ArticleEye (London, England)2025
Prescribing carbonic anhydrase inhibitors to patients with "sulfa" antibiotics allergy: do we dare?
Article in Eye (London, England), 2025. 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.
- Allergic Contact Dermatitis From Dorzolamide Without Cross-Reactivity to Brinzolamide.Contact dermatitis · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate if provider characteristics affect attitude toward carbonic anhydrase inhibitors (CAI) prescription for patients with history of sulfonamide antibiotic (SA) hypersensitivity.
methodsA survey querying providers' attitudes toward CAI prescription in hypothetical patients with prior SA hypersensitivity was distributed to four ophthalmology and optometry organizations. Logistic regression was used to assess the relationship between avoiding CAI and profession, specialty, organizational affiliation, and years in practice.
resultsOf 250 respondents, 27% and 52% would avoid topical and oral CAI, respectively, in patients with prior SA rash and/or urticaria. >90% would avoid oral CAI in patients with prior severe SA hypersensitivity. Respondents with >10 years in practice were more likely to avoid oral CAI in patients with prior SA rash and/or urticaria than those with ≤10 (OR 2.27, p = 0.002). Respondents affiliated with non-glaucoma organizations were more likely to avoid oral CAI in patients with prior SA rash and/or urticaria than those affiliated with glaucoma organizations (p = 0.03). Providers without glaucoma training were more likely to avoid topical CAI in patients with prior SA rash and/or urticaria (p = 0.004) and anaphylaxis (p = 0.01) than glaucoma-trained providers.
conclusionsDespite no supporting evidence, a significant number of respondents would avoid CAI in patients with prior SA hypersensitivity. Respondents without glaucoma training, no affiliation with a glaucoma organization, and >10 years in practice are more likely to avoid CAI in patients with type I SA hypersensitivity. Providers should be informed of the low cross-reactivity risk between CAI and SA so more patients may benefit from these drugs.
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.