Field-testing the new anaphylaxis' classification for the WHO International Classification of Diseases-11 revision

Epidemiology of anaphylaxis: is the trend still going up?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To understand the current global scale of anaphylaxis and identify possible strategies to increase the accuracy of epidemiological data.

RECENT FINDINGS

Anaphylaxis mortality and morbidity statistics may gain new perspectives with the global implementation of the ICD-11. Improving the quality of epidemiological data related to anaphylaxis should clarify some areas of uncertainty about risk factors, leading to better targeting of strategies to protect those patients at risk, and support decision-making to facilitate health care planning and implementation of public health measures to prevent anaphylaxis.

SUMMARY

The true rate of anaphylaxis is unknown due to a number of factors, such as misdiagnosis, miscoding and undernotification. Moreover, there is lack of information about anaphylaxis epidemiology in many countries. Difficulties on collecting accurate and comparable data should be acknowledged and anaphylaxis data can vary widely. Currently, most robust data are derived from hospitalization datasets and national mortality databases. Anaphylaxis accounts for up to 0.26% of overall hospital admissions. It is suggested that the number of hospital admissions for anaphylaxis is increasing in many countries, both with respect to all-causes of anaphylaxis and by trigger, but the mortality rate remains low. However, there are still great challenges in capturing quality anaphylaxis mortality and morbidity statistics. Better understanding of anaphylaxis trends should clarify some areas of uncertainty about risk factors and prospect effective prevention strategies. As the knowledge derived from populations is key information for more realistic decision-making, the construction of the new section addressed to anaphylaxis in the ICD-11 will allow the collection of more accurate epidemiological data to support high quality management of patients, and to better facilitate health care planning to implement public health measures, reduce the morbidity and mortality attributable to anaphylaxis.

The novel and powerful ICD-11 classification system for neoplasm coding: a comparative study with the ICD-O

BACKGROUND

The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and the International Classification of Diseases for Oncology (ICD-O) are both widely used global classification systems. In 2018, the initial release of the ICD-11 was published by the World Health Organization (WHO), integrating the morphology section of the ICD-O.

METHODS

This paper aims to provide potential ICD-11 users with a profound understanding of the neoplasm classifications of the ICD-11 by analysing the differences and relationships between the ICD-11 and ICD-O in terms of the coding framework, compatibility and intelligence level.

RESULTS

The ICD-11 and ICD-O have remarkable differences in coding structure. Compared to the ICD-O, the ICD-11 has the following advantages: adding histopathology to the stem codes, obtaining a meaningful minimum amount of information through stem codes for statistics, supporting the usage of ICD-O morphology categories and capturing clinical details via extension codes for multiaxial coding. In addition, the rich Foundation Component, linearization derived from the Foundation Component and updating mechanism all support the compatibility of the ICD-11 with other classification systems. Notably, the WHO provides terminology coding with a smart coding tool, and coding in the ICD-11 can draw on statistical codes and uniform resource identifiers (URIs) simultaneously.

CONCLUSIONS

The ICD-11 represents a novel classification system with distinguishing features that include facilitating statistics, multiaxial coding, coding granularity, compatibility and intelligence. These features enable the ICD-11 to be more powerful for neoplasm coding than the ICD-O and basically meet the needs of stakeholders.

Food allergy in the World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-11

There are increasing global data regarding the prevalence of food allergy and food-induced anaphylaxis. However, knowledge in morbidity and mortality epidemiological data is still not optimal, and international comparable standards remain poorly accessed. This information could in turn support better clinical practice and possibly prevent future severe reactions and avoidable fatalities. The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) is the standard diagnostic tool used for epidemiology, health management, and clinical purposes supported by the World Health Organization (WHO). It is also used to determine health care payment and reimbursement of providers and health care services in hospitals. Thanks to the academic and technical efforts under the ALLERGY in ICD-11 initiative the pioneer "Allergy and hypersensitivity conditions" section has been built under the "Disorders of the Immune System" chapter of the ICD-11. The "Food hypersensitivity" (FH) subsection is classified under the "Complex allergic or hypersensitivity conditions" section and "Food-induced anaphylaxis" is under the "Anaphylaxis" section. In order to inform the development of strategies to reduce preventable FHs/food allergies, the burden of disease in different healthcare settings and patient populations and their common etiologies need to be understood. Besides, greater specificity regarding clinical conditions and services delivered will provide payers, policy makers, and providers with better information to make major refinements to countries payment and reimbursement systems, including the design and implementation of pay-for-performance program.The new classification addressed to FHs will enable the collection of more accurate epidemiological data to support quality management of patients with FHs/food allergies, and better facilitate health care planning and decision-making and public health measures to prevent and reduce their morbidity and mortality. The improved logic and standardized definitions through the ICD-11 (and other WHO classifications) will also facilitate international comparisons of quality care and the sharing of best practice globally.

