Multiple epinephrine doses for stinging insect hypersensitivity reactions treated in the emergency department

Arylalkalamine N-acetyltransferase-1 acts on a secondary amine in the yellow fever mosquito, Aedes aegypti

Arylalkylamine N-acetyltransferase (aaNAT) in Aedes aegypti is primarily involved in cuticle pigmentation and formation. The reported arylalkylamine substrates are all primary amines. In this study, we report a novel substrate, a secondary amine, of Ae. aegypti aaNAT1. The recombinant aaNAT1 protein exhibited high activity to a secondary amine, epinephrine, which has not been reported for any aaNATs previously. Structure-activity relationship study demonstrated that aaNAT1 has an epinephrine binding site, and molecular docking and dynamic simulation showed that epinephrine is quite stable in the active cavity. Further functional studies demonstrated that epinephrine affected mosquito fecundity, egg hatching and development. The new biochemical function of aaNAT1 in metabolizing epinephrine could reduce some negative effects of the compound in the mosquito.

Use of multiple epinephrine doses in anaphylaxis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Regulatory bodies recommend that all patients at risk of anaphylaxis be prescribed 2 epinephrine autoinjectors, which they should carry at all times. This is in contrast to some guidelines. The proportion of anaphylaxis reactions that are treated with multiple doses of epinephrine has not been systematically evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies reporting epinephrine treatment for anaphylaxis in which data relating to the number of doses administered were available.

METHODS

We searched the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases for relevant studies reporting at least 10 anaphylaxis events (due to food or venom) from 1946 until January 2020. Data were extracted in duplicate for the meta-analysis, and the risk of bias was assessed. The study was registered under the PROSPERO identifier CRD42017069109.

RESULTS

A total of 86 studies (36,557 anaphylaxis events) met the inclusion criteria (20 of the studies [23%] were prospective studies; 64 [74%] reported reactions in the community, and 22 [26%] included food challenge data). Risk of bias was assessed as low in 50 studies. Overall, 7.7% of anaphylaxis events from any cause (95% CI = 6.4-9.1) were treated with multiple doses of epinephrine. When only epinephrine-treated reactions for which subsequent doses were administered by a health care professional were considered, 11.1% of food-induced reactions (95% CI = 9.4-13.2) and 17.1% of venom-induced reactions (95% CI = 11.3-25.0) were treated with more than 1 epinephrine dose. Heterogeneity was moderate to high in the meta-analyses, but at sensitivity analysis this estimate was not affected by study design or anaphylaxis definition.

CONCLUSION

Around 1 in 10 anaphylaxis reactions are treated with more than 1 dose of epinephrine.

European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2021: First aid

The European Resuscitation Council has produced these first aid guidelines, which are based on the 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Science with Treatment Recommendations. The topics include the first aid management of emergency medicine and trauma. For medical emergencies the following content is covered: recovery position, optimal positioning for shock, bronchodilator administration for asthma, recognition of stroke, early aspirin for chest pain, second dose of adrenaline for anaphylaxis, management of hypoglycaemia, oral rehydration solutions for treating exertion-related dehydration, management of heat stroke by cooling, supplemental oxygen in acute stroke, and presyncope. For trauma related emergencies the following topics are covered: control of life-threatening bleeding, management of open chest wounds, cervical spine motion restriction and stabilisation, recognition of concussion, cooling of thermal burns, dental avulsion, compression wrap for closed extremity joint injuries, straightening an angulated fracture, and eye injury from chemical exposure.

Precision Medicine in Hymenoptera Venom Allergy: Diagnostics, Biomarkers, and Therapy of Different Endotypes and Phenotypes

Allergic reactions to stings of Hymenoptera species may be severe and are potentially fatal deviations of the immunological response observed in healthy individuals. However, venom-specific immunotherapy (VIT) is an immunomodulatory approach able to cure venom allergy in the majority of affected patients. An appropriate therapeutic intervention and the efficacy of VIT not only depend on a conclusive diagnosis, but might also be influenced by the patient-specific manifestation of the disease. As with other diseases, it should be borne in mind that there are different endotypes and phenotypes of venom allergy, each of which require a patient-tailored disease management and treatment scheme. Reviewed here are different endotypes of sting reactions such as IgE-mediated allergy, asymptomatic sensitization or a simultaneous presence of venom allergy and mast cell disorders including particular considerations for diagnosis and therapy. Additionally, phenotypical manifestations of venom allergy, as e.g. differences in age of onset and disease severity, multiple sensitization or patients unsusceptible to therapy, are described. Moreover, biomarkers and diagnostic strategies that might reflect the immunological status of the patient and their value for therapeutic guidance are discussed. Taken together, the increasing knowledge of different disease manifestations in venom hypersensitivity and the growing availability of diagnostic tools open new options for the classification of venom allergy and, hence, for personalized medical approaches and precision medicine in Hymenoptera venom allergy.

