The Need for Required Stock Epinephrine in All Schools: A Work Group Report of the AAAAI Adverse Reactions to Foods Committee.

Epinephrine is the first line of treatment for anaphylaxis that can occur outside a medical setting in community environments such as schools. Patients with diagnosed IgE-mediated food allergy at risk of anaphylaxis are prescribed self-injectable epinephrine and given an individualized anaphylaxis action plan. As students, such patients/families provide their school with completed medication forms, a copy of their anaphylaxis plan, and additional student-specific epinephrine. However, students approved to self-carry prescribed self-injectable epinephrine may forget to do so or have other reasons for lacking prescribed epinephrine such as familial inability to fill the prescription due to cost or other access barriers. Undiagnosed students lacking prescribed epinephrine may also experience anaphylaxis at school. The presence of non-student-specific school stock epinephrine allows school nurses and other staff the ability to treat anaphylaxis onsite while awaiting Emergency Medical Services. Notably, not all states legally mandate K-12 schools to stock epinephrine. In states with laws only voluntarily allowing schools to stock epinephrine, it provides the ability to opt-out. Herein, we present a comprehensive review of barriers to school stock epinephrine, related improvement strategies, and workgroup recommendations supporting the need for mandated stock epinephrine in all schools in every state. Proposed solutions include ensuring legal immunity from liability for prescribers; advocacy for legislation to stabilize cost of self-injectable epinephrine; educational initiatives to schools promoting merits and safety of epinephrine and related anaphylaxis training; and partnerships between patient advocacy groups, medical and nursing organizations, public health departments and other health professionals to promote laws and district policies addressing need for stock epinephrine and school nurses to train and supervise school staff.

Epinephrine Auto-Injector Prescription and Use: A Retrospective Analysis and Clinical Risk Assessment of Adult Patients Sensitized to Lipid Transfer Protein.

Lipid transfer proteins (LTPs) are widely widespread plant food allergens which represents the main cause of food allergy in adults living in the Mediterranean basin. The purpose of this study was to investigate in LTP patients the actual use of prescribed epinephrine auto-injector and appropriateness of its prescription. In addition, we investigated in these patients: (1) occurrence of new food reaction in the following three years after to diagnosis; (2) need and number of access to emergency services; (3) presence of possible predictive factors to further food reactions. One-hundred sixty-five adult patients sensitized to LTPs have been included. During follow-up, we recorded 68 further reactions, most of them (77.9%) characterized by local symptoms; rarely the patients required an emergency-department visits (16.1%) and only one patient (1.7%) used the epinephrine auto-injector. The patients with a previous history of anaphylaxis at baseline turned back to access to emergency services also during the follow-up (p = 0.006). The majority of patients with recorded systemic reactions (p = 0.004) and treated in an emergency room (p = 0.028) did not have any co-factor-enhanced at diagnosis. We noted an association between platanus pollen sensitization and severity of further reactions during the follow-up (p = 0.026). Epinephrine auto-injector were prescribed to 108/165 patients (65.5%) with an over-prescription rate of 25%. The unforeseeable clinical presentation of LTP allergic reactions and the eventual role played by the cofactor make necessary schedule a follow-up to monitor the patients over time and to assess the actual use of epinephrine auto injectors prescribed.

Acute At-Home Management of Anaphylaxis: 911: What Is the Emergency?

The appropriate at-home management of anaphylaxis begins with patient education on recognition and treatment, especially when and how to use epinephrine. Delayed administration of epinephrine as well as having severe symptoms and needing multiple doses of epinephrine to treat symptoms are risk factors for biphasic anaphylaxis. The successful implementation of at-home management of anaphylaxis requires appropriate patient selection and an algorithmic approach that recommends activation of emergency medical services (EMS) when the patient does not adequately respond to at-home administration of epinephrine or there are extenuating patient-related circumstances. Fortunately, approximately 98% of anaphylactic episodes respond to 2 or fewer doses of epinephrine, the standard prescription used for epinephrine autoinjectors; fatal anaphylaxis is very rare, as low as 0.002 deaths/million person-years; and biphasic reactions are uncommon (∼5%), and only extremely rarely lethal. Thus, most common concerns leading to recommended EMS activation and emergency department visits after epinephrine administration are generally unsubstantiated. Furthermore, emergency department visits do not always lead to better treatment and drive health care costs higher. Open communications with patients and families regarding risks and benefits of at-home management and observation versus EMS activation and emergency department evaluation after epinephrine administration for anaphylaxis are essential. However, we believe the data indicate that it is time to reconsider the often used and taught approach that recommends EMS activation whenever epinephrine is used.

