Caitlin E Loprinzi Brauer1, Megan S Motosue2, James T Li2, John B Hagan2, M Fernanda Bellolio1, Sangil Lee3, Ronna L Campbell4. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. 2. Division of Allergic Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine, Mayo Clinic Health System in Mankato, Mankato, Minn. 4. Department of Emergency Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. Electronic address: campbell.ronna@mayo.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis diagnostic criteria were proposed at the Second Symposium on the Definition and Management of Anaphylaxis. These criteria were 97% sensitive and 82% specific when retrospectively validated. OBJECTIVE: To prospectively evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases/Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network (NIAID/FAAN) criteria for diagnosis of anaphylaxis in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study of patients seen in our institution's ED from April 2010 to March 2013. Patients seeking care for an allergic reaction and possible anaphylaxis were enrolled. Patients and providers completed questionnaires regarding onset, trigger, and signs and symptoms. Records were reviewed independently and blindly by 2 board-certified allergist-immunologists, and their final diagnosis (anaphylaxis vs no anaphylaxis) was used as the reference standard. Two-by-two tables were built, and test characteristics were calculated. RESULTS: Among the 174 enrolled patients, 91 (52%) met the NIAID/FAAN criteria for anaphylaxis. The allergist-immunologists diagnosed 61 cases of anaphylaxis (35%), of which 58 (95%) also satisfied the NIAID/FAAN criteria. The interrater agreement between allergist-immunologists was substantial (κ = 0.7). Test characteristics (95% CIs) of the NIAID/FAAN criteria were as follows: sensitivity, 95.1% (85.4%-98.7%); specificity, 70.8% (61.4%-78.8%); positive predictive value, 63.7% (52.9%-73.4%); negative predictive value, 96.4% (89.1%-99.1%); positive likelihood ratio, 3.26; and negative likelihood ratio, 0.07. CONCLUSIONS: Prospectively, the NIAID/FAAN criteria continued to be highly sensitive (95%) but had lower specificity (71%) than on retrospective assessment. These criteria are likely to be useful for the diagnosis of anaphylaxis in the ED.
BACKGROUND:Anaphylaxis diagnostic criteria were proposed at the Second Symposium on the Definition and Management of Anaphylaxis. These criteria were 97% sensitive and 82% specific when retrospectively validated. OBJECTIVE: To prospectively evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases/Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network (NIAID/FAAN) criteria for diagnosis of anaphylaxis in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study of patients seen in our institution's ED from April 2010 to March 2013. Patients seeking care for an allergic reaction and possible anaphylaxis were enrolled. Patients and providers completed questionnaires regarding onset, trigger, and signs and symptoms. Records were reviewed independently and blindly by 2 board-certified allergist-immunologists, and their final diagnosis (anaphylaxis vs no anaphylaxis) was used as the reference standard. Two-by-two tables were built, and test characteristics were calculated. RESULTS: Among the 174 enrolled patients, 91 (52%) met the NIAID/FAAN criteria for anaphylaxis. The allergist-immunologists diagnosed 61 cases of anaphylaxis (35%), of which 58 (95%) also satisfied the NIAID/FAAN criteria. The interrater agreement between allergist-immunologists was substantial (κ = 0.7). Test characteristics (95% CIs) of the NIAID/FAAN criteria were as follows: sensitivity, 95.1% (85.4%-98.7%); specificity, 70.8% (61.4%-78.8%); positive predictive value, 63.7% (52.9%-73.4%); negative predictive value, 96.4% (89.1%-99.1%); positive likelihood ratio, 3.26; and negative likelihood ratio, 0.07. CONCLUSIONS: Prospectively, the NIAID/FAAN criteria continued to be highly sensitive (95%) but had lower specificity (71%) than on retrospective assessment. These criteria are likely to be useful for the diagnosis of anaphylaxis in the ED.
Authors: Timothy E Dribin; Hugh A Sampson; Carlos A Camargo; David C Brousseau; Jonathan M Spergel; Mark I Neuman; Marcus Shaker; Ronna L Campbell; Kenneth A Michelson; Susan A Rudders; Amal H Assa'ad; Kimberly A Risma; Mariana Castells; Lynda C Schneider; Julie Wang; Juhee Lee; Rakesh D Mistry; David Vyles; Lisa M Vaughn; Daniel J Schumacher; John K Witry; Shiv Viswanathan; Erica M Page; David Schnadower Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2020-08-24 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: David M Fleischer; Matthew Greenhawt; Gordon Sussman; Philippe Bégin; Anna Nowak-Wegrzyn; Daniel Petroni; Kirsten Beyer; Terri Brown-Whitehorn; Jacques Hebert; Jonathan O'B Hourihane; Dianne E Campbell; Stephanie Leonard; R Sharon Chinthrajah; Jacqueline A Pongracic; Stacie M Jones; Lars Lange; Hey Chong; Todd D Green; Robert Wood; Amarjit Cheema; Susan L Prescott; Peter Smith; William Yang; Edmond S Chan; Aideen Byrne; Amal Assa'ad; J Andrew Bird; Edwin H Kim; Lynda Schneider; Carla M Davis; Bruce J Lanser; Romain Lambert; Wayne Shreffler Journal: JAMA Date: 2019-03-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Timothy E Dribin; David Schnadower; Julie Wang; Carlos A Camargo; Kenneth A Michelson; Marcus Shaker; Susan A Rudders; David Vyles; David B K Golden; Jonathan M Spergel; Ronna L Campbell; Mark I Neuman; Peter S Capucilli; Michael Pistiner; Mariana Castells; Juhee Lee; David C Brousseau; Lynda C Schneider; Amal H Assa'ad; Kimberly A Risma; Rakesh D Mistry; Dianne E Campbell; Margitta Worm; Paul J Turner; John K Witry; Yin Zhang; Brad Sobolewski; Hugh A Sampson Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2021-08-12 Impact factor: 10.793