Anaphylaxis is a sudden onset multiorgan allergic reaction that infrequently but regularly causes fatalities which may be preventable with appropriate organ support. There is limited data about the type of organ failure leading to death or near-fatal episodes resulting in permanent neurological disability. To assist clinicians facing anaphylaxis in diverse clinical settings, we aimed to quantify the frequency of organ failure type contributing to death or neurological disability from anaphylaxis according to allergen trigger.

Systematic review of published peer-reviewed literature.

Three databases were searched to January 2025: MEDLINE from 1946, Embase from 1947 and Web of Science from 1900.

Studies were eligible if they contained data about the type of clinical deterioration during anaphylaxis resulting in death or permanent neurological disability. No language restriction was implemented. Exclusion criteria were: hydatid anaphylaxis; five or more stings from an insect; death from acute atheromatous myocardial infarction and where anaphylaxis was only a differential diagnosis.

We extracted information using pre-specified criteria to determine the primary organ failure involved: either upper airway obstruction, lower respiratory obstruction (bronchospasm) or cardiovascular failure. Baseline demographics including age and asthma status were collected along with the allergen trigger, time course and treatment. We reported frequencies according to allergen trigger for case reports and a narrative analysis of case series weighted by risk of bias assessment.

277 case studies and 14 case series were identified reporting 896 deaths and 28 disabilities. There were no other study types. Separate case series and case report analyses produced similar findings despite varying quality of published clinical data. Respiratory failure was the most common primary organ failure in case reports (73.4%), whereas primary cardiovascular failure was reported in 26.6% of case reports. Primary organ failure type differed in frequency by allergen trigger and was primarily caused by: respiratory failure when food was the allergen trigger (95%); respiratory failure in 65% of cases of drug allergen triggers; cardiovascular failure in 65% venom allergen triggers.

In this review, respiratory failure (primarily bronchospasm) is the most common primary physiological event leading to decompensation in fatal anaphylaxis, particularly for food and drug allergen deaths. Emphasising the significance of respiratory involvement, particularly from bronchospasm, in both patient and clinician facing anaphylaxis treatment guidelines may help further reduce the risk of fatalities. Prospective anaphylaxis management registries or whole population data are needed to better capture primary organ failure present in fatal anaphylaxis to validate this finding.

CRD42023434206.

The rapidly growing population of older adults (individuals aged 65 years and older) presents a new set of challenges for healthcare providers in the emergency department (ED), given the prevalence of severe and life-threatening conditions among this group, such as chronic cancer, Alzheimer’s disease/dementia and congestive heart failure. ED encounters often represent a critical point in an older patient’s trajectory of care and can thus be an important opportunity for various interventions such as palliative care consultation. Therefore, identifying those who will benefit most from palliative care is of high importance, especially in determining the course of future treatment. Thus, we aim to conduct a systematic review assessing the efficacy of palliative care screening in the ED by assessing inpatient length of stay as the primary outcome and quality of life, percentage of hospitalisation and cost of care as secondary outcomes.

This study will use Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, EBSCO CINAHL, Web of Science and Cochrane as databases. The study population comprises adults aged 60 years and older, with no focus on any specific clinical specialty or disease. Patients who have not received palliative care screening will serve as the comparator. Only studies with an applicable comparator will be considered. Studies published from 1 January 2000 to 1 July 2025 will be included.

All articles will be reviewed independently and in duplicate, and every author will participate in the review, data abstraction and conflict resolution process.

Ethical approval is not required as it is a protocol for a systematic review. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

CRD42024562389.

To understand why patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) may not be treated according to international guidelines for myocardial infarction (MI).

Multicentre qualitative interview study. Interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis approach as outlined by Braun and Clarke to generate themes associated with MI treatment decision-making for, and by, patients with CKD.

Four National Health Service hospital centres in the UK (February 2022 to July 2024).

A purposive sample of 46 participants (patients and clinicians). Clinicians (n=32) were senior doctors-in-training or consultants in cardiology, nephrology, acute or emergency care or cardiac surgery. Patient participants (n=14) had CKD, defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate 2, or receipt of kidney replacement therapy (KRT).

Despite expressing strong views regarding their health priorities, patients reported minimal involvement in treatment decision-making. Decision-making by clinicians was driven by the desire to avoid causing harm to patients by ‘active’ treatment initiation. In general, despite the concept of evidence-based medicine being widely accepted, there remained scepticism of guidelines or epidemiological data, especially in the light of personal adverse experiences or anecdotes. Clinicians described how, in the absence of collaborative decision-making and a clinical safety-net for managing treatment complications, they tended to make conservative treatment decisions for patients with CKD.

Interventions to foster teamworking between specialists and ensure adequately resourced specialist clinical service safety-nets may improve access to treatments for MI for people with CKD. Intervention development and evaluation should follow to determine if outcomes for people with CKD and MI can be improved.

Sweden, as many other high-income countries, has adopted guidelines to offer induction of labour at 41+0 gestational weeks to decrease the risk for perinatal death. As more than 20% of the pregnant population reach this gestational age, and along with other contributing factors, induction rates have increased up to 30% in many countries. Both women and care providers have raised the question if outpatient induction could be a convenient, safe and economic alternative, reducing the burden on inpatient care in maternity hospitals. Before introducing outpatient induction into clinical routine, studies need to assure safety for the child and woman as well as efficacy of the method.

A register-based randomised controlled multicentre non-inferiority trial to study if outpatient induction in low-risk inductions is (1) as safe for the child (perinatal composite of mortality and morbidity) and (2) as effective (proportion of vaginal deliveries) as inpatient induction at the hospital. Secondary outcomes are further health outcomes, experiences of pregnant women, partners and care providers, health economics and future pregnancy outcome. Participating women with a singleton pregnancy and unripe cervix between 37+0 and 41+6 gestational weeks planned for low-risk induction will undergo induction of labour with either a balloon catheter or oral misoprostol according to clinical practice at the study site and the woman’s informed choice. Randomisation will allocate women to either outpatient (home or patient hotel) or inpatient induction (standard care). Women undergoing outpatient induction can remain at home for up to 2 days, with an assessment after 24 hours including cardiotocography. Once active labour ensues, all women will receive standard care in the hospital.

The assessment of non-inferiority will involve a two-sided 95% CI and 80% power, requiring randomisation of 8891 women to ensure a probability of at least 0.80 that the upper limit of a two-sided 95.7% CI for a difference in the primary safety outcome is below the non-inferiority margin of 1.5%. 31 of the 45 delivery units in Sweden are currently recruiting. Data will be collected from the electronic case report form and Swedish healthcare registers. Questionnaire and qualitative interview-based studies will be performed to explore experiences of pregnant women, partners and care providers. Additionally, a health economic evaluation will be performed.

The Swedish Ethical Review Authority approved the study (3 June 2020; 2020-02675 with amendments 2021-03045, 2022-00865-02, 2023-01252-02, 2024-00560-02, 2024-2024-04597-02). The Swedish Medical Products Agency approved the study for the medication arm (25 August 2020, EudraCT number: 2020-000233-41; 5.1-2020-60240 with amendments 5.1-2022-73500, 5.1-2023-630). Due to changed regulation, in 2023, the study medication arm was transferred and approved by the European Medicines Agency (23 October 2023, EU CT Number: 2023-507164-39-00; CTIS 5.1.2-2023-099775 with amendments 5.1.2-2024-081916, 5.1.2-2025-036291). The Swedish Medical Products Agency approved the study for the medical device arm (6 April 2021, CIV-ID: CIV-20-09-034712; 5.1-2021-14812 with amendments 5.1-2022-14252, 5.1-2023-596, 5.1-2024-8886, 5.1-2024-55554). The medical device arm was transferred to Regulation (EU) 2017/745 (23 December 2024, 5.1-2025-24242 and amendment 5.1-2025-6050). The study will involve more than 80% of all delivery units in Sweden, which will allow for a smooth implementation of any new routine after the study’s conclusion. Results will be published in relevant scientific journals, presented at national and international conferences, and communicated to participants and relevant institutions through the Outpatient Induction study homepage (www.optionstudien.se), the webinars of the Swedish Network for National Clinical Studies in Obstetrics and Gynecology (www.snaks.se) as well as social and public media.

EudraCT No: 2020-000233-41, after transfer to the European Medicines Agency EU CT Number: 2023-507164-39-00; CIV-ID 20-09-034712.