Anaphylaxis and Coronavirus Disease 2019 vaccine: a danger relationship?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Anaphylactic reactions reported after Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) RNA vaccines were expected to be more frequent in atopic subjects and attributed to its polyethylene glycol component.

RECENT FINDINGS

Anaphylaxis to SARS-CoV2 RNA vaccines is no more frequent than in any vaccine and direct proofs for the role of its polyethylene glycol component are lacking.

SUMMARY

Vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are an essential global intervention to control the current pandemic situation. Anaphylactic reactions have rapidly been reported after SARS-CoV2 RNA vaccines. This risk is now measured at 2.5-11/1 000 000 in the context of vaccine safety surveillance programs and only one case was documented to be due to polyethylene glycol. Suggestions for its role are indirect. The COVID-19 vaccination is rolling out vastly and surveillance programs are key to monitor severe adverse reactions, such as anaphylaxis. Anaphylaxis due to vaccine is extremely rare and specific cases should receive individualized investigation and care, highlighting the key role of allergists in the vaccination programmes.

SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination and Anaphylaxis: Recommendations of the French Allergy Community and the Montpellier World Health Organization Collaborating Center

Vaccines against COVID-19 (and its emerging variants) are an essential global intervention to control the current pandemic situation. Anaphylactic reactions have been reported after SARS-CoV2 RNA vaccines. Anaphylaxis is defined as a severe life-threatening generalized or systemic hypersensitivity reaction. This risk is estimated at 1/1,000,000 in the context of vaccine safety surveillance programs. The COVID-19 vaccination is rolling-out vastly in different courtiers and surveillance programs are key to monitor severe adverse reactions, such as anaphylaxis. Anaphylaxis due to vaccine is extremely rare and specific cases should receive individualized investigation and care. The here presented recommendations and follow-up from the French allergy community and the Montpellier WHO Collaborating Center in order to support the vaccination program and intends to support to healthcare professionals in their daily basis.

Epidemiology of anaphylaxis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To understand the current global epidemiological data of anaphylaxis and identify potential strategies to improve patients' care and prevention.

RECENT FINDINGS

Anaphylaxis mortality and morbidity statistics (MMS) may gain new perspectives with the implementation of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-11 in the forthcoming years. Improving the quality of epidemiological data related to anaphylaxis should clarify some areas of uncertainty about risk factors, leading to better targeting of strategies to protect those patients at risk, and support decision-making to facilitate healthcare planning and implementation of public health measures to prevent anaphylaxis.

SUMMARY

Anaphylaxis is a complex noncommunicable diseases with adverse impact on health-related quality of life of patients and their carriers and a significant proportion of deaths may be preventable. It requires an integrated holistic plan to improve quality of healthcare and gathering accurate and comparable epidemiological data is key. Morbidity related to anaphylaxis seems to be increasing worldwide whereas mortality of anaphylaxis appears to be low and stable, but this still has great challenges in capturing quality anaphylaxis MMS. Improving the quality of epidemiological data related to anaphylaxis should clarify some areas of uncertainty about risk factors, leading to better targeting of strategies to protect those patients at risk. As knowledge derived from populations is key information for more realistic decision-making, the construction of the new section addressed to anaphylaxis in the ICD-11 will allow the collection of more accurate epidemiological data to support quality management of patients, and better facilitate healthcare planning to implement public health measures to prevent and reduce the morbidity and mortality attributable to these conditions.

Risk Factors in Outpatients with Dermatitis and Eczema in Tertiary Hospitals of China Who Have Clinically Suspected Bacterial Infection

