Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 121
Filtrar
Más filtros

Bases de datos
País/Región como asunto
Tipo del documento
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Br J Anaesth ; 2024 Jul 03.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38965012

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Perioperative anaphylaxis is a serious and often life-threatening immediate hypersensitivity reaction. There are few published data on paediatric perioperative anaphylaxis (pPOA). We evaluated the incidence of and risk factors involved in the occurrence of pPOA within a large US national database. METHODS: Deidentified data from the US Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2005 to 2014 were used to identify pPOA cases and to conduct a retrospective multivariate analysis of preselected independent variables. RESULTS: Among 3,601,180 surgeries and procedures in children aged 0-18 yr, 297 pPOA cases were identified for an incidence of one in 12,125 surgeries and procedures. Compared with controls, pPOA cases had an increased median length of stay (6 vs 2 days; P<0.001) and median hospital cost ($54 719 vs $5109; P<0.0001). The age groups between 6 and 12 yr (odds ratio [OR] 7.1; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.9-12.9; P<0.001) and 13 and 17 yr (OR 8.5; 95% CI 4.7-15.2; P<0.001) were associated with increased odds of pPOA. Transplant (OR 46.3; 95% CI 20.8-102.9; P<0.001), cardiac (OR 16.4; 95% CI 7.5-35.9; P<0.001), and vascular (OR 15.2; 95% CI 7.5-30.7; P<0.001) procedures posed the highest risk for pPOA. Chronic pulmonary disease, coagulopathy, and fluid and electrolyte disorders were also associated with pPOA (OR 2.2; 95% CI 1.5-3.3; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of pPOA was one in 12,125 cases. Risk factors included age, procedure type, and comorbidities.

2.
J Allergy Clin Immunol ; 152(6): 1581-1586, 2023 12.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37652140

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: There is no accepted grading system classifying the severity of immediate reactions to drugs. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to present a proposed grading system developed through the consensus of drug allergy experts from the United States Drug Allergy Registry (USDAR) Consortium. METHODS: The USDAR investigators sought to develop a consensus severity grading system for immediate drug reactions that is applicable to clinical care and research. RESULTS: The USDAR grading scale scores severity levels on a scale of 0 to 4. A grade of no reaction (NR) is used for patients who undergo challenge without any symptoms or signs, and it would confirm a negative challenge result. A grade 0 reaction is indicative of primarily subjective complaints that are commonly seen with both historical drug reactions and during drug challenges, and it would suggest a low likelihood of a true drug allergic reaction. Grades 1 to 4 meet the criteria for a positive challenge result and may be considered indicative of a drug allergy. Grade 1 reactions are suggestive of a potential immediate drug reaction with mild symptoms. Grade 2 reactions are more likely to be immediate drug reactions of moderate severity. Grade 3 reactions have features suggestive of a severe allergic reaction, whereas grade 4 reactions are life-threatening reactions such as anaphylactic shock and fatal anaphylaxis. CONCLUSION: This proposed grading schema for immediate drug reactions improves on prior schemata by being developed specifically for immediate drug reactions and being easy to implement in clinical and research practice.


Asunto(s)
Anafilaxia , Hipersensibilidad a las Drogas , Hipersensibilidad Inmediata , Humanos , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Pruebas Cutáneas , Hipersensibilidad a las Drogas/diagnóstico , Hipersensibilidad Inmediata/diagnóstico , Antibacterianos
3.
Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol ; 131(5): 628-636.e2, 2023 11.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37557950

