Development of a validated, updated North American pediatric food allergy anaphylaxis management plan.

IF 5.8 2区 医学 Q1 ALLERGY
Aikaterini Anagnostou, Elissa M Abrams, William C Anderson, Melanie Carver, Sanaz Eftekhari, David B K Golden, Hannah Jaffee, Jay A Lieberman, Douglas P Mack, S Shahzad Mustafa, Marcus S Shaker, Jonathan M Spergel, David R Stukus, Julie Wang, Matthew Greenhawt
{"title":"Development of a validated, updated North American pediatric food allergy anaphylaxis management plan.","authors":"Aikaterini Anagnostou, Elissa M Abrams, William C Anderson, Melanie Carver, Sanaz Eftekhari, David B K Golden, Hannah Jaffee, Jay A Lieberman, Douglas P Mack, S Shahzad Mustafa, Marcus S Shaker, Jonathan M Spergel, David R Stukus, Julie Wang, Matthew Greenhawt","doi":"10.1016/j.anai.2025.03.027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Current North American anaphylaxis action plans (AAPs) lack updated anaphylaxis guidelines that conditionally recommend \"immediate activation of emergency medical services\" after epinephrine use for patients experiencing a \"prompt, complete, and durable response\" to treatment. This offers a contextualized \"watchful waiting\" approach. AAPs may not include newly approved nasal epinephrine or differentiate anaphylaxis presentations by age.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To develop an updated AAP.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A prototype AAP was iteratively developed incorporating a \"watchful waiting\" approach, the nasal epinephrine option, and age-specific anaphylaxis symptom presentations among a team of anaphylaxis experts and patient and advocacy stakeholders to assess medical accuracy, readability, clarity, and bias. This underwent validated assessment of decisional acceptability, decisional conflict, and decisional self-efficacy in a sample of stakeholders with children at risk for anaphylaxis, or at risk themselves.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We developed a 2-page written plan (Flesch-Kincaid reading level 5.9) explaining management choices for severe and nonsevere reactions, indications for watchful waiting vs emergency medical services activation after epinephrine use, updated medication options, and age-based symptom differentiation. A total of 229 stakeholders assessed the AAP, noting good acceptability, high decisional self-efficacy (mean score 86.2/100, SD 15.9), and moderate decisional conflict (mean score 43.7/100, SD 18.8). Decisional conflict was unrelated to past anaphylaxis or epinephrine use. Information content was clear and sufficiently explained options with balanced and without a \"best choice\" bias. Overall, 86% of the respondents would recommend using this AAP.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This is the first validated AAP incorporating preference-sensitive post-epinephrine management options consistent with updated North American guidelines, newly approved nasal epinephrine, and age-specific anaphylaxis presentation.</p>","PeriodicalId":50773,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Allergy Asthma & Immunology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Allergy Asthma & Immunology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anai.2025.03.027","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ALLERGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Current North American anaphylaxis action plans (AAPs) lack updated anaphylaxis guidelines that conditionally recommend "immediate activation of emergency medical services" after epinephrine use for patients experiencing a "prompt, complete, and durable response" to treatment. This offers a contextualized "watchful waiting" approach. AAPs may not include newly approved nasal epinephrine or differentiate anaphylaxis presentations by age.

Objective: To develop an updated AAP.

Methods: A prototype AAP was iteratively developed incorporating a "watchful waiting" approach, the nasal epinephrine option, and age-specific anaphylaxis symptom presentations among a team of anaphylaxis experts and patient and advocacy stakeholders to assess medical accuracy, readability, clarity, and bias. This underwent validated assessment of decisional acceptability, decisional conflict, and decisional self-efficacy in a sample of stakeholders with children at risk for anaphylaxis, or at risk themselves.

Results: We developed a 2-page written plan (Flesch-Kincaid reading level 5.9) explaining management choices for severe and nonsevere reactions, indications for watchful waiting vs emergency medical services activation after epinephrine use, updated medication options, and age-based symptom differentiation. A total of 229 stakeholders assessed the AAP, noting good acceptability, high decisional self-efficacy (mean score 86.2/100, SD 15.9), and moderate decisional conflict (mean score 43.7/100, SD 18.8). Decisional conflict was unrelated to past anaphylaxis or epinephrine use. Information content was clear and sufficiently explained options with balanced and without a "best choice" bias. Overall, 86% of the respondents would recommend using this AAP.

Conclusion: This is the first validated AAP incorporating preference-sensitive post-epinephrine management options consistent with updated North American guidelines, newly approved nasal epinephrine, and age-specific anaphylaxis presentation.

制定一个有效的,更新的北美儿童食物过敏过敏反应管理计划。
背景:目前的北美过敏反应行动计划(AAPs)缺乏最新的过敏反应指南,有条件地建议对治疗产生“迅速、完全和持久反应”的患者在使用肾上腺素后“立即启动紧急医疗服务”。这提供了一种情境化的“观察等待”方法。AAPs可能不包括新批准的鼻肾上腺素或根据年龄区分过敏反应表现。目的:建立一种更新的AAP。方法:在过敏反应专家、患者和倡导利益相关者的团队中,反复开发一个原型AAP,包括“观察等待”方法、鼻肾上腺素选择和年龄特异性过敏反应症状表现,以评估医疗准确性、可读性、清晰度和偏倚。在有过敏反应风险的儿童或有过敏反应风险的利益相关者样本中,对决策可接受性、决策冲突和决策自我效能进行了有效的评估。结果:我们制定了一份2页的书面计划(Flesch-Kincaid阅读水平5.9),解释了严重和非严重反应的管理选择、使用肾上腺素后观察等待与紧急医疗服务激活的适应症、最新的药物选择和基于年龄的症状区分。共有229名利益相关者对AAP进行了评估,可接受性好,决策自我效能高(平均得分86.2/100,SD 15.9),决策冲突中等(平均得分43.7/100,SD 18.8)。决定性冲突与过去的过敏反应或肾上腺素使用无关。信息内容清晰,充分解释了平衡的选项,没有“最佳选择”偏见。总的来说,86%的受访者会推荐使用这个AAP。结论:这是第一个经过验证的AAP纳入了与更新的北美指南一致的偏好敏感肾上腺素后管理选择,新批准的鼻肾上腺素和年龄特异性过敏反应表现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
6.80%
发文量
437
审稿时长
33 days
期刊介绍: Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology is a scholarly medical journal published monthly by the American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. The purpose of Annals is to serve as an objective evidence-based forum for the allergy/immunology specialist to keep up to date on current clinical science (both research and practice-based) in the fields of allergy, asthma, and immunology. The emphasis of the journal will be to provide clinical and research information that is readily applicable to both the clinician and the researcher. Each issue of the Annals shall also provide opportunities to participate in accredited continuing medical education activities to enhance overall clinical proficiency.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信