β-Lactam allergy

β - 内酰胺过敏
  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    青霉素过敏是美国人群中最常见的药物过敏。青霉素过敏标签与不良患者预后相关,包括住院时间增加,围手术期感染增加,总体死亡率上升。青霉素过敏评估准确地确定了大约10名患者中的9名,尽管有青霉素过敏史,可以安全地接受青霉素。在常规就诊期间,应主动向健康患者提供青霉素过敏评估,包括儿童和孕妇,在抗生素需要之前。
    Penicillin allergy is the most common drug allergy in the US population. A penicillin allergy label is associated with poor patient outcomes including increased hospital length of stay, increased perioperative infections, and overall increased mortality. A penicillin allergy evaluation accurately identifies approximately 9 of 10 patients who, despite reporting a history of penicillin allergy, can receive penicillins safely. Penicillin allergy evaluations should be offered proactively to healthy patients during routine visits, including children and pregnant women, in advance of antibiotic need.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:一项指南,确定何时使用青霉素或头孢菌素抗生素过敏标签(PCAAL)的住院患者可以在美国东北部大型医疗保健系统中接受β-内酰胺抗生素增加β-内酰胺类药物的接收。目的:报告在独立的学术医疗保健系统中实施类似指南和电子订单集(OS)的结果。
    方法:接受青霉素/头孢菌素(接受全剂量的住院患者百分比)和替代抗生素使用(每1000名患者治疗天数,DOT/1000PD)在之前的三个时期(2017年2月1日-2018年1月31日)进行了比较,指南实施后(2/1/3018-1/31/2019),并且在OS实施后(2/1/2019-1/31/2020),在接受医疗服务并获得指南/OS和教育的PCAAL住院患者中(Medical-PCAAL,n=8721),无需教育即可获得指南/OS的手术服务(Surgical-PCAAL,n=5069),和没有干预的产科/妇科服务(Ob/Gyn-PCAAL,n=798)和没有PCAAL的住院患者接受相同的服务(Medical-No-PCAAL,n=50840;无PCAAL手术,n=29845;Ob/Gyn-No-PCAAL,n=6109)。卡方检验用于比较分类变量,方差分析比较连续,和中断时间序列分析(ITSA),以调查指南/OS实施对青霉素/头孢菌素接收的影响。
    结果:在Medical-PCAAL组中,青霉素/头孢菌素摄入量增加(58%至68%,p<0.001),特别是头孢唑啉(8%至11%,p=0.02)和第3-5代头孢菌素(43%至48%,p=0.04),氨曲南使用量减少(12DOT/1000PD,p=0.03)。在医疗无PCAAL组中,青霉素/头孢菌素摄入量增加(88%至90%,p=0.004),特别是青霉素(40%到44%,p<0.001),没有改变氨曲南的使用。在外科或妇产科服务中,未观察到这些结果的显着变化。根据ITSA,仅在Medical-PCAAL组中,指南/OS实施与青霉素/头孢菌素接收增加相关.
    结论:指南和OS的实施与在接受过敏教育的住院服务中改善抗生素管理有关。
    A guideline identifying when inpatients with penicillin or cephalosporin antibiotic allergy labels (PCAAL) can receive β-lactam antibiotics increased β-lactam receipt at a large northeastern US health care system.
    To report outcomes of implementing a similar guideline and electronic order set (OS) at an independent academic health care system.
    Penicillin/cephalosporin receipt (percentage of inpatients receiving full doses) and alternative antibiotic use (days of therapy per 1000 patient-days [DOT/1000PD]) were compared over 3 periods before (February 1, 2017, to January 31, 2018) and after guideline implementation (February 1, 2018, to January 31, 2019), and after OS implementation (February 1, 2019, to January 31, 2020) among inpatients with PCAAL admitted on medical services with access to guideline/OS and education (Medical-PCAAL, n = 8721), surgical services with access to guideline/OS without education (Surgical-PCAAL, n = 5069), and obstetrics/gynecology services without interventions (Ob/Gyn-PCAAL, n = 798) and inpatients without PCAAL admitted on the same services (Medical-No-PCAAL, n = 50,840; Surgical-No-PCAAL, n = 29,845; Ob/Gyn-No-PCAAL, n = 6109). χ2 tests were used to compare categorical variables, and analysis of variance was used to compare continuous and interrupted time series analyses (ITSA) to investigate the guideline/OS implementation effect on penicillin/cephalosporin receipt.