Second Dose of Epinephrine for Anaphylaxis in the First Aid Setting: A Scoping Review

Anaphylaxis is a life-threatening hypersensitivity reaction where rapid, early administration of epinephrine (adrenaline) can be lifesaving in the first aid setting. There are instances where a single dose of epinephrine does not relieve symptoms and a second dose may be required to further mitigate symptoms and preserve life. We performed a scoping review as part of an update to a previously conducted International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation First Aid Task Force (ILCOR) review. PubMed and Embase were searched using the strategy from the 2015 ILCOR review (dates January 1, 2015 to October 22, 2019) and a review of the grey literature (all dates up to November 18, 2019) was performed to identify data on the requirement, use, and effectiveness of a second dose of epinephrine. Each search was rerun on June 26, 2020. We included all human studies of adults and children with an English abstract. Critical outcomes included resolution of symptoms, adverse effects, and complications of second dosing of epinephrine in the treatment of acute anaphylaxis. Included studies are presented descriptively. Our updated search identified 909 potential sources, 890 from the published literature and 19 from the grey literature. After full text review, two studies met our eligibility criteria (Campbell et al. and Akari et al.). For the outcome of resolution of symptoms, both studies found that two or more doses of epinephrine were required in 8% of 582 patients and 28% of 18 patients, respectively, with anaphylaxis requiring treatment with epinephrine. The other a priori outcomes were not reported. This scoping review identified limited evidence regarding the use of a second dose of epinephrine for anaphylaxis in the first aid setting, however, due to the potential benefit, it is reasonable to administer a second dose when symptoms of severe anaphylaxis fail to resolve following an initial dose. Given the potential mortality associated with anaphylaxis, further research is needed to better identify individuals who may benefit from a second dose of epinephrine.

Comparison of Clinical Manifestations, Treatments, and Outcomes between Vespidae Sting and Formicidae Sting Patients in the Emergency Department in Taiwan

Background: Hymenopteran stings are the most common animal insult injury encountered in the emergency department. With increasing global spread of imported fire ants in recent decades, the rate of Formicidae assault has become a serious problem in many countries. Formicidae-associated injuries gradually increased in Taiwan in recent decades and became the second most common arthropod assault injury in our ED. The present study aimed at comparing the clinical characteristics of Formicidae sting patients with those of the most serious and common group, Vespidae sting patients, in an emergency department (ED) in Taiwan. Methods: This retrospective study included patients who were admitted between 2015 to 2018 to the ED in a local teaching hospital in Taiwan after a Vespidae or Formicidae sting. Cases with anaphylactic reaction were further compared. Results: We reviewed the records of 881 subjects (503 males, 378 females; mean age, 49.09 ± 17.62 years) who visited our emergency department due to Vespidae or Formicidae stings. A total of 538 (61.1%) were categorized into the Vespidae group, and 343 (38.9%) were sorted into the Formicidae group. The Formicidae group had a longer ED length of stay (79.15 ± 92.30 vs. 108.00 ± 96.50 min, p < 0.01), but the Vespidae group had more cases that required hospitalization (1.9% vs. 0.3%, p = 0.04). Antihistamines (76.8% vs. 80.2%, p < 0.01) were more frequently used in the Formicidae group, while analgesics were more frequently used in the Vespidae group (38.1% vs. 12.5%, p < 0.01). The Vespidae group had more local reactions, and the Formicidae group had more extreme, systemic, or anaphylactic allergic reactions. Creatine kinase was significantly higher in the Vespidae group with an anaphylactic reaction. Sting frequency in both groups exhibited the same positive associations with average temperature of the month and weekend days. Conclusion: Formicidae sting patients presented to the ED with higher rate allergic reactions and spent more time in the ED than Vespidae sting patients. However, Vespidae sting patients had more complications and higher rates of admission, especially with anaphylactic reaction. Laboratory data, especially creatine kinase data, were more valuable to check in Vespidae sting patients with an anaphylactic reaction in the ED. Both groups exhibited positive correlations with temperature and a higher rate on weekend days.

