Histamine Intolerance in Children: A Narrative Review

Histamine intolerance is defined as a disequilibrium of accumulated histamine and the capacity for histamine degradation. This clinical term addresses a non-immunologically mediated pathology when histamine ingested with food is not particularly high, however its degradation is decreased. This paper aims to provide a narrative review on etiopathology, epidemiology, possible diagnostic algorithms and diagnostic challenges of histamine intolerance in children. The clinical picture of histamine intolerance in children is similar to that observed in adults apart from male predominance found in paediatric patients. Both in children and adults, a histamine-reduced diet is typically the treatment of choice. Diamine oxidase supplementation offers another treatment option. There is no symptom or test pathognomonic for histamine intolerance. Nevertheless, manifestations of chronic gastrointestinal symptoms, measurements of diamine oxidase deficits, positive results of histamine provocation tests and improvement in symptoms with histamine-reduced diet considerably increase the probability of histamine intolerance diagnosis. These factors have been included in the proposed diagnostic algorithm for histamine intolerance. In children histamine intolerance most likely co-occurs with allergies and bowel diseases, which creates an additional diagnostic challenge. As the evidence for children is poor further research is needed the determine epidemiology, validate diagnostic algorithms and establish possible treatment options regarding histamine intolerance.     

Discrepancies Between Australian Eating Disorder Clinicians and Consumers Regarding Essential Components of Dietetic Treatment

BackgroundA recent Delphi study indicated that, compared with eating disorder (ED) consumers and carers, ED specialists were less likely to endorse involvement of a dietitian as a standard component of treatment. In addition, there was disagreement between these groups regarding the inclusion of a number of components of dietetic treatment.ObjectiveThis study aimed to further investigate these data to identify areas of disagreement among ED specialist dietitians, ED specialist non–dietetic clinicians, consumers, and carers with regard to outpatient dietetic treatment.Design and participants/settingThe ED specialists panel from a previous Delphi study was recoded into 2 panels: ED specialist dietitians (n = 31) and ED specialist non–dietetic clinicians (n = 48) to compare responses of these panels with responses from consumers (n = 32) and carers (n = 23).Main outcome measuresStatements in 7 categories relating to referral to dietitian, essential components of outpatient dietetic treatment regarding 4 ED patient populations, strategies to promote multidisciplinary collaboration, and skills dietitians should possess if treating patients with an ED were rated on a 5-point Likert scale.Statistical analysis performedOne-way analysis of variance was conducted with post-hoc multiple comparisons to compare mean statement ratings.ResultsThirty-seven statements (30%) showed statistically significant differences (P < .05) in responses between panels. Discrepancies were primarily observed for statements regarding how and when dietetics is included in treatment and essential components of dietetic treatment, particularly the use of behavioral tasks, such meal plans and self-monitoring. Results also highlighted deficits in participants’ understanding of core responsibilities of dietitians in ED treatment and dietitians “drifting” from delivering evidence-based components of dietetic treatment.ConclusionsResults of this study show discrepancies among ED dietitians, clinicians, consumers, and carers regarding what dietetic treatment for people with EDs should encompass. It also indicates the need for further research into optimizing dietetic treatment for EDs that is conducted in collaboration with individuals with lived experience.     

瘦素受体Gln223Arg基因多态性与不同葡萄糖耐量血清瘦素的相关性研究

目的 :研究瘦素受体基因Gln2 2 3Arg等位基因与不同葡萄糖耐量中血清瘦素及其它代谢指标的关系。方法 :运用聚合酶链反应 限制性片段长度多态性 (PCR RFLP)方法测定无亲缘关系 ,不同葡萄糖耐量 198例北京地区汉族人的瘦素受体基因Gln2 2 3Arg等位基因 ,同时分析其与临床资料的相关性。结果 :不同等位基因型的瘦素水平无显著差异 ,而在葡萄糖耐量减低 (IGT)男性 ,Gln2 2 3Arg等位基因有较高的胆固醇水平 [(7 2 6±1 95 )和 (5 31± 1 31)mmol/L ,P =0 0 4]和较高的收缩压 [(18 8± 1 2 )和 (17 2± 1 6 )kPa ,P =0 0 3]。结论 :瘦素受体Gln2 2 3Arg基因多态性与不同葡萄糖耐量的血清瘦素无关 ,但与机体代谢有一定关系     

