Managing Anaphylaxis: Epinephrine, Antihistamines, and Corticosteroids: More Than 10 Years of Cross-Canada Anaphylaxis Registry Data
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
To evaluate the impact of prehospital treatment with epinephrine (Epi), antihistamines (AH), and/or corticosteroids (CS) on anaphylaxis management.Patients presenting with anaphylaxis to 10 Canadian and 1 Israeli emergency departments (EDs) between April 2011 and August 2022.This is a multicenter, ambispective observational study of children and adults presenting with anaphylaxis to the ED. A standardized survey documenting symptoms, triggers, and anaphylaxis management was completed. Anaphylaxis was defined as the involvement of 2 or more organ systems after exposure to a possible allergen, or hypotension after exposure to a known allergen. Additionally, uncontrolled reactions were defined as reactions needing 2 or more doses of Epi in the ED. The primary outcomes were uncontrolled reactions, no Epi use before arrival at the ED, the use of IV fluids in the ED, and hospital admission. Further, they assessed demographic factors, clinical characteristics of the reaction, comorbidities, daily medication use, and the administration of Epi, CS, and/or AH both in ED and in prehospital setting and anaphylaxis severity.There were 5364 cases of anaphylaxis identified; median age was 8.8 years, and 52.5% of patients reported a history of physician-diagnosed food allergy. The most common prehospital treatment was AH followed by Epi and short-acting β-agonists, representing 44.3%, 37.9%, and 6.8%, respectively. In the ED, reactions were treated with AH (51.8%), Epi (46.3%), and CS (40.1%). When combining prehospital and ED treatment, 76.7% of patients were treated with Epi. Only 4.66% of patients required 2 or more doses of Epi in the ED, and 5.34% of patients were admitted for their reaction. No fatalities occurred. Adjusted odds ratio (aOR) reveals that reactions were less likely to require intravenous fluid administration if prehospital Epi was administered (aOR, 0.9761 [0.9599–0.9925]). Reactions were more likely to cause hospital admission if prehospital CS were administered (aOR, 1.2328 [1.1814–1.2864]), however they were less likely in patients who received prehospital AH (aOR, 0.9634 [0.9493–0.9777]) and Epi (aOR, 0.9645 [0.9492–0.9800]).This study supports the prehospital use of Epi and displays a beneficial effect of AH. Further, the prehospital use of CS may have negative effects in anaphylaxis including higher risk of hospital admission and need for intravenous fluids.Prompt use of Epi is the first-line treatment of anaphylaxis. However, it is frequently replaced with AH or CS, despite little evidence to do so. Additionally, delayed Epi administration is a significant risk factor for biphasic and fatal anaphylaxis. The findings support that Epi should be used promptly in the treatment of anaphylaxis and further studies should be conducted to evaluate the potentially harmful effect of prehospital CS use on anaphylaxis.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,010 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».