Risk Factors and Characteristics of Biphasic Anaphylaxis

Patient-Centered Practice Guidelines: GRADEing Evidence to Incorporate Certainty, Balance Between Benefits and Harms, Equity, Feasibility, and Cost-Effectiveness

The practice of medicine in recent years has emphasized the use of evidence-based clinical guidelines to help inform treatment decisions. Since its development in 2004, the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach has offered a systematic process for reviewing and summarizing the certainty of evidence found in the medical literature regarding various treatment options. To develop truly patient-centered care guidelines, this appraisal of the certainty of evidence must be combined with an understanding of the balance between benefits and harms, patient preferences, equity, feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and policy implications. This review examines each of these domains in detail, exploring the process and benefits of developing relevant, patient-focused guidelines directly applicable to the practice of modern medicine.

Tirzepatide-Induced Biphasic Anaphylactic Reaction: A Case Report

Anaphylaxis is a rapid and severe reaction to a trigger that is characterized by skin, mucosal, and cardiorespiratory changes. A minority of patients exhibit a biphasic anaphylactic reaction (BAR). Tirzepatide is a dual incretin receptor analog approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Allergic reactions to tirzepatide were reported during clinical trials, but none were severe enough to be characterized as an anaphylactic reaction. We describe a case of a BAR to tirzepatide.

Preventing food allergy fatalities

Fatal anaphylaxis to food is thankfully rare, but every death is a potentially avoidable tragedy. Usually, there will be a coronial inquest to establish the 'how and why' for each death. Reviewing these food allergy-related deaths identifies a number of common themes and risk factors. While some are non-modifiable (such as age, gender and ethnicity), others are and include delayed epinephrine administration and communication difficulties in allergen avoidance. This review highlights the key messages in food allergy-related fatality prevention for healthcare professionals and patients alike, and where available, we explain the evidence behind such recommendations. We describe the data behind the good practice points to facilitate their adoption in routine practice without generating additional anxiety for what is a comparatively rare event. We also propose an information leaflet for patients and carers, developed with patients and endorsed by two major allergy charities, to facilitate dissemination of the recommendations in this review.

Mast Cells and Basophils in IgE-Independent Anaphylaxis

Anaphylaxis is a life-threatening or even fatal systemic hypersensitivity reaction. The incidence of anaphylaxis has risen at an alarming rate in the past decades in the majority of countries. Generally, the most common causes of severe or fatal anaphylaxis are medication, foods and Hymenoptera venoms. Anaphylactic reactions are characterized by the activation of mast cells and basophils and the release of mediators. These cells express a variety of receptors that enable them to respond to a wide range of stimulants. Most studies of anaphylaxis focus on IgE-dependent reactions. The mast cell has long been regarded as the main effector cell involved in IgE-mediated anaphylaxis. This paper reviews IgE-independent anaphylaxis, with special emphasis on mast cells, basophils, anaphylactic mediators, risk factors, triggers, and management.

Anaphylaxis:: After the Emergency Department

After treating the acute anaphylactic reaction, the clinician's next task is to prevent a recurrence. The patient should be observed in the ED. How long this observation period should last depends on their clinical course, risk factors, and social support. All patients should be discharged with a prescription for 2 epinephrine autoinjectors and counseled on appropriate use. The patient should also receive education on the signs and symptoms of anaphylaxis and avoiding triggers. The patient should follow-up with an allergy specialist who can confirm triggers and provide immunotherapy as indicated.

Cow's milk and hen's egg anaphylaxis: A comprehensive data analysis from the European Anaphylaxis Registry

BACKGROUND

Cow's milk (CM) and hen's egg (HE) are leading triggers of anaphylaxis in early childhood. The aim of this study was to identify clinical phenotypes and therapeutic measures for CM anaphylaxis (CMA) compared to HE anaphylaxis (HEA) in children up to 12 years of age, based on a large pan-European dataset from the European Anaphylaxis Registry.

METHODS

Data from 2007 to 2020 on clinical phenotypes and treatment from 10 European countries, as well as Brazil, were analysed. The two-step cluster analysis was used to identify the most frequent phenotypes. For each trigger, three clusters were extracted based on sex, age, and existence of symptoms in four vitally important systems.

