Anaphylaxis in America: the prevalence and characteristics of anaphylaxis in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Although anaphylaxis is recognized as an important life-threatening condition, data are limited regarding its prevalence and characteristics in the general population. OBJECTIVE: We sought to estimate the lifetime prevalence and overall characteristics of anaphylaxis. METHODS: Two nationwide, cross-sectional random-digit-dial surveys were conducted. The public survey included unselected adults, whereas the patient survey captured information from household members reporting a prior reaction to medications, foods, insect stings, or latex and idiopathic reactions in the previous 10 years. In both surveys standardized questionnaires queried anaphylaxis symptoms, treatments, knowledge, and behaviors. RESULTS: The public survey included 1,000 adults, of whom 7.7% (95% CI, 5.7% to 9.7%) reported a prior anaphylactic reaction. Using increasingly stringent criteria, we estimate that 5.1% (95% CI, 3.4% to 6.8%) and 1.6% (95% CI, 0.8% to 2.4%) had probable and very likely anaphylaxis, respectively. The patient survey included 1,059 respondents, of whom 344 reported a history of anaphylaxis. The most common triggers reported were medications (34%), foods (31%), and insect stings (20%). Forty-two percent sought treatment within 15 minutes of onset, 34% went to the hospital, 27% self-treated with antihistamines, 10% called 911, 11% self-administered epinephrine, and 6.4% received no treatment. Although most respondents with anaphylaxis reported 2 or more prior episodes (19% reporting ≥5 episodes), 52% had never received a self-injectable epinephrine prescription, and 60% did not currently have epinephrine available. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of anaphylaxis in the general population is at least 1.6% and probably higher. Patients do not appear adequately equipped to deal with future episodes, indicating the need for public health initiatives to improve anaphylaxis recognition and treatment.

Integrating patient values and preferences in healthcare: a systematic review of qualitative evidence.

OBJECTIVES: To identify and thematically analyse how healthcare professionals (HCPs) integrate patient values and preferences ('values integration') in primary care for adults with non-communicable diseases (NCDs). DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-aggregation methods were used for extraction, synthesis and analysis of qualitative evidence. DATA SOURCES: Relevant records were sourced using keywords to search 12 databases (ASSIA, CINAHL, DARE, EMBASE, ERIC, Google Scholar, GreyLit, Ovid-MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed-MEDLINE, Scopus and Web of Science). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Records needed to be published between 2000 and 2020 and report qualitative methods and findings in English involving HCP participants regarding primary care for adult patients. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Relevant data including participant quotations, authors' observations, interpretations and conclusions were extracted, synthesised and analysed in a phased approach using a modified version of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Data Extraction Tool, as well as EPPI Reviewer and NVivo software. The JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research was used to assess methodological quality of included records. RESULTS: Thirty-one records involving >1032 HCP participants and 1823 HCP-patient encounters were reviewed. Findings included 143 approaches to values integration in clinical care, thematically analysed and synthesised into four themes: (1) approaches of concern; (2) approaches of competence; (3) approaches of communication and (4) approaches of congruence. Confidence in the quality of included records was deemed high. CONCLUSIONS: HCPs incorporate patient values and preferences in healthcare through a variety of approaches including showing concern for the patient as a person, demonstrating competence at managing diseases, communicating with patients as partners and tailoring, adjusting and balancing overall care. Themes in this review provide a novel framework for understanding and addressing values integration in clinical care and provide useful insights for policymakers, educators and practitioners. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020166002.

Patients' and primary care physicians' beliefs about asthma control and risk.

Patients' and physicians' knowledge of asthma control and risks can affect long-term outcomes. The Asthma General Awareness and Perceptions II (Asthma GAP II) survey sought to assess the beliefs and behaviors of asthma patients and their physicians. In the United States, a telephone survey was conducted among 1885 adults with asthma (representative population sample [n = 1001] plus additional black [n = 436] and Hispanic samples [n = 448]) who took asthma medication in the previous year. An online survey included 300 primary care physicians. Most patients (66, 84, and 78% of national, black, and Hispanic samples, respectively) and physicians (80%) considered asthma a very or extremely serious condition. In contrast to current guidelines, most patients (69, 72, and 70%) believed that quick-relief medications could be taken daily. Many patients (42, 52, and 60%) and some physicians (22%) stated controller medications could be taken less regularly when symptoms decrease, although most patients (92, 92, and 89%) and physicians (95%) indicated that controller medications are most effective when taken daily. Of patients who discontinued controller medications (21%), 71% discontinued when symptoms abated. Most physicians (87%) believed that patients discontinued controller medications without their advice. After controller medication cessation, more black (22%) and Hispanic patients (22%) than patients in the national sample (15%) experienced serious health consequences after an asthma attack. Gaps exist between patients' understanding of asthma control and their use of controller and quick-relief medications. Many patients and physicians fail to recognize that, even with symptom abatement, serious asthma risks remain.