    In the Medical-PCAAL group, penicillin/cephalosporin receipt increased (58%-68%, P < .001), specifically for cefazolin (8%-11%, P = .02) and third- to fifth-generation cephalosporins (43%-48%, P = .04), and aztreonam use decreased (12 DOT/1000PD, P = .03). In the Medical-No-PCAAL group, penicillin/cephalosporin receipt increased (88%-90%, P = .004), specifically for penicillin (40%-44%, P < .001), without changes in aztreonam use. Significant changes were not observed in these outcomes on surgical or obstetrics/gynecology services. Per ITSA, guideline/OS implementation was associated with increased penicillin/cephalosporin receipt in the Medical-PCAAL group only.
    Guideline and OS implementation was associated with improved antibiotic stewardship on inpatient services that also received allergy education.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:抗生素过敏标签是治疗和抗菌药物管理的重要障碍,但他们在英国医院的患病率描述不佳。
    目的:为了确定英国大型医院环境中抗生素过敏标签的患病率和特征,并估计青霉素过敏标签的比例,对其进行即时护理(POC)去标签评估是合适的。
    方法:分析了2019年在剑桥大学医院NHS基金会信托基金接受治疗的所有患者的电子健康记录数据。经过验证的POC去标记风险分层标准被回顾性地应用于青霉素过敏标签。
    结果:所有患者中有11.8%(32,148/273,216);住院患者中有16.3%(13,874/85,230),门诊患者中有9.7%(18,274/187,986)。青霉素是描述的最常见的反应沉淀剂(9.0%的患者;24,646/273,216),其次是磺酰胺/甲氧苄啶(1.4%;3,869/273,216)和大环内酯类/林可沙酰胺(1.3%;3,644/273,216)。3.9%的住院患者对>1类抗生素有反应(3,348/85,230)。皮肤表现是最常见的反应特征(40.7%的标记;15,821/38,902)。在描述可能或可能的青霉素“过敏”的15,949个标签中,有足够的细节可以对POC去标签适用性进行回顾性评估,1,702个被认为适合在未经进一步调查的情况下将标签移除或降级为“不容忍”(10.7%),11,887例适用于使用口服青霉素激发(OPC)或事先进行床边皮肤测试的OPC进行POC评估(74.5%),2,360人被确定为不适合任何形式的POC评估(14.8%)。
    结论:抗生素过敏标签在英国医院环境中非常普遍。大部分青霉素过敏标签可能适用于POC去标签评估。
    Antibiotic allergy labels are important barriers to treatment and antimicrobial stewardship, but their prevalence in UK hospitals is poorly described.
    To ascertain the prevalence and characteristics of antibiotic allergy labels in a large UK hospital setting and estimate the proportion of penicillin allergy labels for which point-of-care (POC) delabeling assessment would be appropriate.
    Electronic health records data were analyzed from all patients treated at Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in 2019. Validated POC delabeling risk stratification criteria were retrospectively applied to penicillin allergy labels.
    Recorded reactions to antibiotics were present in 11.8% of all patients (32,148 of 273,216), 16.3% of inpatients (13,874 of 85,230), and 9.7% of outpatients (18,274 of 187,986). Penicillins were the commonest reaction precipitant described (9.0% of patients; 24,646 of 273,216), followed by sulfonamides/trimethoprim (1.4%; 3869 of 273,216) and macrolides/lincosamides (1.3%; 3644 of 273,216). A total of 3.9% of inpatients had recorded reactions to >1 antibiotic class (3348 of 85,230). Cutaneous manifestations were the most commonly described reaction features (40.7% of labels; 15,821 of 38,902). Of 15,949 labels describing probable or possible penicillin \"allergy\" with sufficient detail to allow for the retrospective assessment of POC delabeling suitability, 1702 were deemed suitable for removal or downgrading of the label to \"intolerance\" without further investigation (10.7%), 11,887 were appropriate for POC assessment using an oral penicillin challenge (OPC) or OPC with prior bedside skin testing (74.5%), and 2360 were identified as unsuitable for any form of POC assessment (14.8%).
