Anaphylaxis knowledge and practice preferences of pediatric emergency medicine physicians: a national survey

Healthcare Providers' Perception and Practice Toward Anaphylaxis in Children in the Qassim Region of Saudi Arabia

INTRODUCTION

Anaphylaxis is described as a severe allergic reaction, and prompt assistance is required by the patient to avoid any complications. The healthcare provider's knowledge plays an important role in the diagnosis and treatment of these cases. The aim of this study was to evaluate the knowledge among the primary healthcare providers working in the Qassim region of Saudi Arabia regarding the diagnosis and treatment of anaphylaxis.

METHOD

This cross-sectional study was conducted in the four different governments of the Qassim region of Saudi Arabia. The calculated sample size for the study was 119 primary healthcare providers. A self-administered questionnaire was devised to collect data regarding the diagnosis and treatment of anaphylaxis patients.

RESULTS

Thirty-six (28.8%) out of 119 physicians were 25-30 years old, followed by 33 (26.4%) who were more than 40 years old; 53 (42.4%) and 47 (36.7%) had less than five and more than 10 years of experience, respectively. Age and experience were found to be significantly associated with knowledge about the diagnostic criterion (p=0.003 and p=0.000, respectively), while experience was significantly associated with the correct identification of signs and symptoms (p=0.031).

CONCLUSION

Knowledge about the diagnosis and management of anaphylaxis patients among primary healthcare providers was poor. Physicians are required to be educated to increase their level of knowledge to promptly diagnose and treat anaphylaxis cases.

Grading the severity of anaphylaxis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite no global consensus on a definition of anaphylaxis, there is increasing recognition that just as allergic reactions lie on a spectrum of severity, the same is for anaphylaxis. A variety of severity scores exist in the literature. We review the approaches taken to develop these scores, and their relative advantages and disadvantages.

RECENT FINDINGS

There have been four recent comparisons of published severity scores. All have highlighted the heterogeneity between scoring systems, and the lack of transferability from one approach to another. Notably, only one score has been developed using a data-driven approach, and none has undergone formal and comprehensive validation.

SUMMARY

It is unclear whether a single severity score is achievable, or indeed desirable. If the aim is to guide management of acute reactions, then assignment of severity is not only unnecessary but might delay treatment and cause harm. Severity scores are needed in the research setting, but require an approach which can discriminate between reactions of similar but nonidentical severity (particularly, nonanaphylaxis reactions). Any approach should be fit for purpose, informed by patient and clinician experience, and ideally be data-driven to minimize subjective bias and facilitate objective validation.

Anaphylaxis among elderly emergency department patients in a large health system in New York

BACKGROUND

Anaphylaxis in the elderly is poorly understood.

OBJECTIVE

To elucidate demographic, clinical, and management characteristics of older adults presenting to emergency departments (EDs) with National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) criteria-confirmed anaphylaxis vs milder, non-anaphylactic acute allergic reactions (AARs).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of ED patients more than or equal to 65 years was conducted, using anaphylaxis International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes or ICD-9-based algorithms incorporating the NIAID diagnostic criteria. Descriptive statistics were generated, and the abovementioned characteristics were compared between cohorts.

RESULTS

Of 164 eligible visits, 71 (43.3%), 90 (54.9%), and 3 (1.8%) cases were identified by ICD-9 codes, the algorithms, or both, respectively. Only half fulfilled NIAID diagnostic criteria. Compared with the non-anaphylactic AAR group, criteria-confirmed anaphylaxis group had lower drug allergy rates (43.9% vs 61.0%, P = .03) but higher food allergy rates (26.8% vs 12.2%, P = .02). For the criteria-confirmed anaphylaxis group, presenting signs and symptoms in descending frequency were mucocutaneous, respiratory, cardiovascular, and gastrointestinal. Criteria-confirmed anaphylaxis group had higher rates of prior anaphylaxis (13.4% vs 2.4%, P = .009), pre-ED (12.2% vs 0.0%, P = .001) or ED (72.0% vs 4.9%, P < .001) epinephrine administration, and allergy referral (17.1% vs 2.4%, P = .002). Tryptase levels were rarely ordered, occurring once in the criteria-confirmed anaphylaxis group and never in the non-anaphylactic AAR group. Despite low mortality (n = 1), 64.6% of the criteria-confirmed anaphylaxis cohort required hospitalization, with 23.2% admitted to intensive care unit.

