ArticleJournal of investigative medicine high impact case reports
Occupational Anaphylaxis to Piperacillin-Tazobactam in a Nurse: A Case Report.
Article in Journal of investigative medicine high impact case reports. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Piperacillin-tazobactam is a widely used β-lactam antibiotic, yet occupational systemic anaphylaxis remains exceptionally rare. We report the case of a 26-year-old female nurse with persistent atopic dermatitis and previous history of allergic contact dermatitis to nickel and cobalt, who developed occupational anaphylaxis while preparing intravenous cefuroxime and piperacillin-tazobactam. She presented with acute erythematous papules, rhinorrhea, wheezing, dyspnea, and tachycardia, requiring treatment with intramuscular epinephrine, intravenous clemastine, and hydrocortisone, with complete clinical resolution. She later tolerated cefuroxime handling but developed a generalized rash following accidental skin contact with piperacillin-tazobactam powder. No cofactors were identified, and no reactions occurred outside the workplace. Skin prick testing was performed and elicited an exuberant positive response, with a wheal >20 mm, marked erythema, pruritus, and satellite vesicles after 15 minutes. Additional work-up showed positive specific IgE to penicilloyl G and amoxicillin, with negative latex and formaldehyde testing and normal baseline tryptase. This case supports piperacillin-tazobactam as a potential occupational allergen capable of inducing severe IgE-mediated reactions through non-therapeutic exposure, possibly via inhalation or skin contact during drug reconstitution. Early recognition, diagnostic confirmation, exposure avoidance, and workplace adjustments are essential to prevent recurrent reactions and reduce the risk of occupational disability. In selected cases transfer to a low-exposure work environment may be required. This case reinforces that non-therapeutic occupational exposure to piperacillin-tazobactam can lead to life-threatening IgE-mediated anaphylaxis, highlighting the need for increased awareness and structured preventive strategies in healthcare settings.
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.