Disparities in pediatric anaphylaxis triggers and management across Asia.

BACKGROUND: The epidemiology and management of anaphylaxis are not well-reported in Asia. METHODS: A regional pediatric anaphylaxis registry was established by the Asia-Pacific Research Network for Anaphylaxis (APRA), using standardized protocols for prospective data collection, to evaluate the triggers and management of anaphylaxis in the Asia-Pacific region. Pediatric patients below 18 years presenting with anaphylaxis across four Asian countries/cities (Thailand, Singapore, Hong Kong (HK), and Qingdao) were included. Allergen triggers, symptoms, anaphylaxis severity, and management were compared. RESULTS: Between 2019 and 2022, 721 anaphylaxis episodes in 689 patients from 16 centers were identified. The mean age at anaphylaxis presentation was 7.0 years (SD = 5.2) and 60% were male. Food was the most common trigger (62%), particularly eggs and cow's milk in children aged 3 years and below. In school-age children, nut anaphylaxis was most common in HK and Singapore, but was rare in the other countries, and wheat was the top allergen in Bangkok. Shellfish anaphylaxis was most common in children aged 7-17. Adrenaline was administered in 60% of cases, with 9% given adrenaline before hospital arrival. Adrenaline devices were prescribed in up to 82% of cases in Thailand but none in Qingdao. CONCLUSIONS: The APRA identified food as the main trigger of anaphylaxis in children, but causative allergens differed even across Asian countries. Fewer than two-thirds of cases received adrenaline treatment, pre-hospital adrenaline usage was low, and adrenaline device prescription remained suboptimal. The registry recognizes an unmet need to strengthen anaphylaxis care and research in Asia-Pacific.

Development and validation of assessment tools for food allergy-related knowledge and management confidence.

Background: Given the life-threatening nature of food allergy (FA), it is important to assess the level of knowledge among families with food-allergic patients and their ability to cope with anaphylaxis. This study constructed a FA knowledge questionnaire (FAKQ) and confidence in FA management skills (CIFAMS) questionnaire to assess understanding and attitudes toward FA management in food-allergic families. Methods: Items from literature review and expert panel showing ≥80% content validity index and semantic equivalence were selected for translation into Chinese. These questionnaires underwent feasibility pilot testing followed by cross-sectional validation to assess their psychometric properties of internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and construct validity with a FA quality-of-life questionnaire and discriminant validity. Exploratory factor analysis was performed to confirm their factor structure. Results: A total of 155 subjects (104 patients and 51 parents) completed a 20-item FAKQ and 10-item CIFAMS. Both tools showed acceptable internal consistency in baseline and retest groups. FAKQ and CIFAMS correlated for all subjects (P = .002) and for adults (P = .002), and similarly between CIFAMS and parent-reported FA independent measure (P = .005). Total score of FAKQ was sensitive to within-group differences of patients hospitalized for FA (P < .001). FAKQ and CIFAMS items were factored into 4 and 2 domains, respectively. Subjects scored the lowest on FAKQ items about signs of allergic reaction and CIFAMS items on epinephrine autoinjector use. Conclusion: FAKQ and CIFAMS developed by our group are valid and reliable in assessing knowledge and confidence in FA management in patients and parents. These tools are crucial for formulating education programs and advocacy campaigns for FA.