Management Of Anaphylaxis Research Articles

Critical Care Management of the Patient With Anaphylaxis: A Concise Definitive Review.

Anaphylaxis is a rapidly progressive life-threatening syndrome manifesting as pruritus, urticaria, angioedema, bronchospasm and shock. The goal of this synthetic review is to provide a practical, updated approach to the evaluation and management of this disorder and associated complications. A MEDLINE search was conducted with the MeSH of anaphylaxis, anaphylactic reaction, anaphylactic shock, refractory anaphylaxis and subheadings of diagnosis, classification, epidemiology, complications and pharmacology. The level of evidence supporting an intervention was evaluated based on the availability of randomized studies, expert opinion, case studies, reviews, practice parameters and other databases (including Cochrane). Selected publications describing anaphylaxis, clinical trials, diagnosis, mechanisms, risk factors and management were retrieved (reviews, guidelines, clinical trials, case series) and their bibliographies were also reviewed to identify relevant publications. Data from the relevant publications were reviewed, summarized and the information synthesized. This is a synthetic review and the data obtained from a literature review was utilized to describe current trends in the diagnosis and management of the patient with anaphylaxis with a special emphasis on newer evolving concepts of anaphylaxis endotypes and phenotypes, management of refractory anaphylaxis in the ICU setting and review of therapeutic options for the elderly patient, or the complicated patient with severe cardiorespiratory complications. Most of the recommendations come from practice parameters, case studies or expert opinions, with a dearth of randomized trials to support specific interventions. Anaphylaxis is a rapidly progressive life-threatening disorder. The critical care physician needs to be familiar with the diagnosis, differential diagnosis, evaluation, and management of anaphylaxis. Skilled intervention in ICUs may be required for the patient with complicated, severe, or refractory anaphylaxis.

Fruit-Induced Anaphylaxis: Clinical Presentation and Management

Data are sparse regarding the clinical characteristics and management of fruit-induced anaphylaxis. To assess clinical characteristics and management of patients with fruit-induced anaphylaxis and determine factors associated with severe reactions and epinephrine use. Over 9 years, children and adults presenting with anaphylaxis to seven emergency departments in four Canadian provinces and patients requiring emergency medical services in Outaouais, Quebec were recruited as part of the Cross-Canada Anaphylaxis Registry. A standardized form documenting symptoms, triggers, and management was collected. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with severe reactions and epinephrine treatment in the pre-hospital setting. We recruited 250 patients with fruit-induced anaphylaxis, median age 10.2 years (interquartile range, 3.6-23.4 years); 48.8% were male. The most common fruit triggers were kiwi (15.6%), banana (10.8%), and mango (9.2%). Twenty-three patients reported having eczema (9.3%). Epinephrine use was low in both the pre-hospital setting and the emergency department (28.4% and 40.8%, respectively). Severe reactions to fruit were more likely to occur in spring and among those with eczema (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]= 1.12, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-1.23; and 1.17, 95% CI, 1.03-1.34, respectively). Patients with moderate and severe reactions (aOR= 1.23; 95% CI, 1.06-1.43) and those with a known food allergy (aOR= 1.38; 95% CI, 1.24-1.54) were more likely to be treated with epinephrine in the pre-hospital setting. Severe anaphylaxis to fruit is more frequent in spring. Cross-reactivity to pollens is a potential explanation that should be evaluated further.

Emerging Therapies in Anaphylaxis: Alternatives to Intramuscular Administration of Epinephrine.

Anaphylaxis is a severe, life-threatening, systemic allergic reaction that should be recognized and treated promptly. Intramuscular (IM) epinephrine is the first-line treatment for anaphylaxis and there are no absolute contraindications to its use. Despite its established track record of efficacy and safety, physicians and patients face barriers in the recognition and treatment of anaphylaxis, including the maintenance and appropriate use of epinephrine auto-injectors. This has led to investigation into potential alternatives to IM epinephrine administration in anaphylaxis. This review investigates the current standard of care in the treatment of anaphylaxis, barriers to IM epinephrine use, and alternative therapies under investigation for administration in anaphylaxis. Alternative routes under investigation include intranasal, sublingual, inhaled, and needle-free intramuscular administration of epinephrine. There are currently numerous investigational alternatives to IM epinephrine therapy which could hold promise as future effective treatments in the emergent management of anaphylaxis.

