Anaphylaxis to cisplatin is an infrequent life-threatening complication which may occur even in patients who have received prior treatment with cisplatin. We report here a patient with carcinoma of the cervix with recurrent abdominal and thoracic disease who was previously treated with concurrent cisplatin and radiation for local control of pelvic disease. After nine previous uncomplicated cycles she developed severe anaphylaxis to cisplatin. The anaphylactic reaction was managed successfully with corticosteroids, nebulization with beta(2) agonists, and isotonic fluid support. With the extensive use of platinum-based chemotherapy regimens, either alone or in combination with radiation therapy in the management of gynecological malignancies, this uncommon complication should be kept in mind for early detection and successful management.

Este artículo no tiene resumen

This study evaluated a training program designed to prepare unlicensed assistive personnel (UAP) in high school settings to recognize and respond effectively to an anaphylactic emergency. Subjects included 53 adults employed by a high school district in the San Francisco Bay Area of California. A training model was developed based on Bandura's theory of sources of self-efficacy. Knowledge and perceived self-efficacy of participants were measured before and after the training program to determine if a theory-based anaphylaxis recognition and epinephrine auto-injector training program would increase participants' knowledge and self-efficacy in responding to an anaphylactic emergency. Paired t tests revealed significant improvement in scores for both knowledge and perceived self-efficacy following the intervention (p < .001). This theory-based training program offers a valuable model for other school nurses in providing knowledge and skill training for unlicensed assistive personnel in other health emergencies.

Sugammadex is a selective binding agent for aminosteroid neuromuscular blockers whose use is increasing in anaesthetic practice. We present three cases of severe anaphylaxis coincident with sugammadex administration. Subsequent intradermal testing confirmed sugammadex as the triggering agent, with all patients having positive skin responses to a 1:100 dilution of the standard 100 mg/ml solution and two out of three having a positive response to a 1:1000 dilution. As all patients were administered sugammadex to reverse neuromuscular blockade with rocuronium, we considered that sugammadex-rocuronium complexes were a potential unique allergen. In the two patients who were additionally tested with a rocuronium-sugammadex (3.6:1 molecular ratio) mixture, the wheal-and-flare response was significantly attenuated.

Este artículo no tiene resumen

BACKGROUND:

Food allergy is a common cause of anaphylaxis, but the incidence of fatal food anaphylaxis is not known. The aim of this study was to estimate the incidence of fatal food anaphylaxis for people with food allergy and relate this to other mortality risks in the general population.

METHODS:

We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis, using the generic inverse variance method. Two authors selected studies by consensus, independently extracted data and assessed the quality of included studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa assessment scale. We searched Medline, Embase, PsychInfo, CINAHL, Web of Science, LILACS or AMED, between January 1946 and September 2012, and recent conference abstracts. We included registries, databases or cohort studies which described the number of fatal food anaphylaxis cases in a defined population and time period and applied an assumed population prevalence rate of food allergy.

RESULTS:

We included data from 13 studies describing 240 fatal food anaphylaxis episodes over an estimated 165 million food-allergic person-years. Study quality was mixed, and there was high heterogeneity between study results, possibly due to variation in food allergy prevalence and data collection methods. In food-allergic people, fatal food anaphylaxis has an incidence rate of 1.81 per million person-years (95%CI 0.94, 3.45; range 0.63, 6.68). In sensitivity analysis with different estimated food allergy prevalence, the incidence varied from 1.35 to 2.71 per million person-years. At age 0-19, the incidence rate is 3.25 (1.73, 6.10; range 0.94, 15.75; sensitivity analysis 1.18-6.13). The incidence of fatal food anaphylaxis in food-allergic people is lower than accidental death in the general European population.

CONCLUSION:

Fatal food anaphylaxis for a food-allergic person is rarer than accidental death in the general population.

BACKGROUND:

Anaphylaxis is a severe, life-threatening generalised or systemic hypersensitivity reaction with high mortality. Specialist services (SSs) are believed to reduce anaphylaxis recurrence and improve use of adrenaline injectors (AIs), which can reduce mortality if used correctly and in time.

OBJECTIVES:

To review the evidence on which persons are at high risk of anaphylactic episodes, the effects of history-taking (including signs, symptoms and physical examination) for anaphylaxis, and when (suspected) patients should be referred. To assess the cost-effectiveness of SS compared with standard care (SC) with or without prescription of AIs.

DATA SOURCES:

In order to assess the clinical effectiveness, 10 databases [Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Health Technology Assessment (HTA), NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Science Citation Index (SCI), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), EMBASE, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, from inception up to March 2011] were searched without data restriction in order to identify relevant studies [randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials, observational studies, prognostic studies using a multivariate model] written in English.

