Anaphylaxis across two Canadian pediatric centers: evaluating management disparities

Disparities in pediatric anaphylaxis triggers and management across Asia

BACKGROUND

The epidemiology and management of anaphylaxis are not well-reported in Asia.

METHODS

A regional pediatric anaphylaxis registry was established by the Asia-Pacific Research Network for Anaphylaxis (APRA), using standardized protocols for prospective data collection, to evaluate the triggers and management of anaphylaxis in the Asia-Pacific region. Pediatric patients below 18 years presenting with anaphylaxis across four Asian countries/cities (Thailand, Singapore, Hong Kong (HK), and Qingdao) were included. Allergen triggers, symptoms, anaphylaxis severity, and management were compared.

RESULTS

Between 2019 and 2022, 721 anaphylaxis episodes in 689 patients from 16 centers were identified. The mean age at anaphylaxis presentation was 7.0 years (SD = 5.2) and 60% were male. Food was the most common trigger (62%), particularly eggs and cow's milk in children aged 3 years and below. In school-age children, nut anaphylaxis was most common in HK and Singapore, but was rare in the other countries, and wheat was the top allergen in Bangkok. Shellfish anaphylaxis was most common in children aged 7-17. Adrenaline was administered in 60% of cases, with 9% given adrenaline before hospital arrival. Adrenaline devices were prescribed in up to 82% of cases in Thailand but none in Qingdao.

CONCLUSIONS

The APRA identified food as the main trigger of anaphylaxis in children, but causative allergens differed even across Asian countries. Fewer than two-thirds of cases received adrenaline treatment, pre-hospital adrenaline usage was low, and adrenaline device prescription remained suboptimal. The registry recognizes an unmet need to strengthen anaphylaxis care and research in Asia-Pacific.

Milk-induced anaphylaxis among children presenting to Canadian emergency departments

BACKGROUND

Cow's milk is one of the most common and burdensome allergens in pediatrics, and it can induce severe anaphylactic reactions in children. However, data on cow's milk-induced anaphylaxis are sparse.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the epidemiology of pediatric cow's milk-induced anaphylaxis and to determine risk factors for repeat emergency department (ED) epinephrine administration.

METHODS

Between April 2011 and May 2023, data were collected on children with anaphylaxis presenting to 10 Canadian EDs. A standardized form documenting symptoms, triggers, treatment, and outcome was used. Multivariate logistic regression was used.

RESULTS

Of 3118 anaphylactic reactions, 319 milk-induced anaphylaxis cases were identified (10%). In the prehospital setting, 54% of patients with milk-induced anaphylaxis received intramuscular epinephrine. In those with milk-induced anaphylaxis, receiving epinephrine before presenting to the ED was associated with a reduced risk of requiring 2 or more epinephrine doses in the ED (adjusted odds ratio, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.90-0.99]). Children younger than 5 years of age were more likely to experience a mild reaction compared with that in older children, who experienced a moderate reaction more often (P < .0001). Compared with other forms of food-induced anaphylaxis, children presenting with milk-induced anaphylaxis were younger; a greater proportion experienced wheezing and vomiting, and less experienced angioedema.

CONCLUSION

Prehospital epinephrine in pediatric milk-induced anaphylaxis is underused; however, it may decrease risk of requiring 2 ED epinephrine doses. Milk-induced anaphylaxis in children younger than 5 years of age may be less severe than in older children. Wheezing and vomiting are more prevalent in milk-induced anaphylaxis compared with that of other foods.

Managing anaphylaxis: Epinephrine, antihistamines, and corticosteroids: More than 10 years of Cross-Canada Anaphylaxis REgistry data

BACKGROUND

Epinephrine is the first-line treatment for anaphylaxis but is often replaced with antihistamines or corticosteroids. Delayed epinephrine administration is a risk factor for fatal anaphylaxis. Convincing data on the role of antihistamines and corticosteroids in anaphylaxis management are sparse.

OBJECTIVE

To establish the impact of prehospital treatment with epinephrine, antihistamines, and/or corticosteroids on anaphylaxis management.

