A rapid review of advanced life support guidelines for cardiac arrest associated with anaphylaxis

BACKGROUND

We conducted a rapid review of current international and Australian advanced life support (ALS) guidelines for cardiac arrest associated with anaphylaxis to (1) assess the variation and (2) determine if a systematic review update of ALS guideline recommendations is warranted.

METHOD

A search and comparison of key recommendations was conducted for major international and Australian clinical guidelines, including member societies and councils of the World Allergy Organisation and the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR). Systematic database searches (Medline, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PROSPERO international register of systematic reviews and ClinicalTrials.gov databases) was conducted to identify existing and in-progress research published on the topic of anaphylaxis and cardiac arrest.

RESULTS

Eight international guidelines were identified from Australia/New Zealand, Europe, United States and Canada, and 5 national guidelines were identified for Australia. There was general consensus across all guidelines for the use of adrenaline, oxygen, patient positioning and glucagon. There was variation across international and Australian guidelines for adrenaline dosing and frequency, antihistamines and corticosteroid recommendations. Most recommendations were based on low-level evidence, and the review of published systematic reviews and clinical trials identified new evidence in the last decade.

CONCLUSIONS

We found significant variation between current ALS guideline recommendations for treating anaphylaxis. While there is no new evidence to suggest a systematic review of guideline recommendations is needed, there may be an opportunity to produce more consistent international guideline recommendations and educational materials.

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.

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.

Sustained ventricular tachycardia caused by anaphylactic reaction

We report a 30-year-old man who developed severe anaphylactic reactions with sustained ventricular tachycardia after eating seafood. This case emphasizes the need for cardiac monitoring in patients with anaphylaxis to identify malignant ventricular arrhythmias early.

Management of anaphylaxis in the ED: a clinical audit

Anaphylaxis is one of the potentially life threatening conditions which present to the ED however there is no universal understanding or definitive diagnostic test to aid ED practitioners in its management. Evidence suggests this leads to confusion for ED staff and may compromise patient care. This paper reviews the existing evidence around the effective diagnosis, emergency treatment and long term management of anaphylaxis. It then describes a clinical audit which was carried out in the ED of a large UK University hospital. A retrospective audit design sampled all patients presenting with anaphylaxis in one calendar year, 146 cases were eligible for inclusion. The audit results were consistent with the existing understanding and showed widespread inconsistencies in the diagnosis and treatment of this patient group. The implications the findings may have for the wider ED nursing community are discussed and we conclude that further research and service development is needed to ensure the best possible care for patients with anaphylaxis.

Adrenaline auto-injectors for the treatment of anaphylaxis with and without cardiovascular collapse in the community

BACKGROUND

Anaphylaxis is a serious hypersensitivity reaction that is rapid in onset and may cause death. Adrenaline (epinephrine) auto-injectors are recommended as the initial, potentially life-saving treatment of choice for anaphylaxis in the community, but they are not universally available and have limitations in their use.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of adrenaline (epinephrine) auto-injectors in relieving respiratory, cardiovascular, and other symptoms during episodes of anaphylaxis that occur in the community.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 1), MEDLINE (Ovid SP) (1950 to January 2012), EMBASE (Ovid SP) (1980 to January 2012 ), CINAHL (EBSCO host) (1982 to January 2012 ), AMED (EBSCO host) (1985 to January 2012 ), LILACS, (BIREME) (1980 to January 2012 ), ISI Web of Science (1950 to January 2012 ). We adapted our search terms for other databases. We also searched websites listing on-going trials: the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the UK Clinical Research Network Study Portfolio, and the meta Register of Controlled Trials; and contacted pharmaceutical companies who manufacture adrenaline auto-injectors in an attempt to locate unpublished material.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing auto-injector administration of adrenaline with any control including no intervention, placebo, or other adrenergic agonists were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed articles for inclusion.

