Vol. 5, No. 8, August 2024
E-ISSN: 2723-6692
P-ISSN: 2723-6595
http://jiss.publikasiindonesia.id/
Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Sains, Vol. 5, No. 8, August 2024 2022
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Anaphylactic reaction;
anaphylactic shock; clinical
profile; clinical manifestation
Introduction: Anaphylactic reaction is a severe, potentially life-
threatening systemic hypersensitivity reaction caused by a specific
allergen. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical profile of
anaphylactic patients hospitalized in Prof. Dr. I.G.N.G. Ngoerah
Hospital, Denpasar. Method: This was a cross-sectional descriptive
study of anaphylactic patients hospitalized in our center from
January 2018 to December 2023. Patients diagnosed with
anaphylactic reactions were included in this study. All the data
(demographic, clinical manifestations, potential trigger) were
attained from medical records for descriptive analysis. Result: 292
patients were enrolled in this study; half were women (54,4%), and
the median age was 38,50 years (interquartile range 24). The most
common potential triggers were drugs (57%), followed by food
(18,5%), blood products (14,1), insect bites, and other triggers
(4,8%). Almost all patients experience skin and mucosal
manifestations (99%). Anaphylactic shock occurs in only 22% of
patients. Discussion: Previous studies have found similar results to
our findings, and anaphylactic reaction caused by drugs was
associated with a more severe reaction. The effect of estrogen
hormones on more severe reactions has been reported in female
mice, but human research is still limited. Conclusion: Further
studies are needed to investigate the correlation between
demographic characteristics or specific clinical manifestations with
a severe reaction
Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0)
1. Introduction
Anaphylactic reactions are systemic allergic reactions that involve one or more organ systems
and occur in seconds to minutes, potentially life-threatening. Anaphylactic reactions are most often
triggered by medications, foods, and other Hymenoptera or triggers such as contrast agents and
latex exposure (Hong & Boyce, 2018). Most anaphylactic reactions are uniphasic, and about 10-20% of
cases are biphasic, where anaphylactic symptoms may reappear an hour or a few hours after the
Descriptive Profile of Anaphylactic Reaction Patients
Hospitalized at RSUP Prof. DR. I.G.N.G Ngoerah
Period 2018-2023
Gede Bagus Rawida Wijaya, I Ketut Suardamana
Universitas Udayana, Bali, Indonesia
Email: bagusrawida@gmail.com
Correspondence: bagusrawida@gmail.com*
e-ISSN: 2723-6692 🕮 p-ISSN: 2723-6595
Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Sains, Vol. 5, No. 8, August 2024 2023
resolution of the initial symptoms (Hong & Boyce, 2018). Cutaneous is the most common clinical
manifestation, including very itchy urticaria eruptions, diffuse erythema, and warm palpation.
Gastrointestinal manifestations include nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and fecal incontinence.
Cardiovascular and respiratory manifestations are manifestations of life-threatening anaphylactic
reactions. Laryngeal edema will be felt like a mass in the throat, hoarseness, or stridor, while
bronchial obstruction will be felt like suffocation or chest tied with/without wheezing (Hong &
Boyce, 2018).
The incidence of anaphylactic reactions worldwide ranges from 50 to 112 episodes/100,000
inhabitants each year, and the lifetime prevalence ranges from 0.3-5.1% (Tanno et al., 2018).
Recurrence occurs in 26.5%-54% of patients with a previous anaphylactic reaction followed for 1.5-
25 years (Tejedor-Alonso et al., 2015). The mortality rate due to anaphylaxis is relatively low, which
is estimated at 0.05-0.51/1 million population/year due to drugs, 0.03-0.32 due to food, and 0.09-
0.13 due to poison from insect bites (Ansotegui et al., 2016). Anaphylactic reactions account for
0.26% of the causes of hospitalization (Asai et al., 2014). In the United States, less than 20% of
anaphylactic patients are hospitalized, while higher rates are reported in the United Kingdom as
national guidelines recommend hospitalization for all cases of anaphylaxis (Anagnostou & Turner, 2019;
Motosue et al., 2018). This difference in numbers is due to the difference in the criteria for anaphylactic
reactions that require hospitalization in several countries. This study aims to determine the
descriptive profile of anaphylactic reaction patients at Prof. Ngoerah Hospital from 2018 to 2023.
