Data from the anaphylaxis registry of the German-speaking countries

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.

Comorbidities and Cofactors of Anaphylaxis in Patients with Moderate to Severe Anaphylaxis. Analysis of Data from the Anaphylaxis Registry for West Pomerania Province, Poland

Anaphylaxis is a severe, potentially life-threatening systemic hypersensitivity reaction that is still rarely diagnosed. For safety reasons, patients should visit an allergologist to identify potential causes and cofactors of this reaction. This paper presents the analysis of data from the Anaphylaxis Registry gathered over ten years at the Allergy Clinic, Pomeranian Medical University (PMU). A questionnaire-based survey was used for patients visiting the Allergy Clinic to identify potential augmentation factors/comorbidities and/or cofactors of anaphylaxis in patients with a history of moderate to severe anaphylaxis. The registry comprised patients with grade II or higher anaphylaxis. The gathered data concerned chronic comorbidities (cardiovascular diseases, respiratory diseases, and others), recurrence of anaphylaxis, and potential cofactors in anaphylaxis. In the analyzed group, the incidence rate of anaphylaxis was the highest for women aged 19–60 years. Most common comorbidities in patients with moderate to severe anaphylaxis included: cardiovascular diseases, respiratory tract diseases, features of atopy, and thyroid diseases. More than 30% of drug-induced reactions were anaphylactic reactions due to the re-exposure to the same drug, which points to the need for educational initiatives in this area. The incidence rate of anaphylaxis induced by Hymenoptera stings was comparable in patients who had a previous generalized reaction and those who had good tolerance to the previous sting. It is important to take these cofactors into consideration when evaluating patients with anaphylaxis as they may play a role in future anaphylactic reactions.

Current state of follow-up care for patients with Hymenoptera venom anaphylaxis in southwest Germany: Major impact of early information

Background

Up to 3.5% of the population experience anaphylactic reactions in response to Hymenoptera stings. Current guidelines are in place for the diagnostic workup and follow-up care of patients with Hymenoptera venom anaphylaxis (HVA). However, little is known about the degree of implementation of the recommendations and patient attitudes toward the recommendations in the general patient population.

Methods

For the analysis of the follow-up care in real life, a retrospective questionnaire-based study was conducted in unselected patients who had received treatment from an emergency medical response team for HVA, as documented in records of three regional Medical Emergency Response Centers.

Results

From over 125,000 cases, a filtered list of 1895 patients that coded for anaphylaxis was generated and examination of paper records identified 548 patients with a documented insect sting anaphylaxis. Patients were sent a standardized questionnaire addressing different aspects of diagnostics and follow-up care. Almost 40% of the patients did not receive a referral to an allergist at the emergency center, over 50% did not consult an allergy specialist at any time after the index sting, 25% did not receive any form of diagnostic workup, over 30% did not receive any information about venom immunotherapy (VIT) as treatment option, and only 50% were eventually started on VIT. Emergency medication was prescribed in 90% of the cases, 77% including an adrenalin auto injector, of which 47% were expired at the time of the survey. Patients who were informed about diagnostic and treatment options early during the index event, i. e., during the stay in the emergency department, displayed a higher rate of referral to an allergist (70% vs. 17%), higher rate of diagnostic workup (88% vs. 59%), and a higher rate of initiation of VIT (89% vs. 64%), as compared to patients who did not.

Conclusion

Our results demonstrate that there are missed opportunities for secondary and tertiary prevention of anaphylaxis due to insect venom allergy and that early information on required diagnostics and treatment options has a major impact on the degree of proper follow-up care in line with current guideline recommendations.