Increasing trends of anaphylaxis-related events: an analysis of anaphylaxis using nationwide data in Taiwan, 2001-2013

Who is at-risk for severe anaphylaxis in France?

Background

The understanding of risk factors related to severe anaphylaxis is key to implementing prevention strategies. We present the first French population-based nine-year anaphylaxis hospitalization study evaluating specific trends and factors related to severe anaphylaxis (SA), to support identification of phenotypes at-risk.

Methods

This study used descriptive data from the French hospitalization database for the years 2012-2021, and included all patients hospitalized with anaphylaxis using International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 codes listed as a primary diagnosis. SA were cases that either required a hospitalization in intensive care units or resulted in death. Potential risk factors were identified according to corresponding ICD codes, available as secondary data during the patient's hospitalization.

Results

The average hospitalization rate of all cases of anaphylaxis (SA and non-SA) was 1.34/100,000/year, and rate of admissions for SA was 0.08/100,000/year. Among the 5463 SA, 37.7% had unspecified coding label, when trigger was not identified. For SA cases in which trigger was identified, most were related to drugs (45.6%), followed by food (9.3%) and insect sting (7.2%). Overall, admissions due to anaphylaxis (SA and non-SA) were more frequent in males (57%). However, when the trigger was drugs, the proportion was significantly higher in females. For children aged 5-9 years, the most common trigger for SA was food. Patients for which SA was triggered by insect stings were identified exclusively in the 10-14 years age group. Chronic spontaneous urticaria was associated with insect sting-induced anaphylaxis, regardless of the severity. Angioedema was associated with all causes of SA. Cases of anaphylaxis presenting with urticaria and angioedema included cases with identified and unidentified triggers. Asthma and a personal history of allergy were associated with drug- and food-induced anaphylaxis.

Conclusion

This is the first study to provide data on severe phenotypes of anaphylaxis in France. Data presented is key to the implementation of public health actions and preventive strategies to improve quality care.

Pediatric asthma comorbidities: Global impact and unmet needs

Real-world data on the range and impact of comorbid health conditions that affect pediatric asthma are scant, especially from developing countries. Lack of data hinders effective diagnosis, treatment, and overall management of these complex cases. We, hereby, describe the common pediatric asthma comorbid conditions in terms of evidence for association, potential mechanisms of impact on asthma control, and treatment benefit. Obesity, upper airway allergies, dysfunctional breathing, multiple sensitizations, depressive disorders, food allergy, and gastro-esophageal reflux are common associations with difficult-to-treat asthma. On the other hand, asthma symptoms and/or management may negatively impact the well-being of children through drug adverse effects, worsening of anaphylaxis symptoms, and disturbing mental health. Awareness of these ailments may be crucial for designing the optimum care for each asthmatic child individually and may ultimately improve the quality of life of patients and their families. A multidisciplinary team of physicians is required to identify and manage such comorbidities aiming to mitigate the over-use of asthma pharmacotherapy. Asthma research should target relevant real-world difficulties encountered at clinical practice and focus on interventions that would mitigate the impact of such comorbidities. Finally, policymakers and global healthcare organizations are urged to recognize pediatric asthma control as a healthcare priority and allocate resources for research and clinical interventions. In other words, global asthma control needs support by compassionate scientific partnership.

Physician adherence to anaphylaxis guidelines among different age groups in emergency departments: 20-Year observational study

BACKGROUND

Anaphylaxis is an acute and serious allergic reaction. Little is known about physician adherence to anaphylaxis guidelines among patients across different age groups.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate real-world physician adherence to anaphylaxis guidelines among children, adults, and older adults in emergency departments.

METHODS

This study retrospectively analyzed all consecutive patients with anaphylaxis who presented to 2 emergency departments at 2 branches of the largest tertiary hospital in Taiwan, between 2001 and 2020. Patients who met the diagnostic criteria for anaphylaxis were enrolled and grouped by age: children (<18 years), adults (18-64 years), and older adults (≥65 years).

