Knowledge, attitude, and practices of medical clinicians regarding food allergy and anaphylaxis in Hyderabad, India

The effect of applied force and device design on skin prick test performance

BACKGROUND

Skin prick tests (SPTs) are difficult to standardize, and SPT performance mainly relies on the clinician's expertise. So far, the effect of various factors such as device types, shape, variety of material type, and applied force on the performance of SPT has not been extensively investigated.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of various factors, including type or shape of devices, material type, and applied force, on the performance of SPT.

METHODS

Four SPT devices with different shapes and materials were applied on 12 subjects under 3 different applied forces (30, 45, and 60 g). The results were compared with standard method using an ALK lancet pricked by an experienced clinician.

RESULTS

A total of 480 pricks were conducted on 12 subjects. The wheal sizes and sensitivities of all devices increased with higher applied forces. The thinner lancets with a long sharp tip had relatively higher analytical sensitivities and provided 100% sensitivity at applied forces of 45 g and above. The pain scores of all devices at applied forces of 30 to 60 g ranged from 1.00 to 1.81 with minimal incidences of bleeding (0%-4.17%), whereas the pain score of the standard method by the ALK lancet was 2.08 with much higher incidences of bleeding at 27.08%.

CONCLUSION

The type/shape of the SPT device and applied force are the essential factors affecting the performance of SPT. The study result could pave the way toward higher performance and standardized SPT.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The Thai Clinical Trials Registry identification number: TCTR20220627004 (https://www.thaiclinicaltrials.org/show/TCTR20220627004).

Physicians' knowledge regarding epinephrine underuse in anaphylaxis

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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