Evaluation of adrenaline auto-injector prescription profiles: A population-based, retrospective cohort study within the National Insurance Claims Database of Japan.

BACKGROUND: Adrenaline is the first-line medication for managing anaphylaxis. A better understanding of prescription trends for adrenaline auto-injectors (AAIs) is important to improving patient care as well as information on health education interventions and medical guidelines. However, it has been difficult to gather comprehensive data in a sustainable manner. Thus, we aimed to investigate trends in AAI prescriptions in Japan. METHODS: We searched the National Database of Health Insurance Claims and Specific Health Checkups of Japan (NDB), a unique and comprehensive database of health insurance claims, and investigated prescriptions for AAIs for all ages (April 2017 to March 2018). We assessed the annual number of prescriptions per person as well as prescription rates per 100,000 population per year by age, sex, and geographic region. RESULTS: A total of 88,039 subjects (56,109 males, 31,930 female) and 116,758 devices (1.33 AAIs per patient per year) were prescribed AAIs at least once a year for all ages. The prescription rate for AAIs was 69.5 per 100,000 population-years. Patients aged 0-9 years were prescribed AAIs at the rate of 278.9 per 100,000 population-years. Patients aged 0-19 years were 6.4 times more likely to be prescribed AAIs than those over 20 years of age. Males were more frequently prescribed AAIs than females in all age groups, except for those aged 20-24 years. We also evaluated differences in prescription rates by geographic region. CONCLUSIONS: This comprehensive evaluation revealed trends in AAI prescriptions, thus helping develop preventive strategies with respect to anaphylaxis in Japan.

Prevalence, Management, and Anaphylaxis Risk of Cold Urticaria: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cold urticaria is a subtype of chronic inducible urticaria (CIndU) associated with significant morbidity and a risk for anaphylaxis. Few studies have assessed the prevalence, management, and prevalence of associated anaphylaxis of cold urticaria. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the prevalence of cold urticaria among CIndU and chronic urticaria (CU) cases, to assess the management of cold urticaria, and to determine the prevalence of associated anaphylaxis. METHODS: We searched PubMed and EMBASE for studies pertaining to cold urticaria and/or CIndU published in the past 10 years. We conducted meta-analyses to evaluate the prevalence of cold urticaria among CIndU and CU cases, the management of cold urticaria with H1-antihistamines and omalizumab, and the prevalence of associated anaphylaxis. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies were included in the systematic review and 14 in the meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of cold urticaria among patients with CU and CIndU was 7.62% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.45% to 15.99%; I2 = 98%) and 26.10% (95% CI, 14.17% to 43.05%; I2 = 97%), respectively. Cold urticaria was managed by H1-antihistamines in 95.67% (95% CI, 92.47% to 97.54%; I2 = 38%) of patients and omalizumab in 5.95% (95% CI , 2.55% to 13.27%; I2 = 83%) of patients. The pooled prevalence of anaphylaxis among patients with cold urticaria was 21.49% (95% CI, 15.79% to 28.54%; I2 = 69%). CONCLUSIONS: Cold urticaria constitutes an appreciable proportion of CIndU and CU cases and is predominantly managed with H1-antihistamines; few patients receive omalizumab. Anaphylaxis is common, and an epinephrine autoinjector prescription may be considered.

Assessment of epinephrine sublingual stability and permeability pathways to enhance its permeability for the treatment of anaphylaxis.