RESULTS

We enrolled 771 patients with anaphylaxis (159 children, 498 adults, and 114 older adults). Intramuscular epinephrine was administered in 294 cases (38.1%). There was a significant age-group difference in the rate of intramuscular epinephrine administration (46.5% in children, 37.3% in adults, and 29.8% in older adults; P trend = .004). When stratified by severity, 14.3% of older adults with moderate reactions received intramuscular epinephrine, whereas 35.2% of adults and 55.3% of children received intramuscular epinephrine (P trend < .001), whereas such difference was not found in patients with severe reactions. Upon discharge from emergency departments, 15.3% received allergist referral (52.2% in children, 6.6% in adults, and 1.8% in older adults; P trend < .001); 12.5% received education on avoidance of triggers (18.9%, 11.4%, and 7.9%; P trend = .01), and 16.1% received education on alarm symptoms (21.4%, 15.1%, and 13.2%; P trend = .05).

CONCLUSION

The real-world physician adherence to anaphylaxis guidelines remains suboptimal in emergency departments, particularly among older adults. Physician continuing education is needed to improve the gap between anaphylaxis guidelines and clinical practice.

COVID-19 vaccine safety: Background incidence rates of anaphylaxis, myocarditis, pericarditis, Guillain-Barré Syndrome, and mortality in South Korea using a nationwide population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

To properly assess an association between vaccines and specific adverse events requires a comparison between the observed and background rates; however, studies in South Korea are currently limited. Therefore, in this study, we estimated the background incidence of anaphylaxis, myocarditis, pericarditis, Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), and mortality in South Korea.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the National Sample Cohort (NSC) data. Using NSC, the background incidence rate was estimated by dividing the number of episodes during 2009-2019 by the total population by year and then multiplying by 100,000. Using Statistics Korea data, the background mortality rate was estimated by dividing the number of deaths, during 2009-2019 by the standard population for that year and then multiplying by 100,000. Using background mortality rates, we predicted mortality rates for 2021 using autoregressive integrated moving average models. Further, the expected mortality rates were compared with observed mortality rates.

RESULTS

The age-adjusted incidence rate (AIR) of anaphylaxis increased from 4.28 to 22.90 cases per 100,000 population (p = 0.003); myocarditis showed no significant increase, changing from 0.56 to 1.26 cases per 100,000 population (p = 0.276); pericarditis increased from 0.94 to 1.88 cases per 100,000 population (p = 0.005); and GBS increased from 0.78 to 1.21 cases per 100,000 population (p = 0.013). The age-adjusted mortality rate decreased from 645.24 to 475.70 deaths per 100,000 population (p <0.001). The 2021 observed/expected mortality rates for overall (ratio: 1.08, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.07-1.08), men (ratio: 1.07, 95% CI: 1.07-1.08), and women (ratio: 1.08, 95% CI: 1.07-1.09), were all significantly higher. When stratified by age group, those aged ≥80 (ratio: 1.16, 95% CI: 1.15-1.17), 60-69 (ratio: 1.11, 95% CI: 1.10-1.13), and 20-29 years old (ratio: 1.07, 95% CI: 1.02-1.13) were also significantly higher.

CONCLUSION

Through the estimation of background rates related to anaphylaxis, myocarditis, pericarditis, GBS, and mortality, we established a reference point for evaluating the potential excess occurrence of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination. This reference point serves as substantive evidence supporting the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines.

Trends and Hospital Outcomes in HOSPITAL Admissions for Anaphylaxis in Children with and without Asthma in Spain (2016-2021)