METHODS

Patients presenting with anaphylaxis were recruited prospectively and retrospectively in 10 Canadian and 1 Israeli emergency departments (EDs) between April 2011 and August 2022, as part of the Cross-Canada Anaphylaxis REgistry. Data on anaphylaxis cases were collected using a standardized form. Primary outcomes were uncontrolled reactions (>2 doses of epinephrine in ED), no prehospital epinephrine use, use of intravenous fluids in ED, and hospital admission. Multivariate regression was used to identify factors associated with primary outcomes.

RESULTS

Among 5364 reactions recorded, median age was 8.8 years (IQR, 3.78-16.9); 54.9% of the patients were males, and 52.5% had a known food allergy. In the prehospital setting, 37.9% received epinephrine; 44.3% received antihistamines, and 3.15% received corticosteroids. Uncontrolled reactions happened in 250 reactions. Patients treated with prehospital epinephrine were less likely to have uncontrolled reactions (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.955 [95% CI, 0.943-0.967]), receive intravenous fluids in ED (aOR, 0.976 [95% CI, 0.959-0.992]), and to be admitted after the reaction (aOR, 0.964 [95% CI, 0.949-0.980]). Patients treated with prehospital antihistamines were less likely to have uncontrolled reactions (aOR, 0.978 [95% CI, 0.967-0.989]) and to be admitted after the reaction (aOR, 0.963 [95% CI, 0.949-0.977]). Patients who received prehospital corticosteroids were more likely to require intravenous fluids in ED (aOR, 1.059 [95% CI, 1.013-1.107]) and be admitted (aOR, 1.232 [95% CI, 1.181-1.286]).

CONCLUSION

Our findings in this predominantly pediatric population support the early use of epinephrine and suggest a beneficial effect of antihistamines. Corticosteroid use in anaphylaxis should be revisited.

Epinephrine treatment of food-induced and other cause anaphylaxis in United States and Canadian Emergency Departments: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Studies from more than 10 years ago showed epinephrine treatment of food-induced anaphylaxis in the emergency department (ED) was unacceptably low. We investigated whether epinephrine treatment of food-induced and other cause anaphylaxis in United States and Canadian EDs has changed over time.

METHODS

Guided by a health sciences librarian, we performed a systematic search in Medline, Embase, and Web of Science on 11 January 2023. We included observational studies that reported epinephrine use to treat anaphylaxis in the ED. We stratified by anaphylaxis etiology (food-, venom-, medication-induced, or any cause). Associations between year and epinephrine use were tested using Spearman correlation and proportional meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Of 2458 records identified in our initial search, 40 met inclusion criteria. Of these, 14 examined food-induced, 4 venom-induced, 0 medication-induced, and 24 any cause anaphylaxis. For epinephrine treatment of food-induced anaphylaxis in the ED, among studies using similar definition of anaphylaxis, meta-analysis showed a pooled value of 20.7% (95% CI 17.8, 23.8) for studies performed >10 years ago and 45.1% (95% CI 38.4, 52.0) from those in the last 10 years. For anaphylaxis of any cause, there was no change over time, with a pooled value of 45.0% (95% CI 39.8, 50.3) over the last 10 years.

DISCUSSION

Epinephrine treatment of food-induced anaphylaxis in the ED has increased over time. There was no clear change for anaphylaxis of any cause. Over the last 10 years, approximately 45% of ED patients with anaphylaxis received epinephrine. A limitation of the evidence is heterogeneity in anaphylaxis definitions.