Prompt epinephrine (Epi) injection using auto-injectors is the initial life-saving out-of-hospital treatment for anaphylaxis. However, patients and healthcare providers are eagerly awaiting a more convenient alternative dosage form that would overcome auto-injectors drawbacks. Previously, we extensively evaluated multiple alternative fast-disintegrating sublingual Epi tablet (FDSTs) formulations. However, the sublingual stability of Epi and effect of modifying the sublingual microenvironment pH on its stability and transport pathways were not yet fully investigated. Results depicted that Epi remained sufficiently stable at various pHs in human saliva and porcine sublingual tissue's extract. Epi permeability (EP) through excised porcine sublingual membrane was greatest at pH 8.0 (p < 0.05), 11-fold higher than the negative control (Epi at pH 6.8). Sodium carbonate (Na Carb) 0.75% was the most efficient buffer to modify Epi solution pH to 8.0. Both sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) 0.075% and palmitoyl-DL-carnitine chloride (PCC) 1.2% increased paracellular EP 10-fold and 3-fold, respectively; however, both demonstrated a delayed enhancement (>5 min). Meanwhile, Na Carb and SDS combination increased EP 23-fold without a delay. It is evident that pH-modifiers or their SDS combination showed promising potential to enhance Epi sublingual permeability and further reduce the required Epi dose using FDSTs as a feasible alternative to Epi auto-injectors.

Epinephrine autoinjector prescription filling after pediatric emergency department discharge.

Background: There are known racial and socioeconomic disparities in the use of epinephrine autoinjectors (EAI) for anaphylaxis. Objective: To measure the rates of EAI prescription filling and identify patient demographic factors associated with filling rates among patients discharged from the pediatric emergency department. Methods: This was a retrospective observational cohort study of all patients discharged from a pediatric emergency department who received an outpatient prescription for an EAI between January 1, 2018, and October 31, 2019. The rates of prescription filling were calculated, and multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify sociodemographic factors associated with prescription filling. Results: Of 717 patients included in the analysis, 54.8% (95% confidence interval {CI}, 51.1%-58.5%) filled their prescription. There were no significant associations between EAI fill rates and patient age or sex. In bivariable analysis, non-Hispanic white patients were more likely to fill EAI prescriptions compared with non-Hispanic Black patients (odds ratio [OR] 1.89 [95% CI, 1.11-3.20]), and patients with in-state Medicaid were significantly less likely to fill EAI prescriptions compared with those patients with private insurance (OR 0.69 [95% CI, 0.48-0.98]). However, after multivariable adjustment, there was no significant difference in filling by age, insurance status, or race or ethnicity. Conclusions: Only approximately half the patients had their EAI prescriptions filled after discharge. Filling rates did not vary by sociodemographic characteristics.

Community Use of Epinephrine for the Treatment of Anaphylaxis: A Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Community use of epinephrine for the treatment of anaphylaxis is low. Knowledge of rates of epinephrine use in the pre-hospital setting along with identification of barriers to its use will contribute to the development of policies and guidelines. OBJECTIVES: A search was conducted on PubMed and Embase in April 2020. Our systematic review focused on 4 domains: (1) epinephrine use in the pre-hospital setting; (2) barriers to epinephrine use in the pre-hospital setting; (3) cost evaluation and cost-effectiveness of epinephrine use; and (4) programs and strategies to improve epinephrine use during anaphylaxis. METHODS: Two meta-analyses with logit transformation were conducted to: (1) calculate the pooled estimate of the rate of epinephrine use in the pre-hospital setting among cases of anaphylaxis and (2) calculate the pooled estimate of the rate of biphasic reactions among all cases of anaphylaxis. RESULTS: Epinephrine use in the pre-hospital setting was significantly higher for children compared with adults (20.98% [95% confidence interval (CI): 16.38%, 26.46%] vs 7.17% [95% CI: 2.71%, 17.63%], respectively, P = .0027). The pooled estimate of biphasic reactions among all anaphylaxis cases was 3.92% (95% CI: 2.88%, 5.32%). Our main findings indicate that pre-hospital use of epinephrine in anaphylaxis remains suboptimal. Major barriers to the use of epinephrine were identified as low prescription rates of epinephrine autoinjectors and lack of stock epinephrine in schools, which was determined to be cost-effective. Finally, in reviewing programs and strategies, numerous studies have engineered effective methods to promote adequate and timely use of epinephrine. CONCLUSION: The main findings of our study demonstrated that across the globe, prompt epinephrine use in cases of anaphylaxis remains suboptimal. For practical recommendations, we would suggest considering stock epinephrine in schools and food courts to increase the use of epinephrine in the community. We recommend use of pamphlets in public areas (ie, malls, food courts, etc.) to assist in recognizing anaphylaxis and after that with prompt epinephrine administration, to avoid the rare risk of fatality in anaphylaxis cases.

