MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4404924440 · doi:10.1542/peds.2024-069114e

Managing Anaphylaxis: Epinephrine, Antihistamines, and Corticosteroids: More Than 10 Years of Cross-Canada Anaphylaxis Registry Data

2024· article· en· W4404924440 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Aiden C. Bingemann, Theresa Bingemann

Bibliographic record

VenuePEDIATRICS · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnaphylaxisEpinephrineDermatologyAllergyAnesthesiaImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score0.277

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePEDIATRICS→Same topicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis Research→French-language works237,207→