Bridging Knowledge Gaps in Anaphylaxis Management Through a Video-Based Educational Tool

Introduction: We aimed to develop and test the effectiveness of an education tool to help pediatric patients and their families better understand anaphylaxis and its management, and to improve current knowledge and treatment guidelines adherence. Methods: From June 2019 to May 2022, 128 pediatric patients with history of food-triggered anaphylaxis who presented to the allergy outpatient clinics at the study institution were recruited. Consenting families were asked to complete 6 questions related to the triggers, recognition, and management of anaphylaxis at the time of presentation to the clinic. Participants were shown a 5-min animated video on the causes, presentation, and management of anaphylaxis. At the end of the video, the participants were redirected to the same 6 questions to respond again. The scores were recorded in proportion of correct answers (minimum 0.0; maximum 1.0). Results: The mean age of the patients was 5.8 ± 4.5 years (range: 0.5-18.8 years). The majority were males (70 patients; 54.7%). The mean baseline prevideo education questionnaire score was 0.76 ± 0.2 (range: 0.3-1.0), whereas the mean follow-up score was 0.82 ± 0.2 (range: 0.3-1.0). This score difference of 0.06 was statistically significant (P < 0.001). There were no significant associations between change in scores and age or gender of the participants. Conclusion: Our video teaching method was successful in educating patients and their families to better understand anaphylaxis and its management at the moment of the clinical encounter. Retention of knowledge at long-term follow-up should be assessed.

Children at risk of anaphylaxis: A mixed-studies systematic review of parents' experiences and information needs

Objective

To explore parents' self-reported experiences and information needs regarding recognition and management of pediatric anaphylaxis.

Methods

We searched Ovid Medline, Ovid PsychInfo, CINAHL Plus, the Cochrane Library, and grey literature to identify primary studies in English or French published since 2000. We used a mixed-method appraisal tool and convergent integrated approach to assess quality and synthesize data, respectively.

Results

43 studies were included (22 quantitative, 19 qualitative, and 2 mixed-method); 77% of studies had high methodological quality. Parents' experiences were categorized as: recognizing an anaphylactic reaction; managing and responding to a reaction; emotional impact of caring for a child at risk of anaphylaxis; and interaction with the health system and healthcare providers. Parents' information needs were categorized into themes relating to: gaps in knowledge and information; type of information desired; information sources; and information delivery format.

Conclusion

Negative emotional experiences and a general lack of information were commonly reported by parents of included studies. Provision of relevant and comprehensible information may help parents to make informed decisions and manage reactions promptly.

Innovation

The findings of this review are guiding the development of an innovative knowledge translation tool (KT) as part of a larger initiative of developing a suite of parent-focused KT tools for acute childhood conditions.

Overview of registries for anaphylaxis: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

This review aimed to describe the scope and operational features of anaphylaxis registries, and to assess their contribution to improving knowledge of anaphylaxis and care of patients who experience anaphylaxis by measuring their research output.

INTRODUCTION

Structured data collection and reporting systems, such as registries, are needed to better understand the burden of anaphylaxis and to protect the growing number of patients with severe allergy. There is a need to characterize current anaphylaxis registries to identify their value in anaphylaxis surveillance, management, and research. Information synthesized in this review will provide knowledge on benefits and gaps in current registries, which may inform the implementation and global standardization of future anaphylaxis reporting systems.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

This scoping review considered literature describing registries worldwide that enroll patients who have experienced anaphylaxis. Published and gray literature sources were included if they described the scope and operational features of anaphylaxis registries.

METHODS

This review followed the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Embase, MEDLINE, Scopus, and CINAHL were searched for relevant articles. Identified keywords and index terms were adapted for searches of gray literature sources, using Google advanced search functions. Only full-text studies in English were considered for inclusion. Two independent reviewers conducted title and abstract screening and those that did not meet the inclusion criteria were excluded. The full text of potentially relevant articles were retrieved; full-text screening and data extraction were also conducted by two independent reviewers. Any discrepancies were resolved through discussion or with a third reviewer. Tables and a narrative summary were used to describe and compare the scope and features (eg, inclusion criteria, patient demographics, clinical symptoms) of the identified anaphylaxis registries, and to outline their output to assess their contribution to research and clinical practice for anaphylaxis.

