ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2012
Is a positive history of non-anaesthetic drug allergy a predictive factor for positive allergy tests to anaesthetics?
Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intradermal skin tests for rocuronium and cisatracurium in patients with a history of allergy: a retrospective study.Korean journal of anesthesiology · 2018Article
- Antituberculosis Drug-Induced Fixed Drug Eruption: A Case Report.Drug safety - case reports · 2018Article
- Recent applications of basophil activation tests in the diagnosis of drug hypersensitivity.Asia Pacific allergy · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsInternational recommendations stipulate not performing screening skin tests to a drug in the absence of a clinical history consistent with that specific drug allergy. Nevertheless, two publications showed that a positive history of non-anaesthetic drug allergy was the only predictive factor for a positive skin test when screening for allergy to anaesthetic drugs was done. We selected from a surgical population 40 volunteers with a prior history of allergy to non-anaesthetic drugs in order to analyse the prevalence of positive allergy tests to anaesthetics.
methodsThe selected adult patients were tested for 11 anaesthetic drugs using in vivo tests: skin prick (SPT) and intradermal (IDT) tests and in vitro tests: the basophil activation test (BAT) and detection of drug-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE).
resultsThe prevalence for the positive SPT and IDT was 1.6% and 5.8% respectively. The result of flow cytometry agreed with the SPT in five out of seven positive SPT (71%). IgEs confirmed two positive SPT with corresponding positive BAT. Ten per cent of the patients had a positive prick test to neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA). For midazolam none of the SPT was positive, but 11 patients had positive IDT nonconfirmed by BAT.
conclusionThe prevalence of positive in vivo and in vitro allergy tests to NMBAs is higher in our study population. This could be an argument for pre-operative SPT to NMBAs for the surgical population with reported non-anaesthetic drug allergies. A larger prospective study is needed to validate changes in clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.