Perspectives on Anaphylaxis Epidemiology in the United States with New Data and Analyses

Anaphylaxis incidence rates and time trends in the United States have been reported using different data sources and selection methods. Larger studies using diagnostic coding have inherent limitations in sensitivity and specificity. In contrast, smaller studies using chart reviews, including reports from single institutions, have better case characterization but suffer from reduced external validity due to their restricted nature. Increasing anaphylaxis hospitalization rates since the 1990s have been reported abroad. However, we report no significant overall increase in the United States. There have been several reports of increasing anaphylaxis rates in northern populations in the United States, especially in younger people, lending support to the suggestion that higher anaphylaxis rates occur at higher latitudes. We analyzed anaphylaxis hospitalization rates in comparably sized northern (New York) and southern (Florida) states and found significant time trend differences based on age. This suggests that the relationship of latitude to anaphylaxis incidence is complex

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