Search

Background: Fatal anaphylaxis is very rare, with an incidence ranging from 0.5 to 1 deaths per million person-years. Objective: Based on a systematic review, we aimed to explain differences in the reported incidence of fatal anaphylaxis based on the methodological and demographic factors addressed in the various studies. Methods: We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Web of Science for relevant retrospective and prospective cohort studies and registry studies that had assessed the anaphylaxis mortality rate for the population of a country or for an administrative region. The research strategy was based on combining the term “anaphylaxis” with “death”, “study design”, and “main outcomes” (incidence). Results: A total of 46 studies met the study criteria and included 16,541 deaths. The range of the anaphylaxis mortality rate for all causes of anaphylaxis was 0.002-2.51 deaths per million person-years. Fatal anaphylaxis due to food (range 0.002-0.29) was rarer than deaths due to drugs (range 0.004-0.56) or Hymenoptera venom (range 0.02-0.61). The frequency of deaths due to anaphylaxis by drugs increased during the study period (IRR per year, 1.02; 95%CI, 1.00-1.04). We detected considerable heterogeneity in almost all of the meta-analyses carried out. Conclusion: The incidence of fatal anaphylaxis is very low and differs according to the various subgroups analyzed. The studies were very heterogeneous. Fatal anaphylaxis due to food seems to be less common than fatal anaphylaxis due to drugs or Hymenoptera venom.

Background and objective Asthma is very prevalent in all grades of severity of anaphylaxis. Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have been associated with the severity of anaphylaxis. Objective: We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the influence of respiratory diseases on the severity of anaphylaxis. Methods We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Web of Science for observational studies. The target studies were those that compared the severity of anaphylaxis between patients who had or did not have respiratory diseases. Results A total of 13 studies assessed the severity of anaphylaxis in respiratory disease. Respiratory disease increased the severity of anaphylaxis (OR, 1.87; 95%CI, 1.30-2.70), as did asthma (OR, 1.89; 95%CI, 1.26-2.83). For the meta-analysis of all studies (adjusted and nonadjusted), COPD increased the severity of anaphylaxis (OR, 2.47; 95%CI, 1.46-4.18). In the case of asthma studies, only 1 study assessed the influence of severity of asthma on severity of anaphylaxis. Conclusions Evidence showing that respiratory disease increases the severity of anaphylaxis is low to moderate, although studies do not usually assess the importance of severity of asthma.

Although the clinical practice guidelines recommend continuous adjustment of asthma treatment and reducing the maintenance drugs when achieving control (step-down), there are few studies of standard clinical practice aimed at collecting information on the factors that determine step-down failure.To determine the factors that determine step-down failure in standard clinical practice of patients with moderate-severe asthma controlled by a combination of inhaled glucocorticoids and long-acting beta agonists.A multicentre retrospective study included 374 patients with moderate-severe asthma controlled with inhaled glucocorticoids and long-acting beta agonists for whom the physician indicated a step-down in 2016.The step-down failed in 41.7% of the patients. The following factors were related to failure: greater patient age (P=.006), presence of at least 2 comorbidities (P=.016), greater severity level (severe persistent vs. moderate persistent) (P.001), greater age at diagnosis (40 years) (P=.045), the higher the therapeutic step before (P=.003) and after the change (P.001), the shorter the time of improvement/control prior to the change (P=.019), lower FEVIn standard clinical practice conditions, step-down fails in a high percentage of patients, and the suggestion is to indicate step-down when the patient has had more than 6 months of disease control.

