EAACI Task force Clinical epidemiology of anaphylaxis: experts’ perspective on the use of adrenaline autoinjectors in Europe

Abstract

Background: Worldwide, guidelines recommend the use of adrenaline autoinjectors (AAIs) for self-medication in patients who experience severe allergic reaction. The European Medical Agency recommends the prescription of two AAIs, which should be carried by patients at all times. The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology guidelines propose to prescribe a second AAI under some defined conditions. In the present study, we aimed to examine the adherence to these guidelines and prescription behavior of allergy experts regarding the number of AAIs prescribed for a given patient. Methods: A standardized questionnaire was applied to the participants of the 5th International Conference of the Network of Online Registration for Anaphylaxis (NORA e. V.). Twenty-six experts (medical doctors with at least 2 years of experience in the field of anaphylaxis) answered the questions regarding the number of autoinjectors prescribed and the reasons influencing their decisions. Results: Sixty-eight percent of the experts usually prescribed one AAI, while 32% prescribed two. The pediatricians and physicians with less experience tended to prescribe two autoinjectors more frequently. The experts were more likely to prescribe two adrenaline autoinjectors if the patient was a child, had a previous severe reaction, had mastocytosis, asthma, cardiovascular disease, or high body weight, or lived far from the emergency department. Conclusion: Our data confirm the lack of consensus regarding the number of AAIs to prescribe. Despite the European Medical Agency recommendation, the majority of allergy experts prescribed one autoinjector per patient. However, under distinct circumstances (e.g. mastocytosis, asthma, excess body weight, a history of severe anaphylaxis, or restricted access to immediate emergency), experts tended to prescribe more AAIs, which is in accordance with the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology guidelines.

Digital technology for anaphylaxis management impact on patient behaviour: A randomized clinical trial

“…Reasons behind this could be the ability of the device to influence global management of risk, making patients more aware of potential triggers. Moreover, the anxiety‐lowering effect of carrying the device and the subsequent reduction in stress, which is a well‐known cofactor in food‐induced anaphylaxis, may have added to this outcome 32‐35 …”

“…Moreover, the anxiety-lowering effect of carrying the device and the subsequent reduction in stress, which is a well-known cofactor in food-induced anaphylaxis, may have added to this outcome. [32][33][34][35] The design of this study has some potential limitations. First, the study population may not be representative of all anaphylaxis patients, as it is a single-centre study, we did not include patients under 18 years of age and some ethnic groups were underrepresented.…”

The 2020 update on anaphylaxis in paediatric population

“…In 2020, Auvi-Q was the first one in the world to introduce a nominal dose of 0.1 mg dedicated for children with a body weight of 7.5–15 kg [ 61 ]. According to EMA and EAACI guidelines, all the patients with a risk of anaphylaxis are recommended to always have two packs of adrenaline, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic [ 62 , 63 ].…”

AlergiaPT: A Portuguese media campaign to inspire people with allergies to make a positive change in their life

“…Goal 4: Recognition and treatment of severe allergy and anaphylaxis are improved Prompt recognition and management of anaphylaxis are imperative. [17][18][19] However, the condition is often under-recognized and treated inadequately. Diagnosis and management are challenging since reactions are often immediate and unexpected.…”