Action plans for the long-term management of anaphylaxis: systematic review of effectiveness

Public Knowledge and Management Practices of Anaphylaxis in Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study

Introduction Anaphylaxis is a life-threatening allergic reaction that has a rapid onset and the potential for fatal outcomes. In Saudi Arabia, anaphylaxis has become more prevalent, particularly among children, yet the knowledge of underlying possible causes and pathogenesis and its management remains insufficient. This study aims to assess the level of awareness and management practices of anaphylaxis among residents of Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia. Methods A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted from May to June 2024 among 384 participants in Al-Ahsa. Data were collected using an online, self-administered questionnaire distributed via social media platforms. We excluded those who refused to participate, those who were healthcare professionals, and those residing outside Al-Ahsa and were non-Saudi. The questionnaire comprised 21 items evaluating demographic characteristics and knowledge of anaphylaxis, including its clinical features, causes, risk factors, emergency actions, previous experiences, and appropriate responses to anaphylaxis signs. Results The study revealed that most participants (154, 40%) were aged 21-30 years, 234 (61%) were male, and 230 (60%) had a university education. Awareness of anaphylaxis was relatively high, with 271 participants (71%) reporting they had heard of the condition. Additionally, 221 participants (58%) recognized its potentially fatal nature. Knowledge of common triggers, such as food and insect stings, was high, with 344-366 participants (90-95%) identifying these as causes of anaphylaxis. However, recognition of less common triggers like latex was lower, with only 185 participants (48%) aware of this risk. When it came to treatment, just 71 participants (18%) correctly identified epinephrine as the first-line treatment for anaphylaxis. Although 160 participants (40%) indicated they would seek hospital care in an emergency, only 28 (7%) recognized the need to administer epinephrine. Overall, 245 participants (64%) demonstrated good knowledge of anaphylaxis. Significant differences in knowledge levels were observed based on gender (p = 0.017), marital status (p = 0.037), education level (p = 0.049), prior awareness of anaphylaxis (p = 0.002), and having witnessed an anaphylaxis case before (p = 0.007). Conclusion Awareness of proper anaphylaxis and allergy management, particularly the use of epinephrine, is notably lacking. Targeting public health awareness is essential to enhance public knowledge and preparedness for managing anaphylactic emergencies in Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia.

Anaphylaxis:: After the Emergency Department

After treating the acute anaphylactic reaction, the clinician's next task is to prevent a recurrence. The patient should be observed in the ED. How long this observation period should last depends on their clinical course, risk factors, and social support. All patients should be discharged with a prescription for 2 epinephrine autoinjectors and counseled on appropriate use. The patient should also receive education on the signs and symptoms of anaphylaxis and avoiding triggers. The patient should follow-up with an allergy specialist who can confirm triggers and provide immunotherapy as indicated.

The Uniformed Services Constipation Action Plan: An Effective Tool for the Management of Children with Functional Constipation

OBJECTIVE

To implement and to evaluate the effectiveness of the Uniformed Services Constipation Action Plan (USCAP) in our gastroenterology clinic for children with functional constipation.

STUDY DESIGN

This implementation science study included toilet-trained subjects aged 4 years and older who met the Rome IV criteria for functional constipation. Children were block randomized to receive either the USCAP or control. All clinic functional constipation plans recommended subjects continue pharmacotherapy for 4 months. Endpoints measured were clinical outcomes (resolution of functional constipation and achievement of a Pediatric Bristol Stool Form Scale [PBSFS] score of 3 or 4), patient-related outcomes (health-related quality of life [HRQoL] total scale score), and health confidence outcomes (Health Confidence Score [HCS]).

RESULTS

Fifty-seven treatment group subjects (44%) received a USCAP (52% male; mean age, 10.9 [4.9] years) compared with 73 controls (56%; 48% male; mean age,10.9 [5.3] years). A PBSFS score of 3 or 4 was achieved by 77% of the treatment group compared with 59% of controls (P = .03). Subjects from the treatment group were more likely than the controls to endorse adherence to the 4-month course of pharmacotherapy (P < .001). Subjects who received a USCAP had greater improvements in HRQoL total scale score by the end of the project (P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS

The USCAP is a simple, inexpensive tool that has the potential to improve global outcomes for functional constipation in children and should be recommended as standard clinical practice.

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.

Anaphylaxis:: After the Emergency Department

After treating the acute anaphylactic reaction, the clinician's next task is to prevent a recurrence. The patient should be observed in the ED. How long this observation period should last depends on their clinical course, risk factors, and social support. All patients should be discharged with a prescription for 2 epinephrine autoinjectors and counseled on appropriate use. The patient should also receive education on the signs and symptoms of anaphylaxis and avoiding triggers. The patient should follow-up with an allergy specialist who can confirm triggers and provide immunotherapy as indicated.

