Improving anaphylaxis management in a pediatric emergency department

Exploring the anti-anaphylaxis potential of natural products: A Review

Allergies are a common health issue affecting many people around the world, especially in developed countries. They occur when the immune system overreacts to substances that are usually harmless. Some common allergic conditions include asthma, sinus infections, skin rashes, food allergies, hay fever, severe allergic reactions, eczema, swelling, and reactions to medications or insect stings. The causes of these allergies are complex and often linked to genetics, which can lead to heightened immune responses known as atopy. Throughout history, plant extracts have been used for various purposes, including medicine and food. In addition, their bioactive compounds show a wide range of beneficial effects, such as reducing allergic reactions, fighting oxidative stress, mast cell stabilizers, and lowering inflammation, highlighting their potential for treating various health conditions. Flavonoids and phenolic compounds are commonly used in anaphylaxis for their potent anti-inflammatory action. This review aims to promote the use of natural products as potential treatments for anaphylaxis. In addition, the discovery of new drugs derived from natural sources holds significant promise for the management of anaphylaxis.

Triage Grading and Correct Diagnosis Are Critical for the Emergency Treatment of Anaphylaxis

Introduction: Anaphylaxis is one of the most frequent and misdiagnosed emergencies in the pediatric emergency department (PED). We aimed to assess which factors play a major role for a correct diagnosis and an appropriate therapy. Methods: We reviewed the records of children discharged with a diagnosis of anaphylaxis or an allergic reaction over 11 years from 3 hospitals in the Bologna city area. Results: One hundred and sixteen cases matched the criteria (0.03% of the total admittances) and were divided according to the patients’ symptoms at arrival: active acute patients [AP], n = 50, or non-acute patients ([NAP], n = 66). At the patients’ discharge, anaphylaxis was diagnosed in 39 patients (33.6%). Some features seemed to favor a correct diagnosis: active symptoms at arrival (AP vs. NAP, p < 0.01), high-priority triage code (p < 0.01), and upper airway involvement (p < 0.01). Only 14 patients (12.1%), all in the AP group, received epinephrine, that was more likely administered to patients recognized to have anaphylaxis (p < 0.01) and with cardiovascular, respiratory, or persistent gastrointestinal symptoms (p < 0.02), as confirmed by logistic regression analysis. Conclusions: Anaphylaxis is still under-recognized and under-treated. Correct triage coding and a proper diagnosis seem to foster an appropriate treatment. Physicians often prefer third-line interventions. Specific training for nurses and physicians might improve the management of this disease.

Outcomes and Factors Associated With Prehospital Treatment of Pediatric Anaphylaxis

OBJECTIVE

Anaphylaxis is a potentially life-threatening reaction requiring prompt treatment with intramuscular epinephrine (EPI). We sought to describe presenting features of pediatric anaphylaxis and compare patient characteristics and outcomes of children treated with prehospital EPI with those untreated.

METHODS

We abstracted data from emergency department (ED) records for children meeting the National Institute of Allergy & Infectious Disease criteria for anaphylaxis (2015-2017) in one tertiary care children's hospital. We analyzed associations between patient characteristics and outcomes and receipt of prehospital EPI using descriptive statistics and multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of 414 children presenting with anaphylaxis, 39.4% received IM EPI and 62.1% received antihistamines before hospital arrival. Children with Medicaid received pre-emergency department EPI less frequently than did children with private insurance (24.5% vs 43.8%, P = 0.001). Factors positively associated with prehospital EPI administration were history of food allergy (odds ratio [OR], 4.4 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 2.4-8.2]) or arrival by emergency medical services (OR, 8.0 [95% CI, 4.2-15.0]). Medicaid insurance was associated with decreased odds of prehospital EPI (OR, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.16-0.66]) and prehospital H1-antihistamine use (OR, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.17-0.56]). Prehospital EPI treatment was also associated with decreased rates of observation (37% vs 63%), inpatient admission (38% vs 62%), and intensive care unit admission (20% vs 80%) compared with no pretreatment (P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Prehospital treatment with EPI remains low, and barriers to optimal treatment are more pronounced in children with public insurance. Prehospital treatment with EPI was associated with decreased morbidity including hospitalization and intensive care unit admission.

Physicians' Approach to Anaphylaxis in Childhood

METHODS

A questionnaire form consisting of a total of 18 questions was prepared. Six questions concerned demographic data; 7 questions inquired about physician's knowledge level about treatment of anaphylaxis. In the last part, 5 different case scenarios were given, and their diagnoses and treatments were asked.

RESULTS

A total of 120 physicians participated in the study. Of the participants, 66.7% were residents. The rate of correct answer about dose of epinephrine was 57.5%. The rates of making correct diagnoses in anaphylaxis case scenarios 1, 2, and 3 were 60%, 73.3%, and 91.7%, respectively, whereas epinephrine administration rates were 54%, 67.5%, and 92.5%, respectively. When the answers of all these questions given by the residents and specialists and among physicians who updated and did not update were compared, there were no statistically significant differences except epinephrine administration rate and its route (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the current study suggest that physicians' knowledge levels were inadequate in making the diagnosis of anaphylaxis, and physicians use epinephrine in conditions without hypotension or an undefined possible/known allergen contact. Information about epinephrine administration was partially correct. It is currently considered to be the simplest measure to have a written anaphylaxis action plan including diagnostic criteria for anaphylaxis.

Evaluation of baked egg oral immunotherapy in French children with hen's egg allergy

BACKGROUND

Introduction and gradual incremental escalation of a low dose of baked egg may accelerate the resolution of severe hen's egg (HE) allergy for some children. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of baked egg oral immunotherapy (OIT) in children with HE allergy after a low-dose baked egg oral food challenge (OFC).

METHODS

In a retrospective analysis of OFC performed between 2013 and 2018 at the Children's Hospital of Toulouse (France), we identified 71 children with HE allergy and high egg-white (EW) and ovomucoid specific IgE levels, who underwent a total of 164 OFC (71 baked egg, then 93 unbaked egg). Mean age at first low-dose baked egg OFC was 6 years. Median EW specific IgE was 14.0 kUA/L, and median ovomucoid specific IgE was 11.7 kUA/L.

RESULTS

Most children were treated with baked egg OIT. Our study shows that 78.9% of the children did not react to first low-dose baked egg OFC (702 mg of HE protein). 8.7% of children discontinued OIT at home. Finally, desensitization to unbaked HE was achieved in 47 children (66.2% of children allergic to HE). Children with lower EW specific IgE levels had a significantly higher probability of becoming desensitized to HE. We did not report any anaphylactic reactions to baked egg OIT.