RESULTS

Altogether 284 children with CMA and 200 children with HEA were identified. They were characterised as male (69% vs. 64%), infants (65% vs. 61%), with a most frequent grade III of Ring&Messmer classification (62% vs. 64%), in CMA versus HEA, respectively. Respiratory symptoms occurred more often in CMA (91% vs. 83%, p = 0.010), especially in infants (89% vs. 79%, p = 0.008). Cardiovascular symptoms were less frequent in CMA (30% vs. 44%, p = 0.002), in both infants (33% vs. 46%, p = 0.027), and older children (25% vs. 42%, p = 0.021). The clusters extracted in the CMA group were characterised as: (1) mild dermal infants with severe GI (40%), 2. severe dermal (35%), 3. respiratory (25%). While in HEA group: 1. infants with severe GI and/or reduction of alertness (40%), (2) conjunctival (16%), (3) mild GI without conjunctivitis (44%). The severity of the reaction was independent from the amount of ingested allergen protein, regardless of trigger. The first-line adrenaline application differed between the countries (0%-92%, as well as the reasons for not administering adrenaline, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the similarity of their age, sex, and severity grade, the clinical profiles differed between the CMA and HEA children. Adrenaline was underused, and its administration was country dependent. Further studies are needed to assess to what extent the differences in the clinical profiles are related to matrix and/or absorption effects, and/or the allergen itself.

Latin American anaphylaxis registry

Background

Recent data about clinical features, triggers and management of anaphylaxis in Latin America is lacking.

Objective

To provide updated and extended data on anaphylaxis in this region.

Method

An online questionnaire was used, with 67 allergy units involved from 12 Latin-American countries and Spain. Among data recorded, demographic information, clinical features, severity, triggering agents, and treatment were received.

Results

Eight hundred and seventeen anaphylactic reactions were recorded. No difference in severity, regardless of pre-existing allergy or asthma history was found. Drug induced anaphylaxis (DIA) was most frequent (40.6%), followed by food induced anaphylaxis (FIA) (32.9%) and venom induced anaphylaxis (VIA) (12%). FIA and VIA were more common in children-adolescents. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and beta-lactam antibiotics (BLA) were the most frequent drugs involved. Milk (61.1% of FIA) and egg (15.4% of FIA) in children, and shellfish (25.5% of FIA), fresh fruits (14.2% of FIA), and fish (11.3% of FIA) in adults were the most common FIA triggers. Fire ants were the most frequent insect triggers, and they induced more severe reactions than triggers of FIA and DIA (p < 0.0001). Epinephrine was used in 43.8% of anaphylaxis episodes. After Emergency Department treatment, epinephrine was prescribed to 13% of patients.

Conclusions

Drugs (NSAIDs and BLA), foods (milk and egg in children and shellfish, fruits and fish in adults) and fire ants were the most common inducers of anaphylaxis. Epinephrine was used in less than half of the episodes emphasizing the urgent need to improve dissemination and implementation of anaphylaxis guidelines.

Anaphylaxis: Advances in the Past 10 Years

In the past 10 years, anaphylaxis has grown into its own special area of study within Allergy-Immunology, both at the bench and at the bedside. This review focuses on some of the most clinically relevant advances over the past decade. These include simplified and more inclusive diagnostic criteria for adults and children, uniform definition of biphasic anaphylaxis, and improved systems for objective severity grading. Studies reported in the past decade have led to improved understanding of normal and abnormal regulation of mast cell function, translating into better diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to patients with anaphylaxis. Research has provided improved recognition and treatment of mast cell disorders and has identified a new condition, hereditary α-tryptasemia, that may impact anaphylactic syndromes. We have learned to recognize new causes (α-gal), new pathways (Mas-related G protein-coupled receptor-X2), and many risk factors for severe anaphylaxis. The stability of epinephrine in autoinjectors was reported to be very good for several years after the labeled expiry date, and it can tolerate freezing and thawing. Repeated and prolonged exposure to excessive heat leads to degradation of epinephrine activity. New treatments to prevent severe anaphylaxis have been described, using new ways to block the IgE receptor or modulate intracellular signaling pathways.