Background: Five-grass pollen tablet is an effective and well-tolerated therapy for patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC). This trial sought to determine the satisfaction and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients undergoing this treatment. Methods: This was a cross-sectional, multicentre, observational, naturalistic study, following a discontinuous pre- and coseasonal five-grass pollen regimen over two seasons in Spain (2012, 2013). The HRQoL of the patients was measured with the specific Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) for adults, adolescent (AdolRQLQ), or paediatric (PRQLQ) patients. Treatment satisfaction was assessed by the Satisfaction Scale for Patients Receiving Allergen Immunotherapy (ESPIA) questionnaire. Patients/investigators were surveyed on beliefs and attitudes towards the five-grass pollen tablet. ARC evolution according to allergic rhinitis and its impact on asthma (ARIA) criteria and treatment adherence were evaluated. Results: Among the 591 ARC patients included, the mean (SD) HRQoL scores were 1.40 (1.1) in adults, 1.33 (1.1) in adolescents, and 1.15 (1.1) in children, indicating low levels of impairment (scale 0–6). ESPIA answers showed high levels of satisfaction, with an average score of 69.2 (scale 0–100). According to ARIA criteria, 88.2% of patients reported improvement of ARC. Moreover, this was accompanied by a reduced use of symptomatic medication. Adherence to treatment was estimated at 96.8%. In general, both patients and specialists exhibited a positive attitude towards five-grass pollen tablet treatment. Conclusion: ARC patients treated with five-grass pollen tablet showed favourable levels of HRQoL and treatment satisfaction, with concomitant improvements in ARC and symptomatic medication use, which translated into high levels of treatment adherence and a positive attitude towards five-grass pollen tablet.

The objective of these guidelines is to ensure efficient and effective clinical practice. The panel of experts who produced this consensus document developed a research protocol based on a review of the literature. The prevalence of allergic reactions to iodinated contrast media (ICM) is estimated to be 1:170 000, that is, 0.05%-0.1% of patients undergoing radiologic studies with ICM (more than 75 million examinations per year worldwide). Hypersensitivity reactions can appear within the first hour after administration (immediate reactions) or from more than 1 hour to several days after administration (nonimmediate or delayed reactions). The risk factors for immediate reactions include poorly controlled bronchial asthma, concomitant medication (eg, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, ß-blockers, and proton-pump inhibitors), rapid administration of the ICM, mastocytosis, autoimmune diseases, and viral infections. The most common symptoms of immediate reactions are erythema and urticaria with or without angioedema, which appear in more than 70% of patients. Maculopapular rash is the most common skin feature of nonimmediate reactions (30%-90%). Skin and in vitro tests should be performed for diagnosis of both immediate and nonimmediate reactions. The ICM to be administered will therefore be chosen depending on the results of these tests, the ICM that induced the reaction (when known), the severity of the reaction, the availability of alternative ICM, and the information available on potential ICM cross-reactivity. Another type of contrast media, gadolinium derivatives, is used used for magnetic resonance imaging. Although rare, IgE-mediated reactions to gadolinium derivatives have been reported.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE Studies assessing the severity of anaphylaxis lack a comprehensive approach to collecting data on comorbidities that may worsen prognosis. Objective: Using the Elixhauser score (a systematic index associated with longer stay, hospital charges, and mortality), we determined which comorbidities were associated with more severe anaphylaxis. METHODS We based our study on the Spanish Ministry of Health database of hospital discharges in Spain between 1997 and 2011. We constructed logistic regression models in which the dependent variables were outcomes related to greater severity (death, cardiac arrest, need for invasive mechanical ventilation or vasopressor drugs, admission to the intensive care unit, and length of stay) and the independent variables were the 30 comorbidities that comprise the Elixhauser score, age, sex, and main causes of anaphylaxis. RESULTS We found that a higher risk of severe anaphylaxis was associated (3 or more logistic regressions) with age >50 years or having experienced cardiac arrhythmia, coagulation disorder, associated fluid-electrolyte imbalance, chronic pulmonary disease, or Echinococcus anaphylaxis. Likewise, in the adjusted analysis, a higher Elixhauser score was associated with most of the outcomes analyzed for severity of anaphylaxis. CONCLUSIONS Cardiovascular and respiratory diseases increase the severity of anaphylaxis, and the resulting poor health status (represented as a higher Elixhauser score) is associated with more severe anaphylaxis.