CONCLUSION

Most children with HE allergy and high egg-white (EW) and ovomucoïd specific IgE levels tolerate the introduction of baked egg. Baked egg OIT is safe, and anaphylaxis to baked egg OIT has not been observed.

Community Use of Epinephrine for the Treatment of Anaphylaxis: A Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Community use of epinephrine for the treatment of anaphylaxis is low. Knowledge of rates of epinephrine use in the pre-hospital setting along with identification of barriers to its use will contribute to the development of policies and guidelines.

OBJECTIVES

A search was conducted on PubMed and Embase in April 2020. Our systematic review focused on 4 domains: (1) epinephrine use in the pre-hospital setting; (2) barriers to epinephrine use in the pre-hospital setting; (3) cost evaluation and cost-effectiveness of epinephrine use; and (4) programs and strategies to improve epinephrine use during anaphylaxis.

METHODS

Two meta-analyses with logit transformation were conducted to: (1) calculate the pooled estimate of the rate of epinephrine use in the pre-hospital setting among cases of anaphylaxis and (2) calculate the pooled estimate of the rate of biphasic reactions among all cases of anaphylaxis.

RESULTS

Epinephrine use in the pre-hospital setting was significantly higher for children compared with adults (20.98% [95% confidence interval (CI): 16.38%, 26.46%] vs 7.17% [95% CI: 2.71%, 17.63%], respectively, P = .0027). The pooled estimate of biphasic reactions among all anaphylaxis cases was 3.92% (95% CI: 2.88%, 5.32%). Our main findings indicate that pre-hospital use of epinephrine in anaphylaxis remains suboptimal. Major barriers to the use of epinephrine were identified as low prescription rates of epinephrine autoinjectors and lack of stock epinephrine in schools, which was determined to be cost-effective. Finally, in reviewing programs and strategies, numerous studies have engineered effective methods to promote adequate and timely use of epinephrine.

CONCLUSION

The main findings of our study demonstrated that across the globe, prompt epinephrine use in cases of anaphylaxis remains suboptimal. For practical recommendations, we would suggest considering stock epinephrine in schools and food courts to increase the use of epinephrine in the community. We recommend use of pamphlets in public areas (ie, malls, food courts, etc.) to assist in recognizing anaphylaxis and after that with prompt epinephrine administration, to avoid the rare risk of fatality in anaphylaxis cases.

Physicians' knowledge regarding epinephrine underuse in anaphylaxis

BACKGROUND

Anaphylaxis is a life-threating hypersensitivity reaction. Epinephrine underuse in patients with anaphylaxis could lead to poor outcomes. There is evidence that the epinephrine use in such patients could be as low as 8%.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the percentage of physicians who know that epinephrine is the first-line treatment in anaphylaxis. The secondary objective was to assess knowledge gaps regarding anaphylaxis diagnosis and treatment that could lead to epinephrine underuse.

METHODS

We performed an online survey for physicians in Mexico City, using a 10-item questionnaire assessing anaphylaxis knowledge. We obtained measures of central tendency for statistical analysis, such as frequency, 95% confidence interval, as well as the chi-square test for comparing the groups.

RESULTS

A total of 196 surveys were considered for analysis. Of all the participants, 96.44% were able to correctly diagnose an anaphylaxis case with cutaneous, respiratory, and cardiovascular symptoms. Fifty-two percent correctly diagnosed anaphylaxis without cutaneous symptoms. The 72.4% of the respondents chose epinephrine as the first-line treatment, 42.3% correctly answered that there is no absolute contraindication to giving epinephrine, and 20.9% ignored whether there was any contraindication for its use. Only 38.3% of participants answered that during discharge they would prescribe an autoinjector. Regarding the administration route, 63.4% answered that the first dose of epinephrine is applied intramuscularly and 50% of the participants chose the correct dose of epinephrine. Only 2.6% of the participants answered all 10 questions correctly.

CONCLUSION

There is still some difficulty recognizing anaphylaxis without cutaneous symptoms. Even though two-thirds of physicians identified that epinephrine is the treatment of choice, only 49.5% would have used intramuscular epinephrine as first-line treatment. We found a low percentage of epinephrine ampule prescription and knowledge of the correct dose. These findings can account for epinephrine underuse when dealing with anaphylaxis in the real clinical practice.

Benefits of baked milk oral immunotherapy in French children with cow's milk allergy

BACKGROUND

Introduction and gradual incremental escalation of a low dose of baked milk may accelerate the resolution of severe cow's milk (CM) allergy for some children. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of baked milk oral immunotherapy (OIT) in children with CM allergy after a low-dose baked milk oral food challenge (OFC).

METHODS

In a retrospective analysis of OFC performed between 2013 and 2018 at the Children's Hospital of Toulouse (France), we identified 64 children with CM allergy and high milk and casein-specific IgE levels, who underwent a total of 171 milk OFC. Mean age at 1st OFC was 4.8 years. Mean CM-specific IgE was 47.9 kUA/L, and mean casein-specific IgE was 42.3 kUA/L.

RESULTS

Most children were treated with baked milk OIT. Our study shows that 67.2% of the children did not react to 1st low-dose baked milk OFC (168.6 mg of CM protein). Eighteen percent of children stopped the OIT at home. Finally, desensitization to fresh milk was achieved in 27 children (42.2% of children allergic to CM). Children with lower CM-specific IgE levels have a significantly higher probability of becoming desensitized to unbaked CM.

CONCLUSION

Most children with CM allergy and high milk and casein-specific IgE levels tolerate the introduction of baked milk. However, the occurrence of anaphylactic reactions during OIT remains possible.

Anaphylaxis-a 2020 practice parameter update, systematic review, and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) analysis

Anaphylaxis is an acute, potential life-threatening systemic allergic reaction that may have a wide range of clinical manifestations. Severe anaphylaxis and/or the need for repeated doses of epinephrine to treat anaphylaxis are risk factors for biphasic anaphylaxis. Antihistamines and/or glucocorticoids are not reliable interventions to prevent biphasic anaphylaxis, although evidence supports a role for antihistamine and/or glucocorticoid premedication in specific chemotherapy protocols and rush aeroallergen immunotherapy. Evidence is lacking to support the role of antihistamines and/or glucocorticoid routine premedication in patients receiving low- or iso-osmolar contrast material to prevent recurrent radiocontrast media anaphylaxis. Epinephrine is the first-line pharmacotherapy for uniphasic and/or biphasic anaphylaxis. After diagnosis and treatment of anaphylaxis, all patients should be kept under observation until symptoms have fully resolved. All patients with anaphylaxis should receive education on anaphylaxis and risk of recurrence, trigger avoidance, self-injectable epinephrine education, referral to an allergist, and be educated about thresholds for further care.