(1) Background: To assess and compare the temporal trends in the incidence, characteristics and hospital outcomes among children with and without asthma who were hospitalized with anaphylaxis in Spain from 2016 to 2021, and identify the variables associated with severe anaphylaxis among children with asthma. (2) Methods: An observational, retrospective study was conducted using a population-based database. The study population included pediatric patients with anaphylaxis. This population was stratified based on whether they had asthma. (3) Results: The number of hospital admissions was stable from 2016 to 2019, dropping in 2020 and raising to the highest number in 2021. A total of 60.63% of hospitalizations occurred in boys and the most common anaphylactic reactions were due to food consumption (67.28%), increasing over time. The in-hospital mortality (IHM) remained stable and under 1% in all the years studied. The incidence of anaphylaxis was 2.14 times higher in children with asthma than in those without asthma (IRR 2.14; 95% CI 1.87-2.44). Furthermore, it was 1.79 times higher in boys with asthma than in those without asthma (IRR 1.79; 95% CI 1.06-2.45) and 2.68 times higher in girls with asthma than in those without asthma (IRR 2.68; 95% CI 2.23-3.12). Asthma was not associated with severe anaphylaxis (OR 1.31; 95% CI 0.88-1.96). (4) Conclusions: The number of hospitalizations for anaphylaxis in children remained stable from 2016 to 2019, dropping in 2020 and recovering in 2021. IHM was low and remained stable during the study period. The incidence of hospitalizations for anaphylaxis was higher in asthmatic children than in non-asthmatics, but there were no differences in the occurrence of severe anaphylaxis among them.

Epidemiology of anaphylaxis: is the trend still going up?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To understand the current global scale of anaphylaxis and identify possible strategies to increase the accuracy of epidemiological data.

RECENT FINDINGS

Anaphylaxis mortality and morbidity statistics may gain new perspectives with the global implementation of the ICD-11. Improving the quality of epidemiological data related to anaphylaxis should clarify some areas of uncertainty about risk factors, leading to better targeting of strategies to protect those patients at risk, and support decision-making to facilitate health care planning and implementation of public health measures to prevent anaphylaxis.

SUMMARY

The true rate of anaphylaxis is unknown due to a number of factors, such as misdiagnosis, miscoding and undernotification. Moreover, there is lack of information about anaphylaxis epidemiology in many countries. Difficulties on collecting accurate and comparable data should be acknowledged and anaphylaxis data can vary widely. Currently, most robust data are derived from hospitalization datasets and national mortality databases. Anaphylaxis accounts for up to 0.26% of overall hospital admissions. It is suggested that the number of hospital admissions for anaphylaxis is increasing in many countries, both with respect to all-causes of anaphylaxis and by trigger, but the mortality rate remains low. However, there are still great challenges in capturing quality anaphylaxis mortality and morbidity statistics. Better understanding of anaphylaxis trends should clarify some areas of uncertainty about risk factors and prospect effective prevention strategies. As the knowledge derived from populations is key information for more realistic decision-making, the construction of the new section addressed to anaphylaxis in the ICD-11 will allow the collection of more accurate epidemiological data to support high quality management of patients, and to better facilitate health care planning to implement public health measures, reduce the morbidity and mortality attributable to anaphylaxis.

Positive Predictive Values of Anaphylaxis Diagnosis in Claims Data: A Multi-Institutional Study in Taiwan

Real-world data sources can facilitate essential understanding of the epidemiological features of anaphylaxis. However, the accuracy of case-identifying definitions based on diagnosis codes for anaphylaxis in healthcare databases remains understudied. We conducted a cross-sectional study analyzing claims data from the largest multi-institutional healthcare system in Taiwan during 2017-2021. We included patients with incident anaphylaxis identified by either ICD-10-CM codes for anaphylaxis (Group 1) or ICD-10-CM codes for severe allergic or drug adverse events and additional modifier codes for acute allergy events (Group 2). We randomly selected 20% of the cases to determine the positive predictive value (PPV) of anaphylaxis case-identifying definitions in Groups 1 and 2 after review of electronic medical records by two physicians. From the original cohort (n = 2,176), we randomly selected 433 patients with either a diagnosis of anaphylaxis (Group 1), or a diagnosis of severe allergic and drug adverse events with additional modifier codes for acute allergy events (Group 2). In Group 1, we judged 135 / 170 patients as true anaphylaxis cases, giving a PPV of 79.4% (95% CI: 73.3-85.5). In Group 2, we judged 47 / 263 patients as true anaphylaxis cases, giving a PPV of 17.9% (95% CI: 13.3-22.5). In conclusion, acceptable PPVs were observed when anaphylaxis cases were identified by ICD-10-CM codes for anaphylaxis, but not by ICD-10-CM codes for severe allergic or drug adverse event with additional modifier codes for acute allergy events. Our multi-institutional findings could serve as a fundamental reference for further studies of anaphylaxis based on real-world healthcare databases.

