Patterns of anaphylaxis after diagnostic workup: A follow-up study of 226 patients with suspected anaphylaxis

BACKGROUND

Most published studies on anaphylaxis are retrospective or register based. Data on subsequent diagnostic workup are sparse. We aimed to characterize patients seen with suspected anaphylaxis at the emergency care setting (ECS), after subsequent diagnostic workup at our Allergy Center (AC).

METHODS

Prospective study including patients from the ECS, Odense University Hospital, during May 2013-April 2014. Possible anaphylaxis cases were daily identified based on a broad search profile including history and symptoms in patient records, diagnostic codes and pharmacological treatments. At the AC, all patients were evaluated according to international guidelines.

RESULTS

Among 226 patients with suspected anaphylaxis, the diagnosis was confirmed in 124 (54.9%) after diagnostic workup; 118 of the 124 fulfilled WAO/EAACI criteria of anaphylaxis at the ECS, while six were found among 46 patients with clinical suspicion but not fulfilling the WAO/EAACI criteria at the ECS. The estimated incidence rate of anaphylaxis was 26 cases per 100 000 person-years and the one-year period prevalence was 0.04%. The most common elicitor was drugs (41.1%) followed by venom (27.4%) and food (20.6%). In 13 patients (10.5%), no elicitor could be identified. Mastocytosis was diagnosed in 7.7% of adult patients and was significantly associated with severe anaphylaxis. Atopic diseases were significantly associated only with food-induced anaphylaxis. Cofactors were present in 58.1% and were significantly associated with severe anaphylaxis.

CONCLUSION

A broad search profile in the ECS and subsequent diagnostic workup is important for identification and classification of patients with anaphylaxis. Evaluation of comorbidities and cofactors is important.

Proposed diagnostic algorithm for patients with suspected mastocytosis: a proposal of the European Competence Network on Mastocytosis

Mastocytosis is an emerging differential diagnosis in patients with more or less specific mediator-related symptoms. In some of these patients, typical skin lesions are found and the diagnosis of mastocytosis can be established. In other cases, however, skin lesions are absent, which represents a diagnostic challenge. In the light of this unmet need, we developed a diagnostic algorithm for patients with suspected mastocytosis. In adult patients with typical lesions of mastocytosis in the skin, a bone marrow (BM) biopsy should be considered, regardless of the basal serum tryptase concentration. In adults without skin lesions who suffer from mediator-related or other typical symptoms, the basal tryptase level is an important parameter. In those with a slightly increased tryptase level, additional investigations, including a sensitive KIT mutation analysis of blood leucocytes or measurement of urinary histamine metabolites, may be helpful. In adult patients in whom (i) KIT D816V is detected and/or (ii) the basal serum tryptase level is clearly increased (>25-30 ng/ml) and/or (iii) other clinical or laboratory features suggest the presence of 'occult' mastocytosis or another haematologic neoplasm, a BM investigation is recommended. In the absence of KIT D816V and other signs or symptoms of mastocytosis or another haematopoietic disease, no BM investigation is required, but the clinical course and tryptase levels are monitored in the follow-up. In paediatric patients, a BM investigation is usually not required, even if the tryptase level is increased. Although validation is required, it can be expected that the algorithm proposed herein will facilitate the management of patients with suspected mastocytosis and help avoid unnecessary referrals and investigations.