Improving adrenaline autoinjector adherence: A psychologically informed training for healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

Clinicians draw on instructional approaches when training patients with anaphylaxis to use adrenaline autoinjectors, but patient use is poor. Psychological barriers to these behaviours exist but are not considered routinely when training patients to use autoinjectors. Health Psychology principles suggest exploring these factors with patients could improve their autoinjector use.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of a 90-minute workshop training clinicians in strategies and techniques for exploring and responding to psychological barriers to autoinjector use with patients. Attendees' knowledge, confidence and likelihood of using the strategies were expected to improve.

METHODS

Impact was evaluated using a longitudinal mixed-method design. Twenty-nine clinicians (general and specialist nurses, general practitioners, and pharmacists) supporting patients with anaphylaxis in UK hospitals and general practice attended. Self-rated knowledge, confidence, and likelihood of using the strategies taught were evaluated online 1 week before, 1 to 3, and 6 to 8 weeks after the workshop. Clinicians were invited for telephone interview after attending to explore qualitatively the workshop impact.

RESULTS

χ2 analyses were significant in most cases (P < .05), with sustained (6-8 weeks) improvements in knowledge, confidence, and likelihood of using the strategies taught. Thematic analysis of interview data showed the workshop enhanced attendees' knowledge of the care pathway, understanding of patient's experience of anaphylaxis as psychological not purely physical, and altered their communication with this and other patient groups. However, interviewees perceived lack of time and organisational factors as barriers to using the strategies and techniques taught in clinical contexts.

CONCLUSION

Training clinicians in psychologically informed strategies produce sustained improvements in their confidence and knowledge around patient autoinjector education, and their likelihood of using strategies in clinical practice.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Exploring psychological barriers should be part of training patients with anaphylaxis in autoinjector use.

Factors associated with good adherence to self-care behaviours amongst adolescents with food allergy

BACKGROUND

Our understanding of factors which affect adherence to health sustaining self-care behaviours in adolescents with food allergy is limited. This study used the Health Belief Model to explore the relationship between food allergic adolescents' health beliefs, demographic, structural and social psychological factors with adherence to self-care behaviours, including allergen avoidance and carrying emergency medication.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study of 188 13- to 19- olds identified from hospital prescribed auto-injectable epinephrine for food allergy. Data were collected on demographics, structural factors, social psychological factors, health beliefs and current adherence behaviour using a postal questionnaire.

RESULTS

Full adherence was reported by 16% of participants. Multivariate analysis indicated that adherence was more likely to be reported if the adolescents belonged to a support group (OR = 2.54, (1.04, 6.20) 95% CI), had an anaphylaxis management plan (OR = 3.22, (1.18, 8.81) 95% CI), perceived their food allergy to be more severe (OR = 1.24, (1.01, 1.52) 95% CI) and perceived fewer barriers to disease management (OR = 0.87, (0.79, 0.96) 95% CI).

CONCLUSIONS

Membership of a patient support group and having an anaphylaxis management plan were associated with good adherence to self-care behaviours in adolescents with food allergy. Our results suggest that interventions to improve provision and utilisation of management plans, address adolescents' perceptions of the severity of anaphylaxis and reduce barriers to disease management may facilitate good adherence behaviours than focussing on knowledge-based interventions.

Effects of a structured educational intervention on knowledge and emergency management in patients at risk for anaphylaxis

BACKGROUND

Structured educational programmes for patients at risk for anaphylaxis have not yet been established. Patients and caregivers often lack adequate skills in managing the disease.

METHODS

To investigate effects of structured patient education intervention on knowledge, emergency management skills and psychological parameters in patients with previous episodes of anaphylaxis and caregivers of affected children 95 caregivers (11 male, 84 female, mean age 37 years) of affected children and 98 patients (32 male, 66 female, mean age 47.5 years) were randomly assigned to an intervention (IG) or control group (CG) in a multicentre randomized controlled trial. The IG received two 3-h schooling modules of group education; the CG received standard auto-injector training only. Knowledge of anaphylaxis and emergency management competence in a validated training anaphylaxis situation as main outcome measures as well as secondary psychological parameters were assessed at baseline and 3 months after intervention.

