Recombinant human diamine oxidase prevents hemodynamic effects of continuous histamine infusion in guinea pigs

OBJECTIVE

To test whether recombinant human diamine oxidase (rhDAO) with a mutated heparin-binding motif (mHBM), which shows an increased alpha-distribution half-life, prevents histamine-induced hemodynamic effects.

MATERIAL

Thirty-eight female guinea pigs were either pretreated with rhDOA_mHBM or buffer.

TREATMENT AND METHODS

Guinea pigs received a continuous infusion of histamine. Heart rate (HR), body core temperature and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were measured and blood was collected.

RESULTS

Continuous intravenous infusion of 8 µg/kg/min histamine increased mean peak plasma histamine levels from 5 (± 0.3 SEM) to 28 ng/mL (± 4.9 SEM) after 30 min but had no effect on oxygen saturation. Guinea pigs pretreated with 4 mg/kg rhDAO_mHBM showed lower mean HR (p = 0.008), histamine plasma concentrations (p = 0.002), and higher body core temperatures at the end of the histamine challenge (p = 0.02) compared to controls. Cessation of histamine infusion led to a rebound increase in MAP, but this hemodynamic instability was prevented by rhDAO_mHBM. Pretreatment with 4 mg/kg rhDAO_mHBM reduced urinary histamine (p = 0.004) and 1-Methylhistamine (p < 0.0001) concentrations compared to controls.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic infusion of rhDAO_mHBM prevents hemodynamic effects in a guinea pig model of continuous histamine infusion. These findings might help in the translation from animals to humans and in the selection of the optimal dosing of rhDAO_mHBM during human histamine challenge studies.

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.

Idiopathic Anaphylaxis? Analysis of Data from the Anaphylaxis Registry for West Pomerania Province, Poland

The most common causes of anaphylaxis, according to various authors and depending on the age of the studied groups, are: Hymenoptera venom, food, and medications. Unfortunately, we are not always able to indicate the cause of anaphylaxis. There are data in the literature where as many as 41% of all cases are idiopathic anaphylaxis. Since the introduction of new diagnostic methods such as molecular diagnostics (MD) in our centre, the percentage of idiopathic anaphylaxis in the Anaphylaxis Register has significantly decreased. The purpose of this study was to identify possible causes of idiopathic anaphylaxis in patients with a history of moderate to severe anaphylactic reactions. After using MD, the causative agent was found in another 29 people. The proportion of people with idiopathic anaphylaxis in the Registry decreased from 9.2% to 3.5%. There were no significant differences in the incidence, although men appear to be slightly more common in primary idiopathic anaphylaxis. The mean age of primary idiopathic anaphylaxis was 40 years, but this was as high as 51 for anaphylaxis with alpha-gal allergy. Exercise may or may not be present as a cofactor despite its established role, e.g., in wheat-dependent exercise-induced anaphylaxis (WDEIA). In most of the analyzed cases, i.e., 70%, the reaction took place within an hour. The longest time interval from exposure to the development of symptoms is in the case of alpha-gal allergy; in this analysis, it was at least 5 h after ingestion of the so-called "red meat". Patients are not aware of the disease, or further attacks cannot be prevented. As many as 80% had idiopathic anaphylaxis prior to visiting the centre, and 80% developed anaphylaxis after visiting the centre, which emphasizes the need to not stop the medical team in their search for the causes. As many as 93% of cases required medical intervention, of which adrenaline was used only in 34.5%, antihistamines in 86%, systemic glucocorticosteroids (sCS) in 75%, and fluids in 62% of cases. A total of 83% of patients received an emergency kit for self-administration. Idiopathic anaphylaxis can be resolved as known-cause anaphylaxis after a thorough medical history and, if possible, without exposing the patient after using appropriate, modern in vitro diagnostic methods, including molecular diagnostics. The diagnosis of idiopathic anaphylaxis should extend the diagnosis to include alpha-gal syndrome, LTP syndrome and WDEIA.

Mesoporous Materials as Elements of Modern Drug Delivery Systems for Anti-Inflammatory Agents: A Review of Recent Achievements

Interest in the use of mesoporous materials as carriers of medicinal substances has been steadily increasing in the last two decades. Mesoporous carriers have application in the preparation of delivery systems for drugs from various therapeutic groups; however, their use as the carriers of anti-inflammatory agents is particularly marked. This review article, with about 170 references, summarizes the achievements in the application of mesoporous materials as the carriers of anti-inflammatory agents in recent years. This article will discuss a variety of mesoporous carriers as well as the characteristics of their porous structure that determine further use of these materials in the field of medical applications. Special attention will be paid to the progress observed in the construction of stimuli-responsive drug carriers and systems providing site-specific drug delivery. Subsequently, a review of the literature devoted to the use of mesoporous matrices as the carriers of anti-inflammatory drugs was carried out.

Anaphylaxis: Epidemiology and Differential Diagnosis

Anaphylaxis-related emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations are increasing. Triggers for anaphylaxis include food, medications, and stinging insects. Idiopathic anaphylaxis accounts for 30% to 60% of cases of anaphylaxis in adults and up to 10% of cases in children with novel allergens such as galactose-α-1,3 galactose reclassifying these cases. Recent practice guidelines have recommended against the routine use of systemic corticosteroids and antihistamines for the prevention of biphasic reactions and recommend an extended observation, up to 6 hours, for those with risk factors for biphasic anaphylaxis and those with lack of access to epinephrine and to emergency medical services.

Idiopathic anaphylaxis: Diagnosis and management

Introduction: Idiopathic anaphylaxis (IA) is a diagnosis of exclusion and is based on the inability to identify a causal relationship between a trigger and an anaphylactic event, despite a detailed patient history and careful diagnostic assessment. The prevalence of IA among the subset of people who experienced anaphylaxis is challenging to estimate and varies widely, from 10 to 60%; most commonly noted is ∼20% in the adult anaphylactic population. Comorbid atopic conditions, such as food allergy, allergic rhinitis, and asthma, are present in up to 48% of patients with IA. Improved diagnostic technologies and an increased understanding of conditions that manifest with symptoms associated with anaphylaxis have improved the ability to determine a more accurate diagnosis for patients who may have been initially diagnosed with IA. Methods: Literature search was conducted on PubMed, Google Scholar and Embase. Results: Galactose-α-1,3-galactose (α-gal) allergy, mast cell disorders, and hereditary a-tryptasemia are a few differential diagnoses that should be considered in patients with IA. Unlike food allergy, when anaphylaxis occurs within minutes to 2 hours after allergen consumption, α-gal allergy is a 3-6-hour delayed immunoglobulin E-mediated anaphylactic reaction to a carbohydrate epitope found in red meat (e.g., beef, lamb, pork). The more recently described hereditary α-tryptasemia is an inherited autosomal dominant genetic trait caused by increased germline copies of tryptase human gene alpha-beta 1 (TPSAB1), which encodes α tryptase and is associated with elevated baseline serum tryptase. Acute management of IA consists of carrying an epinephrine autoinjector to be administered immediately at the first signs of anaphylaxis. Long-term management for IA with antihistamines and other agents aims to potentially reduce the frequency and severity of the anaphylactic reactions, although the evidence is limited. Biologics are potentially steroid-sparing for patients with IA; however, more research on IA therapies is needed. Conclusion: The lack of diagnostic criteria, finite treatment options, and intricacies of making a differential diagnosis make IA challenging for patients and clinicians to manage.

Critical Care Management of the Patient With Anaphylaxis: A Concise Definitive Review

OBJECTIVES

Anaphylaxis is a rapidly progressive life-threatening syndrome manifesting as pruritus, urticaria, angioedema, bronchospasm and shock. The goal of this synthetic review is to provide a practical, updated approach to the evaluation and management of this disorder and associated complications.

DATA SOURCES

A MEDLINE search was conducted with the MeSH of anaphylaxis, anaphylactic reaction, anaphylactic shock, refractory anaphylaxis and subheadings of diagnosis, classification, epidemiology, complications and pharmacology. The level of evidence supporting an intervention was evaluated based on the availability of randomized studies, expert opinion, case studies, reviews, practice parameters and other databases (including Cochrane).

STUDY SELECTION

Selected publications describing anaphylaxis, clinical trials, diagnosis, mechanisms, risk factors and management were retrieved (reviews, guidelines, clinical trials, case series) and their bibliographies were also reviewed to identify relevant publications.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data from the relevant publications were reviewed, summarized and the information synthesized.

DATA SYNTHESIS

This is a synthetic review and the data obtained from a literature review was utilized to describe current trends in the diagnosis and management of the patient with anaphylaxis with a special emphasis on newer evolving concepts of anaphylaxis endotypes and phenotypes, management of refractory anaphylaxis in the ICU setting and review of therapeutic options for the elderly patient, or the complicated patient with severe cardiorespiratory complications. Most of the recommendations come from practice parameters, case studies or expert opinions, with a dearth of randomized trials to support specific interventions.

CONCLUSION

Anaphylaxis is a rapidly progressive life-threatening disorder. The critical care physician needs to be familiar with the diagnosis, differential diagnosis, evaluation, and management of anaphylaxis. Skilled intervention in ICUs may be required for the patient with complicated, severe, or refractory anaphylaxis.

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.

Approach to Patients with Stinging Insect Allergy

Stinging insect allergy is uncommon but can be life threatening. Diagnosis requires clinical history and confirmative skin or blood testing by an allergist. Baseline serum tryptase level can be used to stratify risk. Treatment is supportive for all reactions except for anaphylaxis, which is treated with intramuscular epinephrine, recumbent posture, and adjunct measures such as IV fluids, and oxygen. Venom immunotherapy is most effective for long-term management in patients with a history of anaphylaxis. Venom immunotherapy rapidly reduces the risk of sting anaphylaxis by up to 98% and maintenance treatment can be stopped after 5 years in most cases.

Evaluation of Prehospital Management in a Canadian Emergency Department Anaphylaxis Cohort

BACKGROUND

Studies assessing the use of antihistamines and corticosteroids for the treatment of anaphylaxis have not supported a conclusive effect.

OBJECTIVE

To assess prehospital management of anaphylaxis by measuring the effect of epinephrine use compared with antihistamines and corticosteroids on negative outcomes of anaphylaxis (intensive care unit/hospital ward admission, multiple doses of epinephrine in the emergency department [ED], and intravenous fluids given in the ED).

METHODS

The Cross-Canada Anaphylaxis Registry is a cohort study that enrolls anaphylaxis cases presenting to EDs in 5 Canadian provinces over a 6-year period. Participants were recruited prospectively and retrospectively and were excluded if the case did not meet the definition of anaphylaxis.

RESULTS

A total of 3498 cases of anaphylaxis, of which 80.3% were children, presented to 9 EDs across Canada. Prehospital treatment with epinephrine was administered in 31% of cases, whereas antihistamines and corticosteroids were used in 46% and 2% of cases, respectively. Admission to the intensive care unit/hospital ward was associated with prehospital treatment with corticosteroids (adjusted odds ratio, 2.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.55, 6.97) while adjusting for severity, treatment with epinephrine and antihistamines, asthma, sex, and age. Prehospital treatment with epinephrine (adjusted odds ratio, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.14, 0.38) and antihistamines (adjusted odds ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44, 0.85) decreased the likelihood of receiving multiple doses of epinephrine in the ED, while adjusting for severity, treatment with corticosteroids, asthma, sex, and age.

CONCLUSIONS

Prompt epinephrine treatment is crucial. Use of antihistamines in conjunction with epinephrine may reduce the risk of uncontrolled reactions (administration of 2 or more doses of epinephrine in the ED), although our findings do not support the use of corticosteroids.

Different clinical features of anaphylaxis according to cause and risk factors for severe reactions

BACKGROUND

Anaphylaxis is a life-threatening allergic reaction. Several studies reported different anaphylactic reactions according to the causative substances. However, a comparison of anaphylaxis for each cause has not been done. This study was conducted to identify common causes of anaphylaxis, characteristics of anaphylactic reaction for each cause and to analyze the factors related to the severity of the reaction.

METHODS

Medical records of patients who visited the emergency room of Ewha Womans University Mokdong Hospital from March 2003 to April 2016 and diagnosed with anaphylactic shock were retrospectively reviewed. We compared the clinical features of anaphylaxis according to the cause. In addition, the severity of anaphylaxis was analyzed and contributing factors for severe anaphylaxis were reviewed.

RESULTS

A total of 199 patients with anaphylaxis were analyzed. Food was the most common cause (49.7%), followed by drug reaction (36.2%), bee venom (10.1%), and unknown cause (4.0%). Cardiovascular symptoms of syncope and hypotension were more common in drug-induced anaphylaxis. The incidence of severe anaphylaxis was the highest in anaphylaxis due to drugs (54.2%). Urticaria and other skin symptoms were significantly more common in food-induced anaphylaxis. Risk factors for severe anaphylaxis included older age, male, and drug-induced one. Epinephrine treatment of anaphylaxis was done for 69.7% and 56.9% of patients with food-induced and drug-induced anaphylaxis, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

More severe anaphylaxis developed with drug treatment and in males. Low rate of epinephrine prescription was also observed. Male patients with drug induced anaphylaxis should be paid more attention.

Update on biphasic anaphylaxis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Biphasic anaphylaxis is a well documented complication of anaphylaxis, but it has been inconsistently defined in the literature. Analysis of contemporary studies of biphasic anaphylaxis based on modern definitions is needed.

RECENT FINDINGS

The rate of biphasic reactions in contemporary literature ranges from 0.4 to 14.7% depending on the study population. Observational studies have reported risk factors associated with the development of biphasic reactions; however, findings have been inconsistent and of questionable generalizability. Although life-threatening biphasic reactions are rare, up to 50% of biphasic reactions will require treatment with epinephrine. Early epinephrine administration may have a role in prevention of biphasic reactions, but the role of steroids needs further investigation. The optimal duration of observation is yet to be determined.

SUMMARY

Given the relative rarity of life-threatening biphasic anaphylaxis and the new context of the NIAID/FAAN standardized definition, further research regarding biphasic anaphylaxis is needed to better elucidate the care model for anaphylaxis patients with a focus on: prevention of biphasic reactions; identification of patients at increased risk of a biphasic reaction; determination of appropriate observation strategies for anaphylaxis patients; and patient education and preparation for management of potential biphasic reactions.

Levocetirizine and Prednisone Are Not Superior to Levocetirizine Alone for the Treatment of Acute Urticaria: A Randomized Double-Blind Clinical Trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We evaluate the efficacy of a 4-day course of prednisone added to antihistamine for the management of acute urticaria in an emergency department (ED).

METHODS

In this double-blind randomized clinical trial, patients were eligible for inclusion if aged 18 years or older and with acute urticaria of no more than 24 hours' duration. Patients with anaphylaxis or who had received antihistamines or glucocorticoids during the previous 5 days were not included. In addition to levocetirizine (5 mg orally for 5 days), patients were assigned to receive prednisone (40 mg orally for 4 days) or placebo. The primary endpoint of the study was itching relief 2 days after the ED visit, rated on a numeric scale of 0 to 10. Secondary endpoints were rash resolution, relapses, and adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 100 patients were included, 50 in each group. Seven patients in the prednisone group and 8 in the placebo group discontinued treatment. At 2-day follow-up, 62% of patients in the prednisone group had an itch score of 0 versus 76% of those in the placebo group (Δ 14%; 95% confidence interval -31% to 4%). Thirty percent of patients in the prednisone group and 24% in the placebo group reported relapses (Δ 6%; 95% confidence interval -23% to 11%). Mild adverse events were reported by 12% of patients in the prednisone group and 14% in the placebo group.

CONCLUSION

The addition of a prednisone burst did not improve the symptomatic and clinical response of acute urticaria to levocetirizine. This study does not support the addition of corticosteroid to H₁ antihistamine as first-line treatment of acute urticaria without angioedema.

Risk Factors for Severe Reactions during Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Food Challenges

BACKGROUND

Severe anaphylactic symptoms can occur during oral food challenges (OFCs). Thus, high-risk patients (e.g., patients with a history of anaphylaxis or high antigen-specific immunoglobulin E [IgE] levels) must carefully undergo OFCs in hospitals. We attempted to identify the risk factors for severe symptoms during OFC testing among high-risk patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated patients' characteristics and severe symptoms that were experienced during a double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge test performed before the patients underwent oral immunotherapy between June 2008 and June 2012. Patients were ≥5 years old and had an anaphylactic history or antigen-specific IgE (>30 kUA/L). Severe symptoms were defined using the grading of the Japanese Anaphylaxis Guidelines, which are modified from the European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology Guidelines.

RESULTS

We evaluated 393 cases with positive test results, including 98 cases with severe symptoms. The most frequent severe symptoms were respiratory (77%), gastrointestinal (28%), cardiovascular (27%), and neurological (13%) symptoms. Multivariate analysis revealed that the significant factors for a severe reaction were a history of anaphylaxis to the causative food (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 2.147, p = 0.003), older age (per 1 year increase, adjusted OR: 1.102, p = 0.044), and an egg OFC (adjusted OR: 0.433, p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

The risk factors for a severe reaction to OFCs were a history of an anaphylactic reaction and older age. An egg OFC was associated with low risk of severe symptoms during OFC. Therefore, OFCs for patients with these risk factors should only be performed under specialist supervision with access to rapid treatment and full resuscitation equipment.

Anaphylaxis

Anaphylaxis is an acute, systemic reaction mediated by immunoglobulin E hypersensitivity. Release of bioactive factors causes vasodilation and bronchiole constriction that can lead to hypotensive shock and asphyxiation. Differential diagnosis includes acute asthma, localized angioedema, syncope, and anxiety/panic attacks. Diagnostic tests lack specificity. Clinical diagnosis is based on demonstration of specific airway or cardiovascular compromise within proximity of allergen exposure. Treatment includes epinephrine, antihistamines, fluid resuscitation, and airway management. Prevention focuses on awareness/avoidance of triggers, implementation of personalized action plans, as well as immune modulation by desensitization in a closely controlled setting where available.

Self-medication of anaphylactic reactions due to Hymenoptera stings-an EAACI Task Force Consensus Statement

An anaphylactic reaction due to a Hymenoptera sting is a clinical emergency, and patients, their caregivers as well as all healthcare professionals should be familiar with its recognition and acute management. This consensus report has been prepared by a European expert panel of the EAACI Interest Group of Insect Venom Hypersensitivity. It is targeted at allergists, clinical immunologists, internal medicine specialists, pediatricians, general practitioners, emergency department doctors, and any other healthcare professional involved. The aim was to report the scientific evidence on self-medication of anaphylactic reactions due to Hymenoptera stings, to inform healthcare staff about appropriate patient self-management of sting reactions, to propose indications for the prescription of an adrenaline auto-injector (AAI), and to discuss other forms of medication. First-line treatment for Hymenoptera sting anaphylaxis is intramuscular adrenaline. Prescription of AAIs is mandatory in the case of venom-allergic patients who suffer from mast cell diseases or with an elevated baseline serum tryptase level and in untreated patients with a history of a systemic reaction involving at least two different organ systems. AAI prescription should also be considered in other specific situations before, during, and after stopping venom immunotherapy.

Glucocorticoids and Hospital Length of Stay for Children with Anaphylaxis: A Retrospective Study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether glucocorticoid administration is associated with improved outcomes in children with anaphylaxis.

STUDY DESIGN

We included children from the Pediatric Health Information System database who were diagnosed with anaphylaxis at 35 US children's hospitals between 2009 and 2013. Patients were stratified by disposition from the emergency department (ED), either hospitalized or discharged. We evaluated the association between glucocorticoid administration and prolonged length of stay (LOS), defined as hospital stay ≥ 2 days, and subsequent epinephrine administration among hospitalized children. Among discharged children, we assessed the association between glucocorticoid administration and ED revisits within 3 days. Analyses were adjusted for illness severity using ordering of laboratory tests, medications, oxygen, intravenous fluids, and admission to the intensive care unit.

RESULTS

Among 5203 children hospitalized with anaphylaxis, 424 (8.2%) had prolonged LOS. Glucocorticoid administration was inversely associated with prolonged LOS (aOR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.41-0.93) and with subsequent epinephrine use (aOR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.43-0.84) among hospitalized children. Glucocorticoid administration was not associated with the odds of a 3-day revisit (aOR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.50-2.05) among discharged patients.

CONCLUSION

The use of glucocorticoids was inversely associated with prolonged LOS among children hospitalized with anaphylaxis, but was not associated with 3-day ED revisits among discharged children. These findings support the use of glucocorticoids in children hospitalized with anaphylaxis.

Biphasic reactions in patients with anaphylaxis treated with corticosteroids

BACKGROUND

Although the incidence of anaphylaxis is rapidly increasing, the clinical characteristics and associated factors of a biphasic reaction are unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the incidence and clinical characteristics of biphasic reactions in patients with anaphylaxis treated with corticosteroids.

METHODS

A total of 655 patients with anaphylaxis visiting the emergency department of a tertiary teaching hospital from January 2007 through December 2014 were analyzed. Patient characteristics, triggers, symptoms and signs, in-hospital management, and disposition were recorded. A biphasic reaction was defined as the development of anaphylaxis after complete resolution of the initial reaction without further exposure to the offending agent within 7 days. Univariate and multivariate analyses on the predictors of the biphasic reaction were performed.

RESULTS

Of the 415 patients with anaphylaxis treated with corticosteroids, 9 patients (2.2%) developed a biphasic reaction. The mean age was 48.4 years, and 221 patients (54.4%) were women. The median time from complete resolution of initial clinical symptoms to occurrence of the biphasic reaction was 15 hours (range 1-45). History of drug anaphylaxis (odds ratio 14.3, 95% confidence interval 2.4-85.8) was a contributing factor to the development of the biphasic reaction.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of biphasic reactions was 2.2% in patients treated with corticosteroids and those with a history of drug anaphylaxis were at greater risk.