Management of anaphylaxis in primary care: Canadian expert consensus recommendations

Use of epinephrine in anaphylaxis: a retrospective cohort study at a Swiss university emergency department

AIMS OF THE STUDY

Anaphylaxis is a medical emergency and requires prompt treatment to prevent life-threatening conditions. Epinephrine, considered as the first-line drug, is often not administered. We aimed first to analyse the use of epinephrine in patients with anaphylaxis in the emergency department of a university hospital and secondly to identify factors that influence the use of epinephrine.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of all patients admitted with moderate or severe anaphylaxis to the emergency department between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2018. Patient characteristics and treatment information were extracted from the electronic medical database of the emergency department.

RESULTS

A total of 531 (0.2%) patients with moderate or severe anaphylaxis out of 260,485 patients admitted to the emergency department were included. Epinephrine was administered in 252 patients (47.3%). In a multivariate logistic regression, cardiovascular (Odds Ratio [OR] = 2.94, CI 1.96-4.46, p <0.001) and respiratory symptoms (OR = 3.14, CI 1.95-5.14, p<0.001) were associated with increased likelihood of epinephrine administration, in contrast to integumentary symptoms (OR = 0.98, CI 0.54-1.81, p = 0.961) and gastrointestinal symptoms (OR = 0.62, CI 0.39-1.00, p = 0.053).

CONCLUSIONS

Less than half of the patients with moderate and severe anaphylaxis received epinephrine according to guidelines. In particular, gastrointestinal symptoms seem to be misrecognised as serious symptoms of anaphylaxis. Training of the emergency medical services and emergency department medical staff and further awareness are crucial to increase the administration rate of epinephrine in anaphylaxis.

Evaluation of knowledge and practices about administration and regulations of high alert medications among hospital pharmacists in Pakistan: findings and implications

BACKGROUND

A death of a nine months old child in Pakistan following the rapid administration of potassium chloride raised serious concerns on the awareness of appropriate use of high alert medications (HAMs) among healthcare professionals (HCPs). This study aimed to ascertain HAMs-related knowledge among hospital pharmacists in Pakistan.

METHODOLOGY

A cross-sectional study using exponential non-discriminative snowball sampling was conducted among hospital pharmacists in healthcare settings in Punjab, Pakistan. A validated study tool was used to determine knowledge on administration, regulation, and practices related to the HAMs. Barriers to conducting HAMs training in the hospitals were assessed from an open-ended question. All quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS 22.0 while the content analysis was performed on the qualitative data.

RESULTS

A total of 202 hospital pharmacists were included in the study. The mean knowledge score for HAMs administration and regulation were 5.86 ± 1.89 (95% CI 5.60-6.12) and 7.25 ± 1.70 (95% CI 7.02-7.49), respectively. Approximately half of the respondents (49.5%) achieved scores ≥ 70%, demonstrating sufficient knowledge of HAMs. In the multivariable-adjusted model, increasing age and work experience were found to be the positive predictors of good HAMs knowledge. The mean practice score was 36.42 ± 1.97 (95% CI 34.05-38.77), with 62.4% of pharmacists following good HAMs-related practices. We identified several barriers to conducting HAMs training through qualitative analysis. These barriers included lack of knowledge, poor attitude and behavior of medical and paramedical staff, false beliefs, lack of active support by hospital administration, lack of cooperation between HCPs, lack of opportunities, heavy workload, insufficient human resources, financial constraints, and lack of motivation.

CONCLUSIONS

A significant proportion of the hospital pharmacists had unsatisfactory knowledge and practices of HAMs. These findings underscore that training on HAMs should be conducted periodically as a part of hospital-based pharmacy education to maximize drug safety.

Anaphylaxis

Anaphylaxis is an acute, potentially fatal systemic allergic reaction with varied mechanisms and clinical presentations. Although prompt recognition and treatment of anaphylaxis are imperative, both patients and healthcare professionals often fail to recognize and diagnose early signs and symptoms of the condition. Clinical manifestations vary widely; however, the most common signs are cutaneous symptoms, including urticaria, angioedema, erythema and pruritus. Immediate intramuscular administration of epinephrine into the anterolateral thigh is first-line therapy, even if the diagnosis is uncertain. The mainstays of long-term management include specialist assessment, avoidance measures, and the provision of an epinephrine auto-injector and an individualized anaphylaxis action plan. This article provides an overview of the causes, clinical features, diagnosis and acute and long-term management of this serious allergic reaction.