Changes in emergency department concordance with guidelines for the management of stinging insect-induced anaphylaxis: 1999-2001 vs 2013-2015

BACKGROUND

Changes in emergency department (ED) concordance with guidelines for the management of stinging insect-induced anaphylaxis (SIIA) are not known.

OBJECTIVE

To describe temporal changes in ED concordance with guidelines for the management of SIIAs.

METHODS

We analyzed data from 2 multicenter retrospective studies of patients with stinging insect-related acute allergic reactions seen in 1 of 14 North American EDs during 2 periods: 1999 through 2001 and 2013 through 2015. Visits were identified similarly across studies (eg, using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes 989.5, 995.0, and 995.3). Anaphylaxis was defined as an acute allergic reaction with involvement of at least 2 organ systems or hypotension. We compared concordance between periods with 4 guideline recommendations: (1) treatment with epinephrine, (2) discharge prescription for epinephrine auto-injector, (3) referral to an allergist/immunologist, and (4) instructions to avoid the offending allergen.

RESULTS

We compared 182 patients with SIIA during 1999 to 2001 with 204 during 2013 to 2015. Any treatment with epinephrine (before arrival to the ED or in the ED) increased over time (30% vs 49%; P < .001). Prescriptions for epinephrine auto-injector at discharge increased significantly (34% vs 57%; P < .001), whereas documentation of referral to an allergist/immunologist decreased (28% vs 12%; P = .002), and instructions to avoid the offending allergen did not change (23% vs 24%; P = .94). Receipt of at least 3 guideline recommendations increased over time; however, the comparison was not statistically significant (10% vs 16%; P = .15).

CONCLUSION

During the nearly 15-year study interval, we observed increased ED concordance with epinephrine-related guideline recommendations for the management of SIIA. Reasons for the decrease in allergy/immunology referrals merit further study.

Guidelines for Bystander First Aid 2016

Cardiac life support is a form of first aid for cardiac emergencies. However, research and evidence in this field is lacking compared with other forms of first aid. Having identified the common emergencies that are encountered in the hospital, based on the available evidence, we have put together what could be an evidence-based approach to the first aid management of some of these common emergencies, viz. breathlessness, chest pain, allergies, stroke, heat injury, poisoning, unconsciousness, seizures, and trauma situations such as bleeding, wounds, contusions, head injury, burns and fractures. Educating the public is the key to developing a first responder bystander. These guidelines could become the basis for training of the public.

Current state of follow-up care for patients with Hymenoptera venom anaphylaxis in southwest Germany: Major impact of early information

Background

Up to 3.5% of the population experience anaphylactic reactions in response to Hymenoptera stings. Current guidelines are in place for the diagnostic workup and follow-up care of patients with Hymenoptera venom anaphylaxis (HVA). However, little is known about the degree of implementation of the recommendations and patient attitudes toward the recommendations in the general patient population.

Methods

For the analysis of the follow-up care in real life, a retrospective questionnaire-based study was conducted in unselected patients who had received treatment from an emergency medical response team for HVA, as documented in records of three regional Medical Emergency Response Centers.

Results

From over 125,000 cases, a filtered list of 1895 patients that coded for anaphylaxis was generated and examination of paper records identified 548 patients with a documented insect sting anaphylaxis. Patients were sent a standardized questionnaire addressing different aspects of diagnostics and follow-up care. Almost 40% of the patients did not receive a referral to an allergist at the emergency center, over 50% did not consult an allergy specialist at any time after the index sting, 25% did not receive any form of diagnostic workup, over 30% did not receive any information about venom immunotherapy (VIT) as treatment option, and only 50% were eventually started on VIT. Emergency medication was prescribed in 90% of the cases, 77% including an adrenalin auto injector, of which 47% were expired at the time of the survey. Patients who were informed about diagnostic and treatment options early during the index event, i. e., during the stay in the emergency department, displayed a higher rate of referral to an allergist (70% vs. 17%), higher rate of diagnostic workup (88% vs. 59%), and a higher rate of initiation of VIT (89% vs. 64%), as compared to patients who did not.

Conclusion

Our results demonstrate that there are missed opportunities for secondary and tertiary prevention of anaphylaxis due to insect venom allergy and that early information on required diagnostics and treatment options has a major impact on the degree of proper follow-up care in line with current guideline recommendations.

Predictors of Repeat Epinephrine Administration for Emergency Department Patients with Anaphylaxis

BACKGROUND

Risk factors that predict which patients with anaphylaxis might require repeat doses of epinephrine are poorly understood.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to identify risk factors associated with the need for multiple doses of epinephrine during an anaphylactic reaction.

METHODS

Patients were included if they met diagnostic criteria for anaphylaxis on presentation to the emergency department (ED) at our academic medical center between April 2008 and February 2014. Data were collected on allergic history, presenting signs and symptoms, anaphylaxis management, and disposition. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to estimate associations between possible risk factors and the need for multiple doses.

RESULTS

Of 582 ED patients with anaphylaxis, 45 (8%) required multiple doses of epinephrine. By multivariable analysis, factors associated with the need for repeat doses were a history of anaphylaxis (odds ratio [OR], 2.5 [95% CI, 1.3-4.7]; P = .005), the presence of flushing or diaphoresis (OR, 2.4 [95% CI, 1.3-4.5]; P = .007), and the presence of dyspnea (OR, 2.2 [95% CI, 1.0-5.0]; P = .046). Patients who received more than 1 dose were more likely to be admitted to the general medical floor (OR, 2.8 [95% CI, 1.1-7.2]; P = .03) or intensive care unit (OR, 7.6 [95% CI, 3.7-15.6]; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Patients with a history of anaphylaxis, flushing or diaphoresis, or dyspnea may require multiple doses of epinephrine to treat anaphylactic reactions. Patients who require more than 1 dose are more likely to be admitted to the hospital, thus increasing health care resource utilization.

Longitudinal study of 954 patients with stinging insect anaphylaxis

BACKGROUND

Stinging insect anaphylaxis (SIA) is a common cause of anaphylaxis and is potentially life-threatening.

OBJECTIVES

To examine US patients with an emergency department (ED) visit or hospitalization for SIA to evaluate postdischarge follow-up care.

METHODS

We identified all patients with an ED visit or hospitalization for SIA during 2002-2008 in the MarketScan Database using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes (index date was the initial ED visit or hospitalization). Patients were required to have continuous full insurance coverage for 1 year or more before and after index. We examined patient factors during the preindex period, characteristics of the index event, and outcomes during the postindex period. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors of receiving preventive anaphylaxis care.

RESULTS

We identified 954 patients with an ED visit or hospitalization for SIA (mean [SD] age, 46 [19] years; 41% female). A total of 85% of patients were discharged directly from the ED. For those hospitalized, the mean hospital stay was 1 day, and 50% spent time in the intensive care unit. Cardiorespiratory failure occurred in 27% of those hospitalized. During the postindex period, 69% filled 1 or more epinephrine autoinjector prescription, but only 14% had 1 or more allergist/immunologist visit. Independent factors associated with receiving preventive anaphylaxis care during the postindex period were higher household income, no ED visit (for any reason) in the preindex period, and no cardiorespiratory arrest or failure during the index event.

CONCLUSION

Although two-thirds of patients filled a prescription for an epinephrine autoinjector after an ED visit or hospitalization for SIA, only 14% of patients received follow-up care by an allergist/immunologist. This missed opportunity to provide venom immunotherapy, an essentially curative therapy, unnecessarily places patients at risk for recurrent anaphylaxis.

Update in pediatric anaphylaxis: a systematic review

Anaphylaxis is common in children and has many differences across age groups. A systematic review of the literature from the past 5 years was conducted with the goal of updating the pediatrician. Food is the most common trigger in children, but insect venom and drugs are other typical causes. Clinical diagnostic criteria include dermatological, respiratory, cardiovascular, and gastrointestinal manifestations. A biphasic reaction is seen in some, with recurrence usually within 8 hours of the initial episode. Epinephrine is the drug of choice for acute reactions and the only medication shown to be lifesaving when administered promptly, but it is underutilized. Patients should have ready access to ≥2 doses of an epinephrine autoinjector, with thorough training regarding correct use of a given device and an emergency action plan. Management of anaphylaxis in schools presents distinct challenges. Pediatricians are in a unique position to assess and treat these patients chronically.

A 5-year study of systemic reactions using both shared and patient-specific vaccines

The safety of shared specific vaccines (SSVs) has been questioned by some experts. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety of SSVs. Details of systemic allergic reactions after subcutaneous immunotherapy injections were captured on a standardized form from July 2005 to July 2010. Patient records were evaluated for factors that might be associated with increased rate of systemic reactions and, in addition, were examined for any errors. Systemic reaction rates (SRRs) using a combination of shared and patient-specific vaccines (PSVs) were similar to previously reported studies (0.23 reactions per 100 shots). There were no systemic reactions resulting from errors where the incorrect shared allergen was administered, but we did note one reaction after an erroneously administered PSV. There were two dosage errors associated with both shared and patient-specific immunotherapy. Most reactions were mild to moderate (World Allergy Organization grade, 1 or 2). Severe reactions with 911 activations were noted in six patients. Thirty percent of reactions occurred out of the office and the average time to reaction was 48 minutes. Epinephrine was administered in only 60% of patients. Epicutaneous reactivity to mites, cats, dogs, and pollen but not mold occurred significantly more in reactors. Differences in SRRs were encountered between satellite offices. Using a combination of SSV and PSV, SRRs were similar to previously reported studies; moreover, no systemic reactions occurred where a SSV was erroneously administered. SRR surveillance is a useful safety tool.

Evaluating the management of anaphylaxis in US emergency departments: Guidelines vs. practice

BACKGROUND

Anaphylaxis is characterized by acute episodes of potentially life-threatening symptoms that are often treated in the emergency setting. Current guidelines recommend: 1) quick diagnosis using standard criteria; 2) first-line treatment with epinephrine; and 3) discharge with a prescription for an epinephrine auto-injector, written instructions regarding long-term management, and a referral (preferably, allergy) for follow-up. However, studies suggest low concordance with guideline recommendations by emergency medicine (EM) providers. The study aimed to evaluate how emergency departments (EDs) in the United States (US) manage anaphylaxis in relation to guideline recommendations.

METHODS

This was an online anonymous survey of a random sample of EM health providers in US EDs.

RESULTS

Data analysis included 207 EM providers. For respondent EDs, approximately 9% reported using agreed-upon clinical criteria to diagnose anaphylaxis; 42% reported administering epinephrine in the ED for most anaphylaxis episodes; and <50% provided patients with a prescription for an epinephrine auto-injector and/or an allergist referral on discharge. Most provided some written materials, and follow-up with a primary care clinician was recommended.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first cross-sectional survey to provide "real-world" data showing that practice in US EDs is discordant with current guideline recommendations for the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of patients with anaphylaxis. The primary gaps are low (or no) utilization of standard criteria for defining anaphylaxis and inconsistent use of epinephrine. Prospective research is recommended.

Adrenaline auto-injectors for the treatment of anaphylaxis with and without cardiovascular collapse in the community

BACKGROUND

Anaphylaxis is a serious hypersensitivity reaction that is rapid in onset and may cause death. Adrenaline (epinephrine) auto-injectors are recommended as the initial, potentially life-saving treatment of choice for anaphylaxis in the community, but they are not universally available and have limitations in their use.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of adrenaline (epinephrine) auto-injectors in relieving respiratory, cardiovascular, and other symptoms during episodes of anaphylaxis that occur in the community.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 1), MEDLINE (Ovid SP) (1950 to January 2012), EMBASE (Ovid SP) (1980 to January 2012 ), CINAHL (EBSCO host) (1982 to January 2012 ), AMED (EBSCO host) (1985 to January 2012 ), LILACS, (BIREME) (1980 to January 2012 ), ISI Web of Science (1950 to January 2012 ). We adapted our search terms for other databases. We also searched websites listing on-going trials: the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the UK Clinical Research Network Study Portfolio, and the meta Register of Controlled Trials; and contacted pharmaceutical companies who manufacture adrenaline auto-injectors in an attempt to locate unpublished material.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing auto-injector administration of adrenaline with any control including no intervention, placebo, or other adrenergic agonists were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed articles for inclusion.

MAIN RESULTS

None of the 1328 studies that were identified satisfied the inclusion criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on this review, we cannot make any new recommendations on the effectiveness of adrenaline auto-injectors for the treatment of anaphylaxis. Although randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials of high methodological quality are necessary to define the true extent of benefits from the administration of adrenaline in anaphylaxis via an auto-injector, such trials are unlikely to be performed in individuals experiencing anaphylaxis because of ethical concerns associated with randomization to placebo. There is, however, a need to consider trials in which, for example, auto-injectors of different doses of adrenaline and differing devices are compared in order to provide greater clarity on the dose and device of choice. Such trials would be practically challenging to conduct. In the absence of appropriate trials, we recommend that adrenaline administration by auto-injector should still be regarded as the most effective first-line treatment for the management of anaphylaxis in the community. In countries where auto-injectors are not commonly used, it may be possible to conduct trials to compare administration of adrenaline via auto-injector with adrenaline administered by syringe and ampoule, or comparing the effectiveness of two different types of auto-injector.

