RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Having a better understanding of the risk factors of severe anaphylaxis is a crucial challenge for physicians. METHODS: To retrospectively analyse fatal/near-fatal anaphylaxis cases recorded by the Allergy-Vigilance® Network (2002-2020) and evaluate the characteristics associated with survival, age and allergens. RESULTS: Among the 3510 anaphylaxis cases documented in the network, 70 (2%) patients (males: 57%; mean age: 35.4 y) presented grade 4 (Ring-Messmer) anaphylaxis and 25 died (19 food-related); 33% had a history of asthma. The main allergens were food (60%; peanut, 20%; milks, 11%) involved in 25/26 cases in children and in 17/44 (39%) cases in adults. Non-food anaphylaxis was related to drugs/latex (24%; neuromuscular blocking agents, 10%; betalactamins, 6%), Hymenoptera (16%). Three food-related cases (one death) occurred during oral food challenge in children. Patients with a food allergy were younger (22.2 years vs. 55 years, p < .001), had more likely a history of asthma (50% vs. 7%; p < .001), a pre-existing allergy (62% vs. 18%; p < .001) compared with other allergies. A cofactor was identified in 35 cases (50%) but predominantly in adults as opposed to children (64% vs. 27%; p = .01). The patients who died were younger (25.6 vs. 40.8 years; p = .01) than the survivors and mostly presented bronchospasm (56% vs. 29%; p = .05). Gaps in the prevention and management of anaphylaxis were noted in 15 cases (21%). CONCLUSIONS: Severe food anaphylaxis has specific features compared with other causes such as young age, asthma history and exercise. Food is also involved in severe anaphylaxis in adults that should not be underestimated.
Asunto(s)
Anafilaxia , Asma , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos , Niño , Masculino , Adulto , Humanos , Anafilaxia/etiología , Anafilaxia/complicaciones , Estudios Retrospectivos , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos/complicaciones , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos/epidemiología , Alimentos/efectos adversos , Alérgenos , Asma/etiología , Asma/complicacionesRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Drugs are a frequent cause of severe anaphylactic reactions. Here, we analyze a large dataset on drug induced anaphylaxis regarding elicitors, risk factors, symptoms, and treatment. METHODS: Data from the European Anaphylaxis Registry (2007-2019) with 1815 reported cases of drug-induced anaphylaxis were studied accordingly. RESULTS: Drugs are the third most frequent cause of anaphylaxis reported in the Anaphylaxis Registry. Among the eliciting groups of drugs analgesics and antibiotics were far most often reported. Female and senior patients were more frequently affected, while the number of children with DIA was low. DIA patients had symptoms affecting the skin and mucous membranes (n = 1525, 84.02%), the respiratory (n = 1300, 71.63%), the cardiovascular (n = 1251, 68.93%) and the gastrointestinal system (n = 549, 30.25%). Drugs caused significant more severe reactions, occurred more often in medical facilities and led to increased hospitalization rates in comparison to food and insect venom induced anaphylaxis. Adrenaline was used more often in patients with DIA than in anaphylaxis due to other causes. Patients with skin symptoms received more antihistamines and corticosteroids in the acute treatment, while gastrointestinal symptoms led to less adrenaline use. CONCLUSION: The study contributes to a better understanding of DIA, with a large number of cases from Europe supporting previous data, e.g., analgesics and antibiotics being the most frequent culprits for DIA. Female gender and higher age are relevant risk factors and despite clear recommendations, the emergency treatment of DIA is not administered according to the guidelines.