Bridging Knowledge Gaps in Anaphylaxis Management Through a Video-Based Educational Tool

To develop and test the effectiveness of an education tool to help pediatric patients and their families better understand anaphylaxis and its management, and to improve current knowledge and treatment guidelines adherence. From June 2019 to July 2020, 111 pediatric patients with history of food-triggered anaphylaxis who presented to our center were recruited. Consenting families were asked to complete 6 questions related to the triggers, recognition and management of anaphylaxis at the time of presentation to the clinic. Participants were then shown a 5-minute animated video addressing the main knowledge gaps related to the causes, presentation and management of anaphylaxis. At the end of the video, participants were redirected to the same 6 questions to respond again. The scores were recorded in percentage of correct answers (minimum 0.0; maximum 1.0). The mean age of the patients was 5.7 ± 4.5 years (range: 0.5-17.9 years). The majority were males (61 patients; 55.0%). The mean baseline pre-video education score was 0.77 ± 0.16 (range: 0.3-1.0), while the mean follow-up score was 0.81 ± 0.17 (range: 0.3-1.0). This score difference of 0.04 was statistically significant (p=0.001). There were no significant associations between change in scores and age or sex of the participants. Our video teaching method was successful in educating patients and their families to better understand anaphylaxis and its management at the moment of the clinical encounter. The test will be repeated at a 1-year interval to determine their retention of knowledge.

Identification Is Key: Barriers To Regular Usage Of Allergy Identifiers

Prompt administration of epinephrine is paramount in the management of anaphylaxis and allergy identifiers may help promote recognition of this life-threatening condition. However, few pediatric patients with food allergies wear allergy identifiers. We inquired why patients do not wear allergy identifiers and investigated social determinants of health that may impact patients’ usage.

World Allergy Organization Anaphylaxis Guidance 2020

Anaphylaxis is the most severe clinical presentation of acute systemic allergic reactions. The occurrence of anaphylaxis has increased in recent years, and subsequently, there is a need to continue disseminating knowledge on the diagnosis and management, so every healthcare professional is prepared to deal with such emergencies. The rationale of this updated position document is the need to keep guidance aligned with the current state of the art of knowledge in anaphylaxis management. The World Allergy Organization (WAO) anaphylaxis guidelines were published in 2011, and the current guidance adopts their major indications, incorporating some novel changes. Intramuscular epinephrine (adrenaline) continues to be the first-line treatment for anaphylaxis. Nevertheless, its use remains suboptimal. After an anaphylaxis occurrence, patients should be referred to a specialist to assess the potential cause and to be educated on prevention of recurrences and self-management. The limited availability of epinephrine auto-injectors remains a major problem in many countries, as well as their affordability for some patients.

Allergic Reactions Including Anaphylaxis After Receipt of the First Dose of Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine - United States, December 21, 2020-January 10, 2021.

As of January 20, 2021, a total of 24,135,690 cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and 400,306 associated deaths had been reported in the United States (https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_casesper100klast7days). On December 18, 2020, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for Moderna COVID-19 vaccine administered as 2 doses, 1 month apart to prevent COVID-19. On December 19, 2020, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) issued an interim recommendation for use of Moderna COVID-19 vaccine (1). As of January 10, 2021, a reported 4,041,396 first doses of Moderna COVID-19 vaccine had been administered in the United States, and reports of 1,266 (0.03%) adverse events after receipt of Moderna COVID-19 vaccine were submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Among these, 108 case reports were identified for further review as possible cases of severe allergic reaction, including anaphylaxis. Anaphylaxis is a life-threatening allergic reaction that occurs rarely after vaccination, with onset typically within minutes to hours (2). Among these case reports, 10 cases were determined to be anaphylaxis (a rate of 2.5 anaphylaxis cases per million Moderna COVID-19 vaccine doses administered), including nine in persons with a documented history of allergies or allergic reactions, five of whom had a previous history of anaphylaxis. The median interval from vaccine receipt to symptom onset was 7.5 minutes (range=1-45 minutes). Among eight persons with follow-up information available, all had recovered or been discharged home. Among the remaining case reports that were determined not to be anaphylaxis, 47 were assessed to be nonanaphylaxis allergic reactions, and 47 were considered nonallergic adverse events. For four case reports, investigators have been unable to obtain sufficient information to assess the likelihood of anaphylaxis. This report summarizes the clinical and epidemiologic characteristics of case reports of allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis and nonanaphylaxis allergic reactions, after receipt of the first dose of Moderna COVID-19 vaccine during December 21, 2020-January 10, 2021, in the United States. CDC has issued updated interim clinical considerations for use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines currently authorized in the United States (3) and interim considerations for preparing for the potential management of anaphylaxis (4).

