Underuse of Epinephrine for Pediatric Anaphylaxis Victims in the Emergency Department: A Population-based Study

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.

Anaphylaxis management in a French pediatric emergency department: Lessons from the ANA-PED study

BACKGROUND

Anaphylaxis is a serious systemic hypersensitivity reaction that requires immediate recognition and prompt administration of epinephrine/adrenaline. The present study aimed to assess the appropriateness of epinephrine/adrenaline use in children identified as allergic by physicians in the emergency department (ED) at the time of the reaction, and to identify factors that are possibly associated with epinephrine/adrenaline administration, auto-injector prescription, and further referral to an allergist.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cross-sectional study at the pediatric ED of the University Hospital of Montpellier, France. We included all consecutive children who attended the ED between 2016 and 2020 with an allergy-related diagnosis at discharge.

RESULTS

We included 1056 allergy-related visits, including 224 (21.2%) with a diagnosis of anaphylaxis at discharge; only 17.0% of them received an epinephrine/adrenaline injection, and 57.1% consulted an allergist after the acute episode. An auto-injector was prescribed to 63 (28.1%) patients at discharge from the ED. Besides the severity of the clinical presentation, factors associated with a guidelines-based management of the anaphylactic reaction and with an increased administration rate of epinephrine/adrenaline included presence of asthma symptoms and presence of extended skin reactions.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study underlines persistent gaps in the management of pediatric anaphylaxis in ED, focusing on hereby identified levers. By disseminating current knowledge and guidelines on anaphylaxis and allergies, specialists could work together with emergency physicians to establish effective management algorithms and improve anaphylaxis management and care pathways for children experiencing allergic reactions, especially anaphylaxis.

TRAIL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trials, number NCT05112367.

Retrospective review of diphenhydramine vs diphenhydramine plus glucocorticoid for the treatment of allergic reaction in cats

OBJECTIVES

The aims of the present study were to report the outcomes of treating allergic reactions in cats with diphenhydramine vs diphenhydramine plus glucocorticoid and to determine whether signs recurred or additional veterinary intervention was needed in the days after initial treatment.

METHODS

This retrospective study evaluated 73 cats treated for allergic reaction with diphenhydramine alone or in combination with a glucocorticoid at a 24 h emergency and specialty referral veterinary hospital between 1 January 2012 and 31 March 2021.

RESULTS

In total, 44 cats were treated with diphenhydramine alone, and 29 were treated with diphenhydramine plus dexamethasone sodium phosphate. The inciting cause was known or highly suspected in 50 patients. Vaccines were the most common (31 patients), followed by insect envenomation (17 cases). No cat in either group progressed to anaphylaxis. There was no difference in resolution of clinical signs between the groups. Follow-up contact was successfully made with 40/73 cat owners. All 40 cats were alive. Eight had persistent signs. There was no difference in the number of cats with persistent signs between groups. Five cats required additional treatment after the initial emergency visit. There was no difference between the two groups for persistent signs at follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

There was no difference in measured outcomes between cats treated with diphenhydramine alone vs those treated with a glucocorticoid in addition to diphenhydramine in this population. The ideal treatment for allergic reactions is unknown. Based on currently available data in human and veterinary literature, glucocorticoids are not indicated to treat acute allergic reactions. The role of antihistamines as part of a symptomatic supportive treatment plan to shorten the duration of signs is unclear at this time and may be considered.

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.

Who Needs Epinephrine? Anaphylaxis, Autoinjectors, and Parachutes

International guidelines stipulate that intramuscular (IM) epinephrine (adrenaline) is the first-line treatment for anaphylaxis, with an established good safety profile. The availability of epinephrine autoinjectors (EAI) has greatly facilitated the lay administration of IM epinephrine in community settings. However, key areas of uncertainty remain around epinephrine usage. These include variations in prescribing EAI, what symptoms should prompt epinephrine administration, whether emergency medical services (EMS) need to be contacted after administration, and whether epinephrine administered via EAI reduces mortality from anaphylaxis or improves quality of life measures. We provide a balanced commentary on these issues. There is increasing recognition that a poor response to epinephrine, particularly after 2 doses, is a useful marker of severity and the need for urgent escalation. It is likely that patients who respond to a single epinephrine dose do not require EMS activation or emergency department transfer, but data are needed to demonstrate the safety of this approach. Lastly, patients at risk of anaphylaxis must be counseled against over-reliance on EAI alone.