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Older adults have an increased risk of adverse drug reactions and negative effects associated with alternative antibiotic use. Although the number of antibiotic allergies reported increases with age, the characteristics and outcomes of older adults receiving drug allergy assessment are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess the characteristics and outcomes of drug allergy evaluations in older adults. METHODS: We considered patients aged above or equal to 65 years enrolled in the United States Drug Allergy Registry (USDAR), a US multisite prospective cohort (January 16, 2019 to February 28, 2022). Data were summarized using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of 1678 USDAR participants from 5 sites, 406 older adults aged above or equal to 65 years (37% 65-69 years, 37% 70-74 years, 16% 75-79 years, and 10% ≥80 years) received 501 drug allergy assessments. USDAR older adults were primarily of female sex (69%), White (94%), and non-Hispanic (98%). Most USDAR older adults reported less than or equal to 1 infections per year (64%) and rated their general health as good, very good, or excellent (80%). Of 296 (59%) penicillin allergy assessments in USDAR older adults, 286 (97%) were disproved. Other drug allergy assessments included sulfonamide (n = 41, 88% disproved) and cephalosporin (n = 20, 95% disproved) antibiotics. All 41 drug allergy labels in USDAR participants aged above or equal to 80 years and all 80 penicillin allergy labels in USDAR men aged above or equal to 65 years were disproved. CONCLUSION: Older adults represented a quarter of USDAR participants but were neither racially nor ethnically diverse and were generally healthy without considerable antibiotic need. Most older adults presented for antibiotic allergy assessments, the vast majority of which were disproved. Drug allergy assessments may be underutilized in the older adults who are most vulnerable to the harms of unconfirmed antibiotic allergy labels.


Asunto(s)
Hipersensibilidad a las Drogas , Hipersensibilidad , Masculino , Humanos , Femenino , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Anciano , Estudios Prospectivos , Penicilinas/efectos adversos , Antibacterianos/efectos adversos , Hipersensibilidad a las Drogas/diagnóstico , Hipersensibilidad a las Drogas/epidemiología , Hipersensibilidad a las Drogas/tratamiento farmacológico , Hipersensibilidad/tratamiento farmacológico
4.
Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol ; 128(2): 153-160, 2022 Feb.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34798275

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The mechanism of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hypersensitivity reactions is unknown. COVID-19 vaccine excipient skin testing has been used in evaluation of these reactions, but its utility in predicting subsequent COVID-19 vaccine tolerance is also unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the utility of COVID-19 vaccine and vaccine excipient skin testing in both patients with an allergic reaction to their first messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccine dose and patients with a history of polyethylene glycol allergy who have not yet received a COVID-19 vaccine dose. METHODS: In this multicenter, retrospective review, COVID-19 vaccine and vaccine excipient skin testing was performed in patients referred to 1 of 3 large tertiary academic institutions. Patient medical records were reviewed after skin testing to determine subsequent COVID-19 vaccine tolerance. RESULTS: A total of 129 patients underwent skin testing, in whom 12 patients (9.3%) had positive results. There were 101 patients who received a COVID-19 vaccine after the skin testing, which was tolerated in 90 patients (89.1%) with no allergic symptoms, including 5 of 6 patients with positive skin testing results who received a COVID-19 vaccine after the skin testing. The remaining 11 patients experienced minor allergic symptoms after COVID-19 vaccination, none of whom required treatment beyond antihistamines. CONCLUSION: The low positivity rate of COVID-19 vaccine excipient skin testing and high rate of subsequent COVID-19 vaccine tolerance suggest a low utility of this method in evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine hypersensitivity reactions. Focus should shift to the use of existing vaccine allergy practice parameters, with consideration of graded dosing when necessary. On the basis of these results, strict avoidance of subsequent COVID-19 vaccination should be discouraged.


Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la COVID-19/efectos adversos , COVID-19 , Hipersensibilidad , Pruebas Cutáneas , COVID-19/prevención & control , Humanos , Hipersensibilidad/etiología , Inutilidad Médica , Estudios Retrospectivos , Excipientes de Vacunas/efectos adversos , Vacunas Sintéticas/efectos adversos , Vacunas de ARNm/efectos adversos
5.
Allergy Asthma Proc ; 43(1): 40-43, 2022 Jan 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34983709

