Leitlinie
Current update on anaphylaxis: anaphylaxis management in recent guidelines
Associazione Allergologi Immunologi Italiani Territoriali e Ospedalieri - AAIITO
Originaldokument
PDF · volume-current-update-anaphylaxis-management-recent-5728allasp1.pdf
Konvertiert für die Indizierung
Markdown · current_update_on_anaphylaxis_anaphylaxis_management_in_recent_guidelines.md
© 2024 Associazione Allergologi Immunologi Italiani Territoriali e Ospedalieri - AAIITO. Published by EDRA SpA. All rights reserved R E V I E W Eur Ann Allergy Clin Immunol Vol 56, N.2, 51-64, 2024 Current update on anaphylaxis: anaphylaxis management in recent guidelines Darío Antolín-Amérigo , Carmen Vidal-Albareda , David González de Olano , Belén de la Hoz-Caballer Introduction The awareness of anaphylaxis as a life-threatening medical condition and its incidence have been increasing among dif- ferent specialties, and so is the growth of evidence in the field. The reported increases probably reflect a true increase in the prevalence of allergic disease, but they are also confounded by the cumulative incidence of anaphylaxis, better awareness and recognition of anaphylaxis, and due to changes in anaphylaxis coding. Anaphylaxis is recognized as a severe, life-threatening systemic hypersensitivity reaction, characterized by rapid onset and the potential to endanger life through respiratory or circulatory compromise. In our article we aimed to cover not only what it is included in the scientific Societies guidelines, but also other means of scor- ing the severity of the anaphylactic episodes which is in our view not sufficiently gathered in the literature. Definitions Anaphylaxis is an underrecognized acute syndrome comprising a life-threatening generalized or systemic hypersensitivity reac- tion characterized by a severe acute onset of symptoms, involv- Allergy Service, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, Instituto Ramón y Cajal de Investigación Sanitaria (IRYCIS), Madrid, Spain Key words Anaphylaxis; hypersensitivity reaction; adrenaline; epinephrine; Immunoglobulin E. Corresponding author Darío Antolín-Amérigo Allergy Service Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, Instituto Ramón y Cajal de Investigación Sanitaria (IRYCIS) Carretera de Colmenar, Km 9,100 28034 Madrid, Spain ORCID: 0000-0001-5699-4022 E-mail: [email protected] Doi 10.23822/EurAnnACI.1764-1489.306 Impact statement Currently existing definitions, scoring methods, potential triggers of anaphylaxis and its epidemiology, and guideline recommendations are reviewed, proposing a novel anaphylaxis calculator. Summary Anaphylaxis is a potentially fatal hypersensitivity reaction but frequently un- derrecognized. Although its incidence rates vary according to geographical location, it seems clear that there has been a general increase in recent years, either because of greater recognition of this entity or because it is progressing proportionally to the presence of allergic diseases in the world. The devel- opment of anaphylaxis management guidelines adapted to local or regional needs seems of utmost importance. Furthermore, it is necessary to assess their implementation and their positive effect regarding diagnosing and treating anaphylaxis. In this review we explore the currently existing definitions of anaphylaxis and its epidemiology, the potential triggers of anaphylaxis and guideline recommendations in terms of diagnosis and management, propos- ing a novel anaphylaxis calculator and reviewing the current scoring methods for anaphylactic episodes. 52 Darío Antolín-Amérigo, Carmen Vidal-Albareda, David González de Olano, Belén de la Hoz-Caballer ing different organ systems, generally involving airway, breath- ing or circulatory problems and is usually, although not always, associated with skin and mucosal changes, requiring immediate medical intervention (figure 1) (1-4). The mechanism of anaphylaxis may be either: 1) immunologic, involving Immunoglubulin E (IgE), IgG or immune complexes; or 2) non-immunological (5). The presenting symptoms can be very varied. However, in over 90% of cases, there are associated skin and mucosal changes. Furthermore, it usually (> 50% of cases) involves the airway (pharyngeal or laryngeal oedema) and/or breathing (broncho- spasm with tachypnoea) and/or circulation (hypotension and/ or tachycardia). Epidemiology None of the actual Academy guidelines, namely, EAACI, WAO, AAAAI, NICE, or the Australian Society of Allergology and Clinical Immunology, has a major focus in this area, but all in- clude important information about epidemiology, supported by relevant references. Therefore, focusing on anaphylaxis remains as an unmet need, in terms of trustable data. The potential chal- lenges could be the diverse and sometimes overlapping nomen- clature and criteria for diagnosis of anaphylaxis. Hitherto, prev- alence estimates of anaphylaxis vary widely, and many studies, particularly in developed countries, suggest that the prevalence is increasing. There are differences in prevalence and causes throughout the world probably due to distinct environmental factors which might act differently to affect risk of different types of allergies accord- ing to genetic predisposition in diverse areas of the globe and that would account for the rise in the prevalence more rapidly than expected (table I) (1-13). Data from the European anaphylaxis registry revealed that over one-quarter of cases (25%) occurred in patients under 18 years of age (14). Although the fatality rate attributable to anaphylaxis remains low (15), the frequency of hospitalization for food and drug-induced anaphylaxis has been increasing in recent years (7, 16, 17). The main causes of fatal anaphylaxis are drugs (29%-58.5%), in- sect stings (3.3%-54%) and food (2%-6.7%) (table II) (9, 18-25). An important aspect are biphasic anaphylactic reactions which account for up to 20% but other studies report a prevalence from 1% to 7% among patients with anaphylaxis (26, 27). Existing anaphylaxis guidelines therefore recommend contin- uous follow-up for several hours after resolution of the initial reaction after administering intramuscular injection of adren- aline as first-line anaphylaxis treatment and glucocorticoids, histamine-1 receptor blockers, and beta-2-adrenergic receptor stimulants as second-line treatments (27). In a meta-analysis of retrospective-observational studies performed in Japan of the 31,570 eligible patients, 28,145 (89.2%) were treated with glu- cocorticoids on the day of admission. The overall percentage of biphasic reactions within 7 days of admission was 11.2%, and the authors stated that there were no significant differences in rates of biphasic reactions (10.7% in the glucocorticoids group vs 10.5% in the control group; odds ratio 1.03; 95% confidence interval 0.85-1.24; p = 0.77) between patients with anaphylaxis Table I - Worldwide incidence, prevalence and mortality of anaphylaxis. European (globally) U.K. U.S.A. WAO Children AAAAI/ ACAAI Spain Incidence 1.5-7.9/100,000 person-years 1-7 cases/100,000 person-years 50-112/100,000 persons-years 1-761/100,000 person-years 42/100,000 persons-years Prevalence 0.3% 1.6% 0.3-5.1% 1.6-5.1% Mortality 0.47-0.69 per 10 6 persons-years 63-99 deaths/ year (> 75% in hospitalized patients) Drugs: 0.005- 0.51 per 10 6 persons-years Food: 0.09-0.13 0.002-2.51 deaths/10 6 persons- years Figure 1 - Severity scoring. *Modified from Shaker et al. (72); subjectivity of studies regarding scoring anaphylaxis. Subjectivity Small expert groups Most existing scoring systems were developed by a limited number of experts, and fit into this category This approach uses data to inform otherwise subjective decisions by experts as to what symptoms constitute what level of severity This approach uses raw symptom data and mathematical modelling to derive a score independent of expert input (e.g. nFASS score) Dribin et al. Expert consensus (e.g. Delphi) Data-informed Data-driven 53 Anaphylaxis management in recent guidelines treated with and without glucocorticoids on the day of admis- sion and the authors concluded that they would not support the use of glucocorticoids to prevent biphasic reactions in hospital- ized patients with severe anaphylaxis requiring adrenaline. Therefore, the prevalence of the various causes of anaphylaxis is age-dependent and varies between different geographical areas (tables I and II). In general, food, drugs, and Hymenoptera venom are the most frequent elicitor groups worldwide (10, 24- 41). Drug-induced anaphylaxis is typically caused by antibiotics and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) with age and geographical variations (42-44). In