Fatalities due to anaphylactic reactions to foods

Bock, S. Allan; Muñoz-Furlong, Anne; Sampson, Hugh A.

doi:10.1067/mai.2001.112031

Cited by 1,441 publications

(1,152 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

1,072

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…[19,20] More importantly for the patient, low recognition of anaphylaxis in the ED may delay the treatment with epinephrine and result in comorbidity, hospitalization and death. [17,18,21–25]…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the management of anaphylaxis in US emergency departments: Guidelines vs. practice

Russell

Farrar

Nowak

et al. 2013

World Journal of Emergency Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND:Anaphylaxis is characterized by acute episodes of potentially life-threatening symptoms that are often treated in the emergency setting. Current guidelines recommend: 1) quick diagnosis using standard criteria; 2) first-line treatment with epinephrine; and 3) discharge with a prescription for an epinephrine auto-injector, written instructions regarding long-term management, and a referral (preferably, allergy) for follow-up. However, studies suggest low concordance with guideline recommendations by emergency medicine (EM) providers. The study aimed to evaluate how emergency departments (EDs) in the United States (US) manage anaphylaxis in relation to guideline recommendations.METHODS:This was an online anonymous survey of a random sample of EM health providers in US EDs.RESULTS:Data analysis included 207 EM providers. For respondent EDs, approximately 9% reported using agreed-upon clinical criteria to diagnose anaphylaxis; 42% reported administering epinephrine in the ED for most anaphylaxis episodes; and <50% provided patients with a prescription for an epinephrine auto-injector and/or an allergist referral on discharge. Most provided some written materials, and follow-up with a primary care clinician was recommended.CONCLUSIONS:This is the first cross-sectional survey to provide “real-world” data showing that practice in US EDs is discordant with current guideline recommendations for the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of patients with anaphylaxis. The primary gaps are low (or no) utilization of standard criteria for defining anaphylaxis and inconsistent use of epinephrine. Prospective research is recommended.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the management of anaphylaxis in US emergency departments: Guidelines vs. practice

Russell

Farrar

Nowak

et al. 2013

World Journal of Emergency Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, limiting prescriptions of self-injectable epinephrine to this criteria in patients with peanut and other nut allergy, for example, would fail to cover up to 80% of patients experiencing a fatal anaphylactic reaction. 35 Patients who are prescribed self-injectable epinephrine should also have an emergency action plan detailing its use and the follow-up management. The complexities of prescribing self-injectable epinephrine and providing an accompanying emergency action plan have been described recently by Sicherer and Simons, 36 and the ethical dilemmas have been discussed by Hu et al 37 Before discharge from an emergency facility, all patients experiencing an anaphylactic reaction should receive information about how to avoid the precipitating allergen (if known).…”

Section: Outpatient Follow-up and Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Second symposium on the definition and management of anaphylaxis: Summary report—Second National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease/Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network symposium

Sampson

Muñoz-Furlong²,

Campbell

et al. 2006

Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology

Self Cite

1,931

1,114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…of food allergies in the range of 5-8% in infants and 2-3% in adults (reviewed in Refs 14-16), an increase from the 1-2% adult incidence rate reported in the early 1990s (17).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Incorporating a gender dimension in food allergy research: a review

DunnGalvin

Hourihane

Frewer

et al. 2006

Allergy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sex and gender are the major determinants of health and disease in both men and women. The aim of this review paper was to examine differences in gender and sex in relation to the prevalence and effects of food allergy. There are still major gaps in our knowledge about the kinds of processes which shape men's and women's perceptions and experiences of food allergy. The expression and experience of health and illness may be moderated by variables such as biological vulnerability, exposure to health risks, perception of symptoms, evaluation of risk, information processing and role expectations. This review highlights the complex links between biological sex, gender, and health in general and offers a synthesis of how these may interact to produce sex and gender differences in biopsychosocial manifestations of food allergy. Implications for research and public health practice are discussed.

show abstract

Fatalities due to anaphylactic reactions to foods

Cited by 1,441 publications

References 0 publications

Evaluating the management of anaphylaxis in US emergency departments: Guidelines vs. practice

Evaluating the management of anaphylaxis in US emergency departments: Guidelines vs. practice

Second symposium on the definition and management of anaphylaxis: Summary report—Second National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease/Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network symposium

Incorporating a gender dimension in food allergy research: a review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About