Commercial claims costs related to health care resource use associated with a diagnosis of peanut allergy

BACKGROUND

Peanut allergy (PA) affects approximately 1.6 million US children. The current standard of care is strict avoidance and prompt reaction treatment. Peanut allergy health care costs and health care resource utilization (HCRU) are poorly understood.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate PA health care costs and HCRU using a nationally representative commercial payer database.

METHODS

The IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database was examined for PA diagnosis/reaction codes between January 2010 and October 2016 in patients 64 years of age or younger, with age cohort-matched controls. Outcomes were measured 12 months before and after the first claim date. Health care costs and HCRU were compared using Student's t tests and χ² tests.

RESULTS

Patients with a PA-related diagnostic code (n = 41,675) incurred almost double all-cause health care costs vs controls ($6436 vs $3493, P < .001), mainly from inpatient and outpatient medical costs ($5002 vs $2832, P < .001). More than one third of the PA group patients (36%) had a code indicative of an anaphylactic reaction during follow-up. Mean PA or reaction-related code costs per visit totaled $7921 for hospitalizations and $1115 for emergency department (ED) visits. Costs were 30% lower in patients with asthma codes without PA codes vs those with both codes ($5678 vs $8112, P < .001); all-cause ED costs were more than double in patients with atopic dermatitis codes with PA codes vs those without PA codes ($654 vs $308, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

National commercial payer claims data indicate a significant health care burden associated with a PA-related code, including over $6400/patient in annual all-cause costs and increased health care utilization.

Idiopathic anaphylaxis yardstick: Practical recommendations for clinical practice

Anaphylaxis is considered idiopathic when there is no known trigger. The signs and symptoms of idiopathic anaphylaxis (IA) are identical to those of anaphylaxis because of a known cause and can include cutaneous, circulatory, respiratory, gastrointestinal, and neurologic symptoms. Idiopathic anaphylaxis can be a frustrating disease for patients and health care providers. Episodes are unpredictable, and differential diagnosis is challenging. Current anaphylaxis guidelines have little specific guidance regarding differential diagnosis and long-term management of IA. Therefore, the objective of the Idiopathic Anaphylaxis Yardstick is to use published data and the authors' combined clinical experience to provide practical recommendations for the diagnosis and management of patients with IA.

Changes in Emergency Department Concordance with Guidelines for the Management of Food-Induced Anaphylaxis: 1999-2001 versus 2013-2015

BACKGROUND

Awareness about food allergy and food-induced anaphylaxis (FIA) has increased dramatically over the past decade. It remains unclear, however, whether concordance with guidelines for FIA management has improved over time.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to describe changes in emergency department (ED) concordance with guidelines for FIA management.

METHODS

We analyzed data from 2 multicenter retrospective studies of patients with food-related acute allergic reactions seen in 1 of 17 EDs during 2 time periods: 1999 to 2001 and 2013 to 2015. Visits were identified similarly across years-for example, using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes 693.1, 995.60, 995.61-995.69, 995.0, and 995.3. Anaphylaxis was defined as an acute allergic reaction with involvement of 2+ organ systems or hypotension. We compared concordance between time periods for 4 guideline recommendations: (1) treatment with epinephrine, (2) discharge prescription for an epinephrine autoinjector (EAI), (3) referral to an allergist/immunologist, and (4) instructions to avoid offending allergen.

RESULTS

We compared 290 patients with FIA during 1999 to 2001 and 459 during 2013 to 2015. Any treatment with epinephrine (pre-ED or in the ED) for patients with FIA increased over time (38% vs 56%; P < .001). Prescriptions for EAI at discharge (24% vs 54%; P < .001) and documentation for referral to an allergist/immunologist (14% vs 24%; P = .001) approximately doubled, whereas instructions to avoid the offending allergen did not change significantly (37% vs 43%; P = .08). Receipt of 3+ guideline recommendations remained low but almost quadrupled over the study interval (6% vs 23%; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Over the nearly 15-year study interval, we observed clinically and statistically significant increases in ED concordance with epinephrine-related guidelines for FIA. Management gaps remain and interventions to standardize care still appear warranted.

Pediatric Anaphylaxis in the Emergency Department: Clinical Presentation, Quality of Care, and Reliability of Consensus Criteria

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to describe the quality of emergency department (ED) care for pediatric patients with anaphylaxis. The secondary objectives were to describe (1) the clinical presentation of pediatric patients with anaphylaxis including the proportion of patients meeting each of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) consensus criteria and subcriteria and (2) the Interrater reliability (IRR) for applying the NIAID criteria.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional chart review of patients seen in a pediatric ED during a 2-year period. All charts were reviewed by a trained chart reviewer with 10% abstracted by a second reviewer. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics including proportions, medians, and interquartile range. Interrater reliability was calculated using Cohen unweighted κ or percent agreement.

RESULTS

Of the 250 charts reviewed, 84% (211) met the NIAID criteria for anaphylaxis (IRR, 1.0). Only 68% of patients received epinephrine in the ED or within 3 hours of the ED visit. Adherence was poor and IRR was variable, for measures reflecting documentation of discharge instructions and follow-up with a specialist. The IRR of reviewers for determining which patients met the NIAID criteria overall and for each subcriterion was high.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings highlight a gap between best practice and ED care. In addition, our results suggest that the NIAID criteria can reliably be used to retrospectively identify pediatric patients with anaphylaxis. Accurately identifying cases is a prerequisite for measuring gaps in management and developing interventions to improve care.

Underuse of Epinephrine for Pediatric Anaphylaxis Victims in the Emergency Department: A Population-based Study

Purpose

Epinephrine is a key drug for treating anaphylaxis; however, its underuse is still a significant issue worldwide. The objective of this study was to compare epinephrine use between pediatric and adult patients who were treated with anaphylaxis in the emergency department (ED).

Methods

The data were retrieved from the National Sample Cohort of South Korea, which contains claim data from the National Health Insurance Service. We included patients who visited the ED with a discharge code of anaphylaxis between 2004 and 2013. We assessed prescription information of epinephrine, antihistamine and systemic steroid, previous medical history and discharge disposition from the ED. The study population was categorized based on age at the visit.

