H1‐antihistamines Reduce Progression to Anaphylaxis Among Emergency Department Patients With Allergic Reactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: H1-antihistamines (H1a) can be used to treat emergency department (ED) patients with allergic reactions; however, this is inconsistently done, likely because there is no evidence that this therapy has an impact on serious outcomes. Among ED patients initially presenting with allergic reactions, we investigated whether H1a were associated with lower rates of progression to anaphylaxis. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted at two urban Canadian EDs from April 1, 2007, to March 31, 2012. We included consecutive adult patients with allergic reactions while excluding those presenting with anaphylaxis, according to prespecified criteria. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who subsequently developed anaphylaxis during medical care, either by emergency medical services (EMS) or in the ED. A prespecified subgroup analysis excluded patients who received H1a prior to EMS or ED contact. We compared those who received H1a and those who did not and used multivariable regression and propensity score adjustment techniques to compare outcomes. RESULTS: Of 2,376 overall patients included, 1,880 (79.1%) were managed with H1a. Of the latter group, 36 of 1,880 (1.9%) developed anaphylaxis, compared to 17 of 496 (3.4%) in the non-H1a-treated group (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.17-0.70; number needed to treat [NNT] to benefit = 44.74, 95% CI = 35.36-99.67). In the subgroup analysis of 1,717 patients who did not receive H1a prior to EMS or ED contact, a similar association was observed (AOR = 0.26, 95% CI = 0.10-0.50; NNT to benefit 38.20, 95% CI = 32.58-55.24). CONCLUSIONS: Among ED patient with allergic reactions, H1a administration was associated with a lower likelihood of progression to anaphylaxis. These data indicate that early H1a treatment in the ED or prehospital setting may decrease progression to anaphylaxis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".