Anaphylaxis knowledge gaps and future research priorities: A consensus report

• Published in: Journal of allergy and clinical immunology Vol. 149; no. 3; pp. 999 - 1009
• Main Authors: Dribin, Timothy E., Schnadower, David, Wang, Julie, Camargo, Carlos A., Michelson, Kenneth A., Shaker, Marcus, Rudders, Susan A., Vyles, David, Golden, David B.K., Spergel, Jonathan M., Campbell, Ronna L., Neuman, Mark I., Capucilli, Peter S., Pistiner, Michael, Castells, Mariana, Lee, Juhee, Brousseau, David C., Schneider, Lynda C., Assa’ad, Amal H., Risma, Kimberly A., Mistry, Rakesh D., Campbell, Dianne E., Worm, Margitta, Turner, Paul J., Witry, John K., Zhang, Yin, Sobolewski, Brad, Sampson, Hugh A.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01.03.2022
• Subjects: Allergy; anaphylaxis; Anaphylaxis - diagnosis; Anaphylaxis - epidemiology; Anaphylaxis - prevention & control; basic science; Consensus; emergency department; feasibility; Hospitalization; Humans; impact; population science; Surveys and Questionnaires; translational science; feasibility; Allergy; basic science; impact; anaphylaxis; emergency department; AIT; research; translational science; NIAID/FAAN; population science; ED
• ISSN: 0091-6749; 1097-6825; 1097-6825
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2021.07.035

Despite a better understanding of the epidemiology, pathogenesis, and management of patients with anaphylaxis, there remain knowledge gaps. Enumerating and prioritizing these gaps would allow limited scientific resources to be directed more effectively. We sought to systematically describe and appraise anaphylaxis knowledge gaps and future research priorities based on their potential impact and feasibility. We convened a 25-member multidisciplinary panel of anaphylaxis experts. Panelists formulated knowledge gaps/research priority statements in an anonymous electronic survey. Four anaphylaxis themed writing groups were formed to refine statements: (1) Population Science, (2) Basic and Translational Sciences, (3) Emergency Department Care/Acute Management, and (4) Long-Term Management Strategies and Prevention. Revised statements were incorporated into an anonymous electronic survey, and panelists were asked to rate the impact and feasibility of addressing statements on a continuous 0 to 100 scale. The panel generated 98 statements across the 4 anaphylaxis themes: Population Science (29), Basic and Translational Sciences (27), Emergency Department Care/Acute Management (24), and Long-Term Management Strategies and Prevention (18). Median scores for impact and feasibility ranged from 50.0 to 95.0 and from 40.0 to 90.0, respectively. Key statements based on median rating for impact/feasibility included the need to refine anaphylaxis diagnostic criteria, identify reliable diagnostic, predictive, and prognostic anaphylaxis bioassays, develop clinical prediction models to standardize postanaphylaxis observation periods and hospitalization criteria, and determine immunotherapy best practices. We identified and systematically appraised anaphylaxis knowledge gaps and future research priorities. This study reinforces the need to harmonize scientific pursuits to optimize the outcomes of patients with and at risk of anaphylaxis.