Pediatricians manage anaphylaxis poorly regardless of episode severity.

BACKGROUND: No information exists on how the knowledge or the practice of pediatricians regarding anaphylaxis episodes vary with episode severity. The aim of this study was to assess and compare pediatrician knowledge on the management of mild and severe anaphylaxis using clinical scenarios and to determine factors that affect their decisions. METHODS: A questionnaire consisting of eight questions on the diagnosis and management of anaphylaxis was distributed at two national congresses. A uniform answer box including possible response choices was given below each question, and respondents were asked to check the answers that they thought appropriate. The management of mild and severe anaphylaxis was examined using two clinical case scenarios involving initial treatment, monitoring, and discharge recommendations. RESULTS: Four hundred and ten questionnaires were analyzed. The percentage of pediatricians who correctly answered all questions on the management of mild and severe anaphylaxis scenarios was 11.3% and 3.2%, respectively. Pediatricians did significantly better with initial treatment, but they were less knowledgeable with respect to observation time and discharge criteria in the mild anaphylaxis case scenario compared with the severe one (both P < 0.001). Multiple logistic regression analysis identified only working in an emergency department or intensive care unit as significantly predicting correct diagnosis of anaphylaxis among pediatricians (P = 0.01, 95% confidence interval: 0.11-0.57). No pediatrician-related factors predicted physician knowledge on the management of anaphylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatricians have difficulty with different steps in managing mild and severe anaphylaxis. Their deficiencies in management may result in failure to prevent recurrences of mild anaphylaxis and may increase mortality in severe anaphylaxis.

Does self-monitoring by means of symptom diaries improve asthma control in children?

OBJECTIVE: Keeping symptom diaries on a regular basis may facilitate the execution of symptom-based action plans, enhance the patients' adherence to treatment program and finally allow better asthma control. We hypothesize that disease control in children who keep symptom diaries regularly would be better compared to children who do not keep symptom diaries regularly. METHODS: Asthmatic children, aged between 6 and 17 years, who were monitored at least 2 years at our outpatient clinic and examined at least twice within the last year, were enrolled in this study. The patients were assigned to the following two groups: group I included the patients who keep symptom diaries regularly and group II included the patients who do not keep symptom diaries regularly. Asthma control parameters of patients during the last year were investigated. The number of asthma attacks require systemic corticosteroid use, the frequency of emergency department (ED) admissions and the number of attacks requiring hospitalization, forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) values and asthma control test (ACT) scores were compared. RESULTS: 89 (26.2%) of 340 patients included in the study were identified to keep a symptom diary regularly. Although age (p = 0.20) and sex (p = 0.48) did not differ significantly between the groups, regular use of anti-inflammatory drug was found to be significantly higher in group I (p < 0.001). When all of the study parameters were compared using a multivariate analysis, the number of systemic corticosteroid use, ED visits, attacks requiring hospitalization and ACT scores and FEV1 did not differ significantly between the groups (p > 0.05 in all of the parameters). CONCLUSIONS: Keeping a symptom diary on a regular basis in asthmatic children was shown to have neither beneficial effect on the day-to-day asthma control nor a decrease in the future risk of asthma control.

Short-term follow-up of episodic wheeze and predictive factors for persistent wheeze.

Wheezing phenotypes may not be stable, and phenotype transitions may occur over time. This study investigates the natural course of episodic viral wheezing (EVW) and identifies the risk factors that predict persistence of wheezing through short-term follow-up. The medical records of children <3 years of age at hospital admission and classified as having EVW were retrospectively screened by two pediatric allergists. A total of 236 children were classified as having EVW between January 2010 and February 2011. The median follow-up period was 19.5 months. At the end of follow-up, wheezing persisted in 145 patients (61.4%) and changed to multiple-trigger wheeze in 37 patients (15.7%). Factors associated with persistent wheeze were age at initial wheezing <24 months, anti-inflammatory treatment at the time of diagnosis, history of severe episodic wheeze in the previous year, wheezing requiring systemic steroids in the previous year, frequent episodic wheeze, parental asthma, and a positive modified asthma predictive index (mAPI) for major criteria (each, p < 0.05). The logistic regression analysis revealed three independent risk factors: anti-inflammatory treatment at the time of diagnosis (p = 0.03), history of severe episodic wheeze in the previous year (p = 0.02), and a positive mAPI for major criteria (p = 0.02). The initial wheezing phenotype may vary over time. History of severe episodic wheeze in the previous year, anti-inflammatory treatment at the time of diagnosis, and a positive mAPI for major criteria predicts persistent wheeze at short-term follow-up.

Anaphylaxis in infancy compared with older children.