Background Beta-blockers (BBs) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) have been associated with an increased risk and severity of anaphylaxis. However, the evidence supporting these findings is contradictory. Objective We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that assess the influence of BBs and ACEIs on anaphylaxis. Methods We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Web of Science for relevant observational studies. We searched for studies where the presence and severity of anaphylaxis were compared between patients taking BBs, ACEIs, both types of drug, or neither type of drug. We performed a meta-analysis using a random-effects model. Results A total of 21 studies met the study criteria. Of these, 15 assessed the severity and 9 the incidence of anaphylaxis. The studies brought together 22,313 anaphylaxis episodes for the severity studies and 18,101 anaphylaxis episodes for the studies of new cases of anaphylaxis. BBs and ACEIs increased the severity of anaphylaxis (BBs, odds ratio [OR] 2.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.25-3.84; ACEIs, OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.12-2.16), but not the presence of new cases of anaphylaxis (BBs, OR 1.40, 95% CI 0.91-2.14; ACEIs, OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.39-4.86). It was not possible to perform an analysis adjusted for cardiovascular diseases, because only 1 study each for BBs and ACEIs, respectively, had adjusted data. Conclusions The quality of evidence showing that the use of BBs and ACEI increases the severity of anaphylaxis is low owing to differences in the control of confounders arising from the concomitant presence of cardiovascular diseases.

Background: Only two studies have analyzed the incidence of anaphylaxis during admission to hospital. We have analyzed the incidence of anaphylaxis among hospitalized patients and determined the timing of and risk factors for episodes of anaphylaxis. Methods: Our study was performed between 1999 and 2005. We used the definition of anaphylaxis of the NIAID-FAAN symposium. Cases of anaphylaxis were extracted from an official database of discharge diagnoses coded according to the International Classification of Diseases, Clinical Modification, Ninth Revision (ICD-9-CM), Sixth Edition. Specific and generic codes related to anaphylaxis were chosen. This strategy revealed 83.3% (95% confidence interval, CI, 47–99%) of all episodes of anaphylaxis in a pilot study. The incidence of episodes of anaphylaxis and the hazard ratios were calculated for the different variables. Results: We observed a crude cumulative incidence of 1.5 episodes of anaphylaxis (95% CI, 0.9–1.9) in 5,000 admissions. The cumulative incidence according to the Standardized European Population was 1.6 cases in 5,000 admissions (95% CI, 0.8–2.3). Cox regression analysis showed that anaphylaxis occurs mainly in young people (0.97; 95% CI, 0.95–0.99) and its incidence differs according to the clinical unit. The Vascular Surgery Unit had the highest incidence rate (hazard ratio 7.7; 95% CI, 2.1–28.6). Males had a lower risk of suffering from anaphylaxis than females (0.5; 95% CI, 0.2–0.9). Conclusions: Anaphylaxis is a very rare event among hospitalized patients. Female gender, young age and admission to the Vascular Surgery Unit favored the occurrence of episodes of anaphylaxis among hospitalized patients.

AIMS We describe a rare case of anaphylaxis and thrombocytopenia whose cause was heparin used during hemodialysis sessions. CASE REPORT A 77-year-old woman suffered five consecutive episodes of vomiting, tachypnea, wheezing or rales, immediately after initiating hemodialysis. In the first of these episodes, arterial pressure was undetectable. In all of the episodes there was evidence of the presence of hypoxia (always below 60 mmHg) and thrombocytopenia (always below l00,000/microl,, with partial platelets recovery among episodes. The episodes started immediately after hemodialysis sessions and heparin infusion; either sodium heparin or enoxaparin was used. Utilization of different filters was not able to stop the episodes. These were stopped when a switch from heparin to hirudin was tested. Tryptase levels, as a marker of mast cells activation and anaphylaxis, were not increased in two of the episodes which were assessed. IgG antibodies against heparin-PF4 complex was detected at high levels. DISCUSSION A diagnosis of concomitant anaphylaxis and thrombocytopenia caused by sodium heparin and a low-molecular weight heparin (enoxaparin) were assumed.