CONCLUSION

Diagnosis of elderly ED patients with anaphylaxis remains suboptimal. Identifying NIAID criteria-confirmed cases remain challenging, using the existing methods. Management of these patients poorly adheres to current guidelines.

Outcomes and Factors Associated With Prehospital Treatment of Pediatric Anaphylaxis

OBJECTIVE

Anaphylaxis is a potentially life-threatening reaction requiring prompt treatment with intramuscular epinephrine (EPI). We sought to describe presenting features of pediatric anaphylaxis and compare patient characteristics and outcomes of children treated with prehospital EPI with those untreated.

METHODS

We abstracted data from emergency department (ED) records for children meeting the National Institute of Allergy & Infectious Disease criteria for anaphylaxis (2015-2017) in one tertiary care children's hospital. We analyzed associations between patient characteristics and outcomes and receipt of prehospital EPI using descriptive statistics and multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of 414 children presenting with anaphylaxis, 39.4% received IM EPI and 62.1% received antihistamines before hospital arrival. Children with Medicaid received pre-emergency department EPI less frequently than did children with private insurance (24.5% vs 43.8%, P = 0.001). Factors positively associated with prehospital EPI administration were history of food allergy (odds ratio [OR], 4.4 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 2.4-8.2]) or arrival by emergency medical services (OR, 8.0 [95% CI, 4.2-15.0]). Medicaid insurance was associated with decreased odds of prehospital EPI (OR, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.16-0.66]) and prehospital H1-antihistamine use (OR, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.17-0.56]). Prehospital EPI treatment was also associated with decreased rates of observation (37% vs 63%), inpatient admission (38% vs 62%), and intensive care unit admission (20% vs 80%) compared with no pretreatment (P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Prehospital treatment with EPI remains low, and barriers to optimal treatment are more pronounced in children with public insurance. Prehospital treatment with EPI was associated with decreased morbidity including hospitalization and intensive care unit admission.

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.

Knowledge of healthcare providers in the management of anaphylaxis

Introduction

Anaphylaxis is defined as a severe, life-threatening systemic hypersensitivity reaction. Early diagnosis and treatment of a severe allergic reaction requires recognition of the signs and symptoms, as well as classification of severity. It is a clinical emergency, and healthcare providers should have the knowledge for recognition and management. The aim of the study is to evaluate the level of knowledge in the management of anaphylaxis in healthcare providers.

Methods

It is an observational, descriptive, cross-sectional study conducted among healthcare providers over 18 years old via a Google Forms link and shared through different social media platforms. A 12-item questionnaire was applied which included the evaluation of the management of anaphylaxis, from June 2020 to May 2021.

Results

A total of 1023 surveys were evaluated; 1013 met inclusion criteria and were included in the statistical analysis. A passing grade was considered with 8 or more correct answers out of 12; the overall approval percentage was 28.7%. The group with the highest percentage of approval in the questionnaire was health-care providers with more than 30 years of work experience. There was a significant difference between the proportions of approval between all specialty groups, and in a post-hoc analysis, allergy and immunology specialists showed greater proportions of approval compared to general medicine practitioners (62.9% vs 25%; p=<0.001).

Conclusions

It is important that healthcare providers know how to recognize, diagnose, and treat anaphylaxis, and later refer them to specialists in Allergy and Clinical Immunology in order to make a personalized diagnosis and treatment.

Peanut-induced anaphylaxis in children and adolescents: Data from the European Anaphylaxis Registry

BACKGROUND

Peanut allergy has a rising prevalence in high-income countries, affecting 0.5%-1.4% of children. This study aimed to better understand peanut anaphylaxis in comparison to anaphylaxis to other food triggers in European children and adolescents.

METHODS

Data was sourced from the European Anaphylaxis Registry via an online questionnaire, after in-depth review of food-induced anaphylaxis cases in a tertiary paediatric allergy centre.