PEMCRC anaphylaxis study protocol: a multicentre cohort study to derive and validate clinical decision models for the emergency department management of children with anaphylaxis.

INTRODUCTION: There remain significant knowledge gaps about the management and outcomes of children with anaphylaxis. These gaps have led to practice variation regarding decisions to hospitalise children and length of observation periods following treatment with epinephrine. The objectives of this multicentre study are to (1) determine the prevalence of and risk factors for severe, persistent, refractory and biphasic anaphylaxis, as well as persistent and biphasic non-anaphylactic reactions; (2) derive and validate prediction models for emergency department (ED) discharge; and (3) determine data-driven lengths of ED and inpatient observation prior to discharge to home based on initial reaction severity. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study is being conducted through the Pediatric Emergency Medicine Collaborative Research Committee (PEMCRC). Children 6 months to less than 18 years of age presenting to 30 participating EDs for anaphylaxis from October 2015 to December 2019 will be eligible. The primary outcomes for each objective are (1) severe, persistent, refractory or biphasic anaphylaxis, as well as persistent or biphasic non-anaphylactic reactions; (2) safe ED discharge, defined as no receipt of acute anaphylaxis medications or hypotension beyond 4 hours from first administered dose of epinephrine; and (3) time from first to last administered dose of epinephrine and vasopressor cessation. Analyses for each objective include (1) descriptive statistics to estimate prevalence and generalised estimating equations that will be used to investigate risk factors for anaphylaxis outcomes, (2) least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression and binary recursive partitioning to derive and validate prediction models of children who may be candidates for safe ED discharge, and (3) Kaplan-Meier analyses to assess timing from first to last epinephrine doses and vasopressor cessation based on initial reaction severity. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: All sites will obtain institutional review board approval; results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated via traditional and social media, blogs and online education platforms.

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Epinephrine Autoinjector Risk Stratification for Patients with Food Allergy-One Epinephrine Autoinjector or Two?

BACKGROUND: Food-allergic patients are routinely prescribed 2 epinephrine autoinjectors (EAIs). The cost-effectiveness of this strategy is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of routinely prescribing all patients 2 EAI devices versus a risk-stratified approach (2 EAIs prescribed only for patients with a risk factor). METHODS: Markov models compared universal versus risk-stratified approaches on the basis of either a previous medical history of anaphylaxis (PMH-ana) or anaphylaxis requiring multiple epinephrine doses (multi-epi). Cohorts of children with peanut allergy were evaluated over an 80-year time horizon from both US and UK societal and health care perspectives. Models assumed prescribing a second EAI provided a baseline 10-fold risk reduction versus anaphylaxis-related fatality and hospitalization. Cost-effectiveness threshold was $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). RESULTS: From a US perspective, universal prescription of 2 EAIs to all patients with peanut allergy was not cost-effective in the base case versus risk stratification by PMH-ana. Universal prescription of 2 EAIs was associated with an incremental cost of $10,696,036/QALY versus the PMH-ana strategy, and $17,514,558/QALY versus the multi-epi strategy. However, the universal strategy became cost-effective versus a multi-epi strategy when single EAI costs were less than $80, second epinephrine dose requirements more than 25.5%, anaphylaxis hospitalization costs more than $18,453, annual anaphylaxis risk more than 76.5%, or anaphylaxis hospitalization rate more than 74.9%. From a UK perspective, universally prescribing 2 EAIs was also not cost-effective (incremental cost of $4,132,440/QALY vs PMH-ana and $6,208,227/QALY vs multi-epi) at single device costs more than $18. CONCLUSIONS: At current EAI prices and low rates of needing 2 devices, limiting the second EAIs to patients with PMH-ana is more cost-effective than routinely prescribing 2 EAIs to all patients (particularly in resource-constrained settings).

