Pharmacists' response to anaphylaxis in the community (PRAC): a randomised, simulated patient study of pharmacist practice

Anaphylaxis: A 2023 practice parameter update

This practice parameter update focuses on 7 areas in which there are new evidence and new recommendations. Diagnostic criteria for anaphylaxis have been revised, and patterns of anaphylaxis are defined. Measurement of serum tryptase is important for diagnosis of anaphylaxis and to identify underlying mast cell disorders. In infants and toddlers, age-specific symptoms may differ from older children and adults, patient age is not correlated with reaction severity, and anaphylaxis is unlikely to be the initial reaction to an allergen on first exposure. Different community settings for anaphylaxis require specific measures for prevention and treatment of anaphylaxis. Optimal prescribing and use of epinephrine autoinjector devices require specific counseling and training of patients and caregivers, including when and how to administer the epinephrine autoinjector and whether and when to call 911. If epinephrine is used promptly, immediate activation of emergency medical services may not be required if the patient experiences a prompt, complete, and durable response. For most medical indications, the risk of stopping or changing beta-blocker or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor medication may exceed the risk of more severe anaphylaxis if the medication is continued, especially in patients with insect sting anaphylaxis. Evaluation for mastocytosis, including a bone marrow biopsy, should be considered for adult patients with severe insect sting anaphylaxis or recurrent idiopathic anaphylaxis. After perioperative anaphylaxis, repeat anesthesia may proceed in the context of shared decision-making and based on the history and results of diagnostic evaluation with skin tests or in vitro tests when available, and supervised challenge when necessary.

Immediate Adverse Events Following COVID-19 Vaccination in Australian Pharmacies: A Retrospective Review

BACKGROUND

Four COVID-19 vaccines are approved for use in Australia: Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 (Comirnaty), AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 (Vaxzevria), Moderna mRNA-1273 (Spikevax), and Novavax NVX-CoV2373 (Nuvaxovid). We sought to examine the type and management of immediate adverse events following immunisation (I-AEFI) after COVID-19 vaccination.

METHODS

Retrospective review of I-AEFI recorded between July 2021 and June 2022 in 314 community pharmacies in Australia.

RESULTS

I-AEFI were recorded in 0.05% (n = 526/977,559) of all COVID-19 vaccinations (highest: AstraZeneca (n = 173/161,857; 0.11%); lowest: Pfizer (n = 50/258,606; 0.02%)). The most common reactions were: (1) syncope, after the first dose of AstraZeneca (n = 105/67,907; 0.15%), Moderna (n = 156/108,339; 0.14%), and Pfizer (n = 22/16,287; 0.14%); and (2) Nausea/vomiting after the first dose of Pfizer (n = 9/16,287; 0.06%), Moderna (n = 55/108,339; 0.05%), and AstraZeneca (n = 31/67,907; 0.05%) vaccines. A total of 23 anaphylactic reactions were recorded (n = 23/977,559; 0.002%), and 59 additional I-AEFI were identified using MedDRA^® terminology. Pharmacists primarily managed syncope by laying the patient down (n = 227/342; 66.4%); nausea/vomiting was managed primarily by laying the patient down (n = 62/126; 49.2%), giving water (n = 38/126; 30.2%), or monitoring in the pharmacy (n = 29/126; 23.0%); anaphylactic reaction was treated with adrenaline (n = 18/23; 78.3%) and n = 13/23 (56.5%) anaphylactic reactions were treated with the combination of: administered adrenaline, called ambulance, and laid patient down.

CONCLUSION

The most commonly recorded I-AEFI was syncope after COVID-19 vaccination in pharmacy; I-AEFI are similar to those previously reported. Pharmacists identified and managed serious and non-serious I-AEFI appropriately and comprehensively.

Health seeking behaviour among Lebanese population: A highlight on seeking care from pharmacists

Background

Understanding health-seeking behaviour could significantly reduce the impact of illness on patients’ lives. Fragmentation of the Lebanese healthcare system and presence of variability in socio-economic factors have affected some aspects of the Lebanese population’s overall health seeking behaviour. One of these aspects is seeking diagnosis from pharmacists, which is prohibited by the Lebanese law but reinforced by the absence of supervision of concerned authorities.

