ReviewmHealth2025
Telemedicine-supported penicillin allergy delabeling in low-risk patients.
Review in mHealth, 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.
- De-Labelling Penicillin Allergies in the Paediatric Emergency Department.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The advancement of telemedicine (TM) practices has enabled greater access for allergists to assess suspected drug allergies. While penicillin allergy delabeling by drug challenges may not seem suitable for TM due to the need for close patient observation and rapid access to emergency care, it is important not to shy away from discussing the potential for initial drug hypersensitivity assessments and even direct amoxicillin oral provocation in low-risk patients under TM conditions. Through an extensive literature analysis, this narrative review discusses clinical practices, eligibility criteria, and safety considerations regarding virtual care for safe penicillin allergy delabeling in such patients. Emphasis is placed on risk stratification using recently validated clinical tools and expert opinion strategies, such as PEN-FAST [penicillin (PEN) allergy, an occurrence of five or fewer years ago (F), anaphylaxis or angioedema (A), severe cutaneous adverse reaction/SCAR (S), and treatment required for allergic reaction (T)] score and European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI)/European Network on Drug Allergy (ENDA) practical recommendations, to identify the low-risk patients suitable for remote assessment and TM-supported amoxicillin challenges, if necessary, which may be performed in outpatient departments, long-term care facilities or other remote settings, including the patient's home. The clinical practice review summarizes initial evaluation protocols, virtual monitoring procedures in case of low-risk oral provocations, and post-challenge follow-up, underlining the importance of informed consent, patient education, and caregiver presence. Oral H1 antihistamines are recommended for symptomatic relief if needed, and the benefits of acquiring an epinephrine autoinjector solely for the challenge represent a juncture for shared decision-making. While TM offers promising avenues to expand access to penicillin allergy delabeling in low-risk individuals, it is not a substitute for in-person evaluation in high- or intermediate-risk cases. The review also highlights technological, ethical, and legal challenges, serving only as an informational resource.
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.