Food allergy and anaphylaxis

Anaphylaxis is a severe and potentially life-threatening allergic reaction. There are numerous potential causes, with food allergy being the leading cause in children and the focus of this review. Most reactions involve an IgE-mediated mechanism, although non-IgE-mediated and nonimmunologic reactions can occur. Various cofactors to be discussed can place certain individuals at an increased risk of severe or fatal anaphylaxis. The clinical manifestations of anaphylaxis are broad and may involve multiple body systems. Diagnosis of food-related anaphylaxis is primarily based on signs and symptoms and supported, wherever possible, by identification and confirmation of a culprit food allergen. First-line treatment of anaphylaxis is intramuscular administration of epinephrine. Long-term management is generally focused on strict allergen avoidance and more recently on food desensitization using immunotherapy. This review provides an overview of anaphylaxis with a specific focus on food allergy.

How to manage anaphylaxis in primary care

Anaphylaxis is defined as a severe life-threatening generalized or systemic hypersensitivity reaction characterized by rapidly developing airway and/or circulation problems. It presents with very different combinations of symptoms and apparently mild signs and can progress to fatal anaphylactic shock unpredictably. The difficulty in recognizing anaphylaxis is due, in part, to the variability of diagnostic criteria, which in turn leads to a delay in administration of appropriate treatment, thus increasing the risk of death. The use of validated clinical criteria can facilitate the diagnosis of anaphylaxis. Intramuscular epinephrine (adrenaline) is the medication of choice for the emergency treatment of anaphylaxis. Administration of corticosteroids and H1-antihistamines should not delay the administration of epinephrine, and the management of a patient with anaphylaxis should not end with the acute episode. Long-term management of anaphylaxis should include avoidance of triggers, following confirmation by an allergology study. Etiologic factors suspected in the emergency department often differ from the real causes of anaphylaxis. Evaluation of patients with a history of anaphylaxis should also include an assessment of personal data, such as age and comorbidities, which may increase the risk of severe reactions. Special attention should also be paid to co-factors, as these may easily confound the cause of the anaphylaxis. Patients experiencing anaphylaxis should administer epinephrine as soon as possible. Education (including the use of Internet and social media), written personalized emergency action plans, and self-injectable epinephrine have proven useful for the treatment of further anaphylaxis episodes.

Anaphylaxis across two Canadian pediatric centers: evaluating management disparities

BACKGROUND

There are no data on the percentage of visits due to anaphylaxis in the emergency department (ED), triggers, and management of anaphylaxis across different provinces in Canada.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the percentage of anaphylaxis cases among all ED visits, as well as the triggers and management of anaphylaxis between two Canadian pediatric EDs (PEDs).

METHODS

As part of the Cross-Canada Anaphylaxis Registry (C-CARE), children presenting to the British Columbia Children's Hospital (BCCH) and Montreal Children's Hospital (MCH) EDs with anaphylaxis were recruited. Characteristics, triggers, and management of anaphylaxis were documented using a standardized data entry form. Differences in demographics, triggers, and management were determined by comparing the difference of proportions and 95% confidence interval.

RESULTS

Between June 2014 and June 2016, there were 346 visits due to anaphylaxis among 93,730 PED visits at the BCCH ED and 631 anaphylaxis visits among 164,669 pediatric visits at the MCH ED. In both centers, the majority of cases were triggered by food (BCCH 91.3% [88.7, 94.0], MCH 82.4% [79.7, 85.3]), of which peanuts were the most common culprit (24.7% [20.9, 29.9] and 19.0% [15.8, 22.7], respectively). Pre-hospital administration of epinephrine (BCCH 27.7% [23.2, 32.8], MCH 33.1% [29.5, 37.0]) and antihistamines (BCCH 50.6% [45.2, 56.0], MCH 47.1% [43.1, 51.0]) was similar. In-hospital management differed in terms of increased epinephrine, antihistamine, and steroid use at the BCCH (59.2% [53.9, 64.4], 59.8% [54.4, 65.0], and 60.1% [54.7, 65.3], respectively) compared to the MCH (42.2% [38.3, 46.2], 36.2% [32.5, 40.1], and 11.9% [9.5, 14.8], respectively). Despite differences in management, percentage of cases admitted to the intensive care unit was similar between the two centers.

