Who needs epinephrine? Anaphylaxis, auto-injectors, 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

Refractory anaphylaxis: a new entity for severe anaphylaxis

Anaphylaxis reactions lie on a spectrum of severity, ranging from relatively mild lower respiratory involvement (depending on the definition of anaphylaxis used) to more severe reactions which are refractory to initial treatment with epinephrine and may rarely cause death. A variety of grading scales exist to characterize severe reactions, but there is a lack of consensus about the optimal approach to define severity. More recently, a new entity called refractory anaphylaxis (RA) has emerged in the literature, characterized by the persistence of anaphylaxis despite initial epinephrine treatment. However, slightly different definitions have been proposed to date. In this Rostrum, we review these definitions as well as data relating to epidemiology, elicitors, risk factors and management of RA. We propose a need to align the different definitions for RA, to improve epidemiological surveillance, advance our understanding of the pathophysiology of RA, and optimize management strategies to reduce morbidity and mortality

Anaphylaxis knowledge gaps and future research priorities: a consensus report

BACKGROUND: Despite a better understanding of the epidemiology, pathogenesis, and management of patients with anaphylaxis, there remain knowledge gaps. Enumerating and prioritizing these gaps would allow limited scientific resources to be directed more effectively. OBJECTIVE: To systematically describe and appraise anaphylaxis knowledge gaps and future research priorities based on their potential impact and feasibility. METHODS: We convened a 25-member multidisciplinary panel of anaphylaxis experts. Panelists formulated knowledge gaps/research priority statements in an anonymous electronic survey. Four anaphylaxis themed writing groups were formed to refine statements: 1) Population Science, 2) Basic & Translational Sciences, 3) Emergency Department Care/Acute Management, and 4) Long-Term Management Strategies & Prevention. Revised statements were incorporated into an anonymous electronic survey and panelists were asked to rate the impact and feasibility of addressing statements on a continuous 0-100 scale. RESULTS: The panel generated 98 statements across the four anaphylaxis themes: Population Science (29), Basic & Translational Sciences (27), Emergency Department Care/Acute Management (24), and Long-Term Management Strategies & Prevention (18). Median scores for impact and feasibility ranged from 50.0-95.0 and from 40.0-90.0. Key statements based on median rating for impact/feasibility included the need to refine anaphylaxis diagnostic criteria, identify reliable diagnostic, predictive, and prognostic anaphylaxis bioassays, develop clinical prediction models to standardize post-anaphylaxis observation periods and hospitalization criteria, and determine immunotherapy best practices. CONCLUSIONS: We identified and systematically appraised anaphylaxis knowledge gaps and future research priorities. This study reinforces the need to harmonize scientific pursuits to optimize the outcomes of patients with and at risk of anaphylaxis

The risk of allergic reaction to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and recommended evaluation and management: a systematic review, meta-analysis, GRADE assessment, and international consensus approach

Concerns for anaphylaxis may hamper SARS-CoV-2 immunization efforts. We convened a multi-disciplinary group of international experts in anaphylaxis comprised of allergy, infectious disease, emergency medicine, and front-line clinicians to systematically develop recommendations regarding SARS-CoV-2 vaccine immediate allergic reactions. Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, the WHO global coronavirus database, and the grey literature (inception-March 19, 2021) were systematically searched. Paired reviewers independently selected studies addressing anaphylaxis after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, polyethylene glycol (PEG) and polysorbate allergy, and accuracy of allergy testing for SARS-CoV-2 vaccine allergy. Random effects models synthesized the data to inform recommendations based on the GRADE approach, agreed upon using a modified Delphi panel. The incidence of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine anaphylaxis is 7.91 cases/million (n=41,000,000 vaccinations, 95%CI 4.02-15.59; 26 studies, moderate certainty), the prevalence of PEG allergy is 103 cases/million (95%CI 88-120; 2 studies, very low certainty), and the sensitivity for PEG skin testing is poor though specificity is high (15 studies, very low certainty). We recommend vaccination over either no vaccination or performing SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/excipient screening allergy testing for individuals without history of a severe allergic reaction to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/excipient, and a shared decision-making paradigm in consultation with an allergy specialist for individuals with a history of a severe allergic reaction to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/excipient. We recommend further research to clarify SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/vaccine excipient testing utility in individuals potentially allergic to SARS-CoV2 vaccines or their excipients

Updated guidance regarding the risk ofAllergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines and recommended evaluation and management: a GRADE assessment, and international consensus approach.

This guidance updates 2021 GRADE recomendations regarding immediate allergic reactions following COVID-19 vaccines and addresses re-vaccinating individuals with 1st dose allergic reactions and allergy testing to determine re-vaccination outcomes. Recent meta-analyses assessed the incidence of severe allergic reactions to initial COVID-19 vaccination, risk of mRNA-COVID-19 re-vaccination after an initial reaction, and diagnostic accuracy of COVID-19 vaccine and vaccine excipient testing in predicting reactions. GRADE methods informed rating the certainty of evidence and strength of recommenations. A modified Delphi panel consisting of experts in allergy, anaphylaxis, vaccinology, infectious diseases, emergency medicine, and primary care from Australia, Canada, Europe, Japan, South Africa, the UK, and the US formed the recommendations. We recommend vaccination for persons without COVID-19 vaccine excipient allergy, and re-vaccination after a prior immediate allergic reaction. We suggest against >15-minute post-vaccination observation. We recommend against mRNA vaccine or excipient skin testing to predict outcomes. We suggest re-vaccination of persons with an immediate allergic reaction to the mRNA vaccine or excipients be performed by a person with vaccine allergy expertise, in a properly equipped setting. We suggest against pre-medication, split-dosing, or special precautions because of a comorbid allergic history