Asthma and the prospective risk of anaphylactic shock and other allergy diagnoses in a large integrated health care delivery system
ABSTRACT The association between asthma and anaphylaxis remains poorly understood.
To ascertain, in a managed care organization in northern California, the association of asthma and asthma severity with future risk of anaphylactic shock and other selected allergy diagnoses.
Using electronic data and validated algorithms, we assembled a cohort of 526,406 patients who met the criteria for asthma between 1996 and 2006 and a referent cohort (with no utilization for asthma) individually matched on age, sex, and race/ethnicity. In each cohort, 54% of patients were female and 55% were white; their mean (SD) age was 24 (20) years. The main outcome measures were anaphylactic shock (caused by an adverse food reaction, caused by serum, or other/idiopathic), allergic urticaria, anaphylaxis after sting(s), and angioedema.
The incidence of anaphylactic shock was 109.0 per 100,000 person-years in the asthma cohort and 19.9 per 100,000 person-years in the referent cohort. After adjustment for age, sex, race/ethnicity, comorbidities, and immunotherapy, asthma was associated with a 5.2-fold (95% confidence interval, 4.7- to 5.6-fold) increased hazard of anaphylactic shock. Asthma was also significantly associated with an increased risk of the 3 selected allergy diagnoses, with hazard ratios of 1.4 to 1.9. A significant trend by severity of asthma was apparent for food-related and other/idiopathic anaphylactic shock and for anaphylaxis after sting(s).
In this insured population, asthma was prospectively associated with increased risk of anaphylactic shock and other allergy diagnoses. However, the effect of asthma severity was not consistent across outcome measures.
SourceAvailable from: Aziz Sheikh[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
Annals of allergy, asthma & immunology: official publication of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology 12/2014; 113(6):599-608. DOI:10.1016/j.anai.2014.10.007 · 2.75 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to characterize asthma and food allergy reporting and management in Chicago Public Schools. METHODS: Demographic and health data for students who have asthma and food allergy were extracted from the Chicago Public Schools database. Demographic and geographic variability and the existence of school health management plans were analyzed, and multiple logistic regression models were computed. Home addresses were geocoded to create maps of case counts per community area. RESULTS: Approximately 18 000 asthmatic and 4000 food allergic students were identified. Of asthmatic students, 9.3% had a food allergy; of food allergic students, 40.1% had asthma. Asthma odds were significantly higher among black and Hispanic students (odds ratio [OR] = 2.3 and 1.3, respectively), whereas food allergy odds were significantly higher among black students (OR = 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0-1.3) and significantly lower among Hispanic students (OR = 0.8; 95% CI, 0.7-0.9). Only 24.3% of students who had asthma and 50.9% of students who had food allergy had a school health management plan on file. Odds of having a school health management plan were significantly higher among students with both conditions, but the likelihood of having a plan on file was significantly lower among racial/ethnic minority and low-income students, regardless of medical condition. CONCLUSIONS: Only 1 in 4 students who have asthma and half of food allergic students have health management plans in schools, with lower numbers among minority and low-income students. Improving chronic disease reporting and access to school health management plans is critical.Pediatrics 09/2014; 134(4). DOI:10.1542/peds.2014-0402 · 5.30 Impact Factor