Physicians' knowledge regarding epinephrine underuse in anaphylaxis

Prehospital and In-Hospital Treatment with Adrenaline and Related Prognosis in Anaphylaxis Patients

INTRODUCTION

Although intramuscular adrenaline is the recommended first-line treatment for anaphylaxis, not all patients receive this treatment. The consequences in daily clinical practice are sparsely described. This study aimed to investigate the treatment administered to anaphylactic patients and the related prognosis.

METHODS

A retrospective register-based study of patients with anaphylaxis referred to the allergy centre, Odense University Hospital (2019-2021). Each patient's medical records were reviewed for contacts with the emergency departments and the prehospital emergency medical service in the Region of Southern Denmark. The World Allergy Organization (WAO) grading system was used to assess the severity of prehospital and in-hospital anaphylaxis. Furthermore, the treatment administered to the patients was registered.

RESULTS

In total, 315 patients were included. The prehospital system had contact with 256 of these patients (two were released prehospitally following treatment and 12 patients had insufficient data to assess anaphylaxis). Of the remaining 242 patients, 115 had anaphylaxis prehospitally (WAO grades 3-5); 59% (67/115) received adrenaline. Among the 67 patients who received prehospital adrenaline, 9 patients (13.4%; 95% CI: 6.3-24.0%) still had anaphylaxis at arrival at the emergency department. Of the 48 patients that were not treated with prehospital adrenaline, 17 patients (35.5%; 95% CI: 22.1-50.5) had anaphylaxis at the arrival to the emergency department. Among the 127 patients without prehospital anaphylaxis (WAO grades 0-2), 22 patients (18.2%; 95% CI: 11.8-26.2%) who did not receive prehospital adrenaline had anaphylaxis at arrival to the emergency department, while none of the 6 patients treated prehospitally with adrenaline had anaphylaxis.

CONCLUSION

Omission of prehospital adrenaline in anaphylactic patients is associated with more severe anaphylactic symptoms at arrival to the hospital. Adrenaline treatment remains suboptimal since only half of the patients received prehospital adrenaline and only 1 out of 4 patients, with clinical signs of anaphylaxis, received adrenaline inside the hospital.

Prevalence of Parent-Reported Food Allergy in a Mexican Pre-School Population

The magnitude and relevance of food allergies in the preschool population remain unknown in most regions of Mexico and Latin America. Thus, our aim was to estimate the parent-reported prevalence of food allergies in a Mexican preschool population and to characterize their clinical diagnosis and presentation. A cross-sectional survey was conducted in Culiacán City. A validated questionnaire was utilized. A total of 810 parents responded to the questionnaire (valid response rate, 40.7%). The estimated prevalence rates (95% CI) were: "physician-diagnosed Food Allergy (FA), ever" 5.30% (3.86-7.08); "immediate-type FA, ever" 2.96% (1.91-4.38); "immediate-type FA, current" 1.60% (0.86-2.73); and food-dependent anaphylaxis 1.11% (0.51-2.01). The main food allergens were milk (0.49%), strawberries (0.37%), egg, and soy (0.25% each). Atopic diseases and a family history of allergies were significantly associated with immediate-type FA. Among "immediate-type FA, current" cases, 76.9% required emergency room visits, but the prescription of epinephrine autoinjectors was reported in one case only. The food reactions occurred at home (92.35%), in a relative's house (38.5), and at restaurants (23%). Immediate-type FA reactions requiring emergency room visits are not uncommon among the studied population. Actions like proper anaphylaxis management and the prevention of cross-contamination of foods should be encouraged.

Investigation of the underuse of adrenaline (epinephrine) and prognosis among patients with anaphylaxis at emergency department admission

Background

Anaphylaxis is a potentially fatal condition; in severe cases of anaphylaxis, the cardiovascular system is often heavily involved. Adrenaline (epinephrine) is a cornerstone of the initial treatment of anaphylaxis. The use of epinephrine remains below expectations in clinical practice. Whether the underuse of epinephrine affects the prognosis of patients with anaphylaxis is still unclear.

Materials and methods

This retrospective study included patients with anaphylaxis between 2011 and 2020 who were admitted to an emergency department (ED) in Taiwan. All patients were divided into two groups based on the use of epinephrine (or not), and we compared the demographic characteristics, allergens, clinical manifestations, management, and patient outcomes.

