Active clinical trials for "Anaphylaxis"

Anaphylaxis is a severe and life-threatening complication during the perioperative period. Perioperative anaphylaxis is still associated with a significant mortality despite quick and efficient management using epinephrine, the mainstay of acute treatment. Experimental data and few case reports are suggesting that hemostasis, and more precisely platelets, could play a role in anaphylaxis. Our main hypothesis is that activation of the hemostatic system contributes to the severity of the reaction

To determine if intravenous unfractionated heparin (with standard therapy) for treatment of anaphylaxis results in faster time to recovery.

Through several questionaries the investigators will measure the satisfaction of patients diagnosed with anaphylaxis in the use of a medical device for the adrenaline autoinjector, a smart case for an epinephrine autoinjector connected via Bluetooth to a mobile application.

Part of the problems related with proper use of epinephrine autoinjector may be related with the design of the autoinjector itself.The aim of the study is to investigate whether minor modifications in the design of currently available epinephrine autoinjector ease its use and abrogate common use errors.

The outcomes of oral immunotherapy (OIT) in food allergy study will provide more knowledge of oral immunotherapy. So far the OIT has showed in clinical experiments to be a interesting way to increase the unresponsiveness in severe food allergies. However little is known about it´s long-term outcomes, immunological mechanisms and there are no previous studies about cost-utility of OIT.

Anaphylaxis is a potentially fatal condition with a prevalence between 0.05 and 2% in the general population. This is therefore a frequent reason for emergency visits. Its diagnosis is mainly based on the NIAID / FAAN2 criteria, developed in 2006. The treatment of the condition consists of administration of intramuscular (or intravenous) epinephrine and the hemodynamic support of the patient, if necessary. Various other agents are frequently administered (class I and II antihistamines, corticosteroids) but their role is recognized to be less central than that of epinephrine. The relevance of corticosteroids in reducing the risk of rebound reaction is even questioned. After anaphylaxis, a serious phenomenon called a "biphasic reaction" can occur. This reaction is the return of symptoms of anaphylaxis resolution of the initial episode. The theoretical risk of a rebound reaction, or biphasic reaction, is conventionally described up to 72 hours after the initial anaphylactic event. Biphasic reaction is defined as a recurrence or occurrence of new signs or symptoms after resolution of the initial reaction, without re-exposure to the allergen. The potential occurrence of a biphasic reaction often warrants observation of patients for several hours in emergency departments following management of the initial anaphylaxis. Although recommendations and guidelines generally suggest observation times of four to six hours, there is no clear consensus or convincing evidence to guide this conduct. It sometimes even is suggested to observe patients for up to 24 hours. Problem: To date, there are no prognostic factors to identify a patient at greater risk who would benefit from such an observation. As these reactions are a relatively rare phenomenon (i.e. 4 to 5%, but which could go up to 20% according to some sources and the symptoms observed are usually less significant than during the initial presentation, it is therefore possible that a prolonged observation period may not be necessary for some patients who do not have high risk factors for biphasic reaction. In the current context of the growing number of people in emergency rooms and limited ressources, it seems essential to identify low risk patients in order to discharge them quicker and safely by limiting unnecessary observation periods. Objective: Identify and evaluate in a prospective manner previously derived (literature review and preliminary rules derivation already completed) clinical decision rules that are simple, generalizable and valid which could therefore become an interesting assets for the modern practice of emergency medicine as regards to post anaphylaxis rebound reaction risk stratification. It appears likely that some patients who have suffered an anaphylactic reaction could be safely discharged much earlier than in current practices. The rules would give clear guidelines to clinicians especially those working in lower flow settings, where clinical experience with the disease is less developed. Ultimately, these rules would also be relevant for teaching purposes for the various learners who do internships in emergency rooms.

Prospective monocentric study designed firstly to estimate the proportion of patients who tolerated the continuation of the COVID-19 2nd injection (absence of anaphylactic manifestations). secondly, to know the proportion of definite anaphylactic reactions in cases of suspected anaphylaxis after the first administration of a COVID-19 vaccine the very complete allergological explorations with both the clinical side, skin tests and biological tests will allow us to highlight the responsibility or not of the components of the vaccine,in particular of the excipients (PEG2000, PS80 and tromethamine) in anaphylactic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines A biological collection will be set up during this clinical study in order to study the immunological mechanisms; the effector cells and the signalling pathways involved in these reactions.

Diagnostic accuracy and quality of management in anaphylactic shock is assessed in three conditions: expected, unexpected with no distractor, unexpected with distractor

To study Major allergen in Wheat anaphylaxis in Thai population To study and compare demographic data between group of wheat anaphylaxis

The purpose of this study was to investigate the utility of serum tryptase for the confirmation of shrimp-induced anaphylaxis.