RESULTS

A total of 77 full-text publications and eight gray literature sources were used to extract data. The literature search identified 19 anaphylaxis registries, with sites in 28 countries including Europe, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States, Korea, and Australia. The main purposes of the identified registries were to collect clinical data for research; provide clinical support tools to improve patient care; and operate as allergen surveillance systems to protect the wider community with allergies. Differences in inclusion and health care settings exist, with 11 collecting data on anaphylaxis of any cause, two on food reactions alone, three on fatal anaphylaxis, one on perioperative anaphylaxis, and two on allergic reactions (including anaphylaxis). Five registries enroll cases in allergy centers, five in hospital settings, one in schools, and others target a combination of general practitioners, specialists in emergency departments, and other relevant hospital departments and allergy outpatient clinics. Only three registries operate under a mandatory framework. A total of 57 publications were considered research outputs from registries. All registries except two have published studies from collected data, with the greatest number of articles published from 2019 to the present. Publications mostly addressed questions regarding demographic profile, causes and cofactors, severity, fatal reactions, and gaps in management.

CONCLUSIONS

This review demonstrated that anaphylaxis registries differ in their scope and operation, having been established for different purposes. Importantly, registries have contributed significantly to research, which has highlighted gaps in anaphylaxis management, provoking allergens, and informed targets for prevention for severe and fatal events. Beyond this, registries relay information about anaphylaxis to clinicians and regulatory bodies to improve patient care and protect the community. The ability to link registry data with other health datasets, standardization of data across registries, and incorporation of clinical care indicators to promote quality health care across the health system represent important targets for future systems.

Canadian Anaphylaxis Network-Predicting Recurrence after Emergency Presentation for Allergic REaction (CAN-PREPARE): a prospective, cohort study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Anaphylaxis is a severe, potentially fatal multiorgan system manifestation of an allergic reaction. The highest incidence of anaphylaxis is in children and adolescents. Biphasic anaphylaxis (BA) is defined as the recurrence of allergic symptoms after resolution of an initial reaction. It has been reported to occur in 10%-20% of cases within 1-48 hours from the onset of the initial reaction. The dilemma for physicians is determining which patients with resolved anaphylaxis should be observed for BA and for how long. Guidelines for duration of postanaphylaxis monitoring vary, are based on limited evidence and can have unintended negative impacts on patient safety, quality of life and healthcare resources. The objectives of this study are to derive a prognostic model for BA and to develop a risk-scoring system that informs disposition decisions of children who present to emergency departments (ED) with anaphylaxis.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This prospective multicentre cohort study will enrol 1682 patients from seven paediatric EDs that are members of the Paediatric Emergency Research Canada network. We will enrol patients younger than 18 years of age with an allergic reaction meeting anaphylaxis diagnostic criteria. Trained ED research assistants will screen, obtain consent and prospectively collect study data. Research assistants will follow patients during their ED visit and ascertain, in conjunction with the medical team, if the patient develops BA. A standardised follow-up survey conducted following study enrolment will determine if a biphasic reaction occurred after ED disposition. Model development will conform to the broad principles of the PROGRESS (Prognosis Research Strategy) framework and reporting will follow the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis Statement.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval has been received from all participating centres. Our dissemination plan focuses on informing clinicians, policy makers and parents of the results through publication in peer-reviewed journals and broadcasting on multiple media platforms.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05135377.

Seafood-induced anaphylaxis in children presenting to Canadian emergency departments: Rates, clinical presentation, and management

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of data on seafood-induced anaphylaxis in children in Canada.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the rate, clinical features, and management of seafood-induced anaphylaxis in children presenting to emergency departments across Canada.

METHODS

Children with anaphylaxis were recruited at 6 emergency departments between 2011 and 2020 as part of the Cross-Canada Anaphylaxis REgistry. A standardized form documenting symptoms, triggers, comorbidities, and management was used to collect data.