2. Materials and Methods
This study used a cross-sectional research design involving 292 patients. The sampling
technique used in this study was total sampling. The study included patients with a diagnosis of
anaphylactic reactions who were hospitalized at Prof. Dr. I.G.N.G. Ngoerah Hospital, Denpasar, Bali,
from January 2018 to December 2023.
The data in this study used secondary data taken from the medical records of all patients with
a diagnosis of anaphylactic reactions (meeting the NIAID/FARE anaphylaxis criteria) (Sampson et
al., 2006). The data collected included demographic characteristics such as age and gender, clinical
manifestations, and allergens that trigger anaphylactic reactions. Allergens are differentiated into
drugs, food, insect stings, and others (such as contrast agents, blood products, latex, and airborne
allergens that exercise induces). Patient complaint data is the basis for grouping clinical
manifestations. Manifestations of the skin, mucosal tissue, or both include urticaria generalis,
pruritus or redness, swelling of the lips-tongue-uvula. Respiratory manifestations include dyspnea,
wheezing or bronchospasm, stridor, and hypoxemia. Gastrointestinal manifestations include
abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea, and persistent vomiting. Cardiovascular manifestations include a
decrease in blood pressure or syncophagus. In addition, the frequency distribution of anaphylactic
reaction events and anaphylactic shock was also observed. The data obtained is presented in the
form of tables and bar charts. The data was analyzed using SPSS® version 25 software.
3. Result and Discussion
Based on 292 medical record data of patients with a diagnosis of anaphylactic reactions who
were hospitalized at Prof. Dr. I.G.N.G. Ngoerah Hospital, Bali, from January 2018 to December 2023,
e-ISSN: 2723-6692 🕮 p-ISSN: 2723-6595
Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Sains, Vol. 5, No. 8, August 2024 2024
the median age was 38.50 years (interquartile range 24). There were more female patients than
males, 159 patients (54.4%) and 133 patients (45.5%), respectively (Table 1).
The most common triggering allergens are drugs (57%), followed by food (18.5%), blood
products (14.1%), insect stings, and other triggers (4.8%), such as dust, COVID-19 vaccines, and
contrast agents. Antibiotics and OAINS are the most commonly found drugs to cause anaphylactic
reactions, namely 17.5% and 15.1%, respectively (Table 2). Almost all patients diagnosed with
anaphylactic reactions experience skin and mucosal manifestations (99%). The second most
common clinical manifestation was respiratory (46.6%), followed by cardiovascular (24.7%) and
gastrointestinal (10.6%) (Figure 1). Anaphylactic shock is only found in 22% of patients. A total of
45.9% of patients experienced acute hypersensitivity reactions, and another 31.8% experienced
anaphylactic reactions (Figure 2).
Discussion
The demographic characteristics of this study were similar to those of the study in Japan,
where more than half of the patients were female (60.3%), but the median age reported was lower
at 32 years (IQR 13-37). The average age of patients with anaphylactic reactions in other studies
varied, namely 32 years and 40.5 years, with the majority being female (Liu et al., 2020;
Poziomkowska-Gęsicka & Kurek, 2020).
