Corticosteroids in management of anaphylaxis; a systematic review of evidence.

SUMMARY: As anaphylaxis is a medical emergency, there are no randomized controlled clinical trials on its emergency management. Therefore, current guidelines are mostly based on data from observational studies, animal and laboratory studies. Although epinephrine is the mainstay of recommended treatment, corticosteroids are also frequently used. This review evaluates the evidence on the use of corticosteroids in emergency management of anaphylaxis from published human and animal or laboratories studies. Thirty original research papers were found with 22 human studies and eight animal or laboratory studies. The average rate of corticosteroid use in emergency treatment was 67.99% (range 48% to 100%). Corticosteroids appear to reduce the length of hospital stay, but did not reduce revisits to the emergency department. There was no consensus on whether corticosteroids reduce biphasic anaphylactic reactions. None of the human studies had sufficient data to compare the response to treatment in different treatment groups (i.e. corticosteroids, epinephrine, antihistamines). Animal studies demonstrated that corticosteroids act through multiple mechanisms. These modulate gene expression, with effects becoming evident 4 to 24 hours after administration. A much quicker response has been detected within 5 to 30 minutes, through blockade of signal activation of glucocorticoid receptors independent of their genomic effects. Therefore, we conclude that there is no compelling evidence to support or oppose the use of corticosteroid in emergency treatment of anaphylaxis. However, based on the available data, it appears to be beneficial and there was no evidence of adverse outcomes related to the use of corticosteroids in emergency treatment of anaphylaxis.

WHO/INRUD Core drug use indicators and commonly prescribed medicines: a National Survey from Sri Lanka.

BACKGROUND: Identification of internationally comparable indicators of medicines use are important for a country to implement strategies and regulations to improve usage of medicines. Sri Lanka established a new National Medicines Regulatory Authority in 2015 and this survey evaluated the medication use indicators in Sri Lanka, according to the International Network on Rational Use of Drugs (INRUD), prior to its implementation. METHODS: This descriptive-cross-sectional study was conducted in 80 pharmacies, representing all 25 districts of the country. Three pharmacy categories were included; privately owned pharmacies, 'Rajya Osusala' pharmacies operated by the State Pharmaceuticals Corporation (SPC) of Sri Lanka and SPC Franchisee pharmacy outlets. Selection of pharmacies from respective districts were done proportionate to estimated population. Data were collected to identify WHO/INRUD core drug use indicators and the commonly prescribed medicines. RESULTS: Total of 2328 prescriptions were included ('Rajya Osusala 559; SPC Franchise 711; private pharmacies 1058). Altogether 7,255 medicines were prescribed, and the 3 most commonly prescribed medicines were atorvastatin, losartan and metformin. Average number of medicines per encounter was 3.1±1.9 (Median: 3; range 1-12) Highest average number of medicines per encounter was reported in prescriptions received at 'Rajya Osusala' pharmacies (3.6±2.2), significantly higher than in other categories of pharmacies (p<0.001). Percentage of medicines prescribed by generic name was only 35.5%, highest at the 'Rajya Osusala' pharmacies (40.6%), significantly higher than other categories of pharmacies. The overall percentage of medicines prescribed from essential medicine list (EML) was 68.8%, without any significant variation between different categories of pharmacies. The percentage of medicines actually dispensed and accurately labelled were 92.4 and 98.5% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The average number of medicines per encounter was higher than the WHO recommended value but the usage of antibiotic and injectable drugs were within recommended standards. Generic prescribing, was very much lower. The EML prescribing, labelling and percentage dispensed medicines fared much better although lower than the WHO recommended 100% compliance. This island wide study has provided national wide data before the implementation of key changes in regulation of medicines in Sri Lanka and a repeat survey will be useful to identify impact of the new legislations.