Revisión sistemática
No clasificado
Revisión sistemática
No clasificado
Sin referencias
Este artículo no tiene resumen
Estudio primario
No clasificado
A woman with atopy experienced anaphylaxis after taking, among other dietary supplements, a commercial extract of echinacea. Hypersensitivity was confirmed by skinprick and RAST testing. Regular ingestion of echinacea by up to 5% of surveyed patients with atopy, combined with detection of echinacea-binding IgE in atopic subjects (19% by skin testing; 20% with moderate to strong reactivity by RAST testing), raises the possibility of severe allergic reactions, even with first-time use, due to cross-reactivity with other structurally similar allergens. Patients with atopy should be cautioned about the risk of developing life-threatening reactions to complementary medicines, including echinacea.
Estudio primario
No clasificado
Este artículo está incluido en 1 Revisión sistemática Revisiones sistemáticas (1 referencia)
Este artículo no tiene resumen
Revisión sistemática
No clasificado
Background: Anaphylaxis is a serious allergic reaction that is rapid in onset and may cause death. Adrenaline is recommended as the initial treatment of choice for anaphylaxis. Objectives: To assess the benefits and harms of adrenaline in the treatment of anaphylaxis. Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to March 2007), EMBASE (1966 to March 2007), CINAHL (1982 to March 2007), BIOSIS (to March 2007), ISI Web of Knowledge (to March 2007) and LILACS (to March 2007). We also searched websites listing ongoing trials: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/, http://www.controlledtrials.com and http://www.actr.org.au/ and contacted pharmaceutical companies and international experts in anaphylaxis in an attempt to locate unpublished material. Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing adrenaline with no intervention, placebo or other adrenergic agonists were eligible for inclusion. Two authors independently assessed articles for inclusion. Results: We found no studies that satisfied the inclusion criteria. Conclusions: On the basis of this review, we are unable to make any new recommendations on the use of adrenaline for the treatment of anaphylaxis. In the absence of appropriate trials, we recommend, albeit on the basis of less than optimal evidence, that adrenaline administration by intramuscular injection should still be regarded as first-line treatment for the management of anaphylaxis. © 2009 The Authors.
Resumen estructurado de revisiones sistemáticas
No clasificado
Este artículo no tiene resumen
Revisión sistemática
No clasificado
Background: Anaphylaxis is a serious hypersensitivity reaction that is rapid in onset and may result in death. A number of guidelines recommend glucocorticoids for the treatment of people experiencing anaphylaxis. Objectives: We sought to assess the benefits and harms of glucocorticoid treatment during episodes of anaphylaxis. Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 3), MEDLINE (Ovid) (1966 to September 2009), EMBASE (Ovid) (1988 to September 2009), CINAHL (EBSCOhost) (to September 2009) and The Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) (1945 to September 2009). We also searched the UK National Research Register and websites listing ongoing trials and contacted international experts in anaphylaxis in an attempt to locate unpublished material. We sought to include randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing glucocorticoids with any control (either placebo, adrenaline (epinephrine), an antihistamine, or any combination of these). Two authors independently assessed articles for inclusion. Results: None of the 2496 reports identified satisfied the inclusion criteria. Conclusions: We conclude that there is no evidence from high-quality studies for the use of steroids in the emergency management of anaphylaxis. Therefore, we can neither support nor refute the use of these drugs for this purpose. © 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S.
Estudio primario
No clasificado
Este artículo no tiene resumen
Revisión sistemática
No clasificado
Sin referencias
Revisión sistemática
No clasificado
Objectives. This paper reviews the relationship between anxiety and anaphylaxis in children and youth, and principles for managing anxiety in the anaphylactic child and his or her parents. Methods. A review of the medical literature (Medline) was done using the keywords "anxiety," "anaphylaxis," and "allergy," limited to children and adolescents. Findings were organized into categories used in the treatment of childhood anxiety disorders, then applied to managing anxiety in the anaphylactic child. Results. Twenty-four relevant papers were identified. These varied widely in methodology. Findings emphasized included the need to distinguish anxiety-related and organic symptoms, ameliorate the anxiety-related impact of anaphylaxis on quality of life, and address parental anxiety about the child. Conclusion. Children with anaphylaxis can function well despite anxiety, but the physical, cognitive, and behavioral aspects of anxiety associated with anaphylactic risk must be addressed, and parents must be involved in care in constructive ways.
Términos y Condiciones