Asunto(s)
Anafilaxia , Hipersensibilidad a las Drogas , Humanos , Femenino , Anafilaxia/diagnóstico , Hipersensibilidad a las Drogas/diagnóstico , Epinefrina/uso terapéutico , Sistema de Registros , Fenotipo , Antibacterianos/uso terapéuticoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Peanut allergy has a rising prevalence in high-income countries, affecting 0.5%-1.4% of children. This study aimed to better understand peanut anaphylaxis in comparison to anaphylaxis to other food triggers in European children and adolescents. METHODS: Data was sourced from the European Anaphylaxis Registry via an online questionnaire, after in-depth review of food-induced anaphylaxis cases in a tertiary paediatric allergy centre. RESULTS: 3514 cases of food anaphylaxis were reported between July 2007 - March 2018, 56% in patients younger than 18 years. Peanut anaphylaxis was recorded in 459 children and adolescents (85% of all peanut anaphylaxis cases). Previous reactions (42% vs. 38%; p = .001), asthma comorbidity (47% vs. 35%; p < .001), relevant cofactors (29% vs. 22%; p = .004) and biphasic reactions (10% vs. 4%; p = .001) were more commonly reported in peanut anaphylaxis. Most cases were labelled as severe anaphylaxis (Ring&Messmer grade III 65% vs. 56% and grade IV 1.1% vs. 0.9%; p = .001). Self-administration of intramuscular adrenaline was low (17% vs. 15%), professional adrenaline administration was higher in non-peanut food anaphylaxis (34% vs. 26%; p = .003). Hospitalization was higher for peanut anaphylaxis (67% vs. 54%; p = .004). CONCLUSIONS: The European Anaphylaxis Registry data confirmed peanut as one of the major causes of severe, potentially life-threatening allergic reactions in European children, with some characteristic features e.g., presence of asthma comorbidity and increased rate of biphasic reactions. Usage of intramuscular adrenaline as first-line treatment is low and needs to be improved. The Registry, designed as the largest database on anaphylaxis, allows continuous assessment of this condition.
Asunto(s)
Anafilaxia , Hipersensibilidad al Cacahuete , Adolescente , Anafilaxia/diagnóstico , Anafilaxia/epidemiología , Anafilaxia/etiología , Arachis , Niño , Epinefrina , Humanos , Hipersensibilidad al Cacahuete/diagnóstico , Hipersensibilidad al Cacahuete/epidemiología , Sistema de RegistrosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Little is known regarding food anaphylaxis in infancy. We aimed to describe specificities of food anaphylaxis in infants (≤12 months) as compared to preschool children (1-6 years). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of all food anaphylaxis cases recorded by the Allergy Vigilance Network from 2002 to 2018, in preschool children focusing on infants. RESULTS: Of 1951 food anaphylaxis reactions, 61 (3%) occurred in infants and 386 (20%) in preschool children. Two infants had two anaphylaxis reactions; thus, we analyzed data among 59 infants (male: 51%; mean age: 6 months [SD: 2.9]); 31% had a history of atopic dermatitis, 11% of previous food allergy. The main food allergens were cow's milk (59%), hen's egg (20%), wheat (7%) and peanut (3%) in infants as compared with peanut (27%) and cashew (23%) in preschool children. Anaphylaxis occurred in 28/61 (46%) cases at the first cow's milk intake after breastfeeding discontinuation. Clinical manifestations were mainly mucocutaneous (79%), gastrointestinal (49%), respiratory (48%) and cardiovascular (21%); 25% of infants received adrenaline. Hives, hypotension and neurologic symptoms were more likely to be reported in infants than in preschool children (P = .02; P = .004; P = .002, respectively). Antihistamines and corticosteroids were more often prescribed in preschool children than in infants (P = .005; P = .025, respectively). CONCLUSION: Our study found that in infants presenting with their first food allergy, in a setting with a high rate of infant formula use, the most predominant trigger was cow's milk. As compared to older preschool children, hives, hypotonia and hypotension were more likely to be reported in infants. We believe that this represents a distinct food anaphylaxis phenotype that can further support developing the clinical anaphylaxis criteria in infants.
Asunto(s)
Distribución por Edad , Anafilaxia/epidemiología , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos/epidemiología , Anacardium , Anafilaxia/etiología , Anafilaxia/fisiopatología , Angioedema/fisiopatología , Preescolar , Tos/fisiopatología , Llanto , Disnea/fisiopatología , Hipersensibilidad al Huevo/complicaciones , Hipersensibilidad al Huevo/epidemiología , Hipersensibilidad al Huevo/fisiopatología , Femenino , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos/complicaciones , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos/fisiopatología , Humanos , Hipotensión/fisiopatología , Lactante , Edema Laríngeo/fisiopatología , Masculino , Hipersensibilidad a la Leche/complicaciones , Hipersensibilidad a la Leche/epidemiología , Hipersensibilidad a la Leche/fisiopatología , Hipotonía Muscular/fisiopatología , Hipersensibilidad a la Nuez/complicaciones , Hipersensibilidad a la Nuez/epidemiología , Hipersensibilidad a la Nuez/fisiopatología , Hipersensibilidad al Cacahuete/complicaciones , Hipersensibilidad al Cacahuete/epidemiología , Hipersensibilidad al Cacahuete/fisiopatología , Prurito/fisiopatología , Agitación Psicomotora/fisiopatología , Ruidos Respiratorios/fisiopatología , Estudios Retrospectivos , Convulsiones/fisiopatología , Urticaria/fisiopatología , Vómitos/fisiopatología , Hipersensibilidad al Trigo/complicaciones , Hipersensibilidad al Trigo/epidemiología , Hipersensibilidad al Trigo/fisiopatologíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Patients with a history of anaphylaxis are at risk of future anaphylactic reactions. Thus, secondary prevention measures are recommended for these patients to prevent or attenuate the next reaction. METHODS: Data from the Anaphylaxis Registry were analyzed to identify secondary prevention measures offered to patients who experienced anaphylaxis. Our analysis included 7788 cases from 10 European countries and Brazil. RESULTS: The secondary prevention measures offered varied across the elicitors. A remarkable discrepancy was observed between prevention measures offered in specialized allergy centers (84% of patients were prescribed adrenaline autoinjectors following EAACI guidelines) and outside the centers: Here, EAACI guideline adherence was only 37%. In the multivariate analysis, the elicitor of the reaction, age of the patient, mastocytosis as comorbidity, severity of the reaction, and reimbursement/availability of the autoinjector influence physician's decision to prescribe one. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the low implementation of guidelines concerning secondary prevention measures outside of specialized allergy centers, our findings highlight the importance of these specialized centers and the requirement of better education for primary healthcare and emergency physicians.
