[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The scope of expenditures due to anaphylaxis likely is underestimated by health care payors because anaphylaxis is underdiagnosed and, when reported, most costs of anaphylaxis borne by payors relate to direct medical expenses. Direct costs of anaphylaxis have been estimated at $1.2 billion per year, with direct expenditures of $294 million for epinephrine, and indirect costs of $609 million. More accurate diagnostic coding will allow payors to improve their understanding of the full impact of anaphylaxis on health care plans, employers, patients, and their families. Similarly, more accurate diagnosis and treatment of anaphylaxis should have a direct effect on overall cost savings achieved in this disease state. This includes savings in both direct costs, such as emergency department visits, and indirect costs, such as lost productivity of patients and caregivers. Educating medical personnel on treatment guidelines regarding the specific use of appropriate epinephrine autoinjectors will contribute to cost savings. Even though the cost of autoinjectors has been increasing, evidence indicates that the cost of improper response to, and treatment of, anaphylaxis outweighs that increase. At this time, there are several branded epinephrine autoinjectors and one generic equivalent for one of these branded products available on the US market; the branded autoinjectors are not considered equivalents for substitution. Barriers to coverage and access, such as managed care organization tier classification, medication copay, and socioeconomic status of specific patients, need to be examined more closely and addressed. Education in the proper use of epinephrine autoinjectors, including regular checking of medication expiration dates, is critical for proper management of anaphylaxis and minimizing the costs of anaphylactic events. Managed care organizations can play a role in educational initiatives.
The American journal of medicine 01/2014; 127(1):S45–S50. DOI:10.1016/j.amjmed.2013.09.013 · 5.00 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Studies have documented inconsistent emergency anaphylaxis care and low compliance with published guidelines.
To evaluate anaphylaxis management before and after implementation of an emergency department (ED) anaphylaxis order set and introduction of epinephrine autoinjectors, and to measure the effect on anaphylaxis guideline adherence.
A cohort study was conducted from April 29, 2008, to August 9, 2012. Adult patients in the ED who were diagnosed with anaphylaxis were included. ED management, disposition, self-injectable epinephrine prescriptions, allergy follow-up, and incidence of biphasic reactions were evaluated.
The study included 202 patients. The median age of the patients was 45.3 years (interquartile range, 31.3-56.4 years); 139 (69%) were women. Patients who presented after order set implementation were more likely to be treated with epinephrine (51% vs 33%; odds ratio [OR] 2.05 [95% CI, 1.04-4.04]) and admitted to the ED observation unit (65% vs 44%; OR 2.38 [95% CI, 1.23-4.60]), and less likely to be dismissed home directly from ED (16% vs 29%, OR 0.47 [95% CI, 0.22-1.00]). Eleven patients (5%) had a biphasic reaction. Of these, 5 (46%) had the biphasic reaction in the ED observation unit; 1 patient was admitted to the intensive care unit. Six patients (55%) had reactions within 6 hours of initial symptom resolution, of whom 2 were admitted to the intensive care unit.
Significantly higher proportions of patients with anaphylaxis received epinephrine and were admitted to the ED observation unit after introduction of epinephrine autoinjectors and order set implementation. Slightly more than half of the biphasic reactions occurred within the recommended observation time of 4 to 6 hours. Analysis of these data suggests that the multifaceted approach to changing anaphylaxis management described here improved guideline adherence.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.