RESULTS

In comparison with controls, the intervention led to significant improvement of knowledge from baseline to 3-month follow-up (caregivers: IG 3.2/13.2 improvement/baseline vs CG 0.7/12.6; P < 0.001; patients: IG 3.9/10.8 vs 1.3/12.6; P < 0.001). Moreover, emergency management competence was increased after intervention as compared to controls (caregivers: IG 8.6/11.2 vs CG 1.2/10.8; P < 0.001; patients: 7.1/11.0 vs 1.1/11.1; P < 0.001). Intervention showed significant reduction of caregiver anxiety (-1.9/8.4 vs -0.7/7.5; P < 0.05). There were no significant changes in the depression scores.

CONCLUSION

Structured patient education programmes may be beneficial in the management of anaphylaxis by increasing patients' empowerment to prevent and treat the disease.

Anaphylaxis: guidelines from the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology

Anaphylaxis is a clinical emergency, and all healthcare professionals should be familiar with its recognition and acute and ongoing management. These guidelines have been prepared by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Taskforce on Anaphylaxis. They aim to provide evidence-based recommendations for the recognition, risk factor assessment, and the management of patients who are at risk of, are experiencing, or have experienced anaphylaxis. While the primary audience is allergists, these guidelines are also relevant to all other healthcare professionals. The development of these guidelines has been underpinned by two systematic reviews of the literature, both on the epidemiology and on clinical management of anaphylaxis. Anaphylaxis is a potentially life-threatening condition whose clinical diagnosis is based on recognition of a constellation of presenting features. First-line treatment for anaphylaxis is intramuscular adrenaline. Useful second-line interventions may include removing the trigger where possible, calling for help, correct positioning of the patient, high-flow oxygen, intravenous fluids, inhaled short-acting bronchodilators, and nebulized adrenaline. Discharge arrangements should involve an assessment of the risk of further reactions, a management plan with an anaphylaxis emergency action plan, and, where appropriate, prescribing an adrenaline auto-injector. If an adrenaline auto-injector is prescribed, education on when and how to use the device should be provided. Specialist follow-up is essential to investigate possible triggers, to perform a comprehensive risk assessment, and to prevent future episodes by developing personalized risk reduction strategies including, where possible, commencing allergen immunotherapy. Training for the patient and all caregivers is essential. There are still many gaps in the evidence base for anaphylaxis.

Pharmacists' response to anaphylaxis in the community (PRAC): a randomised, simulated patient study of pharmacist practice

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate how community pharmacists manage patients with anaphylaxis.

DESIGN

A randomised, cross-sectional, simulated patient study of community pharmacist practice.

SETTING

300 metropolitan pharmacies located in Perth Australia, randomised to three groups of 100 pharmacies. Each group corresponded to a different epinephrine autoinjector: original EpiPen, new-look EpiPen or Anapen.

PARTICIPANTS

300 pharmacies were visited with 271 simulated patient visits included in the final analysis (88=original EpiPen, 92=new-look EpiPen, 91=Anapen).

OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary anaphylaxis preparedness (readiness to treat acute anaphylaxis). Secondary anaphylaxis engagement (willingness to engage the patient in a discussion about their anaphylaxis).

METHODS

Simulated patients approached pharmacists, using a standardised scenario, for assistance with epinephrine autoinjector use and advice about the use of antihistamines in anaphylaxis. Scores for each outcome were obtained based on the number of predefined statements addressed by the pharmacist during the consultation (maximum score=5 for preparedness and 8 for engagement).

RESULTS

The mean anaphylaxis preparedness score was 2.39 points (SD 1.17). Scores for new-look EpiPen were significantly higher than for original EpiPen and Anapen (2.75 vs 2.38 points, p=0.027; 2.75 vs 2.03 points, p<0.001, respectively). Overall, 17.3% of pharmacists correctly demonstrated the epinephrine autoinjector. The mean anaphylaxis engagement score was 3.11 points (SD 1.73). Scores for new-look EpiPen were similar to original EpiPen and Anapen (3.11 vs 3.32 points; 3.11 vs 2.90 points, both p=0.42). Engagement was associated with preparedness. For each additional engagement point, preparedness increased by 7% (0.357 points; 95% CI 0.291 to 0.424; p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacists demonstrated reasonable knowledge of anaphylaxis symptoms and emergency care, but had poor epinephrine autoinjector technique and rarely discussed anaphylaxis action plans. Pharmacists who had a more comprehensive discussion about anaphylaxis with patients, were more prepared for anaphylaxis emergencies. Future research should evaluate the nature and significance of errors in pharmacists' autoinjector technique.

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.

