Talk:Anaphylaxis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Anaphylaxis has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
December 27, 2011 Good article nominee Listed
WikiProject Medicine / Dermatology / Translation (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Dermatology task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Translation task force (marked as Top-importance).
 

Text[edit]

"The wasp species Ropalidia romandi is known to have a particularly dangerous sting.<refQueensland Museum (2011). "Paper Wasps: Fact Sheet" (PDF). Queensland Government. </ref>"

I do not see in this text that they cause more anaphylaxis? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The source is about three genera: Polista, Romalidia and Vespula. The source mentions anaphylaxis, but not particularly with one species/genus. In any case, the source is about paper wasps, not anaphylaxis. Therefore the source should not be used for this article; it would be undue weight. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


There is inconsistency between the introduction section:
"The term comes from the Ancient Greek: ἀνά ana against, and the Ancient Greek: φύλαξις phylaxis protection."
and the history section:
"The term comes from the Greek words ἀνά, ana, up, and φύλαξις, phylaxis, protection." --141.135.64.119 (talk) 09:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

contradiction with Benadryl / Diphenhydramine article[edit]

I have been told, in a recent advanced first aid training, that Benadryl (from memory, I may be mistaken!) was used to treat patients after an Epinephrine ("Epipen" and similar) injection, as the effect of the epipen lasts only a few minutes. Yet that is enough time for the anti-histaminic to have a more long-term effect through the digestive system.

Yet this article explicitely states, in Anaphylaxis#Adjuncts, that:

Antihistamines (both H1 and H2), while commonly used and assumed effective based on theoretical reasoning, are poorly supported by evidence. A 2007 Cochrane review did not find any good-quality studies upon which to base recommendations[1] and they are not believed to have an effect on airway edema or spasm.[2]

Now, the Diphenhydramine#Medical_uses (AKA Benadryl), a "first-generation antihistamine", or, as stated above, a H1) article states the contrary:

It is frequently used when an allergic reaction requires fast, effective reversal of a massive histamine release. Diphenhydramine is available as an over-the-counter drug or prescription-only solution for injection. Injectable diphenhydramine can be used for life-threatening reactions (anaphylaxis) to allergens such as bee stings, peanuts, or latex, as an adjunct to epinephrine.[3]

Now, I don't have a bias either way - Benadryl is pretty heavy medication and histaminics do not always have clear means of operation... But if it works, and can save lives, it should probably be noted here. Someone with more of a clue or more researches should probably clarify this stuff, for sure. Note that the review mentionned in the Anaphylaxis#Adjuncts article dates from 2007 and the reference from the Benadryl dates from later, in 2011. However, there's a second reference from 2011 in the Anaphylaxis#Adjuncts article. :( --TheAnarcat (talk) 02:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks like the benedryl article needs fixing. Will have a look. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Hmm... what did you change exactly? I don't feel the contradiction is really resolved here. Furthermore, there *were* sources for the Benadryl effectivemness article, which were published at around the same time as the contradicting sources in this article. For me, the situation is still unclear. --TheAnarcat (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
I made these edits [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
It is not clear to me how those edits relate to the issue at hand. It seems to me critical that the preferred "post-epipen medication" be clarified here.--TheAnarcat (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
The prefered post epi med? That depends on the situation. If you still have significant symptoms the prefered post epi med is more IM epi. And then if you are not better it is more IM epi again. And then if you are still not better one might move to iv epi or if you are on beta blockers glucagon. You can thrown in some diphenydramine, ranitidine, and steroids but are not to fool yourself that these at any time replace epi. At least that is my reading of the literature. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
    • ^ Sheikh A, Ten Broek V, Brown SG, Simons FE (August 2007). "H1-antihistamines for the treatment of anaphylaxis: Cochrane systematic review". Allergy. 62 (8): 830–7. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2007.01435.x. PMID 17620060. 
    • ^ Lee, JK; Vadas, P (July 2011). "Anaphylaxis: mechanisms and management". Clinical and Experimental Allergy. 41 (7): 923–38. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.2011.03779.x. PMID 21668816. 
    • ^ Young WF (2011). "Chapter 11: Shock". In Roger L. Humphries RL, Stone CK. CURRENT Diagnosis and Treatment Emergency Medicine,. LANGE CURRENT Series (Seventh ed.). McGraw-Hill Professional. ISBN 0-07-170107-9.