Anaphylaxis: first clinical presentation, subsequent referral practise, and suspected elicitor-an observational study.

Anaphylaxis is an allergic manifestation characterised by rapid onset and progression. Rapid treatment may be challenging in patients with atypical symptoms or no previous history of anaphylaxis. This study aimed to describe the clinical prehospital presentation of first-time anaphylactic patients. To help target educational initiatives, we sought to identify which groups of medical professionals are most likely to encounter first-time anaphylactic patients and investigated the referral pattern for suspected anaphylactic patients for specialised treatment. A retrospective register-based study from the Region of Southern Denmark. Patients referred to the Allergy Centre, Odense University Hospital, from 2019 to 2021 were included. The medical records were manually reviewed for first contact with the emergency departments or the emergency medical service. 444 patients with suspected anaphylaxis were referred. 226 patients had grade 3-5 systemic allergic reactions as classified by the World Allergy Organisation; 90% had cutaneous symptoms, 63% symptoms from the central nervous system, 42% gastrointestinal symptoms, 40% cardiovascular symptoms, 36% had upper-airway symptoms, and 36% had lower-airway symptoms. Patients treated prehospitally had a significantly more severe degree of anaphylaxis than patients only treated within the hospital. More than half of the patients with suspected anaphylaxis were referred to the Allergy Centre from the emergency departments. Patients with allergies progressing to severe anaphylaxis most often are treated prehospitally before transport to emergency departments. From the emergency departments, they are referred to the allergy centre. Education concerning the immediate treatment of severe anaphylaxis should primarily be targeted towards prehospital care providers.

Prehospital and In-Hospital Treatment with Adrenaline and Related Prognosis in Anaphylaxis Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Although intramuscular adrenaline is the recommended first-line treatment for anaphylaxis, not all patients receive this treatment. The consequences in daily clinical practice are sparsely described. This study aimed to investigate the treatment administered to anaphylactic patients and the related prognosis. METHODS: A retrospective register-based study of patients with anaphylaxis referred to the allergy centre, Odense University Hospital (2019-2021). Each patient's medical records were reviewed for contacts with the emergency departments and the prehospital emergency medical service in the Region of Southern Denmark. The World Allergy Organization (WAO) grading system was used to assess the severity of prehospital and in-hospital anaphylaxis. Furthermore, the treatment administered to the patients was registered. RESULTS: In total, 315 patients were included. The prehospital system had contact with 256 of these patients (two were released prehospitally following treatment and 12 patients had insufficient data to assess anaphylaxis). Of the remaining 242 patients, 115 had anaphylaxis prehospitally (WAO grades 3-5); 59% (67/115) received adrenaline. Among the 67 patients who received prehospital adrenaline, 9 patients (13.4%; 95% CI: 6.3-24.0%) still had anaphylaxis at arrival at the emergency department. Of the 48 patients that were not treated with prehospital adrenaline, 17 patients (35.5%; 95% CI: 22.1-50.5) had anaphylaxis at the arrival to the emergency department. Among the 127 patients without prehospital anaphylaxis (WAO grades 0-2), 22 patients (18.2%; 95% CI: 11.8-26.2%) who did not receive prehospital adrenaline had anaphylaxis at arrival to the emergency department, while none of the 6 patients treated prehospitally with adrenaline had anaphylaxis. CONCLUSION: Omission of prehospital adrenaline in anaphylactic patients is associated with more severe anaphylactic symptoms at arrival to the hospital. Adrenaline treatment remains suboptimal since only half of the patients received prehospital adrenaline and only 1 out of 4 patients, with clinical signs of anaphylaxis, received adrenaline inside the hospital.

A comparison of double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge and open food challenge.

BACKGROUND: Double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) remains the gold standard for diagnosing food allergy, despite sparse comparisons to open food challenges (OpenFCs). The objective of this retrospective study was to compare severity of symptoms and threshold values (cumulative dose of food allergen eliciting a clinical reaction) in children and adults with peanut allergy, challenged in an open and/or double-blind, placebo-controlled protocol. METHODS: This study included patients from the Allergy Centre, Odense University Hospital with a positive oral food challenge, defined as strict objective signs, with peanut during the period 2001-2022. Severity of symptoms was graded using the Sampson's severity score. Distribution models of threshold values were calculated using log-normal interval-censored survival analysis, and the number of placebo reactions was evaluated. RESULTS: In total, 318 positive OpenFCs and 86 DBPCFCs were included. There was no difference in severity of symptoms nor threshold values comparing the two challenge types, neither when stratified for age groups. However, a higher proportion of children experienced Grade 3 symptoms in the double-blind group. Only one patient had a positive reaction to a placebo challenge. CONCLUSION: Our findings do not advocate for DBPCFC being superior to OpenFC, if the latter is performed with strict objective stop criteria by trained staff.

Virtual Reconstruction and Comparative Analyses of the Middle Pleistocene Apidima 2 Cranium (Greece).

The Apidima 2 fossil cranium from South Peloponnese is one of the most important hominin specimens from Southeast Europe. Nevertheless, there has been continuous controversy as to whether it represents a so-called Preneandertal/Homo heidelbergensis such as, for example, the Petralona cranium from Northern Greece or a more derived Neandertal. Recent absolute dating evidence alone cannot clarify the issue because both classifications would be possible during the respective Middle Pleistocene time span. Since only limited data were available on the cranium, there have been repeated claims for the need of a broader comparative study of the hominin. The present article presents a CT-based virtual reconstruction including corrections of postmortem fractures and deformation as well as detailed metrical and morphological analyses of the specimen. Endocranial capacity could be estimated for the first time based on virtual reconstruction. Our multivariate analyses of metric data from the face and vault revealed close affinities to early and later Neandertals, especially showing the derived facial morphometrics. In addition, comparative analyses of Apidima 2 were done for many derived Neandertal features. Here again, a significant number of Neandertal features could be found in the Apidima cranium but no conditions common in Preneandertals. In agreement with a later Middle Pleistocene age Apidima is currently the earliest evidence of a hominin in Europe with such a derived Neandertal facial morphology. The place of Apidima in the complex process of Neandertal evolution as well as its taxonomic classification are discussed as well. Anat Rec, 303:1374-1392, 2020. © 2019 American Association for Anatomy.