terms of quality standards, NICE guidelines are a unique document as it proposes some criteria which are expected to contribute to improvements in the following outcomes (45): • Incidence of anaphylactic episodes. • Admission rate due to anaphylactic episodes. • Mortality from anaphylactic episodes. NICE quality standards are centered on aspects of health and so- cial care that are commissioned locally and comprise a brief set of prioritized statements designed to drive measurable improve- ments in the 3 dimensions of quality – safety, experience and effectiveness of care, in terms of anaphylaxis (2, 45-49). Key triggers include food, drugs, and stinging insects; in up to 20%, the elicitor is not identified. Their relative importance varies with age and geography studied. For ED (Emergency De- partment) presentations, drugs and foods are the most common elicitors of anaphylaxis, with age-related differences (6, 50). Foods are the most frequent cause of anaphylaxis in children, with pollen allergy and asthma being important risk factors (4, 6). Drug- and Hymenoptera venom-triggered anaphylaxis are more common in adults than in children (6) in general, and specifi- cally to plant foods and NSAID. Drugs are the most frequent cause of anaphylaxis in hospitalized patients. Compared to males, adult females have a higher frequency of anaphylaxis. Cumulative incidence of anaphylaxis ranges from 26.5% to 54%, with a follow-up time of 1.5 years to 25 years (9). In general terms, long-term management, and several structured Table II - Principal triggers of anaphylaxis*. Trigger Frequency in Spain Frequency in Europe Frequency in USA Frequency Worldwide Drugs/medication 46.7-62% NSAIDs, beta-lactams, iodinated contrast media Beta-lactams and NSAIDNSAID 29%-58.5% Antibiotics, NSAIDs, immunomodulators, and biological agents Geographical variations Foods 22.6-24.1% Adults: fruits, nuts, shellfish and fish Children: egg, milk, nuts, fish and shellfish Central: peanut, tree nuts, seeds like sesame, wheat, and shellfish Southern: LTP Children: peanut, hazelnut, milk, and egg Adults: wheat, celery, and shellfish; fruits such as peaches are also typical causes of food-induced anaphylaxis in adults in some European countries such as Spain and Italy 2%-6.7% Peanut and tree nuts are dominating elicitors of food-induced anaphylaxis in adults in North America and Australia Vary locally. Food-induced anaphylaxis in children toto hen’s egg (in infants and pre-school children), cow’s milk, wheat, and peanut. Adults: nuts (U.S.A.), shellfish (Asia), buckwheat (Korea) Insect stings 8.6-13.9% Wasp: Central Europe 3.3%-54% Bee: South Korea Wasp: Central Europe Snake Antivenom: Australia Physical factors 3.4-4% Others (including latex) 7.26% Idiopathic 3.4-5% 6.5-35% There are regional differences in terms of culprit agents related to anaphylaxis; modified from Tanno et al. (3) and Gold et al. (49). 54 Darío Antolín-Amérigo, Carmen Vidal-Albareda, David González de Olano, Belén de la Hoz-Caballer actions could achieve the desired prevention of recurrence [(ex- tracted from references 8 and 34): • Avoidance and/or allergen immunotherapy and/or desensi- tization. • Medical identification alert: e.g., bracelet or wallet card. • Register in electronic or paper medical record the suspected trigger(s). • Anaphylaxis education and training. • Public health measures, e.g., improved food labelling. Methods As this is a narrative review, evidence has been retrieved from different sources. A literature search was performed using key- words agreed on by the authors. The search was performed using electronic databases (MEDLINE and PubMed), electronic li- braries (Clinical Key, Science Direct, OVID), resources of clini- cal guidelines (UpToDate, Allergy Societies Society Guidelines, and Dynamed: https://www.dynamed.com/condition/anaphy- laxis), and a database of systematic reviews (Cochrane Library). Publications were selected from between January 2015 and De- cember 2022. The selection took into account the keywords: “anaphylaxis” and “guideline”. Due to the revolution in terms of vaccines and adverse effects, we have also used the Brigh- ton Collaboration Guideline for scoring anaphylaxis, which is currently used worldwide for drug/vaccination regulatory issues (available at: https://brightoncollaboration.us/anaphylaxis-case-defi- nition-companion-guide/). In addition, the filters used in PubMed were as follows: guide- line, consensus development conference and consensus de- velopment conference (NIH), practice guidelines, review, systematic review, and meta-analysis. Guidelines, consensus reports, systematic reviews, and meta-analysis were included; nonsystematic reviews, comments, and other types of articles were excluded. We also included studies examining incidence, prevalence, natural history, clinical manifestations, pathogene- sis, diagnosis, and treatment. All articles were reviewed by the authors. Following this review process, 89 publications were finally selected. Diagnosis management ‒ scoring systems: beyond the guidelines? Anaphylaxis, as mentioned above, is known as a life-threatening generalized or systemic hypersensitivity reaction involving dif- ferent organ systems (1, 3, 34, 51). There is a list of criteria that detail the symptoms or combi- nation of symptoms which meet the clinical characteristics of anaphylaxis. Traditionally, anaphylaxis was labeled when any of the 3 proposed criteria were met (table IIIA) (52), although recently the World Allergy Organization (WAO) has proposed a new set of criteria (34, 52–55). There are 2 recently proposed criteria for diagnosing anaphy- laxis: 1. EAACI guidelines 2021 (table IIIA). 2. WAO guidelines 2020 (table IIIB). The first one, probably is more specific, including the concept of likely and/or known allergen in its criteria and the WAO guide- lines specify the possibility of the absence of typical skin involve- ment in the symptoms - WAO guidelines 2020 (table IIIB). Classification of severity of anaphylactic episodes Classification of severity implies a challenge, given that there are not homogeneous definitions of subtypes of anaphylaxis (4). In fact, there are different classifications that attempt to classify anaphylaxis according to its severity (34, 52, 55-59). They are divided into grades, ranging from I to V, based on the degree of vital compromise. Not all of them cover the full range of symp- toms that patients may present, and some of them were created specifically for a particular trigger, such as Hymenoptera venom (56) or food (58). This has led to the recent proposal of a classifi- cation that attempts to unify the previous ones (59-61) or to the creation of a new way of classifying anaphylaxis proposed by the WAO (34) but none of them have been widely used up to now. Given the trend on immunization, the Brighton Collaboration (BC) was established in 2000 with the aim of developing glob- ally accepted standardized case definitions for adverse events following immunization (AEFI) as well as guidelines for the collection, analysis and presentation of surveillance data (61). It has served to improve the classification of the severity of an anaphylactic episode following immunization. The Brighton Collaboration Cased Definitions (BCCD), which are evidence based, were developed by a group of experts to describe, in sim- ple terms, all signs and symptoms used to constitute the BCCD on anaphylaxis (62). The descriptive terms used in the case defi- nitions could be used as a guide to develop educational and re- cording material (63). The checklist could be used when sudden or unexpected symptoms or signs occur post-vaccination, and where anaphylaxis is a possibility. In contrast, checklist 2 col- lects additional details such as demographic information as well as vaccine data. Such checklists are more comprehensive and are better suited to clinical trials or to the analysis of AEFI data at a regional or national level. For example, more extensive check- lists could be used as part of an investigation of individual cases. If correctly completed, such checklists will aid in the assignment of a BCCD for anaphylaxis (63, 64). Once the symptoms and signs that may indicate anaphylaxis have been reported on an AEFI report form and/or through the use of a checklist, a case definition for anaphylaxis can be assigned. It is intended that the task of assigning a case defini- tion is performed at a regional or national level because of the complexity of the case definition. In addition, online tools are being developed by the BC to facilitate this process and these 55 Anaphylaxis management in recent guidelines will be freely accessed at the Brighton