Results

A total of 175 pediatric and 1,605 adult patients with anaphylaxis were identified. Only 42 (24%) of the pediatric patients were treated with epinephrine, while 592 (36.9%) of the adult patients were treated with epinephrine (P = 0.001). Furthermore, the pediatric patients were less likely to be treated with systemic steroid than the adult patients (6.9% vs. 12.3%, P = 0.047). The odds ratios for the administration of epinephrine relative to the baseline in the 19-65 age group were 0.34 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15–0.67), 0.56 (95% CI, 0.28–1.03) and 0.79 (95% CI, 0.45–1.33) in the < 7, 7–12 and 13–18 age groups, respectively.

Conclusions

The pediatric patients with anaphylaxis experienced a lower rate of epinephrine injection use than the adult patients and the injection use decreased as age decreased.

Changes in emergency department concordance with guidelines for the management of stinging insect-induced anaphylaxis: 1999-2001 vs 2013-2015

BACKGROUND

Changes in emergency department (ED) concordance with guidelines for the management of stinging insect-induced anaphylaxis (SIIA) are not known.

OBJECTIVE

To describe temporal changes in ED concordance with guidelines for the management of SIIAs.

METHODS

We analyzed data from 2 multicenter retrospective studies of patients with stinging insect-related acute allergic reactions seen in 1 of 14 North American EDs during 2 periods: 1999 through 2001 and 2013 through 2015. Visits were identified similarly across studies (eg, using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes 989.5, 995.0, and 995.3). Anaphylaxis was defined as an acute allergic reaction with involvement of at least 2 organ systems or hypotension. We compared concordance between periods with 4 guideline recommendations: (1) treatment with epinephrine, (2) discharge prescription for epinephrine auto-injector, (3) referral to an allergist/immunologist, and (4) instructions to avoid the offending allergen.

RESULTS

We compared 182 patients with SIIA during 1999 to 2001 with 204 during 2013 to 2015. Any treatment with epinephrine (before arrival to the ED or in the ED) increased over time (30% vs 49%; P < .001). Prescriptions for epinephrine auto-injector at discharge increased significantly (34% vs 57%; P < .001), whereas documentation of referral to an allergist/immunologist decreased (28% vs 12%; P = .002), and instructions to avoid the offending allergen did not change (23% vs 24%; P = .94). Receipt of at least 3 guideline recommendations increased over time; however, the comparison was not statistically significant (10% vs 16%; P = .15).

CONCLUSION

During the nearly 15-year study interval, we observed increased ED concordance with epinephrine-related guideline recommendations for the management of SIIA. Reasons for the decrease in allergy/immunology referrals merit further study.

Food-induced fatal anaphylaxis: From epidemiological data to general prevention strategies

BACKGROUND

Anaphylaxis hospitalizations are increasing in many countries, in particular for medication and food triggers in young children. Food-related anaphylaxis remains an uncommon cause of death, but a significant proportion of these are preventable.

AIM

To review published epidemiological data relating to food-induced anaphylaxis and potential risk factors of fatal and/or near-fatal anaphylaxis cases, in order to provide strategies to reduce the risk of severe adverse outcomes in food anaphylaxis.

METHODS

We identified 32 published studies available in MEDLINE (1966-2017), EMBASE (1980-2017), CINAHL (1982-2017), using known terms and synonyms suggested by librarians and allergy specialists.

RESULTS

Young adults with a history of asthma, previously known food allergy particularly to peanut/tree nuts are at higher risk of fatal anaphylaxis reactions. In some countries, cow's milk and seafood/fish are also becoming common triggers of fatal reactions. Delayed adrenaline injection is associated with fatal outcomes, but timely adrenaline alone may be insufficient. There is still a lack of evidence regarding the real impact of these risk factors and co-factors (medications and/or alcohol consumption, physical activities, and mast cell disorders).

CONCLUSIONS

General strategies should include optimization of the classification and coding for anaphylaxis (new ICD 11 anaphylaxis codes), dissemination of international recommendations on the treatment of anaphylaxis, improvement of the prevention in food and catering areas, and dissemination of specific policies for allergic children in schools. Implementation of these strategies will involve national and international support for ongoing local efforts in relationship with networks of centres of excellence to provide personalized management (which might include immunotherapy) for the most at-risk patients.

Downstream consequences of diagnostic error in pediatric anaphylaxis

Background

Pediatric anaphylaxis is commonly misdiagnosed in the Emergency Department (ED). We aimed to determine the impact of inaccurate diagnosis on the management and follow-up of pediatric anaphylaxis presenting to the ED.

Methods

Retrospective chart review of ED management of children aged 0–18 years with allergic presentations to three EDs in Melbourne, Australia in 2014. Cases were included if an ED diagnosis of anaphylaxis was recorded, or the presentation met international consensus criteria for anaphylaxis.

Results

Of the 60,143 pediatric ED presentations during the study period, 1551 allergy-related presentations were identified and reviewed. 187 met consensus criteria for anaphylaxis, and another 24 were diagnosed with anaphylaxis without meeting criteria. Of the 211 presentations, 105 cases were given an ED diagnosis of anaphylaxis and 106 cases were given an alternative diagnosis in ED.

Those diagnosed with anaphylaxis were more likely to receive epinephrine [85.7% vs 31.1% (OR = 13.27, 95% CI: 6.09–26.3)], to be observed for the recommended four hours [56.2% vs 29.2% (OR = 3.10, 95% CI 1.76–5.48, p < 0.001)], to have an epinephrine autoinjector available on discharge [81.9% vs 35.8% (OR = 4.12, 95% CI 2.07–8.22, p < 0.001)] and to be referred to an allergist [35.2% vs 16.0% (OR = 2.85, 95% CI 1.48–5.49, p < 0.01)]. Provision of anaphylaxis action plans and allergen avoidance advice was poorly documented for all patients.

Conclusion

Accurate diagnosis of anaphylaxis in ED has a significant impact on observation times, prescription of epinephrine autoinjectors and referral to an allergist. These factors are key to reducing mortality and the significant morbidity that results from childhood anaphylaxis.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12887-018-1024-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Inaccurate diagnosis of paediatric anaphylaxis in three Australian Emergency Departments

AIM

To determine the accuracy of emergency department (ED) paediatric anaphylaxis diagnosis, and to identify factors associated with misdiagnosis.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review of children aged 0-18 years with allergic presentations to three Victorian EDs in 2014. Cases were included if an ED diagnosis of anaphylaxis was recorded, or the presentation met international consensus criteria for anaphylaxis.