    Antibiotic allergy labels are highly prevalent in a UK hospital setting. A large proportion of penicillin allergy labels may be suitable for POC delabeling assessment.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:前线提供者经常做出时间敏感的抗生素选择,但是许多人觉得处理抗生素过敏的能力很差。
    目的:我们假设数字决策支持工具可以改善抗生素选择和管理β-内酰胺过敏时的信心。
    方法:设计了一种数字决策支持工具,以指导非过敏症提供者管理带有β-内酰胺过敏标签的患者。非过敏症专家被要求在临床试验病例中做出决定,然后,工具。使用配对t检验比较这些决定。用户还完成了评估他们对管理抗生素过敏的信心的调查。
    结果:该工具的算法通过确认其建议与5名过敏症专家的建议一致而得到验证。非过敏症提供者(n=102)在测试用例中做出了抗生素管理决策,有和没有工具。使用该工具将正确决策的比例从0.41增加到0.67,差异为0.26(95%CI:0.22-0.30,p<0.001)。在低风险的情况下,使用者更有可能给予全剂量抗生素,在中等风险的情况下给予挑战剂量,避免使用抗生素和/或在高风险情况下咨询过敏。98(96%)的用户表示,该工具将在为过敏患者选择抗生素时增加他们的信心。
    结论:现场护理临床决策工具为非过敏症专科医生提供过敏症医师设计的指导,是解决抗生素过敏的可扩展系统,无论是否有过敏症患者。该工具鼓励在中低风险情况下适当使用抗生素,并在高风险情况下增加谨慎。在质量改进和抗生素管理工作中应考虑使用数字支持工具。
    Frontline providers frequently make time-sensitive antibiotic choices, but many feel poorly equipped to handle antibiotic allergies.
    We hypothesized that a digital decision support tool could improve antibiotic selection and confidence when managing β-lactam allergies.
    A digital decision support tool was designed to guide non-allergist providers in managing patients with β-lactam allergy labels. Non-allergists were asked to make decisions in clinical test cases without the tool, and then with it. These decisions were compared using paired t tests. Users also completed surveys assessing their confidence in managing antibiotic allergies.
    The tool\'s algorithm was validated by confirming its recommendations aligned with that of five allergists. Non-allergist providers (n = 102) made antibiotic management decisions in test cases, both with and without the tool. Use of the tool increased the proportion of correct decisions from 0.41 to 0.67, a difference of 0.26 (95% CI, 0.22-0.30; P < .001). Users were more likely to give full-dose antibiotics in low-risk situations, give challenge doses in medium-risk situations, and avoid the antibiotic and/or consult allergy departments in high-risk situations. A total of 98 users (96%) said the tool would increase their confidence when choosing antibiotics for patients with allergies.
    A point-of-care clinical decision tool provides allergist-designed guidance for non-allergists and is a scalable system for addressing antibiotic allergies, irrespective of allergist availability. This tool encouraged appropriate antibiotic use in low- and medium-risk situations and increased caution in high-risk situations. A digital support tool should be considered in quality improvement and antibiotic stewardship efforts.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:在欧洲,北美,澳大利亚,现在有5%至10%的人口被归类为青霉素(β-内酰胺)过敏。这些可疑诊断中只有10%,大部分都是在童年制造的,可以通过过敏诊断来确认。
    方法:这篇综述的目的是显示原因和后果以及处理青霉素(β-内酰胺)过敏(BLA)的经常可疑诊断的建议。
    结果:不正确的BLA诊断可能会对未来所需的抗生素治疗产生负面影响,通过使用不太有效的抗生素或使用广谱抗生素,例如,进一步加剧了抗生素耐药性增加的问题。因此,来自抗生素管理计划的压力越来越大,要求对BLA诊断提出严峻挑战。保守地,疑似BLA由过敏症医生根据病史进行检查,皮肤测试,实验室测试,和挑衅。这种澄清是昂贵的,并且在德国的医疗保健系统中没有报酬;这就是为什么这种测试仅在少数专门诊所中提供而在一般实践中实际上根本没有提供的原因。鉴于成千上万的受影响患者,尽管疑似β-内酰胺类抗生素过敏,但超敏反应风险较低的患者仍需要采取其他治疗策略.近年来,已经提出了各种方法来尽快消除可疑的过敏,并在使用β-内酰胺抗生素进行必要的治疗之前直接消除。包括标准化的历史记录(也以算法的形式),15分钟后立即读取皮肤测试,或给予小的测试剂量。迄今为止,对小型病例系列和多中心研究的调查在可行性和安全性方面都取得了可喜的结果。
    结论:在大量患有(可疑)BLA的患者中,大多数人从未接受过测试,如果需要抗生素治疗,只需接受替代抗生素。因此,除了经典的过敏测试外,BLA的诊断还需要新的方法来严格质疑BLA。
    BACKGROUND: In Europe, North America, and Australia, 5% to 10% of the population are now classified as penicillin (β-lactam) allergic. Only ~ 10% of these questionable diagnoses, mostly made in childhood, can be confirmed by allergy diagnostics.