Collaboration website: http://www.brightoncollaboration.org/internet/en/index.html. A potential limitation to collecting exhaustive adverse event re- ports is that health care providers are unlikely to spontaneous- ly report enough symptoms and signs to allow application of BCCD. A checklist, based on the terms used in the case defini- tion, could be developed and incorporated in an AEFI report- ing form to remind vaccine providers to note whether specific features of anaphylaxis were present. Another limitation of the anaphylaxis case definition is the hypothetical inconsistencies in the reporter’s use of the terms used to describe possible anaphy- laxis. This would be addressed by the development of a glossary to describe those terms used in the anaphylaxis case definition. With these barriers in mind, Stafford et al. have created a clini- cal checklist for the application of the BCCD and a glossary of terms to harmonize the use of reporting terms (65). As Stafford et al. stated recently, having a standardized, inter- nationally agreed on quantitative measure of severity might be useful in facilitating risk communication, both with patients and with industry/regulators. Consistency and translatability in recording results are essential and currently constitute unmet needs in the field of anaphylaxis. However, any severity score must be fit for purpose, be informed by patient and clinician experience, and ideally be data driven to minimize the impact of subjectivity and provide objective validation (figure 1 modified from Dribin et al.) (66). In the meantime, the severity score proposed by Dribin et al. highlights the inconsistencies and limitations of the NIAID cri- teria for anaphylaxis (66). Developing our acquaintance of the relationship between the definition of anaphylaxis (and indications for epinephrine treat- ment) and severity grading of symptoms is essential for further progress in this area. We need to achieve a global consensus on updated anaphylaxis criteria to improve anaphylaxis recognition and thus patient care ‒ it is what patients deserve. Calculator of anaphylaxis For the diagnosis of anaphylaxis in an acute context, the 2020 EAACI Task Force on anaphylaxis, has suggested using clinical criteria, including rapid onset of multiple symptoms, measuring serum tryptase half to two hours after the start of the reaction, and baseline tryptase at least 24 hours after complete resolution of symptoms, to support diagnosing anaphylaxis retrospectively. A number of studies have assessed the diagnostic accuracy of Table III - (A) Clinical criteria for diagnosing anaphylaxis (EAACI guidelines 2021) (4); (B) WAO anaphylaxis guidelines 2020 (36). A B 1. Acute onset of an illness (minutes to several hours) with involvement of the skin, mucosal tissue or both (e.g., generalized hives, pruritus or flushing, swollen lips-tongue- uvula and at least one of the following: a. respiratory compromise (e.g., dyspnea, wheeze-bronchospasm, stridor, reduced PEF and hypoxemia); b. reduced BP or associated symptoms of end-organ dysfunction (e.g., hypotonia [collapse], syncope, incontinence). 1. Acute onset of an illness (minutes to several hours) with simultaneous involvement of the skin, mucosal tissue, or both (e.g., generalized hives, pruritus or flushing, swollen lips–tongue-uvula) and at least one of the following: a. respiratory compromise (e.g., dyspnea, wheeze–bronchospasm, stridor, reduced PEF, hypoxemia); b. reduced BP or associated symptoms of end-organ dysfunction (e.g., hypotonia (collapse), syncope, incontinence); c. severe gastrointestinal symptoms (e.g., severe crampy abdominal pain, repetitive vomiting), especially after exposure to non-food allergens. 2. Two or more of the following that occur rapidly after exposure to a likely allergen for that patient (minutes to several hours): a. involvement of the skin–mucosal tissue (e.g., generalized hives, itch-flush, swollen lips-tongue- uvula; b. respiratory compromise (e.g., dyspnea, wheeze-bronchospasm, stridor, reduced PEF, hypoxemia); c. reduced BP or associated symptoms (e.g., hypotonia [collapse], syncope, incontinence); d. persistent gastrointestinal symptoms (e.g., crampy abdominal pain, vomiting). 2. Acute onset of hypotension or bronchospasm or laryngeal involvement after exposure to a known or highly probable allergen for that patient (minutes to several hours), even in the absence of typical skin involvement. 3. Reduced BP after exposure to known allergens for that patient (minutes to several hours): a. infants and children: low systolic BP (age specific) or > 30% decrease in systolic BP*; b. adult: systolic BP of < 90 mmHg or > 30% decrease from that person’s baseline PEF, peak expiratory flow; BP, blood pressure. *Low systolic blood pressure for children is defined as < 70 mmHg: - from 1 month to 1 year, less than (70 mmHg + [2 × age]) - from 1 to 10 years and < 90 mmHg from 11 to 17 years. (A) Anaphylaxis is highly likely when any one of the three criteria is fulfilled; (B) Anaphylaxis is highly likely when any one of the two criteria is fulfilled. 56 Darío Antolín-Amérigo, Carmen Vidal-Albareda, David González de Olano, Belén de la Hoz-Caballer serum tryptase measurements for anaphylaxis, but the evidence is of very low certainty, derived from consecutive case series or case control studies (55, 67, 68). In terms of practical management, taking the blood sample should not delay treating a patient with adrenaline where nec- essary. A sample taken later than 2 hours after the reaction may still demonstrate a raised tryptase level. An event-related transient elevation of the serum tryptase level by at least 20% over the individual baseline plus 2 ng/mL ab- solute (20%+2) within a 2-4 h window after reaction supports a diagnosis of anaphylaxis (tryptase peak rising level ≥ (20% × baseline tryptase) + 2 μg/L) (69, 70). It is interesting to note that a recent study quantified the ac- tual benefit of measuring tryptase in Emergency Department patients with anaphylaxis, which found that around 2% of the patient cohort who did not meet diagnostic criteria for anaphy- laxis would have elevated levels of serum-tryptase, higher than the normal ranges of the local laboratory (> 12 μg/L) (57). A raised serum tryptase level can be associated with a mast cell disorder or hereditary alpha tryptasemia (71-73), so it is im- portant to compare with a baseline level at least 24 hours after complete resolution of a reaction. Moreover, serum tryptase is not always elevated in anaphylaxis, especially in children and with food triggers in all ages (74). Apart from tryptase, a number of other MC-derived com- pounds may serve as suitable parameters to document severe reactions following systemic MC activation. These substances include, among others, histamine and its metabolites, PGD2 and its metabolites, and heparin (75-77). However, except for heparin, these mediators are less specific for MC compared to tryptase. Methods to determine these mediators are also much less available through widely distrib- uted commercial assays and, moreover, none of these labora- tory exams are validated for the diagnosis of anaphylaxis, so far (69). Management The evidence base for the acute management of anaphylaxis is weak and is established mainly by means of systematic reviews, due to the absence of randomized controlled trials. However, there seems to be a global consensus that intramuscular (IM) adrenaline is the treatment of choice as the first step in the man- agement of acute anaphylaxis (19, 34, 78). All in all, there is room for improvement in its management which shall be systematic (79). Some of the unmet needs with regard to anaphylaxis are acute management and with regards prophylactic measures (3). There are several factors influencing the successful treatment of an anaphylactic reaction such as specific training in anaphylax- is management along with rapid identification and treatment, which are critical (52, 79). The basic principles for the treatment of anaphylaxis are com- mon for all age groups, but it may be influenced by the context/ setting, personnel, equipment and by the available medication (79, 80). The necessary materials and medications to treat an anaphylac- tic episode are (5, 6): 1. Stethoscope, pulse-oxymeter and tensiometer (including equipment for blood pressure and cardiac continuous moni- toring), watch or clock. 2. Tourniquets, syringes (with needles:1 mL, 10 mL, 20 mL) and needles IV (gauge 19, 21, 23 and 25) and IM, and cath- eter (gauges 14, 16, 18, 20 and 22). 3. Aqueous Adrenaline (1 mg/ml or 1/1,000) 0.01 mg/kg to a maximum of 0.5 mg (adult) and 0.3 mg (child). 