ArticleInfection2024
Implementation and outcomes of beta-lactam allergy management protocol at a comprehensive cancer center.
Article in Infection, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeBeta-lactam allergy (BLA) is associated with increased broad-spectrum antibiotic (Br-ABX) use and worse clinical outcomes. We evaluated our hospital-wide BLA protocol (BLA-P) that used following categories: intolerance, low-risk, and high-risk.
methodsHospitalized adult patients with listed BLA during 10/2021-12/2022 were eligible. Exclusions were critically ill, surgical, hospice or comfort care, or non-verbal patients. Assessment was counted each time a pharmacist evaluated BLA. Interventions were no further action (high-risk allergy, patient refusal, unstable clinical status), updated allergy label, or delabeled. Delabeling was done either based on antibiotic history (direct-delabeling), or via test-dose challenge for low-risk patients. Br-ABX usage was compared in the unique delabeled patients: the empiric antibiotic use 90 days post-delabeling versus pre-delabeling using McNemar test (SPSS).
resultsA total of 700 assessments in 631 patients were identified. 441 assessments in 377 patients (median 63 years-old, 41% male, 50% hematological cancer) met inclusion criteria. The assessments revealed 9% intolerance, 55% low-risk, 23% high-risk and 13% unknown reaction. Interventions resulted in no further action 7%, updated label 72%, and delabeling 21%. 65% of the delabeling was via direct-delabeling and 35% test-dose challenge. Among patients who received a test-dose challenge, 36/36(97%) had no documented allergic reactions, and 1/26(3%) developed a mild rash. The use of aztreonam (pre-delabeling 28% vs. post-delabeling 1.2%, p < 0.001) and meropenem (13% vs. 2.4%, p = 0.022) significantly decreased while cefepime (24% vs. 50%, p = 0.001) and piperacillin-tazobactam (3.7% vs. 22%, p < 0.001) increased after delabeling.
conclusionBLA-P led to 21% delabeling, which resulted in increased preferred Br-ABX and decrease in aztreonam/meropenem use among delabeled patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38907094What 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.