Implementation of anaphylaxis management guidelines

Anaphylaxis management guidelines recommend the use of intramuscular adrenaline in severe reactions, complemented by antihistamines and corticoids; secondary prevention includes allergen avoidance and provision of self-applicable first aid drugs. Gaps between recommendations and their implementation have been reported, but only in confined settings. Hence, we analysed nation-wide data on the management of anaphylaxis, evaluating the implementation of guidelines. Within the anaphylaxis registry, allergy referral centres across Germany, Austria and Switzerland provided data on severe anaphylaxis cases. Based on patient records, details on reaction circumstances, diagnostic workup and treatment were collected via online questionnaire. Report of anaphylaxis through emergency physicians allowed for validation of registry data. 2114 severe anaphylaxis patients from 58 centres were included. 8% received adrenaline intravenously, 4% intramuscularly; 50% antihistamines, and 51% corticoids. Validation data indicated moderate underreporting of first aid drugs in the Registry. 20% received specific instructions at the time of the reaction; 81% were provided with prophylactic first aid drugs at any time. There is a distinct discrepancy between current anaphylaxis management guidelines and their implementation. To improve patient care, a revised approach for medical education and training on the management of severe anaphylaxis is warranted

Exhaled nitric oxide decreases after positive food-allergen challenge

Background: Exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) is a well described marker of airway inflammation in asthma and is also known to increase after chronic exposure to inhaled allergens. It is not known whether monitoring FeNO could be useful during food challenges to detect early or subclinical reactions. Methods: Forty children aged 3 to 16 years undergoing an allergen-food challenge at two centres were prospectively recruited for this study. FeNO was assessed before and repeatedly after the food-challenge. Results: Data were obtained from a total of 53 challenges (16 positive, 37 negative) and were compared between the two groups. Half of the patients with a positive food challenge exhibited clinical upper respiratory symptoms. The FeNO significantly decreased in 7 of 16 patients with a positive challenge test within 60 to 90 minutes after the first symptoms of an allergic reaction. Conclusion: Our results show a significant decrease in FeNO after a positive food challenge suggesting involvement of the lower airways despite absence of clinical and functional changes of lower airways. Prospective blinded studies are needed to confirm these results

Implementation of Anaphylaxis Management Guidelines: A Register-Based Study

BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis management guidelines recommend the use of intramuscular adrenaline in severe reactions, complemented by antihistamines and corticoids; secondary prevention includes allergen avoidance and provision of self-applicable first aid drugs. Gaps between recommendations and their implementation have been reported, but only in confined settings. Hence, we analysed nation-wide data on the management of anaphylaxis, evaluating the implementation of guidelines. METHODS: Within the anaphylaxis registry, allergy referral centres across Germany, Austria and Switzerland provided data on severe anaphylaxis cases. Based on patient records, details on reaction circumstances, diagnostic workup and treatment were collected via online questionnaire. Report of anaphylaxis through emergency physicians allowed for validation of registry data. RESULTS: 2114 severe anaphylaxis patients from 58 centres were included. 8% received adrenaline intravenously, 4% intramuscularly; 50% antihistamines, and 51% corticoids. Validation data indicated moderate underreporting of first aid drugs in the Registry. 20% received specific instructions at the time of the reaction; 81% were provided with prophylactic first aid drugs at any time. CONCLUSION: There is a distinct discrepancy between current anaphylaxis management guidelines and their implementation. To improve patient care, a revised approach for medical education and training on the management of severe anaphylaxis is warranted

Secondary prevention measures in anaphylaxis patients: Data from the anaphylaxis registry

Background: Patients with a history of anaphylaxis are at risk of future anaphylactic reactions. Thus, secondary prevention measures are recommended for these patients to prevent or attenuate the next reaction. Methods: Data from the Anaphylaxis Registry were analyzed to identify secondary prevention measures offered to patients who experienced anaphylaxis. Our analysis included 7788 cases from 10 European countries and Brazil. Results:The secondary prevention measures offered varied across the elicitors. A remarkable discrepancy was observed between prevention measures offered in specialized allergy centers (84% of patients were prescribed adrenaline autoinjectors following EAACI guidelines) and outside the centers: Here, EAACI guideline adherence was only 37%. In the multivariate analysis, the elicitor of the reaction, age of the patient, mastocytosis as comorbidity, severity of the reaction, and reimbursement/availability of the autoinjector influence physician's decision to prescribe one. Conclusions: Based on the low implementation of guidelines concerning secondary prevention measures outside of specialized allergy centers, our findings highlight the importance of these specialized centers and the requirement of better education for primary healthcare and emergency physicians

Peanut‐induced anaphylaxis in children and adolescents: Data from the European Anaphylaxis Registry