RESULTS

Of the 60 143 paediatric ED presentations during the study period, 1551 allergy-related presentations were identified and reviewed. One hundred and eighty-seven met consensus criteria for anaphylaxis, and another 24 were diagnosed with anaphylaxis without meeting criteria. Of the 211 presentations, 105 cases were given an ED diagnosis of anaphylaxis and 106 cases were given an alternative diagnosis in ED. ED assessment had a sensitivity of 43.2% (95% confidence interval (CI) 36.1-50.7%) and specificity of 97.9% (95% CI 96.9-98.7%) for anaphylaxis. Multiple logistic regression demonstrated that an ED anaphylaxis diagnosis was associated with previous anaphylaxis (odds ratio (OR) 3.20; 95% CI 1.52-6.75), arrival by ambulance (OR 2.80; 95% CI 1.36-5.74), a high-acuity triage category (OR 4.51; 95% CI 2.20-9.25) and presentation to a tertiary hospital (OR 2.86; 95% CI 1.44-5.67). ED diagnosis of anaphylaxis was less likely in those with resolution of symptoms and signs in at least one organ system prior to arrival (OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.12-0.62).

CONCLUSION

In children with allergic presentations, ED assessment has a low sensitivity but high specificity for anaphylaxis. Attention to resolved pre-hospital symptoms and awareness of diagnostic criteria are important considerations for accurate ED diagnosis of anaphylaxis.

Evaluation of Anaphylaxis Management in a Pediatric Emergency Department

OBJECTIVE

In 2006, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease established evidence-based treatment guidelines for anaphylaxis. The purpose of our study was to evaluate provider adherence to guidelines-based management for anaphylaxis in a tertiary care pediatric emergency department (ED).

METHODS

Retrospective chart review was conducted of patients (0-18 years) presenting to the Arkansas Children Hospital ED from 2004 to 2011 for the treatment of anaphylaxis using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Edition, codes. Multiple characteristics including demographics, clinical features, allergen source, and anaphylaxis management were collected. Fisher exact or χ tests were used to compare proportion of patients treated with intramuscular (IM) epinephrine in the preguideline versus postguideline period. Relative risk (RR) statistics were computed to estimate the ratio of patients who received self-injectable epinephrine prescription and allergy follow-up in the preguideline and postguideline groups.

RESULTS

A total of 187 patients (median [range] age, 7 [1-18] years; 67% male; 48% African American) were evaluated. Food (44%) and hymenoptera stings (22%) were commonly described culprit allergens, whereas 29% had no identifiable allergen. Only 47% (n = 87) received epinephrine in the ED and 31% (n = 27) via the preferred IM route. Comparing postguideline (n = 126) versus preguideline (n = 61) periods demonstrated increase in the usage of the IM route (46% postguideline vs 6% preguideline; risk ratio (RR), 7.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.04-46.0; P < 0.001). Overall, 61% (n = 115) of the patients received self-injectable epinephrine upon discharge, and there were no significant differences between the groups (64% postguideline vs 56% preguideline, P = 0.30). Postguideline patients were more likely to receive a prescription compared with preguideline patients (64% postguideline vs 56% preguideline; RR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.89-1.55; P = 0.30). Only 45% (n = 85) received an allergy referral. Postguideline patients were more likely to receive an allergy referral than preguideline patients (48% postguideline vs 41% preguideline; RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.81-1.73; P = 0.40).

CONCLUSIONS

Provider use of IM epinephrine has improved since anaphylaxis guidelines were published. However, more provider education is needed to improve overall adherence of guidelines in a tertiary care pediatric ED.

The diagnosis and management of children presenting with anaphylaxis to a metropolitan emergency department: A 2-year retrospective case series

AIM

To investigate the diagnosis and management of children with anaphylaxis presenting to an Emergency Department (ED). We compared the management with the Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy (ASCIA) guidelines to gauge compliance.

METHODS

A retrospective case series was developed from children aged from birth to 16 years presenting to the ED at Sunshine Hospital (SH) in Melbourne, Australia over a 2-year period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2013. The demographic characteristics, causative agents, clinical features, treatment administered and discharge destination were recorded.

RESULTS

Fifty-five children diagnosed with anaphylaxis during the 2-year period were identified. Fifty-two children (95%) met the ASCIA diagnostic criteria, 49 (94%) children received adrenaline. The median age of presentation was five years, with males predominating (32 (62%)). The most common setting was home (35 (67%)), and food (39 (75%)) was the most common causative agent. Cutaneous symptoms (50 (96%)) were the most prevalent. Twenty-eight (54%) children received adrenaline prior to arrival in ED, whilst 22 (42%) received adrenaline in the ED. Thirty-three (63%) children were discharged home.

CONCLUSION

Childhood anaphylaxis commonly presents to the ED. More than half of children presenting with anaphylaxis were treated prior to attending the ED. The findings demonstrate that anaphylaxis diagnosis and management guidelines are being adhered to in the majority of cases. There were no adverse outcomes recorded.

Update on Mastocytosis (Part 1): Pathophysiology, Clinical Features, and Diagnosis

Mastocytosis is a term used to describe a heterogeneous group of disorders characterized by clonal proliferation of mast cells in various organs. The organ most often affected is the skin. Mastocytosis is a relatively rare disorder that affects both sexes equally. It can occur at any age, although it tends to appear in the first decade of life, or later, between the second and fifth decades. Our understanding of the pathophysiology of mastocytosis has improved greatly in recent years, with the discovery that somatic c-kit mutations and aberrant immunophenotypic features have an important role. The clinical manifestations of mastocytosis are diverse, and skin lesions are the key to diagnosis in most patients.

Review article: quality of follow-up care for anaphylaxis in the emergency department

The prevalence of allergic disorders is rising, with a corresponding increase in patients presenting to an ED with anaphylaxis. Appropriate follow up is required for patients with anaphylaxis. We reviewed two potential performance indicators for the quality of post-discharge care: (i) the rate of self-injectable adrenaline prescription; and (ii) the referral rate for follow-up care with allergy specialists. A search of Cochrane Library, PubMed and Google Scholar was performed using the following initial search string: anaphylaxis and 'emergency department'. We considered any (interventional or observational design) study assessing post-discharge care in anaphylaxis, measured by either adrenaline self-injection prescription or allergist referral. Subjects were patients with (suspected) anaphylaxis or severe allergic reaction, with no age limit. This review summarises findings from 16 relevant papers, all retrospective analyses of post-discharge care for anaphylaxis. Weighted arithmetic means were calculated for rates of prescription of adrenaline auto-injector and referral to an allergist following admission to an ED in patients with (suspected) anaphylaxis or severe allergic reaction. Prescription rates for self-injected adrenaline at the time of discharge following anaphylaxis varied from 0% to 68%, with a mean of 44%. Allergist referral rates ranged from 0% to 84%, with a mean of 33%. This review demonstrates that there is room for improvement in post-discharge care for patients who present to the ED with an anaphylactic reaction.