RESULTS

3514 cases of food anaphylaxis were reported between July 2007 - March 2018, 56% in patients younger than 18 years. Peanut anaphylaxis was recorded in 459 children and adolescents (85% of all peanut anaphylaxis cases). Previous reactions (42% vs. 38%; p = .001), asthma comorbidity (47% vs. 35%; p < .001), relevant cofactors (29% vs. 22%; p = .004) and biphasic reactions (10% vs. 4%; p = .001) were more commonly reported in peanut anaphylaxis. Most cases were labelled as severe anaphylaxis (Ring&Messmer grade III 65% vs. 56% and grade IV 1.1% vs. 0.9%; p = .001). Self-administration of intramuscular adrenaline was low (17% vs. 15%), professional adrenaline administration was higher in non-peanut food anaphylaxis (34% vs. 26%; p = .003). Hospitalization was higher for peanut anaphylaxis (67% vs. 54%; p = .004).

CONCLUSIONS

The European Anaphylaxis Registry data confirmed peanut as one of the major causes of severe, potentially life-threatening allergic reactions in European children, with some characteristic features e.g., presence of asthma comorbidity and increased rate of biphasic reactions. Usage of intramuscular adrenaline as first-line treatment is low and needs to be improved. The Registry, designed as the largest database on anaphylaxis, allows continuous assessment of this condition.

Preparedness of pre-intern medical graduates of three universities in Sri Lanka to diagnose and manage anaphylaxis

BACKGROUND

Early recognition and the optimal management of anaphylaxis saves lives but studies from different countries have demonstrated gaps in knowledge and practices between healthcare workers. There is a paucity of such data from Sri Lanka. We assessed knowledge, perception and self-confidence in the diagnosis and management of anaphylaxis amongst pre-intern medical graduates who would soon become first-contact doctors attending emergencies.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study included pre-interns who graduated with Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) degrees in 2019 from three Sri Lankan universities with differing undergraduate curricula. Using consecutive sampling data were collected within four months of the final-MBBS examinations with a self-administered questionnaire and the answers on case diagnosis and management were used as the basis of outcome scores.

RESULTS

385 participants responded (response rate: 91.5%). 16.4% correctly identified all anaphylaxis triggers. Only 7.3% correctly diagnosed all ten case scenarios and 34.5% all seven cases of anaphylaxis. 98.2 and 97.9% correctly identified 1:1000 adrenaline as the first-line treatment and the intramuscular route. 9.9% would preferentially but incorrectly use the intravenous route if access was available. Only 79.2 and 55.6% knew the correct adult and paediatric doses of adrenaline and 50% agreed that follow-up care was needed. The mean scores for case diagnosis and management of anaphylaxis were 7.7/10 ± 1.4 and 16.9/20 ± 1.9, respectively. Multiple linear regression indicated that the final MBBS results classification (class of degree or no class indicated) was a positive predictor of case diagnosis score [class vs no class: B = 0.662 (95% CI 0.347-0.978), p < 0.001] and being a graduate of University 2 [B = 1.568 (95% CI 1.182-1.953), p < 0.001] and passing with a class at final MBBS [B = 0.716 (95% CI 0.319-1.113), p < 0.001] were positive predictors of management score. Self confidence in diagnosing and managing anaphylaxis were rated as 79.7 and 62.1% and there was a positive correlation between knowledge and perception scores and self-confidence (case-diagnosis: r_pb = 0.111, p = 0.03; management: r_pb = 0.164, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Knowledge, perception and self confidence in the diagnosis and management of anaphylaxis was sub optimal amongst pre-interns and we identified areas that need improvement. A higher MBBS qualification classification was a predictor for correct diagnosis and management and confidence in diagnosis and management positively correlated with knowledge and perception scores. Further and enhanced educational and training strategies are needed for this life threatening emergency condition.

What Is Anaphylaxis? Pediatric Residents' Perception and Treatment of Anaphylactic Reactions

To assess knowledge regarding symptoms and treatment of anaphylaxis, a vignette of a child having an allergic reaction to a peanut was presented to residents in an allergy clinic. Twelve sets of clinical outcomes ranging from severe multi-organ to mild single organ involvement were described, and residents were asked if each symptom set met criteria for diagnosis of anaphylaxis, whether epinephrine should be administered acutely and prescribed at follow-up, and whether peanuts should be avoided in the future. Of cases that met the definition of anaphylaxis 28.8% were incorrectly diagnosed, in 13.6% of cases they would allow peanuts to be eaten again, and in 23.9% of cases they would not prescribe epinephrine at follow-up. In 26.1% of cases meeting criteria for acute anaphylaxis residents would not administer epinephrine. Deficits regarding the diagnosis and treatment of anaphylaxis by residents were identified, and increased educational efforts are needed.

Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice regarding Anaphylaxis among Pediatric Health Care Providers in a Teaching Hospital

Anaphylaxis is a severe, life threatening generalized or systemic hypersensitivity reaction which requires prompt, accurate diagnosis, and appropriate management. The objective of the study is to assess the extent of knowledge, management skills, and attitude on anaphylaxis among pediatric health care providers of a tertiary care teaching hospital. This was a cross-sectional study done in the department of pediatrics, which included faculty, residents, interns, and nurses. The knowledge, attitude, and practice were assessed using a standardized questionnaire comprised of 35 questions. The questionnaire was distributed and collected in person to all the participants. Informed consent was obtained from all participants and confidentiality was ensured at all stages. Collected data were analyzed using SPSS version 20. The mean of total knowledge score (TKS) was 7.36 ± 1.42. TKS of faculty was 8.36 ± 1.15, in residents 7.81 ± 1.25, in interns 7.46 ± 1.15, and in nurses 6.69 ± 1.57. Knowledge scores of faculty, residents, and interns were significantly higher than that of nurses while there was no significant difference between faculty, residents, and interns. The majority of participants have positive attitude toward anaphylaxis. Incorrect practice is followed by most of the participants. The extent of knowledge about anaphylaxis among pediatric health care providers is moderate but management skills remains suboptimal. Thus, proper training, through continued medical educations and programs to improve abilities to recognize and manage anaphylaxis are very crucial. Differential approach may be followed to different groups; nurses need extra training for optimal management of anaphylaxis.

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.

New York State cases of anaphylaxis in elderly patients from 2000 to 2010

BACKGROUND

Limited information is available on the effect of anaphylaxis, a severe, potentially life-threatening allergic reaction, in the elderly population.

OBJECTIVE

To elucidate the frequency of anaphylaxis and the demographic characteristics of elderly patients admitted to New York hospitals from 2000 to 2010.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of hospitalized patients aged 65 years and older in New York from 2000 to 2010 was conducted using the Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System, a statewide administrative database. Cases were identified using anaphylaxis International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes or an ICD-9-based diagnostic algorithm incorporating the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Disease diagnostic criteria. The χ² test was used to measure the association between demographic characteristics and group membership. Regression was used to model group and age as a function of hospital rates.

RESULTS

A total of 3673 hospitalizations were analyzed. Anaphylaxis ICD-9 codes identified 1790 cases (48.7%), the algorithms identified 1701 cases (46.3.%), and 182 cases (5.0%) were identified by both. Hospitalization rates increased significantly during this period (P < .001). Women comprised 61.5% and people of white race comprised 69.8% of the sample. Distribution by age differed by ascertainment method (ICD-9 vs algorithm) among the early-old group (65-74 years of age; 53.8% vs 41.8%) and among the late-old group (≥85 years of age; 11.2% vs 19.3%).

CONCLUSION

Hospitalization rates and anaphylaxis cases increased during the study period among the hospitalized elderly population of New York. Relying on anaphylaxis ICD-9 codes alone missed approximately half of possible cases. The identification and possibly the effect of anaphylaxis among the elderly population may differ, depending on age, race, payer, New York County, and disposition.

Capturing anaphylaxis through medical records: Are ICD and CPT codes sufficient?

OBJECTIVE

The identification of anaphylaxis cases is imperative for optimal clinicalprovider knowledge deficiencies in diagnosis and treatment and the efficacy of reimbursement codes, such as International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and current procedural terminology (CPT) codes, in detecting anaphylaxis.

DATA SOURCES

Pubmed.

STUDY SELECTIONS

Recent and clinically relevant literature on anaphylaxis and provider knowledge, ICD, CPT, Healthcare Common Procedural Coding System (HCPCS), and E-codes were selected and reviewed.

RESULTS

Reimbursement codes are used to detect anaphylaxis in administrative claims databases. Inaccurate recognition of the diagnosis by providers, underreporting, and cause identification are challenges faced by health researchers using reimbursement codes for anaphylaxis case identification. Anaphylactic shock-specific ICD codes were noted to have a positive predictive value (PPV) of 52% to 53% of anaphylaxis events compared with physician chart review, which was improved to 63% to 67.3% when used in conjunction with anaphylaxis symptom-specific ICD, CPT, HCPCS, and E-codes 31, 34, and 35.