Table 1 Demographic Characteristics of Patients
Variable
Value
Age (median (IQR))
38,50 (24)
Gender, n (%)
Male
133 (45,5%)
Female
159 (54,5%)
Table 2 Types of triggering allergens
Variable
Medicine
Antibiotik
Antivirus
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs
(OAINS)
Paracetamol
Anti-seizure
Anti-hypertension
Anti-platelet
Fibrinolitik
Anti-tuberculosis drugs (OAT)
Antiretroviral drugs
(ARV)
Proton pump inhibitor (PPI)
Mucolytic
Bronchodilator
Corticosteroid
e-ISSN: 2723-6692 🕮 p-ISSN: 2723-6595
Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Sains, Vol. 5, No. 8, August 2024 2025
Chemotherapy
Metamizole
Metformin
Somatostatin
Food
Insect sting
Blood products
Others
Dust
Adult COVID-19
Contrast Agents
Figure 1 Distribution of frequency of clinical manifestations of anaphylactic reactions
Figure 2 Distribution of frequency of clinical manifestations of anaphylactic reactions
In a retrospective study on the anaphylactic reaction profile in Surabaya, the male sex was
more found in the <15-year-old patient group (68.75%), while in the >15-year-old patient group,
the female gender was more found (75%) (Hasanah et al., 2020). The hormone estrogen regulates
the expression of endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) and nitric oxide production, increasing
vascular permeability and aggravating anaphylactic reactions in female rats. Exacerbations of
289
136
72
31
99
46,6 24,7 10,6
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Kulit & Mukosa Sistem
Pernapasan
Sistem
Kardiovaskular
Sistem
Pencernaan
Jumlah Persentase
227
65
77,7
22,3
0
50
100
150
200
250
Reaksi Anafilaksis Syok Anafilaksis
Jumlah Persentase
e-ISSN: 2723-6692 🕮 p-ISSN: 2723-6595
Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Sains, Vol. 5, No. 8, August 2024 2026
anaphylactic reactions can be prevented by the administration of estrogen receptor antagonists or
ovariectomy, but exacerbations occur after the administration of estradiol in female rats undergoing
ovariectomy (Hox et al., 2015). However, research on the effect of female sex hormones on the
severity of anaphylactic reactions in humans is limited. Previous research has also linked age to the
severity and fatality of anaphylactic reactions. Increasing age is associated with more severe
anaphylaxis and hospitalization rates (Clark et al., 2014).
Several other studies have also found that drugs are the most common triggering allergen, with
antibiotics being the most widely reported triggering allergen (Hasanah et al., 2020; Wood et al.,
2014). The United States and Australia reported increased fatalities due to drug-induced
anaphylaxis (Jerschow et al., 2014; Mullins et al., 2016). The incidence of drug-induced anaphylactic
reactions reported by a study in the United Kingdom was 42% (González-Pérez et al., 2010). Based
on data in Vietnam from 2010 to 2016, there has been an increase in cases of drug-induced
anaphylaxis, especially antibiotics. A retrospective study at a hospital in Surabaya reported that the
antibiotics that cause anaphylactic reactions are penicillin, third-generation cephalosporins, and
quinolones (Hasanah et al., 2020). One of the most extensive studies in the United States found that
antibiotics and analgesics were the most common drugs for anaphylactic reactions. Antibiotics that
cause anaphylactic reactions include penicillin, sulfonamides, cephalosporins, macrolides,
fluoroquinolones, and tetracyclines. OAINS, opioids, and local anesthetics are some of the analgesics
that have been reported to trigger anaphylactic reactions (Dhopeshwarkar et al., 2019).
Anaphylactic reactions triggered by high-risk drugs are more severe than other triggers (Regateiro
et al., 2020). Drug-induced anaphylactic reactions are associated with cardiopulmonary arrest or
cardiopulmonary resuscitation (odds ratios 1.80 and 2.25, respectively) (Clark et al., 2014). An
observational study in Japan found different results, with food allergens being the most common
trigger (76.2%), followed by drugs (10.9%) and contrast agents (4%) (Oya et al., 2020).
Previous studies have also reported the most common skin and mucosal manifestations
experienced by patients with anaphylactic reactions (Hasanah et al., 2020; Oya et al., 2020). In>90%
of anaphylactic cases, cutaneous manifestations are clinical manifestations, including very itchy
urticaria eruptions, diffusive erythema, and warm palpation. Urticaria eruptions can appear
localized or scattered and rarely persist for 48 hours (Hong & Boyce, 2018). However, cutaneous
manifestations are not found in 20% of children with anaphylactic reactions due to food or insect
stings.
