Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Clinical and Translational Allergy 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research

Assessing severity of anaphylaxis: a data-driven comparison of 23 instruments

Authors: Esben Eller, Antonella Muraro, Ronald Dahl, Charlotte Gotthard Mortz, Carsten Bindslev-Jensen

Published in: Clinical and Translational Allergy | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Backgroud

The severity of an allergic reaction can range from mild local symptoms to anaphylactic shock. To score this, a number of instruments have been developed, although heterogeneous in design and purpose. Severity scoring algorithms are therefore difficult to compare, but are frequently used beyond their initial purpose. Our objective was to compare the most used severity scoring instruments by a data-driven approach on both milder reactions and anaphylaxis.

Methods

All positive challenges to foods or drugs (n = 2828) including anaphylaxis (n = 616) at Odense University Hospital, Denmark from 1998 to 2016 were included and severity was scored according to Sampson5. Based on recommendations from an expert group, the symptoms and values from Sampson5 were for all reactions and anaphylaxis only translated and compared by kappa statistics with 22 instruments, ranging from 3 to 6 steps.

Results

For milder reactions, there was a significant correlation between the number of steps in an instrument and the number of challenges that could be translated, whereas all instruments were good to identify food anaphylaxis. Some instruments scored reactions more severely than Sampson5, other scored them milder and some scored food and drug challenges differently. Instruments for hymenoptera reactions were difficult to apply on food and drug reactions, and thus distributed severity differently. Algorithms hampered the translation between instruments, and 7 instruments were poor concerning drug anaphylaxis, including the only instrument developed specifically for drug reactions.