MAIN RESULTS

None of the 1328 studies that were identified satisfied the inclusion criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on this review, we cannot make any new recommendations on the effectiveness of adrenaline auto-injectors for the treatment of anaphylaxis. Although randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials of high methodological quality are necessary to define the true extent of benefits from the administration of adrenaline in anaphylaxis via an auto-injector, such trials are unlikely to be performed in individuals experiencing anaphylaxis because of ethical concerns associated with randomization to placebo. There is, however, a need to consider trials in which, for example, auto-injectors of different doses of adrenaline and differing devices are compared in order to provide greater clarity on the dose and device of choice. Such trials would be practically challenging to conduct. In the absence of appropriate trials, we recommend that adrenaline administration by auto-injector should still be regarded as the most effective first-line treatment for the management of anaphylaxis in the community. In countries where auto-injectors are not commonly used, it may be possible to conduct trials to compare administration of adrenaline via auto-injector with adrenaline administered by syringe and ampoule, or comparing the effectiveness of two different types of auto-injector.

Oral immunotherapy for the treatment of peanut allergy: systematic review of six case series studies

BACKGROUND

Allergy to peanuts is associated with considerable morbidity and, in a minority of cases, mortality. Natural resolution to peanut allergy occurs in only a few cases, hence the need to find effective interventions. Peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) is a potentially important new therapeutic development.

AIMS

To assess the benefits and harms of OIT for peanut allergy.

METHODS

Fourteen databases were searched for published reports and unpublished/in-progress studies. We included studies employing randomised controlled trial (RCT), quasi-RCT, controlled clinical trial, controlled before-and-after, interrupted time series, and case series designs.

RESULTS

Six studies enrolling a total of 85 participants satisfied our inclusion criteria. All studies employed a case series design and were thus judged to be at high risk of bias. Overall, this body of evidence provided suggestive evidence that it is possible for many participants to increase their threshold dose for peanut exposure whilst receiving treatment. Adverse reactions were common and, whilst most of these were relatively minor, some were potentially life-threatening.

CONCLUSIONS

OIT appears to be a potentially promising new therapy for the short- to medium-term management of carefully selected and monitored patients with peanut allergy. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of OIT - particularly over the longer term - need to be clearly established using more robust designs before its clinical use can be contemplated. Given the risk of triggering serious adverse reactions, OIT should not be administered outside clinical trial settings.

Pleuropulmonary Changes Induced by Drugs in Patients with Hematologic Diseases

Patients with hematologic diseases who are being treated with therapy drugs, or receive radiation therapy or blood transfusions may develop a host of potentially fatal infectious and noninfectious pulmonary complications [1]. The increased complexity of multimodality and high-dose treatment regimens with the intended benefit of augmented antineoplastic efficacy and prolonged disease-free survival, the use of a panel of novel drugs to treat malignant and nonmalignant hematologic conditions (e.g., azacytidine, bortezomib, cladribine, dasatinib, fludarabine, imatinib, lenalidomide, rituximab, and thalidomide), total body irradiation (TBI) and hematopietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) have increased the incidence of severe sometimes life-threatening pulmonary complications.

Key components of anaphylaxis management plans: consensus findings from a national electronic Delphi study

Objectives

There is no international consensus on the components of anaphylaxis management plans and responsibility for their design and delivery is contested. We set out to establish consensus among relevant specialist and generalist clinicians on this issue to inform future randomized controlled trials.

Design

A two-round electronic Delphi study completed by a 25-person, multidisciplinary expert panel. Participants scored the importance of a range of statements on anaphylaxis management, identified from a systematic review of the literature, on a five-point scale ranging from ‘very important’ to ‘irrelevant’. Consensus was defined a priori as being achieved if 80% or more of panel members rated a statement as ‘important’ or ‘very important’ after Round 2.

Setting

Primary and secondary care and academic settings in the UK and Ireland.

Participants

Twenty-five medical, nursing and allied health professionals.

Main outcome measures

Consensus on the key components of anaphylaxis management plans.

Results

The response rate was 84% (n = 21) for Round 1 and 96% (n = 24) for Round 2. The key components of emergency care on which consensus was achieved included: awareness of trigger factors (100%); recognition and emergency management of reactions of different severity (100%); and clear information on adrenaline (epinephrine) use (100%). Consensus on longer-term management issues included: clear written guidelines on anaphylaxis management (96%); annual review of plans (87%); and plans that were tailored to individual needs (82%).

Conclusions

This national consensus-building exercise generated widespread agreement that emergency plans need to be simple, clear and generic, making them easy to implement in a crisis. In contrast, long-term plans need to be negotiated between patient/carers and professionals, and tailored to individual needs. The effectiveness of this expert-agreed long-term plan now needs to be evaluated rigorously.