RESUMEN

Background: As the vaccination campaign in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues, concerns with regard to adverse reactions to the vaccine remain. Although immediate hypersensitivity reactions have received much attention, delayed systemic urticarial reactions after vaccination can occur. Objective: To describe the clinical presentation, vaccine excipient skin testing results, and outcomes of subsequent COVID-19 vaccination in patients who experienced delayed systemic urticarial reactions after messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccination. Methods: This was a retrospective case series of 12 patients referred to the Mayo Clinics in Rochester, Minnesota, and Jacksonville, Florida, between January 19, 2021, and April 30, 2021, for evaluation of delayed systemic urticarial reactions after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination. Demographics, medical and allergic history, reaction details, vaccine excipient skin testing results (when performed), and the outcome after subsequent vaccination were collected for each patient. Results: The mean age of the patients was 52 years, all were white, and 9 (75%) were women. Half of the patients had a history of drug allergy, and one had a history of chronic spontaneous urticaria. Seven patients reacted to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and five reacted to the Moderna vaccine. Seven patients developed symptoms between 8 and 24 hours after vaccination. Nine patients required antihistamines for treatment. The median time to symptom resolution was 4 days. Nine patients underwent allergist-directed COVID-19 vaccine excipient skin testing, all of which were negative. Ten patients chose to receive their next mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose, and four patients experienced recurrent delayed urticaria. Conclusion: Delayed systemic urticarial reactions after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination were not life-threatening, could be treated with antihistamines, and were not predicted with vaccine excipient skin testing. They were not a contraindication to subsequent vaccination, although patients should be counseled with regard to the possibility of recurrence.


Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la COVID-19/efectos adversos , COVID-19 , Urticaria , Vacunas Sintéticas/efectos adversos , Vacunas de ARNm/efectos adversos , COVID-19/prevención & control , Femenino , Antagonistas de los Receptores Histamínicos/uso terapéutico , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Retrospectivos , Urticaria/inducido químicamente , Urticaria/diagnóstico , Vacunación/efectos adversos , Excipientes de Vacunas/efectos adversos
6.
Allergy Asthma Proc ; 43(2): 163-167, 2022 03 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35317894

RESUMEN

Background: Penicillin is the most common reported drug allergy. Previous literature suggests that there is increased prevalence of penicillin drug allergy in female patients in the outpatient setting. However, this is poorly described in the inpatient setting. Objective: This study was performed to determine whether female sex is an independent risk factor for penicillin allergy in the inpatient setting. Methods: A retrospective review of electronic medical records (January 1, 2001-December 31, 2017) was performed for patients with a history of penicillin allergy who underwent penicillin skin testing (PST). Each chart review included the age at initial skin testing, sex, medications, and medical co-morbidities. The study was approved by the institutional review board. Results: 30,883 patients underwent PST with 29,354 and 1,529 occurring in the outpatient and inpatient setting respectively. 170 patients tested positive with a ≥ 5x5 wheal. Of the 170 positive patients, 122 were female (72%) and 48 were male (28%). 15 patients tested positive in the inpatient setting. Of the 1506 adult patients tested in the inpatient setting, 809 were female and 697 were male. 12 females (92.3%) and 1 one male (7.7%) tested positive with a ≥ 5x5 wheal (OR-10.5; 95% CI-1.4-80.8; p-value=0.02). 23 pediatric patients were tested in the inpatient setting. Two pediatric male patients were positive and no female pediatric patients tested positive (OR-1.7; 95% CI-0.5-5.9; p-value=0.5). Conclusion: In the inpatient setting, adult females are 10 times more likely to have a positive PST compared to males. Female sex may be a potential risk factor for objective penicillin drug allergy in the inpatient setting.