Rising prevalence of food allergies in Taiwan: An epidemiological study

BACKGROUND

Food allergies are becoming more prevalent globally. The purpose of this study was to investigate the epidemiology of food allergies in Taiwan.

METHODS

In 2017, a food allergy questionnaire was administered to 6-7-year-old children, 13-14-year-old adolescents, and their parents in Taipei. The results were compared to those from a previous survey conducted in 2004.

RESULTS

A total of 16,200 questionnaires were completed, revealing a rise in the prevalence of food allergies from 7.7% to 10.4% in the pediatric group and from 6.4% to 12.5% in the adult group. Peanut allergies also increased to 1.1%. Shrimp and crabs were the most common allergens, with urticaria being the most common symptom. Shortness of breath or wheezing occurred in 10% of individuals, while 2.1% experienced syncope or shock, and 0.1% were admitted to an intensive care unit. Personal history of allergic rhinitis and atopic dermatitis, as well as family histories of food allergies, were risk factors for food allergy in 6-7-year-old children. In the 13-14-year-old group, personal history of asthma, allergic rhinitis, or atopic dermatitis, recent use of acetaminophen, and living with dogs were risk factors. Females, personal histories of asthma, allergic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis, and moist and damp at home were risk factors in adults. Breastfeeding was a protective factor in 6-7-year-old children.

CONCLUSION

The increasing prevalence of food allergies, including peanut allergies, in Taiwan warrants attention from physicians to provide appropriate care and education to patients with food allergies. The protective effect of breastfeeding against food allergies shall be emphasized.

Investigation of the underuse of adrenaline (epinephrine) and prognosis among patients with anaphylaxis at emergency department admission

Background

Anaphylaxis is a potentially fatal condition; in severe cases of anaphylaxis, the cardiovascular system is often heavily involved. Adrenaline (epinephrine) is a cornerstone of the initial treatment of anaphylaxis. The use of epinephrine remains below expectations in clinical practice. Whether the underuse of epinephrine affects the prognosis of patients with anaphylaxis is still unclear.

Materials and methods

This retrospective study included patients with anaphylaxis between 2011 and 2020 who were admitted to an emergency department (ED) in Taiwan. All patients were divided into two groups based on the use of epinephrine (or not), and we compared the demographic characteristics, allergens, clinical manifestations, management, and patient outcomes.

Results

We reviewed the records of 314 subjects (216 males, 98 females; mean age: 52.78 ± 16.02 years) who visited our ED due to anaphylaxis; 107 (34.1%) and 207 (65.9%) patients were categorized into the epinephrine use group and the non-epinephrine use group, respectively. Arrival via ambulance (p = 0.019), hypotension (p = 0.002), airway compromise (p < 0.001) and altered consciousness (p < 0.001) were the deciding factors for epinephrine use among anaphylactic patients in the ED. The epinephrine use group had higher rates of other inotropic agent usage and fluid challenge. More than 90% of patients received bed rest, steroids, antihistamines, and monitoring. The epinephrine use group had a longer ED length of stay (387.64 ± 374.71 vs. 313.06 ± 238.99 min, p = 0.03) and a greater need of hospitalization. Among all severe symptoms, hypotension was the most tolerated decision factor for not using epinephrine. In this retrospective analysis, some patients with serious anaphylaxis did not experience adverse outcomes or death even without the use of epinephrine at ED admission. Emergent care focuses first on the airway, breathing, and circulation (ABC) and may compensate for the underusage of epinephrine. This could be the reason why epinephrine was underused among patients with anaphylaxis in the ED.