Asunto(s)
Anafilaxia , Prevención Secundaria , Anafilaxia/epidemiología , Anafilaxia/etiología , Anafilaxia/prevención & control , Brasil , Epinefrina , Europa (Continente)/epidemiología , Humanos , Sistema de RegistrosAsunto(s)
Alérgenos , Anafilaxia , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos , Lupinus , Humanos , Anafilaxia/etiología , Anafilaxia/diagnóstico , Anafilaxia/inmunología , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos/inmunología , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos/diagnóstico , Alérgenos/inmunología , Lupinus/efectos adversos , Lupinus/inmunología , Masculino , Femenino , Inmunoglobulina E/inmunología , Inmunoglobulina E/sangre , AdultoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis hospitalizations are increasing in many countries, in particular for medication and food triggers in young children. Food-related anaphylaxis remains an uncommon cause of death, but a significant proportion of these are preventable. AIM: To review published epidemiological data relating to food-induced anaphylaxis and potential risk factors of fatal and/or near-fatal anaphylaxis cases, in order to provide strategies to reduce the risk of severe adverse outcomes in food anaphylaxis. METHODS: We identified 32 published studies available in MEDLINE (1966-2017), EMBASE (1980-2017), CINAHL (1982-2017), using known terms and synonyms suggested by librarians and allergy specialists. RESULTS: Young adults with a history of asthma, previously known food allergy particularly to peanut/tree nuts are at higher risk of fatal anaphylaxis reactions. In some countries, cow's milk and seafood/fish are also becoming common triggers of fatal reactions. Delayed adrenaline injection is associated with fatal outcomes, but timely adrenaline alone may be insufficient. There is still a lack of evidence regarding the real impact of these risk factors and co-factors (medications and/or alcohol consumption, physical activities, and mast cell disorders). CONCLUSIONS: General strategies should include optimization of the classification and coding for anaphylaxis (new ICD 11 anaphylaxis codes), dissemination of international recommendations on the treatment of anaphylaxis, improvement of the prevention in food and catering areas, and dissemination of specific policies for allergic children in schools. Implementation of these strategies will involve national and international support for ongoing local efforts in relationship with networks of centres of excellence to provide personalized management (which might include immunotherapy) for the most at-risk patients.
