The majority of physicians do not know how to use epinephrine autoinjectors. This displays that current education of physicians on anaphylaxis is inadequate for a thorough practice. We hypothesize that a theoretical lecture together with a practical session on epinephrine autoinjector use will improve its proper use by physicians. Residents, specialists, and consultants from General Pediatrics excluding allergists and allergy fellows were included in this study. All physicians were given an eight-item questionnaire followed by a practical session scoring and timing ability to use epinephrine autoinjector trainer. This ensued with one-to-one hands-on training on correct autoinjector use. Finally, a joint theoretical lecture on anaphylaxis including re-demonstration of epinephrine autoinjector use was given. All physicians were scored a second time on use of epinephrine autoinjector 6 months later. One hundred fifty-one of 196 participants completed all steps of the study in four tertiary hospitals. Correct use of epinephrine autoinjector improved from 23.3% to 74.2%, mean score from 3.49 ± 1.14 to 4.66 ± 0.65, need for prospectus from 91.4% to 29.1%, and mean time to administer autoinjector from 28.01 ± 6.22 s to 19.62 ± 5.01 s (p < 0.001 for each). The rate of most common mistakes during autoinjector use decreased but the ranking did not change. An integrated theoretical and practical education increased correct of epinephrine autoinjector use by physicians. Ongoing mistakes despite this education may be related with its design.

Few and simple modifications in the design of epinephrine autoinjector were found effective in increasing its correct use and decreasing common use errors by untrained users. (Clinical trials identifier: NCT01217138).

Although there has been increasing data on pediatric anaphylaxis, information about anaphylaxis in the 1st year of life is scarce. This study provides detailed information on clinical signs and symptoms of anaphylaxis in the 1st year of life. A retrospective review was performed of our pediatric allergy database between 2007 and 2011. Children who met the diagnostic criteria of anaphylaxis were included. They were categorized as "infant" if they were ≤12 months of age at the time of anaphylactic reaction and "children" if >12 months. There were 104 patients (60 male and 44 female subjects) who met the diagnosis criteria of anaphylaxis. From the 104 cases of anaphylaxis, 23 (22.1%) were infants. Boys (p = 0.043), atopic eczema (p = 0.049), and history of food allergy (p < 0.001) were significantly higher in infants than in children with anaphylaxis. Severe anaphylaxis was less frequent in infants than in children (p = 0.04). There was no significant difference between infants and children considering cutaneous and respiratory symptoms (p > 0.05 for both) but persistent vomiting was (p = 0.023). Irritability, persistent crying, and somnolence are the signs which are difficult to interpret in infants with anaphylaxis. Within these signs, irritability, persistent crying, and somnolence were present in 69.6, 43.5, and 26.1% of infants, respectively. Blood pressure was measured in 5 infants (21.7%) compared with 44 children (54.3%; p = 0.005). Four children (4.9%) required more than one epinephrine treatment, but no infant did. Median observation periods were 4 hours in both groups (p = 0.087) and no biphasic reactions occurred in either. Food (p < 0.001) was significantly more and drugs (p = 0.015) were a less frequent cause of anaphylaxis in infants than in children. Anaphylaxis in infants is not rare but many signs of anaphylaxis are overlooked and still undertreated.

Background: Training programs performed by allergists have increased the ability of patients’ recognition and management of anaphylaxis. We aim to investigate the permanence of effect of an anaphylaxis training program and to determine the factors affecting it beyond training given by allergists. Methods: Children and/or their caregivers who had been prescribed an adrenaline autoinjector at least 1 year before were invited to take part in the study. The knowledge about anaphylaxis was assessed using a questionnaire and the skills were practically tested. Results: Sixty-four (50 caregivers/14 children >12 years of age) of 80 patients who accepted the invitation were included in the study. Fifty-nine patients obtained the autoinjector after initial prescription. Among them, 42 (71%) still had the device at the time of the study. The most common reason for not having the autoinjector was no longer feeling it was necessary (54.6%). Of the cases, 39.4% were competent in autoinjector use. There was a significant relation between adrenaline autoinjector competency and regular allergy visits (p = 0.010), believing that it is necessary (p = 0.04), having an adrenaline autoinjector (p = 0.003), and previous history of severe anaphylaxis (p = 0.010). Autoinjector competency score decreased as time elapsed from the last visit (rho = –0.382; p = 0.002) and the first instruction (rho = –0.317; p = 0.01). Regular visits (p = 0.009) and history of severe anaphylaxis (p = 0.007) were found as independent factors having an effect on adrenaline autoinjector competency. Conclusions: Training of patients/caregivers by allergists does not guarantee the permanence of acquired skills on anaphylaxis in the long run. Regular follow-up visits should be fostered.

HHcy may develop in patients using OXC. Contrary to some previous publications, our data do not suggest that OXC is safer than VPA in terms of HHcy risk. Further prospective, large scale and longer term studies investigating all suggested pathways responsible for development of atherosclerosis due to HHcy should be conducted to define the exact mechanism responsible for AEDs related atherosclerosis.