Skin bacterial infections are often observed in eczema patients, but the risk factors are not fully understood. The current study evaluated the prevalence of clinically suspected bacterial infection and its associated risk factors. Moreover, we investigated the practice of skin infection diagnosis in China. A hospital-based, multicenter, cross-sectional epidemiologic survey of bacterial infection was performed in a total of 6208 outpatients diagnosed with dermatitis and eczema from 39 tertiary hospitals of 15 provinces and municipalities in China. All patients completed a specific questionnaire regarding their demographic characteristics, disease duration, distribution of lesions, severity of itching, and medical history. Univariate analysis and multivariate analysis were used to evaluate risk factors associated with bacterial infection in patients with different types of eczema. The prevalence of clinically suspected bacterial infection was 47.0% in patients with eczema. Compared to atopic dermatitis, widespread eczema (OR = 1.50, P < 0.001) and other eczema (OR = 1.42, P < 0.001) were more likely to suffer bacterial infection. The itching grade was positively associated with the infection (OR = 2.11, 7.04, and 12.3 in patients with mild, moderate, and severe itching, respectively; P < 0.001). Lesion distribution in the cubital fossa, popliteal fossa, ear, shoulder and back, axillary, foot, and pudendum was positively associated with bacterial infection (all OR > 1.0, P < 0.05). In contrast, the face and abdomen were reversely associated with bacterial infection (OR < 1.0, P < 0.005). History of asthma, allergic rhinitis, allergic conjunctivitis, atopic dermatitis, infantile eczema, and flexion dermatitis was positively associated with bacterial infection (all OR > 1.0, P < 0.005), while the history of dry skin was reversely associated with bacterial infection (OR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.64-0.90; P = 0.002). Patients with eczema were easily infected with bacteria. Widespread eczema and other eczema were more likely to have bacterial infection than atopic dermatitis. The high rate of infection may attribute to the lack of corresponding bacterial detection, suggesting the need of guideline development in China to prevent overuse of topical antibiotics.

Global implementation of the world health organization's International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-11: The allergic and hypersensitivity conditions model

The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) provides a common language for use worldwide as a diagnostic and classification tool for epidemiology, clinical purposes and health management. Since its first edition, the ICD has maintained a framework distributing conditions according to topography, with the result that some complex conditions, such as allergies and hypersensitivity disorders (A/H) including anaphylaxis, have been poorly represented. The change in hierarchy in ICD-11 permitted the construction of the pioneer section addressed to A/H, which may result in more accurate mortality and morbidity statistics, including more accurate accounting for mortality due to anaphylaxis, strengthen classification, terminology and definitions. The ICD-11 was presented and adopted by the 72nd World Health Assembly in May 2019, and the implementation is ongoing worldwide. We here present the outcomes from an online survey undertaken to reach out the allergy community worldwide in order to peer review the terminology, classification and definitions of A/H introduced into ICD-11 and to support their global implementation. Data are presented here for 406 respondents from 74 countries. All of the subsections of the new A/H section of the ICD-11 had been considered with good accuracy by the majority of respondents. We believe that, in addition to help during the implementation phase, all the comments provided will help to improve the A/H classification and to increase awareness by different disciplines of what actions are needed to ensure more accurate epidemiological data and better clinical management of A/H patients.

Capturing anaphylaxis through medical records: Are ICD and CPT codes sufficient?

OBJECTIVE

The identification of anaphylaxis cases is imperative for optimal clinicalprovider knowledge deficiencies in diagnosis and treatment and the efficacy of reimbursement codes, such as International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and current procedural terminology (CPT) codes, in detecting anaphylaxis.

DATA SOURCES

Pubmed.

STUDY SELECTIONS

Recent and clinically relevant literature on anaphylaxis and provider knowledge, ICD, CPT, Healthcare Common Procedural Coding System (HCPCS), and E-codes were selected and reviewed.

RESULTS

Reimbursement codes are used to detect anaphylaxis in administrative claims databases. Inaccurate recognition of the diagnosis by providers, underreporting, and cause identification are challenges faced by health researchers using reimbursement codes for anaphylaxis case identification. Anaphylactic shock-specific ICD codes were noted to have a positive predictive value (PPV) of 52% to 53% of anaphylaxis events compared with physician chart review, which was improved to 63% to 67.3% when used in conjunction with anaphylaxis symptom-specific ICD, CPT, HCPCS, and E-codes 31, 34, and 35.

CONCLUSION

Education of providers to properly diagnose and treat anaphylaxis requires systematic and educational investments. The ICD codes specific to anaphylactic shock have suboptimal PPV to identify anaphylaxis in administrative claims databases. Use of algorithms incorporating other reimbursement codes improve the PPV, but they are limited by inaccurate diagnoses and underreporting of anaphylaxis. Future ICD-11 reclassification may improve anaphylaxis detection by reimbursement codes.

