Subcutaneous epinephrine in the prehospital setting

A Clinical Practice Guideline for the Emergency Management of Anaphylaxis (2020)

Background: For anaphylaxis, a life-threatening allergic reaction, the incidence rate was presented to have increased from the beginning of the 21st century. Underdiagnosis and undertreatment of anaphylaxis are public health concerns. Objective: This guideline aimed to provide high-quality and evidence-based recommendations for the emergency management of anaphylaxis. Method: The panel of health professionals from fifteen medical areas selected twenty-five clinical questions and formulated the recommendations with the supervision of four methodologists. We collected evidence by conducting systematic literature retrieval and using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results: This guideline made twenty-five recommendations that covered the diagnosis, preparation, emergency treatment, and post-emergency management of anaphylaxis. We recommended the use of a set of adapted diagnostic criteria from the American National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network (NIAID/FAAN), and developed a severity grading system that classified anaphylaxis into four grades. We recommended epinephrine as the first-line treatment, with specific doses and routes of administration for different severity of anaphylaxis or different conditions. Proper dosage is critical in the administration of epinephrine, and the monitor is important in the IV administration. Though there was only very low or low-quality evidence supported the use of glucocorticoids and H1 antagonists, we still weakly recommended them as second-line medications. We could not make a well-directed recommendation regarding premedication for preventing anaphylaxis since it is difficult to weigh the concerns and potential effects. Conclusion: For the emergency management of anaphylaxis we conclude that: • NIAID/FAAN diagnostic criteria and the four-tier grading system should be used for the diagnosis • Prompt and proper administration of epinephrine is critical.

Non-Auto-Injector Epinephrine Administration by Basic Life Support Providers: A Literature Review and Consensus Process

Anaphylaxis is a life-threatening condition with a known effective prehospital intervention: parenteral epinephrine. The National Association of EMS Physicians (NAEMSP) advocates for emergency medical services (EMS) providers to be allowed to carry and administer epinephrine. Some states constrain epinephrine administration by basic life support (BLS) providers to administration using epinephrine auto-injectors (EAIs), but the cost and supply of EAIs limits the ability of some EMS agencies to provide epinephrine for anaphylaxis. This literature review and consensus report describes the extant literature and the practical and policy issues related to non-EAI administration of epinephrine for anaphylaxis, and serves as a supplementary resource document for the revised NAEMSP position statement on the use of epinephrine in the out-of-hospital treatment of anaphylaxis, complementing (but not replacing) prior resource documents. The report concludes that there is some evidence that intramuscular injection of epinephrine drawn up from a vial or ampule by appropriately trained EMS providers-without limitation to specific certification levels-is safe, facilitates timely treatment of patients, and reduces costs.

Allergic Dermatoses

The purpose of this article is to review the current available material pertaining to atopic dermatitis, contact dermatitis, urticaria, and angioedema. This article focuses on each disease process's clinical presentation, diagnosis, and management. Although atopic dermatitis and contact dermatitis are similar, their development is different and can affect a patient's quality of life. Urticaria and angioedema are also similar, but the differentiation of the two processes is crucial in that they have significant morbidity and mortality, each with a different prognosis.

Management of anaphylaxis: a systematic review

To establish the effectiveness of interventions for the acute and long-term management of anaphylaxis, seven databases were searched for systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series and - only in relation to adrenaline - case series investigating the effectiveness of interventions in managing anaphylaxis. Fifty-five studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. We found no robust studies investigating the effectiveness of adrenaline (epinephrine), H1-antihistamines, systemic glucocorticosteroids or methylxanthines to manage anaphylaxis. There was evidence regarding the optimum route, site and dose of administration of adrenaline from trials studying people with a history of anaphylaxis. This suggested that administration of intramuscular adrenaline into the middle of vastus lateralis muscle is the optimum treatment. Furthermore, fatality register studies have suggested that a failure or delay in administration of adrenaline may increase the risk of death. The main long-term management interventions studied were anaphylaxis management plans and allergen-specific immunotherapy. Management plans may reduce the risk of further reactions, but these studies were at high risk of bias. Venom immunotherapy may reduce the incidence of systemic reactions in those with a history of venom-triggered anaphylaxis.