    METHODS: The aim of this review is to show causes and consequences as well as recommendations for dealing with the often questionable diagnosis of penicillin (β-lactam) allergy (BLA).
    RESULTS: An incorrect BLA diagnosis may negatively impact antibiotic treatment needed in the future, by using a less effective antibiotic or using a broad-spectrum antibiotic, for example, further exacerbating the problem of increasing antibiotic resistance. Accordingly, there is growing pressure from antibiotic stewardship programs to critically challenge the BLA diagnosis. Conservatively, a suspected BLA is reviewed by an allergist using medical history, skin testing, laboratory testing, and provocation. This clarification is costly and is not remunerated in the German health care system; that is the reason why this testing is only offered in a few specialized clinics and practically not at all in general practice. In view of thousands of affected patients, additional strategies are needed to treat patients with a low risk of hypersensitivity reaction despite suspected allergy with a β-lactam antibiotic. In recent years, various methods have been proposed to eliminate suspected allergy as promptly as possible and directly before necessary treatment with a β-lactam antibiotic, including standardized history (also in the form of an algorithm), skin test with immediate reading after 15 minutes, or administration of a small test dose. Investigations of small case series and also multi-center studies to date have yielded promising results in terms of feasibility and safety.
    CONCLUSIONS: Of the large number of patients with (questionable) BLA, most have never been tested and - if antibiotic treatment becomes necessary - simply receive an alternative antibiotic. The diagnosis of BLA therefore requires new approaches besides classical allergy testing to critically question BLA.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目的:报告有β-内酰胺过敏(BLA)的患者通常给予替代围手术期抗生素预防,手术部位感染(SSIs)的风险增加,急性肾损伤(AKI),和艰难梭菌感染(CDI)。这项研究的目的是在术前设置中实施和评估由药剂师主导的BLA澄清访谈服务。
    方法:2018年11月至2019年3月,一名药剂师在选修程序前进行了BLA澄清电话采访。根据过敏史和决策算法,一线术前抗生素,替代抗生素,或建议转诊过敏测试.将药剂师干预(PI)组与2017年11月至2018年3月接受手术的标准护理(SOC)组进行比较。
    结果:包括87例患者,SOC和PI组中分别有50%(57%)和37%(43%),分别。最常见的手术包括41例(47%)的骨科手术和17例(20%)的神经外科手术。在PI组中,所有BLA标签均在访谈后更新.二十三名病人被转介接受过敏测试,23项(52%)完成BLA测试中的12项,12名患者中有9名患者对青霉素过敏。总的来说,接受了37项(76%)药学抗生素建议中的28项。干预后,头孢唑林的使用量从28%显着增加到65%(P=0.001)。SOC组有5例(10%)患者发生SSI,PI组无患者发生SSI(P=0.051)。所有这些SSIs都与替代抗生素有关。两组之间AKI和CDI的发生率相似。两组均无过敏反应发生。
    结论:实施药学驱动的BLA和解显著增加了β-内酰胺的术前使用,而没有负面的安全性结果。
    OBJECTIVE: Patients with a reported β-lactam allergy (BLA) are often given alternative perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis, increasing risk of surgical site infections (SSIs), acute kidney injury (AKI), and Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI). The purpose of this study was to implement and evaluate a pharmacist-led BLA clarification interview service in the preoperative setting.