Guideline (S2k) on acute therapy and management of anaphylaxis: 2021 update: S2k-Guideline of the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI), the Medical Association of German Allergologists (AeDA), the Society of Pediatric Allergology and Environmental Medicine (GPA), the German Academy of Allergology and Environmental Medicine (DAAU), the German Professional Association of Pediatricians (BVKJ), the Society for Neonatology and Pediatric

Guideline (S2k) on acute therapy and management of anaphylaxis: 2021 update: S2k-Guideline of the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI), the Medical Association of German Allergologists (AeDA), the Society of Pediatric Allergology and Environmental Medicine (GPA), the German Academy of Allergology and Environmental Medicine (DAAU), the German Professional Association of Pediatricians (BVKJ), the Society for Neonatology and Pediatric

Diverse perspectives on recognition and management of anaphylaxis

Identifying anaphylaxis remains a challenge for both clinicians and patients and caregivers. Despite the establishment and validation of diagnostic criteria in acute settings and improved anaphylaxis management in the emergency department, 1 Sampson H.A. Muñoz-Furlong A. Campbell R.L. et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol. Second symposium on the definition and management of anaphylaxis: summary report—Second National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease/Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network symposium. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2006; 117: 391-397 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (1508) Google Scholar underdiagnosis and undertreatment of anaphylaxis continue to be reported. 2 Clark S. Boggs K.M. Balekian D.S. et al. Changes in Emergency Department Concordance with Guidelines for the Management of Food-Induced Anaphylaxis: 1999-2001 versus 2013-2015. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2019; 7: 2262-2269 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (12) Google Scholar These longstanding gaps highlight the continued need to expand the knowledge on anaphylaxis and develop approaches that improve patient outcomes.

Clinical Guideline Highlights for the Hospitalist: Anaphylaxis Management in Adults and Children.

Anaphylaxis-A 2020 practice parameter update, systematic review, and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) analysis RELEASE DATE: April 2020 PRIOR VERSION: Anaphylaxis - a 2019 practice parameter and GRADE analysis DEVELOPER: American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI) and the American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology (ACAAI) FUNDING SOURCE: None TARGET POPULATION: Adult and pediatric patients with anaphylaxis.

Allergic Reactions Including Anaphylaxis After Receipt of the First Dose of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine - United States, December 14-23, 2020.

As of January 3, 2021, a total of 20,346,372 cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and 349,246 associated deaths have been reported in the United States. Long-term sequalae of COVID-19 over the course of a lifetime currently are unknown; however, persistent symptoms and serious complications are being reported among COVID-19 survivors, including persons who initially experience a mild acute illness.* On December 11, 2020, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine to prevent COVID-19, administered as 2 doses separated by 21 days. On December 12, 2020, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) issued an interim recommendation for use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (1); initial doses were recommended for health care personnel and long-term care facility residents (2). As of December 23, 2020, a reported 1,893,360 first doses of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine had been administered in the United States, and reports of 4,393 (0.2%) adverse events after receipt of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine had been submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Among these, 175 case reports were identified for further review as possible cases of severe allergic reaction, including anaphylaxis. Anaphylaxis is a life-threatening allergic reaction that does occur rarely after vaccination, with onset typically within minutes to hours (3). Twenty-one cases were determined to be anaphylaxis (a rate of 11.1 per million doses administered), including 17 in persons with a documented history of allergies or allergic reactions, seven of whom had a history of anaphylaxis. The median interval from vaccine receipt to symptom onset was 13 minutes (range=2-150 minutes). Among 20 persons with follow-up information available, all had recovered or been discharged home. Of the remaining case reports that were determined not to be anaphylaxis, 86 were judged to be nonanaphylaxis allergic reactions, and 61 were considered nonallergic adverse events. Seven case reports were still under investigation. This report summarizes the clinical and epidemiologic characteristics of case reports of allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis and nonanaphylaxis allergic reactions, after receipt of the first dose of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine during December 14-23, 2020, in the United States. CDC has issued updated interim clinical considerations for use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines currently authorized in the United States (4) and interim considerations for preparing for the potential management of anaphylaxis (5). In addition to screening for contraindications and precautions before administering COVID-19 vaccines, vaccine locations should have the necessary supplies available to manage anaphylaxis, should implement postvaccination observation periods, and should immediately treat persons experiencing anaphylaxis signs and symptoms with intramuscular injection of epinephrine (4,5).