Asunto(s)
Anafilaxia/mortalidad , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos/mortalidad , Factores de Edad , Alérgenos/inmunología , Anafilaxia/epidemiología , Anafilaxia/prevención & control , Alimentos/efectos adversos , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos/epidemiología , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos/prevención & control , Humanos , Mortalidad , Vigilancia en Salud Pública , Factores de RiesgoAsunto(s)
Anafilaxia/etiología , Anafilaxia/mortalidad , Hipersensibilidad a Nueces y Cacahuetes/complicaciones , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Niño , Preescolar , Bases de Datos Factuales , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Retrospectivos , Factores de Riesgo , Adulto JovenAsunto(s)
Anafilaxia/tratamiento farmacológico , Epinefrina/uso terapéutico , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos/tratamiento farmacológico , Población , Instituciones Académicas , Adolescente , Alérgenos/inmunología , Anafilaxia/diagnóstico , Anafilaxia/epidemiología , Niño , Preescolar , Femenino , Alimentos , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos/diagnóstico , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos/epidemiología , Francia/epidemiología , Humanos , Masculino , Encuestas y CuestionariosAsunto(s)
Anafilaxia/mortalidad , Adolescente , Niño , Mortalidad del Niño , Preescolar , Femenino , Francia , Humanos , Lactante , Masculino , Factores de Riesgo , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Wheat is one of the most commonly consumed foods and a known elicitor of anaphylaxis in children and adults. Reactions in adults are often cofactor dependent and characterized by a prolonged time between food intake and the onset of symptoms making the diagnosis of wheat anaphylaxis challenging. OBJECTIVE: To characterize a cohort of patients with the history of wheat anaphylaxis to better understand this atypical phenotype of anaphylaxis. METHODS: Data from the European Anaphylaxis Registry from 2007 to 2019 (n = 10,636) including 250 patients (213 adults and 37 children) with a history of anaphylaxis caused by wheat were analyzed. RESULTS: Wheat was the most common food elicitor of anaphylaxis in adults in the registry in Central Europe. Reactions to wheat in adults were frequently associated with exercise as a cofactor (82.8%) and partially delayed (57.5%). Only 36.9% of patients had atopic comorbidities, which was uncommonly low for adult patients allergic to other kinds of foods (63.2%). Anaphylaxis to wheat presented frequently with cardiovascular symptoms (86.7%) including severe symptoms such as loss of consciousness (41%) and less often with respiratory symptoms (53.6%). The reactions to wheat were more severe than reactions to other foods (odds ratio [OR] = 4.33), venom (OR = 1.58), or drugs (OR = 2.11). CONCLUSIONS: Wheat is a relevant elicitor of anaphylaxis in adults in Central Europe. Wheat anaphylaxis is highly dependent on the presence of cofactors and less frequently associated with atopic diseases compared with other food allergies. More data on mechanisms of wheat-induced anaphylaxis are required to develop preventive measures for this potentially life-threatening disease.
Asunto(s)
Anafilaxia , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos , Hipersensibilidad al Trigo , Adulto , Alérgenos , Anafilaxia/diagnóstico , Anafilaxia/epidemiología , Antígenos de Plantas , Niño , Europa (Continente) , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos/diagnóstico , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos/epidemiología , Gliadina , Humanos , Inmunoglobulina E , Triticum , Hipersensibilidad al Trigo/diagnóstico , Hipersensibilidad al Trigo/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
Since the first description of anaphylaxis in 1902, its clinical importance as an emergency condition has been recognized worldwide. Anaphylaxis is a severe, potentially life-threatening systemic hypersensitivity reaction characterized by rapid onset and the potential to endanger life through respiratory or circulatory compromise. It is usually, although not always, associated with skin and mucosal changes. Although the academic/scientific communities have advocated to promote greater awareness and protocols for the management of anaphylaxis based on best evidence, there are few efforts documenting feedback as to the success of these efforts. In this article, we review the key unmet needs related to the diagnosis and management of anaphylaxis, and propose a public health initiative for prevention measures and a timetable action plan that intends to strengthen the collaboration among health professionals and especially primary care physicians dealing with anaphylaxis, which can encourage enhanced quality of care of patients with anaphylaxis. More than calling for a harmonized action for the best management of anaphylaxis to prevent undue morbidity and mortality, the Montpellier World Health Organization Collaborating Centre here proposes an action plan as a baseline for a global initiative against anaphylaxis. We strongly believe that these collaborative efforts are a strong public health and societal priority that is consistent with the overarching goals of providing optimal care of allergic patients and best practices of allergology.
