A Ruiz Oropeza1, C Bindslev-Jensen1, S Broesby-Olsen1, T Kristensen2, M B Møller2, H Vestergaard3, H F Kjaer1, S Halken4, A Lassen5, C G Mortz1. 1. Department of Dermatology and Allergy Center, Odense Research Center for Anaphylaxis (ORCA), Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark. 2. Department of Pathology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark. 3. Department of Hematology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark. 4. Hans Christian Andersen Children's Hospital, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark. 5. Department of Emergency Medicine, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most published studies on anaphylaxis are retrospective or register based. Data on subsequent diagnostic workup are sparse. We aimed to characterize patients seen with suspected anaphylaxis at the emergency care setting (ECS), after subsequent diagnostic workup at our Allergy Center (AC). METHODS: Prospective study including patients from the ECS, Odense University Hospital, during May 2013-April 2014. Possible anaphylaxis cases were daily identified based on a broad search profile including history and symptoms in patient records, diagnostic codes and pharmacological treatments. At the AC, all patients were evaluated according to international guidelines. RESULTS: Among 226 patients with suspected anaphylaxis, the diagnosis was confirmed in 124 (54.9%) after diagnostic workup; 118 of the 124 fulfilled WAO/EAACI criteria of anaphylaxis at the ECS, while six were found among 46 patients with clinical suspicion but not fulfilling the WAO/EAACI criteria at the ECS. The estimated incidence rate of anaphylaxis was 26 cases per 100 000 person-years and the one-year period prevalence was 0.04%. The most common elicitor was drugs (41.1%) followed by venom (27.4%) and food (20.6%). In 13 patients (10.5%), no elicitor could be identified. Mastocytosis was diagnosed in 7.7% of adult patients and was significantly associated with severe anaphylaxis. Atopic diseases were significantly associated only with food-induced anaphylaxis. Cofactors were present in 58.1% and were significantly associated with severe anaphylaxis. CONCLUSION: A broad search profile in the ECS and subsequent diagnostic workup is important for identification and classification of patients with anaphylaxis. Evaluation of comorbidities and cofactors is important.
BACKGROUND: Most published studies on anaphylaxis are retrospective or register based. Data on subsequent diagnostic workup are sparse. We aimed to characterize patients seen with suspected anaphylaxis at the emergency care setting (ECS), after subsequent diagnostic workup at our Allergy Center (AC). METHODS: Prospective study including patients from the ECS, Odense University Hospital, during May 2013-April 2014. Possible anaphylaxis cases were daily identified based on a broad search profile including history and symptoms in patient records, diagnostic codes and pharmacological treatments. At the AC, all patients were evaluated according to international guidelines. RESULTS: Among 226 patients with suspected anaphylaxis, the diagnosis was confirmed in 124 (54.9%) after diagnostic workup; 118 of the 124 fulfilled WAO/EAACI criteria of anaphylaxis at the ECS, while six were found among 46 patients with clinical suspicion but not fulfilling the WAO/EAACI criteria at the ECS. The estimated incidence rate of anaphylaxis was 26 cases per 100 000 person-years and the one-year period prevalence was 0.04%. The most common elicitor was drugs (41.1%) followed by venom (27.4%) and food (20.6%). In 13 patients (10.5%), no elicitor could be identified. Mastocytosis was diagnosed in 7.7% of adult patients and was significantly associated with severe anaphylaxis. Atopic diseases were significantly associated only with food-induced anaphylaxis. Cofactors were present in 58.1% and were significantly associated with severe anaphylaxis. CONCLUSION: A broad search profile in the ECS and subsequent diagnostic workup is important for identification and classification of patients with anaphylaxis. Evaluation of comorbidities and cofactors is important.
Authors: Rosa Muñoz-Cano; Clara San Bartolome; Rocío Casas-Saucedo; Giovanna Araujo; Sonia Gelis; Maria Ruano-Zaragoza; Jordi Roca-Ferrer; Francis Palomares; Margarita Martin; Joan Bartra; Mariona Pascal Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2021-02-17 Impact factor: 7.561
Authors: Iwona Poziomkowska-Gęsicka; Magdalena Kostrzewska; Michał Kurek Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-01-05 Impact factor: 3.390