An update on anaphylaxis and urticaria

Notable scientific developments have taken place in the field of anaphylaxis and urticaria in recent years; they are highlighted in this review. Case-control studies, genome-wide association studies, and large omics analyses have promoted further insights into not only the underlying genetics but also the biomarkers of both anaphylaxis and urticaria. New evidence regarding IgE-dependent and non-IgE-dependent mechanisms of anaphylaxis and urticaria, including the Mas-related G protein-coupled receptor (MRGPR [formerly MRG]) signaling pathway, has been gained. Putative elicitors of anaphylactic reactions in the context of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination and impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the management and course of chronic urticaria have been reported. Clinical progress has also been made regarding the severity grading and risk factors of anaphylaxis, as well as the distinction of phenotypes and elicitors of both diseases. Furthermore, novel treatment approaches for anaphylaxis and subtypes of urticaria have been assessed, with different outcome and potential for a better disease control or prevention.

Overview of registries for anaphylaxis: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

This review aimed to describe the scope and operational features of anaphylaxis registries, and to assess their contribution to improving knowledge of anaphylaxis and care of patients who experience anaphylaxis by measuring their research output.

INTRODUCTION

Structured data collection and reporting systems, such as registries, are needed to better understand the burden of anaphylaxis and to protect the growing number of patients with severe allergy. There is a need to characterize current anaphylaxis registries to identify their value in anaphylaxis surveillance, management, and research. Information synthesized in this review will provide knowledge on benefits and gaps in current registries, which may inform the implementation and global standardization of future anaphylaxis reporting systems.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

This scoping review considered literature describing registries worldwide that enroll patients who have experienced anaphylaxis. Published and gray literature sources were included if they described the scope and operational features of anaphylaxis registries.

METHODS

This review followed the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Embase, MEDLINE, Scopus, and CINAHL were searched for relevant articles. Identified keywords and index terms were adapted for searches of gray literature sources, using Google advanced search functions. Only full-text studies in English were considered for inclusion. Two independent reviewers conducted title and abstract screening and those that did not meet the inclusion criteria were excluded. The full text of potentially relevant articles were retrieved; full-text screening and data extraction were also conducted by two independent reviewers. Any discrepancies were resolved through discussion or with a third reviewer. Tables and a narrative summary were used to describe and compare the scope and features (eg, inclusion criteria, patient demographics, clinical symptoms) of the identified anaphylaxis registries, and to outline their output to assess their contribution to research and clinical practice for anaphylaxis.

RESULTS

A total of 77 full-text publications and eight gray literature sources were used to extract data. The literature search identified 19 anaphylaxis registries, with sites in 28 countries including Europe, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States, Korea, and Australia. The main purposes of the identified registries were to collect clinical data for research; provide clinical support tools to improve patient care; and operate as allergen surveillance systems to protect the wider community with allergies. Differences in inclusion and health care settings exist, with 11 collecting data on anaphylaxis of any cause, two on food reactions alone, three on fatal anaphylaxis, one on perioperative anaphylaxis, and two on allergic reactions (including anaphylaxis). Five registries enroll cases in allergy centers, five in hospital settings, one in schools, and others target a combination of general practitioners, specialists in emergency departments, and other relevant hospital departments and allergy outpatient clinics. Only three registries operate under a mandatory framework. A total of 57 publications were considered research outputs from registries. All registries except two have published studies from collected data, with the greatest number of articles published from 2019 to the present. Publications mostly addressed questions regarding demographic profile, causes and cofactors, severity, fatal reactions, and gaps in management.

CONCLUSIONS

This review demonstrated that anaphylaxis registries differ in their scope and operation, having been established for different purposes. Importantly, registries have contributed significantly to research, which has highlighted gaps in anaphylaxis management, provoking allergens, and informed targets for prevention for severe and fatal events. Beyond this, registries relay information about anaphylaxis to clinicians and regulatory bodies to improve patient care and protect the community. The ability to link registry data with other health datasets, standardization of data across registries, and incorporation of clinical care indicators to promote quality health care across the health system represent important targets for future systems.

