2012 Update: World Allergy Organization Guidelines for the assessment and management of anaphylaxis

Department of Pediatrics & Child Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.
Current Opinion in Allergy and Clinical Immunology (Impact Factor: 3.57). 06/2012; 12(4):389-99. DOI: 10.1097/ACI.0b013e328355b7e4
Source: PubMed


The World Allergy Organization (WAO) Guidelines for the assessment and management of anaphylaxis published in early 2011 provide a global perspective on patient risk factors, triggers, clinical diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of anaphylaxis. In this 2012 Update, subsequently published, clinically relevant research in these areas is reviewed.
Patient risk factors and co-factors that amplify anaphylaxis have been documented in prospective studies. The global perspective on the triggers of anaphylaxis has expanded. The clinical criteria for the diagnosis of anaphylaxis that are promulgated in the Guidelines have been validated. Some aspects of anaphylaxis treatment have been prospectively studied. Novel investigations of self-injectable epinephrine for treatment of anaphylaxis recurrences in the community have been performed. Progress has been made with regard to measurement of specific IgE to allergen components (component-resolved testing) that might help to distinguish clinical risk of future anaphylactic episodes to an allergen from asymptomatic sensitization to the allergen. New strategies for immune modulation to prevent food-induced anaphylaxis and new insights into subcutaneous immunotherapy to prevent venom-induced anaphylaxis have been described.
Research highlighted in this Update strengthens the evidence-based recommendations for assessment, management, and prevention of anaphylaxis made in the WAO Anaphylaxis Guidelines.

Download full-text


Available from: Motohiro Ebisawa, Jan 23, 2015
  • Source
    • "The widely disseminated WAO Anaphylaxis Guidelines [2], developed by the WAO Special Committee on Anaphylaxis, are supported by global assessments of essentials for anaphylaxis diagnosis and treatment [5-7] and yearly updates [8,9] of the evidence supporting the recommendations made in the guidelines. They provide a comprehensive, practical view of anaphylaxis. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: ICON: Anaphylaxis provides a unique perspective on the principal evidence-based anaphylaxis guidelines developed and published independently from 2010 through 2014 by four allergy/immunology organizations. These guidelines concur with regard to the clinical features that indicate a likely diagnosis of anaphylaxis -- a life-threatening generalized or systemic allergic or hypersensitivity reaction. They also concur about prompt initial treatment with intramuscular injection of epinephrine (adrenaline) in the mid-outer thigh, positioning the patient supine (semi-reclining if dyspneic or vomiting), calling for help, and when indicated, providing supplemental oxygen, intravenous fluid resuscitation and cardiopulmonary resuscitation, along with concomitant monitoring of vital signs and oxygenation. Additionally, they concur that H1-antihistamines, H2-antihistamines, and glucocorticoids are not initial medications of choice. For self-management of patients at risk of anaphylaxis in community settings, they recommend carrying epinephrine auto-injectors and personalized emergency action plans, as well as follow-up with a physician (ideally an allergy/immunology specialist) to help prevent anaphylaxis recurrences. ICON: Anaphylaxis describes unmet needs in anaphylaxis, noting that although epinephrine in 1 mg/mL ampules is available worldwide, other essentials, including supplemental oxygen, intravenous fluid resuscitation, and epinephrine auto-injectors are not universally available. ICON: Anaphylaxis proposes a comprehensive international research agenda that calls for additional prospective studies of anaphylaxis epidemiology, patient risk factors and co-factors, triggers, clinical criteria for diagnosis, randomized controlled trials of therapeutic interventions, and measures to prevent anaphylaxis recurrences. It also calls for facilitation of global collaborations in anaphylaxis research. In addition to confirming the alignment of major anaphylaxis guidelines, ICON: Anaphylaxis adds value by including summary tables and citing 130 key references. It is published as an information resource about anaphylaxis for worldwide use by healthcare professionals, academics, policy-makers, patients, caregivers, and the public.
    World Allergy Organization Journal 05/2014; 7(1):9. DOI:10.1186/1939-4551-7-9
  • Source
    • "Supplemental methods and figures[33,34] "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Thirty percent of children with food allergy are allergic to more than one food. Previous studies on oral immunotherapy (OIT) for food allergy have focused on the administration of a single allergen at the time. This study aimed at evaluating the safety of a modified OIT protocol using multiple foods at one time. Participants underwent double-blind placebo-controlled food challenges (DBPCFC) up to a cumulative dose of 182 mg of food protein to peanut followed by other nuts, sesame, dairy or egg. Those meeting inclusion criteria for peanut only were started on single-allergen OIT while those with additional allergies had up to 5 foods included in their OIT mix. Reactions during dose escalations and home dosing were recorded in a symptom diary. Forty participants met inclusion criteria on peanut DBPCFC. Of these, 15 were mono-allergic to peanut and 25 had additional food allergies. Rates of reaction per dose did not differ significantly between the two groups (median of 3.3% and 3.7% in multi and single OIT group, respectively; p = .31). In both groups, most reactions were mild but two severe reactions requiring epinephrine occurred in each group. Dose escalations progressed similarly in both groups although, per protocol design, those on multiple food took longer to reach equivalent doses per food (median +4 mo.; p < .0001). Preliminary data show oral immunotherapy using multiple food allergens simultaneously to be feasible and relatively safe when performed in a hospital setting with trained personnel. Additional, larger, randomized studies are required to continue to test safety and efficacy of multi-OIT.Trial registration: Clinicaltrial.gov NCT01490177.
    Allergy Asthma and Clinical Immunology 01/2014; 10(1):1. DOI:10.1186/1710-1492-10-1 · 2.03 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Almost 90% of respondents reported that their EDs did not use a written definition of anaphylaxis (Figure 1). Thirty-two of 196 (16.3%) respondents stated that their EDs used a definition based on an established set of criteria (question 2): 17 of these respondents (8.9% of the total) reported using definitions based on consensus criteria recommended by the NIAID/FAAN 2nd Symposium[5] (1.6%), the 2010 US Practice Parameters[4] (4.2%), or the WAO guidelines[3,6] (3.1%) as the source of their definition. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 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.
    03/2013; 4(2):98-106. DOI:10.5847/wjem.j.1920-8642.2013.02.003
Show more