Objectives

This study aimed to assess the Lebanese population’s knowledge, attitude, and practice towards seeking health care from pharmacists, exploring particularly the practice of seeking diagnosis from pharmacists.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted by surveying a convenient sample of 493 participants across the eight governorates of Lebanon between July and October 2016. A self-administered questionnaire was used. Questions assessed the health care seeking behaviour of the participants.

Results

Two-thirds of the study participants (63.9%) did not have a general practitioner whom they visit regularly. Nearly half of the participants (48.9%) reported seeking diagnosis from pharmacists. Noteworthy, seeking diagnosis from pharmacists’ behaviour declined significantly with having a general practitioner visited regularly. More than half of participants (59.5%) believed that dealing with emergencies is among the pharmacists’ duties. In addition, 62.8% perceived that pharmacists are ‘often/always’ capable of managing common complaints.

Conclusion

Our study showed that a significant proportion of the Lebanese population seek a diagnosis from pharmacists and a significant proportion of them have a misconception about the role of pharmacists in the Lebanese healthcare system.

A systematic review of the use of simulated patient methodology in pharmacy practice research from 2006 to 2016

OBJECTIVES

Simulated patient (SP) methodology (mystery shopping) is used increasingly to assess quality of pharmacy services, and evaluate impact of interventions. Our objective was to review papers reporting on the use of SP methodology in pharmacy practice research 2006-2016 in community pharmacies worldwide.

METHODS

We searched EMBASE and MEDLINE for papers reporting on the use of mystery shopping in pharmacy settings, using a wide range of terms for SPs, based on previous review. We removed irrelevant papers, duplicates, papers not written in English, and review papers and reviewed remaining papers. Two reviewers carried out data abstraction, using the same tool as the previous review and inserting data into Excel, focusing on how the SP methodology is used.

KEY FINDINGS

A total of 148 papers from 52 countries from all regions of the world were included in the review. A wide range of terms described the method, and simulated patient was the most common (49 papers). Most studies were cross-sectional (124), and most investigated only community pharmacies (115). The most common aim was to evaluate some aspect of pharmacists' or other staff's advice and counselling (94). Number of visits is 2-7785. Many papers did not cover details, such as number of visits planned, and carried out, scenario used, training and background of SPs, and ethical approval for the study.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of SP methodology has increased substantially in the field of pharmacy over the past decade. This is a useful method in a wide range of countries and settings. Greater detail is required in reporting.

Emergency anaphylaxis protocols: A cross-sectional analysis of general practice surgeries and pharmacies in both the urban and rural setting in Ireland

Background: The incidence of anaphylaxis appears to be increasing worldwide with cases in the community outnumbering those in the hospital setting. General practice (GP) surgeries and pharmacies, based in the community, are often the first point of contact for many patients suffering from anaphylaxis.

Objectives: To determine if studied GP surgeries and pharmacies have an anaphylaxis protocol on site and have access to an anaphylaxis kit; to explore GP’s and pharmacists’ personal experiences with management of anaphylaxis.

Methods: A cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study was performed examining anaphylaxis protocols in a sample of general practices and pharmacies from some counties in Ireland. This consisted of a sample from rural and urban settings. The study commenced in October 2014.

Results: Nineteen of 24 GPs (79%) and 9 (29%) pharmacies had an anaphylaxis protocol (P < 0.001). Twenty-four (100%) GP practices and 12 pharmacies (39%) surveyed had an anaphylaxis kit on site. Twelve GPs (50%) had treated a patient with anaphylaxis in the surgery while 8 (33%) had treated a patient in the community. One pharmacist (3%) had witnessed anaphylaxis in practice. Two pharmacies and one GP had been contacted by local businesses to alert them to a case of anaphylaxis.

Conclusion: In contrast to national and international guidelines only 79% of GPs and 29% of pharmacies in this study from Ireland had an anaphylaxis protocol onsite.

