Increased Use of Adrenaline in the Management of Childhood Anaphylaxis Over the Last Decade

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.

Increasing emergency department visits for anaphylaxis in very early childhood: A canary in the coal mine

AIM

The incidence of anaphylaxis is increasing globally in tandem with changing environmental and lifestyle factors. There is very limited data on very early childhood presentations. We aim to assess changes in rates, characteristics and management of infant anaphylaxis in a paediatric ED over a 15-year period.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of children <2 years of age who presented with verified anaphylaxis comparing cases in years 2003-2007 with those in 2013-2017. Standardised information was collected on demographics, clinical presentation, management and triggers.

RESULTS

Manually confirmed anaphylaxis rates in <2 year olds increased from 3.6 to 6.2 per 104 population (OR 1.7, 95% CI: 1.3-2.7; p < 0.001) with the greatest increase in <1 year olds. Anaphylaxis severity increased between 2003-2007 and 2013-2017 (OR 2.3, 95% CI: 1.2-4.3; p = 0.018). Failure to administer adrenaline was reduced in 2013-2017 (p = 0.007). Food was the leading anaphylaxis trigger (97.85%).

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to suggest an increase in the incidence and severity of ED anaphylaxis presentations in children aged <2 years. Increased awareness of specific characteristics in this age group is required to facilitate timely recognition and optimal management. Further large-scale studies are warranted to understand underlying environmental drivers and find prevention strategies to reduce the burden of disease.

Pre- and Postnatal Vitamin D Status and Allergy Outcomes in Early Childhood

The dramatic increase in the prevalence of allergic disease in recent decades reflects environmental and behavioural changes that have altered patterns of early immune development. The very early onset of allergic diseases points to the specific vulnerability of the developing immune system to environmental changes and the development of primary intervention strategies is crucial to address this unparalleled burden. Vitamin D is known to have immunomodulatory functions. While allergic disease is multifactorial, associations with reduced sunlight exposure have led to the hypothesis that suboptimal vitamin D levels during critical early periods may be one possible explanation. Interventions to improve vitamin D status, especially in early life, may be the key to allergic disease prevention.

Use of multiple epinephrine doses in anaphylaxis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Regulatory bodies recommend that all patients at risk of anaphylaxis be prescribed 2 epinephrine autoinjectors, which they should carry at all times. This is in contrast to some guidelines. The proportion of anaphylaxis reactions that are treated with multiple doses of epinephrine has not been systematically evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies reporting epinephrine treatment for anaphylaxis in which data relating to the number of doses administered were available.

METHODS

We searched the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases for relevant studies reporting at least 10 anaphylaxis events (due to food or venom) from 1946 until January 2020. Data were extracted in duplicate for the meta-analysis, and the risk of bias was assessed. The study was registered under the PROSPERO identifier CRD42017069109.

RESULTS

A total of 86 studies (36,557 anaphylaxis events) met the inclusion criteria (20 of the studies [23%] were prospective studies; 64 [74%] reported reactions in the community, and 22 [26%] included food challenge data). Risk of bias was assessed as low in 50 studies. Overall, 7.7% of anaphylaxis events from any cause (95% CI = 6.4-9.1) were treated with multiple doses of epinephrine. When only epinephrine-treated reactions for which subsequent doses were administered by a health care professional were considered, 11.1% of food-induced reactions (95% CI = 9.4-13.2) and 17.1% of venom-induced reactions (95% CI = 11.3-25.0) were treated with more than 1 epinephrine dose. Heterogeneity was moderate to high in the meta-analyses, but at sensitivity analysis this estimate was not affected by study design or anaphylaxis definition.

CONCLUSION

Around 1 in 10 anaphylaxis reactions are treated with more than 1 dose of epinephrine.

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.

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.

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.

Commercial claims costs related to health care resource use associated with a diagnosis of peanut allergy

BACKGROUND

Peanut allergy (PA) affects approximately 1.6 million US children. The current standard of care is strict avoidance and prompt reaction treatment. Peanut allergy health care costs and health care resource utilization (HCRU) are poorly understood.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate PA health care costs and HCRU using a nationally representative commercial payer database.

METHODS

The IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database was examined for PA diagnosis/reaction codes between January 2010 and October 2016 in patients 64 years of age or younger, with age cohort-matched controls. Outcomes were measured 12 months before and after the first claim date. Health care costs and HCRU were compared using Student's t tests and χ² tests.