RESULTS

There were 75 fish-induced and 71 shellfish-induced cases of suspected anaphylaxis, most of which were caused by salmon and shrimp, respectively. Mucocutaneous symptoms were most common, whereas respiratory symptoms were associated with patients with fish-induced reactions who have comorbid asthma (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.36). Prehospital epinephrine was underused (<35%), whereas in-hospital epinephrine was given to less than 60% of the patients. Among those with a known fish or shellfish allergy, prehospital epinephrine use was associated with known asthma (aOR 1.39 [95% CI, 1.05-1.84] and aOR 1.25 [95% CI, 1.02-1.54], respectively). Among children who were assessed by either skin test or specific immunoglobulin E, 36 patients (76.6%) with suspected fish-induced anaphylaxis and 19 patients (51.4%) with suspected shellfish-induced anaphylaxis tested positive.

CONCLUSION

Prehospital epinephrine is underused in the management of seafood-induced anaphylaxis. Among children with known seafood allergy, prehospital epinephrine use is more likely if there is a known asthma comorbidity.

Economic burden of food allergy in Canada: Estimating costs and identifying determinants

BACKGROUND

Limited data exist on the economic burden of food allergy (FA).

OBJECTIVE

To assess FA-related direct (healthcare and out-of-pocket) and indirect (lost productivity) costs and their determinants in Canadian children and adults self-reporting FA.

METHODS

FA-individuals self-reporting a convincing history or physician diagnosis were recruited through FA registries, an anaphylaxis registry, and advocacy associations, and electronically surveyed regarding FA-related healthcare use, out-of-pocket expenditures, and time lost from paid and unpaid labor. Direct and indirect costs (2020 Canadian dollars [CAD]) were stratified on severe reaction vs mild, moderate or no reaction, and children vs adults; multivariate regressions assessed the association between costs and sociodemographic and disease characteristics.

RESULTS

Between May 2018 and July 2019, 2692 eligible individuals responded (2189 convincing history and 503 physician diagnosis only); 1020 experienced a severe reaction; 1752 were children. Per FA-individual, annual healthcare, out-of-pocket, and indirect costs were $1267, $2136, and $7950. Those with a severe reaction had higher healthcare and out-of-pocket costs than those with mild, moderate or no reaction. FA-children vs FA-adults had higher healthcare and out-of-pocket costs, and lower indirect costs. Multivariate results showed that lower age, a severe reaction ever, multiple FAs, and fair or poor general health were associated with higher healthcare and out-of-pocket costs. Higher age, lower household education and income, and fair or poor general health were associated with higher indirect costs.

CONCLUSION

The economic burden of FA in Canada is substantial, particularly for those with a severe reaction ever, multiple FAs, and fair or poor general health. It is crucial that those most adversely affected are allocated appropriate resources to support disease management.

Management of pediatric allergic reaction: Practice patterns of Canadian pediatric emergency physicians

OBJECTIVES

Anaphylaxis is a severe allergic reaction that can be life-threatening. The literature indicates that the incidence of anaphylaxis is increasing and that there are deficiencies in both recognition and management. We aimed to examine the magnitude of these gaps in Canadian pediatric emergency medicine (PEM).

METHODS

We conducted a self-administered survey of the Pediatric Emergency Research Canada (PERC) physician database. The survey tool was developed through a literature review to identify recurring themes of gaps in anaphylaxis diagnosis and management. The final tool contained four scenarios; three scenarios featured each of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) anaphylaxis criteria, separately, and a fourth case of non-anaphylactic allergy. Multiple-choice questions associated with each scenario addressed diagnosis, management, and disposition. Additional questions focused on epinephrine prescribing, observation durations, and respondent demographics.

RESULTS

Of the 214 members invited to participate in the survey, 152 (71%) responded. Anaphylaxis was accurately recognized 93%, 82%, and 99% of the time for the NIAID criteria one through three, respectively. When anaphylaxis was recognized, epinephrine was prescribed for each case 96%, 95%, and 72% of the time, respectively. Of all respondents, 115 (76%) accurately diagnosed all three cases of anaphylaxis and 82 (54%) treated anaphylaxis with epinephrine each time it was indicated.