Conclusion

In summary, early ABC management continues to play an important role in treating patients with severe anaphylaxis, even when epinephrine is not immediately available in clinical scenarios.

Anaphylaxis in Brazil between 2011 and 2019

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of population-based studies of anaphylaxis from low- and middle-income countries. This hampers public health planning and investments and may influence availability of adrenaline auto-injectors.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted the first national population-based study of anaphylaxis hospitalization in Brazil.

METHODS

Descriptive study using routinely reported data to the Brazilian Hospital Information System for the years 2011-2019. Information available is coded based on the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 and covers main cause of hospitalization (primary cause) and any conditions contributing to it (secondary cause).

RESULTS

Over 9 years, we identified 5716 admissions due to anaphylaxis for all causes. The average hospitalization rate related to anaphylaxis was 0.71/100,000 population per year, with a 2.4% (95% CI 1.9%, 2.9%) increase per annum over the study period. Admissions were more frequent among females (52.8%), except for cases due to insect sting. Most admissions occurred in adulthood, from 30 to 59 years (36.3%) but 13.8% in preschool children (0-4 years). There were more young children admitted for food-related anaphylaxis, and more adults admitted for drug/iatrogenic-related anaphylaxis. There were 334 cases (5.8% of admissions) of fatal anaphylaxis over the study period, with increased case fatality rate over time.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This is the first study of anaphylaxis hospital admissions using nation-wide data from a low- or middle-income country. Hospital admissions and fatalities from anaphylaxis in Brazil appear to be increasing.

A Clinical Practice Guideline for the Emergency Management of Anaphylaxis (2020)

Background: For anaphylaxis, a life-threatening allergic reaction, the incidence rate was presented to have increased from the beginning of the 21st century. Underdiagnosis and undertreatment of anaphylaxis are public health concerns. Objective: This guideline aimed to provide high-quality and evidence-based recommendations for the emergency management of anaphylaxis. Method: The panel of health professionals from fifteen medical areas selected twenty-five clinical questions and formulated the recommendations with the supervision of four methodologists. We collected evidence by conducting systematic literature retrieval and using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results: This guideline made twenty-five recommendations that covered the diagnosis, preparation, emergency treatment, and post-emergency management of anaphylaxis. We recommended the use of a set of adapted diagnostic criteria from the American National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network (NIAID/FAAN), and developed a severity grading system that classified anaphylaxis into four grades. We recommended epinephrine as the first-line treatment, with specific doses and routes of administration for different severity of anaphylaxis or different conditions. Proper dosage is critical in the administration of epinephrine, and the monitor is important in the IV administration. Though there was only very low or low-quality evidence supported the use of glucocorticoids and H1 antagonists, we still weakly recommended them as second-line medications. We could not make a well-directed recommendation regarding premedication for preventing anaphylaxis since it is difficult to weigh the concerns and potential effects. Conclusion: For the emergency management of anaphylaxis we conclude that: • NIAID/FAAN diagnostic criteria and the four-tier grading system should be used for the diagnosis • Prompt and proper administration of epinephrine is critical.

The Vista of Application of Specific Anaphylaxis Accurate Diagnosis Based on DNA Single-Nucleotide Methylation Sites

Anaphylaxis has rapidly spread around the world in the last several decades. Environmental factors seem to play a major role, and epigenetic marks, especially DNA methylation, get more attention. We discussed several GEO opening data classifications with TOP 100 specific methylation region values (normalized M-values on line) by machine learning, which are remarkable to classify specific anaphylaxis after monoallergen exposure. Then, we sequenced the whole-genome DNA methylation of six people (3 wormwood monoallergen atopic rhinitis patients and 3 normal-immune people) during the pollen season and analyzed the difference of the single nucleotide and DNA region. The results' divergences were obvious (the differential single nucleotides were mostly distributed in nongene regions but the differential DNA regions of GWAS, on the other hand), which may have caused most single nucleotides to be concealed in the regions' sequences. Therefore, we suggest that we should conduct more “pragmatic” and directly find special single-nucleotide changes after exposure to atopic allergens instead of complex correlativity. It is possible to try to use DNA methylation marks to accurately diagnose anaphylaxis and form a machine learning classification based on the single methylated CpGs.