Observational studies in Japan reported a lower incidence of anaphylactic shock of 13.6%.20
Some literature has different definitions of anaphylaxis, stating that anaphylaxis must involve
several organ systems. However, severe symptoms can appear when only one organ system is
involved (Sampson et al., 2006) (Brown et al., 2013). According to Sampson et al., if any of the three
criteria are met, then it is most likely anaphylaxis, including (1) acute ankles involving the skin,
mucosal tissue, or both (urticaria generalization, pruritus, swelling of the lips-tongue-uvula) and at
least meeting one of the following: (a) respiratory manifestations (dyspnea, wheezing, stridor,
decreased peak inflammatory flow, hypoxemia), (b) Decrease in blood pressure or related to end-
organ dysfunction (hypotony (fainting), syncope and incontinence); (2) meet two or more of the
following that occur immediately after exposure to suspected allergens in patients (minutes to
e-ISSN: 2723-6692 🕮 p-ISSN: 2723-6595
Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Sains, Vol. 5, No. 8, August 2024 2027
several hours): (a) skin-mucosal tissue involvement, (b) respiratory manifestations, (c) decreased
pressure and associated symptoms, (d) persistent gastrointestinal symptoms (abdominal pain,
vomiting); (3) a decrease in blood pressure after exposure to suspected allergens in patients
(minutes to several hours) (Sampson et al., 2006).
The World Allergy Organization's 2019 anaphylaxis guidelines simplify the anaphylaxis criteria
by combining the two Sampson criteria and modifying the third criterion, namely: (1) acute
irritation involving the skin, mucosal tissue, or both (urticaria generalization, pruritus, swelling of
the lips-tongue-uvula) and at least meeting one of the following: (a) skin-mucosal tissue
involvement, (b) respiratory manifestations, (c) decreased pressure and symptoms related, (d)
persistent gastrointestinal symptoms (abdominal pain, vomiting); (2) acute onset of hypotension,
bronchospasm or laryngeal involvement (stridors, voice changes, and odynophagia) after exposure
to suspected allergen exposure in patients, even without skin involvement (Cardona et al., 2020).
Patients with anaphylaxis require more extended observation (24 hours or more) to anticipate
biphasic reactions that may occur in the first 6-12 hours after the first reaction appears (Cardona et
al., 2020; Oya et al., 2020). Some risk factors associated with biphasic reactions include severe initial
reactions, wide pulse pressure at the initial reaction, increased need for epinephrine to cope with
the initial reaction, and delayed administration of epinephrine (Turner et al., 2020).
4. Conclusion
In this study, most anaphylactic reaction patients were female, with a median age of 38.50
years (IQR 24). Drugs are the most common trigger allergens, followed by food, blood products,
insect stings, and other triggers. Almost all patients diagnosed with anaphylactic reactions
experience skin and mucosal manifestations, and anaphylactic shock occurs in only 22% of patients.
Further research is needed to determine the relationship between specific demographic
characteristics or clinical manifestations and severe reactions. The clinical implications of these
findings include: The need for greater vigilance against anaphylactic reactions in female patients of
reproductive age, especially when administering medications. The importance of anamnesis of a
detailed history of drug allergy before the administration of therapy, especially antibiotics and
OAINS which are frequent triggers. Although skin and mucosal manifestations are very common,
medical personnel need to be aware of the possibility of asymptomatic skin anaphylaxis, especially
in drug-induced cases. The need to educate patients and families about the recognition of early
symptoms of anaphylaxis, considering the potential for biphasic reactions. The importance of
providing and training in the use of auto-injectors of epinephrine in patients with a history of
anaphylaxis, especially those triggered by drugs.