Conclusion

The distributions of severity differed between the 23 instruments in both food and drug allergy, and thus rendering translation especially between scoring systems with 3 and 5 grades difficult. Fine-graded and simple instruments are preferred for comparison especially among milder reactions, and instruments applied to non-intended situations may not reflect a true severity picture.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Sampson HA, et al. Second symposium on the definition and management of anaphylaxis: summary report—second National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease/Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network symposium. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2006;117(2):391–7.CrossRefPubMed Sampson HA, et al. Second symposium on the definition and management of anaphylaxis: summary report—second National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease/Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network symposium. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2006;117(2):391–7.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Astier C, et al. Predictive value of skin prick tests using recombinant allergens for diagnosis of peanut allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2006;118(1):250–6.CrossRefPubMed Astier C, et al. Predictive value of skin prick tests using recombinant allergens for diagnosis of peanut allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2006;118(1):250–6.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Cianferoni A, et al. Predictive values for food challenge-induced severe reactions: development of a simple food challenge score. Isr Med Assoc J. 2012;14(1):24–8.PubMed Cianferoni A, et al. Predictive values for food challenge-induced severe reactions: development of a simple food challenge score. Isr Med Assoc J. 2012;14(1):24–8.PubMed
4.
go back to reference Ewan PW, Clark AT. Long-term prospective observational study of patients with peanut and nut allergy after participation in a management plan. Lancet. 2001;357(9250):111–5.CrossRefPubMed Ewan PW, Clark AT. Long-term prospective observational study of patients with peanut and nut allergy after participation in a management plan. Lancet. 2001;357(9250):111–5.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Fernandez-Rivas M. Severity grading of food allergic reactions. In: EAACI. Vienna; 2016. Fernandez-Rivas M. Severity grading of food allergic reactions. In: EAACI. Vienna; 2016.
6.
go back to reference Hourihane JO, et al. Does severity of low-dose, double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges reflect severity of allergic reactions to peanut in the community? Clin Exp Allergy. 2005;35(9):1227–33.CrossRefPubMed Hourihane JO, et al. Does severity of low-dose, double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges reflect severity of allergic reactions to peanut in the community? Clin Exp Allergy. 2005;35(9):1227–33.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Hourihane JO, et al. Clinical characteristics of peanut allergy. Clin Exp Allergy. 1997;27(6):634–9.CrossRefPubMed Hourihane JO, et al. Clinical characteristics of peanut allergy. Clin Exp Allergy. 1997;27(6):634–9.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Sampson HA. Anaphylaxis and emergency treatment. Pediatrics. 2003;111(6 Pt 3):1601–8.PubMed Sampson HA. Anaphylaxis and emergency treatment. Pediatrics. 2003;111(6 Pt 3):1601–8.PubMed
9.
go back to reference van der Zee T, et al. The eliciting dose of peanut in double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges decreases with increasing age and specific IgE level in children and young adults. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2011;128(5):1031–6.CrossRefPubMed van der Zee T, et al. The eliciting dose of peanut in double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges decreases with increasing age and specific IgE level in children and young adults. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2011;128(5):1031–6.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Ring J, Messmer K. Incidence and severity of anaphylactoid reactions to colloid volume substitutes. Lancet. 1977;1(8009):466–9.CrossRefPubMed Ring J, Messmer K. Incidence and severity of anaphylactoid reactions to colloid volume substitutes. Lancet. 1977;1(8009):466–9.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Golden DB, et al. Discontinuing venom immunotherapy: extended observations. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1998;101(3):298–305.CrossRefPubMed Golden DB, et al. Discontinuing venom immunotherapy: extended observations. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1998;101(3):298–305.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Lockey RF, et al. The Hymenoptera venom study. III: safety of venom immunotherapy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1990;86(5):775–80.CrossRefPubMed Lockey RF, et al. The Hymenoptera venom study. III: safety of venom immunotherapy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1990;86(5):775–80.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Mueller HL. Further experiences with severe allergic reactions to insect stings. N Engl J Med. 1959;261:374–7.CrossRefPubMed Mueller HL. Further experiences with severe allergic reactions to insect stings. N Engl J Med. 1959;261:374–7.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Reisman RE. Natural history of insect sting allergy: relationship of severity of symptoms of initial sting anaphylaxis to re-sting reactions. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1992;90(3 Pt 1):335–9.CrossRefPubMed Reisman RE. Natural history of insect sting allergy: relationship of severity of symptoms of initial sting anaphylaxis to re-sting reactions. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1992;90(3 Pt 1):335–9.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Simons FE, et al. World Allergy Organization anaphylaxis guidelines: summary. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2011;127(3):587–93 e1-22.CrossRefPubMed Simons FE, et al. World Allergy Organization anaphylaxis guidelines: summary. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2011;127(3):587–93 e1-22.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Tanno LK, et al. Reaching multidisciplinary consensus on classification of anaphylaxis for the eleventh revision of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2017;12(1):53.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Tanno LK, et al. Reaching multidisciplinary consensus on classification of anaphylaxis for the eleventh revision of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2017;12(1):53.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