Fill rates and access to self-injectable epinephrine prescribed in a pediatric emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Despite its life-saving potential in anaphylaxis, self-injectable epinephrine (SIE) is frequently not administered by caregivers prior to arrival in the emergency department (ED). Prescriptions from the ED often go unfilled which may contribute to the failure to receive SIE when needed. OBJECTIVE: To determine the prescription filling rate and accessibility of SIE devices among families discharged from the Pediatric ED with an SIE prescription. METHODS: A phone survey was administered to parents of children <18 years of age prescribed SIE in the pediatric ED over 12 months. The survey inquired if they own an SIE device, the device's expiration date as confirmation, and details of their child's allergy. Variables were analyzed for association with owning SIE, having SIE accessible when prompted, and having unexpired SIE accessible. RESULTS: 170 children received prescriptions for SIE and 100 (59%) completed the survey. Eighty-four of 100 (84%) had filled the initial SIE prescription. Sixty-five of 100 (65%) had proof of having SIE, of which 29% (19/65) were expired. Only 46% (46/100) of all respondents had an accessible unexpired SIE. Patients with food allergies and those who'd visited an allergist after their ED visit had higher odds of having unexpired accessible devices. CONCLUSION: A majority of patients prescribed SIE from the ED fill their prescription; however, less than half have unexpired SIE readily available despite high rates of recurrent anaphylactic emergencies. Focusing on post-discharge planning, particularly follow-up, may prevent children with allergies from being left dangerously unprepared.

Assessment of ED triage of anaphylaxis patients based on the Emergency Severity Index.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the emergency department (ED) triage of anaphylaxis patients based on the Emergency Severity Index (ESI), assess the association between ESI triage level and ED epinephrine administration, and determine characteristics associated with lower acuity triage ESI assignment (levels 3 and 4). METHODS: We conducted a cohort study of adult and pediatric anaphylaxis patients between September 2010 and September 2018 at an academic ED. Patient characteristics and management were compared between Emergency Severity Index (ESI) triage level 1 or 2 versus levels 3 or 4 using logistic regression analysis. We adhered to STROBE reporting guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 1090 patient visits were included. There were 26 (2%), 515 (47%), 489 (45%), and 60 (6%) visits that were assigned an ESI triage level of 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Epinephrine was administered in the ED to 53% of patients triaged ESI level 1 or 2 and to 40% of patients triaged ESI level 3 or 4. Patients who were assigned a lower acuity ESI level of 3 or 4 had a longer median time from ED arrival to epinephrine administration compared to those with a higher acuity ESI level of 1 or 2 (28 min compared to 13 min, p < .001). A lower acuity ESI level was more likely to be assigned to visits with a chief concern of hives, rash, or pruritus (OR 2.33 [95% CI, 1.20-4.53]) and less likely to be assigned to visits among adults (OR, 0.43 [0.31-0.60]), patients who received epinephrine from emergency medical services (OR 0.56 [0.38-0.82]), presented with posterior pharyngeal or uvular angioedema (OR, 0.56 [0.38-0.82]), hypoxemia (OR, 0.34 [0.18-0.64]), or increased heart (OR 0.83 [0.73-0.95]) or respiratory (OR 0.70 [0.60-0.82]) rates. CONCLUSION: Patients triaged to lower acuity ESI levels experienced delays in ED epinephrine administration. Adult and pediatric patients with skin-related chief concerns were more likely to be to be assigned lower acuity ESI levels. Further studies are needed to identify interventions that will improve ED anaphylaxis triage.

