The etiology, risk factors, and clinical features of anaphylaxis: The single-center retrospective cohort study of the tertiary university hospital

C. Tunakan Dalgıç
{"title":"The etiology, risk factors, and clinical features of anaphylaxis: The single-center retrospective cohort study of the tertiary university hospital","authors":"C. Tunakan Dalgıç","doi":"10.28982/josam.7906","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background/Aim: Anaphylaxis presents in multiple ways, making its diagnosis challenging. Delayed diagnosis can lead to a postponement in administering crucial adrenaline treatment. The prevalence of anaphylaxis varies by geographical region and gender. However, there has been no comprehensive regional analysis of anaphylaxis data within our country. Despite an increasing incidence, our understanding of anaphylaxis etiology, risk factors, and clinical features remains limited, particularly within our nation. This study aims to assess the frequency, etiology, risk factors, and clinical findings of anaphylaxis among patients seen at the allergy clinic of a tertiary university hospital. Additionally, it seeks to compare regional data with existing literature.\nMethods: This retrospective cohort study reviewed the medical records of 8,295 patients who visited the allergy outpatient clinic at Sivas Cumhuriyet University Hospital between July 2, 2018, and December 10, 2019. The hospital’s data system retrospectively analyzed records using the ICD code T78.2 (anaphylaxis). Only cases where patients were prescribed an adrenaline auto-injector were included. The study evaluated anaphylaxis frequency, etiologies, demographics, and clinical features.\nResults: The study identified 77 patients (n=77) with a mean age of 40.29 (3.77) years, consisting of 47 females and 30 males. The frequency of anaphylaxis among allergy outpatient admissions was less than 1% (0.009%). Single-type atopic diseases included venom allergy (23%), drug allergy (14%), inhalant allergens (n=6), food allergens (n=4), and skin allergic diseases (n=3). Multiple allergic diseases were present in 40% (n=31) of cases. Prick tests were performed on 56 (72%) patients, with 25 (44%) yielding negative results. Among positive prick test cases, venom was the main cause of anaphylaxis (82%), while drug allergy was more prevalent (68.2%) among negative test results (P=0.016). Inhalant allergen sensitivity and allergen polisensitivity did not significantly influence the anaphylaxis cause (P<0.001). Causes of anaphylaxis included drug allergy (47%), venom allergy (31%), food allergens (16%), food-dependent exercise-induced reactions (n=2), idiopathic cases (n=2), and cold urticaria (n=1). Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (44%) and beta-lactams (10%) were the primary culprits. In cases where neither drugs nor venom were involved, food allergies were the cause (P<0.001). With venom allergy, the cause was venom, and without venom, drug allergy was the cause (P<0.001). Female patients showed significantly higher drug- and food-related anaphylaxis rates than males (P=0.032 and P=0.042, respectively). History of Apis mellifera-related anaphylaxis was significantly more common than Vespula vulgaris-related cases (P=0.028). Anaphylaxis severity included grade 2 (30%), grade 3 (48%), and grade 4 (12%) reactions. Recurrent anaphylaxis episodes occurred in 55% (n=42) of patients. Initial hospital administrations involved epinephrine injections in only 25% (n=19) of cases. Cutaneous symptoms were present in 94%, respiratory symptoms in 88%, cardiovascular symptoms in 63%, neurological symptoms in 57%, and gastrointestinal symptoms in 12% of patients.\nConclusion: This study identified drug allergy as the leading cause of anaphylaxis in the examined cases. Preventable factors contributing to drug-induced anaphylaxis included insufficient patient and physician knowledge and widespread over-the-counter drug use without medical consultation. Despite 55% of patients experiencing recurrent attacks, only a quarter received epinephrine administration. These findings emphasize the need to educate patients with recurrent anaphylaxis about avoidance strategies and to enhance healthcare providers’ understanding of anaphylaxis treatment.","PeriodicalId":30878,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Surgery and Medicine","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Surgery and Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.28982/josam.7906","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background/Aim: Anaphylaxis presents in multiple ways, making its diagnosis challenging. Delayed diagnosis can lead to a postponement in administering crucial adrenaline treatment. The prevalence of anaphylaxis varies by geographical region and gender. However, there has been no comprehensive regional analysis of anaphylaxis