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

Anaphylaxis in Elderly Patients-Data From the European Anaphylaxis Registry

Background: Elicitors and symptoms of anaphylaxis are age dependent. However, little is known about typical features of anaphylaxis in patients aged 65 years or more. Methods: The data from the Network for Online Registration of Anaphylaxis (NORA) considering patients aged ≥65 (elderly) in comparison to data from adults (18–64 years) regarding elicitors, symptoms, comorbidities, and treatment measures were analyzed. Results: We identified 1,123 elderly anaphylactic patients. Insect venoms were the most frequent elicitor in this group (p < 0.001), followed by drugs like analgesics and antibiotics. Food allergens elicited less frequently anaphylaxis (p < 0.001). Skin symptoms occurred less frequently in elderly patients (77%, p < 0.001). The clinical symptoms were more severe in the elderly (51% experiencing grade III/IV reactions), in particular when skin symptoms (p < 0.001) were absent. Most strikingly, a loss of consciousness (33%, p < 0.001) and preexisting cardiovascular comorbidity (59%, p < 0.001) were more prevalent in the elderly. Finally, adrenaline was used in 30% of the elderly (vs. 26% in the comparator group, p < 0.001) and hospitalization was more often required (60 vs. 50%, p < 0.001). Discussion and Conclusion: Anaphylaxis in the elderly is often caused by insect venoms and drugs. These patients suffer more often from cardiovascular symptoms, receive more frequently adrenaline and require more often hospitalization. The data indicate that anaphylaxis in the elderly tends to be more frequently life threatening and patients require intensified medical intervention. The data support the need to recognize anaphylaxis in this patient group, which is prone to be at a higher risk for a fatal outcome

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

Affinity for self antigen selects T_reg cells with distinct functional properties

The manner in which regulatory T cells (Treg cells) control lymphocyte homeostasis is not fully understood. We identified two Treg cell populations with differing degrees of self-reactivity and distinct regulatory functions. We found that GITR(hi)PD-1(hi)CD25(hi) (Triple(hi)) Treg cells were highly self-reactive and controlled lympho-proliferation in peripheral lymph nodes. GITR(lo)PD-1(lo)CD25(lo) (Triple(lo)) Treg cells were less self-reactive and limited the development of colitis by promoting the conversion of CD4(+) Tconv cells into induced Treg cells (iTreg cells). Although Foxp3-deficient (Scurfy) mice lacked Treg cells, they contained Triple(hi)-like and Triple(lo)-like CD4(+) T cells zsuper< T cells infiltrated the skin, whereas Scurfy Triple(lo)CD4(+) T cells induced colitis and wasting disease. These findings indicate that the affinity of the T cell antigen receptor for self antigen drives the differentiation of Treg cells into distinct subsets with non-overlapping regulatory activities

SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging: long-term prognostic value in diabetic patients with and without coronary artery disease.

AIM: To determine the long-term prognostic value of SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) for the occurrence of cardiovascular events in diabetic patients. PATIENTS, METHODS: SPECT MPI of 210 consecutive Caucasian diabetic patients were analysed using Kaplan-Meier event-free survival curves and independent predictors were determined by Cox multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Follow-up was complete in 200 (95%) patients with a median period of 3.0 years (0.8-5.0). The population was composed of 114 (57%) men, age 65 +/- 10 years, 181 (90.5%) type 2 diabetes mellitus, 50 (25%) with a history of coronary artery disease (CAD) and 98 (49%) presenting chest pain prior to MPI. The prevalence of abnormal MPI was 58%. Patients with a normal MPI had neither cardiac death, nor myocardial infarction, independently of a history of coronary artery disease or chest pain. Among the independent predictors of cardiac death and myocardial infarction, the strongest was abnormal MPI (p &lt; 0.0001), followed by history of CAD (Hazard Ratio (HR) = 15.9; p = 0.0001), diabetic retinopathy (HR = 10.0; p = 0.001) and inability to exercise (HR = 7.7; p = 0.02). Patients with normal MPI had a low revascularisation rate of 2.4% during the follow-up period. Compared to normal MPI, cardiovascular events increased 5.2 fold for reversible defects, 8.5 fold for fixed defects and 20.1 fold for the association of both defects. CONCLUSION: Diabetic patients with normal MPI had an excellent prognosis independently of history of CAD. On the opposite, an abnormal MPI led to a &gt;5-fold increase in cardiovascular events. This emphasizes the value of SPECT MPI in predicting and risk-stratifying cardiovascular events in diabetic patients

Epinephrine in Severe Allergic Reactions: The European Anaphylaxis Register

Background: Current guidelines recommend intramuscular administration of epinephrine as the first-line drug for the emergency treatment of severe allergic reactions (anaphylaxis), but no randomized trial evidence supports this consensus. Objective: We aimed to assess anaphylaxis treatment practices over 10 years, covering several European regions, all allergen sources, and all age groups. Methods: The European Anaphylaxis Register tracks elicitors, symptoms, emergency treatment, diagnostic workups, and long-term counseling for anaphylaxis incidents through web-based data entry from tertiary allergy specialists, covering information from the emergency respondent, patient, tertiary referral, and laboratory/clinical test results. Results: We analyzed 10,184 anaphylaxis incidents. In total, 27.1% of patients treated by a health professional received epinephrine and, in total, 10.5% received a second dose. Successful administration was less frequent in German-speaking countries (minimum 19.6%) than in Greece, France, and Spain (maximum 66.7%). Over the last decade, epinephrine administration from a health professional almost doubled to reach 30.6% in 2015-2017, half of which was applied intramuscularly. A total of 14.7% of lay- or self-treated cases were treated with an autoinjector. Of those without treatment, 22.4% carried a device for administration. No change in successful administration by lay emergency respondents was found over the last 10 years. Of the reaction and patient characteristics analyzed, only clinical severity considerably influenced the likelihood of receiving epinephrine, with 66.9% of successful administrations in near-fatal (grade IV) reactions. Conclusions: Despite clear recommendations, only a small proportion of anaphylaxis incidents are treated with epinephrine. We demonstrated a slight increase in treated patients when handled by professionals, but stagnation in lay- or self-treated anaphylaxis. The reaction circumstances, the respondent&apos;s professional background, and patient characteristics did not explain which reactions were treated. © 2018 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma &amp; Immunolog