ICON: food allergy

Food allergies can result in life-threatening reactions and diminish quality of life. In the last several decades, the prevalence of food allergies has increased in several regions throughout the world. Although more than 170 foods have been identified as being potentially allergenic, a minority of these foods cause the majority of reactions, and common food allergens vary between geographic regions. Treatment of food allergy involves strict avoidance of the trigger food. Medications manage symptoms of disease, but currently, there is no cure for food allergy. In light of the increasing burden of allergic diseases, the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology; European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology; World Allergy Organization; and American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology have come together to increase the communication of information about allergies and asthma at a global level. Within the framework of this collaboration, termed the International Collaboration in Asthma, Allergy and Immunology, a series of consensus documents called International Consensus ON (ICON) are being developed to serve as an important resource and support physicians in managing different allergic diseases. An author group was formed to describe the natural history, prevalence, diagnosis, and treatment of food allergies in the context of the global community.

Key components of anaphylaxis management plans: consensus findings from a national electronic Delphi study

Objectives

There is no international consensus on the components of anaphylaxis management plans and responsibility for their design and delivery is contested. We set out to establish consensus among relevant specialist and generalist clinicians on this issue to inform future randomized controlled trials.

Design

A two-round electronic Delphi study completed by a 25-person, multidisciplinary expert panel. Participants scored the importance of a range of statements on anaphylaxis management, identified from a systematic review of the literature, on a five-point scale ranging from ‘very important’ to ‘irrelevant’. Consensus was defined a priori as being achieved if 80% or more of panel members rated a statement as ‘important’ or ‘very important’ after Round 2.

Setting

Primary and secondary care and academic settings in the UK and Ireland.

Participants

Twenty-five medical, nursing and allied health professionals.

Main outcome measures

Consensus on the key components of anaphylaxis management plans.

Results

The response rate was 84% (n = 21) for Round 1 and 96% (n = 24) for Round 2. The key components of emergency care on which consensus was achieved included: awareness of trigger factors (100%); recognition and emergency management of reactions of different severity (100%); and clear information on adrenaline (epinephrine) use (100%). Consensus on longer-term management issues included: clear written guidelines on anaphylaxis management (96%); annual review of plans (87%); and plans that were tailored to individual needs (82%).

Conclusions

This national consensus-building exercise generated widespread agreement that emergency plans need to be simple, clear and generic, making them easy to implement in a crisis. In contrast, long-term plans need to be negotiated between patient/carers and professionals, and tailored to individual needs. The effectiveness of this expert-agreed long-term plan now needs to be evaluated rigorously.

Action on anaphylaxis action plans

The provision of a written anaphylaxis action plan is considered to be an essential component of the management of food-allergic children prescribed self-injectable adrenaline. Literature review indicates that the evidence that such plans are of benefit is incomplete; however, commonsense would suggest that this is the case. Controlled trials are unlikely to be performed. The Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy has recently released three anaphylaxis action plans that meet the differing needs of those children prescribed self-injectable adrenaline, those who do not warrant self-injectable adrenaline provision and those with insect allergy.

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.

The psychosocial impact of anaphylaxis on young people and their parents

BACKGROUND

Anaphylaxis is a potentially life-threatening disorder that can affect people of all ages. Young people are at a disproportionately increased risk of anaphylaxis deaths for reasons that include a failure to institute appropriate long-term management regimens. A pre-requisite for effective supported self-management of young people with anaphylaxis is a better understanding of the factors that contribute to risk-taking behaviour.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the psychosocial impact of living with anaphylaxis on adolescents and their parents; their management of the condition; and perceptions of health care provision.

METHODS

In-depth interviews were conducted with 15 participants, these comprising of seven adolescents aged between 13 and 16 years with a history of clinician-diagnosed anaphylaxis and eight of their parents, in this Scottish community-based exploratory qualitative study.

RESULTS

Adolescents in this study typically perceived anaphylaxis as 'no big deal', describing a relatively low impact on their day-to-day life when compared with their parents. This could largely be explained by the fact that most adolescents could not remember an anaphylactic reaction. Key obstacles to effective long-term self-management included inadequate knowledge to support detailed situation-specific risk assessment, this being compounded by a lack of confidence to make further enquiries about the ingredients of meals when with peers. Parents reported anxiety about 'handing over' the main responsibility for avoidance and emergency management to their children. Medical support for these families was very limited, with primary care teams in some cases actively hindering effective self-management.

CONCLUSION

Having a child with anaphylaxis can have a significant long-term psychological impact on parents and this anxiety may in some cases be transferred from parents onto their children. Parents and adolescents may benefit from tailored information to support the transition from parental- to self-management by adolescents. Access to appropriate national health service primary and specialist care was in some cases currently inadequate to support effective long-term management. Further, more in-depth research in a more heterogeneous group of adolescents is needed.