Implementation of asthma guidelines to West Australian community pharmacies: an exploratory, quasi-experimental study

OBJECTIVES

Pharmacy assistants are often the first point of contact for patients presenting in community pharmacies. The current role of pharmacy assistants in the supply of asthma-reliever medications (short-acting β-agonists) was identified as a barrier to appropriate guideline-based care. The aim of this research was to devise and evaluate a team-based intervention to formalise the role of pharmacy assistants and to improve asthma guideline-based care in community pharmacy.

DESIGN

A controlled pre-post intervention study was conducted in 336 metropolitan pharmacies located in Perth, Western Australia. Pharmacies were stratified into 2 groups (187 intervention and 149 control) based on known confounders for asthma control. The intervention was designed using a common-sense approach and resources developed included a checklist, videos and web page. Delivery was via workshops (25 pharmacies) or academic detailing (162 pharmacies). Pharmacy practice was assessed preintervention and postintervention via covert simulated patient methodology. Primary outcome measures included patient medical referral, device use demonstration and counselling, internal referral and/or direct involvement of a pharmacist in consultations.

RESULTS

There was a significant increase in patient medical referral in intervention pharmacies from 32% to 47% (p=0.0007) from preintervention to postintervention, while control pharmacies showed a non-significant decrease from 50% to 44% (p=0.22). Device counselling was not routinely carried out at any stage or in any cohort of this research and no significant changes in internal referral were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Increases in medical referral indicate that asthma guideline compliance can be improved in community pharmacy if implementation employs a team-based approach and involves pharmacy assistants. However, results were variable and the intervention did not improve practice related to device counselling or internal referral/pharmacist involvement. Undertaking more workshops may have improved results. Guideline implementation in community pharmacy should consider the role of pharmacy assistants and how to overcome logistical barriers to pharmacy participation in implementation activities.

Demonstration of epinephrine autoinjectors (EpiPen and Anapen) by pharmacists in a randomised, simulated patient assessment: acceptable, but room for improvement

BACKGROUND

Successful treatment of anaphylaxis in the community relies on early and correct use of epinephrine autoinjectors. Community pharmacists supply these devices and have a crucial role teaching patients how to use them. Supply of epinephrine autoinjectors in Australia increased 70-fold in the past decade. New EpiPen and Anapen autoinjectors were launched in Australia in 2011 and 2012, with the potential to cause confusion. However there is no information about how pharmacists demonstrate epinephrine autoinjectors to patients. Therefore the aim of this study was to assess real-world community pharmacist demonstrations of EpiPen and Anapen. We also sought to identify consultation-based predictors of accurate demonstration.

METHODS

Demonstration accuracy was assessed in simulated patient visits to 300 randomly selected pharmacies. Pharmacists were asked by the simulated patient how to use original EpiPen, new-look EpiPen or Anapen, and assessed against the relevant Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy (ASCIA) Action Plan for Anaphylaxis. Other anaphylaxis advice provided by the pharmacist was also recorded. Accuracy was analysed descriptively. Binary logistic regression was used to identify predictors of accurate demonstration.

RESULTS

All 300 pharmacies were visited. Of 250 pharmacist demonstrations, 46 (18.4%) accurately demonstrated all four steps on ASCIA Action Plan. Failure to state 'do not touch the needle' (74.8%) or 'massage injection site' (68.8%) reduced accuracy. However 163 (65.2%) accurately demonstrated the three steps required to inject epinephrine (no difference by device, p = 0.15). Associations with accurate demonstration were: checking if the patient had an anaphylaxis action plan (odds ratio, OR = 16.1; 95% CI: 3.86-67.3); stating to call an ambulance after use (OR = 4.0; 95% CI: 1.44-11.1); or explaining side effects of epinephrine (OR = 4.5; 95% CI: 1.48-13.4).

CONCLUSIONS

It is critical that anaphylaxis patients know how to use their prescribed epinephrine autoinjector correctly. Pharmacists have acceptable rates of EpiPen and Anapen demonstration accuracy, although more is needed to improve this. Those who pay attention to the need for action plans, emergency care after epinephrine use, and informing patients about the side effects of epinephrine may have better knowledge about anaphylaxis, and in turn significantly improve demonstration accuracy.