Revaccination following suspected vaccine-triggered hypersensitivity reactions: experience of a tertiary care centre.

Suspected hypersensitivity reactions (HRs) associated with vaccines are frequently reported, but confirmed cases of vaccine-triggered HRs are rare. Suspected HRs should be distinguished from actual HRs. The aims of this study are to identify the rate of actual vaccine-triggered hypersensitivity in patients who were referred to the paediatric allergy clinic due to a suspected HR and to explore the rate of revaccination in a real clinical setting. A retrospective study was performed with a group of preschool children who were evaluated by skin and/or provocation tests (PTs) for the suspected HRs following vaccination. A total of 26 paediatric patients (61.5% male; median age 9 months) with a previous history of suspected vaccine-triggered HR were included. In this group, 69.2% and 38.5% of the patients had a pre-existing atopic disease and an immediate reaction (emerging <1 hour after vaccine administration), respectively. Skin rash was the most frequent clinical presentation (96.1%). Vaccine-triggered anaphylaxis was reported in six patients (23.1%). Measles-mumps-rubella was the most frequently suspected vaccine causing HRs. The skin test positivity with the suspected vaccine was 4%, whereas PTs revealed no reaction after reimmunisation in 76.9% (20/26) of the study participants tested. Most incidents of skin rashes after immunisation are not suggestive of actual HRs. The results in the current study showed that the majority of the patients presenting with suspected HRs tolerated revaccination, including those with a previous history of suspected anaphylaxis. Revaccination of these patients is safe with adequate precautions. It is absolutely essential to be equipped for the management of anaphylaxis.

Perioperative anaphylaxis in children: A report from the Wake-Up Safe collaborative.

Anaphylactic reactions to antigens in the perioperative environment are uncommon, but they have a potential to lead to serious morbidity and/or mortality. The incidence of anaphylactic reactions is 1:37000 pediatric anesthetics, and substantially less than the 1:10000 to 1:20000 incidence in the adult population. Neuromuscular blocking agents, latex, and antibiotics are the most frequently cited triggers. To date, there is no comprehensive report on perioperative anaphylactic reactions in children in the United States. Using the Wake-up Safe database, we examined the incidence and consequences of reported perioperative anaphylaxis events. We reviewed the Wake-up Safe database from 2010 to 2017 and identified all reported instances of anaphylaxis. The triggering agent, timing, and location of the registered event, severity of patient harm, and preventability were identified. Narrative review of free-text comments entered by reporting centers was performed to determine presenting symptoms, and interventions required. Type of case was identified from procedure codes provided in mandatory fields. Among 2261749 cases reported to the Wake-up Safe database during the study period, perioperative anaphylactic reactions occurred in 1:36479 (0.003%). Antibiotics, neuromuscular blocking agents, and opioid analgesics were the main triggers. Forty-nine cases (79%) occurred in the operating room, and 13 cases (21%) occurred in off-site locations. Seven (11%) patients required cardiopulmonary resuscitation following the onset of symptoms. Thirty-five (57%) patients were treated with epinephrine or epinephrine plus other medications, whereas 5% were managed only with phenylephrine. Most cases (97%) required escalation of care after the event. Regarding case preventability, 91% of cases were marked as either "likely could not have been prevented" or "almost certainly could not have been prevented." The estimated incidence of anaphylaxis and inciting agents among the pediatric population in this study were consistent with the most recent published studies outside of the United States; however, new findings included need for cardiopulmonary resuscitation in 11% of cases, and estimated fatality of 1.6%. The management of perioperative anaphylaxis could be improved for some cases as epinephrine was not administered, or its administration was delayed. Fewer than half of reported cases had additional investigation to formally identify the responsible agent.