RESULTS

Patients with a PA-related diagnostic code (n = 41,675) incurred almost double all-cause health care costs vs controls ($6436 vs $3493, P < .001), mainly from inpatient and outpatient medical costs ($5002 vs $2832, P < .001). More than one third of the PA group patients (36%) had a code indicative of an anaphylactic reaction during follow-up. Mean PA or reaction-related code costs per visit totaled $7921 for hospitalizations and $1115 for emergency department (ED) visits. Costs were 30% lower in patients with asthma codes without PA codes vs those with both codes ($5678 vs $8112, P < .001); all-cause ED costs were more than double in patients with atopic dermatitis codes with PA codes vs those without PA codes ($654 vs $308, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

National commercial payer claims data indicate a significant health care burden associated with a PA-related code, including over $6400/patient in annual all-cause costs and increased health care utilization.

Anaphylaxis - Lessons learnt when East meets West

The rapidly increasing prevalence of allergic disorders over the past 2 decades highlights the need to understand the epidemiology of anaphylaxis. In Europe, the United States, and Australia, the incidence of anaphylaxis is estimated to be between 60 and 950 cases per 100 000 population, with a lifetime prevalence of anaphylaxis of 0.05%-2%. The incidence appears to be increasing over time. Although the existing Asian literature is heterogeneous and limited by under-reporting, it also suggests a similar increasing trend in anaphylaxis incidence in Asia. Anaphylaxis triggers in Asia, such as the predominance of shellfish and wheat in older children and adolescents, differ from those seen in Western populations. Triggers unique to Asia such as traditional Chinese medications, galacto-oligosaccharides, and food delicacies have also been reported. Low usage of adrenaline as first-line treatment of anaphylaxis is evident across all countries and is particularly concerning. There is a need to establish prospective, standardized protocols for anaphylaxis data collection and reporting, to enhance the collective understanding of anaphylaxis and its burden, gaps in management and to identify areas for future research and intervention in each region. Understanding of the underlying reasons explaining the difference between East and West will facilitate future primary preventive strategies.

Underuse of Epinephrine for Pediatric Anaphylaxis Victims in the Emergency Department: A Population-based Study

Purpose

Epinephrine is a key drug for treating anaphylaxis; however, its underuse is still a significant issue worldwide. The objective of this study was to compare epinephrine use between pediatric and adult patients who were treated with anaphylaxis in the emergency department (ED).

Methods

The data were retrieved from the National Sample Cohort of South Korea, which contains claim data from the National Health Insurance Service. We included patients who visited the ED with a discharge code of anaphylaxis between 2004 and 2013. We assessed prescription information of epinephrine, antihistamine and systemic steroid, previous medical history and discharge disposition from the ED. The study population was categorized based on age at the visit.

Results

A total of 175 pediatric and 1,605 adult patients with anaphylaxis were identified. Only 42 (24%) of the pediatric patients were treated with epinephrine, while 592 (36.9%) of the adult patients were treated with epinephrine (P = 0.001). Furthermore, the pediatric patients were less likely to be treated with systemic steroid than the adult patients (6.9% vs. 12.3%, P = 0.047). The odds ratios for the administration of epinephrine relative to the baseline in the 19-65 age group were 0.34 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15–0.67), 0.56 (95% CI, 0.28–1.03) and 0.79 (95% CI, 0.45–1.33) in the < 7, 7–12 and 13–18 age groups, respectively.

Conclusions

The pediatric patients with anaphylaxis experienced a lower rate of epinephrine injection use than the adult patients and the injection use decreased as age decreased.

Allergen immunotherapy for food allergy from the Asian perspective: key challenges and opportunities

Introduction: Prevalence of food allergy is rising in different regions of the world. Asia has not been spared from this epidemic, but epidemiological data have revealed a different pattern of food allergens in this continent. Allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) for food allergy, which has been revolutionary as the main focus of research in recent years, needs to be adapted for the different populations in Asia. Areas covered: Recent evidence shows increasing popularity and superiority of AIT over strict food avoidance as the cornerstone of food allergy management. Asia is a distinctive continent with specific food allergy triggers, in particular, seafood, and wheat. Peanut, on the contrary, is not a common food allergen in most parts of Asia. The common Asian food allergens, as well as the rapidly developing food-specific AIT in this region will be covered in this article. Expert commentary: Evidence on oral immunotherapy for wheat allergy and preclinical data on shellfish AIT are promising. Further work should be done on resolving cross-sensitization between environmental allergens with wheat and shellfish allergens, and a modified AIT approach to enhance the safety and effectiveness of food-specific immunotherapy.