ArticleThe World Allergy Organization journal2024
Challenging dogmas: Intravenous versus oral beta-lactam antibiotic provocation tests.
Article in The World Allergy Organization journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Penicillin allergy de-labelling in the critical care unit: Simulations to design an intravenous drug provocation test that mirrors the plasma profile of an enteral challenge.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Drug provocation tests (DPT) are considered the gold standard procedure to ascertain the diagnosis of beta-lactam (BL) allergy. Regarding route of administration, current recommendations prioritize oral challenges, considering them safer, and reserving the intravenous route for drugs for which this is the only formulation. Objective: To compare in terms of tolerance and safety two protocols of BL DPT, using an oral protocol (OR-DPT) and an intravenous protocol (IV-DPT). Methods: A descriptive, retrospective study was performed, including adult patients who underwent IV-DPT or OR-DPT for suspected immediate or delayed hypersensitivity to BL antibiotics, over a period of 4 years (between January 2018 and December 2021). Demographical data, index hypersensivity reactions' characteristics and tolerance to DPT were reviewed. Results: A total of 1036 patients underwent DPT, mean age of 56.8 (standard deviation, SD, 17.8) years, 655 were women (63.2%). Immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHR) had occurred in 564 of patients (54.4%). OR-DPT were performed in 439 (42.4%) and IV-DPT in 597 (57.6%). The frequency of reactions during DPT, regardless of the route used, was low (3.6%): only 16 (3.6%) in OR-DPT and 21 (3.5%) in IV-DPT. From IV-DPT, 16 out 21 DHR during DPT were immediate compared with 4 out of 16 in OR-DPT. Adjusted relative risk of developing a hypersensitivity reaction during IV-DPT versus OR-DPT was 1.13 (95% confidence interval (CI)0.57-2.22). Conclusion: The results suggest that OR-DPT and IV-DPT are both safe procedures when adequately performed. However, IV-DPT protocols showed a higher rate of immediate DHR during DPT probably due to the selection of basal high-risk patients to undergo IV-DPT. In conclusion, IV-DPT may be considered as an option for challenges in drug-allergy studies, entailing a precise administration.
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.