CONCLUSION

Most respondents recognized cases of anaphylaxis; however, a substantial number demonstrated gaps in management that may adversely impact this vulnerable population. The recognition of anaphylaxis without urticaria or pulmonary findings and treatment of anaphylaxis with epinephrine, where indicated, were the main gaps identified.

Risk of peanut- and tree-nut-induced anaphylaxis during Halloween, Easter and other cultural holidays in Canadian children

BACKGROUND

It is not established whether the risk of anaphylaxis induced by peanuts or tree nuts in children increases at specific times of the year. We aimed to evaluate the risk of peanut-and tree-nut-induced anaphylaxis during certain cultural holidays in Canadian children.

METHODS

We collected data on confirmed pediatric cases of anaphylaxis presenting to emergency departments in 4 Canadian provinces as part of the Cross-Canada Anaphylaxis Registry. We assessed the mean number of cases per day and incidence rate ratio (IRR) of anaphylaxis induced by unknown nuts, peanuts and tree nuts presenting during each of 6 holidays (Halloween, Christmas, Easter, Diwali, Chinese New Year and Eid al-Adha) versus the rest of the year. We estimated IRRs and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using Poisson regression.

RESULTS

Data were collected for 1390 pediatric cases of anaphylaxis between 2011 and 2020. Their median age was 5.4 years, and 864 (62.2%) of the children were boys. During Halloween and Easter, there were higher rates of anaphylaxis to unknown nuts (IRR 1.66, 95% CI 1.13-2.43 and IRR 1.71, 95% CI 1.21-2.42, respectively) and peanuts (IRR 1.86, 95% CI 1.12-3.11 and IRR 1.57, 95% CI 0.94-2.63, respectively) compared to the rest of the year. No increased risk of peanut- or tree-nut-induced anaphylaxis was observed during Christmas, Diwali, Chinese New Year or Eid al-Adha. Anaphylaxis induced by unknown nuts, peanuts and tree nuts was more likely in children aged 6 years or older than in younger children.

INTERPRETATION

We found an increased risk of anaphylaxis induced by unknown nuts and peanuts during Halloween and Easter among Canadian children. Educational tools are needed to increase awareness and vigilance in order to decrease the risk of anaphylaxis induced by peanuts and tree nuts in children during these holidays.

Management Strategies Of Idiopathic Anaphylaxis In The Emergency Room: Current Perspectives

Background

Idiopathic anaphylaxis (IA) is a diagnosis of exclusion and represents a major diagnostic and management challenge. There are no current guidelines for diagnosis and management of IA. We aim to present a systematic review of the literature on adult and pediatric IA.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of original articles published in the past 22 years regarding diagnosis and management strategies of adult and pediatric IA.

Results

The current proposed diagnostic approach and treatment regimens are based on a few small studies. Future large-scale studies are required. IA is a diagnosis of exclusion and should be made only after extensive evaluation excludes potential anaphylaxis triggers as well as non-allergic conditions with a similar presentation. There is currently no diagnostic consensus for IA. Furthermore, the current proposed treatment regimens are limited and rely on prophylactic treatment with antihistamines and prednisone for patients with frequent episodes. However, daily treatment with systemic steroids has well-recognized serious adverse effects. More recently, the use of biologics was suggested to benefit patients with IA, although the optimal management protocol is not yet established.

Conclusion

Future studies are needed to optimize diagnosis and treatment strategies in adult and pediatric cases of IA. Omalizumab may be a promising novel therapeutic option for adult and pediatric IA.

Trends in the diagnosis and management of anaphylaxis in a tertiary care pediatric emergency department

BACKGROUND

Underdiagnosis of anaphylaxis is a major concern in the pediatric emergency department (PED), leading to failure to administer and prescribe intramuscular epinephrine treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the clinical features, triggers, and management of anaphylaxis in the PED, with a special focus on the rate of cases diagnosed and treated correctly over time, and to compare correctly diagnosed and misdiagnosed cases.

METHODS

All records of patients presenting to a tertiary care PED between 2013 and 2016 with a final diagnosis of anaphylaxis or allergic reaction were reviewed.

