 |
|
Anaphylaxis in the United States
An Investigation Into Its Epidemiology
Alfred I. Neugut, MD, PhD;
Anita T. Ghatak, MPH;
Rachel L. Miller, MD
Arch Intern Med. 2001;161:15-21.
ABSTRACT
| |
Background Anaphylaxis is a severe, life-threatening allergic reaction that affects
both children and adults in the United States. However, data regarding the
incidence and prevalence of anaphylaxis and the number of deaths caused by
it are limited.
Objective To provide a better understanding of the magnitude of the problem of
anaphylaxis in the United States.
Methods A thorough review of the current medical literature was conducted to
obtain prevalence estimates on each of the 4 major subtypes of anaphylaxis
(food, drugs, latex, and insect stings). We calculated an overall estimate
of the risk of anaphylaxis by using only estimates that are specifically derived
from epidemiologic studies measuring anaphylaxis in the general population.
Results Known rates or cases of anaphylaxis were 0.0004% for food, 0.7% to 10%
for penicillin, 0.22% to 1% for radiocontrast media, and 0.5% to 5% after
insect stings. There were 220 cases after latex exposure. Considering the
1999 US population of 272 million, the population at risk for anaphylaxis
from food is 1099, from penicillin is 1.9 million to 27.2 million, from radiocontrast
media is 22 000 to 100 000, from latex is 220, and from insect stings
is 1.36 million to 13.6 million. These calculations yield a total of 3.29
million to 40.9 million individuals at risk of anaphylaxis.
Conclusion The occurrence of anaphylaxis in the US is not as rare as is generally
believed. On the basis of our figures, the problem of anaphylaxis may, in
fact, affect 1.21% to 15.04% of the US population.
INTRODUCTION
ANAPHYLAXIS is a severe, life-threatening allergic reaction that affects
both children and adults in the United States. However, data regarding the
incidence and prevalence of anaphylaxis and the number of deaths caused by
it are limited. Tens of thousands of anaphylactic reactions occur each year.1 It is estimated that 1 in every 3000 inpatients in
US hospitals suffers from an anaphylactic reaction.2
Furthermore, the risk of death among those who suffer a reaction has been
estimated to be about 1%, with as many as 500 to 1000 deaths annually.3, 4 Women and men are equally likely to
have an anaphylactic reaction, and the peak incidence is in the summer.5
In 1991, 1.4 million office visits to physicians were made for allergy
testing.6 Initially, one might think that allergy
test results provide better insight into the percentage of the US population
and/or allergy sufferers at risk for anaphylaxis. However, no known set of
risk factors or testing methods exists to differentiate individuals who are
likely to have an anaphylactic reaction from those who are likely to have
a simple allergic reaction. Some speculations have been made about the role
of asthma as a key risk factor for anaphylactic reactions, but, generally,
the frequency of anaphylaxis in people with asthma is no more than the frequency
of such reactions among the rest of the general population. It can be said,
however, that individuals with asthma and concurrent allergies to known anaphylaxis-causing
allergens may suffer a more severe reaction, and/or asthma (or bronchospasm)
may occur as a component of the anaphylactic reaction.
Predispositions to anaphylaxis do occur, eg, a hyperallergenic person
or one with hyper-IgE syndrome who is allergic to one type of substance (eg,
fruit, such as kiwi or banana) is more likely to suffer from allergies of
other causes (eg, latex). However, these predispositions are not easily recognizable
or able to be tested. IgE testing is possible during the period immediately
after the reaction, but this helps only to establish that an anaphylactic
reaction has truly occurred. IgE testing, therefore, is not an appropriate
screening method by which high-risk individuals can be identified. The most
effective and reliable method of identifying individuals at risk of anaphylaxis
is through a documented history of previous anaphylactic episodes and/or allergic
or systemic reactions to known anaphylaxis triggers, ie, individuals who have
had previous anaphylactic reactions may be at risk of future anaphylactic
reactions. A history or known previous exposure can be used as a somewhat
reliable indicator of risk, although it should be noted that some individuals
may die from their first and only known anaphylactic reaction.
The incidence rates of anaphylaxis of all types have experienced upward
trends in the United States in recent years, creating cause for serious alarm
in the public health community. This rise has been linked primarily with the
increased introduction of certain allergenic agents into various US settings.