Food-induced anaphylaxis morbidity: Emergency department and hospitalization data support preventive strategies

BACKGROUND

Anaphylaxis is a recognized public health issue. There is no doubt that food-induced anaphylaxis (FIA) has tremendous impact on the quality of life of patients and their families and increases direct and indirect costs. FIA is associated with increasing rates of emergency department admissions and hospitalizations and implies the risk of death. Morbidity epidemiological data are a key to tailor public health actions to this non-communicable disease. The aim of this article was to review published morbidity epidemiological data relating to FIA and potential risk factors, in order to provide evidence-based recommendations to reduce the risk of severe adverse outcomes.

METHODS

We identified published studies available in PUBMED/MEDLINE (1966-2020), EMBASE (1980-2020) and CINAHL (1982-2020). The systematic review was carried out using MeSH terms related to FIA ED admissions and hospitalizations.

RESULTS

A total of 25 articles were selected, 80% published in the last 5 years. After critical analysis of methodological and clinical characteristics reported in the data selected, we were able to propose preventive strategies.

CONCLUSION

Anaphylaxis is a recognized public health issue. FIA is associated with increasing rates of ED admissions and hospitalizations and imply in risk of death. More than reviewing and critically interpreting the key patterns related to FIA morbidity published data, we proposed strategies in order to promote quality care of patients suffering from FIA. Our World Health Organization Collaborative Center is deeply involved in this process, and we believe that the proposed strategies will inform future healthcare policies on anaphylaxis. The long-term objective would be to improve clinical care and quality of life of patients and their families, and develop risk-stratified, cost-effective preventive measures.

Biologics as treatment options for anaphylaxis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide the most recent insights in the use of biologicals in the treatment of patients with anaphylaxis.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is evidence that biologics such as omalizumab may be safe and effective in preventing anaphylactic reactions in patients at high risk mainly because of severe food allergy or desensitization procedures to food, airborne allergen, drugs, or hymenoptera venom.

SUMMARY

Further knowledge will guide the adoption and implementation of any new therapy including biologics for anaphylaxis according to the stratification of risk/benefits.

Epidemiology and outcome of patients admitted to intensive care after anaphylaxis in France: a retrospective multicentre study

BACKGROUND

Few data are available on patients who have experienced anaphylaxis and were admitted to ICUs. The purpose of this observational study was to describe the epidemiology and management of these patients.

METHODS

This was a multicentre retrospective study carried out in 23 French ICUs between 2012 and 2017. All patients who suffered anaphylaxis and were transferred to an ICU were included. Data were collected using an electronic database after approval by an ethics committee.

RESULTS

A total of 339 patients were included, and 17 (5%) died secondary to anaphylaxis. The main triggers were drugs (77%), contrast media (11%), and food (7%). Epinephrine was administered before ICU admission in 88% of patients with Grade III anaphylaxis and 100% of patients with Grade IV anaphylaxis. Most patients with Grades III and IV anaphylaxes did not receive the recommended dose of i.v. fluid of 30 ml kg^-1 within the first 4 h of ICU admission. The time to epinephrine administration was not statistically different between survivors and non-survivors, but non-survivors received a higher dose of epinephrine (median: 5 [3-10] vs 3 [2-7] mg; P<0.0001), which suggests that some forms of anaphylactic shock may be resistant to epinephrine. In multivariate analysis, only lactate concentration at ICU admission was a predictor of death (odds ratio: 1.47 [1.15-1.88]; P=0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Lactate concentration at ICU admission appeared to be the most reliable criterion for assessing prognosis. Epinephrine is widely used during anaphylaxis, but the volume of fluid resuscitation was consistently lower than recommended.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04290507.