Background Peanut allergy has a rising prevalence in high-income countries, affecting 0.5%-1.4% of children. This study aimed to better understand peanut anaphylaxis in comparison to anaphylaxis to other food triggers in European children and adolescents. Methods Data was sourced from the European Anaphylaxis Registry via an online questionnaire, after in-depth review of food-induced anaphylaxis cases in a tertiary paediatric allergy centre. Results 3514 cases of food anaphylaxis were reported between July 2007 - March 2018, 56% in patients younger than 18 years. Peanut anaphylaxis was recorded in 459 children and adolescents (85% of all peanut anaphylaxis cases). Previous reactions (42% vs. 38%; p = .001), asthma comorbidity (47% vs. 35%; p < .001), relevant cofactors (29% vs. 22%; p = .004) and biphasic reactions (10% vs. 4%; p = .001) were more commonly reported in peanut anaphylaxis. Most cases were labelled as severe anaphylaxis (Ring&Messmer grade III 65% vs. 56% and grade IV 1.1% vs. 0.9%; p = .001). Self-administration of intramuscular adrenaline was low (17% vs. 15%), professional adrenaline administration was higher in non-peanut food anaphylaxis (34% vs. 26%; p = .003). Hospitalization was higher for peanut anaphylaxis (67% vs. 54%; p = .004). Conclusions The European Anaphylaxis Registry data confirmed peanut as one of the major causes of severe, potentially life-threatening allergic reactions in European children, with some characteristic features e.g., presence of asthma comorbidity and increased rate of biphasic reactions. Usage of intramuscular adrenaline as first-line treatment is low and needs to be improved. The Registry, designed as the largest database on anaphylaxis, allows continuous assessment of this condition

Peanut‐induced anaphylaxis in children and adolescents: Data from the European Anaphylaxis Registry

Background Peanut allergy has a rising prevalence in high-income countries, affecting 0.5%–1.4% of children. This study aimed to better understand peanut anaphylaxis in comparison to anaphylaxis to other food triggers in European children and adolescents. Methods Data was sourced from the European Anaphylaxis Registry via an online questionnaire, after in-depth review of food-induced anaphylaxis cases in a tertiary paediatric allergy centre. Results 3514 cases of food anaphylaxis were reported between July 2007 - March 2018, 56% in patients younger than 18 years. Peanut anaphylaxis was recorded in 459 children and adolescents (85% of all peanut anaphylaxis cases). Previous reactions (42% vs. 38%; p = .001), asthma comorbidity (47% vs. 35%; p < .001), relevant cofactors (29% vs. 22%; p = .004) and biphasic reactions (10% vs. 4%; p = .001) were more commonly reported in peanut anaphylaxis. Most cases were labelled as severe anaphylaxis (Ring&Messmer grade III 65% vs. 56% and grade IV 1.1% vs. 0.9%; p = .001). Self-administration of intramuscular adrenaline was low (17% vs. 15%), professional adrenaline administration was higher in non-peanut food anaphylaxis (34% vs. 26%; p = .003). Hospitalization was higher for peanut anaphylaxis (67% vs. 54%; p = .004). Conclusions The European Anaphylaxis Registry data confirmed peanut as one of the major causes of severe, potentially life-threatening allergic reactions in European children, with some characteristic features e.g., presence of asthma comorbidity and increased rate of biphasic reactions. Usage of intramuscular adrenaline as first-line treatment is low and needs to be improved. The Registry, designed as the largest database on anaphylaxis, allows continuous assessment of this condition

Triggers and Treatment of Anaphylaxis An Analysis of 4000 Cases From Germany, Austria and Switzerland

Background: Anaphylaxis is the most severe manifestation of a mast cell-dependent immediate reaction and may be fatal. According to data from the Berlin region, its incidence is 2-3 cases per 100 000 persons per year. Methods: We evaluated data from the anaphylaxis registry of the German-speaking countries for 2006-2013 and data from the protocols of the ADAC air rescue service for 2010-2011 to study the triggers, clinical manifestations, and treatment of anaphylaxis. Results: The registry contained data on 4141 patients, and the ADAC air rescue protocols concerned 1123 patients. In the registry, the most common triggers for anaphylaxis were insect venom (n = 2074; 50.1%), foods (n = 1039; 25.1%), and drugs (n = 627; 15.1%). Within these groups, the most common triggers were wasp (n = 1460) and bee stings (n = 412), legumes (n = 241), animal proteins (n = 225), and analgesic drugs (n = 277). Food anaphylaxis was most frequently induced by peanuts, cow milk, and hen's egg in children and by wheat and shellfish in adults. An analysis of the medical emergency cases revealed that epinephrine was given for grade 3 or 4 anaphylaxis to 14.5% and 43.9% (respectively) of the patients in the anaphylaxis registry and to 19% and 78% of the patients in the air rescue protocols. Conclusion: Wasp and bee venom, legumes, animal proteins, and analgesic drugs were the commonest triggers of anaphylaxis. Their relative frequency was age-dependent. Epinephrine was given too rarely, as it is recommended in the guidelines for all cases of grade 2 and above

Patient instruction and specific immunotherapy after severe anaphylaxis, stratified by general characteristics and reaction circumstances.

<p>SIT: Specific immunotherapy, ENT: Ear, nose and throat/Otolaryngology.</p

First time receiving prophylactic first aid drugs following severe anaphylaxis.

<p>First time receiving prophylactic first aid drugs following severe anaphylaxis.</p

Patients in anaphylaxis registry, first aid treatment stratified by general characteristics and reaction circumstances.

<p>Patients in anaphylaxis registry, first aid treatment stratified by general characteristics and reaction circumstances.</p