Search

First, this article attempts to approach the problem of distancing from the psychocultural perspective, relating it with the basic mechanism of mediation that was proposed by Vygotsky. Secondly, it is a reflection on the combined process of approaching and distancing in human biological and mental processes, and the limitations of contemplating the development as a process that is assumed to proceed only in the direction of ever greater cognitive distancing. Finally, it is proposed that instead of conceiving contact and distance as divergent developmental paths, models should articulate both processes of approaching and distancing, as well as of social mediation and instrumental mediation. I suggest the ecological and situated nature of psychological operators of distancing as a process in an extra-cortical mise-en-scène. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The increasing inclusion of socio-demographic variables in studies of cognitive development in children points to a renewed interest in the scientific community to identify how context shapes human development. Along this line of knowledge, this study aims to examine the relationship between development of verbal working memory, age, socioeconomic status, type of school and daily activities performed by 159 Colombian children aged 6 and 8 years old. Their verbal working memory was assessed using the Progression and Regression Digit Span Test, and the Letters and Numbers Tests of the WISC-IV. Results show that older children perform better in both tests, and that children of middle and upper classes who attend private schools are those who score higher on the Progression and Regression Digit Span Test. In addition, it was found that activities like using the computer, practicing sports and doing homework allow a better performance in the above mentioned task. Results of this study suggest that the Progression and Regression Digit Span task depends on socio-demographic variables, while the Letters and Numbers Test does not seem to be linked to them.

Background: Second-generation oral H 1 -antihistamines, including bilastine, represent the emerging treatments of allergic rhinitis (including rhinoconjunctivitis) and chronic urticaria in both adults and children. This study analyses available evidence supporting the use of bilastine amongst second-generation antihistamines for the symptomatic treatment of allergic rhinitis and urticaria in adults and children., Methods: Consensus amongst experts from 17 countries on the ideal treatment of rhinitis and urticaria, and the specific role of bilastine was measured by means of a modified Delphi process. A total of 12 statements were voted on by the experts using a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = undecided; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree). The definition of consensus was set at a minimum of 80% concordance for 4+5 scores (agree or strongly agree)., Results: All proposed statements reached consensus, with a concordance of ≥98% for five statements and ≥96% for seven., Conclusions: The wide consensus obtained for the proposed statements suggests a prominent role for bilastine in the management of allergic rhinitis and urticaria., Competing Interests: Disclosure and potential conflicts of interest: GWC reports having received, in the last 3 years, research grants as well as lecture or advisory board fees from: Menarini, ALK-Abelló, Allergy Therapeutics, Astra Zeneca, MedImmune, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Faes, Genentech, Guidotti, Malesci, GlaxoSmithKline, HAL Allergy, Novartis, OM Pharma, Sanofi-Aventis, Sanofi-Genzyme, Regeneron, Stallergenes, Greer, Thermo Fisher and Valeas. PK reports having receinved honoraria for lecture from Adamed, Astra Zeneca, Berlin Chemie Menarini, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celon Pharma, Faes, Glenmark, GSK, Novartis, Polpharma, Sandoz, Sanofi and Teva: PK also reports having received support for attending meetings and/or travel from Berlin Chemie Menarini and AstraZeneca. MM is or recently was a speaker and/or advisor for and/or has received research funding from Allakos, Alvotech, Amgen, Aquestive, Aralez, AstraZeneca, Astria, Bayer, BioCryst, Blueprint, Celldex, Celltrion, Centogene, CSL Behring, Evoemmune, GSK, Ipsen, Kalvista, Kyowa Kirin, Leo Pharma, Lilly, Menarini, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Moxie, Noucor, Novartis, Orion Biotechnoloy, Pharvaris, Resonance Medicine, Sanofi/Regeneron, Septerna, Takeda, Teva, Trial Form Support International AB, Third HarmonicBio, Valenza Bio, Yuhan Corporation and Zurabio. RM reports personal fees from Menarini, during the conduct of the study, as well as personal fees from ALK, Allergopharma, Allergy Therapeutics, Angelini Pharma, Bayer, Bencard, Bitop, Faes, Friulchem, GSK, HAL BV, Hexal, Klosterfrau, Johnson&Johnson, Laboratoire de la Mer, Lek, Lofarma, Meda, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, Nuvo, Pohl-Boskamp, PRO-AdWise, Servier, Sidroga, Stada, Stallergenes, UCB and Ursapharm; grants from ASIT biotech, Bencard, Bitop, Cassella-med GmbH & Co. KG, HAL BV, Hulka, Inmunotek, JGL, Leti, Lofarma, Optima, Sanofi, Stallergenes and Ursapharm; non-financial support from Atmos, Bionorica, Ferrero, JGL, Lofarma, Novartis, Otonomy and Roxall, all outside the submitted work. ZN reports having received consulting fees, payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, educational events from AbbVi Pharma, AstraZeneca, Berlin-Chemie/A. Menarini, Boehringer, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Orion Pharma and Sandoz, as well as support for attending meetings and/or travel from Berlin-Chemie/A. Menarini; ZN also reports participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for AbbVi Pharma, AstraZeneca, Berlin-Chemie/A. Menarini, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis and Orion Pharma. NGP reports having received grants from Capricare, Nestle, Numil, REG and Vianex; NGP also reports having received consulting fees from Abbott, Abbvie, AstraZeneca, GSK, HAL, Medscape, Menarini/Faes Farma, Mylan, Novartis, Nutricia, OM Pharma and Regeneron/Sanofi. PRdR has been a speaker for Aimmune Therapeutics, Allergy Group, ALK-Abelló, DBV, Faes, GSK, HAL, Leti, Merck and Novartis. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Potential Conflicts of Interests form for the authors is available for download at: https://www.drugsincontext.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/dic.2024-2-3-COI.pdf, (Copyright © 2024 Canonica GW, Kuna P, Maurer M, Mösges R, Novak Z, Papadopoulos N, Rodriguez del Rio P, the Delphi Study Group.)