Management and treatment of anaphylaxis in children: still too low the rate of prescription and administration of intramuscular epinephrine

Despite it being well known that anaphylaxis is a severe life-threatening reaction requiring prompt management and treatment, this entity is still under-recognized and not correctly managed, above all in children. The aim of this study was to analyze the most frequent features of anaphylaxis in a pediatric population (n=65 patients) and to identify factors predicting more severe reactions. Among the 70 recorded episodes, food was the main culprit of anaphylaxis, and patients with a positive history for allergic asthma had more severe episodes (P=0.008). A self-injectable adrenaline was used only in 2 of the 70 episodes and none of the 50 episodes managed in the Emergency Department was treated with intramuscular adrenaline. Only 10/65 patients (15&#x0025;) had a prescription for an auto-injector prior to the first episode of anaphylaxis. The retrospective analysis of the risk factors potentially requiring an epinephrine auto-injector prescription before the first anaphylactic episode, showed that of the 55 patients without prescription, at least 10 (18&#x0025;) should have been provided with a device, according to the most recent guidelines. In conclusion, notwithstanding intramuscular adrenaline being the first-line treatment of anaphylaxis, many episodes are still undertreated and the risk of anaphylaxis is still under-estimated. More efforts should be made to promote the correct management of anaphylaxis among both healthcare-providers and patients.

[Anaphylaxis: recognize and treat early]

Allergic emergencies in children are now more frequent and unpredictable and can cause death by anaphylactic shock, bronchospasm, and airway angioedema. Despite the publication of recent guidelines, many studies show that caregivers are still not at ease with the management of anaphylaxis and intramuscular administration of adrenaline. The prognosis depends on the early diagnosis of anaphylaxis and adrenaline administration before cardiorespiratory failure. The biphasic course of anaphylaxis requires systematic hospitalization of at least 6–24 hours depending on severity. To prevent recurrence, each child with anaphylaxis should permanently be in possession of two unexpired self-injectable adrenaline devices with a demonstration and written instructions on its use. Close collaboration between emergency departments, allergist, and family is essential to adapt therapeutic education and allergen avoidance to the allergen identified. This article focuses on opportunities to improve the skills of caregivers and standardize the management of anaphylaxis by proposing a practical definition and a therapeutic strategy based on Ring grading of severity.

International consensus on (ICON) anaphylaxis

ICON: Anaphylaxis provides a unique perspective on the principal evidence-based anaphylaxis guidelines developed and published independently from 2010 through 2014 by four allergy/immunology organizations. These guidelines concur with regard to the clinical features that indicate a likely diagnosis of anaphylaxis -- a life-threatening generalized or systemic allergic or hypersensitivity reaction. They also concur about prompt initial treatment with intramuscular injection of epinephrine (adrenaline) in the mid-outer thigh, positioning the patient supine (semi-reclining if dyspneic or vomiting), calling for help, and when indicated, providing supplemental oxygen, intravenous fluid resuscitation and cardiopulmonary resuscitation, along with concomitant monitoring of vital signs and oxygenation. Additionally, they concur that H1-antihistamines, H2-antihistamines, and glucocorticoids are not initial medications of choice. For self-management of patients at risk of anaphylaxis in community settings, they recommend carrying epinephrine auto-injectors and personalized emergency action plans, as well as follow-up with a physician (ideally an allergy/immunology specialist) to help prevent anaphylaxis recurrences. ICON: Anaphylaxis describes unmet needs in anaphylaxis, noting that although epinephrine in 1 mg/mL ampules is available worldwide, other essentials, including supplemental oxygen, intravenous fluid resuscitation, and epinephrine auto-injectors are not universally available. ICON: Anaphylaxis proposes a comprehensive international research agenda that calls for additional prospective studies of anaphylaxis epidemiology, patient risk factors and co-factors, triggers, clinical criteria for diagnosis, randomized controlled trials of therapeutic interventions, and measures to prevent anaphylaxis recurrences. It also calls for facilitation of global collaborations in anaphylaxis research. IN ADDITION TO CONFIRMING THE ALIGNMENT OF MAJOR ANAPHYLAXIS GUIDELINES, ICON: Anaphylaxis adds value by including summary tables and citing 130 key references. It is published as an information resource about anaphylaxis for worldwide use by healthcare professionals, academics, policy-makers, patients, caregivers, and the public.

A multifaceted intervention for patients with anaphylaxis increases epinephrine use in adult emergency department

BACKGROUND

Studies have documented inconsistent emergency anaphylaxis care and low compliance with published guidelines.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate anaphylaxis management before and after implementation of an emergency department (ED) anaphylaxis order set and introduction of epinephrine autoinjectors, and to measure the effect on anaphylaxis guideline adherence.

METHODS

A cohort study was conducted from April 29, 2008, to August 9, 2012. Adult patients in the ED who were diagnosed with anaphylaxis were included. ED management, disposition, self-injectable epinephrine prescriptions, allergy follow-up, and incidence of biphasic reactions were evaluated.

RESULTS

The study included 202 patients. The median age of the patients was 45.3 years (interquartile range, 31.3-56.4 years); 139 (69%) were women. Patients who presented after order set implementation were more likely to be treated with epinephrine (51% vs 33%; odds ratio [OR] 2.05 [95% CI, 1.04-4.04]) and admitted to the ED observation unit (65% vs 44%; OR 2.38 [95% CI, 1.23-4.60]), and less likely to be dismissed home directly from ED (16% vs 29%, OR 0.47 [95% CI, 0.22-1.00]). Eleven patients (5%) had a biphasic reaction. Of these, 5 (46%) had the biphasic reaction in the ED observation unit; 1 patient was admitted to the intensive care unit. Six patients (55%) had reactions within 6 hours of initial symptom resolution, of whom 2 were admitted to the intensive care unit.

CONCLUSIONS

Significantly higher proportions of patients with anaphylaxis received epinephrine and were admitted to the ED observation unit after introduction of epinephrine autoinjectors and order set implementation. Slightly more than half of the biphasic reactions occurred within the recommended observation time of 4 to 6 hours. Analysis of these data suggests that the multifaceted approach to changing anaphylaxis management described here improved guideline adherence.

