Management of anaphylaxis: a systematic review.

To establish the effectiveness of interventions for the acute and long-term management of anaphylaxis, seven databases were searched for systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series and - only in relation to adrenaline - case series investigating the effectiveness of interventions in managing anaphylaxis. Fifty-five studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. We found no robust studies investigating the effectiveness of adrenaline (epinephrine), H1-antihistamines, systemic glucocorticosteroids or methylxanthines to manage anaphylaxis. There was evidence regarding the optimum route, site and dose of administration of adrenaline from trials studying people with a history of anaphylaxis. This suggested that administration of intramuscular adrenaline into the middle of vastus lateralis muscle is the optimum treatment. Furthermore, fatality register studies have suggested that a failure or delay in administration of adrenaline may increase the risk of death. The main long-term management interventions studied were anaphylaxis management plans and allergen-specific immunotherapy. Management plans may reduce the risk of further reactions, but these studies were at high risk of bias. Venom immunotherapy may reduce the incidence of systemic reactions in those with a history of venom-triggered anaphylaxis.

Anaphylaxis: guidelines from the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.

Anaphylaxis is a clinical emergency, and all healthcare professionals should be familiar with its recognition and acute and ongoing management. These guidelines have been prepared by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Taskforce on Anaphylaxis. They aim to provide evidence-based recommendations for the recognition, risk factor assessment, and the management of patients who are at risk of, are experiencing, or have experienced anaphylaxis. While the primary audience is allergists, these guidelines are also relevant to all other healthcare professionals. The development of these guidelines has been underpinned by two systematic reviews of the literature, both on the epidemiology and on clinical management of anaphylaxis. Anaphylaxis is a potentially life-threatening condition whose clinical diagnosis is based on recognition of a constellation of presenting features. First-line treatment for anaphylaxis is intramuscular adrenaline. Useful second-line interventions may include removing the trigger where possible, calling for help, correct positioning of the patient, high-flow oxygen, intravenous fluids, inhaled short-acting bronchodilators, and nebulized adrenaline. Discharge arrangements should involve an assessment of the risk of further reactions, a management plan with an anaphylaxis emergency action plan, and, where appropriate, prescribing an adrenaline auto-injector. If an adrenaline auto-injector is prescribed, education on when and how to use the device should be provided. Specialist follow-up is essential to investigate possible triggers, to perform a comprehensive risk assessment, and to prevent future episodes by developing personalized risk reduction strategies including, where possible, commencing allergen immunotherapy. Training for the patient and all caregivers is essential. There are still many gaps in the evidence base for anaphylaxis.

The epidemiology of anaphylaxis in Europe: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis is an acute, potentially fatal, multi-organ system, allergic reaction caused by the release of chemical mediators from mast cells and basophils. Uncertainty exists around epidemiological measures of incidence and prevalence, risk factors, risk of recurrence, and death due to anaphylaxis. This systematic review aimed to (1) understand and describe the epidemiology of anaphylaxis and (2) describe how these characteristics vary by person, place, and time. METHODS: Using a highly sensitive search strategy, we identified systematic reviews of epidemiological studies, descriptive and analytical epidemiological investigations, and studies involving analysis of routine data. RESULTS: Our searches identified a total of 5,843 potentially eligible studies, of which 49 satisfied our inclusion criteria. Of these, three were suitable for pooled estimates of prevalence. The incidence rates for all-cause anaphylaxis ranged from 1.5 to 7.9 per 100,000 person-years. These data indicated that an estimated 0.3% (95% CI 0.1-0.5) of the population experience anaphylaxis at some point in their lives. Food, drugs, stinging insects, and latex were the most commonly identified triggers. CONCLUSIONS: Anaphylaxis is a common problem, affecting an estimated 1 in 300 of the European population at some time in their lives. Future research needs to focus on better understanding of the trends across Europe and identifying those most likely to experience fatal reactions.