RESUMO A conjuntivite alérgica (CA) é uma condição frequente, debilitante e responsável por grande impacto econômico, proporcionalmente maior quando acomete crianças. Essas diretrizes foram desenvolvidas com base na literatura científica (PubMed/Medline) e na experiência de um Comitê de Especialistas composto por membros da Sociedade Brasileira de Oftalmologia Pediátrica, do Conselho Brasileiro de Oftalmologia, da Sociedade Brasileira de Pediatria e da Associação Brasileira de Alergia e Imunologia. A conjuntivite alérgica é considerada controlada quando os sintomas não são desconfortáveis ou estão presentes por dois dias na semana; o escore visual pela escala analógica é inferior a 5 e o grau de hiperemia conjuntival é de 0-1 pela escala de Efron. A conjuntivite alérgica deve ser classificada em leve, moderada, grave e com risco de perda visual para tratamento e frequência de monitoramento adequados. Esta diretriz orienta o diagnóstico, tratamento e monitoramento da conjuntivite alérgica pediátrica, considerando aspectos clínicos e demográficos das condições alérgicas no Brasil.

ABSTRACT Allergic conjunctivitis is an increasingly frequent condition with a higher prevalence in children. It can be debilitating and is responsible for a great economic burden. These guidelines were developed on the basis of the medical literature (PubMed/Medline database) and the experience of an Expert Committee composed of members of the Brazilian Society of Pediatric Ophthalmology, the Brazilian Council of Ophthalmology, the Brazilian Society of Pediatrics, and the Brazilian Association of Allergy and Immunology. Allergic conjunctivitis is considered to be controlled when the ocular symptoms are not uncomfortable or are present, at most, on 2 days a week; the visual analog scale score is below 5; and the degree of conjunctival hyperemia is graded 0 or 1 on the Efron scale. Allergic conjunctivitis should be classified as mild, moderate, severe, and vision-threatening for adequate treatment and monitoring of frequency. The present document is a guideline for diagnosing, treating, and monitoring pediatric allergic conjunctivitis considering the clinical and demographic aspects of allergic conditions in Brazil.

Abstract Objective Allergic sensitization is one of the key components for the development of allergies. Polysensitization seems to be related to the persistence and severity of allergic diseases. Furthermore, allergic sensitization has a predictive role in the development of allergies. The aim of this study was to characterize the pattern of sensitization of atopic patients treated at different pediatric allergy referral centers in Brazil. Methods A nation-wide transversal multicenter study collected data on patients attended in Brazil. Peripheral blood samples were collected to determine the serum levels of allergen-specific IgE. If allergen-specific IgE was higher than 0.1 kUA/L, the following specific components were quantified. Results A total of 470 individuals were enrolled in the study. Mite sensitization was the most frequent kind in all participants. A high frequency of sensitization to furry animals and grasses featured in the respiratory allergies. Regarding components, there was a predominance of sensitization to Der p 1 and Der p 2. It has been verified that having a food allergy, atopic dermatitis, or multimorbidity are risk factors for the development of more severe allergic disease. Conclusion Studies on the pattern of allergic sensitization to a specific population offer tools for the more effectual prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of allergic diseases. Sensitization to dust mites house was the most prevalent in the evaluated sample. High rates of sensitization to furry animals also stand out. Patients with food allergy, atopic dermatitis, or multimorbidity appear to be at greater risk for developing more severe allergic diseases.

OBJETIVO: Verificar a eficácia, eventos adversos e custo do tratamento da crise aguda de asma, utilizando diferentes dispositivos inalatórios. MÉTODOS: Estudo randomizado, duplo-cego e controlado com placebo. Foi utilizado salbutamol em nebulizador, inalador dosimetrado com espaçadores industrial e artesanal e inalador em pó. As avaliações foram feitas em 0, 20, 40 e 60 minutos, seguidas da aplicação de salbutamol e placebo em outro dispositivo. Foram avaliadas 40 crianças em crise aguda de asma, com média de idade = 11±3,5 anos. Utilizou-se escore clínico e função pulmonar, e foram verificados eventos adversos. Foram calculados gastos com o medicamento e o dispositivo inalatório. RESULTADOS: O escore clínico e a variação no volume expiratório forçado no primeiro segundo foram semelhantes entre os grupos ao final do estudo. Foi encontrada uma variação maior na freqüência cardíaca com o uso de nebulizador (35%) do que nos grupos que fizeram uso do espaçador industrial (15%) e do inalador em pó (17%), e também entre os espaçadores artesanal e industrial, 28 e 15%, respectivamente (p = 0,004). O nebulizador e o espaçador artesanal provocaram mais tremores (p = 0,02). O custo do tratamento por paciente foi maior nos grupos nebulizador e espaçador industrial, R$ 22,31 e R$ 16,58, respectivamente (p = 0,0001). CONCLUSÕES: O nebulizador foi o mais caro e consumiu mais droga para apresentar a mesma eficácia. O espaçador artesanal foi o mais barato. No entanto, apresentou mais eventos adversos do que o espaçador industrial e o inalador em pó. O espaçador industrial foi tão caro quanto o nebulizador, porém mais seguro. O inalador em pó foi mais barato e apresentou menos tremores, mas taquicardia semelhante ao espaçador artesanal.

OBJECTIVE: To verify the efficacy, side effects, and cost of treatment of acute asthma attacks, using different inhaler devices. METHODS: This is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Salbutamol was administered via a nebulizer, a metered-dose inhaler (attached to a commercially available spacer device), a homemade non-valved spacer device, or a dry powder inhaler. Assessments were made at zero, 20, 40 and 60 minutes, followed by the application of salbutamol and placebo with another device. Forty children (mean age of 11±3.5 years) with acute asthma attacks, were evaluated. Clinical score, forced expiratory volume in one second and side effects were analyzed. The costs for medication and spacer devices were calculated. RESULTS: There is no difference between groups regarding clinical score and variation of forced expiratory volume in one second. There was a major variation in the heart rate response to the nebulizer (35%) compared to the commercially available spacer and dry powder inhaler (15 and 17%) and between the homemade spacer and the commercially available spacer (28 and 15%) (p = 0.004). The nebulizer and homemade spacer caused more tremor (p = 0.02). The cost of treatment was higher for the nebulizer and commercially available spacer (p = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The nebulizer was more expensive and used more medicine, showing the same efficiency. The homemade spacer was cheaper, but presented more side effects. The commercially available spacer was as expensive as the nebulizer, although safer. The dry powder inhaler was cheaper, but, just as the homemade spacer, it also caused tachycardia.