Anaphylaxis on the other front line: perspectives from the emergency department

Although most cases of anaphylaxis are treated in the emergency department (ED), personnel may not immediately recognize anaphylaxis based on presenting symptoms because it has a wide range of clinical manifestations and variable progression. When symptoms happen to be atypical or mild and when no trigger is identified, the diagnosis of anaphylaxis can be challenging. Underdiagnosis of anaphylaxis can lead to delayed use of appropriate first-line epinephrine in favor of treatments that should be used as adjunctive only. Even when anaphylaxis is recognized, the choice between an epinephrine autoinjector or epinephrine ampule can still present a challenge. Treatment of anaphylaxis in the ED should include a combination of intramuscular epinephrine, supplemental oxygen, and intravenous fluids. If there is an incomplete response to the initial dose of epinephrine, additional doses or other measures may be considered. The most important management consideration is avoiding treatment delays, because symptoms can progress rapidly. Upon discharge from the ED, all patients with anaphylaxis should be given a prescription for at least 2 epinephrine autoinjectors, an initial emergency action plan, education about avoidance of triggers, and a referral to an allergist. A significant limitation of current studies is that clinical outcomes in anaphylaxis associated with established poor rates of diagnosis and use of recommended treatments are unclear; such trials must be conducted as supporting evidence for ED management guidelines for anaphylaxis.

Anaphylaxis: underdiagnosed, underreported, and undertreated

Diagnostic criteria and administrative codes for anaphylaxis have evolved in recent years, partly reflecting the challenges in recognizing anaphylaxis and understanding its symptoms. Before the diagnostic criteria were disseminated by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network, several studies showed that a substantial proportion of anaphylaxis cases presenting to the emergency department (ED) were not recognized as such. Furthermore, epinephrine, the first-line treatment, was used in fewer than half of cases, especially if anaphylaxis was not diagnosed at the time. Although management practices may have improved since that time, anaphylaxis continues to be underrecognized and undertreated in the US. Of particular concern are findings that the majority of patients who visited the ED for an acute allergic reaction or anaphylaxis were not given a prescription for an epinephrine autoinjector, educated about avoiding the offending allergen, or advised to consult with an allergist. Improvements in the recognition and management of anaphylaxis have the potential to reduce the substantial burden that it currently places on the health care system. The articles in this supplement cover a wide range of issues surrounding anaphylaxis and seek to disseminate information helpful to health care professionals in general and primary care providers in particular.

Immediate hypersensitivity reactions following monovalent 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) vaccines: reports to VAERS

BACKGROUND

Hypersensitivity disorders following vaccinations are a cause for concern.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the type and rate by age, gender, and vaccine received for reported hypersensitivity reactions following monovalent 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) vaccines.

DESIGN

A systematic review of reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) following monovalent 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) vaccines.

SETTING/PATIENTS

US Civilian reports following vaccine received from October 1, 2009 through May 31, 2010.

MEASUREMENTS

Age, gender, vaccines received, diagnoses, clinical signs, and treatment were reviewed by nurses and physicians with expertise in vaccine adverse events. A panel of experts, including seven allergists reviewed complex illnesses and those with conflicting evidence for classification of the event.

RESULTS

Of 1984 reports, 1286 were consistent with immediate hypersensitivity disorders and 698 were attributed to anxiety reactions, syncope, or other illnesses. The female-to-male ratio was ≥4:1 for persons 20-to-59 years of age, but approximately equal for children under 10. One hundred eleven reports met Brighton Collaboration criteria for anaphylaxis; only one-half received epinephrine for initial therapy. The overall rate of reported hypersensitivity reactions was 10.7 per million vaccine doses distributed, with a 2-fold higher rate for live vaccine.

LIMITATIONS

Underreporting, especially of mild events, would result in an underestimate of the true rate of immediate hypersensitivity reactions. Selective reporting of events in adult females could have resulted in higher rates than reported for males.

CONCLUSIONS

Adult females may be at higher risk of hypersensitivity reactions after influenza vaccination than men. Although the risk of hypersensitivity reactions following 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) vaccines was low, all clinics administering vaccines should be familiar with treatment guidelines for these adverse events, including the use of intramuscular epinephrine early in the course of serious hypersensitivity reactions.

Common features of anaphylaxis in children

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to establish the characteristics of anaphylaxis in childhood.

METHODS

Forty-four patients who had experienced anaphylaxis in a period of 10 years (from 1999 to 2009), were included in the study. Parameters analysed were age, gender, concomitant allergic disease, trigger, setting, clinical symptoms, treatment, prognosis and prophylaxis.

RESULTS

The total numbers of anaphylaxis cases were 44 in a ten-year period. The ages of patients ranged from 3 to 14 years (11.50 ± 3.87 years) and the majority were male. 33 of the patients (75%) had a concomitant allergic disease. The trigger was determined in 93.2% of the cases, being most frequent: food (27.3%), and SIT (25%), followed by bee sting, medications and others. Respiratory (95.5%), dermatological (90.9%), cardiovascular (20.5%), neuropsychiatric (25%), and gastrointestinal (11.4%) symptoms were seen most frequently. For anaphylaxis triggered by food, the duration of anaphylactic episode was significantly longer (p<0.05). No biphasic reaction was observed during these attacks. Of our patients, only one developed respiratory failure and cardiac arrest due to SIT, and intensive care support was required.

DISCUSSION

As a trigger for anaphylaxis, the frequency of SIT is so high that it cannot be described by the study group including patients who were followed up in an outpatient allergy clinic.

Update in pediatric anaphylaxis: a systematic review

Anaphylaxis is common in children and has many differences across age groups. A systematic review of the literature from the past 5 years was conducted with the goal of updating the pediatrician. Food is the most common trigger in children, but insect venom and drugs are other typical causes. Clinical diagnostic criteria include dermatological, respiratory, cardiovascular, and gastrointestinal manifestations. A biphasic reaction is seen in some, with recurrence usually within 8 hours of the initial episode. Epinephrine is the drug of choice for acute reactions and the only medication shown to be lifesaving when administered promptly, but it is underutilized. Patients should have ready access to ≥2 doses of an epinephrine autoinjector, with thorough training regarding correct use of a given device and an emergency action plan. Management of anaphylaxis in schools presents distinct challenges. Pediatricians are in a unique position to assess and treat these patients chronically.

A randomized maternal evaluation of epinephrine autoinjection devices

BACKGROUND

Intramuscular epinephrine (adrenaline) is the first-line therapy for anaphylaxis and prompt administration improves outcome. In 2011, two epinephrine autoinjectors existed in the United Kingdom, differing in their users' administration method: EpiPen(®) and Anapen(®) . We routinely train all families who receive these devices.

AIM

To evaluate: Maternal competence in using epinephrine autoinjectors following our standard anaphylaxis training package. Which device mothers found easier to use.

METHODS

Mothers with no previous epinephrine autoinjector experience were approached to participate. One clinician provided a standardized demonstration on using a randomly assigned autoinjector device. She immediately evaluated the mothers' performance using ten predetermined criteria. Four criteria were device specific and six were common criteria to both devices.

RESULTS

One hundred mothers participated: 50 EpiPen(®) and 50 Anapen(®) . A substantial proportion of mothers (15% overall) were not able to successfully 'fire' these training devices: Anapen(®) 4% and EpiPen(®) 26% (OR 8.43, p = 0.005). Only 22% of mothers overall were able to perform all ten procedures completely successfully: Anapen(®) 32% and EpiPen(®) 12%. Chi-squared analysis showed a significantly higher proportion of mothers correctly performing all Anapen(®) specific procedures than EpiPen(®) (OR 14.24, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

It is concerning that 15% of mothers overall could not 'fire' these devices correctly despite a one-to-one demonstration, identifying a need for more user friendly devices and training. Mothers found the Anapen(®) device significantly easier to use, which may have implications for future prescribing. Evaluation of the next generation of autoinjectors and their training packages needs to be performed as important practical differences may be found.

Evaluating the management of anaphylaxis in US emergency departments: Guidelines vs. practice

BACKGROUND

Anaphylaxis is characterized by acute episodes of potentially life-threatening symptoms that are often treated in the emergency setting. Current guidelines recommend: 1) quick diagnosis using standard criteria; 2) first-line treatment with epinephrine; and 3) discharge with a prescription for an epinephrine auto-injector, written instructions regarding long-term management, and a referral (preferably, allergy) for follow-up. However, studies suggest low concordance with guideline recommendations by emergency medicine (EM) providers. The study aimed to evaluate how emergency departments (EDs) in the United States (US) manage anaphylaxis in relation to guideline recommendations.

METHODS

This was an online anonymous survey of a random sample of EM health providers in US EDs.

RESULTS

Data analysis included 207 EM providers. For respondent EDs, approximately 9% reported using agreed-upon clinical criteria to diagnose anaphylaxis; 42% reported administering epinephrine in the ED for most anaphylaxis episodes; and <50% provided patients with a prescription for an epinephrine auto-injector and/or an allergist referral on discharge. Most provided some written materials, and follow-up with a primary care clinician was recommended.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first cross-sectional survey to provide "real-world" data showing that practice in US EDs is discordant with current guideline recommendations for the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of patients with anaphylaxis. The primary gaps are low (or no) utilization of standard criteria for defining anaphylaxis and inconsistent use of epinephrine. Prospective research is recommended.

Children monosensitized to pine nuts have similar patterns of sensitization

BACKGROUND

Several cases of pine nut allergies and anaphylaxis have been reported in the literature, but only few pine nut allergens have been characterized. The aim of this research is to identify through immunoelectrophoretic techniques the major pine nut allergens in a group of children monosensitized to pine nuts.

METHODS

We studied five children with pine nut allergies and no other sensitization to food except to pine nuts, confirmed by in vivo (prick test, prick-to-prick) and in vitro tests (specific IgE determinations [CAP-FEIA]). The protein profile of pine nuts was analyzed by Sodium Dodecyl sulfate Polyacrylamide Gel Electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE). Immunoblotting was performed after incubation of membranes with the sera from the children included in the present study.

RESULTS

Immunoblotting (SDS-PAGE) demonstrated five similar bands between 6 and 47 kDa in all the subjects studied.

CONCLUSION

These bands should be considered the potential allergens for pine nut allergic children.

Food allergy and anaphylaxis in pediatrics: update 2010-2012

This review highlights the progress made in food allergy (FA) and anaphylaxis research in pediatrics published in the journal Pediatric Allergy and Immunology since 2010. Putative risk factors for FA are as follows: a family history of allergic disease, particularly in the mother, low birth order, season of birth, and severe atopic eczema. Obstetric practices, antibiotic use, and home environment are factors deserving further research. Diagnostic decision levels and component-specific IgE are useful in the diagnosis of FA; however, oral food challenges remain the gold standard and may also be a means to reduce parental anxiety and to improve education. Oral immunotherapy studies show promise in increasing the threshold of reactivity of allergic patients and therefore improving their quality of life. In single-nut-allergic patients, introduction of other nuts allows broadening the diet and thus reducing the psychological impact of allergen avoidance. Nutritional deficiencies are not uncommon in food-allergic children and should be specifically assessed. The prescription of injectable adrenaline is still insufficient and not consistent among practitioners, requiring improved training and implementation of guidelines. Current research into the epidemiology and immunological mechanisms of FA and tolerance will enable us to devise strategies to both prevent and treat food allergies.

Anaphylaxis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article aims to make a review of the up-to-date knowledge on anaphylaxis and outline the recent advances on pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of anaphylaxis.

RECENT FINDINGS

New data confirm the increase in prevalence of anaphylaxis and emphasize immunopathologic mechanisms. However, anaphylaxis is often underdiagnosed and guidelines are poorly applied, particularly in emergency departments.

SUMMARY

An improvement of rapid diagnosis and treatment combined with education of population will decrease mortality and morbidity of anaphylaxis.

2012 Update: World Allergy Organization Guidelines for the assessment and management of anaphylaxis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The World Allergy Organization (WAO) Guidelines for the assessment and management of anaphylaxis published in early 2011 provide a global perspective on patient risk factors, triggers, clinical diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of anaphylaxis. In this 2012 Update, subsequently published, clinically relevant research in these areas is reviewed.

RECENT FINDINGS

Patient risk factors and co-factors that amplify anaphylaxis have been documented in prospective studies. The global perspective on the triggers of anaphylaxis has expanded. The clinical criteria for the diagnosis of anaphylaxis that are promulgated in the Guidelines have been validated. Some aspects of anaphylaxis treatment have been prospectively studied. Novel investigations of self-injectable epinephrine for treatment of anaphylaxis recurrences in the community have been performed. Progress has been made with regard to measurement of specific IgE to allergen components (component-resolved testing) that might help to distinguish clinical risk of future anaphylactic episodes to an allergen from asymptomatic sensitization to the allergen. New strategies for immune modulation to prevent food-induced anaphylaxis and new insights into subcutaneous immunotherapy to prevent venom-induced anaphylaxis have been described.

SUMMARY

Research highlighted in this Update strengthens the evidence-based recommendations for assessment, management, and prevention of anaphylaxis made in the WAO Anaphylaxis Guidelines.