Asunto(s)
Anafilaxia , Anafilaxia/diagnóstico , Anafilaxia/prevención & control , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital , Epinefrina , Humanos , Organización Mundial de la SaludRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis is an immediate hypersensitivity reaction. However, a biphasic course with the second onset of symptoms can occur hours after the initial phase. Little is known about the causes of biphasic anaphylaxis making the identification of patients at risk difficult. OBJECTIVE: To identify factors predisposing for biphasic anaphylaxis for the better understanding of these reactions. METHODS: Data from the Anaphylaxis Registry (from 11 countries) including 8736 patients with monophasic and 435 biphasic anaphylaxis were analyzed. RESULTS: The rate of biphasic reactions in this large cohort was 4.7%. The identified risk factors were reaction severity (grade III/IV vs grade II: odds ratio [OR] = 1.34; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.1-1.62); multiorgan involvement; skin, gastrointestinal, severe respiratory, and cardiac symptoms; anaphylaxis caused by peanut/tree nut (OR = 1.78; 95% CI: 1.38-2.23) or an unknown elicitor (OR = 1.96; 95% CI: 1.41-2.72); exercise as a cofactor (OR = 1.44; 95% CI: 1.17-1.78); chronic urticaria as a comorbidity (OR = 2.12; 95% CI: 1.19-3.78); a prolonged interval between the contact with the elicitor and start of primary symptoms (OR for >30 vs <30 min: 1.38; 95% CI: 1.08-1.76); and antihistamine treatment (OR = 1.52; 95% CI: 1.14-2.02). CONCLUSION: A biphasic course of anaphylaxis occurs more frequently in severely affected patients with multiorgan involvement. However, we identified multiple additional predictors, suggesting that the pathogenesis of biphasic reactions is more complex than being a rebound of a severe primary reaction.
Asunto(s)
Anafilaxia , Anafilaxia/diagnóstico , Anafilaxia/epidemiología , Estudios de Cohortes , Epinefrina , Humanos , Oportunidad Relativa , Factores de RiesgoRESUMEN
Refractory anaphylaxis (unresponsive to treatment with at least two doses of minimum 300 µg adrenaline) is a rare and often fatal hypersensitivity reaction. Comprehensive data on its definition, prevalence, and risk factors are missing. Using the data from the European Anaphylaxis Registry (11,596 cases in total) we identified refractory anaphylaxis cases (n = 42) and analyzed these in comparison to a control group of severe anaphylaxis cases (n = 4,820). The data show that drugs more frequently elicited refractory anaphylaxis (50% of cases, p < 0.0001) compared to other severe anaphylaxis cases (19.7%). Cases elicited by insects (n = 8) were more often due to bees than wasps in refractory cases (62.5 vs. 19.4%, p = 0.009). The refractory cases occurred mostly in a perioperative setting (45.2 vs. 9.05, p < 0.0001). Intramuscular adrenaline (as a first line therapy) was administered in 16.7% of refractory cases, whereas in 83.3% of cases it was applied intravenously (significantly more often than in severe anaphylaxis cases: 12.3%, p < 0.0001). Second line treatment options (e.g., vasopression with dopamine, methylene blue, glucagon) were not used at all for the treatment of refractory cases. The mortality rate in refractory anaphylaxis was significantly higher (26.2%) than in severe cases (0.353%, p < 0.0001). Refractory anaphylaxis is associated with drug-induced anaphylaxis in particular if allergens are given intravenously. Although physicians frequently use adrenaline in cases of perioperative anaphylaxis, not all patients are responding to treatment. Whether a delay in recognition of anaphylaxis is responsible for the refractory case or whether these cases are due to an overflow with mast cell activating substances-requires further studies. Reasons for the low use of second-line medication (i.e., methylene blue or dopamine) in refractory cases are unknown, but their use might improve the outcome of severe refractory anaphylaxis cases.
Asunto(s)
Anafilaxia/epidemiología , Anafilaxia/diagnóstico , Anafilaxia/etiología , Anafilaxia/terapia , Manejo de la Enfermedad , Susceptibilidad a Enfermedades , Europa (Continente)/epidemiología , Humanos , Prevalencia , Vigilancia en Salud Pública , Sistema de Registros , Factores de Riesgo , Índice de Severidad de la Enfermedad , Evaluación de Síntomas , Insuficiencia del TratamientoRESUMEN
Background: Elicitors and symptoms of anaphylaxis are age dependent. However, little is known about typical features of anaphylaxis in patients aged 65 years or more. Methods: The data from the Network for Online Registration of Anaphylaxis (NORA) considering patients aged ≥65 (elderly) in comparison to data from adults (18-64 years) regarding elicitors, symptoms, comorbidities, and treatment measures were analyzed. Results: We identified 1,123 elderly anaphylactic patients. Insect venoms were the most frequent elicitor in this group (p < 0.001), followed by drugs like analgesics and antibiotics. Food allergens elicited less frequently anaphylaxis (p < 0.001). Skin symptoms occurred less frequently in elderly patients (77%, p < 0.001). The clinical symptoms were more severe in the elderly (51% experiencing grade III/IV reactions), in particular when skin symptoms (p < 0.001) were absent. Most strikingly, a loss of consciousness (33%, p < 0.001) and preexisting cardiovascular comorbidity (59%, p < 0.001) were more prevalent in the elderly. Finally, adrenaline was used in 30% of the elderly (vs. 26% in the comparator group, p < 0.001) and hospitalization was more often required (60 vs. 50%, p < 0.001). Discussion and Conclusion: Anaphylaxis in the elderly is often caused by insect venoms and drugs. These patients suffer more often from cardiovascular symptoms, receive more frequently adrenaline and require more often hospitalization. The data indicate that anaphylaxis in the elderly tends to be more frequently life threatening and patients require intensified medical intervention. The data support the need to recognize anaphylaxis in this patient group, which is prone to be at a higher risk for a fatal outcome.