Is the placement of jejunostomy tubes in patients with esophageal cancer undergoing esophagectomy associated with increased inpatient healthcare utilization? An analysis of the National Readmissions Database

BackgroundPatients undergoing esophagectomy often receive jejunostomy tubes (j-tubes) for nutritional supplementation. We hypothesized that j-tubes are associated with increased post-esophagectomy readmissions.Study designWe identified esophagectomies for malignancy with (EWJ) or without (EWOJ) j-tubes using the 2010–2015 Nationwide Readmissions Database. Outcomes include readmission, inpatient mortality, and complications. Outcomes were compared before and after propensity score matching (PSM).ResultsOf 22,429 patients undergoing esophagectomy, 16,829 (75.0%) received j-tubes. Patients were similar in age and gender but EWJ were more likely to receive chemotherapy (24.2% vs. 15.1%, p < 0.01). EWJ was associated with decreased 180-day inpatient mortality (HR 0.72 [0.52–0.99]) but not with higher readmissions at 30- (15.2% vs. 14.0%, p = 0.16; HR 0.9 [0.77–1.05]) or 180 days (25.2% vs. 24.3%, p = 0.37; HR 0.94 [0.79–1.10]) or increased complications (p = 0.37). These results were confirmed in the PSM cohort.ConclusionJ-tubes placed in the setting of esophagectomy do not increase inpatient readmissions or mortality.     

Evidence for feeding elicited through antihistaminergic effects of tricyclic antidepressants in the rat hypothalamus

We studied central mechanisms of antidepressants that affect feeding behavior in rats. The tricyclic compounds amitriptyline, doxepin and imipramine significantly induced feeding after their infusion into the third cerebral ventricle in the light phase, but the tricyclic, desipramine, and the dicyclic zimelidine, did not. Drinking was not affected by any compound tested. The relative order of potency in eliciting feeding was: amitriptyline and doxepin > imipramine > desipramine and zimelidine. To clarify the involvement of neuronal histamine in antidepressant-induced feeding, alpha-fluoromethylhistidine (FMH), a suicide inhibitor of histidine decarboxylase, was intraperitoneally administered before infusion of amitriptyline. FMH attenuated the amitriptyline's effect. Bilateral microinfusion of amitriptyline into the ventromedial hypothalamus or the paraventricular nucleus verified that these are loci for the modulation of feeding by amitriptyline. In the lateral hypothalamus, amitriptyline was less effective. These findings indicate that tricyclic antidepressants directly facilitate feeding, which is, at least in part, mediated by histamine in the hypothalamus.     

Behavioural analysis of the anorectic effects of fluoxetine and fenfluramine

Two sets of experiments were carried out to compare the effects of fenfluramine and fluoxetine on consummatory and operant behaviour. In food-deprived rats allowed access to a 35% sucrose solution, an initial period of sucrose consumption was followed by a short period of grooming and exploratory behaviour, later superceded by resting. This behavioural satiety sequence was advanced by fluoxetine, but disrupted bydl-fenfluramine, which suppressed post-prandial resting, even at sub-anorectic doses. Fluoxetine also elicited resting behaviour following water drinking. However, this did not appear to be a non-specific sedative effect, since fluoxetine increased post-prandial grooming. In rats performing on random interval schedules of food reinforcement, fluoxetine caused proportionally greater decreases in responding on a reinforcement-lean schedule (RI-300s), as compared to a reinforcement-rich schedule (RI-7.5s); this effect is similar to that of a reduction in level of food deprivation. By contrast, fenfluramine reduced responding equally on both schedules. In both paradigms, the effects of fluoxetine were compatible with an increase in postprandial satiety, but the effects of fenfluramine were not.