Therapeutic approach of anaphylaxis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Anaphylaxis is a recognized cause of death in all ages, which requires prompt recognition and treatment. We here propose to review the current and new pharmacological treatment of anaphylaxis in the view of the new knowledge in the field that can support the quality practice and empower allergists and health professionals with new tools that can be used to treat symptoms and prevent anaphylaxis. RECENT FINDINGS: The recent description of phenotypes provides new insight and understanding into the mechanisms and causes of anaphylaxis through a better understanding of endotypes and application of precision medicine. Several biologic therapies and new devices are emerging as potential preventive treatment for anaphylaxis. SUMMARY: Adrenaline (epinephrine) is still the first-line treatment for any type of anaphylaxis and is recognized as the only medication documented to prevent hospitalizations, hypoxic sequelae and fatalities. ß2-adrenergic agonists and glucagon remains as the second-line treatment of anaphylaxis, meanwhile glucocorticoids and antihistamines should be used only as third-line treatment. Their administration should never delay adrenaline injection in anaphylaxis. More intuitive adrenaline autoinjectors design and features are required as well as a worldwide availability of adrenaline autoinjectors. Biological drugs, such as omalizumab, have been used as therapeutic adjuvants as a preventive treatment of anaphylaxis, but cost-effectiveness should be considered individually. Understanding the specifications of underlying mechanisms can potentially support improvements in the patients' allergological work-up and open the opportunity of developments of potential new drugs, such as biological agents. Expanding knowledge with regard to the presentation, causes, and triggers for anaphylaxis among healthcare providers will improve its diagnosis and management, increase patient safety, and decrease morbidity and mortality.

Patient Carrying Time, Confidence, and Training with Epinephrine Autoinjectors: The RACE Survey.

BACKGROUND: Limited real-world data exist regarding patient carrying compliance and confidence in using different types of epinephrine autoinjectors (EAIs). OBJECTIVE: To perform a Real-world Assessment of Patients' Carrying Time and Confidence with Epinephrine Autoinjector Devices (RACE survey). METHODS: This was a noninterventional survey of patients (≥7 years) who filled 1 or more prescription for Auvi-Q or EpiPen between January 2013 and January 2014. Outcomes included proportion of patients carrying their EAI all the time in the last 7 days (primary), EAI use confidence (secondary), and EAI training experience (secondary). Multivariate regression analyses controlled for significant differences in demographic and clinical characteristics between EAI groups. RESULTS: The survey included 2,000 participants (Auvi-Q, N = 1,000 [children, n = 597; adults, n = 403]; EpiPen, N = 1,000 [children, n = 105; adults, n = 895]). After adjusting for confounding factors, we found that Auvi-Q respondents were more likely to carry their device all the time in the last 7 days versus EpiPen respondents (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.91; 95% CI, 1.49-2.45; P < .001); similar trends were observed in adults and children (P < .001 both). Adults in the Auvi-Q group were more likely to feel "very confident" about correctly using their EAI (aOR, 2.02) and someone else correctly using their EAI (aOR, 2.25) versus the EpiPen group (P < .001 both). Compared with EpiPen respondents, Auvi-Q respondents were more likely to feel that EAI instructions were "very clear" (aOR, 3.10) and more likely to find the prescription pack trainer helpful (aOR, 2.29; P < .01 both). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests significant real-world differences in patients' carrying time, confidence in use, and training experiences between Auvi-Q and EpiPen users.

Analysis of Value-Based Costs of Undesignated School Stock Epinephrine Policies for Peanut Anaphylaxis.

