RESUMO

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of population-based studies of anaphylaxis from low- and middle-income countries. This hampers public health planning and investments and may influence availability of adrenaline auto-injectors. OBJECTIVE: We conducted the first national population-based study of anaphylaxis hospitalization in Brazil. METHODS: Descriptive study using routinely reported data to the Brazilian Hospital Information System for the years 2011-2019. Information available is coded based on the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 and covers main cause of hospitalization (primary cause) and any conditions contributing to it (secondary cause). RESULTS: Over 9 years, we identified 5716 admissions due to anaphylaxis for all causes. The average hospitalization rate related to anaphylaxis was 0.71/100,000 population per year, with a 2.4% (95% CI 1.9%, 2.9%) increase per annum over the study period. Admissions were more frequent among females (52.8%), except for cases due to insect sting. Most admissions occurred in adulthood, from 30 to 59 years (36.3%) but 13.8% in preschool children (0-4 years). There were more young children admitted for food-related anaphylaxis, and more adults admitted for drug/iatrogenic-related anaphylaxis. There were 334 cases (5.8% of admissions) of fatal anaphylaxis over the study period, with increased case fatality rate over time. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This is the first study of anaphylaxis hospital admissions using nation-wide data from a low- or middle-income country. Hospital admissions and fatalities from anaphylaxis in Brazil appear to be increasing.

Assuntos

RESUMO

The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) provides a common language for use worldwide as a diagnostic and classification tool for epidemiology, clinical purposes and health management. Since its first edition, the ICD has maintained a framework distributing conditions according to topography, with the result that some complex conditions, such as allergies and hypersensitivity disorders (A/H) including anaphylaxis, have been poorly represented. The change in hierarchy in ICD-11 permitted the construction of the pioneer section addressed to A/H, which may result in more accurate mortality and morbidity statistics, including more accurate accounting for mortality due to anaphylaxis, strengthen classification, terminology and definitions. The ICD-11 was presented and adopted by the 72nd World Health Assembly in May 2019, and the implementation is ongoing worldwide. We here present the outcomes from an online survey undertaken to reach out the allergy community worldwide in order to peer review the terminology, classification and definitions of A/H introduced into ICD-11 and to support their global implementation. Data are presented here for 406 respondents from 74 countries. All of the subsections of the new A/H section of the ICD-11 had been considered with good accuracy by the majority of respondents. We believe that, in addition to help during the implementation phase, all the comments provided will help to improve the A/H classification and to increase awareness by different disciplines of what actions are needed to ensure more accurate epidemiological data and better clinical management of A/H patients.

Assuntos

RESUMO

In contrast to the majority of allergic or hypersensitivity conditions, worldwide anaphylaxis epidemiological data remain sparse with low accuracy, which hampers comparable morbidity statistics. Data can differ widely depending on a number of variables. In the current document we reviewed the forms on which anaphylaxis has been defined and classified; and how it can affect epidemiological data. With regards to the methods used to capture morbidity statistics, we observed the impact of the anaphylaxis coding utilizing the World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases. As an outcome and depending on the anaphylaxis definition, we extracted the cumulative incidence, which may not reflect the real number of new cases. The new ICD-11 anaphylaxis subsection developments and critical view of morbidity statistics data are discussed in order to reach new perspectives on anaphylaxis epidemiology.