Grading the severity of anaphylaxis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Despite no global consensus on a definition of anaphylaxis, there is increasing recognition that just as allergic reactions lie on a spectrum of severity, the same is for anaphylaxis. A variety of severity scores exist in the literature. We review the approaches taken to develop these scores, and their relative advantages and disadvantages. RECENT FINDINGS: There have been four recent comparisons of published severity scores. All have highlighted the heterogeneity between scoring systems, and the lack of transferability from one approach to another. Notably, only one score has been developed using a data-driven approach, and none has undergone formal and comprehensive validation. SUMMARY: It is unclear whether a single severity score is achievable, or indeed desirable. If the aim is to guide management of acute reactions, then assignment of severity is not only unnecessary but might delay treatment and cause harm. Severity scores are needed in the research setting, but require an approach which can discriminate between reactions of similar but nonidentical severity (particularly, nonanaphylaxis reactions). Any approach should be fit for purpose, informed by patient and clinician experience, and ideally be data-driven to minimize subjective bias and facilitate objective validation.

Improving Severity Scoring of Food-Induced Allergic Reactions: A Global "Best-Worst Scaling" Exercise.

BACKGROUND: There is no current consensus on assigning severity to food-induced allergic reactions, for example, to assess the efficacy of allergen immunotherapy. Existing severity scores lack the capability to discriminate between non-anaphylaxis reactions of different severities. Attempts are ongoing to develop a more discriminatory score, which should ideally be data-driven and validated in multiple cohorts. OBJECTIVE: To undertake an exercise using best-worst scaling (BWS) to define a potential gold standard against which severity scoring of food-induced allergic reactions can be refined. METHODS: We undertook a global survey to better understand how health care professionals rate the severity of food-induced allergic reactions, using BWS methodology. Respondents were given a number of patient case vignettes describing real-world allergic reactions and asked to select the pair that, in their opinion, reflected the maximum difference in severity. Responses were then modeled and a preference score (representing severity) determined for each scenario. Scenarios were also scored using existing published scoring systems and the scores compared with the BWS score using Spearman r correlation and Cohen kappa. Given the differences in definitions of anaphylaxis globally, we also evaluated differences in BWS ranking depending on the geographical location of respondents. RESULTS: We received 334 complete responses, 183 (55%) from Europe and 65 (20%) from North America. Perception of severity of some reactions appeared to be affected by geographical location. The comparison of BWS ranking with current grading systems identified significant issues that varied from one grading system to another, such as prominence to some symptoms (eg, vomiting) that skew grading when using scoring systems not designed for food allergy. In general, current scoring systems poorly discriminate against more mild symptoms and often overestimate their severity. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide a methodology free of user scale bias to help define a potential, consensus-driven gold standard that can be used to guide and validate the development of improved grading systems to score food-induced allergic symptoms and highlight areas for education where there is the potential to miscategorize severity.

Randomised trial of estimating oral endotracheal tube insertion depth in newborns using weight or vocal cord guide.

BACKGROUND: When intubating newborns, clinicians aim to position the endotracheal tube (ETT) tip in the midtrachea. The depth to which ETTs should be inserted is often estimated using the infant's weight. ETTs are frequently incorrectly positioned in newborns, most often inserted too far. Using the vocal cord guide (a mark at the distal end of the ETT) to guide insertion depth has been recommended. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether estimating ETT insertion depth using the vocal cord guide rather than weight results in more correctly positioned ETT tips. DESIGN: Single-centre randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Level III neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) at a university maternity hospital (National Maternity Hospital, Dublin, Ireland). PATIENTS: Newborn infants without congenital anomalies intubated in the NICU. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised to have ETT insertion depth estimated using weight [insertion depth (cm) = weight (kg) +6] or vocal cord guide. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Correct ETT position, that is, tip between the upper border of the first thoracic vertebra (T1) and the lower border of the second thoracic vertebra (T2) on a chest X-ray as determined by one paediatric radiologist masked to group assignment. RESULTS: 136 participants were randomised. The proportion of correctly positioned ETTs was similar in both groups (weight 30/69 (44%) vs vocal cord guide 27/67 (40%), p=0.731). Most incorrectly positioned ETT (69/79, 87%) were too low. CONCLUSION: Estimating ETT insertion depth using the vocal cord guide did not result in more correctly positioned ETT tips. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN39654846.