Some examples include the increased use of peanuts (one of the most common
offending allergens in both adults and children) in the American food supply
and the recent widespread use of latex gloves in the health care industry.
There is also evidence that the westernization/industrialization process leads
to increased incidence of anaphylaxis. Additional information on the nature
and extent of this relationship is limited and unclear.
MECHANISMS
Anaphylaxis is caused by the interaction of a foreign antigen with specific
IgE antibodies found on tissue mast cells and peripheral blood basophils.
The subsequent release of histamine and other bioactive mediators caused by
this interaction results in smooth-muscle spasm, bronchospasm, mucosal edema
and inflammation, and increased capillary permeability. These systemic changes
characteristically show clinical manifestations within seconds or minutes
of antigen exposure. Closely related to anaphylaxis is an anaphylactoid reaction,
caused by the release of mast cell and basophil mediators triggered by non–IgE-mediated
events. For the most part, the reaction suffered by the patient and the treatment
of the reaction by clinicians is identical to that of anaphylaxis.
PREVENTION AND TREATMENT
The basic approach to prevention is strict elimination and avoidance
of offensive substances known to have allergenic potential. With widespread
education, this strategy has enormous potential. Recurrence of anaphylaxis
is largely based on repeated contact with or ingestion of the allergen; therefore,
with caution and constant supervision, future reactions are preventable. However,
avoidance is not always possible. In the event of accidental ingestion or
contact, prompt treatment with epinephrine immediately after allergen exposure
is effective, as it is with all subtypes of anaphylaxis.
SYMPTOMS
The clinical manifestations of anaphylaxis can vary in onset, appearance,
and course. Common symptoms usually include weakness, dizziness, flushing,
angioedema, urticaria of the skin, congestion, and sneezing. More severe symptoms
include upper respiratory tract obstruction, hypotension, vascular collapse
associated with angioedema and urticaria, gastrointestinal distress, cardiovascular
arrhythmias, and/or arrest. Any combinations of these symptoms (common vs
severe) have been observed among patients who have suffered an anaphylactic
reaction. Common symptoms do not always precede the more severe symptoms as
a warning or indication of a possible oncoming anaphylactic reaction. However,
generally, the time to onset of symptoms is a good indicator of the severity
of the reaction, ie, the faster the onset, the more severe the reaction.
CASE DEFINITION
On the basis of the above information, a proper case definition of anaphylaxis usually includes bronchial contractions in
conjunction with hemodynamic changes. A good example is as follows: acute
mucocutaneous signs (pruritus, flushing, urticaria, angioedema) coupled with
any of (1) respiratory obstructive symptoms, such as glossal edema, pharyngeal
edema, laryngeal edema, and bronchospasm; or (2) cardiovascular symptoms,
such as hypotension substantiated by blood pressure measurement, syncope,
or orthostatic hypotension; or (3) gastrointestinal symptoms, such as nausea,
vomiting, diarrhea, or cramps. Although this type of definition is commonly
found in published literature,5, 7, 8
there is no standard accepted definition; therefore, a great deal of confusion
still exists regarding anaphylaxis among both lay people and medical professionals.
It is commonly believed by some that anaphylaxis is limited to a subset of
allergic reactions that are always severe and life threatening, while others
consider anaphylaxis to be any type of systemic allergic reaction. The lack
of a standard definition is one of several causes of much of the variability
and uncertainty in incidence and prevalence studies of anaphylaxis.
Epidemiologic studies of anaphylaxis are also affected by the small
study groups of patients selected and studied. Results of these small studies
are used to produce estimates, which are often later used as national statistics,
based on extrapolations of their individual findings. If estimates are to
be of any real value on a national level, it is necessary for extensive efforts
to be made nationwide. At this time, there are no national health statistics
from which it is possible to generate incidence and prevalence estimates of
anaphylaxis. A national registry mandating the reporting of anaphylactic reactions
by individual institutions at the local or state level might help to resolve
this problem. Incidence and prevalence estimates could then be easily generated
in a timely and convenient manner.
In the face of these obstacles, there is clearly a need for further
research on anaphylaxis. Additional epidemiologic studies must be undertaken
to provide better insight to both clinicians and the general population, if
further cases of anaphylaxis are to be understood and prevented. Realizing
this need, we have undertaken this investigation. Until such large-scale information,
as previously mentioned, is available, our efforts in this study are merely
a first step toward a better understanding of the problem.