Diagnosis and Management of Rocuronium-induced Perioperative Anaphylaxis

Introduction - Perioperative anaphylaxis is a hypersensitivity reaction that occurs after exposure to drugs used for anaesthesia during a surgical procedure. The most common triggers are neuromuscular blocking agents and antibiotics. Case report - A 71-old man, with a history of anaphylaxis during previous anaesthesia, was scheduled for elective coronary surgery. The clinical signs included skin rash, swelling of the upper part of the body with angioedema of the eyelids and lips, without bronchospasm. Based on the assumption that rocuronium was the most likely causative agent, percutaneous coronary intervention was performed during the same hospitalization. After recovery, he was sent for a prick skin test and intradermal test, where sensitivity to rocuronium and insensitivity to the anaesthetics used were determined. Two months later, he developed an acute myocardial infarction. Chronic total occlusive percutaneous coronary intervention was attempted, but without optimal results, so the patient was prepared for elective surgery. Due to potential further complications during anaesthesia, the medical team decided to send him for a skin allergy test for neuromuscular blocking agents. The only neuromuscular relaxant available was Cisatracurium, and it was tested for sensitivity by intradermal test. The intradermal test showed insensitivity to Cisatracurium and Suxamethonium chloride. Conclusion - Early recognition and management of anaphylaxis is based on clinical presentation. The diagnosis by in-vivo and in-vitro tests is useful to determine the cause of anaphylactic reaction and safe alternatives for future anaesthesia.

Healthcare workers` knowledge level regarding anaphylaxis and usage of epinephrine auto-injectors.

Inadequate practices in diagnosis and management of anaphylaxis in parallel with an increase in its prevalence may cause serious public health problems today. This is the first study aiming to assess the theoretical knowledge of professional and non-professional healthcare workers from different lines of the healthcare service chain about anaphylaxis management, and their practice approaches for epinephrine autoinjectors (EAIs) together. The study included 697 participants comprising physicians, dentists, pharmacists, and school staff. In face-to-face interviews, each participant was asked to fill out the questionnaire forms prepared for assessing their demographic characteristics, experience with a case of anaphylaxis and EAI and theoretical knowledge about the diagnosis and treatment of anaphylaxis, and to demonstrate how to use EAI in practice with trainer device. The rates of 391 physicians, 98 dentists, 102 pharmacists and 105 school staff of knowing the diagnosis criteria of anaphylaxis were 47.6%, 31.6%, 31.1%, 19%, and knowing the first and life-saving treatment of anaphylaxis were 87.2%, 79.6%, 47.6%, 15.2%, respectively. Predictors that affected physicians in knowing the first and life-saving treatment of anaphylaxis were having experience with EAIs [OR:5.5, (%95CI:1.330-23.351, p=0.015)] and a case of anaphylaxis [OR:2.4, (%95CI:1.442-4.020, p=0.001)], and knowing the administration route of epinephrine correctly [OR:1.9, (%95CI:1.191-3.314, p=0.008)]. 31.1% of the participants demonstrated the EAI usage correctly. The EAI usage steps with the most errors were `Place the appropriate injection tip into outer thigh/Press the trigger so it `clicks`` and `Turn the trigger to arrow direction` (60.3% and 34.9%, respectively). Healthcare workers` knowledge level regarding anaphylaxis management and ability to use EAIs correctly are not adequate. That most errors were made in the same steps of EAI usage indicates that the industry should continue to strive for developing the ideal life-saving device.

An Advanced Communication Skills Workshop Using Standardized Patients for Senior Medical Students.

IntroductionMedical students often lack training in advanced communication skills encompassing emotionally fraught situations and those in which an intense emotional response is expected. Such skills are required for clinical situations encountered during residency. We created and evaluated an advanced communication skills workshop (ACSW) using standardized patients for senior medical students. The workshop emphasized communication skills for four scenarios—strong emotion, goals of care, medical error, and palliative care assessment—and utilized formative peer assessment and feedback.MethodsWe created the four ACSW cases with case-specific communication behavior checklists and a common modified Master Interview Rating Scale in a Capstone Course for senior medical students. In groups of three, students rotated through three of four stations. Each student conducted one of the interviews while the other two completed the checklists and provided verbal feedback. We performed one-way analyses of variance on Likert responses and content analysis on open responses on a post-ACSW survey.ResultsNinety-one students completed the ACSW and survey. Students assigned high value to all four ACSW student roles: interviewer, observer, feedback recipient, and feedback provider. Students rated the experience above average to excellent on nearly all survey items. Open-response themes included “liked the opportunity to give or receive peer feedback” (46%) and “found the checklists helpful” (45%).DiscussionFeasible and well received by senior medical students, our ACSW offers an opportunity to practice and observe advanced communication skills and peer feedback. A peer-assisted, formative learning model, the ACSW efficiently addresses a key aspect of residency preparation.

Pilot Project of Special Emergency Medical Service Team for Anaphylaxis in Gangwon-do, Korea: Results from an Online Questionnaire Survey.