    METHODS: A pharmacist performed BLA clarification telephone interviews before elective procedures from November 2018 to March 2019. On the basis of allergy history and a decision algorithm, first-line preoperative antibiotics, alternative antibiotics, or allergy testing referral was recommended. The pharmacist intervention (PI) group was compared to a standard of care (SOC) group who underwent surgery from November 2017 to March 2018.
    RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients were included, with 50 (57%) and 37 (43%) in the SOC and PI groups, respectively. The most common surgeries included orthopedic surgery in 41 patients (47%) and neurosurgery in 17 patients (20%). In the PI group, all BLA labels were updated after interview. Twenty-three patients were referred for allergy testing, 12 of the 23 (52%) completed BLA testing, and penicillin allergies were removed for 9 of the 12 patients. Overall, 28 of the 37 (76%) pharmacy antibiotic recommendations were accepted. Cefazolin use significantly increased from 28% to 65% after the intervention (P = 0.001). SSI occurred in 5 (10%) patients in the SOC group and no patients in the PI group (P = 0.051). All of these SSIs were associated with alternative antibiotics. Incidence of AKI and CDI was similar between the groups. No allergic reactions occurred in either group.
    CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a pharmacy-driven BLA reconciliation significantly increased β-lactam preoperative use without negative safety outcomes.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    使用青霉素皮肤测试(PST)来排除青霉素(PCN)过敏对有免疫能力的患者是安全有效的;然而,免疫功能低下患者的数据有限.
    我们的目标是确定安全性,功效,以及PST对免疫功能低下的癌症患者的临床影响。
    MD安德森癌症中心实施了建立PST服务的质量改进过程。接受白血病和泌尿生殖医学肿瘤(GUMO)服务的成年患者有可能对PCN有I型反应史,可以接受测试。
    在2017年4月至10月之间,筛选了218例报告有PCN过敏的患者;100例符合纳入标准并接受了PST(67例白血病,33古莫)。最常见的报告过敏是PCN(64%),61%的人报告皮肤反应,79%的人报告20多年前的反应。PST与口腔攻击结果是压倒性的阴性(95%);只有4%的测试阳性,1个检测结果不确定(组胺阴性对照)。PST阴性和口头攻击结果后,51%的患者在同一住院期间过渡到基于PCN的抗生素。在随访期间(中位数为177天),95例患者中有65例再次入院(共185例再次入院),51名患者需要抗生素治疗,37人接受基于PCN的抗生素(占336天的治疗)。没有接受基于PCN的抗生素的患者出现即时型过敏反应。
    我们的发现支持PST在免疫受损宿主中的使用。PST在癌症患者中的广泛使用将允许最佳地使用抗菌治疗和管理,这对感染风险增加的人群至关重要。
    Use of penicillin skin testing (PST) to rule out penicillin (PCN) allergies is safe and effective in immunocompetent patients; however, data on immunocompromised patients are limited.
    We aimed to determine safety, efficacy, and clinical impact of PST in immunocompromised patients with cancer.
    A quality improvement process establishing a PST service was implemented at MD Anderson Cancer Center. Adult patients admitted to leukemia and genitourinary medical oncology (GUMO) services with history of possible type I reactions to PCN were eligible for testing.
    Between April and October 2017, 218 patients with reported PCN allergies were screened; 100 met inclusion criteria and underwent PST (67 leukemia, 33 GUMO). The most common reported allergy was to PCN (64%), with 61% reporting cutaneous reactions and 79% reporting reactions more than 20 years ago. PST with oral challenge results were overwhelmingly negative (95%); only 4% tested positive, and 1 test result was indeterminate (negative histamine control). After negative PST and oral challenge results, 51% patients were transitioned to PCN-based antibiotics during the same hospitalization. During the follow-up period (median 177 days), 65 of 95 patients were readmitted (185 total readmissions), and 51 patients required antibiotic therapy, with 37 receiving a PCN-based antibiotic (accounting for 336 days of therapy). No patient who received PCN-based antibiotics experienced an immediate-type allergic reaction.
