RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Biphasic anaphylaxis despite successful treatment has an incidence of 4-5% based on NIAID/FAAN criteria. Our study aimed to investigate the frequency and predictive factors associated with biphasic reactions within the emergency department (ED) at Siriraj Hospital. METHODS: This observational study assessed medical records of anaphylaxis and anaphylactic shock patients at Siriraj Hospital's ED from January 2015 to December 2019. Of these, a random sample was reviewed and validated by allergists. Telephone interviews were performed to collect more data. Uni- or biphasic response were analyzed descriptively. Prediction modeling was performed. RESULTS: Among 1888 ED anaphylaxis cases, 601 were randomly sampled; 239 patients completing interviews were analyzed. The incidence of biphasic reactions was 7.1% (17/239) of cases. Common triggers of biphasic responses were foods (57.7%), drugs (31%), other known allergens (5.9%). Shellfish, edible insects, and wheat were the leading food triggers. Biphasic responses were significantly associated with history of drug allergy, any allergic disease, allergic rhinitis, number of prior anaphylactic reactions, angioedema, less generalized erythema, less reaction to shellfish, reaction to NSAIDs, and no epinephrine giving at ED visit (all p < 0.1). From a 3-predictor prognostic model including drug/idiopathic reaction, duration from onset to first epinephrine > 60 minutes, and any cutaneous edema/angioedema with an area under the curve of 0.72 (95%CI 0.54, 0.90). CONCLUSION: The incidence of biphasic response was 7.1%. Predictors of biphasic response were drug/idiopathic reac- tion, any cutaneous edema/angioedema, and time from onset to first epinephrine > 60 minutes.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Cutaneous manifestations of chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) are identical to type 1 hypersensitivity reactions. The daily occurrence of rash from occupational allergy could be misinterpreted as CSU exacerbation. OBJECTIVE: We aim to report a nurse with concomitant CSU suffering from latex-induced anaphylaxis. METHODS: Skin tests, specific IgE using ImmunoCAP, and gloves challenge were performed. RESULTS: A 27-year-old nurse with CSU suffered from several episodes of severe urticarial flare. H1-antihistamine up-dosing and oral corticosteroid burst were given. Unfortunately, she developed 3 episodes of anaphylaxis during her routine nursing care work on a medical ward, leading to allergist consultation. She had positive latex-specific IgE (6.86 kUA/L) and positive gloves challenge test. CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant CSU treatment might hinder the recognition of latex allergy by masking or delaying skin manifestations. IgE-mediated allergy should be suspected if there was a change in severity or frequency of previously controlled CSU or the presence of systemic symptoms.