Although there has been increasing data on pediatric anaphylaxis, information about anaphylaxis in the 1st year of life is scarce. This study provides detailed information on clinical signs and symptoms of anaphylaxis in the 1st year of life. A retrospective review was performed of our pediatric allergy database between 2007 and 2011. Children who met the diagnostic criteria of anaphylaxis were included. They were categorized as "infant" if they were ≤12 months of age at the time of anaphylactic reaction and "children" if >12 months. There were 104 patients (60 male and 44 female subjects) who met the diagnosis criteria of anaphylaxis. From the 104 cases of anaphylaxis, 23 (22.1%) were infants. Boys (p = 0.043), atopic eczema (p = 0.049), and history of food allergy (p < 0.001) were significantly higher in infants than in children with anaphylaxis. Severe anaphylaxis was less frequent in infants than in children (p = 0.04). There was no significant difference between infants and children considering cutaneous and respiratory symptoms (p > 0.05 for both) but persistent vomiting was (p = 0.023). Irritability, persistent crying, and somnolence are the signs which are difficult to interpret in infants with anaphylaxis. Within these signs, irritability, persistent crying, and somnolence were present in 69.6, 43.5, and 26.1% of infants, respectively. Blood pressure was measured in 5 infants (21.7%) compared with 44 children (54.3%; p = 0.005). Four children (4.9%) required more than one epinephrine treatment, but no infant did. Median observation periods were 4 hours in both groups (p = 0.087) and no biphasic reactions occurred in either. Food (p < 0.001) was significantly more and drugs (p = 0.015) were a less frequent cause of anaphylaxis in infants than in children. Anaphylaxis in infants is not rare but many signs of anaphylaxis are overlooked and still undertreated.

Management preferences of pediatricians in moderate and severe acute asthma.

OBJECTIVE: To assess and compare management preferences of physicians for moderate and severe acute asthma based on case scenarios and to determine the factors influencing their decisions. METHODS: A questionnaire based on the Global Initiative on Asthma (GINA) guideline and comprising eight questions on management of acute asthma was delivered to participants of two national pediatric congresses. Management of moderate and severe acute asthma cases was evaluated by two clinical case scenarios for estimation of acute attack severity, initial treatment, treatment after 1h, and discharge recommendations. A uniform answer box comprising the possible choices was provided just below the questions, and respondents were requested to tick the answers they thought was appropriate. RESULTS: Four-hundred and eighteen questionnaires were analyzed. All questions regarding moderate and severe acute asthma case scenarios were answered accurately by 15.8% and 17.0% of physicians, respectively. The initial treatment of moderate and severe cases was known by 100.0% and 78.2% of physicians, respectively. Knowledge of the appropriate plan for treatment after 1h was low both for moderate (45.0%) and severe attacks (35.4%). Discharge recommendations were adequate in 32.5% and 70.8% of physicians for moderate and severe attacks, respectively. Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that working at a hospital with a continuing medical education program was the only significant predictor of a correct response to all questions regarding severe attacks (p = .04; 95%CI, 1.02-3.21). No predictors were found for information on moderate attacks. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatricians have difficulty in planning treatment after 1 hour both for moderate and severe asthma attacks. Postgraduate education programs that target physicians in hospitals without continuing medical education facilities may improve guideline adherence.

Effect of epinephrine autoinjector design on unintentional injection injury.

Epinephrine is an essential medication for the treatment of anaphylaxis. Factors associated with autoinjector design may have a role in its correct use. We compared a new and old epinephrine autoinjector with respect to correct autoinjector use. We invited all interns of the 2011-2012 training period in our medical school. The participants were randomly assigned into two groups. After all participants were given a three-step written and visual instruction sheet about epinephrine autoinjector use, they were asked to show its use either with the old or the new epinephrine autoinjector trainer. The old and new trainers, which were exactly identical to the original epinephrine autoinjectors except for the medication and needle, were used. The performance of each participant was assessed with a standardized scoring system. Among 220 invited interns, 180 (81.8%) were enrolled. The number of participants correctly showing the use of epinephrine autoinjectors and the mean total score did not differ significantly between the two groups (p = 0.639 and p = 0.233, respectively). Significantly fewer participants had unintentional injections in the new compared with the old epinephrine autoinjector group (p < 0.001). When all assessment steps are considered, only the rate of placing a wrong tip into the outer thigh was significantly lower in the new compared with the old epinephrine autoinjector group (p < 0.05). The new epinephrine autoinjector is more effective in unintentional injection injuries than the old one; however, it still does not fulfill the criteria of an ideal epinephrine autoinjector.

Training of trainers on epinephrine autoinjector use.

The majority of physicians do not know how to use epinephrine autoinjectors. This displays that current education of physicians on anaphylaxis is inadequate for a thorough practice. We hypothesize that a theoretical lecture together with a practical session on epinephrine autoinjector use will improve its proper use by physicians. Residents, specialists, and consultants from General Pediatrics excluding allergists and allergy fellows were included in this study. All physicians were given an eight-item questionnaire followed by a practical session scoring and timing ability to use epinephrine autoinjector trainer. This ensued with one-to-one hands-on training on correct autoinjector use. Finally, a joint theoretical lecture on anaphylaxis including re-demonstration of epinephrine autoinjector use was given. All physicians were scored a second time on use of epinephrine autoinjector 6 months later. One hundred fifty-one of 196 participants completed all steps of the study in four tertiary hospitals. Correct use of epinephrine autoinjector improved from 23.3% to 74.2%, mean score from 3.49 ± 1.14 to 4.66 ± 0.65, need for prospectus from 91.4% to 29.1%, and mean time to administer autoinjector from 28.01 ± 6.22 s to 19.62 ± 5.01 s (p < 0.001 for each). The rate of most common mistakes during autoinjector use decreased but the ranking did not change. An integrated theoretical and practical education increased correct of epinephrine autoinjector use by physicians. Ongoing mistakes despite this education may be related with its design.