Comparative Performance of 4 Penicillin-Allergy Prediction Strategies in a Large Cohort.

IF 8.2 1区 医学 Q1 ALLERGY
Ileana-Maria Ghiordanescu, Iuliana Ciocănea-Teodorescu, Nicolas Molinari, Anais Jelen, Omar Al-Ali, Rik Schrijvers, Pascal Demoly, Anca Mirela Chiriac
{"title":"Comparative Performance of 4 Penicillin-Allergy Prediction Strategies in a Large Cohort.","authors":"Ileana-Maria Ghiordanescu, Iuliana Ciocănea-Teodorescu, Nicolas Molinari, Anais Jelen, Omar Al-Ali, Rik Schrijvers, Pascal Demoly, Anca Mirela Chiriac","doi":"10.1016/j.jaip.2024.07.012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A safe and pragmatic guide for labelling and delabelling patients with suspected penicillin allergy is mandatory.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the performance of 4 penicillin-allergy prediction strategies in a large independent cohort.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective study for subjects presenting between January 2014 and December 2021 at the University Hospital of Montpellier, with a history of hypersensitivity to penicillins. The outcome targeted by the study was a positive penicillin-allergy test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 1,884 participants included, 382 (20.3%) had positive penicillin-allergy tests. The ENDA (European Network on Drug Allergy) and Blumenthal strategies yielded relatively high sensitivities and low specificities and, by design, did not misclassify any positive subjects with severe index reactions. The PEN-FAST <3 score had a negative predictive value of 90% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 88%-91%), with a sensitivity of 66% (95% CI 62%-71%) and a specificity of 73% (95% CI 71%-75%), and incorrectly delabelled 18 subjects with anaphylaxis and 15 with other severe nonimmediate reactions. For the adapted Chiriac score, the specificity corresponding to 66% sensitivity was 73% (95% CI 70%-75%). Conversely, at a 73% specificity threshold, the sensitivity was 65% (95% CI, 61%-70%). Attempts to improve these prediction algorithms did not substantially enhance performance.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The ENDA and Blumenthal strategies are safe for high-risk subjects, but their delabelling effectiveness is limited, leading to unnecessary avoidance. Conversely, the PEN-FAST and Chiriac scores are performant in delabelling, but more frequently misclassify high-risk subjects with positive penicillin-allergy tests. Selection of the most appropriate tool requires careful consideration of the target population and the desired goal.</p>","PeriodicalId":51323,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology-In Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology-In Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaip.2024.07.012","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ALLERGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: A safe and pragmatic guide for labelling and delabelling patients with suspected penicillin allergy is mandatory.

Objective: To compare the performance of 4 penicillin-allergy prediction strategies in a large independent cohort.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective study for subjects presenting between January 2014 and December 2021 at the University Hospital of Montpellier, with a history of hypersensitivity to penicillins. The outcome targeted by the study was a positive penicillin-allergy test.

Results: Of the 1,884 participants included, 382 (20.3%) had positive penicillin-allergy tests. The ENDA (European Network on Drug Allergy) and Blumenthal strategies yielded relatively high sensitivities and low specificities and, by design, did not misclassify any positive subjects with severe index reactions. The PEN-FAST <3 score had a negative predictive value of 90% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 88%-91%), with a sensitivity of 66% (95% CI 62%-71%) and a specificity of 73% (95% CI 71%-75%), and incorrectly delabelled 18 subjects with anaphylaxis and 15 with other severe nonimmediate reactions. For the adapted Chiriac score, the specificity corresponding to 66% sensitivity was 73% (95% CI 70%-75%). Conversely, at a 73% specificity threshold, the sensitivity was 65% (95% CI, 61%-70%). Attempts to improve these prediction algorithms did not substantially enhance performance.

Conclusions: The ENDA and Blumenthal strategies are safe for high-risk subjects, but their delabelling effectiveness is limited, leading to unnecessary avoidance. Conversely, the PEN-FAST and Chiriac scores are performant in delabelling, but more frequently misclassify high-risk subjects with positive penicillin-allergy tests. Selection of the most appropriate tool requires careful consideration of the target population and the desired goal.

大样本中四种青霉素过敏预测策略的性能比较。
背景:必须为疑似青霉素过敏的患者提供安全实用的标签和去标签指南:必须为疑似青霉素过敏患者的贴标和脱标提供安全实用的指南:在一个大型独立队列中比较四种青霉素过敏预测策略的性能:我们对 2014 年 1 月 1 日至 2021 年 12 月 12 日期间在蒙彼利埃大学医院就诊的青霉素过敏史患者进行了一项回顾性研究。研究的目标结果是青霉素过敏试验呈阳性:结果:1884 名参与者中,382 人(20.3%)的青霉素过敏测试结果呈阳性。ENDA(欧洲药物过敏网络)策略和 Blumenthal 策略的灵敏度相对较高,特异性较低,而且在设计上不会误判任何具有严重指数反应的阳性受试者。PEN-FASTC结论:ENDA和Blumenthal策略对高风险受试者是安全的,但其脱标效果有限,导致不必要的回避。相反,PEN-FAST 和 Chiriac 评分在去标签方面表现良好,但更经常误判青霉素过敏测试呈阳性的高风险受试者。选择最合适的工具需要仔细考虑目标人群和预期目标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
11.10
自引率
9.60%
发文量
683
审稿时长
50 days
期刊介绍: JACI: In Practice is an official publication of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI). It is a companion title to The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, and it aims to provide timely clinical papers, case reports, and management recommendations to clinical allergists and other physicians dealing with allergic and immunologic diseases in their practice. The mission of JACI: In Practice is to offer valid and impactful information that supports evidence-based clinical decisions in the diagnosis and management of asthma, allergies, immunologic conditions, and related diseases. This journal publishes articles on various conditions treated by allergist-immunologists, including food allergy, respiratory disorders (such as asthma, rhinitis, nasal polyps, sinusitis, cough, ABPA, and hypersensitivity pneumonitis), drug allergy, insect sting allergy, anaphylaxis, dermatologic disorders (such as atopic dermatitis, contact dermatitis, urticaria, angioedema, and HAE), immunodeficiency, autoinflammatory syndromes, eosinophilic disorders, and mast cell disorders. The focus of the journal is on providing cutting-edge clinical information that practitioners can use in their everyday practice or to acquire new knowledge and skills for the benefit of their patients. However, mechanistic or translational studies without immediate or near future clinical relevance, as well as animal studies, are not within the scope of the journal.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信