REVIEW METHODS:

Standard review methods were applied for the assessment of clinical effectiveness. A Markov model, validated by clinical experts, was constructed, which modelled anaphylaxis according to trigger: either food, drug, insect or idiopathic. Anaphylaxis mortality was modelled as a function of time to die and time for emergency response. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis on key parameters was performed.

RESULTS:

From the systematic review, 11,058 references were identified by the searches for studies assessing the clinical effectiveness. In total, 107 papers were obtained, and five prospective observational studies, including 1725 patients, were included. These studies estimated the risk of recurrence to be between 30% and 42.8%. In children (< 12 years), an overall recurrence of 27% was reported, with food being the most frequent allergen (71%). From the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), SC with injectors was dominated by SS with or without injectors. SS with no injectors would be cost-effective if the threshold for a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) was greater than about £740 and with injectors would be cost-effective if the threshold was > £1800. These results were robust to all sensitivity analyses except at relatively extreme values of a small number of parameters.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations of the study include the low yield from the systematic review; in particular there were no good-quality studies of either SSs or AI effectiveness. This implied a great reliance on expert opinion in the CEA. However, this was appropriately addressed using sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSIONS:

Only five observational studies assessing clinical effectiveness were identified. Owing to the lack of good data to inform the effectiveness of anaphylaxis intervention, we recommend considerations of RCTs or at least well-designed observational studies of the components of care in SSs. The results of the CEA showed that SS with AIs was cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY. More well-designed prospective studies on the effectiveness of SSs are needed to confirm these findings.

FUNDING:

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Objectives: There is no international consensus on the components of anaphylaxis management plans and responsibility for their design and delivery is contested. We set out to establish consensus among relevant specialist and generalist clinicians on this issue to inform future randomized controlled trials. Design: A two-round electronic Delphi study completed by a 25-person, multidisciplinary expert panel. Participants scored the importance of a range of statements on anaphylaxis management, identified from a systematic review of the literature, on a five-point scale ranging from 'very important' to 'irrelevant'. Consensus was defined a priori as being achieved if 80% or more of panel members rated a statement as 'important' or 'very important' after Round 2. Setting: Primary and secondary care and academic settings in the UK and Ireland. Participants: Twenty-five medical, nursing and allied health professionals. Main outcome measures: Consensus on the key components of anaphylaxis management plans. Results: The response rate was 84% (n = 21) for Round 1 and 96% (n = 24) for Round 2. The key components of emergency care on which consensus was achieved included: awareness of trigger factors (100%); recognition and emergency management of reactions of different severity (100%); and clear information on adrenaline (epinephrine) use (100%). Consensus on longer-term management issues included: clear written guidelines on anaphylaxis management (96%); annual review of plans (87%); and plans that were tailored to individual needs (82%). Conclusions: This national consensus-building exercise generated widespread agreement that emergency plans need to be simple, clear and generic, making them easy to implement in a crisis. In contrast, long-term plans need to be negotiated between patient/carers and professionals, and tailored to individual needs. The effectiveness of this expert-agreed long-term plan now needs to be evaluated rigorously. © 2010 Royal Society of Medicine Press.

BACKGROUND:

Anaphylaxis associated with latex allergy is one of the fatal complications during anesthesia. To prevent this complication, we find out latex allergy and high-risk patients by preoperative interview and keep away not only latex allergic patients but high-risk patients from latex allergen in the operating room. In this study, we evaluated the cost-benefit efficiency of our guidelines.

METHODS:

This is a prospective observational study for six month. We classified the patients undergoing elective operation into three categories: latex allergy (group LA), high-risk of latex allergy (group LH) and control (group C), and we compared the incidence of perioperative anaphylaxis and the cost of using products without latex allergen.

RESULTS:

A total of 1.291 patients were enrolled in the analysis. Five patients (0.4%) and 206 patients (16.0%) categorized into group LA, and LH respectively. There was no patient diagnosed with anaphylaxis associated with latex allergy during the observation period. We are able to save the cost of 3.5 million yen every year by our method than using products without latex allergen for all cases.

CONCLUSIONS:

Our guidelines for prevention of perioperative anaphylaxis associated with latex allergy might be efficient from the standpoint of cost-benefit

Intrauterine fetal death and maternal shock occurred as a result of a type-1 hypersensitivity reaction following antibiotic prophylaxis in a cesarean section. Amniotic fluid embolism may mimic the condition. The ability to diagnose and treat such an event as early as possible is necessary in all maternity centers. The selection of antibiotic regimen and the type of anesthesia should be individualized depending upon the existing facilities and the patient's profile, especially in a resource-scarce developing country.