The Timely Administration of Epinephrine and Related Factors in Children with Anaphylaxis

Anaphylaxis is a severe allergic reaction that requires immediate recognition and intervention. This study investigated the factors related to the timely administration of epinephrine in cases of pediatric anaphylaxis. We performed a retrospective chart review of 107 patients who visited a pediatric emergency center with anaphylaxis between 2015 and 2017. In total, 76 patients received epinephrine injections. We analyzed factors including allergy history, anaphylaxis signs and symptoms, allergen sensitization, anaphylaxis triggers, and time of epinephrine injection. Anaphylactic patients who received epinephrine took a median of 50 min to arrive at the hospital, and patients who did not receive epinephrine took a median of 94 min. Epinephrine administration was significantly delayed by more than 60 min from symptom onset in patients <2 years old. Patients presenting with wheezing symptoms or history of bronchial asthma were significantly more likely to receive epinephrine within 60 min of symptoms onset, while patients with food allergen sensitization were significantly more likely to receive epinephrine within 30 min of hospital arrival. Wheezing, history of asthma, age (≥2 years old), food triggers, and food allergen sensitivity were significant factors for the rapid administration of epinephrine. An immediate diagnosis of anaphylaxis and a rapid administration of epinephrine are essential.

Emergency treatment of anaphylaxis: concise clinical guidance

Anaphylaxis is a serious systemic hypersensitivity reaction that is usually rapid in onset and may cause death. It is characterised by the rapid development of airway and/or breathing and/or circulation problems. Intramuscular adrenaline is the most important treatment, although, even in healthcare settings, many patients do not receive this intervention contrary to guidelines. The Resuscitation Council UK published an updated guideline in 2021 with some significant changes in recognition, management, observation and follow-up of patients with anaphylaxis. This is a concise version of the updated guideline.

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.

Wilderness Medical Society Clinical Practice Guidelines on Anaphylaxis

The Wilderness Medical Society convened a panel to review the literature and develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on the treatment of anaphylaxis, with an emphasis on a field-based perspective. The review also included literature regarding the definition, epidemiology, clinical manifestations, and prevention of anaphylaxis. The increasing prevalence of food allergies in the United States raises concern for a corresponding rise in the incidence of anaphylaxis. Intramuscular epinephrine is the primary treatment for anaphylaxis and should be administered before adjunctive treatments such as antihistamines, corticosteroids, and inhaled β agonists. For outdoor schools and organizations, selecting a method to administer epinephrine in the field is based on considerations of cost, safety, and first responder training, as well as federal guidelines and state-specific laws.

Physicians' knowledge and practice concerning diagnosis and management of anaphylaxis: The situation in Egypt

Introduction

Early recognition of an anaphylaxis event is crucial for instituting lifesaving management. We sought to explore knowledge and practice towards anaphylaxis in a sample of physicians from ten Egyptian governorates.

Methods

An eighteen question-based questionnaire was developed by expert allergists to evaluate the knowledge and practice towards anaphylaxis, based on the World Allergy Organization guidelines for the assessment and management of anaphylaxis. The questionnaires were distributed, and the answered forms collected via emails, and data were tabulated, and analysed.

Results

In this cross-sectional study, a total of 242 physicians completed the survey (183 (75.6%) paediatricians, 32 (13.2%) internists, 22 (9.1%) intensivists and five (2.1%) anaesthetists). Only 91 participants (37.6%) identified all the four proposed anaphylaxis clinical scenarios while 70, 45 and 36 identified three, two and one scenario, respectively. Loss of consciousness and abdominal symptoms were not recognised as possible presentations of anaphylaxis by 64.5% and 80.2% of the participants, respectively. Epinephrine was considered the first line treatment by 98 (40.5%), corticosteroids by 77 (31.8%) and antihistamines by 25 (10.3%). 75 (31%) responders identified the right dose of epinephrine while 119 (49.2%) identified the proper route. Concerning practice, 83 physicians (39.2%) used epinephrine for all cases of anaphylaxis, 88 (41.5%) used it for refractory cases only whereas 41 (19.3%) did not use epinephrine at all.