4. Equipment to deliver oxygen (oxygen tank, valve with flow-meter, and extension tubing). 5. Equipment to deliver IV fluids. 6. Intubation material: ambu bag/valve/mask, self-inflating with reservoir (volume 700-1,000 mL (adult), 100-700 (child) and disposable face masks; oropharyngeal airways: 6 cm, 7 cm, 8 cm, 9 cm, 10 cm; pocket masks and nasal can- nula, laryngeal mask airways. 7. Antihistamines IV (chlorpheniramine 10 mg (adult), 2.5-5 mg (child) or diphenhydramine 25-50 mg (adult) (1 mg/kg, maximum 50 mg (child)). 8. Corticosteroids IV (hydrocortisone 200 mg (adult), max- imum 100 mg child or methylprednisolone 50-100 mg (adult) 1 mg/kg, maximum 50 mg (child). 9. Vasopressors IV (dopamine, noradrenaline…). 10. Glucagon. 11. Defibrillator. 12. Inhaled Beta-Adrenergics: salbutamol solution 2.5 mg/3 mL or 5 mg/3mL (adult) (2.5 mg/3 mL, child) given by nebu- lizer and face mask. 13. Other supplies: extension tubing, T connectors, 3-way stop- cocks, armboards, written emergency protocol for anaphy- laxis treatment, flow chart for recording times and events, gloves. The emergency treatment of a patient who is suffering an ana- phylactic reaction may differ if it occurs outside of a health- care institution or inside a hospital/ambulatory center. Both the available resources and the accessibility to a hospital/ambulatory center may influence the first approach. Management outside of a healthcare institution The first step, regardless of the context and the severity of the anaphylactic reaction, would be the use of adrenaline autoinjec- tor and subsequently an immediate phone calling for emergency support (table IV). Any healthcare professional shall be capable of initiating the treatment of a patient who is suffering from an anaphylactic reaction and calling for emergency support. 57 Anaphylaxis management in recent guidelines Rescue volunteers, paramedics, lifeguards, and nurses shall be trained, updated, and sufficiently skilled to cope with an ana- phylactic reaction (81, 82). Equipment and available medication (in a healthcare insti- tution) Every healthcare institution shall have a crash cart containing all the necessary equipment and medication to make a complete car- diorespiratory resuscitation and to treat a potential anaphylactic re- action (see paragraph Management). Every health care professional shall be familiar with the equipment and every medication shall be reviewed periodically. Whenever a patient begins to suffer an ana- phylactic reaction, it has to be monitored as soon as possible (79). Minimal approach requirements for a potential anaphylactic episode 1. Stratifying patient’s severity (figure 2). 2. Early emergency support request. 3. Initial treatment based on ABCDE approach. 4. Adrenaline (when indicated). 5. Preferential study and follow-up by an allergist: essential. Patient position (extensible for inside and outside a healthcare in- stitution) Whenever a patient is being treated or has suffered from an ana- phylactic episode, it should be placed in a comfortable position, laid down and with raised legs to gain venous return. This posi- tion shall be avoided when vomiting or any kind of respiratory failure. Postural changes shall be made with caution as they may cause the worsening of a hemodynamic compromise. Uncon- scious patients shall be placed in a lateral position. Pregnant women shall be placed in the left lateral position to avoid cava vein compression (83). Airways permeability shall be warranted at all times (79). In case of respiratory failure, semi-recumbent position can be considered. Anyhow, the UK Resuscitation Council 2021 Guidelines comprise further details on patient positioning in anaphylaxis (71). Table IV - Indications for prescribing adrenaline autoinjectors, regardless of the context and the severity of the anaphylactic reaction. A B Previous (severe or near fatal)* anaphylaxis triggered by foods, medication, aeroallergens, exercise- induced, latex or idiopathic Arguments for 2 autoinjectors Arguments for 1 autoinjector Coexistent unstable or moderate-severe/severe asthma and food allergy* European Medicines Agency recommends 2 autoinjectors Only needing to carry one device may improve adherence Venom allergy in untreated patients and risk of re- exposure About 10% patients required a 2 nd dose of adrenaline due to insufficient response to the 1 st dose Most autoinjectors are not used and have to be replaced after 12-18 months Underlying systemic mastocytosis in adults with any previous systemic reaction. Children with very severe skin involvement (>50% body surface) and increased basal serum tryptase levels (>20 ng/ml) and with blistering in the first three years of life* Rarely, injection in the wrong place Most patients respond to 1 dose and 2nd doses are usually administered by emergency services Previous mild-moderate reactions to food Likelihood of delayed medical assistance (remote location or travel) Remote from medical help or repeated travel abroad with mild moderate reactions to food, medication, insect, latex or idiopathic* Cardiovascular disease Oral immunotherapy for food allergy Previous requirement of more than 1 adrenaline dose before arriving a healthcare institution* If available adrenaline dose is too low for body weight* (A) *At least 1 adrenaline autoinjector. Notwithstanding, consider prescribing 2 adrenaline autoinjectors; Modified from (4); (B) reasons for prescribing one or two adrenaline autoinjectors (modified from references 4, 6, 79, 87). 58 Darío Antolín-Amérigo, Carmen Vidal-Albareda, David González de Olano, Belén de la Hoz-Caballer In patients with a history of prior anaphylaxis, acute manage- ment consists of two steps: 1. Self-management of the patient using an emergency proto- col, in which it is important to emphasize the key role of intramuscular adrenaline, encouraging the possibility of self-administration of adrenaline using auto-injector devices, no matter the severity of the anaphylactic reaction (table IV). 2. Additional interventions given by healthcare professionals once medical help has arrived, which must include further adrenaline if symptoms of anaphylaxis ongoing. It is of note that the most effective and evidence-based treat- ment for anaphylaxis is adrenaline, based on observational stud- ies, extrapolation from retrospective case reports, and scarce clinical trials (3, 32). Airway protection As patients with anaphylaxis can rapidly develop critical airway compromise, it is crucial to protect the airway while other treat- ments are administered (27). Intubation should be considered early, as patients can decom- pensate rapidly, which can make endotracheal intubation more difficult or impossible and necessitate the placement of a surgi- cal airway. If the patient shows intense laryngeal edema, non- invasive positive pressure ventilation or supraglottic airways Figure 2 - Treatment scheme of an anaphylactic episode. Anaphylaxis Airway, breathing, circulation, disability, exposure Adrenaline i.m. Children: 0.01 mL × Kg until 0.3 mg Adults: 0.01 mL × Kg until 0.5 mg • Call for help, remove potential trigger • Optimize posture depending on presentation: o Mainly respiratory- sit up with elevated legs o Mainly cardiovascular-lie patient falt and elevate legs High flow oxygen at 10 liters/minute with a reservoir bag: • If circulatory/severe respiratory symptoms → i.v. fluid-crystalloid-bolus: adults/children > 30 kg: 500 ml i.v. bolus (repeat as needed) • If stridor → nebulized adrenaline as supplement to i.m. adrenaline: 1 mg with 4 ml 0.9% NaCl (repeat as needed) • If wheeze → beta-agonist nebulized or Metered Dose Inhaler (MDI) + spacer (e.g., salbutamol): o Adults and school children: nebulized 5 mg, MDI 600 mcg (repeat as needed) If no improvement in 5-10 minutes: repeat i.m. adrenaline and give i.v. fluids Consider giving a 2 nd dose by needle and syringe in case of autoinjector failure or using 0.5 mg for adolescents or adults Circulatory or respiratory compromise despite i.m. adrenaline x 2 and i.v. fluids: • Call emergency team including critical care expertise to provide advanced treatment including adrenaline infusion • Cardiac arrest: follow guidelines When a patient is stabilized: • Measure serum tryptase ½ to 2 hours after reaction onset • Make decision about level and length of observation • Consider additional treatment: antihistamines, corticosteroids Monitor: • Cerebral status • Pulse oximetry • Blood pressure • ECG Adrenaline i.m. Children: 0/5 year old: 0.15 mg Children: 6/12 year: 0.30 mg Adolescents: 0.50 mg Suspect anaphylaxis if: - Acute onset - Life-threatening A, B or C problems - With skin/mucosa and/or severe gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms (not always present) Symptoms (signs) - Airway or breathing: dysphagia, hoarseness, stridor, dyspnea, tachypnea, wheeze, cyanosis - Circulation: tachycardia, hypotension, dizziness, fainting, confusion - Skin/mucosa/GI: generalized pruritus, flushing, urticaria, angioedema, vomiting, abdominal pain Modified from references 4, 79, 84. *Adrenaline preferably shall be adjusted by weight. 