Predictors of severe and recurrent adult anaphylaxis, and gaps in the cascade of care: a retrospective, single-centre study 2009-2018.

BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis is a severe, potentially fatal, systemic allergic reaction. Understanding predictors of recurrent and severe anaphylaxis in adults, and identifying gaps in ongoing anaphylaxis care, is needed to minimise its impact. AIMS: To evaluate the risk factors in adults with severe and recurrent anaphylaxis presentations and to evaluate the management of patients in regard to the recommended cascade of care. METHODS: We completed a retrospective audit of adults with confirmed anaphylaxis who presented to an inner-city emergency department from 1 January 2009 through 31 December 2018. Data recorded included demographics, background history, medication use, severity, co-factors, triggers, management, discharge disposition and referral for follow-up. Data were managed in REDCap and analysed using Stata. Associations were assessed through odds ratios (ORs) and t tests. RESULTS: Six hundred sixteen individuals had 689 episodes of anaphylaxis over the audit period. Age over 65 (OR: 5.4 (95% confidence interval, CI: 2.3-13.2), P < 0.0001) and history of asthma (OR: 1.6 (95% CI: 1.03-2.5), P = 0.03) were independent risk factors for severe anaphylaxis. History of food allergy (P < 0.001) and food as the trigger were associated with recurrent presentations (OR: 2.1, 95% CI: 1.1-3.9, P = 0.01). Only 19% of patients met the recommended cascade of care, with post-adrenaline monitoring and recommending follow-up with an allergy specialist demonstrating the largest gaps. There were increased presentations with time but no difference in triggers or severity. CONCLUSIONS: Increased age and asthma were identified as risk factors for severe presentations. History of food allergy was a risk factor for recurrent presentations. Further research is needed on the gaps in care for adults with anaphylaxis to identify the reasons why, so we can better care for these patients.

The Australasian Registry for Severe Cutaneous Adverse Reactions (AUS-SCAR) - Providing a roadmap for closing the diagnostic, patient, and healthcare gaps for a group of rare drug eruptions.

Background: Severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCAR) are a group of delayed presumed T-cell mediated hypersensitivities associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Despite their shared global healthcare burden and impact, the clinical phenotypes, genomic predisposition, drug causality, and treatment outcomes may vary. We describe the establishment and results from the first Australasian registry for SCAR (AUS-SCAR), that via a collaborative network advances strategies for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of SCAR. Methods: Prospective multi-center registry of SCAR in Australian adult and adolescents, with planned regional expansion. The registry collects externally verified phenotypic data drug causality, therapeutics and long-term patient outcomes. In addition, biorepository specimens and DNA are collected at participating sites. Results: we report on the first 100 patients enrolled in the AUS-SCAR database. DRESS (50%) is the most predominant phenotype followed by SJS/TEN (39%) and AGEP (10%), with median age of 52 years old (IQR 37.5, 66) with 1:1 male-to-female ratio. The median latency for all implicated drugs is highly variable but similar for DRESS (median 15 days IQR 5,25) and SJS/TEN (median 21 days, IQR 7,27), while lowest for AGEP (median 2.5 days, IQR 1,8). Antibiotics (54.5%) are more commonly listed as primary implicated drug compare with non-antibiotics agent (45.5%). Mortality rate at 90 days was highest in SJS/TEN at 23.1%, followed by DRESS (4%) and AGEP (0%). Conclusion: In the first prospective national phenotypic and biorepository of SCAR in the southern hemisphere we demonstrate notable differences to other reported registries; including DRESS-predominant phenotype, varied antibiotic causality and low overall mortality rate. This study also highlights the lack of standardised preventative pharmacogenomic measures and in vitro/in vivo diagnostic strategies to ascertain drug causality. Trial registration: ANZCTR ACTRN12619000241134. Registered 19 February 2019.

Delabeling, safety, and impact of ß-lactam allergy testing: A systematic review.

Background: To improve ß-lactam delabeling outcomes, we need to understand current practice and the evidence base regarding its outcomes, safety, and impact. Objectives: We sought to assess the existing published evidence reporting on the effectiveness of penicillin allergy testing and delabeling. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of studies reporting ß-lactam delabeling practices and outcomes after testing, including ß-lactam use and patient understanding of the delabeling result. Searches of the PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases; clinical trial registries; and websites of professional organizations were conducted. Data were extracted from the included studies in duplicate, with a third extraction if discrepancies remained. Results: We included 284 publications (covering 98,316 participants); 173 were prospective studies, with no randomized controlled trials. The overall study quality was low. In all, 95.6% of individuals who underwent provocation testing were delabeled. Factors associated with successful delabeling could not be determined because of significant heterogeneity between studies. Anaphylaxis due to testing occurred in 0.3% of participants (95 of 31,667). Subjects who did not undergo skin testing (6,980 patients in 31 studies) before challenge had higher rates of provocation test positivity (8.8% vs 4.1% [P < .0001]) and anaphylaxis (15.9% vs 2.7% [P < .0001]) than those subjects who underwent skin testing (51,607 patients in 177 studies). Six studies (2.1%) followed patients after testing to assess their adherence to prescribing recommendations. In all, 136 participants (20.6%) were actively avoiding ß-lactams despite delabeling. Conclusions: The available data suggest that penicillin allergy testing is safe and effective in delabeling most individuals, but the evidence base is incomplete and more work is required to assess the role of skin testing and the impact that delabeling is having on prescribing habits.

Standardized testing and written communication improve patient understanding of beta-lactam allergy testing outcomes: A multicenter, prospective study.

Background: Historical penicillin allergy is commonly reported, but the lack of standardized allergy clinic practices may diminish the ability to delabel beta-lactam allergy appropriately. Objective: We sought to improve beta-lactam allergy testing and patient understanding of their antibiotic allergy status by standardizing testing and communication practices between 7 adult and pediatric hospital centers. Methods: Phase 1 prospectively described the beta-lactam allergy testing practices at each center. Following this, practice was standardized to achieve a defined panel of skin testing reagents, pro forma result letters for patients and referring doctors, and provision of medical alert jewelry to those with confirmed allergy. Testing outcomes and patient perception regarding allergy status 8 weeks postassessment were compared before (phase 1) and after standardization (phase 2). Primary outcomes were the percentage of participants delabeled after testing, and concordance rates between participant perception of their allergy status and their status as determined by the treating physician at 8-week follow-up. Results: Of 195 adult and pediatric participants (median age, 50 years; 21.5% <18 years; 36.9% males), 75% were delabeled of their beta-lactam allergy. No patient experienced anaphylaxis related to any beta-lactam delabeling testing. In phase 1, 75% of participants received written results, 52% were informed verbally, and 48% received results in more than 1 form. All phase 2 participants received written results (P < .01), 61% received verbal results from a physician as well (P > .05). At 8-week follow-up, 54% of phase 1 participants had concordant perceptions of their allergy status as the testing team versus 91.6% in phase2 (P < .001). Of the 17 participants who were delabeled and treated with a beta-lactam antibiotic during the 8-week follow-up period, there were no reported allergic reactions, although 1 participant experienced anaphylaxis following exposure to amoxicillin-clavulanic acid 1 year after delabeling. Conclusions: Standardization of testing and written patient information improved short-term patient perception of beta-lactam allergy status.