CONCLUSION

Compared to previous European and North American reports, there is a high percentage of anaphylaxis cases in two PEDs across Canada with substantial differences in hospital management practices. It is crucial to develop training programs that aim to increase epinephrine use in anaphylaxis.

Epinephrine auto-injector prescriptions to food-allergic patients in primary care in The Netherlands

Background

The knowledge of general practitioner(s) (GPs) regarding food allergy and anaphylaxis and practices in the prescription of epinephrine auto-injector(s) (EAIs) among GPs has previously only been studied using questionnaires and hypothetical cases. Therefore, there are currently no data as to whether or not GPs prescribe EAIs to high risk food-allergic patients presenting to primary care practices. The aim of this study was therefore to describe and evaluate practice in EAI prescription by GPs to food-allergic patients in The Netherlands.

Methods

Patients aged 12–23 years who consulted their GP for allergic symptoms were identified in a primary care database. Patients were classified as probably or unlikely to be food-allergic. A risk factor assessment was done to identify probably food-allergic patients at high risk for anaphylaxis to assess the need for an EAI.

Results

One hundred forty-eight out of 1015 patients consulted their GP for allergic symptoms due to food. Eighty patients were excluded from analysis because of incomplete records. Thirty-four patients were classified as probably food-allergic. Twenty-seven of them were considered high risk patients and candidates for an EAI. Importantly, only 10 of them had actually been prescribed an EAI by their GP.

Conclusions

This study shows that high risk food-allergic patients that visit their GPs are often not prescribed an EAI. Thus, previously identified low rates of EAI ownership may be partly due to GPs not prescribing this medication to patients for whom it would be appropriate to do so. These data suggest that there is a need for improvement of the quality of care for high risk food-allergic patients in primary care.

Immediate hypersensitivity reaction following liposomal amphotericin-B (AmBisome) infusion

Liposomal amphotericin-B (AmBisome) is now becoming first choice for the treatment of visceral leishmaniasis (kala-azar) patients due to high efficacy and less toxicity. The reported incidence of hypersensitivity reactions to liposomal amphotericin-B (AmBisome), especially during therapy, is very rare. We report two patients with kala-azar: one developed breathing difficulties and hypotension followed by shock and the other had facial angioedema with chest tightness during treatment. Both patients were managed with immediate action of injection: adrenaline, diphenhydramine and hydrocortisone. In our experience, AmBisome can cause severe hypersensitivity reactions that warrant proper support and close supervision.

Systematic review of outcome measures in trials of pediatric anaphylaxis treatment

BACKGROUND

Considerable heterogeneity has been observed in the selection and reporting of disease-specific pediatric outcome measures in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This makes interpretation of results and comparison across trials challenging. Outcome measures in pediatric anaphylaxis trials have never previously been systematically assessed. This systematic review (SR) identified and assessed outcome measures used in RCTs of anaphylaxis treatment in children. As a secondary objective, this SR assessed the evidence for current treatment modalities for anaphylaxis in the pediatric population.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and CINAHL from 2001 until December 2012. We also searched websites listing ongoing trials. We included randomized and controlled trials of anaphylaxis treatment in patients 0-18 years of age. Two authors independently assessed articles for inclusion.

RESULTS

No published studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

There is an alarming absence of RCTs evaluating the treatments for anaphylaxis in children. High quality studies are needed and are possible to design, despite the severe and acute nature of this condition. Consensus about the selection and validation of appropriate outcome measures will enhance the quality of research and improve the care of children with anaphylaxis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CRD42012002685.

Anaphylaxis

Anaphylaxis is an acute, potentially fatal systemic reaction with varied mechanisms and clinical presentations. Although prompt recognition and treatment of anaphylaxis are imperative, both patients and healthcare professionals often fail to recognize and diagnose early signs and symptoms of the condition. Clinical manifestations vary widely, however, the most common signs are cutaneous symptoms, including angioedema, urticaria, erythema and pruritus. Immediate intramuscular administration of epinephrine into the lateral thigh is first-line therapy, even if the diagnosis is uncertain. The mainstays of long-term management include specialist assessment, avoidance measures, and the provision of an epinephrine auto-injector and an individualized anaphylaxis action plan. This article provides an overview of the causes, clinical features, diagnosis and acute and long-term management of this serious allergic reaction.