Introduction The coronavirus 2019 disease (Covid‐19) pandemic led to a number of measures being introduced in many countries worldwide. Lockdowns were imposed on individuals aged <18 years, education was delivered online, and mask‐wearing was made compulsory in public places, resulting in an unprecedented period for children. Real‐life data showing how children with asthma are affected by major changes are limited. This study investigated how asthmatic children are affected by pandemic conditions based on real‐life data. Methods Patients with asthma aged 6–18 years followed up from March to May 2019—before the Covid‐19 pandemic—were included in the study. Data from March to May 2020 and 2019 were then compared to reveal the effects of pandemic‐related lifestyle changes on symptoms, frequency of exacerbations, and drug use in asthmatic children. Results Eighty‐six children with asthma aged 6–18 years were included in this study. Time spent inside the home was significantly higher in 2020 than in 2019. Rescue medication requirements and emergency department visits were significantly lower in 2020 compared to 2019 ( p < 0.001). The number of well‐controlled patients with asthma was higher in 2020 than in 2019 ( p < 0.0001). The number of patients using prophylactic drugs within the previous 3 months was lower in 2020 compared to 2019 ( p = 0.007). Conclusion The present study yielded valuable insights, based on real‐life data, into the condition of children over the age of 6 years during the Covid‐19 pandemic. Numbers of asthmatic exacerbations, rescue drug use, and asthma control were positively affected in school‐aged children with asthma during the pandemic.

Background/Objectives Mastocytosis is a complex disorder presenting with a broad clinical spectrum. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the frequency of systemic symptoms, necessity of the usage of epinephrine autoinjectors (EAI), and factors affecting the use of EAI among pediatric patients with cutaneous mastocytosis (CM). Methods The study population was composed of 53 patients with CM. The clinical data were collected from the medical files. A questionnaire about the patient's anaphylaxis experiences and treatment attitudes toward EAI was performed. Results Thirty‐three of 53 patients were male (62.3%), and the median age of the study participants was 80 months. Anaphylaxis was reported in two patients (3.7%). One of the patients had drug‐induced anaphylaxis, and the other had venom‐induced anaphylaxis. Three patients (5.6%) reported a personal history of EAI use due to systemic symptoms. Patients with higher serum tryptase level and cases of familial mastocytosis had more systemic symptoms (P = .012 and P = .010, respectively). The patient rate of compliance with EAI for prescription filling and carrying the EAI was 88.7% and 79.2% respectively. 41.5% of parents were hesitant to use EAI when necessary, although they were trained for the use of it by medical staff. Conclusions The rate of anaphylaxis in patients with CM in the current study wassignificant and justifies prescribing EAI. Detailed education and counseling on EAI usage are needed to reduce parental hesitancy.

No abstract