CAUSES OF ANAPHYLAXIS
Agents that most commonly cause anaphylaxis are nearly identical among
adults and children. They include foods, drugs, insect stings, and latex.
Idiopathic anaphylaxis and food-dependent exercise-induced anaphylaxis have
also been observed in some adults, although rarely in children. Although both
of these subtypes are considered clinically significant, the incidence rates
are low and therefore will not be investigated in this article. Below, we
discuss the specific subgroups.
Foods
Foods are fairly common agents in anaphylactic reactions. Approximately
1% to 2% of the general population, or 2.7 million to 5.4 million Americans,
suffer from food allergies.9 Nearly all published
literature on food-related anaphylaxis use this statistic. However, a few
small studies have been conducted and have attempted to show incidence rates
in selected populations and extrapolated their results to the entire US population.
One such study showed that approximately 0.0004%, or 1080 Americans, have
a severe allergic or anaphylactic reaction each year.10
Approximately 100 food-related anaphylactic deaths occur each year.11 The most common agents in food allergies include
peanuts, tree nuts, shellfish, fish, milk, eggs, soy, and wheat.8, 12
Of these, peanuts and tree nuts are the leading causes of severe food-induced
anaphylaxis.9, 13 In a 1999 study,
1.1% of the general population, or about 3 million Americans, were estimated
to be allergic to peanuts or tree nuts alone.9
Food allergies usually take effect within seconds after the ingestion
of the substance and can become life threatening within a few minutes thereafter.
In isolated reports, a reaction has developed several hours after food consumption.
Despite the slow onset, these cases can be just as severe and life threatening.
Recurrent reactions are also possible after the initial reaction, so most
victims should be cautious and/or seek medical observation during the following
6 to 24 hours.
Estimates of fatal or severe allergic reactions to food are thought
to be incomplete or unreliable because of incorrect medical chart and death
certificate coding and interpretation.5 Until
recently, many true cases remained unidentified, since no International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision,14
code for "food anaphylaxis" or "food allergy" existed. Only recently, in 1999,
was an official code (995.0, anaphylaxis; E947.9, anaphylactic shock) established.
Therefore, cases had to be attributed to other causes, such as general anaphylaxis,
adverse food reactions, food intolerance, urticaria, angioedema, or unspecified
allergic reaction, or even respiratory or cardiac arrest.5
Without laborious individual medical chart abstraction, such estimates remain
unclear and are largely based on extrapolation.
In addition, these restraints affect our ability to assess trends in
food-related anaphylaxis accurately. Recent upward trends could be attributable
to a number of different reasons, some of which follow. The American diet
has expanded during the past few decades to include more varied and foreign
foods, many of which are known allergens. Some of these, especially peanuts,
are often introduced to children at an early age, when the immune systems
are immature. As the marketplace continues to introduce such substances into
the US food supply, more individuals will have the opportunity for increased
and early exposure to allergens, with the potential to cause anaphylaxis.
In addition, the Food and Drug Administration does not mandate the labeling
of trace amounts of ingredients by US food manufacturing companies. As a result,
inadvertent and unexpected exposures are possible.
Drugs
Hundreds of agents have been documented to cause anaphylaxis; Table 1 lists several of them. Drugs that
most often cause anaphylaxis include ß-lactam antibiotics (including
penicillin), radiocontrast media (RCM), intravenous anesthetic drugs, aspirin
and other noncorticosteroidal anti-inflammatory agents, and opioid analgesics.
Among hospitalized patients, 2% to 3% experience allergic drug reactions15 and 1 in every 2700 suffers drug-induced anaphylaxis.3 Incidences of drug-induced anaphylaxis from all drug
types are reportedly rising. This phenomenon may best be explained by the
increased development and frequent use of newer protein-based medications.