Management of anaphylaxis in primary care: Canadian expert consensus recommendations

BACKGROUND

Anaphylaxis is often managed inadequately. We used findings from a systematic review of gaps in anaphylaxis management to develop evidence-based recommendations for gaps rated as clinically important by a panel of Canadian allergy experts.

METHODS

The nominal group technique (NGT) consensus methodology was used to develop evidence-based recommendations for the management of anaphylaxis in primary care. Physician-specific gaps from our systematic review were prioritized by consensus meeting participants in two rounds, which involved the rating, discussion, and re-rating of gaps. Using current anaphylaxis guidelines, recommendations were then developed for each category of gaps that were identified by the panel as clinically important.

RESULTS

Thirty unique physician gaps from the systematic review were categorized according to gaps of knowledge and anaphylaxis practice behaviors. The panel rated diagnosis of anaphylaxis, and when and how to use epinephrine auto-injectors as clinically important knowledge gaps; and rated infrequent or delayed epinephrine administration, low rate of auto-injector prescription, and infrequent or no referrals to allergy specialists after a reaction as important practice behavior gaps. Evidence from four guidelines was used to support the consensus recommendation statements for three resulting categories of gap themes: anaphylaxis management, epinephrine use, and follow-up care.

CONCLUSION

We used an NGT consensus methodology to develop an educational resource for primary care physicians and allergists to better understand how to manage patients with anaphylaxis. Next steps include testing our findings against observed data in primary care settings and to develop other strategies or tools to overcome gaps in anaphylaxis management.

Chewing Gum as an Unusual Cause of Systemic Allergic Reaction

Chewing gum allergy is a rare condition in emergency settings. A 48-year-old man presented to the emergency department with generalised itchiness which was more prominent on the periorbital areas, nausea, vomiting, and dyspnoea after taking chewing gum. Vital signs showed hypotension with a blood pressure of 72/45 mmHg, and heart rate 95 beats per minute. Auscultation of the chest revealed diffuse rhonchi and coarse crackles. There was blanchable skin rash over the body especially on the abdomen. As the symptoms were compatible with systemic allergic reactions after chewing gum, the patient was given supplemental oxygen, subcutaneous adrenaline, intravenous methylprednisolone and nebulised salbutamol. The patient responded dramatically. He was discharged with oral hydroxyzine (Atarax® tablet) prescription. Although there are lots of well-known allergic substances including foods and drugs, we may encounter allergic reactions associated with rare allergens like chewing gum.

Gaps in anaphylaxis management at the level of physicians, patients, and the community: a systematic review of the literature

Diagnosis and management of anaphylaxis can be a challenge because reactions are often unexpected and progress quickly. The focus of anaphylaxis management has mostly been on the acute episode, with little attention given to the long-term management of patients at risk. This is compounded by conflicting information in current guidelines and a general lack of agreement among clinicians about which management strategies are the most appropriate. We systematically reviewed the literature to identify and summarize studies that investigated gaps in anaphylaxis management. Our search included MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews. Studies were included if they addressed an outcome describing gaps in anaphylaxis knowledge, education, anaphylaxis management, and quality of life (QOL). Populations of interest were health care professionals involved in the care of patients at risk for anaphylaxis, and patients of any age, their parents, caregivers, and teachers in primary care, hospital or community settings. Of 5014 citations that were identified, the final 59 studies (selected from 75 full-text articles) met the inclusion criteria. Two hundred and two gaps were identified and classified according to major themes: gaps in knowledge and anaphylaxis management (physicians and patients); gaps in follow-up care (physicians); and QOL of patients and caregivers. Findings from this systematic review revealed gaps in anaphylaxis management at the level of physicians, patients, and the community. Findings will be used to provide a basis for developing interventional strategies to help address these deficiencies.