CONCLUSION

Education of providers to properly diagnose and treat anaphylaxis requires systematic and educational investments. The ICD codes specific to anaphylactic shock have suboptimal PPV to identify anaphylaxis in administrative claims databases. Use of algorithms incorporating other reimbursement codes improve the PPV, but they are limited by inaccurate diagnoses and underreporting of anaphylaxis. Future ICD-11 reclassification may improve anaphylaxis detection by reimbursement codes.

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.

Diagnosis and treatment of anaphylaxis: there is an urgent needs to implement the use of guidelines

Anaphylaxis is a severe, life-threatening generalized or systemic hypersensitivity reaction that requires rapid and adequate care. This study aimed to obtain an integrated view of the level of physicians' knowledge related with treatment of anaphylaxis in studies published within the last 5 years. Sixteen studies were found and four points were identified as of the great interest to the authors: (1) emergency pharmacological treatment, (2) epinephrine auto-injectors prescription, (3) knowledge of the main signs of anaphylaxis, and (4) admission of the patient to verify biphasic reactions. Concern about the use of intramuscular adrenaline as the first choice in relation with anaphylaxis was evident in most studies, rather than its use in the comparison dial, and especially low in a study that included data from Brazil, in which the frequency of its use was 23.8%. An adrenaline autoinjector is highly recommended among specialists for patients at risk of anaphylaxis, however, its use is still infrequent among non-specialists and in countries that this agent is not available. Intervention studies have shown improved medical knowledge of anaphylaxis following disclosure of the information contained in the international guidelines. The analysis of these studies reinforces the need to disseminate international guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of anaphylaxis, as well as providing an adrenaline autoinjector, to improve management and to prevent a fatal outcome.

Safety of Adrenaline Use in Anaphylaxis: A Multicentre Register

BACKGROUND

The use of intramuscular adrenaline to treat anaphylaxis is suboptimal, despite being the first-line treatment recommended by national and international anaphylaxis guidelines. Fear of potentially severe side effects may be one of the underlying factors. The aim of this study was to assess the incidence and severity of adverse side effects after the use of adrenaline in anaphylaxis, as well as potential risk factors.

METHODS

Observational study based on a multicenter online registry of cases of adrenaline administration for suspected anaphylaxis.

RESULTS

277 registered valid cases were included: 138 (51.49%) female, median age 29 years (12-47), and 6 children under 2 years with a median age of 9 months (1-21). Side effects occurred in 58 cases (21.64%), with tremors, palpitations, and anxiety being the most frequent. There was a significant association of developing side effects with older age, higher dose of adrenaline, or use of the intravenous route. Potentially severe adverse effects (high blood pressure, chest discomfort, or ECG alterations) occurred only in 8 cases (2.99%); in these cases, no differences were found according to age or adrenaline dose, but again, intravenous administration was associated with more severe adverse events.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that side effects affect less than 1 in 5 patients who receive adrenaline for an anaphylactic reaction, and are usually mild and transient. Therefore, in an emergency situation such as anaphylaxis, restricting adrenaline administration due to potential adverse effects would, in general, not be justified.

Update on the usage and safety of epinephrine auto-injectors, 2017

Anaphylaxis is a serious, potentially fatal allergic reaction. Guidelines recommend prompt intramuscular injections of epinephrine as the first-line therapy for anaphylaxis. Delayed epinephrine treatment may cause undesirable clinical outcomes, including death. In the community, epinephrine auto-injectors (EAIs) are commonly used to treat anaphylaxis. This literature review examines several recent concerns regarding the safety of EAIs that may prevent the timely administration of epinephrine. Reports of cardiovascular complications are linked with epinephrine administration, although recent studies suggest that these events are much more commonly associated with intravenous epinephrine rather than with EAIs. Recent studies have also highlighted accidental injections of EAIs in patients’ or caregivers’ fingers and lacerations associated with the use of EAI in children. However, the data suggest that both accidental injections and lacerations are rare and require limited medical intervention. In addition, patients may receive conflicting information on the safety and efficacy of using expired EAIs. Overall, it is believed that the benefits of using EAIs far outweigh the potential risks of not administering an EAI. Although legitimate safety concerns are associated with EAIs, adverse events are rare. Continued training of medical providers, caregivers, and patients may be beneficial to address these concerns and reduce EAI-associated injuries while ensuring that patients receive necessary medical care.