Canadian Anaphylaxis Network-Predicting Recurrence after Emergency Presentation for Allergic REaction (CAN-PREPARE): a prospective, cohort study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Anaphylaxis is a severe, potentially fatal multiorgan system manifestation of an allergic reaction. The highest incidence of anaphylaxis is in children and adolescents. Biphasic anaphylaxis (BA) is defined as the recurrence of allergic symptoms after resolution of an initial reaction. It has been reported to occur in 10%-20% of cases within 1-48 hours from the onset of the initial reaction. The dilemma for physicians is determining which patients with resolved anaphylaxis should be observed for BA and for how long. Guidelines for duration of postanaphylaxis monitoring vary, are based on limited evidence and can have unintended negative impacts on patient safety, quality of life and healthcare resources. The objectives of this study are to derive a prognostic model for BA and to develop a risk-scoring system that informs disposition decisions of children who present to emergency departments (ED) with anaphylaxis.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This prospective multicentre cohort study will enrol 1682 patients from seven paediatric EDs that are members of the Paediatric Emergency Research Canada network. We will enrol patients younger than 18 years of age with an allergic reaction meeting anaphylaxis diagnostic criteria. Trained ED research assistants will screen, obtain consent and prospectively collect study data. Research assistants will follow patients during their ED visit and ascertain, in conjunction with the medical team, if the patient develops BA. A standardised follow-up survey conducted following study enrolment will determine if a biphasic reaction occurred after ED disposition. Model development will conform to the broad principles of the PROGRESS (Prognosis Research Strategy) framework and reporting will follow the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis Statement.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval has been received from all participating centres. Our dissemination plan focuses on informing clinicians, policy makers and parents of the results through publication in peer-reviewed journals and broadcasting on multiple media platforms.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05135377.

Anaphylaxis in Children

ABSTRACT

Anaphylaxis is a potentially life-threatening event in children, commonly encountered in the prehospital and emergency department settings. Recently published clinical guidelines emphasize early recognition of anaphylaxis and administration of epinephrine as the mainstay of management. Literature regarding adjuvant therapies, biphasic reactions, observation times, and disposition of patients with anaphylaxis remains controversial. In this article, we will review the background and pathophysiology of anaphylaxis, as well as the diagnostic approach, management, and future directions of anaphylaxis in children.

Risk factors for severe reactions in food allergy: Rapid evidence review with meta-analysis

This rapid review summarizes the most up to date evidence about the risk factors for severe food-induced allergic reactions. We searched three bibliographic databases for studies published between January 2010 and August 2021. We included 88 studies and synthesized the evidence narratively, undertaking meta-analysis where appropriate. Significant uncertainties remain with respect to the prediction of severe reactions, both anaphylaxis and/or severe anaphylaxis refractory to treatment. Prior anaphylaxis, an asthma diagnosis, IgE sensitization or basophil activation tests are not good predictors. Some molecular allergology markers may be helpful. Hospital presentations for anaphylaxis are highest in young children, yet this age group appears at lower risk of severe outcomes. Risk of severe outcomes is greatest in adolescence and young adulthood, but the contribution of risk taking behaviour in contributing to severe outcomes is unclear. Evidence for an impact of cofactors on severity is lacking, although food-dependent exercise-induced anaphylaxis may be an exception. Some medications such as beta-blockers or ACE inhibitors may increase severity, but appear less important than age as a factor in life-threatening reactions. The relationship between dose of exposure and severity is unclear. Delays in symptom recognition and anaphylaxis treatment have been associated with more severe outcomes. An absence of prior anaphylaxis does not exclude its future risk.

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.

Wilderness Medical Society Clinical Practice Guidelines on Anaphylaxis

The Wilderness Medical Society convened a panel to review the literature and develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on the treatment of anaphylaxis, with an emphasis on a field-based perspective. The review also included literature regarding the definition, epidemiology, clinical manifestations, and prevention of anaphylaxis. The increasing prevalence of food allergies in the United States raises concern for a corresponding rise in the incidence of anaphylaxis. Intramuscular epinephrine is the primary treatment for anaphylaxis and should be administered before adjunctive treatments such as antihistamines, corticosteroids, and inhaled β agonists. For outdoor schools and organizations, selecting a method to administer epinephrine in the field is based on considerations of cost, safety, and first responder training, as well as federal guidelines and state-specific laws.