|
|
|
|
Table 1. Selected Medications Causing Anaphylaxis*
|
|
|
Among the drugs that most commonly cause anaphylaxis, antibiotics, especially
penicillin, and RCM cause the most serious anaphylactic reactions, with a
rate of about 1 per 5000 exposures.16, 17
Of all allergens, penicillin is the most frequent cause of anaphylaxis in
humans and accounts for approximately 75% of fatal anaphylactic cases in the
United States each year.18 Penicillin has been
shown to cause fatal anaphylaxis at a rate of 0.002% among the general population1 or only those receiving the medicine, with 500 to
1000 deaths per year. If accurate, this would change the previously mentioned
projection of 500 to 1000 deaths annually for anaphylaxis.3, 4
Estimates of nonfatal drug-induced anaphylaxis to penicillin range from 0.7%
to 10% among the general population,12 or 1.9
million to 27.2 million Americans. Anaphylaxis to penicillin most commonly
occurs in adults aged 20 to 49 years, but it has been observed in all age
groups.18, 19
Conventional RCM are used in more than 10 million procedures in the
United States each year.20 The frequency of
anaphylactoid reactions is reported to be between 0.22% and 1% of patients
who receive RCM.21, 22 In 1975,
fatalities were estimated to occur in as many as 900, or 0.009%, of patients
receiving RCM23; these figures may be out of
date. Newer, lower-osmolarity RCM are reported to cause fewer anaphylactoid
reactions, cause less pain at the site of injection, and have fewer adverse
effects.20 Adverse reactions in patients receiving
lower-osmolar RCM are reported to occur at a rate of 3.13%, whereas in patients
with conventional RCM the rate is 12.66%.21
The rate of anaphylactoid death caused by lower-osmolar RCM is also significantly
reduced and is as low as 1 in 168 000 administrations.24
The frequency of reactions is equally distributed between males and females.25 Most patients who suffer from anaphylactoid RCM reactions
are between the ages of 20 and 50 years.18
Reactions are less frequent in children and the elderly but are generally
more severe.25
Of patients with a history of anaphylactoid reactions to conventional
RCM, 16% to 44% are at risk of a recurrent reaction on reexposure.22, 26 Incidence and severity of recurrent
reactions can be reduced with pretreatment drug regimens or use of lower-osmolarity
RCM. In addition, an increased risk and severity of anaphylactoid reactions
to RCM has been linked to the concomitant use of ß-blocker drugs.27 One study found that risk of moderate to severe anaphylactoid
reaction was 2.6 times higher in patients taking ß-blocking agents than
in those who were not taking these medications.28
Latex
During the past 10 to 15 years, the incidence of latex allergies has
risen dramatically.12 With the spread of infectious
diseases such as the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome and hepatitis, the
use of latex-containing rubber gloves in the health care industry rose exponentially.
This increased exposure led to the sensitization of millions of individuals,
especially patients and occupational health care workers. Latex sensitivity
has been documented in individuals with spina bifida, congenital urinary tract
problems, and/or multiple surgeries and in health care workers. Studies have
shown the incidence of latex allergy to be as high as 67% in patients with
spina bifida,29 6.5% in patients who have undergone
multiple surgeries,30 8% to 17% in health care
workers,31, 32, 33
and between 1% and 6% in the general population.32, 34, 35
These figures would indicate, based on assumptions, that there are presently
more than 5.5 million health care workers in the United States29
and 272 million Americans in the current US population, that an estimated
440 000 to 935 000 health care workers, or 2.7 million to 16 million
Americans, may suffer from some type of allergic reaction to latex.
Allergic reactions to latex may manifest as dermatitis initially and
progress to a more severe reaction if exposure is repeated or continued. Because
exposure to latex is possible through topical or mucosal contact, inhalation,
and intravenous injection,12 latex-sensitive
individuals should avoid latex completely, if possible. However, with more
than 40 000 consumer products containing latex, avoidance may be difficult.
Some suggested avoidance measures include using powder-free or low-allergen-content
gloves and medical supplies or nonlatex-type alternative products. Sensitive
individuals should also work in an environment where latex is not present.
Proper content labeling of manufactured goods is also needed now if additional
cases are to be prevented.
Widespread educational campaigns have been attempted, but the incidence
of latex allergy continues to rise. Between 1988 and 1993, the Food and Drug
Administration received more than 1100 reports of latex anaphylaxis, including
15 anaphylactic deaths.35 On the basis of this
information, the annual incidence of latex-induced anaphylactic reactions
is estimated to be 220. More recent information is unavailable.
