Why the study?
Does immunisation play an aetiological role in the development of angiolymphoid hyperplasia with eosinophilia in young children?
Does immunisation play an aetiological role in the development of angiolymphoid hyperplasia with eosinophilia in young children?
Immunisation may play an aetiological role in the development of angiolymphoid hyperplasia with eosinophilia in young children.
Should not alter immunisation practices; leaves open aetiological role in pediatric ALHE and merits prospective study.
Five young children (mean age 26.4 months) with angiolymphoid hyperplasia with eosinophilia (Kimura's disease) from either the upper arm or buttock were identified over 18 months. The unusual distribution of the lesions and the young age of the patients suggested a possible association with immunisation. The clinical and histopathological features in these cases were accordingly reviewed. The biopsy specimens showed the usual histological appearances of a prominent inflammatory component, fibrosis, and vascular proliferation associated with aggregates of eosinophils. The features were those of a reactive rather than neoplastic process. Immunohistochemical preparations showed positive staining of variable numbers of plasma cells with antibodies to IgG, IgM, IgA and IgE and a reticular staining of germinal centres with IgM and IgE antibodies. Immunisation histories obtained from the patients' general practitioners showed a remarkable correlation between the distribution of the lesions and the sites of injections and an aetiological role for immunisation in these cases seems likely.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hallam et al. (1989) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: