Short- and long-term management of cases of venom-induced anaphylaxis is suboptimal

Grading the severity of anaphylaxis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite no global consensus on a definition of anaphylaxis, there is increasing recognition that just as allergic reactions lie on a spectrum of severity, the same is for anaphylaxis. A variety of severity scores exist in the literature. We review the approaches taken to develop these scores, and their relative advantages and disadvantages.

RECENT FINDINGS

There have been four recent comparisons of published severity scores. All have highlighted the heterogeneity between scoring systems, and the lack of transferability from one approach to another. Notably, only one score has been developed using a data-driven approach, and none has undergone formal and comprehensive validation.

SUMMARY

It is unclear whether a single severity score is achievable, or indeed desirable. If the aim is to guide management of acute reactions, then assignment of severity is not only unnecessary but might delay treatment and cause harm. Severity scores are needed in the research setting, but require an approach which can discriminate between reactions of similar but nonidentical severity (particularly, nonanaphylaxis reactions). Any approach should be fit for purpose, informed by patient and clinician experience, and ideally be data-driven to minimize subjective bias and facilitate objective validation.

Overview of registries for anaphylaxis: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

This review aimed to describe the scope and operational features of anaphylaxis registries, and to assess their contribution to improving knowledge of anaphylaxis and care of patients who experience anaphylaxis by measuring their research output.

INTRODUCTION

Structured data collection and reporting systems, such as registries, are needed to better understand the burden of anaphylaxis and to protect the growing number of patients with severe allergy. There is a need to characterize current anaphylaxis registries to identify their value in anaphylaxis surveillance, management, and research. Information synthesized in this review will provide knowledge on benefits and gaps in current registries, which may inform the implementation and global standardization of future anaphylaxis reporting systems.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

This scoping review considered literature describing registries worldwide that enroll patients who have experienced anaphylaxis. Published and gray literature sources were included if they described the scope and operational features of anaphylaxis registries.

METHODS

This review followed the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Embase, MEDLINE, Scopus, and CINAHL were searched for relevant articles. Identified keywords and index terms were adapted for searches of gray literature sources, using Google advanced search functions. Only full-text studies in English were considered for inclusion. Two independent reviewers conducted title and abstract screening and those that did not meet the inclusion criteria were excluded. The full text of potentially relevant articles were retrieved; full-text screening and data extraction were also conducted by two independent reviewers. Any discrepancies were resolved through discussion or with a third reviewer. Tables and a narrative summary were used to describe and compare the scope and features (eg, inclusion criteria, patient demographics, clinical symptoms) of the identified anaphylaxis registries, and to outline their output to assess their contribution to research and clinical practice for anaphylaxis.

RESULTS

A total of 77 full-text publications and eight gray literature sources were used to extract data. The literature search identified 19 anaphylaxis registries, with sites in 28 countries including Europe, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States, Korea, and Australia. The main purposes of the identified registries were to collect clinical data for research; provide clinical support tools to improve patient care; and operate as allergen surveillance systems to protect the wider community with allergies. Differences in inclusion and health care settings exist, with 11 collecting data on anaphylaxis of any cause, two on food reactions alone, three on fatal anaphylaxis, one on perioperative anaphylaxis, and two on allergic reactions (including anaphylaxis). Five registries enroll cases in allergy centers, five in hospital settings, one in schools, and others target a combination of general practitioners, specialists in emergency departments, and other relevant hospital departments and allergy outpatient clinics. Only three registries operate under a mandatory framework. A total of 57 publications were considered research outputs from registries. All registries except two have published studies from collected data, with the greatest number of articles published from 2019 to the present. Publications mostly addressed questions regarding demographic profile, causes and cofactors, severity, fatal reactions, and gaps in management.

CONCLUSIONS

This review demonstrated that anaphylaxis registries differ in their scope and operation, having been established for different purposes. Importantly, registries have contributed significantly to research, which has highlighted gaps in anaphylaxis management, provoking allergens, and informed targets for prevention for severe and fatal events. Beyond this, registries relay information about anaphylaxis to clinicians and regulatory bodies to improve patient care and protect the community. The ability to link registry data with other health datasets, standardization of data across registries, and incorporation of clinical care indicators to promote quality health care across the health system represent important targets for future systems.

Economic burden of food allergy in Canada: Estimating costs and identifying determinants

BACKGROUND

Limited data exist on the economic burden of food allergy (FA).

OBJECTIVE

To assess FA-related direct (healthcare and out-of-pocket) and indirect (lost productivity) costs and their determinants in Canadian children and adults self-reporting FA.

METHODS

FA-individuals self-reporting a convincing history or physician diagnosis were recruited through FA registries, an anaphylaxis registry, and advocacy associations, and electronically surveyed regarding FA-related healthcare use, out-of-pocket expenditures, and time lost from paid and unpaid labor. Direct and indirect costs (2020 Canadian dollars [CAD]) were stratified on severe reaction vs mild, moderate or no reaction, and children vs adults; multivariate regressions assessed the association between costs and sociodemographic and disease characteristics.

RESULTS

Between May 2018 and July 2019, 2692 eligible individuals responded (2189 convincing history and 503 physician diagnosis only); 1020 experienced a severe reaction; 1752 were children. Per FA-individual, annual healthcare, out-of-pocket, and indirect costs were $1267, $2136, and $7950. Those with a severe reaction had higher healthcare and out-of-pocket costs than those with mild, moderate or no reaction. FA-children vs FA-adults had higher healthcare and out-of-pocket costs, and lower indirect costs. Multivariate results showed that lower age, a severe reaction ever, multiple FAs, and fair or poor general health were associated with higher healthcare and out-of-pocket costs. Higher age, lower household education and income, and fair or poor general health were associated with higher indirect costs.