Asunto(s)
Hipersensibilidad a las Drogas , Penicilinas , Adulto , Antibacterianos/efectos adversos , Niño , Hipersensibilidad a las Drogas/diagnóstico , Hipersensibilidad a las Drogas/epidemiología , Hipersensibilidad a las Drogas/etiología , Femenino , Humanos , Pacientes Internos , Masculino , Penicilinas/efectos adversos , Factores de Riesgo , Pruebas Cutáneas/efectos adversos
7.
Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol ; 126(2): 180-186.e3, 2021 02.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33068738

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The estimated worldwide incidence of perioperative or periprocedural anaphylaxis (PA) is between 1 in 1250 and 1 in 20,000 procedures. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the incidence of PA in the United States and compare patient characteristics and underlying risk factors using a large national database. METHODS: Using deidentified data from the nationwide inpatient sample from 2005 to 2014, we identified cases of PA through the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes and conducted a retrospective analysis. RESULTS: Among 35,647,347 surgeries and procedures, there were 5458 (0.015%) PA cases identified. The incidence of PA was 15.3 cases per 100,000 procedures. When compared with controls, PA cases had an increased mortality (3.4% vs 1.4%; P < .001), median length of stay (5 vs 3 days; P < .001), and median hospital cost ($45,155 vs $24,734; P < .001). The age group between 18 and 34 years (odds ratio [OR], 1.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13-1.58; P < .001) and female sex (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.31-1.49; P < .001) were associated with increased odds of PA. Transplant (OR, 3.35; 95% CI, 2.59-4.34; P < .001), hematologic (OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.30-2.05; P < .001), vascular (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.30-1.67; P < .001), and cardiac (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.30-1.67; P < .001) procedures were at increased risk for PA. Several comorbidities were associated with PA including chronic pulmonary disease (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.31-1.51; P < .001). CONCLUSION: The incidence of PA is 1 in 6531 procedures, with a mortality of 1 in 191,652 procedures. PA has worsening outcomes compared with controls. The risk factors of PA include age, sex, procedure type, and comorbidities.


Asunto(s)
Anafilaxia/epidemiología , Periodo Perioperatorio , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Operativos , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Comorbilidad , Femenino , Humanos , Incidencia , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Factores de Riesgo , Estados Unidos , Adulto Joven
8.
Br J Anaesth ; 127(6): 890-896, 2021 12.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34330411

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The incidence of fatal and near-fatal outcomes after perioperative anaphylaxis is unknown in the USA. Previously identified risk factors of neuromuscular-blocker-induced fatal perioperative anaphylaxis include male sex, obesity, and use of beta blockers. We examined the incidence of fatal and near-fatal outcomes after perioperative anaphylaxis in the USA and the underlying risk factors using a large national database. METHODS: Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2005 to 2014, we identified cases of fatal and near-fatal perioperative anaphylaxis, defined as perioperative anaphylaxis cases complicated by respiratory or cardiac arrest, using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes. RESULTS: Amongst 5223 perioperative anaphylaxis cases, the proportion of near-fatal or fatal cases attributable to perioperative anaphylaxis was 7.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.2-7.7), with near-fatal perioperative anaphylaxis cases accounting for 5.0% (95% CI: 4.4-5.6%) and fatal cases accounting for 2.0% (95% CI: 1.5-2.5%) of cases overall. Thus, the incidence of fatal or near-fatal perioperative anaphylaxis is 1.26 in 100 000 procedures. Risk factors for fatal or near-fatal perioperative anaphylaxis include age (≥65 yr); undergoing a cardiac procedure; and comorbid conditions of weight loss, non-metastatic solid tumours, metastatic cancer, paralysis, coagulopathy, renal failure, congestive heart failure, fluid and electrolyte disorder, and neurological disorders. Individuals with near-fatal or fatal perioperative anaphylaxis reactions had increased lengths of stay and hospital costs compared with controls. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of fatal or near-fatal perioperative anaphylaxis in the USA was 1.26 in 100 000 procedures. Risk factors for fatal or near-fatal outcomes include older age, cardiac procedures, and specific comorbidities.