Importance: Children experiencing anaphylaxis at school may lack access to a personal epinephrine device, prompting recent legislation permitting undesignated (eg, non-student specific) stock epinephrine autoinjector units at school. However, epinephrine device costs vary, and the cost-effectiveness of undesignated school stock epinephrine is uncharacterized to date. Objective: To define value-based strategies for undesignated school stock epinephrine programs. Design, Setting, and Participants: Markov simulations of the Chicago Public Schools system were used over extended time horizons to model 2 school stock epinephrine autoinjector policies to provide access for at-risk students. The dates of the data used in the analysis were September 2017 to June 2018 (the 2017-2018 school year). Main Outcomes and Measures: This study compared the following 3 strategies: no school undesignated epinephrine supply, school undesignated supplemental epinephrine supply (supplemental model), and school undesignated universal epinephrine supply (universal model). The base-case model assumed a 10-fold reduced fatality risk with having undesignated stock epinephrine units available vs not having undesignated stock epinephrine units available. Costs of school stock epinephrine units available for acquisition by schools were evaluated from a societal perspective. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and total epinephrine acquisition expenses were calculated. Results: Based on Markov simulations of the Chicago Public Schools system (371 382 students), the cost was $107 816 (95% CI, $107 382-$108 250) for no school undesignated epinephrine supply compared with $108 160 (95% CI, $107 725-$108 595) for the supplemental model and $100 397 (95% CI, $99 979-$100 815) for the universal model. Undesignated stock epinephrine improved outcomes, with 26.869 (95% CI, 26.841-26.897) QALYs accrued as the model concluded compared with 26.867 (95% CI, 26.839-26.896) QALYs for the strategy without undesignated stock epinephrine. When comparing supplemental model stock epinephrine to the strategy without undesignated devices, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was high at $268 811 per QALY in the base-case simulation. However, the cost of the supplemental model fell below $100 000 per QALY when the annual undesignated epinephrine acquisition costs did not exceed $338 per school (compared with stock epinephrine unavailability). The universal model dominated all others and was associated with significant cost savings ($7419 per student at risk who would otherwise be prescribed an individual school epinephrine supply). Conclusions and Relevance: Undesignated school stock epinephrine is cost-effective at device acquisition costs not exceeding $338 per school per year, although a universal model vs a supplemental model is associated with superior health and economic outcomes.

Allergy and Asthma: Anaphylaxis.

Anaphylaxis is an allergic reaction that occurs rapidly after exposure and is life-threatening. After symptoms of anaphylaxis occur, there is no way to reliably predict whether the patient's condition could progress quickly and become life-threatening. Immediate injection of intramuscular epinephrine is the first-line emergency treatment for anaphylaxis. Other drugs such as corticosteroids or antihistamines are secondary options and should not delay epinephrine administration. The most commonly prescribed form of epinephrine is the costly brand name autoinjector, but less expensive alternatives exist, including generic autoinjectors and prefilled epinephrine syringes. Epinephrine prescriptions should be combined with action plans that guide parents and caregivers on appropriate use. Access to epinephrine at schools, even for students who do not have a prescription, is an important component of preparedness for anaphylaxis.

Barriers to the Administration of Epinephrine in Schools.

BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis is a serious and growing concern in the school setting as the prevalence of food allergies and food-induced severe allergic reactions continues to increase. METHODS: A cross-sectional, web-based survey was conducted regarding anaphylactic events that occurred during the 2014-2015 school year. Eligible schools were enrolled in the EPIPEN4SCHOOLS® program (Mylan Specialty L.P., Canonsburg, PA), which provides free epinephrine auto-injectors to qualifying US schools. Participating schools completed a 29-item survey on anaphylactic event occurrence and treatment, epinephrine stock, school policies regarding anaphylaxis, school staff training, and school nursing coverage. RESULTS: Responses were provided by 12,275 schools. Epinephrine was administered on school property for 63.7% of reported anaphylactic events (1272/1998). In 38.5% (235/610) of events for which epinephrine was not used, antihistamines were cited as the reason. Only 59.4% of schools cited epinephrine as their standard first-line therapy for anaphylaxis. School nurses were most likely to be trained in anaphylaxis recognition and permitted to administer epinephrine; however, just 53.6% of schools had a full-time nurse on staff. CONCLUSIONS: Process-related barriers to the appropriate use of epinephrine go beyond access to medication. Widespread staff training and review of school policies are needed to ensure that anaphylaxis is appropriately managed in schools.