Factors associated with repeated use of epinephrine for the treatment of anaphylaxis

BACKGROUND

Studies looking at the use of repeated doses of epinephrine in patients experiencing anaphylaxis are limited.

OBJECTIVE

To determine which patients are most likely to receive repeated doses of epinephrine during anaphylaxis management.

METHODS

A population-based study with medical record review was conducted. All patients seen during the study period who met the criteria for the diagnosis of anaphylaxis were included.

RESULTS

The cohort included 208 patients (55.8% female). Anaphylaxis treatment included epinephrine in 104 patients (50.0%). Repeated doses were used in 27 patients (13.0%), 13 (48.1%) of them female. The median age of those who received repeated doses was 18.9 (interquartile range, 10-34) years vs 31.1 (interquartile range, 15-41) years for those who did not receive repeated doses (P = .06). The inciting agents were food (29.6%), insects (11.1%), medications (22.2%), others (7.4%), and unknown (29.6%). Patients who received repeated doses were more likely to have wheezing (P = .03), cyanosis (P = .001), hypotension and shock (P = .03), stridor and laryngeal edema (P = .007), nausea and emesis (P = .04), arrhythmias (P < .01), and cough (P = .04) and less likely to have urticaria (P = .049). They were more likely to be admitted to the hospital than patients who did not receive repeated doses (48.2% vs 15.6%; P < .001). There was no significant difference in the history of asthma between patients who received repeated doses and those who did not (P = .17).

CONCLUSIONS

Of the patients, 13.0% received repeated epinephrine doses. Patients were younger and were likely to present with wheezing, cyanosis, arrhythmias, hypotension and shock, stridor, laryngeal edema, cough, nausea, and emesis and less likely to have urticaria. A history of asthma did not predict use of repeated doses of epinephrine. Our results help identify high-risk patients who may benefit from carrying more than 1 dose of epinephrine.

A model protocol for emergency medical services management of asthma exacerbations

Emergency medical services (EMS) is an important part of the continuum of asthma management. The magnitude of the EMS responsibility is very large, with millions of patients with asthma treated each year by EMS personnel. In response to inconsistencies between the 1997 National Asthma Education and Prevention Program asthma guidelines and a variety of existing EMS protocols on the management of asthma exacerbations, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention convened a workgroup in 2004 to discuss the various opportunities and challenges ahead. At the meeting, and over the ensuing year, the workgroup created a model protocol that was derived from the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program guidelines. The model protocol is available in both text and algorithm format and offers guidance for EMS systems to develop and implement treatment protocols in their local areas. The workgroup recommendations emphasize flexibility, simplicity, and low-risk practices. By integrating these recommendations into existing protocols, we believe that EMS systems could improve prehospital care for patients with asthma. Demonstration projects are needed to carefully examine the implementation process and the actual impact of the model protocol on various outcomes. The workgroup also encourages more research on EMS management of asthma exacerbations. In the meantime, improved collaboration between EMS and national asthma organizations is an immediate priority and will continue to advance future discussions on how to improve asthma management in the prehospital setting. The workgroup hopes that state and local EMS systems will see the value of the model protocol and encourage its use.

