Dataset Information

Use of multiple epinephrine doses in anaphylaxis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Regulatory bodies recommend that all patients at risk of anaphylaxis be prescribed 2 epinephrine autoinjectors, which they should carry at all times. This is in contrast to some guidelines. The proportion of anaphylaxis reactions that are treated with multiple doses of epinephrine has not been systematically evaluated.

Objective

Our aim was to undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies reporting epinephrine treatment for anaphylaxis in which data relating to the number of doses administered were available.

Methods

We searched the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases for relevant studies reporting at least 10 anaphylaxis events (due to food or venom) from 1946 until January 2020. Data were extracted in duplicate for the meta-analysis, and the risk of bias was assessed. The study was registered under the PROSPERO identifier CRD42017069109.

Results

A total of 86 studies (36,557 anaphylaxis events) met the inclusion criteria (20 of the studies [23%] were prospective studies; 64 [74%] reported reactions in the community, and 22 [26%] included food challenge data). Risk of bias was assessed as low in 50 studies. Overall, 7.7% of anaphylaxis events from any cause (95% CI = 6.4-9.1) were treated with multiple doses of epinephrine. When only epinephrine-treated reactions for which subsequent doses were administered by a health care professional were considered, 11.1% of food-induced reactions (95% CI = 9.4-13.2) and 17.1% of venom-induced reactions (95% CI = 11.3-25.0) were treated with at least 1 epinephrine dose. Heterogeneity was moderate to high in the meta-analyses, but at sensitivity analysis it was not affected by study design or anaphylaxis definition.

Conclusion

Around 1 in 10 anaphylaxis reactions are treated with at least 1 dose of epinephrine.

SUBMITTER: Patel N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8588837 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAnaphylaxis manifests as a severe immediate-type hypersensitivity reaction initiated through the immunological activation of target B-cells by allergens, leading to the release of mediators. However, the well-known underlying pathological mechanisms do not fully explain the whole variety of clinical and immunological presentations. We performed a systemic review of proteomic and metabolomic studies and analyzed the extracted data to improve our understanding and identify potential new biomarkers of anaphylaxis.MethodsProteomic and metabolomic studies in both human subjects and experimental models were extracted and selected through a systematic search conducted on databases such as PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, up to May 2023.ResultsOf 137 retrieved publications, we considered 12 for further analysis, including seven on proteome analysis and five on metabolome analysis. A meta-analysis of the four human studies identified 118 proteins with varying expression levels in at least two studies. Beside established pathways of mast cells and basophil activation, functional analysis of proteomic data revealed a significant enrichment of biological processes related to neutrophil activation and platelet degranulation and metabolic pathways of arachidonic acid and icosatetraenoic acid. The pathway analysis highlighted also the involvement of neutrophil degranulation, and platelet activation. Metabolome analysis across different models showed 13 common metabolites, including arachidonic acid, tryptophan and lysoPC(18:0) lysophosphatidylcholines.ConclusionOur review highlights the underestimated role of neutrophils and platelets in the pathological mechanisms of anaphylactic reactions. These findings, derived from a limited number of publications, necessitate confirmation through human studies with larger sample sizes and could contribute to the development of new biomarkers for anaphylaxis.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42024506246.

Project description:ImportancePsilocybin has been studied in the treatment of depression and anxiety disorders. Clinical studies have mainly focused on efficacy, with systematic reviews showing favorable efficacy; however, none have primarily focused on psilocybin safety.ObjectiveTo evaluate the acute adverse effects of psilocybin at therapeutic doses in the treatment of depression and anxiety.Data sourcesMEDLINE via PubMed, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for publications available between 1966 and November 30, 2023.Study selectionRandomized, double-blind clinical trials that reported adverse effects of psilocybin in patients treated for depression and anxiety were screened.Data extraction and synthesisData were independently extracted by 2 authors and verified by 2 additional authors following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline. The inverse variance method with the Hartung-Knapp adjustment for the random-effects model was used, with a continuity correction of 0.5 for studies with 0 cell frequencies. Sensitivity analysis was conducted by sequentially removing 1 study at a time to assess the robustness of the results.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was considered as the adverse effects of psilocybin at high and moderate (ie, therapeutic) dose regimens and compared with placebo, low-dose psilocybin, or other comparator in the treatment of depression and/or anxiety.ResultsSix studies met the inclusion criteria with a total sample of 528 participants (approximately 51% female; median age 39.8 years; IQR, 39.8-41.2). Seven adverse effects were reported in multiple studies and included in the analysis. Among these, headache (relative risk [RR], 1.99; 95% CI 1.06-3.74), nausea (RR, 8.85; 95% CI, 5.68-13.79), anxiety (RR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.11-4.64), dizziness (RR, 5.81; 95% CI, 1.02-33.03), and elevated blood pressure (RR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.15- 4.53) were statistically significant. Psilocybin use was not associated with risk of paranoia and transient thought disorder.Conclusions and relevanceIn this meta-analysis, the acute adverse effect profile of therapeutic single-dose psilocybin appeared to be tolerable and resolved within 48 hours. However, future studies need to more actively evaluate the appropriate management of adverse effects.

Project description:Importance:Children experiencing anaphylaxis at school may lack access to a personal epinephrine device, prompting recent legislation permitting undesignated (eg, non-student specific) stock epinephrine autoinjector units at school. However, epinephrine device costs vary, and the cost-effectiveness of undesignated school stock epinephrine is uncharacterized to date. Objective:To define value-based strategies for undesignated school stock epinephrine programs. Design, Setting, and Participants:Markov simulations of the Chicago Public Schools system were used over extended time horizons to model 2 school stock epinephrine autoinjector policies to provide access for at-risk students. The dates of the data used in the analysis were September 2017 to June 2018 (the 2017-2018 school year). Main Outcomes and Measures:This study compared the following 3 strategies: no school undesignated epinephrine supply, school undesignated supplemental epinephrine supply (supplemental model), and school undesignated universal epinephrine supply (universal model). The base-case model assumed a 10-fold reduced fatality risk with having undesignated stock epinephrine units available vs not having undesignated stock epinephrine units available. Costs of school stock epinephrine units available for acquisition by schools were evaluated from a societal perspective. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and total epinephrine acquisition expenses were calculated. Results:Based on Markov simulations of the Chicago Public Schools system (371 382 students), the cost was $107 816 (95% CI, $107 382-$108 250) for no school undesignated epinephrine supply compared with $108 160 (95% CI, $107 725-$108 595) for the supplemental model and $100 397 (95% CI, $99 979-$100 815) for the universal model. Undesignated stock epinephrine improved outcomes, with 26.869 (95% CI, 26.841-26.897) QALYs accrued as the model concluded compared with 26.867 (95% CI, 26.839-26.896) QALYs for the strategy without undesignated stock epinephrine. When comparing supplemental model stock epinephrine to the strategy without undesignated devices, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was high at $268 811 per QALY in the base-case simulation. However, the cost of the supplemental model fell below $100 000 per QALY when the annual undesignated epinephrine acquisition costs did not exceed $338 per school (compared with stock epinephrine unavailability). The universal model dominated all others and was associated with significant cost savings ($7419 per student at risk who would otherwise be prescribed an individual school epinephrine supply). Conclusions and Relevance:Undesignated school stock epinephrine is cost-effective at device acquisition costs not exceeding $338 per school per year, although a universal model vs a supplemental model is associated with superior health and economic outcomes.