A Proposal from the Montpellier World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Better Management and Prevention of Anaphylaxis

Economic burden of drug-induced anaphylaxis: what can we do better?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This systematic review evaluates published data related to the economic burden of drug-induced anaphylaxis (DIA) to understand preventive cost saving measures that could reduce the burden of these conditions.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although DIA has a relevant societal impact, there are limited and heterogenous available data related to its cost. Direct costs related to the management of acute phase of DIA was estimated by $529.6 to $3125, depending on the number of emergency room visits/hospitalizations, emergency kits and transports in ambulance. Direct costs of investigations of DIA varied from $288 to $2292.95 and the desensitization was estimated by $6796. Main variables for this were: personnel, allergy screening procedures, medical consumables and space cost. The mean indirect cost was based on a mean absenteeism of 3 days per DIA corresponding to $381.2.

SUMMARY

More than reviewing the published data, we were able to identify variables that, if correctly managed, can reduce the economic burden of DIA, such as adjusting the timing of referral and etiological diagnosis, identification of potential risk and/or co-factors, correct written recommendations to patients. The evidence presented highlights the need of optimization of healthcare patients to patients suffering from DIA.

Anaphylaxis in Brazil between 2011 and 2019

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of population-based studies of anaphylaxis from low- and middle-income countries. This hampers public health planning and investments and may influence availability of adrenaline auto-injectors.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted the first national population-based study of anaphylaxis hospitalization in Brazil.

METHODS

Descriptive study using routinely reported data to the Brazilian Hospital Information System for the years 2011-2019. Information available is coded based on the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 and covers main cause of hospitalization (primary cause) and any conditions contributing to it (secondary cause).

RESULTS

Over 9 years, we identified 5716 admissions due to anaphylaxis for all causes. The average hospitalization rate related to anaphylaxis was 0.71/100,000 population per year, with a 2.4% (95% CI 1.9%, 2.9%) increase per annum over the study period. Admissions were more frequent among females (52.8%), except for cases due to insect sting. Most admissions occurred in adulthood, from 30 to 59 years (36.3%) but 13.8% in preschool children (0-4 years). There were more young children admitted for food-related anaphylaxis, and more adults admitted for drug/iatrogenic-related anaphylaxis. There were 334 cases (5.8% of admissions) of fatal anaphylaxis over the study period, with increased case fatality rate over time.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This is the first study of anaphylaxis hospital admissions using nation-wide data from a low- or middle-income country. Hospital admissions and fatalities from anaphylaxis in Brazil appear to be increasing.

Anaphylaxis and digital medicine

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Digital medicine (mHealth) aims to help patients and healthcare providers (HCPs) improve and facilitate the provision of patient care. It encompasses equipment/connected medical devices, mHealth services and mHealth apps (apps). An updated review on digital health in anaphylaxis is proposed.

RECENT FINDINGS

In anaphylaxis, mHealth is used in electronic health records and registries.It will greatly benefit from the new International Classification of Diseases-11 rules and artificial intelligence. Telehealth has been revolutionised by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, and lessons learnt should be extended to shared decision making in anaphylaxis. Very few nonvalidated apps exist and there is an urgent need to develop and validate such tools.

SUMMARY

Although digital health appears to be of great importance in anaphylaxis, it is still insufficiently used.