Asthma management issues in infancy and childhood

The prevalence of asthma has been increasing worldwide over the past 2 decades, especially the prevalence of childhood asthma. Currently, the prevalence of childhood asthma is around 3-20% in different countries based on the report from the International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Children (ISAAC). Asthma in childhood is predominantly an extrinsic asthma. In general, countries in the coastal, temperate, and subtropical zones have the highest prevalence of mite- and cockroach-sensitive asthma. Countries in the sub-arctic or semi-arid areas have a lower prevalence of childhood asthma, mostly associated with sensitization to pet dander, moulds, and pollens. Many genes have been linked to asthma in different ethnic populations. A global consensus for the management of asthma in adults and children >5 years of age has been made possible in the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines, where a step-wise management program using inhaled medication with and without oral anti-inflammatory drugs is recommended. The management of asthma in children <5 years of age remains inconclusive. Recent studies suggest that inherited susceptibility associated with risk factors from the prenatal and postnatal environment is likely to promote allergic sensitization and development of asthma. Consequently, early prevention of prenatal sensitization in utero and environmental control of early life exposure to various allergens may decrease the incidence of childhood asthma. In the management of moderate persistent asthma in infants and young children <5 years of age, airway resistance tests (FEV(1) or PEF) are not of significance, but assessment of respiratory rate and skin pulse oximeter measurements of arterial oxygen saturation are helpful. Moreover, recent advances in pharmacogenetics and pharmacogenomics may provide better individualized care for early pharmacological prevention of childhood asthma via selective modulation of airway remodeling.

Anaphylaxis in the prehospital setting

Many Emergency Medical Services (EMS) systems have adopted epinephrine auto-injector (EAI) use by Basic Life Support (BLS) personnel, and several states now require that BLS personnel be trained and authorized to use EAIs. The objectives of this observational study were: 1) to examine EMS case definitions of allergy/anaphylaxis, 2) to ascertain the incidence of EMS calls for allergy/anaphylaxis and administration of epinephrine, and 3) to quantify the rate of deaths due to anaphylaxis. Data were solicited by e-mail, mail, and telephone from National Association of State EMS Directors (NASEMSD) members, state EMS offices, and state medical examiner and vital statistics offices. Simple descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. The following was found: 1) there is no standardization of case definitions among states. Some use the terms "allergic reaction" and "anaphylaxis" in EMS protocols without definition, whereas others provide lengthy, specific definitions, with detailed criteria for epinephrine administration; 2) excluding two outliers at 0.04% and 3.9%, nine EMS system databases totaling over 2.8 million runs contained between 0.34% and 0.82% of runs for allergy/anaphylaxis. Seven of these databases reported on epinephrine administration, with rates between 0.16% and 31.1%, and four of the seven clustered between 8.8% and 14.8%. There was little uniformity in the data provided by seven states on deaths due to anaphylaxis, with rates from 0% to 0.94%. Although limited by the lack of data from many states, roughly 0.5% of EMS runs are for allergy/anaphylaxis complaints, with epinephrine administered in roughly one-tenth of these. State death rates from anaphylaxis vary considerably, with rates from 0% to 0.94% reported.

Prehospital asthma management

The treatment of acute asthma exacerbation consumes a significant portion of emergency medical services (EMS) system resources. Because few studies have addressed EMS treatment of asthma, most EMS providers model their approach to treatment on strategies thought to be effective in the emergency department. During the treatment of asthma, a patient's history and current airway and respiratory status are important components of the initial assessment. Although the general evaluation may address a patient's appearance, vital signs, mental status, level of fatigue, and ability to speak normally, the initial assessment of an asthmatic patient must focus specifically on his or her respiratory effort and quality and on objective measurement of the patient's blood oxygenation. Inhaled beta-agonist therapy is the widely recommended first choice of treatment, but anticholinergic agents and steroids may also have roles. Although not routine treatments, parenteral magnesium and epinephrine may also be beneficial for certain patients. Endotracheal intubation is a procedure of last resort and should be reserved for patients at immediate risk of respiratory arrest. Finally, EMS providers must be alert to the danger of using a "treat and release" approach, as recommended by some protocols, in the treatment of acute asthma. The quick results and benefit that short-acting treatments provide can easily and erroneously lead a provider to believe that an attack has been adequately controlled when, in fact, a more serious exacerbation may be imminent. Treatment protocols, therefore, should discourage EMS personnel from this practice and advise them to always transport asthmatic patients they have treated to the hospital to undergo more extended care and monitoring.