59 Anaphylaxis management in recent guidelines should be used with caution, as they may not be effective. En- dotracheal intubation with direct or video laryngoscopy should be attempted first by an experienced clinician if the oral edema is judged to be navigable. Supplemental oxygen should be administered to maintain oxy- gen saturation > 90% (27). Medication Delayed epinephrine administration is associated with biphasic reactions (78). It is a matter of debate whether glucocorticoids would prevent biphasic reactions in patients with anaphylaxis as they inhibit inflammatory responses by suppressing the function of mast cells (78). Recent retrospective cohort studies have failed to show any preventive effects of glucocorticoids on biphasic re- actions. Moreover, antihistamines have no role in the primary manage- ment of life-threatening signs and symptoms of anaphylaxis, in- cluding upper airway edema and shock. The rationale for their use arises from the effectiveness in other allergic diseases, but there are no specific data that suggest benefit in anaphylaxis (80). Healthcare institution discharge after anaphylaxis If the diagnosis of anaphylaxis (or suspicion) has been reached, patients shall remain for 6-8 hours after complete resolution of symptoms and up to 12-24 hours whenever a patient shows refractory symptoms, or in the event of very severe reactions or having a history of biphasic reactions. Other patients, who would also need to stay longer, would be the following: 1) pa- tients with difficult access to a healthcare institution, 2) severe idiopathic anaphylaxis with slow progression; 3) severe asthma or severe respiratory symptoms; 4) reactions in which the al- lergen could be present if the patient is discharged; 5) severe condition of the patient (cardiocirculatory compromise) (79). It is mandatory to have a complete medical record indicating all received medications and the evolution of the patient. Recommendations after healthcare institution discharge be- cause of anaphylaxis: • Emergency department visit: if symptoms reappear. • Antihistamines, corticosteroids, and prescription of adrena- line autoinjector(s) (independently of the severity of the ana- phylactic reaction) (table IV). • Avoidance of potential culprit agents (foods, medications, insects, etc.). • Continued follow-up plan for general practitioners. • Personalized plans, including referral to psychological sup- port and patients’ organizations (4). • Allergen immunotherapy and desensitization: allergen im- munotherapy (AIT) is potentially a curative therapy. AIT may increase the amount of food that the patient can tol- erate, preventing allergic symptoms and reducing the risk of potentially life-threatening allergic reactions (77). Venom immunotherapy (VIT) is the model of immunotherapy with regards the studies, its efficacy and the knowledge of the physiologic modifications of induction of immune tolerance produced (78). Moreover, it has been shown to improve the quality of life of venom-allergic patients when compared with patients who do not receive immunotherapy but carry adrena- line (79). Food Allergy-OIT is recommended for persistent Cow’s Milk, Hen Egg, or peanut allergy for children from around 4 to 5 years of age on the basis of its ability to increase the threshold for clinical reactions while on OIT (Grade A). At present, there are insufficient data to be able to recommend AIT for other foods and for adults outside clinical trials (77). Personalized plans Every patient should receive a written record with instructions such as: avoidance measures and when and how to use the adrenaline autoinjector (table IV). All patients shall be referred to an Allergy Department to investigate the potential culprit agent and to minimize present and future risks. New guidelines point out the importance of prescribing personalized plans to achieve the best approach in terms of continued follow-up of patients who have suffered an anaphylactic reaction (4, 6, 52, 79, 85-87). Education and training for health care professionals (HCP) and patients at risk of anaphylaxis The EAACI Task Force on anaphylaxis, along with other guide- lines, recommends providing structured, comprehensive train- ing to improve the knowledge and use of adrenaline autoinjec- tors in people at risk of anaphylaxis. This is in addition to basic instructions about autoinjector use (4). Although it is unclear what types of training and support are most effective, education is essential if patients at risk of ana- phylaxis are to successfully recognize and manage future epi- sodes. Diverse approaches are available, including the use of adrenaline, autoinjector training devices, and online approach- es. Training HCP using anaphylaxis simulators will improve its management (4). Other potential educational interventions Some studies have also found that supporting patients to practice using an adrenaline autoinjector or needle and syringe containing 0.9% saline can reduce anxiety or improve quality of life. In the case of anaphylaxis during an in-hospital-based food/ drug challenge, patients and caregivers may be encouraged to administer their own adrenaline autoinjector to improve their confidence in this procedure. It is also important for allergists to follow a patient’s anaphylaxis management plan during a prov- ocation challenge (e.g., giving in adrenaline at the first sign of anaphylaxis) to reinforce this self-management approach (88). 60 Darío Antolín-Amérigo, Carmen Vidal-Albareda, David González de Olano, Belén de la Hoz-Caballer Approaches to prevent anaphylaxis in schools School policies should reflect anaphylaxis guidelines, but more research is needed to understand how guidelines and legislation in schools are best implemented. Anaphylaxis due to food aller- gy, occurs in schools more than in any other community loca- tion (6). Therefore, it may be helpful to target secondary schools and community settings with educational support to help raise gen- eral awareness, empower adolescents to confident self-manage food allergy, and enable schools to develop protocols to mini- mize any adverse events if they occur. Other approaches investigated to improve the management of anaphylaxis included nurses checking whether students were car- rying autoinjectors and availability of a 24-hour helpline (89). Knowledge gaps In our opinion, there are three main areas of work that we con- sider should be a priority to improve the management of ana- phylaxis as described in the guidelines, which are those related to the diagnosis of the disease, its classification and its manage- ment (66, 88-91). The difficulty in diagnosing anaphylaxis is that there is no pathognomonic set of signs or symptoms, especially when no cutaneous manifestations are present and there is not an im- mediate history of drug administration or allergen exposure. What is typical is the rapid progression in severity or intensity of symptoms. For this reason, it would be advisable to unify the diagnostic criteria and disseminate them, especially among specialties that handle clinical emergencies. Although the most important aspect is to recognize the entity and initiate appropriate treatment (88, 89), it is also necessary to use the same tools to classify the severity of a reaction. It would be advisable to find a consensus and try to find a single and suitable classification of anaphylaxis. It would also be important to improve knowledge and tools for the treatment of anaphylaxis (87). Turner et al. undertook a thorough literature search about the pharmacokinetics (PK) of adrenaline autoinjectors (66, 92, 93). In community settings, adrenaline can be provided for emer- gency use as an adrenaline autoinjector (AAI) device (table IV), although these are not available in many countries (88, 89). Be- sides, there is a barrier in the use of AAI and is the price. Allergy societies and Patients’ Organizations in Spain are joining forces to achieve a symbolic price, which is for many patients high, given the expiration date of the AAI, so as to assure that every patient at risk would carry AAI. Given the currently available data, it takes at least 5-10 min to achieve early peak plasma concentration for most devices and the authors state that the specific autoinjector device seems to be the most important determinant