety of pharmaceutical, medical, industrial, cosmetic, and food products and can be an active ingredient or used as an excipient. PEG is present in several medications, and it may or may not be present in different formulations and dosages of the same drug. Lack of standardization nomenclature, inadequate labelling of products and lack of knowledge about PEG involvement in hypersensitivity reactions expose patients at risk of presenting multiple reactions before a diagnosis could be made. In this review we describe the main cases published in literature and propose an allergy work-up and management.

Food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome (FPIES) is a non-IgE mediated food allergy (FA) characterized by delayed and severe gastrointestinal symptoms that typically occurs within the first year of life. Many aspects of this pathology are currently unclear. FPIES is classified as a non-IgE immune-mediated FA in which the immune response is thought to act mainly through cell-mediated mechanisms. In patients with FPIES, the symptom pattern is determined by the frequency and dose of food allergen in the diet. Diagnosis of FPIES may be difficult, mainly due to the lack of specific biomarkers to confirm or exclude the diagnosis. FPIES is a clinical diagnosis, mainly based on clinical features which, although not specific, are reproducible every time the patient takes the food. Different diagnostic criteria of FPIES were published over time in the literature. The present narrative review aims to analyze the current clinical evidence in epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of this condition.

Biologic drugs are widely used in pediatric medicine. Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) in particular are a therapeutic option for rheumatic, autoinflammatory and oncologic diseases. Adverse drug reactions and hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) to mAbs may occur in children. Clinical presentation of HSRs to mAbs can be classified according to phenotypes in infusion-related reactions, cytokine release syndrome, both alpha type reactions and type I (IgE/non-IgE), type III, and type IV reactions, all beta-type reactions. The aim of this review is to focus on HSRs associated with the most frequent mAbs in childhood, with particular attention to beta-type reactions. When a reaction to mAbs is suspected a diagnostic work-up including in-vivo and in-vitro testing should be performed. A drug provocation test is recommended only when no alternative drugs are available. In selected patients with immediate IgE-mediated drug allergy a desensitization protocol is indicated. Despite the heavy use of mAbs in childhood, studies evaluating the reliability of diagnostic test are lacking. Although desensitization may be effective in reducing the risk of reactions in children, standardized pediatric protocols are still not available.

Drug-induced anaphylaxis in children is less common than in adults and primarily involves beta-lactams and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Epidemiological studies show variable prevalence, influenced by age, gender, and atopic diseases. The pathophysiology includes IgE-mediated reactions and non-IgE mechanisms, like cytokine release reactions. We address drug-induced anaphylaxis in children, focusing on antibiotics, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, neuromuscular blocking agents, and monoclonal antibodies. Diagnosis combines clinical criteria with in vitro, in vivo, and drug provocation tests. The immediate management of acute anaphylaxis primarily involves the use of adrenaline, coupled with long-term strategies, such as allergen avoidance and patient education. Desensitization protocols are crucial for children allergic to essential medications, particularly antibiotics and chemotherapy agents.

The COVID-19 pandemic is the most challenging global health crisis of our times. Vaccination against COVID-19 plays a key role to control the current pandemic situation. The risk of allergic reactions to new COVID-19 vaccines is low. However, there is a debate on the safety in allergic patients following post marketing findings by different agencies. Our aim is to understand from current experiences whether children with cow’s milk or food allergy are at higher risk than a general population for allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines. Current data indicate that patients with a history of allergy to cow’s milk or other foods, even if severe, should receive COVID-19 vaccine in a setting with availability of treatments for anaphylactic reactions and under medical supervision. Recipients should be discharged after a protracted observation period of 30 min if no reaction developed.