Hymenoptera Stings
Stinging insects, belonging to the Hymenoptera order, include honeybees,
bumblebees, sweat bees, yellow jackets, hornets, wasps, and ants. On the basis
of population studies conducted in the United States, anaphylaxis from Hymenoptera
stings is estimated to occur in 0.5% to 5% of the general population, or 1.36
million to 13.6 million Americans, and more commonly occurs in adults than
in children.36 The reported incidence of death
from insect sting anaphylaxis is between 40 and 100 per year, but this number
is believed to be severely underestimated.4, 37
Accurate estimates of anaphylaxis to insect stings are difficult to
determine, because systemic reactions are often not clearly differentiated
from local reactions and toxic reactions.18
In many cases, the signs and symptoms of each of these types are identical,
making diagnosis complicated. Skin testing and IgE measurements are unable
to make these distinctions. Also, most affected individuals rarely seek treatment,
so medical records do not provide an accurate estimate of the frequency of
reactions. Reactions to stings occur with greatest frequency in individuals
who are highly exposed, so those groups who are at highest risk are likely
to be children, men, and outdoor workers or sportsmen.
Venom immunotherapy immediately after a sting is extremely effective
and is recommended for up to 3 to 5 years after the incident.18
In adults with a history of anaphylaxis caused by Hymenoptera sting who do
not receive immunotherapy, the risk of anaphylaxis from future stings lies
between 30% and 60%,18 whereas in patients
who do receive immunotherapy, the risk is less than 3%.38
Also, venom immunotherapy is generally very well tolerated, because only 6%
of patients develop allergic reactions to the injections.36
Sting avoidance is advised through the use of appropriate apparel, insect
repellant, and caution. In the event of a sting, prompt treatment with epinephrine
is suggested.
PREVALENCE ESTIMATES
The objective of this investigation was to provide a better understanding
of the magnitude of anaphylaxis in the United States. As stated previously,
the scope of anaphylaxis is currently unclear. A thorough review of the current
medical literature was conducted to obtain prevalence estimates on each of
the 4 major subtypes of anaphylaxis (food, drugs, latex, and stings). Using
those estimates, we have calculated an overall estimate to estimate the US
population at risk for anaphylaxis (Table
2).
|
|
|
|
Table 2. Estimate of US Population at Potential Risk of Anaphylaxis
|
|
|
The total in this chart indicates that between 8.7 million and 62.6
million Americans are at risk of anaphylaxis. On closer examination, it is
apparent that these calculations are largely based on estimates of populations
who are allergic, not specifically anaphylactic. Theoretically, we might apply
these numbers to show that a certain percentage of the US population suffers
from allergies and therefore is at potential risk of anaphylaxis. However,
only a small group will actually suffer an anaphylactic reaction. Therefore,
this number is clearly an overestimate.
A better approach to estimating the US population at risk of anaphylaxis
would use only estimates specifically calculated from epidemiologic studies
measuring anaphylaxis in the general population. Those revised calculations
appear in Table 3.
|
|
|
|
Table 3. Revised Estimates of US Population at Potential Risk of Anaphylaxis*
|
|
|
This chart (Table 3) now
suggests that 3.3 to 43 million Americans may actually experience anaphylaxis,
which is a narrower band than the one listed above. These values, we believe,
are a better representation of the magnitude of anaphylaxis in the United
States, as they are based solely on estimates presented by researchers in
past epidemiologic studies of anaphylaxis (and not allergy). The wide range
of values computed is of particular importance, for it further emphasizes
and demonstrates the obvious limitations, as previously discussed, in this
field of research.
One final figure of clinical significance is the number of deaths that
occur annually as a result of anaphylactic reactions. Using the reported rates
and totals from the studies used in Table
2 and Table 3, we have
calculated the number of deaths and present them in Table 4.
|
|
|
|
Table 4. Estimates of Number of Deaths Occurring Annually Attributable
to Anaphylaxis
|
|
|
Given these values, it is now evident that the occurrence of anaphylaxis
is not so rare as previously thought. In fact, these numbers suggest that
from 1.24% to 16.8% of the total US population may suffer from an anaphylactic
reaction and that 0.002% may die. Clearly, the magnitude of the problem is
serious and poses a substantial health problem. Further investigation in this
area is imperative to fully understand the scope of anaphylaxis in the United
States.
STUDY LIMITATIONS
The estimates of anaphylaxis currently available in the literature,
we expect, are greatly affected by underreporting. There are several explanations
for this. During the course of an anaphylactic reaction, there are patients
who choose not to seek medical advice or treatment. Other patients may also
elect to take over-the-counter medications, which are widely available and
come at low cost. Obviously, for such episodes, no record shall ever be documented.