Evaluation of the epidemiology of peanut allergy in the United Kingdom

Aims: To describe the epidemiology of peanut allergy (PA) in the UK over the last three decades.Methods: PA patients were identified from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink between 1987 and 2015. Incidence and prevalence of PA were compared between 2000 and 2015. Prevalence and relative risk (RR) of atopic comorbidities, anaphylaxis, adrenaline prescriptions versus matched controls were calculated.Results: Point prevalence of PA in the entire population and those <18 years increased from 31 to 202 and 116 to 635 per 100,000, respectively, between 2000 and 2015. Incidence increased from 8.6 to 18.2 per 100,000. Incidence in 2015 was 105 cases per 100,000 aged 0-4 years versus 13.4 per 100,000 aged 5+ years. Anaphylactic events affected 1.2% of the cases and 0.007% of the controls. The rate of adrenaline prescriptions was 5,910 per 100,000 person-years for PA patients. RRs for asthma, eczema and allergic rhinitis in PA patients versus controls were 4.5 (95% CI 4.2-4.8), 3.2 (3.1-3.4) and 2.6 (2.4-3.0), respectively.Conclusions: The prevalence and incidence of PA increased markedly over the study period. PA was associated with atopic conditions and anaphylaxis. PA patients had increased adrenaline prescriptions.

Evaluation of the healthcare resource use and the related financial costs of managing peanut allergy in the United Kingdom

Aims: We aimed to estimate the resource use and associated costs for patients with peanut allergy (PA) compared to matched controls. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study using data from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink and Hospital Episode Statistics. PA patients were matched to two control cohorts: the first (simple-matched) were matched 1:1 on year of birth, general practice, gender and registration year. The second (atopy-matched) were matched on the same characteristics plus presence/absence of an atopic condition. Prescriptions and primary and secondary care contacts were compared between cases and controls. Results: 15,483 peanut-allergic patients were identified: 13,609 (87.9%) were simple-matched and 9,320 (60.2%) atopy-matched. The total per person annual incremental health-care costs associated with PA were £253 (atopy-matched) and £333 (simple-matched). For those with PA and a prior anaphylaxis incremental costs were £662, for those prescribed an epinephrine autoinjector incremental costs were £392. Extrapolated to the U.K. population, total excess costs of PA were between £33 and 44 million in 2015. Conclusions: Patients with PA had increased health-care contacts and consequently increased associated costs compared to controls. Observation bias should be considered in interpretation, but this study suggests that PA presents significant burden to health-care systems.

Highlights and recent developments in food and drug allergy, and anaphylaxis in EAACI Journals (2017)

This review highlights research advances and important achievements in food allergy, anaphylaxis, and drug allergy that were published in the Journals of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) in 2017. Food allergy and anaphylaxis research have continued to rapidly accelerate, with increasing numbers of outstanding developments in 2017. We saw new studies on the mechanisms, diagnosis, prevention of food allergy, and novel food allergens. Drug hypersensitivity, as well as hereditary angioedema, has been highlighted in the present review as the focus of recent developments. The EAACI owns three journals: Allergy, Pediatric Allergy and Immunology (PAI), and Clinical and Translational Allergy (CTA). One of the major goals of the EAACI is to support health promotion in which prevention of allergy and asthma plays a critical role and to disseminate the knowledge of allergy to all stakeholders including the EAACI junior members. This paper summarizes the achievements of 2017 in anaphylaxis, and food and drug allergy.

Food allergy guidance in the United States military: A work group report from the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology's Military Allergy and Immunology Assembly

A diagnosis of food allergy adversely affects one's ability to join or remain in the military. Inadequate knowledge or misconceptions of current military-specific standards regarding food allergy and how these apply to enlistment, induction, and retention in the US military can lead potentially to inaccurate counseling because each military service has specific regulations that affect the evaluation and decision-making process. Recognizing this knowledge gap, the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology's Military Allergy and Immunology Assembly established a work group that reviewed and summarized all aspects of military instructions, policies, and regulations regarding IgE-mediated food allergy. A flowchart was developed outlining each step of the military entry process for an applicant with a history of food allergy. Furthermore, summary tables were made to provide improved "fluency" regarding each service's medical regulations, whereas key considerations were outlined for the allergist who is evaluating a subject who is seeking military entry or retention. Both civilian and military allergists play an essential role in the evaluation, counseling, and management of patients with a food allergy history. Understanding the service-specific language and regulations regarding food allergy will improve the allergist's awareness, counseling, and management of these individuals.

Critical view of anaphylaxis epidemiology: open questions and new perspectives

In contrast to the majority of allergic or hypersensitivity conditions, worldwide anaphylaxis epidemiological data remain sparse with low accuracy, which hampers comparable morbidity statistics. Data can differ widely depending on a number of variables. In the current document we reviewed the forms on which anaphylaxis has been defined and classified; and how it can affect epidemiological data. With regards to the methods used to capture morbidity statistics, we observed the impact of the anaphylaxis coding utilizing the World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases. As an outcome and depending on the anaphylaxis definition, we extracted the cumulative incidence, which may not reflect the real number of new cases. The new ICD-11 anaphylaxis subsection developments and critical view of morbidity statistics data are discussed in order to reach new perspectives on anaphylaxis epidemiology.