This. Just... this.
China
ANAPHYLAXIS IN CHINA: TRIGGERS, CLINICAL FEATURES AND TREATMENTS
Background:
Anaphylaxis incidence is increasing. Little is known about the clinical features and triggers of anaphylaxis in China.
Methods:
We performed a review of clinical records for anaphylactic reactions over 10 years.
Results:
We identified 1008 anaphylactic reactions in 438 patients (222 male patients). 311 patients had recurrent reactions. The median age at time of the first reaction was 30 years (age range, 10 months to 70years). The skin (83.8%) was the most frequently affected organ followed by the respiratory system (68.6%) and cardiovascular system (56.3%). The triggers included food (79.2%), drugs (6.8%), insect (0.3%) and “others” (13.4%). Wheat was the culprit agent of food in 36.4% anaphylactic reactions. Traditional Chinese medicine (1.7%) was the most common cause of drug-induced anaphylaxis. 637(63.2%) reactions were managed in Emergency department, corticosteroid (26.6%) were more often administered than adrenaline (8.3%).Children were more often presented with respiratory symptoms compared with adults (80.1% vs. 64.9% P<0.001) .Fruits /vegetables were more common food triggers in children than in adults(16.5% vs.10.3% p=0.01) , whereas adults were more frequently sensitive to cereals compared with children (45.9% vs.34.5%,P=0.002) .Drug-induced anaphylaxis were more common in adults than in Children(8.2% vs.2.5%,p=0.003).
Conclusions:
The present study indicates that the most common symptoms of anaphylaxis in China were skin presentations. Respiratory presentations are more frequent in children. Food is the main trigger in anaphylaxis just as in the West, but shows a different picture, fruits /vegetables and cereals are common food triggers in children and adults respectively. Adrenaline is used in a minority of anaphylactic reactions.
And let me excise, bold and point in big Vegas neon lights to THIS:
Traditional Chinese medicine (1.7%) was the most common cause of drug-induced anaphylaxis.
Folks, if you listen to nothing else I say about FAHF-2 and TCM, it's this: they are
drugs. Not all doctors dispensing it are equal. Not all sources are trustworthy. When I contextualize where, when, who and what with regard to pharmacognosy it's a necessary vetting process. It's why I crack the whip on distinguishing doctors with the profile of Dr. Li at Mr. Sinai and Dr. Jin-hui Dou at the FDA, from Herbal Pete at the corner shop.
Please note that while FAHF-2 is TCM as an herbal preparation TCM drug does not necessarily reference FAHF-2. TCM is a general term in English, even referenced as drugs, for herbal preparations. In this study TCM drugs means any herbal preparations, the majority are most likely used without issue but it is however the number one source of drug-induced anaphylaxis. That may be influenced by patient's desire to try it more often, could be a ton of factors.
But two main points 1) natural drugs are still drugs there's no safety inherent because it's TCM 2) FAHF-2 is TCM drug (herbal prep), but not all TCM drug (herbal prep) is FAHF-2. I highly doubt any of the anaphylaxis induced in this study was anything but formulas for a wide array of maladies.