Dataset Information

Persistent, refractory, and biphasic anaphylaxis: A multidisciplinary Delphi study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The use of inconsistent definitions for anaphylaxis outcomes limits our understanding of the natural history and epidemiology of anaphylaxis, hindering clinical practice and research efforts.

Objective

Our aim was to develop consensus definitions for clinically relevant anaphylaxis outcomes by utilizing a multidisciplinary group of clinical and research experts in anaphylaxis.

Methods

Using Delphi methodology, we developed agenda topics and drafted questions to review during monthly conference calls. Through online surveys, a 19-member panel consisting of experts in allergy and/or immunology and emergency medicine rated their level of agreement with the appropriateness of statements on a scale of 1 to 9. A median value of 1.0 to 3.4 was considered inappropriate, a median value of 3.5 to 6.9 was considered uncertain, and a median value of 7.0 to 9.0 was considered appropriate. A disagreement index was then calculated, with values less than 1.0 categorized as "consensus reached." If consensus was not reached after the initial survey, subsequent surveys incorporating the aggregate de-identified responses from prior surveys were sent to panel members. This process was repeated until consensus was reached or 4 survey rounds had been completed, after which the question was categorized as "no consensus reached."

Results

The panel developed outcome definitions for persistent, refractory, and biphasic anaphylaxis, as well as for persistent and biphasic nonanaphylactic reactions. There was also consensus among panel members regarding the need to develop an anaphylaxis severity grading system.

Conclusion

Dissemination and application of these definitions in clinical care and research will help standardize the terminology used to describe anaphylaxis outcomes and serve as the foundation for future research, including research aimed at development of an anaphylaxis severity grading system.

SUBMITTER: Dribin TE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8006564 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPulmonary hypertension (PH) is a common complication of interstitial lung disease (ILD) and is associated with worse outcomes and increased mortality. Evaluation of PH is recommended in lung transplant candidates, but there are currently no standardized screening approaches. Trials have identified therapies that are effective in this setting, providing another rationale to routinely screen patients with ILD for PH.Research questionWhat screening strategies for identifying PH in patients with ILD are supported by expert consensus?Study design and methodsThe study convened a panel of 16 pulmonologists with expertise in PH and ILD, and used a modified Delphi consensus process with three surveys to identify PH screening strategies. Survey 1 consisted primarily of open-ended questions. Surveys 2 and 3 were developed from responses to survey 1 and contained statements about PH screening that panelists rated from -5 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).ResultsPanelists reached consensus on several triggers for suspicion of PH including the following: symptoms, clinical signs, findings on chest CT scan or other imaging, abnormalities in pulse oximetry, elevations in brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) or N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and unexplained worsening in pulmonary function tests or 6-min walk distance. Echocardiography and BNP/NT-proBNP were identified as screening tools for PH. Right heart catheterization was deemed essential for confirming PH.InterpretationMany patients with ILD may benefit from early evaluation of PH now that an approved therapy is available. Protocols to evaluate patients with ILD often overlap with evaluations for pulmonary hypertension-interstitial lung disease and can be used to assess the risk of PH. Because standardized approaches are lacking, this consensus statement is intended to aid physicians in the identification of patients with ILD and possible PH, and provide guidance for timely right heart catheterization.

Project description:AimTo determine the consensus and importance of care practices related to the management of peripheral venous catheter (PVC)-related phlebitis in hospitalized patients through the views of experts from different disciplines.BackgroundPVCs are commonly used in hospitals but are associated with complications such as phlebitis. Their management differs widely, and studies are heterogeneous.DesignDelphi method.MethodsFour stages: problem area (with Web of Science bibliometric review in July 2022), panel members, two Delphi rounds and closing criteria. In the Delphi survey, experts answered an online questionnaire based on assessment, treatment and follow-up dimensions (September 2022-February 2023). Statistical analyses were conducted of frequencies, percentages, measures of central tendency and levels of dispersion (QD). A space for comments was created, and a thematic analysis conducted of them.ResultsEighteen experts (nurses, doctors and pharmacists) participated in the Delphi rounds. Forty-five activities were identified: 19 in assessment, 15 in treatment and 11 in follow-up. A high consensus level (QD ≤ 0.6) was found in five activities (11.12%), moderate level (0.6 < QD < 1.0) in 19 (42.22%) and low level (QD > 1.0) in 21 (46.66%). Seven themes were determined (patient perspective, lack of consensus, low evidence-based practices, stage-based treatments, prevention activities, high variability in practice and specialist teams and interdisciplinary work).ConclusionThe importance of systematic assessment scales is highlighted together with consensus on signs and symptoms (pain, redness, inflammation, palpable cord and induration). Treatment according to severity and daily visual recording and monitoring are emphasized along with the need for patient participation and healthcare literacy. A high level of consensus was obtained in 11% of the activities, showing the large variability of criteria and interventions for phlebitis management. Highlighted needs include working in a team, the use of specialist teams and promoting evidence- and prevention-based activities.Relevance to clinical practiceClinical variability is noted and, therefore, the importance of consensus on standardized care for PVC phlebitis and evidence-based practice.Reporting methodDelphi studies (CREDES).Patient or public contributionExperts contribution.