2 Research recommendations
- 2.1 Mediators of anaphylactic reactions
- 2.2 The frequency and effects of biphasic reactions
- 2.3 Length of observation period following emergency treatment for anaphylaxis
- 2.4 Prevalence of anaphylactic reactions and related outcomes
- 2.5 Effect of specialist services on health-related quality of life
The Guideline Development Group has made the following recommendations for research, based on its review of evidence, to improve NICE guidance and patient care in the future.
Although mast cell tryptase is widely used to support the diagnosis of anaphylaxis, it is not universally suitable. Mast cell tryptase is not always elevated in children, when food is the allergen, or when the main severe feature is respiratory.
It is recommended that a cross-sectional study be carried out into the diagnostic accuracy of other potential chemical inflammatory mediators. The study should be conducted in both adults and children who have had a suspected anaphylactic reaction. The sensitivity and specificity of the proposed mediator should be compared against mast cell tryptase, using clinical assessment in conjunction with immuno-allergic study as the reference standard for both. The diagnostic accuracy of any mediator should be carried out for a range of potential allergens.
What are the frequency, timing, severity and predictors of biphasic reactions in people who have received emergency treatment for anaphylaxis?
Limited evidence was found on the frequency, timing severity and predictors of biphasic reactions and the resulting effect of these on morbidity and mortality.
It is recommended that a UK-based prospective cohort study be conducted that follows patients up after emergency treatment for anaphylaxis.
The study should follow people up for 7 days after discharge from the emergency department. The aim is to collect data on the predictors (for example, the person's response to the initial treatment), the time to any reaction, the severity of any biphasic reaction and the effect of the biphasic reaction on morbidity and mortality.
For how long should a person who has received emergency treatment for anaphylaxis be observed?
No studies were found that compared different observational periods or the effect of these on relevant patient outcomes.
It is recommended that a cluster randomised controlled trial is conducted for people who have received emergency treatment for anaphylaxis.
The interventions for the trial should be differing time periods of observation, within the secondary care setting, ranging from 1 hour to 24 hours after symptom resolution of the index reaction. Patients should then be followed up for 7 days following the end of the observational period to determine if a biphasic reaction has occurred and the effects of any reaction. The aim is to determine whether differing periods of observation have a detrimental effect on morbidity and mortality and to gather information about resource use.