In addition, not all emergency departments will report or refer the patient
to a specialist for further evaluation, medical treatment, or proper diagnosis.
These cases will remain unreported as well. Finally, errors in the detection
of anaphylaxis may occur if the patient is examined during the initial onset
of symptoms. At the start of an anaphylactic reaction, symptoms can be limited
to bronchospasm and upper respiratory tract obstruction. Without further medical
observation and examination, such cases could easily be misdiagnosed as some
other condition, such as asthma. It is believed that part of this problem
could be alleviated with universal guidelines and definitions relating to
the diagnosis and proper treatment of anaphylaxis.
Furthermore, incidence and prevalence estimates are limited without
a national network of case reporting. Such values could be ascertained through
extensive surveying of US hospitals and emergency facilities with the use
of questionnaires, but this would require additional resources of time, money,
and personnel. Moreover, information for particular diagnoses (hives, breathing
difficulties, drop in blood pressure, etc) would necessitate laborious retrospective
medical chart review on a case-by-case basis. An alternate method might consist
of database searches of computerized hospital records by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, codes. This
would entail searching hundreds or thousands of records for a particular keyword
or set of keywords (eg, urticaria, upper respiratory tract
obstruction, or cardiovascular collapse).
As one can imagine, this type of search would result in a countless number
of matches. To avoid false-positive findings, each case would then have to
be reviewed to ensure that the patient had actually experienced the symptom
as a result of anaphylaxis. Given the wide range of symptoms associated with
anaphylaxis, obtaining such an estimate would require an extensive amount
of work.
Yocum and colleagues5 conducted the only
study of the overall incidence of anaphylaxis in a defined community by performing
a retrospective analysis of the medical records of 1255 Olmstead County, Minnesota,
residents during a 5-year period (1983-1987). They used computer-linked, medical
diagnostic indexes to identify residents who were seen with anaphylaxis. In
this study, 155 anaphylactic episodes occurred, yielding an average annual
incidence rate of anaphylaxis of 21 per 100 000 person-years and occurrence
rate of 30 per 100 000 person-years. The case-fatality rate was 0.65%
during the 5-year period. While this study may underestimate the true incidence
of anaphylaxis because of underdiagnosis of the episodes, attacks occurring
outside Olmstead County, and the fact that the study preceded the widespread
use of latex in the health care industry, it provides a useful analysis in
a defined general population.
Some studies have undertaken such measures to estimate the incidence
of emergency department visits for anaphylaxis in US emergency departments.
One such study, conducted in 1995 by Klein and Yocum from the Mayo Clinic,7 attempted to estimate incidence rates, while at the
same time providing excellent insight into the limitations associated with
research in this field. A retrospective analysis was conducted in the emergency
department of a rural tertiary care medical center in the city of Rochester,
Minn (1995 population, 71 000), that receives nearly 80% of the total
emergency department visits within the city. The emergency department records
of 19 122 patient visits, all those occurring during a particular 4-month
period, were reviewed. On the basis of information documented in emergency
department records, a total of 17 cases were diagnosed as anaphylaxis. Therefore,
the 4-month period incidence of anaphylaxis was 0.09% (17/19 122). By
extrapolation, it might then be possible to approximate the annual (or 12-month)
incidence of emergency department visits related to anaphylaxis, perhaps even
on a national level.
Table 5 provides detailed
information on each of the 17 patients with a diagnosis of anaphylaxis, including
the original emergency department diagnosis and clinical symptoms present
at the time of the emergency department visit.7
The most commonly reported original diagnosis was allergic
reaction (9/17 [53%]). Given that 13 (76%) of 17 cases of anaphylaxis
were undocumented by emergency department physicians at this one location,
one can only imagine how often this occurs elsewhere. Underreporting and misdiagnosis
of anaphylaxis because of confusion with other conditions are widely recognized
both among clinicians and in the literature. Despite this, very few researchers
have addressed the problem and attempted to estimate its magnitude.
|
|
|
|
Table 5. Patient Diagnosis and Clinical Manifestation Information*
|
|
|
Few studies have attempted to provide an overall estimate of the total
number of cases attributable to all causes of anaphylaxis. We calculate, on
the basis of estimates of persons allergic to the most typical allergens known
to trigger anaphylaxis, that between 3.3 and 43 million Americans may be at
risk of anaphylaxis. As such, we conclude that the occurrence of anaphylaxis
in the United States is not as rare as is believed. On the basis of our figures,
the problem of anaphylaxis may, in fact, potentially affect 1.24% to 16.76%
of the US population.