5. References
Anagnostou, K., & Turner, P. J. (2019). Myths, facts, and controversies in the diagnosis and
management of anaphylaxis. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 104(1), 83–90.
https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2018-314867
Ansotegui, I. J., Sánchez-Borges, M., & Cardona, V. (2016). Current Trends in Prevalence and
Mortality of Anaphylaxis. Current Treatment Options in Allergy, 3(3), 205–211.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40521-016-0094-0
e-ISSN: 2723-6692 🕮 p-ISSN: 2723-6595
Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Sains, Vol. 5, No. 8, August 2024 2028
Asai, Y., Yanishevsky, Y., Clarke, A., La Vieille, S., Delaney, J. S., Alizadehfar, R., Joseph, L., Mill, C.,
Morris, J., & Ben-Shoshan, M. (2014). Rate, Triggers, Severity, and Management of Anaphylaxis
in Adults Treated in a Canadian Emergency Department. International Archives of Allergy and
Immunology, 164(3), 246–252. https://doi.org/10.1159/000365631
Brown, S. G. A., Stone, S. F., Fatovich, D. M., Burrows, S. A., Holdgate, A., Celenza, A., Coulson, A.,
Hartnett, L., Nagree, Y., Cotterell, C., & Isbister, G. K. (2013). Anaphylaxis: Clinical patterns,
mediator release, and severity. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 132(5), 1141-
1149.e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2013.06.015
Cardona, V., Ansotegui, I. J., Ebisawa, M., El-Gamal, Y., Fernandez Rivas, M., Fineman, S., Geller, M.,
Gonzalez-Estrada, A., Greenberger, P. A., Sanchez Borges, M., Senna, G., Sheikh, A., Tanno, L. K.,
Thong, B. Y., Turner, P. J., & Worm, M. (2020). World Allergy Organization Anaphylaxis
Guidance 2020. World Allergy Organization Journal, 13(10), 100472.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.waojou.2020.100472
Clark, S., Wei, W., Rudders, S. A., & Camargo, C. A. (2014). Risk factors for severe anaphylaxis in
patients receiving anaphylaxis treatment in US emergency departments and hospitals. Journal
of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 134(5), 1125–1130.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2014.05.018
Dhopeshwarkar, N., Sheikh, A., Doan, R., Topaz, M., Bates, D. W., Blumenthal, K. G., & Zhou, L. (2019).
Drug-Induced Anaphylaxis Documented in Electronic Health Records. The Journal of Allergy
and Clinical Immunology: In Practice, 7(1), 103–111.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaip.2018.06.010
González-Pérez, A., Aponte, Z., Vidaurre, C. F., & Rodríguez, L. A. G. (2010). Anaphylaxis
epidemiology in patients with and patients without asthma: A United Kingdom database
review. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 125(5), 1098-1104.e1.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2010.02.009
Hasanah, A. P. U., Baskoro, A., & Edwar, P. P. M. (2020). Profile of Anaphylactic Reaction in Surabaya
from January 2014 to May 2018. JUXTA: Jurnal Ilmiah Mahasiswa Kedokteran Universitas
Airlangga, 11(2), 61. https://doi.org/10.20473/juxta.V11I22020.61-64
Hong, D., & Boyce, J. A. (2018). Harrison Principles of Internal Medicine (J. Jameson, D. Kaper, D.
Longo, A. Fauci, S. Hauser, & J. Loscalzo, Eds.; 20th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Hox, V., Desai, A., Bandara, G., Gilfillan, A. M., Metcalfe, D. D., & Olivera, A. (2015). Estrogen increases
the severity of anaphylaxis in female mice through enhanced endothelial nitric oxide synthase
expression and nitric oxide production. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 135(3),
729-736.e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2014.11.003
Jerschow, E., Lin, R. Y., Scaperotti, M. M., & McGinn, A. P. (2014). Fatal anaphylaxis in the United
States, 1999-2010: Temporal patterns and demographic associations. Journal of Allergy and
Clinical Immunology, 134(6), 1318-1328.e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2014.08.018
Liu, X., Lee, S., Lohse, C. M., Hardy, C. T., & Campbell, R. L. (2020). Biphasic Reactions in Emergency
Department Anaphylaxis Patients: A Prospective Cohort Study. The Journal of Allergy and
Clinical Immunology: In Practice, 8(4), 1230–1238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaip.2019.10.027
Motosue, M. S., Bellolio, M. F., Van Houten, H. K., Shah, N. D., Li, J. T., & Campbell, R. L. (2018).