Discussion

Our survey shows that the knowledge of Egyptian physicians and their practice towards anaphylaxis are still inadequate. The current situation reinforces the need to disseminate and encourage the adoption of the international guidelines for anaphylaxis diagnosis and treatment.

Recent update on the management of anaphylaxis

Anaphylaxis is a life-threatening systemic allergic reaction presenting various clinical manifestations. Its prevalence has increased in almost all age groups and both sexes. Food, venom, and drugs are major causes in both children and adults; a higher prevalence of food-induced anaphylaxis is noted in children, while a higher prevalence of drug-induced anaphylaxis is noted in adults. The pathogenic mechanism is mediated by immunologic and nonimmunologic mechanisms, where mast cells and basophils are key cells that release mediators. A diagnosis of anaphylaxis is mainly based on clinical symptoms and physical findings; however, an increased serum tryptase level is a useful biomarker. Epinephrine is the first-line drug to treat acute symptoms, and an epinephrine auto-injector should be prescribed for each patient. Antihistamines and systemic corticosteroids are used to relieve symptoms. This review updates current issues in the management of anaphylaxis as well as the new guidelines for proper diagnosis and treatment.

Increase in Epinephrine Administration for Food-Induced Anaphylaxis in Pediatric Emergency Departments from 2007 to 2015

BACKGROUND

Epinephrine is underused in the treatment of anaphylaxis, despite being the first-line treatment, which reflects the challenges in diagnosing anaphylaxis and understanding the appropriate therapy.

OBJECTIVE

To describe trends in epinephrine administration for patients visiting the pediatric emergency department (ED) with food-induced anaphylaxis (FIA) from 2007 to 2015.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included children 0 to 17 years of age with FIA from 46 children's hospitals in the United States between 2007 and 2015. Multivariable regression was used to identify factors associated with epinephrine administration.

RESULTS

A total of 15,318 cases of FIA cases were seen in the pediatric EDs from 2007 to 2015. Among these ED visits, 7,600 (49.6%) had at least 1 dose of epinephrine administered in the ED. Administration of epinephrine for anaphylaxis in the pediatric ED increased by 4% each year (odds ratio [OR] 1.04; 95% CI 1.03-1.05; P < .001). Sensitivity analysis by census region demonstrated that hospitals in the Northeast and the West were associated with an increase in epinephrine administration per year (Northeast OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.13-1.22, P < .001; West OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.10-1.18, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Epinephrine administration for FIA in the pediatric ED has increased over time, reflecting the need for continued advocacy for the optimal management of FIA. Further research is warranted to identify optimal strategies for proper recognition and early administration of epinephrine for anaphylaxis.

[Paediatric Life Support]

The European Resuscitation Council (ERC) Paediatric Life Support (PLS) guidelines are based on the 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Science with Treatment Recommendations of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR). This section provides guidelines on the management of critically ill or injured infants, children and adolescents before, during and after respiratory/cardiac arrest.

Evidence update for the treatment of anaphylaxis

The Resuscitation Council UK has updated its Guideline for healthcare providers on the Emergency treatment of anaphylaxis. As part of this process, an evidence review was undertaken by the Guideline Working Group, using an internationally-accepted approach for adoption, adaptation, and de novo guideline development based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence to decision (EtD) framework, referred to as GRADE-ADOLOPMENT. A number of significant changes have been made, which will be reflected in the updated Guideline. These include: emphasis on repeating intramuscular adrenaline doses after 5 min if symptoms of anaphylaxis do not resolve; corticosteroids (e.g. hydrocortisone) no longer being routinely recommended for the emergency treatment of anaphylaxis; interventions for reactions which are refractory to initial treatment with adrenaline; a recommendation against the use of antihistamines for the acute management of anaphylaxis; and guidance relating to the duration of observation following anaphylaxis, and timing of discharge.

European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2021: Paediatric Life Support

These European Resuscitation Council Paediatric Life Support (PLS) guidelines, are based on the 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Science with Treatment Recommendations. This section provides guidelines on the management of critically ill infants and children, before, during and after cardiac arrest.