Can we identify patients at risk of life-threatening allergic reactions to food?

Anaphylaxis has been defined as a 'severe, life-threatening generalized or systemic hypersensitivity reaction'. However, data indicate that the vast majority of food-triggered anaphylactic reactions are not life-threatening. Nonetheless, severe life-threatening reactions do occur and are unpredictable. We discuss the concepts surrounding perceptions of severe, life-threatening allergic reactions to food by different stakeholders, with particular reference to the inclusion of clinical severity as a factor in allergy and allergen risk management. We review the evidence regarding factors that might be used to identify those at most risk of severe allergic reactions to food, and the consequences of misinformation in this regard. For example, a significant proportion of food-allergic children also have asthma, yet almost none will experience a fatal food-allergic reaction; asthma is not, in itself, a strong predictor for fatal anaphylaxis. The relationship between dose of allergen exposure and symptom severity is unclear. While dose appears to be a risk factor in at least a subgroup of patients, studies report that individuals with prior anaphylaxis do not have a lower eliciting dose than those reporting previous mild reactions. It is therefore important to consider severity and sensitivity as separate factors, as a highly sensitive individual will not necessarily experience severe symptoms during an allergic reaction. We identify the knowledge gaps that need to be addressed to improve our ability to better identify those most at risk of severe food-induced allergic reactions.

Anaphylaxis Knowledge Among Pediatric Intensivists in Brazil: A Multicenter Survey

OBJECTIVE

To assess the knowledge and practice preferences of anaphylaxis treatment among pediatric intensivists in 5 Brazilian pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) settings.

STUDY DESIGN

The cohort was a cross-sectional sample from 5 PICUs; a 7-question survey was personally applied to participants regarding their professional clinical experience and the first-line drug choices when treating an anaphylaxis episode.

RESULTS

Of 43 participant physicians, the majority (83.8%) correctly identified epinephrine as the treatment of choice for anaphylaxis, yet only 41.9% chooses the intramuscular route of administration.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that the knowledge of anaphylaxis treatment is deficient among pediatric intensivists in Brazil. The dissemination of recent World Allergy Organization guidelines on anaphylaxis should be encouraged.

Knowledge, attitudes, and practices survey of drug allergy among healthcare practitioners in central China: a multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Drug allergy (DA) is one of the most important contributors to iatrogenic morbidity and mortality. Currently DA remains a major challenge for healthcare practitioners (HCPs).

OBJECTIVE

To assess the knowledge, attitudes and practices of DA among HCPs in Central China.

METHODS

A 25-item self-administered DA questionnaire were developed and applied in our study. The questionnaire covered 3 domains: knowledge, attitudes, and practice patterns. From July 2015 to October 2015, HCPs in 7 cities of Central China anonymously participated in the cross-sectional study.

RESULTS

A total of 350 HCPs participated the study, 91 questionnaires uncompleted and 259 were analyzed. Among the respondents, 166 (64.1%) were doctors, 55 (21.2%) were nurses and 38 (14.7%) were medical students. The mean knowledge precision was 59.8%. HCPs agreed that drug induced immediate allergic reactions were IgE mediated (83.4%) and happened within 6 hours after drug administration (89.6%), and epinephrine was the first choice for drug induced anaphylaxis (79.5%). They also agreed that penicillin skin test was valuable to predict allergic reaction (88.4%). However, high proportion of HCPs (66.0%) believed glucocorticoids had an impact on drug skin test rather than antihistamines (4.2%), 47.1% never performed positive and negative control during skin test. More than 90% of the respondents would take patients' allergic history before drug administration, 98.8% agreed that they should receive advanced training of DA knowledge and practice.

CONCLUSION

The HCPs demonstrated a low level of knowledge regarding DA. Advanced education is urgently needed for better understanding and filling the gaps exist in knowledge and clinical practice of DA.