An update on epidemiology of anaphylaxis in children and adults

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of the present review is to describe the epidemiology of food-induced, medication-induced, drug-induced, and insect sting-induced anaphylaxis; to summarize recent changes in the incidence of anaphylaxis internationally; and to discuss recent insights into potential risk factors for anaphylaxis.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies confirm that the incidence of anaphylaxis, particularly food-induced anaphylaxis, is increasing world-wide. The rise in anaphylaxis incidence appears most pronounced in children under the age of 5 years, which is also the age group most at risk of hospitalization for food-induced anaphylaxis. Identification of factors that may increase the risk of episodes of anaphylaxis remains an important research priority. Recently, two large cohort studies using data from electronic medical records confirmed that individuals with asthma are at higher risk of anaphylaxis and those with severe asthma have the highest risk of all. With respect to modifiable lifestyle factors, several studies have demonstrated a link between latitude and anaphylaxis, with areas with less year-round sunlight reporting a higher prevalence of food-induced anaphylaxis.

SUMMARY

Reports of an increasing incidence of anaphylaxis internationally highlight the need for identification of modifiable risk factors for anaphylaxis. Emerging evidence suggests that low vitamin D levels may be associated with risk of anaphylaxis and food allergy; however, further studies are required to confirm this.

Insect anaphylaxis: addressing clinical challenges

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Few allergic reactions are as potentially life-threatening, or frightening to the patient, as anaphylaxis. Food, medications, and insect stings are the three most common triggers of anaphylaxis, but insect allergy provides the best opportunity to understand the biology of anaphylaxis. If the physician can establish a diagnosis of insect allergy, treatment with nearly 98% effectiveness can be initiated. However, sometimes patients have a compelling history of insect sting anaphylaxis, but negative skin and blood tests. This situation presents us with a fascinating opportunity to understand the biology of insect anaphylaxis.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent and ongoing work shows that occult mast cell disease may be critical in insect anaphylaxis. Mastocytosis, serum tryptase and basophil biology are key elements; genetic markers may potentially help us diagnose at-risk individuals and determine proper treatment. Understanding basophil activation may play an additional role both in diagnosis and knowing when therapy might be terminated.

SUMMARY

Mast cell disease, serum tryptase and basophil biology are providing an opportunity to better understand and manage insect allergy. This evolving understanding should improve long-term management of insect anaphylaxis and help us to better understand the clinical dilemma of appropriate management of the history-positive patient in which testing is unable to detect venom-specific IgE. Furthermore, omalizumab's immunomodulatory effects may play a role in difficult-to-treat insect allergy and mastocytosis. Finally, unrelated to these, but still important as an ongoing risk factor, is the continued underutilization of epinephrine for both acute and long-term management of insect anaphylaxis.

World allergy organization guidelines for the assessment and management of anaphylaxis

The illustrated World Allergy Organization (WAO) Anaphylaxis Guidelines were created in response to absence of global guidelines for anaphylaxis. Uniquely, before they were developed, lack of worldwide availability of essentials for the diagnosis and treatment of anaphylaxis was documented. They incorporate contributions from more than 100 allergy/immunology specialists on 6 continents. Recommendations are based on the best evidence available, supported by references published to the end of December 2010. The Guidelines review patient risk factors for severe or fatal anaphylaxis, co-factors that amplify anaphylaxis, and anaphylaxis in vulnerable patients, including pregnant women, infants, the elderly, and those with cardiovascular disease. They focus on the supreme importance of making a prompt clinical diagnosis and on the basic initial treatment that is urgently needed and should be possible even in a low resource environment. This involves having a written emergency protocol and rehearsing it regularly; then, as soon as anaphylaxis is diagnosed, promptly and simultaneously calling for help, injecting epinephrine (adrenaline) intramuscularly, and placing the patient on the back or in a position of comfort with the lower extremities elevated. When indicated, additional critically important steps include administering supplemental oxygen and maintaining the airway, establishing intravenous access and giving fluid resuscitation, and initiating cardiopulmonary resuscitation with continuous chest compressions. Vital signs and cardiorespiratory status should be monitored frequently and regularly (preferably, continuously). The Guidelines briefly review management of anaphylaxis refractory to basic initial treatment. They also emphasize preparation of the patient for self-treatment of anaphylaxis recurrences in the community, confirmation of anaphylaxis triggers, and prevention of recurrences through trigger avoidance and immunomodulation. Novel strategies for dissemination and implementation are summarized. A global agenda for anaphylaxis research is proposed.