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Accepted for publication July 5, 2000.
This study was supported in part by the DEY Corp, Napa, Calif.
From the Department of Medicine (Drs Neugut and Miller) and the Joseph
L. Mailman School of Public Health (Dr Neugut and Ms Ghatak), College of Physicians
and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY. Drs Neugut and Miller and
Ms Ghatak have acted as consultants to the DEY Corporation, Napa, Calif.
Corresponding author: Alfred I. Neugut, MD, PhD, Department of Medicine,
College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, 630 W 168th St, Room
PH18-127, New York, NY 10032 (e-mail: ain1{at}columbia.edu).
REFERENCES
| |
1. Bochner BS, Lichtenstein LM. Anaphylaxis. N Engl J Med. 1991;324:1785-1790.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
2. Boston Collaborative Drug Surveillance Program. Drug-induced anaphylaxis. JAMA. 1973;224:613-615.
FREE FULL TEXT
3. Stark BJ, Sullivan TJ. Biphasic and protracted anaphylaxis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1986;78:76-83.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
4. Valentine M, Frank M, Friedlander S, et al. Allergic emergencies. In: Krause RM, ed. Asthma and the Other Allergic
Diseases. Bethesda, Md: National Institutes of Health; 1979:467-507.
NIAID Task Force Report.
5. Yocum MW, Butterfield JH, Klein JS, Volcheck GW, Schroeder DR, Silverstein MD. Epidemiology of anaphylaxis in Olmstead County: a population-based
study. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1999;104:452-456.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Vital and Health Statistics, National Ambulatory
Medical Care Survey: 1991 Summary. Washington, DC: National Center for Health Statistics, Public Health
Service, US Dept of Health and Human Services; 1994. DHHS publication PHS
94-1777.
7. Klein JS, Yocum MW. Underreporting of anaphylaxis in a community emergency room. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1995;95:637-638.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
8. Ewan PW. Anaphylaxis. BMJ. 1998;316:1442-1445.
FREE FULL TEXT
9. Sicherer SH, Munoz-Furlong A, Burke AW, et al. Prevalence of peanut and tree nut allergy in the US determined by a
random digit dial telephone survey. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1999;103:559-562.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
10. Bock SA. Incidence of severe adverse reactions to food in Colorado. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1992;90:683-685.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
11. Sampson HA, Metcalfe DD. Food allergies. JAMA. 1992;268:2840-2844.
FREE FULL TEXT
12. Kagy L, Blaiss MS. Anaphylaxis in children. Pediatr Ann. 1998;27:727-734.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
13. Sampson HA. Peanut anaphylaxis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1990;86:1-3.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
14. World Health Organization. International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision
(ICD-9). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1977.
15. Sullivan TJ. Drug allergy. In: Middleton E, Reed CE, eds. Allergy: Principles
and Practice. 4th ed. St Louis, Mo: CV Mosby Co; 1993:1726.
16. Ansell G, Tweedie MCK, West CR, et al. The current status of reactions to intravenous contrast media. Invest Radiol. 1980;15(suppl):S32-S39.
17. Weiss ME, Adkinson NF. Immediate hypersensitivity reactions to penicillin and related antibiotics. Clin Allergy. 1988;18:515-524.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
18. Anaphylaxis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1998;101(suppl):S465-S528.
19. Sue MA, Noritake DT, Klaustermeyer WB. Penicillin anaphylaxis: fatality in elderly patients without a history
of penicillin allergy. Am J Emerg Med. 1988;6:456-458.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
20. Anderson JA. Allergic reactions to drugs and biological agents. JAMA. 1992;268:2844-2857.
FULL TEXT
| PUBMED
21. Katayama H, Yamaguchi K, Kozuka T, et al. Adverse reactions to ionic and nonionic contrast media. Radiology. 1990;175:621-628.
FREE FULL TEXT
22. Lieberman P. Anaphylactoid reactions to radiocontrast material. Immunol Allergy Clin North Am. 1992;12:649-670.
23. Shehadi WH. Adverse reactions to intravascularly administered contrast media: a
comprehensive study based on a prospective survey. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med. 1975;124:145-152.
