Recurrent pharyngo-tonsillar infections caused by group A beta-hemolytic streptococci (GABHS) occur frequently in young children, and the treatment of these infections contributes substantially to the total current requirement for antibiotic prescribing. Our study goal was to assess through a retrospective observational analysis whether the administration of the oral probiotic, Streptococcus salivarius K12 (SsK12), could reduce the occurrence of GABHS pharyngo-tonsillar infections in children who had a recent history of recurrent episodes of these infections. Twelve primary care pediatricians identified, through their databases, a total of 130 children who had experienced recurrent GABHS pharyngo-tonsillar infections over a period of at least 6–12 months prior to their inclusion in the study. Of these children, 76 then undertook a 90-day program requiring once-a-day dosing with a commercially available (Bactoblis) lozenge containing SsK12. No probiotic supplement was given to the remaining 54 (control) children. Each subject was monitored for the occurrence of GABHS pharyngo-tonsillitis and also for acute otitis media, bronchitis, sinusitis, and bronchopneumonia for at least 12 months following their entry to the study. Even 9 months after the use of SsK12 had been stopped, the probability of new GABHS infections was significantly lower (P>0.001) when compared to the period before dosing commenced. When compared to the untreated children, those taking SsK12 appear to have had significantly fewer GABHS infections both during the 90-day period of prophylaxis and during the following 9 months (P<0.001). These observations are supportive of the use of probiotic SsK12 for the control of recurrent GABHS pharyngo-tonsillar infections in children, and as an associated benefit, the use of this probiotic could lead to reduced antibiotic consumption. Follow-up controlled prospective studies should now be initiated in order to further establish the efficacy of this newly emerging prophylactic strategy.

Background Children with COVID 19 infection (CV19) generally have a mild disease whose main symptoms are fever and cough. Dyspnoea and hypoxemia are rarely reported and few data are available on the frequency and extent of lung involvement in children with CV19. In addition, due to the limited availability of diagnostic tests in Italy during the pandemic period and the relative reliability of the test results, the diagnostic suspicion of CV19 infection in most of the children was difficult to confirm. The aim of this study is to evaluate if lung ultrasound (LUS) was able to highlight typical interstitial lung lesions in children with persistent cough and suspected CV19, providing corroborating evidence of CV19 infection. Methods We retrospectively analysed the data of 32 children who came consecutively to our outpatient observation in the period between March 1st and April 30th, 2020 because of the presence of persistent cough for at least 3 days and with suspected CV19. All the children undergone clinical examination, oximetry measurement and LUS. Results Twenty over thirty-two children had US lesions compatible with the presence of CV19, many of them without clinical signs of respiratory distress. LUS is much more sensitive than clinical examination to detect lung injury in children with suspected CV19. Conclusion In the absence of reliable, highly sensitive diagnostic tests or when nasal swab is unworkable or there are too many requests to be performed quickly due to the pandemic, LUS should be used in children with persistent cough for whom a CV19 is suspected because it can highlight undiagnosed interstitial lung lesions and reinforce the diagnostic suspicion of CV19 This approach can be very useful in outpatient settings and in areas with limited medical resources such as developing countries.

Preschool wheezing should be considered an umbrella term for distinctive diseases with different observable and measurable phenotypes. Despite many efforts, there is a large gap in knowledge regarding management of preschool wheezing. In order to fill this lack of knowledge, the aim of these guidelines was to define management of wheezing disorders in preschool children (aged up to 5 years). A multidisciplinary panel of experts of the Emilia-Romagna Region, Italy, addressed twelve different key questions regarding the management of preschool wheezing. Clinical questions have been formulated by the expert panel using the PICO format (Patients, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes) and systematic reviews have been conducted on PubMed to answer these specific questions, with the aim of formulating recommendations. The GRADE approach has been used for each selected paper, to assess the quality of the evidence and the degree of recommendations. These guidelines represent, in our opinion, the most complete and up-to-date collection of recommendations on preschool wheezing to guide pediatricians in the management of their patients, standardizing approaches. Undoubtedly, more research is needed to find objective biomarkers and understand underlying mechanisms to assess phenotype and endotype and to personalize targeted treatment.

Wheezing at preschool age (i.e., before the age of six) is common, occurring in about 30% of children before the age of three. In terms of health care burden, preschool children with wheeze show double the rate of access to the emergency department and five times the rate of hospital admissions compared with school-age asthmatics. The consensus document aims to analyse the underlying mechanisms involved in the pathogenesis of preschool wheezing and define the risk factors (i.e., allergy, atopy, infection, bronchiolitis, genetics, indoor and outdoor pollution, tobacco smoke exposure, obesity, prematurity) and the protective factors (i.e., probiotics, breastfeeding, vitamin D, influenza vaccination, non-specific immunomodulators) associated with the development of the disease in the young child. A multidisciplinary panel of experts from the Emilia-Romagna Region, Italy, addressed twelve key questions regarding managing preschool wheezing. Clinical questions have been formulated by the expert panel using the PICO format (Patients, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes). Systematic reviews have been conducted on PubMed to answer these specific questions and formulate recommendations. The GRADE approach has been used for each selected paper to assess the quality of the evidence and the degree of recommendations. Based on a panel of experts and extensive updated literature, this consensus document provides insight into the pathogenesis, risk and protective factors associated with the development and persistence of preschool wheezing. Undoubtedly, more research is needed to improve our understanding of the disease and confirm the associations between certain factors and the risk of wheezing in early life. In addition, preventive strategies must be promoted to avoid children’s exposure to risk factors that may permanently affect respiratory health.

BackgroundVaccination coverage rates against pandemic flu were far below those required by Italian Public Health Authorities.The aim of this retrospective study was to assess how the management of vaccination against pandemic flu in the Health District of Piacenza (Northern Italy) had conditioned the adherence of patients at risk to the H1N1flu immunization program.MethodsFrom a population of 27.018 children aged between 6 months and 16 years, 2361 pediatric patients considered at risk according to the guidelines of the Ministry of Health were enrolled to receive pandemic flu vaccination.Children enrolled in the immunization program were vaccinated with one of the following three options:A) by their pediatrician in his office after contacting him directly or by phoneB) by their pediatrician in his office or in a public Health District office with the assistance of a nurse after an appointment had been booked by patient’s parents using a dedicated free of charge phone numberC) by a doctor of the public Health District after an appointment had been booked as for option BResultsThe best outcomes of population vaccination coverage for pandemic flu were achieved when patients were vaccinated with option B (44.2%). For options A and C rates coverage results were 22.8% (OR 2,69) and 24.9% (OR 2, 39) respectively.ConclusionThe results of this study may be taken into account by the public health Authorities when planning the management of future immunization campaigns out of the usual vaccination schedule or in an emergency event.