Asunto(s)
Anafilaxia/mortalidad , Complicaciones Intraoperatorias/mortalidad , Bloqueantes Neuromusculares/efectos adversos , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/mortalidad , Antagonistas Adrenérgicos beta/efectos adversos , Adulto , Anciano , Bases de Datos Factuales , Femenino , Humanos , Incidencia , Pacientes Internos/estadística & datos numéricos , Tiempo de Internación/estadística & datos numéricos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Obesidad/complicaciones , Factores de Riesgo , Factores Sexuales , Estados Unidos
9.
Endocr Pract ; 26(7): 761-767, 2020 Jul.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33471645

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To determine patterns of adverse drug reactions (ADRs), including immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) and predictable ADRs, to thyroid replacement therapy (TRT). TRT is the treatment of choice for hypothyroidism. Levothyroxine (LT4) is among the most commonly prescribed medications in the United States, with over 70 million prescriptions annually. Documented immediate DHRs to TRT are rare, with only a few case reports. METHODS: An 11-year (2008-2018) retrospective medical chart review of identified patients with self-reported allergy to TRT. ADRs to TRT were divided into immediate DHRs and predictable ADRs. RESULTS: A total of 466 patients were included in our study. We found an overall incidence of ADRs to TRT of 0.3%. Median age was 61.2 years; 85.8% were women, and 94.4% were Caucasian. The principal indication for TRT was autoimmune hypothyroidism (73.6%), followed by postsurgical hypothyroidism (17.4%) and subclinical hypothyroidism (6.7%). Predictable ADR manifestations to TRT were reported more commonly than DHR manifestations (57.5% vs. 42.5%, respectively). The most frequently reported of the former were palpitations (16.4%), nausea/vomiting (9.3%), and tremor (6.3%), while rash (23.8%), hives (9.5%), and pruritus (7.1%) were the most common regarding the latter. Fifty-six percent of the patients with an ADR to TRT tolerated an alternative TRT presentation. CONCLUSION: In our cohort, the majority of self-reported allergies to TRT were due to predictable ADRs rather than an immediate DHR. ABBREVIATIONS: ADR = adverse drug reaction; DHR = drug hypersensitivity reaction; FDA = Food and Drug Administration; LT3 = liothyronine; LT4 = levothyroxine; SCAR = severe cutaneous adverse drug reaction; TRT = thyroid replacement therapy.


Asunto(s)
Efectos Colaterales y Reacciones Adversas Relacionados con Medicamentos , Hipersensibilidad , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Retrospectivos , Autoinforme , Tiroxina/efectos adversos
10.
Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol ; 122(2): 184-188, 2019 02.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30465860

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Penicillin allergy is the most commonly reported drug allergy in hospitalized patients, resulting in increased second-line antibiotic use, nosocomial infections, and health care use. Given that most patients are not truly allergic, a safe strategy that empowers the admitting physician is needed. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect on antibiotic prescribing practices for hospitalized patients with penicillin allergy using a validated intervention. METHODS: An intervention was implemented to educate health care professionals on management of patients with penicillin allergy using a validated risk stratification algorithm to guide testing and antibiotic use. Thirty days of control data using current standard of care was compared with 60 days of postintervention data measuring documentation of penicillin allergy history and antibiotic selection. RESULTS: The relative use of cephalosporin and penicillin antibiotics increased by 121.2% (P = .03) and 256% (P = .04), respectively, without an increase in adverse drug reactions. There was a decrease in the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics: vancomycin, 67.2% (P = .04); quinolones, 33.3% (P = .31); carbapenems, 81.9% (P = .08); and aztreonam, 73.8% (P = .18). CONCLUSION: The antibiotic choice in patients admitted to the hospital with a reported penicillin allergy can be improved by better evaluation of the allergy history and the use of a risk stratification guideline.


Asunto(s)
Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Hipersensibilidad a las Drogas/terapia , Penicilinas/efectos adversos , beta-Lactamas/uso terapéutico , Adulto , Anciano , Femenino , Humanos , Pacientes Internos , Tiempo de Internación , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Prospectivos , Pruebas Cutáneas
12.
Pediatr Allergy Immunol ; 29(4): 410-416, 2018 06.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29512839

