Use of epinephrine in emergency department depends on anaphylaxis severity in children

Evaluation of clinical outcomes of efficacy in food allergen immunotherapy trials, COFAITH EAACI task force

Food allergy is a global public health problem that until recent years lacked any aetiological treatment supported by academy, industry and regulators. Food immunotherapy (AIT) is an evolving treatment option, supported by clinical practice and industry trial data. Recent AIT meta-analyses have highlighted the difficulty in pooling safety and efficacy data from AIT trials, due to secondary heterogeneity in the study. An EAACI task force (CO-FAITH) initiated by the Paediatric Section was created to focus on AIT efficacy outcomes for milk, egg and peanut allergy rather than in trial results. A systematic search and a narrative review of AIT controlled clinical trials and large case series was conducted. A total of 63 manuscripts met inclusion criteria, corresponding to 23, 21 and 22 studies of milk, egg and peanut AIT, respectively. The most common AIT efficacy outcome was desensitization, mostly defined as tolerating a maintenance phase dose, or reaching a particular dose upon successful exit oral food challenge (OFC). However, a large degree of heterogeneity was identified regarding the dose quantity defining this outcome. Sustained unresponsiveness and patient-reported outcomes (e.g. quality of life) were explored less frequently, and to date have been most rigorously described for peanut AIT versus other allergens. Change in allergen threshold assessed by OFC remains the most common efficacy measure, but OFC methods suffer from heterogeneity and methodological disparity. This review has identified multiple heterogeneous outcomes related to measuring the efficacy of AIT. Efforts to better standardize and harmonize which outcomes, and how to measure them must be carried out to help in the clinical development of safe and efficacious food allergy treatments.

Physician adherence to anaphylaxis guidelines among different age groups in emergency departments: 20-Year observational study

BACKGROUND

Anaphylaxis is an acute and serious allergic reaction. Little is known about physician adherence to anaphylaxis guidelines among patients across different age groups.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate real-world physician adherence to anaphylaxis guidelines among children, adults, and older adults in emergency departments.

METHODS

This study retrospectively analyzed all consecutive patients with anaphylaxis who presented to 2 emergency departments at 2 branches of the largest tertiary hospital in Taiwan, between 2001 and 2020. Patients who met the diagnostic criteria for anaphylaxis were enrolled and grouped by age: children (<18 years), adults (18-64 years), and older adults (≥65 years).

RESULTS

We enrolled 771 patients with anaphylaxis (159 children, 498 adults, and 114 older adults). Intramuscular epinephrine was administered in 294 cases (38.1%). There was a significant age-group difference in the rate of intramuscular epinephrine administration (46.5% in children, 37.3% in adults, and 29.8% in older adults; P trend = .004). When stratified by severity, 14.3% of older adults with moderate reactions received intramuscular epinephrine, whereas 35.2% of adults and 55.3% of children received intramuscular epinephrine (P trend < .001), whereas such difference was not found in patients with severe reactions. Upon discharge from emergency departments, 15.3% received allergist referral (52.2% in children, 6.6% in adults, and 1.8% in older adults; P trend < .001); 12.5% received education on avoidance of triggers (18.9%, 11.4%, and 7.9%; P trend = .01), and 16.1% received education on alarm symptoms (21.4%, 15.1%, and 13.2%; P trend = .05).

CONCLUSION

The real-world physician adherence to anaphylaxis guidelines remains suboptimal in emergency departments, particularly among older adults. Physician continuing education is needed to improve the gap between anaphylaxis guidelines and clinical practice.

Anaphylaxis: A 2023 practice parameter update

This practice parameter update focuses on 7 areas in which there are new evidence and new recommendations. Diagnostic criteria for anaphylaxis have been revised, and patterns of anaphylaxis are defined. Measurement of serum tryptase is important for diagnosis of anaphylaxis and to identify underlying mast cell disorders. In infants and toddlers, age-specific symptoms may differ from older children and adults, patient age is not correlated with reaction severity, and anaphylaxis is unlikely to be the initial reaction to an allergen on first exposure. Different community settings for anaphylaxis require specific measures for prevention and treatment of anaphylaxis. Optimal prescribing and use of epinephrine autoinjector devices require specific counseling and training of patients and caregivers, including when and how to administer the epinephrine autoinjector and whether and when to call 911. If epinephrine is used promptly, immediate activation of emergency medical services may not be required if the patient experiences a prompt, complete, and durable response. For most medical indications, the risk of stopping or changing beta-blocker or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor medication may exceed the risk of more severe anaphylaxis if the medication is continued, especially in patients with insect sting anaphylaxis. Evaluation for mastocytosis, including a bone marrow biopsy, should be considered for adult patients with severe insect sting anaphylaxis or recurrent idiopathic anaphylaxis. After perioperative anaphylaxis, repeat anesthesia may proceed in the context of shared decision-making and based on the history and results of diagnostic evaluation with skin tests or in vitro tests when available, and supervised challenge when necessary.

Retrospective review of diphenhydramine vs diphenhydramine plus glucocorticoid for the treatment of allergic reaction in cats

OBJECTIVES

The aims of the present study were to report the outcomes of treating allergic reactions in cats with diphenhydramine vs diphenhydramine plus glucocorticoid and to determine whether signs recurred or additional veterinary intervention was needed in the days after initial treatment.

METHODS

This retrospective study evaluated 73 cats treated for allergic reaction with diphenhydramine alone or in combination with a glucocorticoid at a 24 h emergency and specialty referral veterinary hospital between 1 January 2012 and 31 March 2021.

RESULTS

In total, 44 cats were treated with diphenhydramine alone, and 29 were treated with diphenhydramine plus dexamethasone sodium phosphate. The inciting cause was known or highly suspected in 50 patients. Vaccines were the most common (31 patients), followed by insect envenomation (17 cases). No cat in either group progressed to anaphylaxis. There was no difference in resolution of clinical signs between the groups. Follow-up contact was successfully made with 40/73 cat owners. All 40 cats were alive. Eight had persistent signs. There was no difference in the number of cats with persistent signs between groups. Five cats required additional treatment after the initial emergency visit. There was no difference between the two groups for persistent signs at follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

There was no difference in measured outcomes between cats treated with diphenhydramine alone vs those treated with a glucocorticoid in addition to diphenhydramine in this population. The ideal treatment for allergic reactions is unknown. Based on currently available data in human and veterinary literature, glucocorticoids are not indicated to treat acute allergic reactions. The role of antihistamines as part of a symptomatic supportive treatment plan to shorten the duration of signs is unclear at this time and may be considered.

WAO consensus on DEfinition of Food Allergy SEverity (DEFASE)

Background

While several scoring systems for the severity of anaphylactic reactions have been developed, there is a lack of consensus on definition and categorisation of severity of food allergy disease as a whole.

Aim

To develop an international consensus on the severity of food allergy (DEfinition of Food Allergy Severity, DEFASE) scoring system, to be used globally.

Methods Phase 1

We conducted a mixed-method systematic review (SR) of 11 databases for published and unpublished literature on severity of food allergy management and set up a panel of international experts.

Phase 2

Based on our findings in Phase 1, we drafted statements for a two-round modified electronic Delphi (e-Delphi) survey. A purposefully selected multidisciplinary international expert panel on food allergy (n = 60) was identified and sent a structured questionnaire, including a set of statements on different domains of food allergy severity related to symptoms, health-related quality of life, and economic impact. Participants were asked to score their agreement on each statement on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree". Median scores and percentage agreements were calculated. Consensus was defined a priori as being achieved if 70% or more of panel members rated a statement as "strongly agree" to "agree" after the second round. Based on feedback, 2 additional online voting rounds were conducted.

Results

We received responses from 92% of Delphi panel members in round 1 and 85% in round 2. Consensus was achieved on the overall score and in all of the 5 specific key domains as essential components of the DEFASE score.

Conclusions

The DEFASE score is the first comprehensive grading of food allergy severity that considers not only the severity of a single reaction, but the whole disease spectrum. An international consensus has been achieved regarding a scoring system for food allergy disease. It offers an evaluation grid, which may help to rate the severity of food allergy. Phase 3 will involve validating the scoring system in research settings, and implementing it in clinical practice.

Who Needs Epinephrine? Anaphylaxis, Autoinjectors, and Parachutes

International guidelines stipulate that intramuscular (IM) epinephrine (adrenaline) is the first-line treatment for anaphylaxis, with an established good safety profile. The availability of epinephrine autoinjectors (EAI) has greatly facilitated the lay administration of IM epinephrine in community settings. However, key areas of uncertainty remain around epinephrine usage. These include variations in prescribing EAI, what symptoms should prompt epinephrine administration, whether emergency medical services (EMS) need to be contacted after administration, and whether epinephrine administered via EAI reduces mortality from anaphylaxis or improves quality of life measures. We provide a balanced commentary on these issues. There is increasing recognition that a poor response to epinephrine, particularly after 2 doses, is a useful marker of severity and the need for urgent escalation. It is likely that patients who respond to a single epinephrine dose do not require EMS activation or emergency department transfer, but data are needed to demonstrate the safety of this approach. Lastly, patients at risk of anaphylaxis must be counseled against over-reliance on EAI alone.

Incidence, triggering factors, symptoms, and treatment of anaphylaxis in a pediatric hospital

Objective

Assess the incidence of anaphylaxis in the emergency room (ER) of a private pediatric hospital in the city of São Paulo, Brazil, and describe associated factors.

Method

This was a cross-sectional, retrospective, and observational study based on the medical records of patients from 0 to 18 years old seen at the emergency unit during the years of 2016–2019, who had a diagnosis potentially related to anaphylaxis according to ICD-10. All medical records were individually reviewed for the presence of compatible signs and symptoms that identified “possible” cases of anaphylaxis. Cases were considered probable anaphylaxis when medical history was compatible and indicative of anaphylaxis in the opinion of at least 2 allergists.

Results

The incidence of anaphylaxis was 0.013%. Among the 56 patients identified (mean age 4.2 years), food was the most predominant suspected factor (53%), followed by unknown factors (32%), and drugs (12.5%). All patients presented with cutaneous symptoms, 74% with respiratory, and 53% with gastrointestinal. Allergic disease as a comorbidity was found in 39% of the children and 11% had a history of previous anaphylaxis. There were neither cases of syncope or shock, nor deaths. Intramuscular (IM) adrenaline was prescribed in 37.5% of cases.

Conclusions

The incidence of anaphylaxis was low when compared to the worldwide incidence. The severity of most cases was mild, cutaneous symptoms were predominant, and food was the suspected trigger most frequently associated with reactions.

Anaphylaxis in Chinese Children: Different Clinical Profile Between Children with and without a History of Asthma/Recurrent Wheezing

Purpose

Asthma and recurrent wheezing (RW) have been identified as risk factors for anaphylaxis; however, little is known about the characteristics of anaphylaxis in children with a history of asthma or RW in Chinese children.

Patients and Methods

This was a retrospective, observational chart review of children who were diagnosed with anaphylaxis in a tertiary children's hospital between 2014 and 2021. Patients' demographics, symptoms, triggers and presence of physician-diagnosed asthma/RW history were collected from medical charts.

Results

A total of 399 anaphylactic reactions in 264 patients were analyzed; 119 patients (45.1%) had a history of asthma/RW. Food was the most common cause (85.5%, 341/399). Compared with patients without a history of asthma/RW, buckwheat-induced anaphylaxis was significantly more common in the asthma/RW group (9.4% vs 0.5%, p < 0.001), patients with a history of asthma/RW had higher rates of oropharyngeal symptoms (17.3% vs 8.6%, p = 0.011) and wheezing (34.5% vs 15.9%, p < 0.001). Ninety-one reactions (22.8%, 91/399) presented as severe anaphylaxis, but no difference existed between asthma/RW and non-asthma/RW groups. Children with a history of asthma/RW were more likely to receive inhaled β agonists than children without a history of asthma/RW (11.8% vs 2.5%, p = 0.003). A larger proportion of children without asthma/RW history were treated with epinephrine (11.7%) than children with asthma/RW history (6.9%).

Conclusion

Our finding revealed that different clinical profiles of anaphylaxis in children with and without a history of asthma/RW. Our study did not find that children with a history of asthma/RW have more severe anaphylactic reactions compared with children without asthma/RW. Buckwheat-induced anaphylaxis was more common in the asthma/RW group, wheezing and oropharyngeal symptoms affected a higher proportion of the asthma/RW group.

