ReviewInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2021
The role of a clinical pharmacist in spurious Penicillin allergy: a narrative review.
Review in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2021. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Drug allergy knowledge, attitude, and practice: A survey among doctors and pharmacists in public health facilities of Sabah, Malaysia.Asia Pacific allergy · 2023Article
- Delabelling multiple antibiotic allergy: Practical issues.Frontiers in allergy · 2023Review
- Characterization, epidemiology and risk factors of multiple drug allergy syndrome and multiple drug intolerance syndrome: A systematic review.Clinical and translational allergy · 2022Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background A label of penicillin allergy is held by 6-10% of the general population and 15-20% of inpatients. > 90% of these labels are found to be spurious after formal allergy assessment. Carrying an unnecessary label of penicillin allergy is not benign. Such patients may receive second line, more expensive antibiotics, representing a significant impediment to antimicrobial stewardship. Aim of the review To (a) Explain the burden of spurious penicillin allergy, and evaluate the safety of direct oral penicillin challenge in 'low risk' patients (b) appraise the place for a clinical pharmacist-led penicillin allergy de-labelling programme. Method Narrative review. Search engines: PubMed, Google Scholar and Cochrane reviews. Search criteria: English language; search terms: penicillin allergy, antimicrobial stewardship, antimicrobial resistance, clostridium difficile, vancomycin resistant enterococci, risk stratification, clinical pharmacist and direct oral provocation test Results Penicillin allergy labels are associated with: longer hospital stay, higher readmission rates, enhanced risk of surgical site infections, risk of Clostridioides difficile infection and Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection, a delay in the first dose of an antibiotic in sepsis and higher healthcare costs. A direct oral penicillin challenge in 'low risk' patients has proven to be safe. Discussion Recent studies including those led by a clinical pharmacist have demonstrated safety of a direct oral penicillin challenge in 'low risk' patients. This intervention needs validation within individual health services. Conclusion Direct oral penicillin challenge reduces the adverse impact of spurious penicillin allergy. A pharmacist-led penicillin allergy de-labelling program needs further validation in prospective multi-centre studies.
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.