go back to reference Brown SG. Clinical features and severity grading of anaphylaxis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2004;114(2):371–6.CrossRefPubMed Brown SG. Clinical features and severity grading of anaphylaxis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2004;114(2):371–6.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Brown SG, et al. Anaphylaxis: clinical patterns, mediator release, and severity. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2013;132(5):1141–1149 e5.CrossRefPubMed Brown SG, et al. Anaphylaxis: clinical patterns, mediator release, and severity. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2013;132(5):1141–1149 e5.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Cianferoni A, et al. Clinical features of acute anaphylaxis in patients admitted to a university hospital: an 11-year retrospective review (1985–1996). Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2001;87(1):27–32.CrossRefPubMed Cianferoni A, et al. Clinical features of acute anaphylaxis in patients admitted to a university hospital: an 11-year retrospective review (1985–1996). Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2001;87(1):27–32.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Pumphrey RS, Stanworth SJ. The clinical spectrum of anaphylaxis in north-west England. Clin Exp Allergy. 1996;26(12):1364–70.CrossRefPubMed Pumphrey RS, Stanworth SJ. The clinical spectrum of anaphylaxis in north-west England. Clin Exp Allergy. 1996;26(12):1364–70.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Ring J, Behrendt H. Anaphylaxis and anaphylactoid reactions. Classification and pathophysiology. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 1999;17(4):387–99.CrossRefPubMed Ring J, Behrendt H. Anaphylaxis and anaphylactoid reactions. Classification and pathophysiology. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 1999;17(4):387–99.CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference DunnGalvin A, et al. Highly accurate prediction of food challenge outcome using routinely available clinical data. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2011;127(3):633–9 e1-3.CrossRefPubMed DunnGalvin A, et al. Highly accurate prediction of food challenge outcome using routinely available clinical data. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2011;127(3):633–9 e1-3.CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Muraro A, et al. The management of anaphylaxis in childhood: position paper of the European academy of allergology and clinical immunology. Allergy. 2007;62(8):857–71.CrossRefPubMed Muraro A, et al. The management of anaphylaxis in childhood: position paper of the European academy of allergology and clinical immunology. Allergy. 2007;62(8):857–71.CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Sampson HA, et al. Standardizing double-blind, placebo-controlled oral food challenges: American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology-European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology PRACTALL consensus report. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2012;130(6):1260–74.CrossRefPubMed Sampson HA, et al. Standardizing double-blind, placebo-controlled oral food challenges: American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology-European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology PRACTALL consensus report. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2012;130(6):1260–74.CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Cox L, et al. Speaking the same language: The World Allergy Organization Subcutaneous Immunotherapy Systemic Reaction Grading System. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2010;125(3): 569–74, 574 e1–574 e7. Cox L, et al. Speaking the same language: The World Allergy Organization Subcutaneous Immunotherapy Systemic Reaction Grading System. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2010;125(3): 569–74, 574 e1–574 e7.
28.
go back to reference Hino A, et al. Establishment of “Anaphylaxis Scoring Aichi (ASCA),” a new symptom scoring system to be used in an oral food challenge (OFC). Arerugi. 2013;62(8):968–79.PubMed Hino A, et al. Establishment of “Anaphylaxis Scoring Aichi (ASCA),” a new symptom scoring system to be used in an oral food challenge (OFC). Arerugi. 2013;62(8):968–79.PubMed
29.
go back to reference Niggemann B, Beyer K. Time for a new grading system for allergic reactions? Allergy. 2016;71(2):135–6.CrossRefPubMed Niggemann B, Beyer K. Time for a new grading system for allergic reactions? Allergy. 2016;71(2):135–6.CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Muraro A, et al. The urgent need for a harmonized severity scoring system for acute allergic reactions. Allergy. 2018. Muraro A, et al. The urgent need for a harmonized severity scoring system for acute allergic reactions. Allergy. 2018.
31.
go back to reference Johansson SG, et al. A revised nomenclature for allergy. An EAACI position statement from the EAACI nomenclature task force. Allergy. 2001;56(9):813–24.CrossRefPubMed Johansson SG, et al. A revised nomenclature for allergy. An EAACI position statement from the EAACI nomenclature task force. Allergy. 2001;56(9):813–24.CrossRefPubMed
32.
go back to reference Muraro A, et al. EAACI food allergy and anaphylaxis guidelines: diagnosis and management of food allergy. Allergy. 2014;69(8):1008–25.CrossRefPubMed Muraro A, et al. EAACI food allergy and anaphylaxis guidelines: diagnosis and management of food allergy. Allergy. 2014;69(8):1008–25.CrossRefPubMed
33.
go back to reference Hompes S, et al. Provoking allergens and treatment of anaphylaxis in children and adolescents—data from the anaphylaxis registry of German-speaking countries. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2011;22(6):568–74.CrossRefPubMed Hompes S, et al. Provoking allergens and treatment of anaphylaxis in children and adolescents—data from the anaphylaxis registry of German-speaking countries. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2011;22(6):568–74.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Assessing severity of anaphylaxis: a data-driven comparison of 23 instruments
Authors
Esben Eller
Antonella Muraro
Ronald Dahl
Charlotte Gotthard Mortz
Carsten Bindslev-Jensen
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Clinical and Translational Allergy / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 2045-7022
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13601-018-0215-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Clinical and Translational Allergy 1/2018 Go to the issue