Outcomes of Emergency Department Anaphylaxis Visits from 2005 to 2014. The Journal of
Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice, 6(3), 1002-1009.e2.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaip.2017.07.041
Mullins, R. J., Wainstein, B. K., Barnes, E. H., Liew, W. K., & Campbell, D. E. (2016). Increases in
anaphylaxis fatalities in Australia from 1997 to 2013. Clinical & Experimental Allergy, 46(8),
1099–1110. https://doi.org/10.1111/cea.12748
e-ISSN: 2723-6692 🕮 p-ISSN: 2723-6595
Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Sains, Vol. 5, No. 8, August 2024 2029
Oya, S., Kinoshita, K., Daya, M., & Kinoshita, H. (2020). Characteristics of Anaphylactic Reactions: A
Prospective Observational Study in Japan. The Journal of Emergency Medicine, 59(6), 812–819.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemermed.2020.07.004
Poziomkowska-Gęsicka, I., & Kurek, M. (2020). Clinical Manifestations and Causes of Anaphylaxis.
Analysis of 382 Cases from the Anaphylaxis Registry in West Pomerania Province in Poland.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(8), 2787.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17082787
Regateiro, F. S., Marques, M. L., & Gomes, E. R. (2020). Drug-Induced Anaphylaxis: An Update on
Epidemiology and Risk Factors. International Archives of Allergy and Immunology, 181(7),
481–487. https://doi.org/10.1159/000507445
Sampson, H. A., Muñoz-Furlong, A., Campbell, R. L., Adkinson, N. F., Bock, S. A., Branum, A., Brown, S.
G. A., Camargo, C. A., Cydulka, R., Galli, S. J., Gidudu, J., Gruchalla, R. S., Harlor, A. D., Hepner, D. L.,
Lewis, L. M., Lieberman, P. L., Metcalfe, D. D., O’Connor, R., Muraro, A., … Decker, W. W. (2006).
Second symposium on the definition and management of anaphylaxis: Summary report—
Second National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease/Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis
Network symposium. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 117(2), 391–397.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2005.12.1303
Tanno, L. K., Bierrenbach, A. L., Simons, F. E. R., Cardona, V., Thong, B. Y.-H., Molinari, N., Calderon, M.
A., Worm, M., Chang, Y.-S., Papadopoulos, N. G., Casale, T., & Demoly, P. (2018). Critical view of
anaphylaxis epidemiology: open questions and new perspectives. Allergy, Asthma & Clinical
Immunology, 14(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13223-018-0234-0
Tejedor-Alonso, M. A., Moro-Moro, M., & Múgica-García, M. V. (2015). Epidemiology of anaphylaxis:
contributions from the last 10 years. J. Investig. Allergol. Clin. Immunol , 163-175.
Turner, P. J., Campbell, D. E., Motosue, M. S., & Campbell, R. L. (2020). Global Trends in Anaphylaxis
Epidemiology and Clinical Implications. The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In
Practice, 8(4), 1169–1176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaip.2019.11.027
Wood, R. A., Camargo, C. A., Lieberman, P., Sampson, H. A., Schwartz, L. B., Zitt, M., Collins, C.,
Tringale, M., Wilkinson, M., Boyle, J., & Simons, F. E. R. (2014). Anaphylaxis in America: The
prevalence and characteristics of anaphylaxis in the United States. Journal of Allergy and
Clinical Immunology, 133(2), 461–467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2013.08.016