BackgroundEarly recognition and prompt intramuscular epinephrine administration are critical for the treatment of anaphylaxis. The special emergency medical service team (SEMST) is a reorganization plan that incorporates first-level emergency medical technicians (EMTs) and nurses from Korea to give the authority to administer epinephrine. This study evaluates the experience of SEMST and aims to investigate further needs in the pre-hospital management of anaphylaxis.MethodsAn online survey of 29 questions on the Gangwon-do 119 EMST was conducted. IBM SPSS Statistics ver. 20.0 (IBM Co., Armonk, NY, USA) and R ver.4.0.3. were used for statistical analysis.ResultsA total of 428 (44.6%) participants responded to the questionnaire, and 55.6% (238/428) experienced anaphylaxis. The common presumed cause was insect sting/animal bites at 84.5% (201/238), followed by food (7.6%, 18/238), and drugs (6.3%, 15/238). The frequency of occurrence was highest for tourist attractions (58.6%, 167/285), followed by homes (31.9%, 91/285) and workplace (3.5%, 10/285). Among 136 medical personnel (31.8%) who were currently active or had been active as the SEMST, 95 (70.0%) experienced anaphylaxis, and 58 (61.1%) used epinephrine, which was significantly lower in the non-SEMST group (n = 36, 25.2%). The biggest difficulty in pre-hospital treatment was the limitation of drug administration authority (23.4%, 22/95). The lack of experience and tricky treatment are the chief difficulties in pediatric anaphylaxis. The percentage of correct answers regarding anaphylaxis awareness was significantly higher in the educated (n = 374) than in the non-educated group (n = 54), both for diagnosis (24.9% vs. 11.1%) and treatment (73.5% vs. 37.0%).ConclusionProper administration of epinephrine is particularly important for pre-hospital anaphylaxis management in rural areas. Expanding SEMST and conducting periodic education using virtual experiences is necessary.

Anaphylaxis: Five Years' Experience in the Emergency Rooms of Five University Hospitals in Korea.

Background: Anaphylaxis is an allergic disease that requires special handling due to its potential fatality. Recent epidemiological data indicate that the incidence of anaphylaxis is rising. However, actual data on the prevalence or causes of anaphylaxis in Korea are limited. Methods: The emergency room attendees diagnosed with anaphylaxis between 2011 and 2015 in five university hospitals were included. Medical records were reviewed retrospectively. Results: During the 5 years, a total of 505 subjects were diagnosed with anaphylaxis. Respiratory presentations were more common in children than in adults, while adults presented more frequently with cardiovascular symptoms. Intraoral angioedema was more often observed in the countryside than in the city. Insect stings/bites were more common in the countryside than in the city. Drugs were much more common in adults than in children. In the countryside, the frequency of anaphylaxis was higher in summer and autumn than in spring and winter. The use of corticosteroids was less common in children than in adults, while children more frequently got treatment with inhaled beta 2 agonist. Conclusions: The principal causes of anaphylaxis in Korean patients were food, drugs, and stings/bites. The cause, clinical features and management of anaphylaxis were significantly different depending on age and region. These real-world data on anaphylaxis could be helpful to deepen that understanding of this condition for physicians and patients.

Management of anaphylaxis in the dental practice: an update.

Anaphylaxis is a severe and potentially life-threatening allergic reaction that can occur in the dental practice. There are a number of dental-related causes including mouthwashes, local anaesthetics, latex and antibiotics. The dental team must be able to respond effectively and manage the life-threatening situation appropriately following Resuscitation Council UK guidelines. The timely administration of adrenaline is life-saving; any delays can lead to a poor outcome. With the current national supply issues with adrenaline auto-injector devices, there is an expectation that GDPs should be competent at drawing up adrenaline from an ampoule and administrating it intramuscularly. The aim of this article is to provide an update on the management of anaphylaxis in the dental practice with particular reference to the procedure for intramuscular injection of adrenaline.

Multidisciplinary Education Improves School Personnel’s Self-Efficacy in Managing Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis

L Polloni, I Baldi, F Lazzarotto. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2020;31(4):380–387 This study evaluates the impact of a multidisciplinary training course on the self-efficacy of teachers and caretakers in management of food allergy (FA) and anaphylaxis at school. 592 Italian teachers and school caretakers volunteered to attend this free course. Caretakers help supervise children during breaks and mealtimes. Most participants were female teachers. Almost three quarters of participants worked in nursery and primary school. This 2-hour multidisciplinary training course was conducted by an allergist, a psychologist, and …