Management of Anaphylaxis After Pre-Hospital Epinephrine Use in Children With Food-Induced Anaphylaxis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated the need for additional emergency treatment following food-induced anaphylaxis in children who received appropriate prehospital epinephrine.Children younger than 18 years with known immunoglobulin E–mediated food allergies who presented to one of 7 Canadian pediatric emergency departments (EDs) (2011-2023) and received at least 1 prehospital epinephrine dose. Patients not meeting National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases criteria for anaphylaxis were excluded.Outcomes of interest included use of at least 2 prehospital epinephrine doses, ED epinephrine administration, and hospital admission. Data collected included demographics, suspected food triggers, symptoms, severity, and comorbidities. Reactions were categorized by the most severe symptom as mild, moderate, or severe.A total of 1127 children were studied (median age: 7 years; 60.6% male). Mucocutaneous reactions were the most common (pruritus: 47.3%, urticaria: 55.4%, angioedema: 51.9%), followed by respiratory symptoms (throat tightness: 39.5%, breathing difficulties: 40.3%), gastrointestinal symptoms (36.8%), and cardiovascular symptoms (cyanosis: 1.9%, circulatory collapse: 0.4%, hypotension: 2.4%); 7.9% of patients had severe reactions. Every patient received at least 1 prehospital dose of epinephrine; 84.3% received 1 dose, 12.4% received 2, and 3.3% received 3 or more prehospital doses. In the ED, 18.5% received additional intramuscular epinephrine and 0.9% received it intravenously. Other treatments included antihistamines, beta-agonists, corticosteroids, and intravenous fluids. Overall, 6.2% required 3 or more epinephrine doses, and 2.7% were hospitalized. Factors associated with needing additional epinephrine in the ED included reaction due to tree nuts and more severe reactions.Only a minority of patients who received prehospital epinephrine required further treatment in the ED. This supports the use of shared decision-making when talking to families about ED evaluation after epinephrine use.These results highlight how caregiver education can lead to safer care out of the hospital—ideally encouraging earlier epinephrine use and reducing associated health care costs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".