Search

Background: Egg is the third most common food allergy in children; however, data on pediatric egg-induced anaphylaxis are sparse., Objective: To describe the clinical characteristics, management, and outcomes of pediatric egg-induced anaphylaxis., Methods: Children presenting with anaphylaxis were recruited from 13 emergency departments as part of the Cross-Canada Anaphylaxis Registry, from which data on anaphylaxis triggered by egg were extracted. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with prehospital epinephrine autoinjector (EAI) use and to compare anaphylaxis triggered by egg with other triggers of food-induced anaphylaxis (FIA)., Results: We recruited 302 children with egg-induced anaphylaxis. The mean age was 2.6 years (SD = 3.6), and 55.3% were male. Only 39.4% had previously been diagnosed with an egg allergy. Prehospital EAI use was 32.1%, but this was not significantly lower than in other triggers of FIA (P = .26). Only 1.4% of patients required hospital admission. Relative to other triggers of FIA, patients with egg-induced anaphylaxis were significantly younger (P < .001) and exhibited more vomiting (P = .0053) and less throat tightness (P = .0015) and angioedema (P < .001)., Conclusion: To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest published cohort of pediatric egg-induced anaphylaxis. In this cohort, prehospital EAI use was very low. In addition, we identified certain symptoms that distinguish egg-induced from other triggers of FIA. Taken together, high suspicion is crucial in identifying egg-induced anaphylaxis, given the younger patient demographic and frequent lack of FIA history., Competing Interests: Disclosures The authors have no conflicts of interest to report., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Studies assessing the use of antihistamines and corticosteroids for the treatment of anaphylaxis have not supported a conclusive effect., Objective: To assess prehospital management of anaphylaxis by measuring the effect of epinephrine use compared with antihistamines and corticosteroids on negative outcomes of anaphylaxis (intensive care unit/hospital ward admission, multiple doses of epinephrine in the emergency department [ED], and intravenous fluids given in the ED)., Methods: The Cross-Canada Anaphylaxis Registry is a cohort study that enrolls anaphylaxis cases presenting to EDs in 5 Canadian provinces over a 6-year period. Participants were recruited prospectively and retrospectively and were excluded if the case did not meet the definition of anaphylaxis., Results: A total of 3498 cases of anaphylaxis, of which 80.3% were children, presented to 9 EDs across Canada. Prehospital treatment with epinephrine was administered in 31% of cases, whereas antihistamines and corticosteroids were used in 46% and 2% of cases, respectively. Admission to the intensive care unit/hospital ward was associated with prehospital treatment with corticosteroids (adjusted odds ratio, 2.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.55, 6.97) while adjusting for severity, treatment with epinephrine and antihistamines, asthma, sex, and age. Prehospital treatment with epinephrine (adjusted odds ratio, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.14, 0.38) and antihistamines (adjusted odds ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44, 0.85) decreased the likelihood of receiving multiple doses of epinephrine in the ED, while adjusting for severity, treatment with corticosteroids, asthma, sex, and age., Conclusions: Prompt epinephrine treatment is crucial. Use of antihistamines in conjunction with epinephrine may reduce the risk of uncontrolled reactions (administration of 2 or more doses of epinephrine in the ED), although our findings do not support the use of corticosteroids., (Copyright © 2019 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. All rights reserved.)