Results

We reviewed the records of 314 subjects (216 males, 98 females; mean age: 52.78 ± 16.02 years) who visited our ED due to anaphylaxis; 107 (34.1%) and 207 (65.9%) patients were categorized into the epinephrine use group and the non-epinephrine use group, respectively. Arrival via ambulance (p = 0.019), hypotension (p = 0.002), airway compromise (p < 0.001) and altered consciousness (p < 0.001) were the deciding factors for epinephrine use among anaphylactic patients in the ED. The epinephrine use group had higher rates of other inotropic agent usage and fluid challenge. More than 90% of patients received bed rest, steroids, antihistamines, and monitoring. The epinephrine use group had a longer ED length of stay (387.64 ± 374.71 vs. 313.06 ± 238.99 min, p = 0.03) and a greater need of hospitalization. Among all severe symptoms, hypotension was the most tolerated decision factor for not using epinephrine. In this retrospective analysis, some patients with serious anaphylaxis did not experience adverse outcomes or death even without the use of epinephrine at ED admission. Emergent care focuses first on the airway, breathing, and circulation (ABC) and may compensate for the underusage of epinephrine. This could be the reason why epinephrine was underused among patients with anaphylaxis in the ED.

Conclusion

In summary, early ABC management continues to play an important role in treating patients with severe anaphylaxis, even when epinephrine is not immediately available in clinical scenarios.

Standards for practical intravenous rapid drug desensitization & delabeling: A WAO committee statement

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) to intravenous drugs can be severe and might leave patients and doctors in a difficult position where an essential treatment or intervention has to be suspended. Even if virtually any intravenous medication can potentially trigger a life-threatening DHR, chemotherapeutics, biologics, and antibiotics are amongst the intravenous drugs most frequently involved in these reactions. Admittedly, suspending such treatments may negatively impact the survival outcomes or the quality of life of affected patients. Delabeling pathways and rapid drug desensitization (RDD) can help reactive patients stay on first-choice therapies instead of turning to less efficacious, less cost-effective, or more toxic alternatives. However, these are high-complexity and high-risk techniques, which usually need expert teams and allergy-specific techniques (skin testing, in vitro testing, drug provocation testing) to ensure safety, an accurate diagnosis, and personalized management. Unfortunately, there are significant inequalities within and among countries in access to allergy departments with the necessary expertise and resources to offer these techniques and tackle these DHRs optimally. The main objective of this consensus document is to create a great benefit for patients worldwide by aiding allergists to expand the scope of their practice and support them with evidence, data, and experience from leading groups from around the globe. This statement of the Drug Hypersensitivity Committee of the World Allergy Organization (WAO) aims to be a comprehensive practical guide on the technical aspects of implementing acute-onset intravenous hypersensitivity delabeling and RDD for a wide range of drugs. Thus, the manuscript does not only focus on clinical pathways. Instead, it also provides guidance on topics usually left unaddressed, namely, internal validation, continuous quality improvement, creating a healthy multidisciplinary environment, and redesigning care (including a specific supplemental section on a real-life example of how to design a dedicated space that can combine basic and complex diagnostic and therapeutic techniques in allergy).

Knowledge of healthcare providers in the management of anaphylaxis

Introduction

Anaphylaxis is defined as a severe, life-threatening systemic hypersensitivity reaction. Early diagnosis and treatment of a severe allergic reaction requires recognition of the signs and symptoms, as well as classification of severity. It is a clinical emergency, and healthcare providers should have the knowledge for recognition and management. The aim of the study is to evaluate the level of knowledge in the management of anaphylaxis in healthcare providers.

Methods

It is an observational, descriptive, cross-sectional study conducted among healthcare providers over 18 years old via a Google Forms link and shared through different social media platforms. A 12-item questionnaire was applied which included the evaluation of the management of anaphylaxis, from June 2020 to May 2021.

Results

A total of 1023 surveys were evaluated; 1013 met inclusion criteria and were included in the statistical analysis. A passing grade was considered with 8 or more correct answers out of 12; the overall approval percentage was 28.7%. The group with the highest percentage of approval in the questionnaire was health-care providers with more than 30 years of work experience. There was a significant difference between the proportions of approval between all specialty groups, and in a post-hoc analysis, allergy and immunology specialists showed greater proportions of approval compared to general medicine practitioners (62.9% vs 25%; p=<0.001).

Conclusions

It is important that healthcare providers know how to recognize, diagnose, and treat anaphylaxis, and later refer them to specialists in Allergy and Clinical Immunology in order to make a personalized diagnosis and treatment.

Anaphylaxis viewed by experts: unmet needs

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of the review is to identify unmet needs in the management of anaphylaxis, covering aspects such as epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment and prevention.

RECENT FINDINGS

Redefinition of clinical diagnostic criteria may allow a better identification of anaphylaxis. International diagnostic coding system improvement will be major step for future policies and epidemiological studies. Digital health can aid in managing anaphylaxis.

SUMMARY

Anaphylaxis is a medical emergency; current data show that frequently identification of the reaction, acute and long-term management, are not optimal. Therefore, there is a need to implement strategies to improve the situation. This review has identified unmet needs in anaphylaxis regarding aspects such as epidemiology, severity scoring, definition and diagnostic criteria, anaphylaxis in infants and toddlers, cofactors, biomarkers, long-term management, undertreatment and availability of epinephrine autoinjectors. Strategies focused on education, legislation, digital health and research are proposed.