RESULTS

The rate of anaphylaxis increased from 0.1% between 2013 and 2014 and 0.24% between 2015 and 2016. Symptoms such as breathing difficulties and wheezing were found significantly less among misdiagnosed patients compared with patients correctly diagnosed with anaphylaxis. Food was the most common causative agent in both of the study periods (88% in 2013-2014 and 91% in 2015-2016), with milk (20% in 2013-2014 and 28% in 2015-2016) and tree nuts (23.1% in 2013-2014 and 23.7% in 2015-2016 as the most prevalent identified triggers. Intramuscular epinephrine treatment in the prehospital and hospital settings and the automatic epinephrine injector prescription rate did not change significantly throughout the study. Referral to an allergist increased from 68% in 2013 to 2014 to 90% in 2015 to 2016.

CONCLUSION

The rate of visits attributable to anaphylaxis in our PED doubled during the study period, with milk allergy as the most common trigger. Most cases of misdiagnosed and undertreated anaphylaxis had no respiratory signs and symptoms. Novel methods to improve recognition of anaphylaxis and adherence to treatment guidelines are needed.

A population-based epidemiological study of anaphylaxis using national big data in Korea: trends in age-specific prevalence and epinephrine use in 2010-2014

Background

Previous reports on anaphylaxis in Asia are limited to relatively small-scale studies. We performed this study to identify the nationwide prevalence of anaphylaxis and epinephrine prescription rates by age groups.

Methods

The total number of patients, yearly and overall prevalence, percentage of emergency department visits, and epinephrine prescription rates were calculated for patients diagnosed with anaphylaxis based on the Korean National Health Insurance database from 2010 to 2014.

Results

The mean prevalence of anaphylaxis in Korea was 26.23 (95% confidence interval, CI 25.78-26.68) per 100,000 person-years during the 5 years. It increased from 20.55 (95% CI 20.15-20.10) in 2010 to 35.33 (95% CI 34.81-35.85) per 100,000 person-years in 2014. The average prevalence was > 35 per 100,000 person-years among 50-69 year-olds, and the mean crude prevalence in children was 22.3 (0-2 years), 17.3 (3-6 years), 12.1 (7-12 years), and 14.9 (13-17 years) per 100,000 person-years, respectively. The overall prevalence increased 1.7-fold, with the highest rate of increase in 0-2 years of age. The overall percentage of emergent anaphylaxis patients was 88.4%, and the prevalence of emergent anaphylaxis increased from 18.63 (95% CI 18.25-19.01) to 31.28 (95% CI 30.79-31.77) per 100,000 person-years. In-hospital epinephrine prescription rate increased from 31.5 to 39.7%.

Conclusions

The mean prevalence of anaphylaxis in Korea was 26.2 per 100,000 person-years during the study period. The total number of anaphylaxis patients increased 1.7-fold from 2010 to 2014, with the most noticeable increment being in young children.

Food-Induced Anaphylaxis: an Update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review aims to provide an update of recent advances in the epidemiology, clinical features and diagnosis, and management of food-induced anaphylaxis (FIA).

RECENT FINDINGS

Food allergy prevalence and FIA rates continue to rise, but FIA fatalities are stable. Basophil and mast cell activation tests promise more accurate identification of food triggers. Oral, sublingual, and epicutaneous immunotherapy can desensitize a significant portion of subjects. Epinephrine use for FIA remains sub-optimal. As the burden of food allergy continues to increase, it appears that the corresponding increase in research focused on this epidemic is beginning to bear fruit. The stable number of FIA fatalities in the face of an ongoing epidemic indicates lives have already been saved. The emergence of new diagnostic tests and interventional therapies may transform the management of FIA in the coming years.