Background: Anaphylaxis due to unknown trigger (AUT) is anaphylaxis not explained by a proved or presumptive cause or stimulus at the time of the reaction. Research describing the management and follow-up of AUT is limited., Objective: To assess and compare the demographic and clinical characteristics and the management of adult and pediatric AUT cases across Canada., Methods: Participants were identified between 2011 and 2018 in emergency departments at 8 centers across Canada as part of the Cross-Canada Anaphylaxis Registry. A standardized form documenting the reaction and management in children and adults was completed. Patients were contacted for follow-up to determine assessment by an allergist., Results: A total of 295 AUT cases (7.5%) were recruited among 3,922 cases of anaphylaxis. In the prehospital setting, children (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.20; 95% CI, 1.05-1.37) and those with a known food allergy (aOR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.02-1.28) were more likely to receive treatment with epinephrine. Children were also more likely to be assessed by an allergist after their reaction (aOR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.13-1.81) and were more likely to have an identified trigger for their reaction (aOR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.07-1.70). Among patients contacted for follow-up, food was identified as the cause of reaction in 11 of 76 patients. A new food allergy was diagnosed in 4 patients (2 children and 2 adults)., Conclusions: Our findings highlight important differences between management and follow-up of adult and pediatric AUT cases. It is crucial to follow up all cases of AUT and establish appropriate treatment and management guidelines., (Copyright © 2018 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Venom-induced anaphylaxis (VIA) accounts for severe reactions. However, little is known about the short- and long-term management of VIA patients., Objective: To assess the short- and long-term management of VIA., Methods: Using a national anaphylaxis registry (C-CARE), we identified VIA cases presenting to emergency departments in Montreal and to emergency medical services (EMSs) in western Quebec over a 4-year period. Data were collected on clinical characteristics, triggers, and management. Consenting patients were contacted annually regarding long-term management. Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were used to identify factors associated with epinephrine use, allergist assessment, and administration of immunotherapy., Results: Between June 2013 and May 2017, 115 VIA cases were identified. Epinephrine was administered to 63.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 53.9%-72.1%) of all VIA cases by a health care professional. Treatment of reactions without epinephrine was more likely in reactions occurring at home and in nonsevere cases (no hypotension, hypoxia, or loss of consciousness). Among 48 patients who responded to a follow-up questionnaire, 95.8% (95% CI, 84.6%-99.3%) were prescribed epinephrine auto-injector, 68.8% (95% CI, 53.6%-80.9%) saw an allergist who confirmed the allergy in 63.6% of cases, and 81.0% of those with positive testing were administered immunotherapy. Among cases with follow-up, seeing an allergist was less likely in patients with known ischemic heart disease., Conclusion: Almost 30% of patients with suspected VIA did not see an allergist, only two thirds of those seeing an allergist had allergy confirmation, and almost one fifth of those with confirmed allergy did not receive immunotherapy. Educational programs are needed to bridge this knowledge-to-action gap., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Anaphylaxis is an acute systemic and potentially fatal allergic reaction. We evaluated trends in yearly rates of anaphylaxis in a pediatric Emergency Department (ED) in Montreal, Canada. A prospective and retrospective recruitment process was used to find families of children who had presented with anaphylaxis at the Montreal Children's Hospital between April 2011 and April 2021. Using a uniform recruitment form, data were collected. Anaphylaxis patterns were compared to clinical triggers using descriptive analysis. Among 830,382 ED visits during the study period, 2726 (26% recruited prospectively) presented with anaphylaxis. The median age was 6 years (IQR: 0.2, 12.00), and 58.7% were males. The relative frequency of anaphylaxis cases doubled between 2011–2015, from 0.22% (95% CI, 0.19, 0.26) to 0.42 March 2020, the total absolute number of anaphylaxis cases and relative frequency declined by 24 cases per month (p < 0.05) and by 0.5% of ED visits (p < 0.05). The rate of anaphylaxis has changed over the years, representing modifications in food introduction strategies or lifestyle changes. The decrease in the frequency of anaphylaxis presenting to the ED during the COVID pandemic may reflect decreased accidental exposures with reduced social gatherings, closed school, and reluctance to present to ED. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: We aimed to develop and test the effectiveness of an education tool to help pediatric patients and their families better understand anaphylaxis and its management, and to improve current knowledge and treatment guidelines adherence. Methods: From June 2019 to May 2022, 128 pediatric patients with history of food-triggered anaphylaxis who presented to the allergy outpatient clinics at the study institution were recruited. Consenting families were asked to complete 6 questions related to the triggers, recognition, and management of anaphylaxis at the time of presentation to the clinic. Participants were shown a 5-min animated video on the causes, presentation, and management of anaphylaxis. At the end of the video, the participants were redirected to the same 6 questions to respond again. The scores were recorded in proportion of correct answers (minimum 0.0; maximum 1.0). Results: The mean age of the patients was 5.8 ± 4.5 years (range: 0.5–18.8 years). The majority were males (70 patients; 54.7%). The mean baseline prevideo education questionnaire score was 0.76 ± 0.2 (range: 0.3–1.0), whereas the mean follow-up score was 0.82 ± 0.2 (range: 0.3–1.0). This score difference of 0.06 was statistically significant (P < 0.001). There were no significant associations between change in scores and age or gender of the participants. Conclusion: Our video teaching method was successful in educating patients and their families to better understand anaphylaxis and its management at the moment of the clinical encounter. Retention of knowledge at long-term follow-up should be assessed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]