Background: IgE-mediated food allergy (FA) is a global health concern with substantial individual and societal implications. While diverse intervention strategies have been researched, inconsistencies in reported outcomes limit evaluations of FA treatments. To streamline evaluations and promote consistent reporting, the Core Outcome Measures for Food Allergy (COMFA) initiative aimed to establish a Core Outcome Set (COS) for FA clinical trials and observational studies of interventions., Methods: The project involved a review of published clinical trials, trial protocols and qualitative literature. Outcomes found as a result of review were categorized and classified, informing a two-round online-modified Delphi process followed by hybrid consensus meeting to finalize the COS., Results: The literature review, taxonomy mapping and iterative discussions with diverse COMFA group yielded an initial list of 39 outcomes. The iterative online and in-person meetings reduced the list to 13 outcomes for voting in the formal Delphi process. One more outcome was added based on participant suggestions after the first Delphi round. A total of 778 participants from 52 countries participated, with 442 participating in both Delphi rounds. No outcome met a priori criteria for inclusion, and one was excluded as a result of the Delphi. Thirteen outcomes were brought to the hybrid consensus meeting as a result of Delphi and two outcomes, 'allergic symptoms' and 'quality of life' achieved consensus for inclusion as 'core' outcomes., Conclusion: In addition to the mandatory reporting of adverse events for FA clinical trials or observational studies of interventions, allergic symptoms and quality of life should be measured as core outcomes. Future work by COMFA will define how best to measure these core outcomes., (© 2024 The Authors. Allergy published by European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

While the world is facing an unprecedented pandemic with COVID-19, patients with chronic diseases need special attention and if warranted adaptation of their regular treatment plan. In children, allergy and asthma are among the most prevalent non-communicable chronic diseases, and healthcare providers taking care of these patients need guidance. At the current stage of knowledge, children have less severe symptoms of COVID-19, and severe asthma and immunodeficiency are classified as risk factors. In addition, there is no evidence that currently available asthma and allergy treatments, including antihistamines, corticosteroids, and bronchodilators, increase the risk of severe disease from COVID-19. Most countries affected by COVID-19 have opted for nationwide confinement, which means that communication with the primary clinician is often performed by telemedicine. Optimal disease control of allergic, asthmatic, and immunodeficient children should be sought according to usual treatment guidelines. This statement of the EAACI Section on Pediatrics puts forward six recommendations for the management of childhood allergies and immunodeficiencies based on six underlying facts and existing evidence., (© 2020 EAACI and John Wiley and Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd.)