Epinephrine Autoinjectors: New Data, New Problems

Epinephrine is the first-line treatment for anaphylaxis. Despite this, there have been identified gaps in the management of anaphylaxis including infrequent or delayed use of epinephrine for acute allergic reactions, as well as inadequate epinephrine autoinjector (EAI) training, and prescription rates of these devices for patients at risk. This paper reviews new data, and new problems in recently published literature on EAIs. A database search was conducted for publications between January 2015 and February 2017 using keywords related to EAIs including their functionality and features, carriage, prescription rates, barriers, and side effects. Eligibility criteria included patients at risk for anaphylaxis, caregivers, and health care professionals. Experimental studies and observational studies were included. Of 1,737 potentially relevant articles, 19 were used for analysis. These articles addressed specific aspects of an EAI, including (1) information on features and functionality; (2) prescriptions; (3) training on their use; and (4) carriage and use at the time of reaction by patients, schools, camps, emergency departments, and paramedics. Our review highlights that existing gaps in anaphylaxis management remain unaddressed. Patient needs are largely unmet, and very few studies are being designed to clarify and instill best practice, and to determine how to increase adherence to existing anaphylaxis guidelines through integrated knowledge translation strategies.

Short- and long-term management of cases of venom-induced anaphylaxis is suboptimal

BACKGROUND

Venom-induced anaphylaxis (VIA) accounts for severe reactions. However, little is known about the short- and long-term management of VIA patients.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the short- and long-term management of VIA.

METHODS

Using a national anaphylaxis registry (C-CARE), we identified VIA cases presenting to emergency departments in Montreal and to emergency medical services (EMSs) in western Quebec over a 4-year period. Data were collected on clinical characteristics, triggers, and management. Consenting patients were contacted annually regarding long-term management. Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were used to identify factors associated with epinephrine use, allergist assessment, and administration of immunotherapy.

RESULTS

Between June 2013 and May 2017, 115 VIA cases were identified. Epinephrine was administered to 63.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 53.9%-72.1%) of all VIA cases by a health care professional. Treatment of reactions without epinephrine was more likely in reactions occurring at home and in nonsevere cases (no hypotension, hypoxia, or loss of consciousness). Among 48 patients who responded to a follow-up questionnaire, 95.8% (95% CI, 84.6%-99.3%) were prescribed epinephrine auto-injector, 68.8% (95% CI, 53.6%-80.9%) saw an allergist who confirmed the allergy in 63.6% of cases, and 81.0% of those with positive testing were administered immunotherapy. Among cases with follow-up, seeing an allergist was less likely in patients with known ischemic heart disease.

CONCLUSION

Almost 30% of patients with suspected VIA did not see an allergist, only two thirds of those seeing an allergist had allergy confirmation, and almost one fifth of those with confirmed allergy did not receive immunotherapy. Educational programs are needed to bridge this knowledge-to-action gap.

Factors associated with epinephrine administration for anaphylaxis in children before arrival to the emergency department

BACKGROUND

Epinephrine is the first-line treatment for anaphylaxis but may be underused by patients and medical personnel.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate factors associated with anaphylaxis management before arrival at the emergency department (ED) or urgent care center (UCC).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of electronic medical records for all patients aged 0 to 25 years presenting with anaphylaxis to the ED or UCC at a pediatric academic referral center during 2009 to 2013.

RESULTS

A total of 408 patients (mean age, 7.25 years; 62% male) were included for analysis. Only 148 patients (36.3%) received epinephrine before arrival at the ED or UCC. Reactions occurring at home (n = 36/114) were less likely to be treated with epinephrine compared with reactions occurring at school (n = 30/49) (odds ratio [OR], 0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15-0.59). The odds of receiving epinephrine before arrival at the ED or UCC were significantly lower with a 2-organ system (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.30-0.85) or 3-organ system (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.21-0.81) presentation compared with 1-organ system involvement. Foods (342 [83.8%]) were the most commonly reported provoking trigger. Patients who did not receive epinephrine before arrival at the ED or UCC were significantly less likely to be discharged to home (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.37-0.86; P = .01).

CONCLUSION

This study identifies factors associated with prehospital management of anaphylaxis for children, which highlight that epinephrine administration may be occurring with considerable delay. Increased awareness and education of caregivers, patients, and medical professionals are necessary to provide optimal management.