PUBMED
24. Greenberger PA, Patterson R. The prevention of immediate generalized reactions to radiocontrast
media in high-risk patients. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1991;87:867-872.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
25. Bush WH. Treatment of systemic reactions to contrast media. Urology. 1990;35:145-150.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
26. Bush WH, Swanson P. Acute reactions to intravascular contrast media: types, risk factors,
recognition, and specific treatment. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1991;157:1153-1161.
FREE FULL TEXT
27. Toogood JH. Risk of anaphylaxis in patients receiving beta-blocker drugs. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1988;81:1-5.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
28. Lang D, Alpern M, Visintainer P, et al. Increased risk of anaphylactoid reaction from contrast media in patients
receiving ß-adrenergic blockers or with asthma. Ann Intern Med. 1991;115:270-276.
29. Kelly KJ, Kurup VP, Reijula KE, Fink JN. The diagnosis of natural rubber latex allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1994;93:813-816.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
30. Moneret-Vautrin DA, Beaudouin E, Widmer S, et al. Prospective study of
risk factors in natural rubber latex hypersensitivity. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1993;92:668-677.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
31. Watts DN, Jacobs RR, Forrester B, et al. An evaluation of the prevalence of latex sensitivity among atopic and
non-atopic intensive care workers. Am J Ind Med. 1998;34:359-363.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
32. Arellano R, Bradley J, Sussman G. Prevalence of latex sensitization among hospital physicians occupationally
exposed to latex gloves. Anesthesiology. 1992;77:905-908.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
33. Liss GM, Sussman GL, Deal K, et al. Latex allergy: epidemiological study of 1351 hospital workers. Occup Environ Med. 1997;54:335-342.
FREE FULL TEXT
34. Ownby DR, Ownby HE, McCullough J, et al. The prevalence of anti-latex IgE antibodies in 1000 volunteer blood
donors. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1996;97:1188-1192.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
35. Sussman GL, Beezhold DH. Allergy to latex rubber. Ann Intern Med. 1995;122:43-46.
FREE FULL TEXT
36. Valentine MD. Anaphylaxis and stinging insect hypersensitivity. JAMA. 1992;268:2830-2833.
FREE FULL TEXT
37. Wyatt R. Anaphylaxis: how to recognize, treat, and prevent potentially fatal
attacks. Postgrad Med. 1996;100:87-99.
38. Hollingsworth H. Preventing insect sting anaphylaxis. JAMA. 1997;277:1196-1197.
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
RELATED ARTICLE
Archives of Internal Medicine Reader's Choice: Continuing Medical Education
Arch Intern Med. 2001;161(1):131-132.
FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Anaphylactic shock depends on endothelial Gq/G11
Korhonen et al.
JEM 2009;206:411-420.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Penicillin and Cephalosporin Drug Allergies: A Paradigm Shift
Smith
J. Am. Podiatr. Med. Assoc. 2008;98:479-488.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Anaphylactic Shock Associated with Cefuroxime Axetil: Structure-Activity Relationships
Hasdenteufel et al.
The Annals of Pharmacotherapy 2007;41:1069-1072.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Anaesthetist's responses to patients' self-reported drug allergies
MacPherson et al.
Br J Anaesth 2006;97:634-639.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Acute Infections in Primary Care: Accuracy of Electronic Diagnoses and Electronic Antibiotic Prescribing
Linder et al.
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2006;13:61-66.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
A Population-Based Study of the Incidence, Cause, and Severity of Anaphylaxis in the United Kingdom
Peng and Jick
Arch Intern Med 2004;164:317-319.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Value of N-Acetylcysteine in the Prevention of Radiocontrast Agent-Induced Nephropathy Seems Questionable
Hoffmann et al.
J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2004;15:407-410.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Adrenaline in the treatment of anaphylaxis: what is the evidence?
McLean-Tooke et al.
BMJ 2003;327:1332-1335.
FULL TEXT
Anaphylaxis in the United States: An Investigation Into Its Epidemiology
Adinoff
Pediatrics 2002;110:437-437.
FULL TEXT
Antibiotic Therapy for Musculoskeletal Infections
Mader et al.
JBJS 2001;83:1878-1890.
FULL TEXT
Underrepresentation of the Risk and Incidence of Anaphylaxis to Foods
Sicherer et al.
Arch Intern Med 2001;161:2046-2047.
FULL TEXT
|