A Simple Allergist-Led Intervention Improves Resident Training in Anaphylaxis

Physicians underrecognize and undertreat anaphylaxis. Effective interventions are needed to improve physician knowledge and competency regarding evidence-based anaphylaxis diagnosis and management (ADAM). We designed and evaluated an educational program to improve ADAM in pediatrics, internal medicine, and emergency medicine residents from two academic medical centers. Anonymous questionnaires queried participants' demographics, prior ADAM clinical experience, competency, and comfort. A pretest assessing baseline knowledge preceded a 45-minute allergist-led evidence-based presentation, including practice with epinephrine autoinjectors, immediately followed by a posttest. A follow-up test assessed long-term knowledge retention twelve weeks later. 159 residents participated in the pretest, 152 participated in the posttest, and 86 participated in the follow-up test. There were no significant differences by specialty or site. With a possible score of 10, the mean pretest score (7.31 ± 1.50) was lower than the posttest score (8.79 ± 1.29) and follow-up score (8.17 ± 1.72) (P < 0.001 for both). Although participants' perceived confidence in diagnosing or managing anaphylaxis improved from baseline to follow-up (P < 0.001 for both), participants' self-reported clinical experience with ADAM or autoinjector use was unchanged. Allergist-led face-to-face educational intervention improves residents' short-term knowledge and perceived confidence in ADAM. Limited clinical experience or reinforcement contributes to the observed decreased knowledge.

Deficits in allergy knowledge among physicians at academic medical centers

BACKGROUND

Allergic conditions have high prevalence in the general population. Misconceptions regarding the diagnosis and management of allergic disease among physicians can lead to suboptimal clinical care.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the extent of allergy-related knowledge deficits among physicians.

METHODS

Pediatric and internal medicine resident and attending physicians from 2 separate academic medical centers were asked to answer an anonymous electronic survey. Survey questions addressed 7 different allergy content areas.

RESULTS

Four hundred eight physicians completed surveys (23.9% response rate). Respondents had few correct answers (mean ± SD 1.91 ± 1.43). Pediatric respondents had a larger number of correct answers compared with medicine-trained physicians (P < .001). No individual answered every survey question correctly, and 50 respondents (12.3%) had no correct answer. Three hundred seventy-eight respondents (92.6%) were unable to provide correct answers for at least 50% of survey questions. Level of residency training and prior rotation through an allergy and immunology elective correlated with a larger number of correct responses (P < .01). Only 1 survey question had an overall correct response rate higher than 50% (n = 261, 64%). Correct response rate was lower than 30% for 7 of the 9 possible questions.

CONCLUSION

There are significant knowledge deficits in many areas of allergy-related content among pediatric and internal medicine physicians and across all levels of training and specialty. Given the prevalence of allergic conditions, the potential implications of a negative impact on clinical care are staggering.

Anaphylaxis: Unique aspects of clinical diagnosis and management in infants (birth to age 2 years)

In this rostrum we aim to increase awareness of anaphylaxis in infancy in order to improve clinical diagnosis, management, and prevention of recurrences. Anaphylaxis is increasingly reported in this age group. Foods are the most common triggers. Presentation typically involves the skin (generalized urticaria), the respiratory tract (cough, wheeze, stridor, and dyspnea), and/or the gastrointestinal tract (persistent vomiting). Tryptase levels are seldom increased because of infant anaphylaxis, although baseline tryptase levels can be increased in the first few months of life, reflecting mast cell burden in the developing immune system. The differential diagnosis of infant anaphylaxis includes consideration of age-unique entities, such as food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome with acute presentation. Epinephrine (adrenaline) treatment is underused in health care and community settings. No epinephrine autoinjectors contain an optimal dose for infants weighing 10 kg or less. After treatment of an anaphylactic episode, follow-up with a physician, preferably an allergy/immunology specialist, is important for confirmation of anaphylaxis triggers and prevention of recurrences through avoidance of confirmed specific triggers. Natural desensitization to milk and egg can occur. Future research should include validation of the clinical criteria for anaphylaxis diagnosis in infants, prospective longitudinal monitoring of baseline serum tryptase levels in healthy and atopic infants during the first year of life, studies of infant comorbidities and cofactors that increase the risk of severe anaphylaxis, development of autoinjectors containing a 0.1-mg epinephrine dose suitable for infants, and inclusion of infants in prospective studies of immune modulation to prevent anaphylaxis recurrences.

Safety of epinephrine for anaphylaxis in the emergency setting

BACKGROUND

While epinephrine is the recommended first-line therapy for the reversal of anaphylaxis symptoms, inappropriate use persists because of misunderstandings about proper dosing and administration or misconceptions about its safety. The objective of this review was to evaluate the safety of epinephrine for patients with anaphylaxis, including other emergent conditions, treated in emergency care settings.

METHODS

A MEDLINE search using PubMed was conducted to identify articles that discuss the dosing, administration, and safety of epinephrine in the emergency setting for anaphylaxis and other conditions.

RESULTS

Epinephrine is safe for anaphylaxis when given at the correct dose by intramuscular injection. The majority of dosing errors and cardiovascular adverse reactions occur when epinephrine is given intravenously or incorrectly dosed.

CONCLUSION

Epinephrine by intramuscular injection is a safe therapy for anaphylaxis but training may still be necessary in emergency care settings to minimize drug dosing and administration errors and to allay concerns about its safety.

Knowledge of anaphylaxis among Emergency Department staff

BACKGROUND

Anaphylaxis is an emergency condition that requires immediate, accurate diagnosis and appropriate management. However, little is known about the level of knowledge of doctors and nurses treating these patients in the Emergency Department.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the knowledge of doctors and nurses in the Emergency Department on the recent definition and treatment recommendations of anaphylaxis.

METHODS

We surveyed doctors and nurses of all grades in a tertiary Hospital Emergency Department using a standardized anonymous questionnaire.

RESULTS

We had a total of 190 respondents-47 doctors and 143 nurses. The response rate was 79.7% for doctors and 75.3% for nurses. Ninety-seven point eight percent of the doctors and 83.7% of the nurses chose the accepted definition of anaphylaxis. High proportions of doctors (89-94%) and nurses (65-72%) diagnose anaphylaxis in the three scenarios demonstrating anaphylaxis and anaphylactic shock. Forty-two point six percent of the doctors and 76.9% of the nurses incorrectly diagnosed single organ involvement without hypotension as anaphylaxis. As for treatment, 89.4% of the doctors indicated adrenaline as the drug of choice and 85.1% chose intramuscular route for adrenaline administration. Among the nurses, 40.3% indicated adrenaline as the drug of choice and 47.4% chose the intramuscular route for adrenaline.

CONCLUSION

High proportion of doctors and nurses are able to recognize the signs and symptoms of anaphylaxis, although there is a trend towards over diagnosis. There is good knowledge on drug of choice and the accepted route of adrenaline among the doctors. However, knowledge of treatment of anaphylaxis among nurses was moderate and can be improved.

Allergists' self-reported adherence to anaphylaxis practice parameters and perceived barriers to care: an American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology member survey

BACKGROUND

Anaphylaxis is life-threatening and requires rapid medical intervention. Knowledge of treatment guidelines and addressing barriers to care are essential for appropriate management.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate allergists' self-reported practices in managing patients at risk for anaphylaxis, specifically in following practice parameters for diagnosis, treatment, and appropriate use of epinephrine, and to identify perceived barriers to care.

METHODS

Online questionnaires were distributed to members of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology. The US physicians who self-identified as "allergist/immunologist" were eligible to participate. The first 500 completed questionnaires were analyzed.

RESULTS

Nearly all (≥95%) reported adherence to practice parameters in prescribing an epinephrine auto-injector and instructing patients on its use, taking a detailed allergy history, counseling patients on avoidance measures, and educating patients on the signs and symptoms of anaphylaxis. More than 90% stated they determined the best diagnostic procedures to identify triggers and coordinated laboratory and allergy testing. Adherence to practice parameters was less robust for providing patients with written action plans and in-office anaphylaxis preparedness. Perceived barriers to care included a significant proportion of patients who were uncomfortable using epinephrine auto-injectors and inadequate knowledge of anaphylaxis among referral physicians.

CONCLUSION

Allergists overwhelmingly adhere to practice parameter recommendations for the treatment and management of anaphylaxis, including appropriate use of epinephrine as first-line treatment, educating patients, and testing to diagnose anaphylaxis and identify its triggers. Opportunities for improvement include preparing staff and patients for anaphylactic events, providing written action plans, and improving knowledge of referring physicians.