of pharmacokinetics, with dif- ferent devices giving rise to different plasma adrenaline profiles. Needle length does not seem to be the most important factor; rather, the force and speed of injection (which varies from one device to another) is likely to be of greater importance. In gen- eral, peak plasma adrenaline concentration is lower and time- to-peak concentration is longer with increased skin-to-muscle depth. However, it is difficult to draw conclusions with the cur- rent available data, due to a lack of head-to-head comparisons, small numbers of study participants, and the failure to acknowl- edge the biphasic nature of intramuscular adrenaline absorption for analysis purposes. Several studies tried to assess the impact of body mass index, using the parameter of skin-to- muscle depth (STMD), assessed by ultrasound. Notwithstanding, the numbers in each subgroup would not allow to detect any small differences between groups. Other studies found significant differences in terms of lower SMTD and faster and greater increase in plasma adrenaline in the normal weight men and vice versa (66, 78, 88, 89). Although PK data are available, the most helpful study com- paring three different devices is unpublished. According to all international guidelines, the recommended dose of IM adren- aline in adults is 0.5 mg; thus, a dose of 0.3 mg given by AAI may be inadequate and should be repeated after 5-10 min in the absence of resolution of symptoms (66). Conclusions Anaphylaxis is a potentially fatal hypersensitivity reaction. Al- though its incidence rates vary according to geographical lo- cation, it seems clear that there has been a general increase in recent years, either because of greater recognition of this entity or because it is progressing proportionally to the presence of allergic diseases in the world. On many occasions, episodes of anaphylaxis are treated by physicians working in Emergency departments and are not directly evaluated by an allergist. It is necessary to establish common and consensual guidelines to help professionals and patients to know how to recognize ana- phylaxis, as well as to be able to classify it, treat it correctly and make future recommendations after the acute episode. Studies comprising the epidemiology of anaphylaxis, as well as the importance of biphasic reactions seem crucial to exactly de- fine priorities in terms of research and resources. Preventive measures, including personalized action plans may circumvent the burden of anaphylaxis for patients, relatives, and caregivers. The development of anaphylaxis management guidelines adapt- ed to local or regional needs seems of utmost importance, but it is necessary to assess their implementation and their positive effect regarding diagnosing and treating anaphylaxis. There is a clear need for establishing multinational, large data- bases/registries to collect high-quality epidemiologic risk factor 61 Anaphylaxis management in recent guidelines data and diagnosis or treatment outcomes for improving the management of patients with anaphylaxis. Fundings None. Contributions DA-A: conceptualization, formal analysis, methodology, proj- ect administration, writing - original draft, writing - review & editing. CV-A, DGdO, BDlH-C: conceptualization, writing - original draft, writing - review & editing. Conflict of interests The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests. References 1. Simons FER, Ardusso LR, Bilò MB, Cardona V, Ebisawa M, El- Gamal YM, et al. International consensus on (ICON) anaphy- laxis. World Allergy Organ J. 2014;7(1):9. doi: 10.1186/1939- 4551-7-9. 2. Anaphylaxis: assessment and referral after emergency treatment Clinical guideline. 2011. Available at: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ cg134. Last access date: 06/30/2023. 3. Tanno LK, Touati N, Allichon S, Martin B, Ebisawa M, Ansotegui I, et al. A Proposal from the Montpellier World Health Organiza- tion Collaborating Centre for Better Management and Prevention of Anaphylaxis. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2021;9(2):676-83. e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2020.09.062. 4. Muraro A, Worm M, Alviani C, Cardona V, DunnGalvin A, Gar- vey LH, et al. EAACI guideline: Anaphylaxis (2021 update). Aller- gy. 2022;77(2):357-77. doi: 10.1111/all.15032. 5. Johansson SGO, Bieber T, Dahl R, Friedmann PS, Lanier BQ, Lockey RF, et al. Revised nomenclature for allergy for global use: Report of the Nomenclature Review Committee of the World Allergy Organization, October 2003. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2004;113(5):832-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2003.12.591. 6. Worm M, Moneret-Vautrin A, Scherer K, Lang R, Fernandez-Ri- vas M, Cardona V, et al. First European data from the network of severe allergic reactions (NORA). Allergy. 2014;69(10):1397-404. doi: 10.1111/all.12475. 7. Bilò MB, Corsi A, Martini M, Penza E, Grippo F, Bignardi D. Fatal anaphylaxis in Italy: Analysis of cause-of-death national data, 2004- 2016. Allergy. 2020;75(10):2644-52. doi: 10.1111/all.14352. 8. Turner PJ, Gowland MH, Sharma V, Ierodiakonou D, Harper N, Garcez T, et al. Increase in anaphylaxis-related hospitaliza- tions but no increase in fatalities: an analysis of United Kingdom national anaphylaxis data, 1992-2012. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2015;135(4):956-963.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2014.10.021. 9. Garvey LH, Dewachter P, Hepner DL, Mertes PM, Voltolini S, Clarke R, et al. Management of suspected immediate perioperative allergic reactions: an international overview and consensus recom- mendations. Br J Anaesth. 2019;123(1):e50-64. doi: 10.1016/j. bja.2019.04.044. 10. Hopkins PM, Cooke PJ, Clarke RC, Guttormsen AB, Platt PR, Dewachter P, et al. Consensus clinical scoring for suspected perioperative immediate hypersensitivity reactions. Br J Anaesth. 2019;123(1):e29-37. doi: 10.1016/j.bja.2019.02.029. 11. Liew WK, Williamson E, Tang MLK. Anaphylaxis fatalities and ad- missions in Australia. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2009;123(2):434-42. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2008.10.049. 12. Helbling A, Hurni T, Mueller UR, Pichler WJ. Incidence of anaphy- laxis with circulatory symptoms: a study over a 3-year period com- prising 940,000 inhabitants of the Swiss Canton Bern. Clin Exp Al- lergy. 2004;34(2):285-90. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2222.2004.01882.x. 13. Tanno LK, Bierrenbach AL, Simons FER, Cardona V, Thong BY- H, Molinari N, et al. Critical view of anaphylaxis epidemiology: open questions and new perspectives. llergy Asthma Clin Immunol. 2018:14:12. doi: 10.1186/s13223-018-0234-0. 14. Tanno LK, Caminati M, Pouessel G, Senna G, Demoly P. Epi- demiology of anaphylaxis: is the trend still going up? Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2023;23(5):349-56. doi: 10.1097/ ACI.0000000000000933. 15. Lee S, Bellolio MF, Hess EP, Erwin P, Murad MH, Campbell RL. Time of Onset and Predictors of Biphasic Anaphylactic Reactions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2015;3(3):402-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2014.12.010. 16. Zeke A, Sudhir A. Management of allergic reactions and anaphylax- is in the emergency department. Emerg Med Pract. 2022;24(7):1- 24. 17. de la Hoz Caballer B, Diéguez Muñoz MC, Gonzalez de Olano D, Habernau Mena A, Muñoz Cano R. Guía de actuación en anafilax- ia: galaxia. 2022. Available at: https://www.guiagalaxia.com/. doi: 10.18176/19264-19-0. 18. Francuzik W, Ruëff F, Bauer A, Bilò MB, Cardona V, Christoff G, et al. Phenotype and risk factors of venom-induced anaphy- laxis: A case-control study of the European Anaphylaxis Registry. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2021;147(2):653-62.e9. doi: 10.1016/j. jaci.2020.06.008. 19. Aurich S, Dölle-Bierke S, Francuzik W, Bilo MB, Christoff G, Fer- nandez-Rivas M, et al. Anaphylaxis in Elderly Patients-Data From the European Anaphylaxis Registry. Front Immunol. 2019;10:750. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2019.00750. 20. Cho H, Kwon J-W. Prevalence of anaphylaxis and prescription rates of epinephrine auto-injectors in urban and rural areas of Korea. Korean J Intern Med. 2019;34(3):643-50. doi: 10.3904/ kjim.2018.094. 21. Tham EH, Leung ASY, Pacharn P, Lee S, Ebisawa M, Lee BW, et al. Anaphylaxis - Lessons learnt when East meets West. Pedi- atr allergy Immunol Off Publ Eur Soc Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2019;30(7):681-8. doi: 10.1111/pai.13098. 22. Jeon YH, Lee S, Ahn K, Lee SY, Kim KW, Kim HH, et al. Infantile Anaphylaxis in Korea: a Multicenter Retrospective Case Study. J Ko- rean Med Sci. 2019;34(13):e106. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2019.34.e106. 23. Wood RA, Camargo CAJ, Lieberman P, Sampson HA, Schwartz LB, Zitt M, et al. Anaphylaxis in America: the prevalence and characteristics of anaphylaxis in the United States. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2014;133(2):461-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2013.08.016. 24. Liew WK, Chiang WC, Goh AE, Lim HH, Chay OM, Chang S, et al. Paediatric anaphylaxis in a Singaporean children cohort: chang- ing food allergy triggers over time. Asia Pac Allergy. 2013;3(1):29- 34. doi: 10.5415/apallergy.2013.3.1.29. 25. Nabavi M, Lavavpour M, Arshi S, Bemanian MH, Esmaeilzadeh H, Molatefi R, et al. Characteristics, Etiology and Treatment of 62 Darío Antolín-Amérigo, Carmen Vidal-Albareda, David González de Olano, Belén de la Hoz-Caballer Pediatric and Adult Anaphylaxis in Iran. Iran J Allergy Asthma Im- munol. 2017;16(6):480-7. 26. Abunada T, Al-Nesf MA, Thalib L, Kurdi R, Khalil S, ElKas- sem W, et al. Anaphylaxis triggers in a large tertiary care hos- pital in Qatar: a retrospective study. World Allergy Organ J. 2018;11(1):20. doi: 10.1186/s40413-018-0200-9. 27. Gomes ER, Demoly P. Epidemiology of hypersensitivity drug reactions. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2005;5(4):309-16. doi: 10.1097/01.all.0000173785.81024.33. 28. Drug allergy: an updated practice parameter. Ann allergy, asth- ma Immunol Off Publ Am Coll Allergy, Asthma, Immunol. 2010;105(4):259-73. doi: 10.1016/j.anai.2010.08.002. 29. Centre for Clinical Practice at NICE (UK). Anaphylaxis: Assess- ment to Confirm an Anaphylactic Episode and the Decision to Refer After Emergency Treatment for a Suspected Anaphylactic Episode. Manchester (UK): National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (UK); 2011. 30. Dzingina M, Stegenga H, Heath M, Jones D, Rogers G, Klei- jnen J, et al. Assessment and referral after emergency treatment of a suspected anaphylactic episode: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ. 2011;343:d7595. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d7595. 31. Vidal C, Antolín-Amérigo D, Reaño M, Valero A, Sastre J; Collaborators; SEAIC Board of Directors. Safety and Quality Recommendations in Allergy Medicine (Spanish acronym, RES- CAL). J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 2018;28(Suppl. 1):1- 39. doi: 10.18176/jiaci.0267. 32. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Anaphylaxis Assessment to confirm an anaphylactic episode and the decision to refer after emergency treatment for a suspected anaphylactic episode: NICE; 2016. (Clinical guideline [CG119]). Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/qs119/resources. Last ac- cess date: 06/30/2023. 33. Muraro A, Werfel T, Hoffmann-Sommergruber K, Roberts G, Beyer K, Bindslev-Jensen C, et al. EAACI Food Allergy and Ana- phylaxis Guidelines: Diagnosis and management of food allergy. Allergy Eur J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2014;69(8):1008-25. doi: 10.1111/all.12429. 34. Nwaru BI, Hickstein L, Panesar SS, Roberts G, Muraro A, Sheikh A. Prevalence of common food allergies in Europe: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Allergy. 2014;69(8):992-1007. doi: 10.1111/all.12423. 35. Tejedor Alonso MA, Moro Moro M, Múgica García M V. Epide- miology of anaphylaxis. Clin Exp allergy J Br Soc Allergy Clin Immunol. 2015;45(6):1027-39. doi: 10.1111/cea.12418. 36. Cardona V, Ansotegui IJ, Ebisawa M, El-Gamal Y, Fernandez Ri- vas M, Fineman S, et al. World allergy organization anaphylaxis guidance 2020. World Allergy Organ J. 2020;13(10):100472. doi: 10.1016/j.waojou.2020.100472. 37. Anaphylaxis: assessment and referral after emergency treatment. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE); 2020. 38. Sampson HA, Muñoz-Furlong A, Campbell RL, Adkinson NFJ, Bock SA, Branum A, et al. Second symposium on the definition and management of anaphylaxis: summary report--Second Na- tional Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease/Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network symposium. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2006;117(2):391-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2005.12.1303. 39. Loprinzi Brauer CE, Motosue MS, Li JT, Hagan JB, Bellolio MF, Lee S, et al. Prospective Validation of the NIAID/FAAN Cri- teria for Emergency Department Diagnosis of Anaphylaxis. J allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2016;4(6):1220-6. doi: 10.1016/j. jaip.2016.06.003. 40. Simons FER, Ardusso LRF, Dimov V, Ebisawa M, El-Gamal YM, Lockey RF, et al. World Allergy Organization Anaphylaxis Guide- lines: 2013 update of the evidence base. Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2013;162(3):193-204. doi: 10.1159/000354543. 41. Muraro A, Roberts G, Clark A, Eigenmann PA, Halken S, Lack G, et al. The management of anaphylaxis in childhood: position paper of the European academy of allergology and clinical im- munology. Allergy. 2007;62(8):857-71. doi: 10.1111/j.1398- 9995.2007.01421.x. 42. Mueller HL. Diagnosis and treatment of insect sensitivity. J Asth- ma Res. 1966;3(4):331-3. doi: 10.3109/02770906609106941. 43. Cox LS, Sanchez-Borges M, Lockey RF. World Allergy Organiza- tion Systemic Allergic Reaction Grading System: Is a Modification Needed? J allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2017;5(1):58-62.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2016.11.009. 44. Sampson HA. Anaphylaxis and emergency treatment. Pediatrics. 2003;111(6 Pt 3):1601-8. 45. Ring J, Behrendt H. Anaphylaxis and anaphylactoid reactions. Classification and pathophysiology. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 1999;17(4):387-99. doi: 10.1007/BF02737644. 46. Blazowski L, Majak P, Kurzawa R, Kuna P, Jerzynska J. A severity grading system of food-induced acute allergic reactions to avoid the delay of epinephrine administration. Ann allergy, asthma Immunol Off Publ Am Coll Allergy, Asthma, Immunol. 2021;127(4):462- 470.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.anai.2021.04.015. 47. Kohl KS, Gidudu J, Bonhoeffer J, Braun MM, Buettcher M, Chen RT, et al. The development of standardized case definitions and guidelines for adverse events following immunization. Vaccine. 2007;25(31):5671-4. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2007.02.063. 48. Bonhoeffer J, Bentsi-Enchill A, Chen RT, Fisher MC, Gold MS, Hartman K, et al. Guidelines for collection, analysis and presen- tation of vaccine safety data in surveillance systems. Vaccine. 2009;27(16):2289-97. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2008.11.035. 49. Gold MS, Gidudu J, Erlewyn-Lajeunesse M, Law B. Can the Brighton Collaboration case definitions be used to improve the quality of Adverse Event Following Immunization (AEFI) report- ing? Anaphylaxis as a case study. Vaccine. 2010;28(28):4487-98. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2010.04.041. 50. Erlewyn-Lajeunesse M, Dymond S, Slade I, Mansfield HL, Fish R, Jones O, et al. Diagnostic utility of two case definitions for ana- phylaxis: a comparison using a retrospective case notes analysis in the UK. Drug Saf. 2010;33(1):57-64. doi: 10.2165/11318970- 000000000-00000. 51. Stafford A, Patel N, Turner PJ. Anaphylaxis-moving beyond sever- ity…. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2021;148(1):83-5. doi: 10.1016/j. jaci.2021.04.017. 52. Dribin TE, Sampson HA, Camargo CA, Brousseau DC, Spergel JM, Neuman MI, et al. Persistent, refractory, and biphasic anaphy- laxis: A multidisciplinary Delphi study. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020;146(5):1089-96. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2020.08.015. 53. Sala-Cunill A, Cardona V, Labrador-Horrillo M, Luengo O, Esteso O, Garriga T, et al. Usefulness and limitations of sequential serum tryptase for the diagnosis of anaphylaxis in 102 patients. Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2013;160(2):192-9. doi: 10.1159/000339749. 54. Brown SGA, Blackman KE, Heddle RJ. Can serum mast cell tryptase help diagnose anaphylaxis? Emerg Med Australas. 2004;16(2):120-4. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-6723.2004.00562.x. 55. Valent P, Bonadonna P, Hartmann K, Broesby-Olsen S, Brockow K, Butterfield JH, et al. Why the 20% + 2 Tryptase Formula Is a 63 Anaphylaxis management in recent guidelines Diagnostic Gold Standard for Severe Systemic Mast Cell Ac- tivation and Mast Cell Activation Syndrome. Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2019;180(1):44-51. doi: 10.1159/000501079. 