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Food allergy affects an estimated 8% of children and 3% of adults in the United States. Food-allergic individuals increasingly use the web for medical information. We sought to determine the educational quality of food allergy YouTube videos. METHODS: We performed a YouTube search using keywords "food allergy" and "food allergies". The 300 most viewed videos were included and analyzed for characteristics, source, and content. Source was further classified as healthcare provider, alternative medicine provider, patient, company, media, and professional society. A scoring system (FA-DQS) was created to evaluate quality (-10 to +34 points). Negative points were assigned for misleading information. Eight reviewers scored each video independently. RESULTS: Three hundred videos were analyzed, with a median of 6351.50 views, 19 likes, and 1 dislike. More video presenters were female (54.3%). The most common type of video source was alternative medicine provider (26.3%). Alternative treatments included the following: water fast, juicing, Ayurveda, apple cider, yoga, visualization, and sea moss. Controversial diagnostics included kinesiology, IgG testing, and pulse test. Almost half of the videos depicted a non-IgE-mediated reaction (49.0%).Videos by professional societies had the highest FA-DQS (7.27). Scores for videos by professional societies were significantly different from other sources (P < .001). There was a high degree of agreement among reviewers (ICC = 0.820; P < .001). CONCLUSION: YouTube videos on food allergy frequently recommend controversial diagnostics and commonly depict non-IgE-mediated reactions. There is a need for high-quality, evidence-based, educational videos on food allergy.


Asunto(s)
Información de Salud al Consumidor/métodos , Información de Salud al Consumidor/normas , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos , Internet , Grabación en Video , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos/diagnóstico , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos/inmunología , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos/terapia , Humanos , Estados Unidos
13.
Curr Allergy Asthma Rep ; 18(12): 76, 2018 11 14.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30430277

RESUMEN

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Social media services dominate online consumption of information and play an ever expanding role in our lives. They are not only used to connect with friends and family but also to educate and recruit colleagues and patients, and to stay up-to-date with the new developments in the field of allergy and immunology. RECENT FINDINGS: There are known risks to social media user by health care professionals mostly related to breaches of patient confidentiality, professionalism, and privacy. Malpractice and liability risks have been linked to irresponsible use of social media. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the current social media tools in allergy. We recommend a pragmatic approach to maximize social media tools for the allergy practice.


Asunto(s)
Alergia e Inmunología , Hipersensibilidad , Medios de Comunicación Sociales , Congresos como Asunto , Educación Profesional , Personal de Salud , Humanos , Educación del Paciente como Asunto
17.
Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol ; 118(1): 80-85, 2017 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28007089

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Recent data reveal that the rate of anaphylaxis is increasing and suggest that idiopathic anaphylaxis may account for most of these cases. OBJECTIVE: To determine the pattern of anaphylaxis at a tertiary care referral center. METHODS: A retrospective electronic medical record review spanning 12 years (2002-2013) identified patients with anaphylaxis. RESULTS: Of the 4,777 records reviewed, 730 patients met our anaphylaxis definition. Median age was 34.0 years; 72.7% were adults, 58.6% were female, and 86.8% were white. Median time to evaluation by an allergist was 8.8 months. Foods were the most common cause (29.9%), followed by Hymenoptera venom (24.6%), idiopathic anaphylaxis (13.7%), and medications (13.3%). The most common foods were peanuts (23.9%), tree nuts (21.6%), shellfish (16.1%), and egg and milk (both 10.1%). The most common cause of anaphylaxis in adults was Hymenoptera venom. The most frequent symptoms were urticaria and/or angioedema, reported in 84.7% of cases. Atopy was present in 43.8%. In 15.4% of cases, anaphylaxis was not the chief reason for the office visit. CONCLUSION: We found food allergy was the most common overall cause of anaphylaxis, with peanut the most frequent food trigger. Idiopathic anaphylaxis was not the most common cause but accounted for 13.7% of all cases. Approximately 1 in 6 cases of anaphylaxis may be missed if a comprehensive evaluation is not performed.


Asunto(s)
Anafilaxia/epidemiología , Anafilaxia/etiología , Centros de Atención Terciaria , Adulto , Alérgenos/clasificación , Alérgenos/inmunología , Anafilaxia/diagnóstico , Animales , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Fenotipo , Estudios Retrospectivos , Adulto Joven
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA