Vanmeter, Derek

Abstract Background Multiple anaphylaxis mediators have been demonstrated to provoke migraine‐like attacks following intravascular infusion, suggesting that anaphylaxis could cause headache; however, headache is rarely noted in anaphylaxis and is not included among diagnostic criteria. Objective Our study objectives were to estimate the frequency of headache among prospectively enrolled emergency department (ED) patients with anaphylaxis and assess the association of headache with patient and anaphylaxis characteristics. Methods A cross‐sectional study of ED patients aged ≥5 years who met anaphylaxis diagnostic criteria from January 8, 2020 to September 9, 2022 was conducted. The primary outcome of interest was headache frequency among patients who met at least one anaphylaxis criterion. We explored the association of headache with patient characteristics and anaphylaxis characteristics. Results We included 63 patients with anaphylaxis. In all, 17 (27%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 17%–40%) patients reported the presence of a headache. Female patients had more than a nine times increased odds of having headache (odds ratio [OR] 9.3, 95% CI 1.14–77.1, p = 0.016). Presentation with headache was associated with the presence of dyspnea (OR 5.5, 95% CI 1.56–19.7, p = 0.006). Conclusion Headache in anaphylaxis may be more common than previously recognized, especially in females. Larger prospective studies are needed to characterize headache as a marker of neurological involvement in anaphylaxis.

Background Guidelines promote shared decision‐making (SDM) for anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation. We recently showed that adding a within‐encounter SDM tool to usual care (UC) increases patient involvement in decision‐making and clinician satisfaction, without affecting encounter length. We aimed to estimate the extent to which use of an SDM tool changed adherence to the decided care plan and clinical safety end points. Methods and Results We conducted a multicenter, encounter‐level, randomized trial assessing the efficacy of UC with versus without an SDM conversation tool for use during the clinical encounter (Anticoagulation Choice) in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation considering starting or reviewing anticoagulation treatment. We conducted a chart and pharmacy review, blinded to randomization status, at 10 months after enrollment to assess primary adherence (proportion of patients who were prescribed an anticoagulant who filled their first prescription) and secondary adherence (estimated using the proportion of days for which treatment was supplied and filled for direct oral anticoagulant, and as time in therapeutic range for warfarin). We also noted any strokes, transient ischemic attacks, major bleeding, or deaths as safety end points. We enrolled 922 evaluable patient encounters (Anticoagulation Choice=463, and UC=459), of which 814 (88%) had pharmacy and clinical follow‐up. We found no differences between arms in either primary adherence (78% of patients in the SDM arm filled their first prescription versus 81% in UC arm) or secondary adherence to anticoagulation (percentage days covered of the direct oral anticoagulant was 74.1% in SDM versus 71.6% in UC; time in therapeutic range for warfarin was 66.6% in SDM versus 64.4% in UC). Safety outcomes, mostly bleeds, occurred in 13% of participants in the SDM arm and 14% in the UC arm. Conclusions In this large, randomized trial comparing UC with a tool to promote SDM against UC alone, we found no significant differences between arms in primary or secondary adherence to anticoagulation or in clinical safety outcomes. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT02905032.