Asunto(s)
Anafilaxia/epidemiología , Evaluación Geriátrica , Adolescente , Adulto , Distribución por Edad , Factores de Edad , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Anafilaxia/diagnóstico , Anafilaxia/etiología , Comorbilidad , Manejo de la Enfermedad , Susceptibilidad a Enfermedades , Europa (Continente)/epidemiología , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Fenotipo , Vigilancia en Salud Pública , Sistema de Registros , Factores de Riesgo , Índice de Severidad de la Enfermedad , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend intramuscular administration of epinephrine as the first-line drug for the emergency treatment of severe allergic reactions (anaphylaxis), but no randomized trial evidence supports this consensus. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess anaphylaxis treatment practices over 10 years, covering several European regions, all allergen sources, and all age groups. METHODS: The European Anaphylaxis Register tracks elicitors, symptoms, emergency treatment, diagnostic workups, and long-term counseling for anaphylaxis incidents through web-based data entry from tertiary allergy specialists, covering information from the emergency respondent, patient, tertiary referral, and laboratory/clinical test results. RESULTS: We analyzed 10,184 anaphylaxis incidents. In total, 27.1% of patients treated by a health professional received epinephrine and, in total, 10.5% received a second dose. Successful administration was less frequent in German-speaking countries (minimum 19.6%) than in Greece, France, and Spain (maximum 66.7%). Over the last decade, epinephrine administration from a health professional almost doubled to reach 30.6% in 2015-2017, half of which was applied intramuscularly. A total of 14.7% of lay- or self-treated cases were treated with an autoinjector. Of those without treatment, 22.4% carried a device for administration. No change in successful administration by lay emergency respondents was found over the last 10 years. Of the reaction and patient characteristics analyzed, only clinical severity considerably influenced the likelihood of receiving epinephrine, with 66.9% of successful administrations in near-fatal (grade IV) reactions. CONCLUSIONS: Despite clear recommendations, only a small proportion of anaphylaxis incidents are treated with epinephrine. We demonstrated a slight increase in treated patients when handled by professionals, but stagnation in lay- or self-treated anaphylaxis. The reaction circumstances, the respondent's professional background, and patient characteristics did not explain which reactions were treated.
Asunto(s)
Anafilaxia/tratamiento farmacológico , Broncodilatadores/uso terapéutico , Epinefrina/uso terapéutico , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Niño , Preescolar , Europa (Continente) , Femenino , Humanos , Lactante , Recién Nacido , Inyecciones Intramusculares , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Sistema de Registros , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To present a predictive model of allergenicity based on a structure-activity relationship analysis of beta-lactam antibiotics using appropriate skin testing procedures. CASE SUMMARY: A 39-year-old woman was diagnosed with anaphylactic shock a few minutes after taking a 500 mg tablet cefuroxime of axetil and was admitted to the emergency department with dizziness, facial angioedema, generalized skin rash, and inferior cardiac ischemia. Skin testing confirmed the involvement of cefuroxime as the cause of the anaphylactic reaction, and the reaction was defined as probable according to the Naranjo probability scale. We then performed skin testing to study cross-reactivity between different beta-lactam antibiotics. In addition to this initial assessment, a structure-activity relationship (SAR) analysis was done. It showed that the patient was sensitized to beta-lactam antibiotics presenting a methoxyimino group, but not to similar compounds lacking this chemical group (eg, amoxicillin or penicillin G or V). Challenge with amoxicillin under intensive medical monitoring was tolerated up to a cumulated dose of 1 g, administered intravenously over 2 hours. DISCUSSION: This study demonstrates that SAR analysis could be useful to predict potential adverse reactions to related antibiotics and to select alternative strategies when antibiotic administration is essential. CONCLUSIONS: An SAR-based approach could help physicians and pharmacists provide allergic patients with relevant advice and propose viable alternatives regarding drug therapy.