Emergency treatment of anaphylaxis: concise clinical guidance

Anaphylaxis is a serious systemic hypersensitivity reaction that is usually rapid in onset and may cause death. It is characterised by the rapid development of airway and/or breathing and/or circulation problems. Intramuscular adrenaline is the most important treatment, although, even in healthcare settings, many patients do not receive this intervention contrary to guidelines. The Resuscitation Council UK published an updated guideline in 2021 with some significant changes in recognition, management, observation and follow-up of patients with anaphylaxis. This is a concise version of the updated guideline.

Development and validation of the food allergy severity score

BACKGROUND

The heterogeneity and lack of validation of existing severity scores for food allergic reactions limit standardization of case management and research advances. We aimed to develop and validate a severity score for food allergic reactions.

METHODS

Following a multidisciplinary experts consensus, it was decided to develop a food allergy severity score (FASS) with ordinal (oFASS) and numerical (nFASS) formats. oFASS with 3 and 5 grades were generated through expert consensus, and nFASS by mathematical modeling. Evaluation was performed in the EuroPrevall outpatient clinic cohort (8232 food reactions) by logistic regression with request of emergency care and medications used as outcomes. Discrimination, classification, and calibration were calculated. Bootstrapping internal validation was followed by external validation (logistic regression) in 5 cohorts (3622 food reactions). Correlation of nFASS with the severity classification done by expert allergy clinicians by Best-Worst Scaling of 32 food reactions was calculated.

RESULTS

oFASS and nFASS map consistently, with nFASS having greater granularity. With the outcomes emergency care, adrenaline and critical medical treatment, oFASS and nFASS had a good discrimination (receiver operating characteristic area under the curve [ROC-AUC]>0.80), classification (sensitivity 0.87-0.92, specificity 0.73-0.78), and calibration. Bootstrapping over ROC-AUC showed negligible biases (1.0 × 10^-6 -1.23 × 10^-3 ). In external validation, nFASS performed best with higher ROC-AUC. nFASS was strongly correlated (R 0.89) to best-worst scoring of 334 expert clinicians.

CONCLUSION

FASS is a validated and reliable method to measure severity of food allergic reactions. The ordinal and numerical versions that map onto each other are suitable for use by different stakeholders in different settings.

Physicians' knowledge and practice concerning diagnosis and management of anaphylaxis: The situation in Egypt

Introduction

Early recognition of an anaphylaxis event is crucial for instituting lifesaving management. We sought to explore knowledge and practice towards anaphylaxis in a sample of physicians from ten Egyptian governorates.

Methods

An eighteen question-based questionnaire was developed by expert allergists to evaluate the knowledge and practice towards anaphylaxis, based on the World Allergy Organization guidelines for the assessment and management of anaphylaxis. The questionnaires were distributed, and the answered forms collected via emails, and data were tabulated, and analysed.

Results

In this cross-sectional study, a total of 242 physicians completed the survey (183 (75.6%) paediatricians, 32 (13.2%) internists, 22 (9.1%) intensivists and five (2.1%) anaesthetists). Only 91 participants (37.6%) identified all the four proposed anaphylaxis clinical scenarios while 70, 45 and 36 identified three, two and one scenario, respectively. Loss of consciousness and abdominal symptoms were not recognised as possible presentations of anaphylaxis by 64.5% and 80.2% of the participants, respectively. Epinephrine was considered the first line treatment by 98 (40.5%), corticosteroids by 77 (31.8%) and antihistamines by 25 (10.3%). 75 (31%) responders identified the right dose of epinephrine while 119 (49.2%) identified the proper route. Concerning practice, 83 physicians (39.2%) used epinephrine for all cases of anaphylaxis, 88 (41.5%) used it for refractory cases only whereas 41 (19.3%) did not use epinephrine at all.

Discussion

Our survey shows that the knowledge of Egyptian physicians and their practice towards anaphylaxis are still inadequate. The current situation reinforces the need to disseminate and encourage the adoption of the international guidelines for anaphylaxis diagnosis and treatment.

Pilot Project of Special Emergency Medical Service Team for Anaphylaxis in Gangwon-do, Korea: Results from an Online Questionnaire Survey

BACKGROUND

Early recognition and prompt intramuscular epinephrine administration are critical for the treatment of anaphylaxis. The special emergency medical service team (SEMST) is a reorganization plan that incorporates first-level emergency medical technicians (EMTs) and nurses from Korea to give the authority to administer epinephrine. This study evaluates the experience of SEMST and aims to investigate further needs in the pre-hospital management of anaphylaxis.

METHODS

An online survey of 29 questions on the Gangwon-do 119 EMST was conducted. IBM SPSS Statistics ver. 20.0 (IBM Co., Armonk, NY, USA) and R ver.4.0.3. were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 428 (44.6%) participants responded to the questionnaire, and 55.6% (238/428) experienced anaphylaxis. The common presumed cause was insect sting/animal bites at 84.5% (201/238), followed by food (7.6%, 18/238), and drugs (6.3%, 15/238). The frequency of occurrence was highest for tourist attractions (58.6%, 167/285), followed by homes (31.9%, 91/285) and workplace (3.5%, 10/285). Among 136 medical personnel (31.8%) who were currently active or had been active as the SEMST, 95 (70.0%) experienced anaphylaxis, and 58 (61.1%) used epinephrine, which was significantly lower in the non-SEMST group (n = 36, 25.2%). The biggest difficulty in pre-hospital treatment was the limitation of drug administration authority (23.4%, 22/95). The lack of experience and tricky treatment are the chief difficulties in pediatric anaphylaxis. The percentage of correct answers regarding anaphylaxis awareness was significantly higher in the educated (n = 374) than in the non-educated group (n = 54), both for diagnosis (24.9% vs. 11.1%) and treatment (73.5% vs. 37.0%).

CONCLUSION

Proper administration of epinephrine is particularly important for pre-hospital anaphylaxis management in rural areas. Expanding SEMST and conducting periodic education using virtual experiences is necessary.

Epinephrine in anaphylaxis: too little, too late

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Epinephrine is the agreed-upon first line treatment for anaphylaxis, yet it continues to be underused by patients/caregivers and providers alike.

RECENT FINDINGS

There are unfortunately limited data on how epinephrine can best be utilized in anaphylaxis, which hinders how best to inform patients and providers. Studies reporting underuse suggest various barriers and themes on why this may happen.

SUMMARY

Continued education of patients, caregivers, and providers is needed; however, is not likely to be enough to close the gap. Thus, novel studies on how to increase use; increase availability in a cost-effective manner; and newer, effective delivery routes are still needed.

[Paediatric Life Support]

The European Resuscitation Council (ERC) Paediatric Life Support (PLS) guidelines are based on the 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Science with Treatment Recommendations of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR). This section provides guidelines on the management of critically ill or injured infants, children and adolescents before, during and after respiratory/cardiac arrest.

Prevention and management of allergic reactions to food in child care centers and schools: Practice guidelines

Food allergy management in child care centers and schools is a controversial topic, for which evidence-based guidance is needed. Following the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, we conducted systematic literature reviews of the anticipated health effects of selected interventions for managing food allergy in child care centers and schools; we compiled data about the costs, feasibility, acceptability, and effects on health equity of the selected interventions; and we developed the following conditional recommendations: we suggest that child care centers and schools implement allergy training and action plans; we suggest that they use epinephrine (adrenaline) to treat suspected anaphylaxis; we suggest that they stock unassigned epinephrine autoinjectors, instead of requiring students to supply their own personal autoinjectors to be stored on site for designated at-school use; and we suggest that they do not implement site-wide food prohibitions (eg, "nut-free" schools) or allergen-restricted zones (eg, "milk-free" tables), except in the special circumstances identified in this document. The recommendations are labeled "conditional" due to the low quality of available evidence. More research is needed to determine with greater certainty which interventions are likely to be the most beneficial. Policymakers might need to adapt the recommendations to fit local circumstances.

Pediatric Anaphylaxis: Etiology and Predictive Factors in an Emergency Setting

Anaphylaxis is a serious allergic life-threatening condition that needs immediate treatment to prevent unfavorable outcomes. The present study revealed that the prevalence of anaphylaxis in children increased with age and the adolescent group has the most frequent anaphylaxis events. Food-induced anaphylaxis was the most common cause of anaphylaxis in pediatric population. This etiology revealed a significant correlation with a known history of food allergy in the study population, P = .029. Anaphylaxis from insect stings associated with cardiovascular symptoms, P < .001 and inclined to be severe. Univariate analysis showed predicted probability of severe anaphylaxis increased with age with an odds ratio of 1.1. This finding strengthens and supports the view that physicians should be aware of severe anaphylaxis reactions in older age group when there is a documented history of insect sting. The overall pediatric anaphylaxis patients in the study population had favorable outcomes. The authors recommended at least 24 hours hospital observation in order to observe biphasic reaction in pediatric anaphylaxis especially in adolescent age group.

Evidence update for the treatment of anaphylaxis

The Resuscitation Council UK has updated its Guideline for healthcare providers on the Emergency treatment of anaphylaxis. As part of this process, an evidence review was undertaken by the Guideline Working Group, using an internationally-accepted approach for adoption, adaptation, and de novo guideline development based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence to decision (EtD) framework, referred to as GRADE-ADOLOPMENT. A number of significant changes have been made, which will be reflected in the updated Guideline. These include: emphasis on repeating intramuscular adrenaline doses after 5 min if symptoms of anaphylaxis do not resolve; corticosteroids (e.g. hydrocortisone) no longer being routinely recommended for the emergency treatment of anaphylaxis; interventions for reactions which are refractory to initial treatment with adrenaline; a recommendation against the use of antihistamines for the acute management of anaphylaxis; and guidance relating to the duration of observation following anaphylaxis, and timing of discharge.

European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2021: Paediatric Life Support

These European Resuscitation Council Paediatric Life Support (PLS) guidelines, are based on the 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Science with Treatment Recommendations. This section provides guidelines on the management of critically ill infants and children, before, during and after cardiac arrest.

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.

Asthma and anaphylaxis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Both asthma and anaphylaxis are recognized noncommunicable hypersensitivity conditions, which should be correctly diagnosed and treated/controlled in order to decrease avoidable deaths. Nevertheless, their association is not completely clear. We here propose to review the current and new evidence-based data of asthma and anaphylaxis in the view of the new knowledge in the field that can support the quality practice and empower allergists and health professionals in treating symptoms and preventing death.

RECENT FINDINGS

Hypersensitivity life-threatening conditions, such as anaphylaxis and asthma can coexist, mimic or worse each other. Asthma itself is not a strong predictor of more severe anaphylaxis. However, poor asthma control associated with more severe anaphylaxis reactions in all ages. In children, asthma is associated with the severity and recurrences of anaphylactic reactions.

SUMMARY

Although recent data point for the association between asthma and anaphylaxis, we still do not have harmonized evidence to confirm if we are dealing with two independent comorbidities one worsening each other. However, as far as this review is covering two relevant public health problems in the field of allergy, it is mandatory put in place decisions supporting recommendations to better manage the affected patients and reduce the risk.General strategies should include regular notification of this association, optimization of the classification and coding for anaphylaxis and asthma (new ICD 11 allergy codes) in order to harmonize epidemiological stratified data, early diagnosis of asthma in childhood, regular investigation of asthma in cases of anaphylaxis and optimization of the asthma control and lung function for all patients with indication to provocation tests, desensitization or allergen immunotherapy regardless to the trigger. Implementation of these strategies will involve national and international support for ongoing efforts in relationship with networks of centres of excellence to provide personalized management for the most at-risk patients and prevent death.

Advances in drug allergy, urticaria, angioedema, and anaphylaxis in 2018

Many notable advances in drug allergy, urticaria, angioedema, and anaphylaxis were reported in 2018. Broad-spectrum antibiotic use and, consequently, antibiotic resistance are widespread, and algorithms to clarify β-lactam allergy and optimize antibiotic use were described. Meaningful data emerged on the pathogenesis of delayed drug hypersensitivity reactions. Progress not only in defining biomarkers but also in understanding the effect on quality of life and developing better treatments has been made for patients with chronic idiopathic urticaria. Patients with hereditary angioedema (HAE) have gained additional access to highly efficacious therapies, with associated improvements in quality of life, and some progress was made in our understanding of recurrent angioedema in patients with normal laboratory results. Guidelines have defined clear goals to help providers optimize therapies in patients with HAE. The epidemiology and triggers of anaphylaxis and the mechanisms underlying anaphylaxis were elucidated further. In summary, these disorders (and labels) cause substantial burdens for individual persons and even society. Fortunately, publications in 2018 have informed on advancements in diagnosis and management and have provided better understanding of mechanisms that potentially could yield new therapies. This progress should lead to better health outcomes and paths forward in patients with drug allergy, urticaria, HAE, and anaphylaxis.