data within our country. Despite an increasing incidence, our understanding of anaphylaxis etiology, risk factors, and clinical features remains limited, particularly within our nation. This study aims to assess the frequency, etiology, risk factors, and clinical findings of anaphylaxis among patients seen at the allergy clinic of a tertiary university hospital. Additionally, it seeks to compare regional data with existing literature. Methods: This retrospective cohort study reviewed the medical records of 8,295 patients who visited the allergy outpatient clinic at Sivas Cumhuriyet University Hospital between July 2, 2018, and December 10, 2019. The hospital’s data system retrospectively analyzed records using the ICD code T78.2 (anaphylaxis). Only cases where patients were prescribed an adrenaline auto-injector were included. The study evaluated anaphylaxis frequency, etiologies, demographics, and clinical features. Results: The study identified 77 patients (n=77) with a mean age of 40.29 (3.77) years, consisting of 47 females and 30 males. The frequency of anaphylaxis among allergy outpatient admissions was less than 1% (0.009%). Single-type atopic diseases included venom allergy (23%), drug allergy (14%), inhalant allergens (n=6), food allergens (n=4), and skin allergic diseases (n=3). Multiple allergic diseases were present in 40% (n=31) of cases. Prick tests were performed on 56 (72%) patients, with 25 (44%) yielding negative results. Among positive prick test cases, venom was the main cause of anaphylaxis (82%), while drug allergy was more prevalent (68.2%) among negative test results (P=0.016). Inhalant allergen sensitivity and allergen polisensitivity did not significantly influence the anaphylaxis cause (P<0.001). Causes of anaphylaxis included drug allergy (47%), venom allergy (31%), food allergens (16%), food-dependent exercise-induced reactions (n=2), idiopathic cases (n=2), and cold urticaria (n=1). Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (44%) and beta-lactams (10%) were the primary culprits. In cases where neither drugs nor venom were involved, food allergies were the cause (P<0.001). With venom allergy, the cause was venom, and without venom, drug allergy was the cause (P<0.001). Female patients showed significantly higher drug- and food-related anaphylaxis rates than males (P=0.032 and P=0.042, respectively). History of Apis mellifera-related anaphylaxis was significantly more common than Vespula vulgaris-related cases (P=0.028). Anaphylaxis severity included grade 2 (30%), grade 3 (48%), and grade 4 (12%) reactions. Recurrent anaphylaxis episodes occurred in 55% (n=42) of patients. Initial hospital administrations involved epinephrine injections in only 25% (n=19) of cases. Cutaneous symptoms were present in 94%, respiratory symptoms in 88%, cardiovascular symptoms in 63%, neurological symptoms in 57%, and gastrointestinal symptoms in 12% of patients. Conclusion: This study identified drug allergy as the leading cause of anaphylaxis in the examined cases. Preventable factors contributing to drug-induced anaphylaxis included insufficient patient and physician knowledge and widespread over-the-counter drug use without medical consultation. Despite 55% of patients experiencing recurrent attacks, only a quarter received epinephrine administration. These findings emphasize the need to educate patients with recurrent anaphylaxis about avoidance strategies and to enhance healthcare providers’ understanding of anaphylaxis treatment.
过敏反应的病因、危险因素和临床特征:第三大学医院的单中心回顾性队列研究
背景/目的:过敏反应表现为多种方式,使其诊断具有挑战性。延迟诊断可能导致延迟实施关键的肾上腺素治疗。过敏反应的患病率因地理区域和性别而异。然而,在我国还没有对过敏反应数据进行全面的区域分析。尽管发病率越来越高,但我们对过敏反应的病因、危险因素和临床特征的了解仍然有限,特别是在我国。本研究的目的是评估频率,病因,危险因素,以及在三级大学医院过敏门诊患者的过敏反应的临床表现。此外,它试图将区域数据与现有文献进行比较。方法:本回顾性队列研究回顾了2018年7月2日至2019年12月10日期间在西瓦斯大学附属医院过敏门诊就诊的8295名患者的医疗记录。医院的数据系统使用ICD代码T78.2(过敏反应)回顾性分析记录。只包括那些给病人开肾上腺素自动注射器的病例。该研究评估了过敏反应的频率、病因、人口统计学和临床特征。结果:77例患者(n=77),平均年龄40.29(3.77)岁,其中女性47例,男性30例。过敏门诊患者发生过敏反应的频率小于1%(0.009%)。单一类型的特应性疾病包括毒液过敏(23%)、药物过敏(14%)、吸入性过敏原(n=6)、食物过敏原(n=4)和皮肤过敏性疾病(n=3)。40% (n=31)的病例存在多种过敏性疾病。对56例(72%)患者进行了针刺试验,其中25例(44%)结果为阴性。针刺试验阳性病例中,以毒液过敏为主(82%),阴性病例中以药物过敏为主(68.2%)(P=0.016)。吸入性过敏原敏感性和过敏原增敏性对过敏反应的病因无显著影响(P<0.001)。过敏反应的原因包括药物过敏(47%)、毒液过敏(31%)、食物过敏原(16%)、食物依赖性运动引起的反应(n=2)、特发性病例(n=2)和感冒性荨麻疹(n=1)。非甾体抗炎药(NSAIDs)(44%)和β -内酰胺类药物(10%)是罪魁祸首。在不涉及药物和毒液的情况下,食物过敏是原因(P<0.001)。有毒液过敏者的病因为毒液,无毒液者的病因为药物过敏(P<0.001)。女性患者的药物和食物相关过敏反应发生率明显高于男性(P=0.032和P=0.042)。蜜蜂相关的过敏史明显多于寻常黄蜂相关的过敏史(P=0.028)。过敏反应严重程度包括2级(30%)、3级(48%)和4级(12%)反应。55% (n=42)的患者发生了复发性过敏反应。最初的医院管理涉及肾上腺素注射只有25% (n=19)的病例。94%的患者出现皮肤症状,88%的患者出现呼吸系统症状,63%的患者出现心血管症状,57%的患者出现神经系统症状,12%的患者出现胃肠道症状。结论:本研究确定药物过敏是检查病例中过敏性反应的主要原因。导致药物性过敏反应的可预防因素包括患者和医生知识不足以及未经医疗咨询而广泛使用非处方药。尽管55%的患者经历了反复发作,但只有四分之一的患者接受了肾上腺素治疗。这些发现强调有必要教育复发性过敏反应患者有关避免策略,并提高医疗保健提供者对过敏反应治疗的理解。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
57
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信