Physicians' knowledge regarding epinephrine underuse in anaphylaxis

BACKGROUND

Anaphylaxis is a life-threating hypersensitivity reaction. Epinephrine underuse in patients with anaphylaxis could lead to poor outcomes. There is evidence that the epinephrine use in such patients could be as low as 8%.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the percentage of physicians who know that epinephrine is the first-line treatment in anaphylaxis. The secondary objective was to assess knowledge gaps regarding anaphylaxis diagnosis and treatment that could lead to epinephrine underuse.

METHODS

We performed an online survey for physicians in Mexico City, using a 10-item questionnaire assessing anaphylaxis knowledge. We obtained measures of central tendency for statistical analysis, such as frequency, 95% confidence interval, as well as the chi-square test for comparing the groups.

RESULTS

A total of 196 surveys were considered for analysis. Of all the participants, 96.44% were able to correctly diagnose an anaphylaxis case with cutaneous, respiratory, and cardiovascular symptoms. Fifty-two percent correctly diagnosed anaphylaxis without cutaneous symptoms. The 72.4% of the respondents chose epinephrine as the first-line treatment, 42.3% correctly answered that there is no absolute contraindication to giving epinephrine, and 20.9% ignored whether there was any contraindication for its use. Only 38.3% of participants answered that during discharge they would prescribe an autoinjector. Regarding the administration route, 63.4% answered that the first dose of epinephrine is applied intramuscularly and 50% of the participants chose the correct dose of epinephrine. Only 2.6% of the participants answered all 10 questions correctly.

CONCLUSION

There is still some difficulty recognizing anaphylaxis without cutaneous symptoms. Even though two-thirds of physicians identified that epinephrine is the treatment of choice, only 49.5% would have used intramuscular epinephrine as first-line treatment. We found a low percentage of epinephrine ampule prescription and knowledge of the correct dose. These findings can account for epinephrine underuse when dealing with anaphylaxis in the real clinical practice.

Vaccine-related Anaphylaxis Cases Confirmed by KCDC from 2001-2016

BACKGROUND

A national immunization program (NIP) to prevent disease and reduce mortality from vaccine preventable diseases (VPD) is very important.

METHODS

We analyzed only the anaphylaxis cases that occurred between 2001 and 2016 that Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC) determined had a definite causal relationship with a vaccine. The clinical symptoms were assessed according to the Brighton Collaboration case definition (BCCD) level.

RESULTS

During the period, there were 13 cases of vaccine-related anaphylaxis. The median age was 9 years (range, 1 month to 59 years). The incidence of anaphylaxis per million doses was 0.090 in 2005, 0.079 in 2012, 0.071 in 2013, 0.188 in 2015, and 0.036 in 2016. Of those cases, 23.1% were influenza vaccines, and 76.9% were BCCD level 2. Epinephrine was used in 46.2%.

CONCLUSION

Vaccine-related anaphylaxis seems to have been very rare in the past, but health care professionals must always be aware of anaphylaxis.

Factors contributing to underuse of epinephrine autoinjectors in pediatric patients with food allergy

BACKGROUND

Epinephrine autoinjectors (EAs) are the standard of care for severe food allergic reactions, although they are frequently underused or misused.

OBJECTIVE

To understand the factors associated with underuse of EA by caregivers of pediatric patients with food allergy.

METHODS

A survey was administered to 200 caregivers of pediatric patients with food allergies to assess most severe lifetime allergic reaction, EA education, and use and factors associated with incorrect use or underutilization.

RESULTS

A total of 164 surveys were completed; of which 118 (72%) of lifetime most severe reactions warranted EA use, but the EA was used in only 45 (38.1%). Reasons caregivers indicated for not administering the EA included the following: reactions did not seem severe enough; it was the patient's first allergic reaction; use of other medication; and fear of using EA.

CONCLUSION

Multiple factors contribute to underuse of EA in the treatment of severe allergic reactions. Results from this study highlight the need for continuous EA education in caregivers of and pediatric patients with food allergies, using a multipronged approach targeting clear symptom recognition and alleviation of fear of EA use.