    Our findings support PST use in immunocompromised hosts. The widespread use of PST in patients with cancer will allow for optimal use of antimicrobial therapy and stewardship, which are vital in a population at increased risk for infections.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Sci-hub)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:大多数仅根据病史诊断为β-内酰胺过敏的儿童并不是真正的过敏,错误的标签会导致使用效率更低、成本更高的替代广谱抗生素,耐药性显著增加。
    目的:确定父母或其医生报告的β-内酰胺过敏患者确诊过敏的频率和危险因素,并评估确诊过敏儿童β-内酰胺之间的交叉反应性。
    方法:67名疑似β-内酰胺过敏的儿童通过病史进行评估,sIgE测量,皮肤试验,和为期5年的药物挑衅测试。
    结果:在10例(14.9%)患者中证实了β-内酰胺过敏。6名患者对一种或多种青霉素皮试材料或头孢曲松的皮内试验结果呈阳性,4例皮肤试验结果阴性的患者,怀疑药物试验结果阳性。年龄,性别,评估和初始反应之间的时间间隔,过敏症的个人历史,父母有药物过敏史,反应类型,过敏和耐受患者之间的多种药物过敏史没有显着差异。对于罪魁祸首药物,两组之间存在显着差异;头孢曲松等头孢菌素的确诊率明显更高,头孢呋辛,和头孢丙烯(p=0.03)。三名对青霉素耐受的头孢呋辛过敏的患者;在对头孢曲松选择性过敏的4名患者中,头孢菌素具有不同的侧链(头孢羟氨苄,头孢呋辛,头孢克洛,和头孢地尼)。
    结论:我们的研究表明,大多数疑似β-内酰胺过敏的患者可以耐受这种药物。适当的诊断过敏检查可能会阻止使用效率较低和更昂贵的替代品。
    BACKGROUND: Most children diagnosed with β-lactam allergy based only on history are not truly allergic, and mislabeling leads to use of less effective and more costly alternative broader-spectrum antibiotics, significantly increasing drug resistance.
    OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency and risk factors of confirmed allergy in patients with β-lactam allergy reported by parents or their doctors and evaluate cross-reactivity between β-lactams in children with confirmed allergy.
    METHODS: Sixty-seven children with suspected β-lactam allergy were evaluated via history, sIgE measurements, skin tests, and drug provocation tests over a period of 5 years.
    RESULTS: β-Lactam allergy was confirmed in 10 (14.9%) patients. Six patients had a positive intradermal test result to one or more of the penicillin skin test materials or ceftriaxone, 4 patients with negative skin test results had positive test results with suspected drugs. Age, gender, time interval between evaluation and the initial reaction, personal history of atopy, parental history of drug allergy, reaction type, and multiple drug allergy history were not significantly different between allergic and tolerant patients. For culprit drugs, there was a significant different between the 2 groups; the rate of confirmed diagnosis was significantly higher for cephalosporins such as ceftriaxone, cefuroxime, and cefprozil (p = 0.03). Three patients with allergy to penicillin tolerated cefuroxime; in 4 patients with selective allergy to ceftriaxone tolerated cephalosporins with a dissimilar side chain (cefadroxil, cefuroxime, cefaclor, and cefdinir).
    CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicates that most patients with a suspected β-lactam allergy tolerated this drug. An appropriate diagnostic allergy workup may prevent the use of less effective and more expensive alternatives.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Sci-hub)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    β-内酰胺类药物(青霉素,阿莫西林,和头孢菌素)占所有严重药物引起的过敏反应的42.6%。在这次审查中,我们的重点是临床上显著的免疫交叉反应的患者确认青霉素过敏头孢菌素,以及头孢菌素的R1和R2化学侧链的结构参与导致IgE介导的与青霉素和其他头孢菌素的交叉反应。皮肤试验预测IgE介导的反应,并显示青霉素和早期头孢菌素之间的交叉反应,共享侧链,但缺乏验证性挑战数据。后代头孢菌素,有不同的侧链,与青霉素/阿莫西林没有任何皮肤测试交叉反应性。关于R2侧链作为引起IgE介导的各种头孢菌素超敏反应的抗原决定簇的参与存在争议。避免使用头孢菌素,当它们是青霉素过敏个体的首选药物时,导致严重的发病率超过过敏反应的低风险。我们得出的结论是,有充分的证据表明,在确诊为青霉素或阿莫西林过敏的患者中,可以安全使用头孢菌素。
    β-Lactam drugs (penicillins, amoxicillin, and cephalosporins) account for 42.6% of all severe drug-induced anaphylaxis. In this review, we focus on clinically significant immunologic cross-reactivity in patients with confirmed penicillin allergy to cephalosporins, and the structural involvement of the R1 and R2 chemical side chains of the cephalosporins causing IgE-mediated cross-reactivity with penicillin and other cephalosporins. Skin tests predict IgE-mediated reactions and showed cross-reactivity between penicillins and early generation cephalosporins that shared side chains, but confirmatory challenge data are lacking. Later-generation cephalosporins, which have distinct side chains, do not have any skin test cross-reactivity with penicillin/amoxicillin. There is debate as to the involvement of R2 side chains as the antigenic determinants that cause IgE-mediated hypersensitivity with various cephalosporins. Avoidance of cephalosporins, when they are the drug of choice in a penicillin-allergic individual, results in significant morbidity that outweighs the low risk of anaphylaxis. We conclude that there is ample evidence to allow the safe use of cephalosporins in patients with isolated confirmed penicillin or amoxicillin allergy.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Sci-hub)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    对β-内酰胺类抗生素的过敏在住院患者中很常见;然而,真正的过敏并不常见。晚期头孢菌素类和碳青霉烯类的交叉反应率低;特别是对于没有1型超敏反应症状史的患者。我们观察到,对于有β-内酰胺过敏史的患者,提供者优先使用反假药碳青霉烯类抗生素(APC),而不是高级头孢菌素。包括抗菌素耐药感染风险低的患者。将信息插入计算机决策支持系统(CDSS),以帮助临床医生评估β-内酰胺交叉反应性风险并选择适当的治疗方法。在一家小型医院进行了回顾性评估,以评估CDSS变化对APC处方的影响。在13个月的干预前期间住院期间接受至少一个APC剂量的住院患者(n=68)与在15个月的干预后期间接受APC的住院患者(n=59)比较所记录的APC适应症和β-内酰胺过敏史。每1000名患者天测量并校正APC起始量;进行中断的时间序列分析以评估实施前后的使用变化。实施后,每月APC的总启动次数从7.01降至6.14/1000患者天(p=0.03)。低风险β-内酰胺病史患者的干预后APC初始率从92%降至83%(p=0.17)。在具有低危β-内酰胺病史的患者中未观察到不良事件。干预与APC启动减少有关。
    Allergies to β-lactam antibiotics are commonly documented in hospitalized patients; however, true allergy is uncommon. Cross-reactivity rates for advanced generation cephalosporins and carbapenems are low; particularly for patients without a history of symptoms consistent with type 1 hypersensitivity. We observed that providers preferentially prescribed antipseudomonal carbapenems (APC) over advanced generation cephalosporins for patients with β-lactam allergy history, including those with low risk for antimicrobial-resistant infections. Information was inserted into the computerized decision support system (CDSS) to aid clinicians in assessing β-lactam cross-reactivity risk and selecting appropriate therapy. A retrospective evaluation was conducted in a small hospital to assess the impact of the CDSS changes in APC prescribing. Inpatients (n = 68) who received at least one APC dose during hospitalization over a 13 month pre-intervention period were compared to inpatients who received an APC during the 15 month post-intervention period (n = 59) for documented APC indications and β-lactam allergy history. APC initiations were measured and corrected per 1000 patient-days; interrupted time-series analysis was performed to assess changes in use before and after implementation. Aggregate monthly APC initiations decreased from 7.01 to 6.14 per 1000 patient-days after the implementation (p = 0.03). Post-intervention APC initiations for patients with low-risk β-lactam histories decreased from 92% to 83% (p = 0.17). No adverse events were observed in patients with low-risk β-lactam histories. The intervention was associated with a reduction in APC initiations.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Sci-hub)

公众号