Asthma and anaphylaxis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Both asthma and anaphylaxis are recognized noncommunicable hypersensitivity conditions, which should be correctly diagnosed and treated/controlled in order to decrease avoidable deaths. Nevertheless, their association is not completely clear. We here propose to review the current and new evidence-based data of asthma and anaphylaxis in the view of the new knowledge in the field that can support the quality practice and empower allergists and health professionals in treating symptoms and preventing death.

RECENT FINDINGS

Hypersensitivity life-threatening conditions, such as anaphylaxis and asthma can coexist, mimic or worse each other. Asthma itself is not a strong predictor of more severe anaphylaxis. However, poor asthma control associated with more severe anaphylaxis reactions in all ages. In children, asthma is associated with the severity and recurrences of anaphylactic reactions.

SUMMARY

Although recent data point for the association between asthma and anaphylaxis, we still do not have harmonized evidence to confirm if we are dealing with two independent comorbidities one worsening each other. However, as far as this review is covering two relevant public health problems in the field of allergy, it is mandatory put in place decisions supporting recommendations to better manage the affected patients and reduce the risk.General strategies should include regular notification of this association, optimization of the classification and coding for anaphylaxis and asthma (new ICD 11 allergy codes) in order to harmonize epidemiological stratified data, early diagnosis of asthma in childhood, regular investigation of asthma in cases of anaphylaxis and optimization of the asthma control and lung function for all patients with indication to provocation tests, desensitization or allergen immunotherapy regardless to the trigger. Implementation of these strategies will involve national and international support for ongoing efforts in relationship with networks of centres of excellence to provide personalized management for the most at-risk patients and prevent death.

Global Trends in Anaphylaxis Epidemiology and Clinical Implications

The true global scale of anaphylaxis remains elusive, because many episodes occur in the community without presentation to health care facilities, and most regions have not yet developed reliable systems with which to monitor severe allergic events. The most robust data sets currently available are based largely on hospital admissions, which are limited by inherent issues of misdiagnosis, misclassification, and generalizability. Despite this, there is convincing evidence of a global increase in rates of all-cause anaphylaxis, driven largely by medication- and food-related anaphylaxis. There is no evidence of parallel increases in global all-cause anaphylaxis mortality, with surprisingly similar estimates for case-fatality rates at approximately 0.5% to 1% of fatal outcomes for hospitalizations due to anaphylaxis across several regions. Studying regional patterns of anaphylaxis to certain triggers have provided valuable insights into susceptibility and sensitizing events: for example, the link between the mAb cetuximab and allergy to mammalian meat. Likewise, data from published fatality registers can identify potentially modifiable risk factors that can be used to inform clinical practice, such as prevention of delayed epinephrine administration, correct posturing during anaphylaxis, special attention to populations at risk (such as the elderly on multiple medications), and use of venom immunotherapy in individuals at risk of insect-related anaphylaxis.

Advances in drug allergy, urticaria, angioedema, and anaphylaxis in 2018

Many notable advances in drug allergy, urticaria, angioedema, and anaphylaxis were reported in 2018. Broad-spectrum antibiotic use and, consequently, antibiotic resistance are widespread, and algorithms to clarify β-lactam allergy and optimize antibiotic use were described. Meaningful data emerged on the pathogenesis of delayed drug hypersensitivity reactions. Progress not only in defining biomarkers but also in understanding the effect on quality of life and developing better treatments has been made for patients with chronic idiopathic urticaria. Patients with hereditary angioedema (HAE) have gained additional access to highly efficacious therapies, with associated improvements in quality of life, and some progress was made in our understanding of recurrent angioedema in patients with normal laboratory results. Guidelines have defined clear goals to help providers optimize therapies in patients with HAE. The epidemiology and triggers of anaphylaxis and the mechanisms underlying anaphylaxis were elucidated further. In summary, these disorders (and labels) cause substantial burdens for individual persons and even society. Fortunately, publications in 2018 have informed on advancements in diagnosis and management and have provided better understanding of mechanisms that potentially could yield new therapies. This progress should lead to better health outcomes and paths forward in patients with drug allergy, urticaria, HAE, and anaphylaxis.