CONCLUSION

The economic burden of FA in Canada is substantial, particularly for those with a severe reaction ever, multiple FAs, and fair or poor general health. It is crucial that those most adversely affected are allocated appropriate resources to support disease management.

Asthma and anaphylaxis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Both asthma and anaphylaxis are recognized noncommunicable hypersensitivity conditions, which should be correctly diagnosed and treated/controlled in order to decrease avoidable deaths. Nevertheless, their association is not completely clear. We here propose to review the current and new evidence-based data of asthma and anaphylaxis in the view of the new knowledge in the field that can support the quality practice and empower allergists and health professionals in treating symptoms and preventing death.

RECENT FINDINGS

Hypersensitivity life-threatening conditions, such as anaphylaxis and asthma can coexist, mimic or worse each other. Asthma itself is not a strong predictor of more severe anaphylaxis. However, poor asthma control associated with more severe anaphylaxis reactions in all ages. In children, asthma is associated with the severity and recurrences of anaphylactic reactions.

SUMMARY

Although recent data point for the association between asthma and anaphylaxis, we still do not have harmonized evidence to confirm if we are dealing with two independent comorbidities one worsening each other. However, as far as this review is covering two relevant public health problems in the field of allergy, it is mandatory put in place decisions supporting recommendations to better manage the affected patients and reduce the risk.General strategies should include regular notification of this association, optimization of the classification and coding for anaphylaxis and asthma (new ICD 11 allergy codes) in order to harmonize epidemiological stratified data, early diagnosis of asthma in childhood, regular investigation of asthma in cases of anaphylaxis and optimization of the asthma control and lung function for all patients with indication to provocation tests, desensitization or allergen immunotherapy regardless to the trigger. Implementation of these strategies will involve national and international support for ongoing efforts in relationship with networks of centres of excellence to provide personalized management for the most at-risk patients and prevent death.

Emergency Management of Anaphylaxis Due to an Unknown Trigger: An 8-Year Follow-Up Study in Canada

BACKGROUND

Anaphylaxis due to unknown trigger (AUT) is anaphylaxis not explained by a proved or presumptive cause or stimulus at the time of the reaction. Research describing the management and follow-up of AUT is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To assess and compare the demographic and clinical characteristics and the management of adult and pediatric AUT cases across Canada.

METHODS

Participants were identified between 2011 and 2018 in emergency departments at 8 centers across Canada as part of the Cross-Canada Anaphylaxis Registry. A standardized form documenting the reaction and management in children and adults was completed. Patients were contacted for follow-up to determine assessment by an allergist.

RESULTS

A total of 295 AUT cases (7.5%) were recruited among 3,922 cases of anaphylaxis. In the prehospital setting, children (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.20; 95% CI, 1.05-1.37) and those with a known food allergy (aOR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.02-1.28) were more likely to receive treatment with epinephrine. Children were also more likely to be assessed by an allergist after their reaction (aOR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.13-1.81) and were more likely to have an identified trigger for their reaction (aOR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.07-1.70). Among patients contacted for follow-up, food was identified as the cause of reaction in 11 of 76 patients. A new food allergy was diagnosed in 4 patients (2 children and 2 adults).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings highlight important differences between management and follow-up of adult and pediatric AUT cases. It is crucial to follow up all cases of AUT and establish appropriate treatment and management guidelines.

Snakebite: When the Human Touch Becomes a Bad Touch

Many issues and complications in treating snakebite are a result of poor human social, economic and clinical intervention and management. As such, there is scope for significant improvements for reducing incidence and increasing patient outcomes. Snakes do not target humans as prey, but as our dwellings and farms expand ever farther and climate change increases snake activity periods, accidental encounters with snakes seeking water and prey increase drastically. Despite its long history, the snakebite crisis is neglected, ignored, underestimated and fundamentally misunderstood. Tens of thousands of lives are lost to snakebites each year and hundreds of thousands of people will survive with some form of permanent damage and reduced work capacity. These numbers are well recognized as being gross underestimations due to poor to non-existent record keeping in some of the most affected areas. These underestimations complicate achieving the proper recognition of snakebite’s socioeconomic impact and thus securing foreign aid to help alleviate this global crisis. Antivenoms are expensive and hospitals are few and far between, leaving people to seek help from traditional healers or use other forms of ineffective treatment. In some cases, cheaper, inappropriately manufactured antivenom from other regions is used despite no evidence for their efficacy, with often robust data demonstrating they are woefully ineffective in neutralizing many venoms for which they are marketed for. Inappropriate first-aid and treatments include cutting the wound, tourniquets, electrical shock, immersion in ice water, and use of ineffective herbal remedies by traditional healers. Even in the developed world, there are fundamental controversies including fasciotomy, pressure bandages, antivenom dosage, premedication such as adrenalin, and lack of antivenom for exotic snakebites in the pet trade. This review explores the myriad of human-origin factors that influence the trajectory of global snakebite causes and treatment failures and illustrate that snakebite is as much a sociological and economic problem as it is a medical one. Reducing the incidence and frequency of such controllable factors are therefore realistic targets to help alleviate the global snakebite burden as incremental improvements across several areas will have a strong cumulative effect.