The aim of this study was to compare (a) two different umbilical cord blood (UCB) collection methods while the placenta is still in the uterus (in utero), and (b) to evaluate the efficacy of four cryopreservation protocols based on UCB haematopoiestic stem cell (HSC) recovery. We analysed UCB samples collected with our original collection system designed for active Syringe/Flush/Syringe method or by standard in utero method. For comparing different cryopreservation procedures, dimethyl sulphoxide (DMSO) at final concentration of 5 and 10% was used and combined with our own controlled-rate or uncontrolled-rate cryopreservation. A total of 99 samples were collected. A significantly higher UCB volume, total nucleated cell and mononuclear cell were seen following the first collection strategy (n= 49; mean +/- SD, 103 +/- 35.4 mL; 12.34 +/- 5.27 x 10(8); 595 +/- 3.47 x 10(6)) vs. the second strategy (n= 50; 86 +/- 29.3 mL; 9.87 +/- 4.47; 424 +/- 2.82 x 10(6)) respectively (P < 0.01). The discard rate was 14% for the first and 36% for the second collection strategy (P < 0.01). It was shown that the most efficient procedure was the controlled-rate protocol combined with lower (5%) DMSO concentration. Using active Syringe/Flush/Syringe method, we collected UCB with greater volumes and with lower discard rate compared to the standard by gravity technique. The data presented also showed much better recovery of UCB cells when controlled-rate freezing procedure and 5% DMSO were combined.

Background Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) can cause hypersensitivity reactions in children. These reactions are mainly cutaneous, self‐limiting, and benign, but life‐threatening severe cutaneous adverse reactions can occur. Infections can lead to skin eruptions and mimic drug hypersensitivity reactions, if a drug is taken at the same time. The aims of our study were to confirm or rule out the diagnosis of hypersensitivity reactions to AEDs in children and to detect an infection which mimics these reactions. Methods A prospective survey was conducted in a group of 100 children with histories of hypersensitivity reactions to AEDs by performing patch tests, delayed‐reading intradermal test, and, in case of negative results, challenge test. In all children, a study was performed to detect infections by viruses or Mycoplasma pneumoniae. Results Maculopapular exanthema and delayed‐appearing urticaria were the most reported hypersensitivity reactions to AEDs. Sixty‐six (66%) of 100 children had confirmed hypersensitivity reactions to AEDs. Fifty‐nine children had positive patch test. No children had positive challenge tests. The most common AEDs causing hypersensitivity reactions were carbamazepine (45.4%) and lamotrigine (43.6%). Thirty‐two children had positive tests for viruses or M pneumoniae, and nine of them had also a positive allergy work‐up. Conclusion Considering that there are no specific tests to distinguish between a viral infection and hypersensitivity reactions to AEDs in the acute phase, a diagnostic work‐up should be performed in all children with suspected hypersensitivity reactions to AEDs, as well as infectious agent study, to remove a false label of hypersensitivity.

This is a need for multidisciplinary assessment of patients with congenital or early infantile thrombocytopenia, including testing for mutations of the WAS gene in all unexplained cases even in the absence of characteristic microthrombocytopenia.