M Alrasbi1, A Sheikh. 1. Allergy & Respiratory Research Group, Division of Community Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Guideline-based treatment approaches for managing anaphylaxis are widely believed to result in good outcomes, but the strength of evidence underpinning the recommendations made therein is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To identify and compare national guidelines for the emergency medical management of anaphylaxis and to describe the extent to which the evidence base in support of key recommendations is made clear. METHODS: We systematically searched key medical databases and contacted the World Allergy Organization and anaphylaxis charities in several countries to identify national guidelines. Full text copies of relevant papers were obtained and, where necessary, translated. Data were abstracted onto a customized data extraction sheet; this process was independently checked by a second reviewer. RESULTS: Guidelines originating from Australia, Canada, Russia, UK, Ukraine and the USA were identified. While these were in agreement on the broad principles of management, there were important variations in relation to the treatments to be used and the dose and route of administration of these preparations. Most guidelines failed to make clear the strength of evidence underpinning the recommendations being made. CONCLUSIONS: There are important international differences in the recommended emergency management of anaphylaxis. It is important that an agreed core evidence-based guideline for the management of anaphylaxis is now developed, which can then be adapted for national/local use. Clinicians need to be aware of the limitations of existing guidelines.
BACKGROUND: Guideline-based treatment approaches for managing anaphylaxis are widely believed to result in good outcomes, but the strength of evidence underpinning the recommendations made therein is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To identify and compare national guidelines for the emergency medical management of anaphylaxis and to describe the extent to which the evidence base in support of key recommendations is made clear. METHODS: We systematically searched key medical databases and contacted the World Allergy Organization and anaphylaxis charities in several countries to identify national guidelines. Full text copies of relevant papers were obtained and, where necessary, translated. Data were abstracted onto a customized data extraction sheet; this process was independently checked by a second reviewer. RESULTS: Guidelines originating from Australia, Canada, Russia, UK, Ukraine and the USA were identified. While these were in agreement on the broad principles of management, there were important variations in relation to the treatments to be used and the dose and route of administration of these preparations. Most guidelines failed to make clear the strength of evidence underpinning the recommendations being made. CONCLUSIONS: There are important international differences in the recommended emergency management of anaphylaxis. It is important that an agreed core evidence-based guideline for the management of anaphylaxis is now developed, which can then be adapted for national/local use. Clinicians need to be aware of the limitations of existing guidelines.