Anaphylaxis:: After the Emergency Department

After treating the acute anaphylactic reaction, the clinician's next task is to prevent a recurrence. The patient should be observed in the ED. How long this observation period should last depends on their clinical course, risk factors, and social support. All patients should be discharged with a prescription for 2 epinephrine autoinjectors and counseled on appropriate use. The patient should also receive education on the signs and symptoms of anaphylaxis and avoiding triggers. The patient should follow-up with an allergy specialist who can confirm triggers and provide immunotherapy as indicated.

Anaphylaxis Presenting as Uvulitis

The authors present a case of a young man who woke up with uvular swelling resulting in a severely narrowed airway. He had ingested peanut butter the prior night but was unaware of any allergies. He was treated with epinephrine, diphenhydramine, and methylprednisolone which resulted in resolution of the airway compromise. The authors discuss the mechanism of anaphylaxis and the emergency management of this life-threatening condition.

Characterizing Biphasic Food-Related Allergic Reactions Through a US Food Allergy Patient Registry

BACKGROUND

Understanding about patient-reported biphasic food-related allergic reactions is currently sparse.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize patient-reported biphasic food-related allergic reactions among a national food allergy registry.

METHODS

We used two patient registry surveys established by Food Allergy Research and Education. Variables were described with proportions and 95% confidence intervals (CIs); unadjusted results were stratified by respondent type. Multivariable logistic regression evaluated the adjusted odds of reporting a biphasic reaction.

RESULTS

The incidence of reported biphasic reactions was 16.4% (95% CI, 15.3-17.7). A total of 12.8% of parent or guardian respondents (95% CI, 12.5-14.3) and 21.8% of self-respondents (95% CI, 19.7-23.8) indicated a biphasic reaction during their most recent food-allergic reaction. Among respondents with a mild initial reaction, 7.4% reported a biphasic reaction, compared with 30% with a very severe initial reaction. When the initial reaction was mild, 69.6% of parent or guardian respondents (95% CI, 47.2-85.4) and 52.0% of self-respondents (95% CI, 38.0-35.7) with a biphasic reaction reported a mild secondary reaction. When the initial reaction was very severe, 36.3% of parent or guardian respondents (95% CI, 26.4-47.5) and 42.9% of self-respondents (95% CI, 31.1-55.5) with a biphasic reaction reported a very severe secondary reaction. Female sex, Black race, reaction age 5-12 and 26-66 years, initial moderate, severe, or very severe reaction, and one or more annual reactions were associated with increased odds of a biphasic reaction.

CONCLUSIONS

This study characterizes the incidence of patient-reported biphasic reactions and provides valuable information on the probable severity of a biphasic food-related allergic reaction. Further research is necessary to understand the epidemiology of food-related biphasic reactions.

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.

Wheat Anaphylaxis in Adults Differs from Reactions to Other Types of Food

BACKGROUND

Wheat is one of the most commonly consumed foods and a known elicitor of anaphylaxis in children and adults. Reactions in adults are often cofactor dependent and characterized by a prolonged time between food intake and the onset of symptoms making the diagnosis of wheat anaphylaxis challenging.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize a cohort of patients with the history of wheat anaphylaxis to better understand this atypical phenotype of anaphylaxis.

METHODS

Data from the European Anaphylaxis Registry from 2007 to 2019 (n = 10,636) including 250 patients (213 adults and 37 children) with a history of anaphylaxis caused by wheat were analyzed.

RESULTS

Wheat was the most common food elicitor of anaphylaxis in adults in the registry in Central Europe. Reactions to wheat in adults were frequently associated with exercise as a cofactor (82.8%) and partially delayed (57.5%). Only 36.9% of patients had atopic comorbidities, which was uncommonly low for adult patients allergic to other kinds of foods (63.2%). Anaphylaxis to wheat presented frequently with cardiovascular symptoms (86.7%) including severe symptoms such as loss of consciousness (41%) and less often with respiratory symptoms (53.6%). The reactions to wheat were more severe than reactions to other foods (odds ratio [OR] = 4.33), venom (OR = 1.58), or drugs (OR = 2.11).

CONCLUSIONS

Wheat is a relevant elicitor of anaphylaxis in adults in Central Europe. Wheat anaphylaxis is highly dependent on the presence of cofactors and less frequently associated with atopic diseases compared with other food allergies. More data on mechanisms of wheat-induced anaphylaxis are required to develop preventive measures for this potentially life-threatening disease.