56. Passia E, Jandus P. Using Baseline and Peak Serum Tryptase Lev- els to Diagnose Anaphylaxis: a Review. Clin Rev Allergy Immu- nol. 2020;58(3):366-76. doi: 10.1007/s12016-020-08777-7. 57. Hansen K, Bjornsson HM, Gunnbjornsdottir MI. [Utility of se- rum tryptase in Emergency Department patients with possible anaphylaxis]. Laeknabladid. 2021;107(10):470-5. 58. Lyons JJ, Yu X, Hughes JD, Le QT, Jamil A, Bai Y, et al. El- evated basal serum tryptase identifies a multisystem disorder associated with increased TPSAB1 copy number. Nat Genet. 2016;48(12):1564-9. doi: 10.1038/ng.3696. 59. Valent P, Horny HP, Escribano L, Longley BJ, Li CY, Schwartz LB, et al. Diagnostic criteria and classification of mastocyto- sis: a consensus proposal. Leuk Res. 2001;25(7):603-25. doi: 10.1016/s0145-2126(01)00038-8. 60. Schwartz LB. Diagnostic value of tryptase in anaphylaxis and mastocytosis. Immunol Allergy Clin North Am. 2006;26(3):451- 63. doi: 10.1016/j.iac.2006.05.010. 61. Valent P, Akin C, Arock M, Brockow K, Butterfield JH, Car- ter MC, et al. Definitions, criteria and global classification of mast cell disorders with special reference to mast cell activation syndromes: a consensus proposal. Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2012;157(3):215-25. doi: 10.1159/000328760. 62. Watkins J, Wild G. Improved diagnosis of anaphylactoid re- actions by measurement of serum tryptase and urinary meth- ylhistamine. Ann Fr Anesth Reanim. 1993;12(2):169-72. doi: 10.1016/S0750-7658(05)81026-3. 63. Awad JA, Morrow JD, Roberts LJ 2nd. Detection of the ma- jor urinary metabolite of prostaglandin D2 in the circula- tion: demonstration of elevated levels in patients with disor- ders of systemic mast cell activation. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1994;93(5):817-24. doi: 10.1016/0091-6749(94)90371-9. 64. Keyzer JJ, de Monchy JG, van Doormaal JJ, van Voorst Vader PC. Improved diagnosis of mastocytosis by measurement of uri- nary histamine metabolites. N Engl J Med. 1983;309(26):1603- 5. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198312293092603. 65. Turner PJ, Campbell DE, Motosue MS, Campbell RL. Glob- al Trends in Anaphylaxis Epidemiology and Clinical Implica- tions. J allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2020;8(4):1169-76. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2019.11.027. 66. Turner PJ, Muraro A, Roberts G. Pharmacokinetics of adren- aline autoinjectors. Clin Exp Allergy. 2022;52(1):18-28. doi: 10.1111/cea.14055. 67. Soar J, Pumphrey R, Cant A, Clarke S, Corbett A, Dawson P, et al. Emergency treatment of anaphylactic reactions--guidelines for healthcare providers. Resuscitation. 2008;77(2):157-69. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2008.02.001. 68. Kemp AS, Hu W. New action plans for the management of ana- phylaxis. Aust Fam Physician. 2009;38(1-2):31-5. 69. Nurmatov U, Worth A, Sheikh A. Anaphylaxis management plans for the acute and long-term management of anaphylaxis: a systematic review. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2008;122(2):353- 61, 361.e1-3. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2008.05.028. 70. Tan E, O’Sullivan M, Crozier T, Kolawole H, Mantas S, Said M, et al. Acute management of anaphylaxis in pregnancy. Aust J Gen Pract. 2022;51(6):405-8. doi: 10.31128/AJGP-03-21- 5918. 71. Whyte AF, Soar J, Dodd A, Hughes A, Sargant N, Turner PJ. Emergency treatment of anaphylaxis: concise clinical guidance. Clin Med. 2022;22(4):332-9. doi: 10.7861/clinmed.2022-0073. 72. Shaker MS, Wallace D V, Golden DBK, Oppenheimer J, Bern- stein JA, Campbell RL, et al. Anaphylaxis-a 2020 practice parame- ter update, systematic review, and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) analysis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020;145(4):1082-123. doi: 10.1016/j. jaci.2020.01.017. 73. ASCIA. Acute Management of Anaphylaxis. Allergy.org.au. 2023. Available at: https://www.allergy.org.au/images/ASCIA_HP_ Guidelines_Acute_Management_Anaphylaxis_2023.pdf. Last ac- cess date: 06/30/2023. 74. Liu X, Lee S, Lohse CM, Hardy CT, Campbell RL. Bipha- sic Reactions in Emergency Department Anaphylaxis Patients: A Prospective Cohort Study. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2020;8(4):1230-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2019.10.027. 75. Liyanage CK, Galappatthy P, Seneviratne SL. Corticosteroids in management of anaphylaxis; a systematic review of evidence. Eur Ann Allergy Clin Immunol. 2017;49(5):196-207. doi: 10.23822/ EurAnnACI.1764-1489.15. 76. Sheikh A, Ten Broek V, Brown SG, Simons FE. H1-antihis- tamines for the treatment of anaphylaxis: Cochrane system- atic review. Allergy. 2007;62(8):830-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1398- 9995.2007.01435.x. 77. Pajno GB, Fernandez-Rivas M, Arasi S, Roberts G, Akdis CA, Alvaro-Lozano M, et al. EAACI Guidelines on allergen immu- notherapy: IgE-mediated food allergy. Allergy. 2018;73(4):799- 815. doi: 10.1111/all.13319. 78. Golden DBK. Anaphylaxis to insect stings. Immunol Aller- gy Clin North Am. 2015;35(2):287-302. doi: 10.1016/j. iac.2015.01.007. 79. Oude Elberink JN, van der Heide S, Guyatt GH, Dubois AE. Immunotherapy improves health-related quality of life of adult patients with dermal reactions following yellow jacket stings. Clin Exp Allergy. 2009;39(6):883-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1365- 2222.2009.03230.x. 80. Global implementation of the world health organization’s Inter- national Classification of Diseases (ICD)-11: The allergic and hypersensitivity conditions model. Allergy. 2020;75(9):2206-18. doi: 10.1111/all.14468. 81. Muraro A, Agache I, Clark A, Sheikh A, Roberts G, Akdis CA, et al. EAACI Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Guidelines: Managing patients with food allergy in the community. Allergy Eur J Aller- gy Clin Immunol. 2014;69(8):1046-57. doi: 10.1111/all.12441. 82. Epipen B. Adrenaline ( Epinephrine ) Injector Prescription. 2021:1-5. 83. Burrell S, Patel N, Vazquez-Ortiz M, Campbell DE, DunnGalvin A, Turner PJ. Self-administration of adrenaline for anaphylaxis during in-hospital food challenges improves health-related qual- ity of life. Arch Dis Child. 2021;106(6):558-63. doi: 10.1136/ archdischild-2020-319906. 84. Kelleher MM, Dunngalvin A, Sheikh A, Cullinane C, Fitzsi- mons J, Hourihane JO. Twenty four-hour helpline access to ex- pert management advice for food-allergy-triggered anaphylaxis in infants, children and young people: a pragmatic, randomized controlled trial. Allergy. 2013;68(12):1598-604. doi: 10.1111/ all.12310. 64 Darío Antolín-Amérigo, Carmen Vidal-Albareda, David González de Olano, Belén de la Hoz-Caballer 85. Greenhawt M, Gupta RS, Meadows JA, Pistiner M, Spergel JM, Camargo CA et al. Guiding Principles for the Recognition, Diag- nosis, and Management of Infants with Anaphylaxis: An Expert Panel Consensus. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2019;7(4):1148- 56.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2018.10.052. 86. Fernández-Rivas M, Gómez García I, Gonzalo-Fernández A, Fuentes Ferrer M, Dölle-Bierke S, Marco-Martín G, et al. Devel- opment and validation of the food allergy severity score. Allergy. 2022;77(5):1545-58. doi: 10.1111/all.15165. 87. Alvarez-Perea A, Cabrera-Freitag P, Fuentes-Aparicio V, Infante S. Advancements in Anaphylaxis Management. Curr Pharm Des. 2023;29(3):185-95. doi: 10.2174/1381612829666221021150946. 88. Waserman S, Avilla E, Harada L, Huang J, Kastner M. Decades of poor availability of epinephrine autoinjectors: Global prob- lems in need of global solutions. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2020;124(2):205-7.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.anai.2019.11.009. 89. Cheng A. Emergency treatment of anaphylaxis in infants and children. Paediatr Child Health. 2011;16(1):35-40. 90. Committee on Infectious Diseases AA of P, Kimberlin DW, Bar- nett ED, Lynfield R, Sawyer MH, editors. Treatment of Anaphy- lactic Reactions. Red Book: 2021-2024 Report of the Committee on Infectious Diseases. American Academy of Pediatrics; 2021. doi: 10.1542/9781610025782-S1_005_005. 91. Duvauchelle T, Robert P, Donazzolo Y, Loyau S, Orlandini B, Lehert P, et al. Bioavailability and Cardiovascular Effects of Adrenaline Administered by Anapen Autoinjector in Healthy Volunteers. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2018;6(4):1257-63. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2017.09.021.apr. 92. Jext 300 micrograms Solution for Injection in pre-filled pen - Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) - (emc). 93. Jext 150 micrograms Solution for Injection in pre-filled pen - Sum- mary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) - (emc).