β-lactam exposure outcome among patients with a documented allergy to penicillins post-implementation of a new electronic medical record system and alerting rules.

Q3 Medicine
JAMMI Pub Date : 2021-07-20 eCollection Date: 2021-06-01 DOI:10.3138/jammi-2020-0050
Brittany Buffone, Yu-Chen Lin, Jennifer Grant
{"title":"β-lactam exposure outcome among patients with a documented allergy to penicillins post-implementation of a new electronic medical record system and alerting rules.","authors":"Brittany Buffone,&nbsp;Yu-Chen Lin,&nbsp;Jennifer Grant","doi":"10.3138/jammi-2020-0050","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Recent studies suggest that type I hypersensitivity cross-reactivity between β-lactam antibiotics is due to side chain similarity and not the common β-lactam ring. As a result, the prescriber-alerting rules of an electronic medical record (EMR) system were adjusted to only flag prescribers when prescribing penicillins or β-lactams with similar side chains (viz, cephalexin, cefadroxil, and cefoxitin) to patients with a documented allergy to penicillins. This study was conducted to assess and confirm the safety of the adjusted alerting rules; the primary outcome was the prevalence of anaphylaxis on β-lactam re-exposure.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective chart review was conducted for patients who, under the reformed alerting rules, received a β-lactam antibiotic post-documentation of an allergy to penicillins in their EMR from April 2018 to July 2019 at a 268-bed community hospital. Given the volume of eligible patients, a 25% sample was randomly selected for review from initiation of the β-lactam antibiotic up to 30 days post-exposure to determine the prevalence of anaphylaxis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 325 charts reviewed, 300 patients (92.3%) received a β-lactam antibiotic with a different side chain than penicillins (not alerted on prescribing). Chart review of these 300 patients confirmed no reports of anaphylaxis secondary to β-lactam exposure (0%), and two patients developed non-anaphylactic delayed reactions (rash).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There were no reports of immediate life-threatening anaphylaxis under the reformed alerting rules, despite 25 patients (7.7%) receiving an alerted drug, such as piperacillin-tazobactam. The reformed alerting rules better reflect current literature and reduce the risk of prescriber-alerting fatigue without compromising patient safety. The occurrence of delayed reactions reinforced the need to monitor for these reactions on β-lactam antibiotic prescribing.</p>","PeriodicalId":36782,"journal":{"name":"JAMMI","volume":"6 2","pages":"104-113"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9608696/pdf/jammi-2020-0050.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMMI","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jammi-2020-0050","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/6/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: Recent studies suggest that type I hypersensitivity cross-reactivity between β-lactam antibiotics is due to side chain similarity and not the common β-lactam ring. As a result, the prescriber-alerting rules of an electronic medical record (EMR) system were adjusted to only flag prescribers when prescribing penicillins or β-lactams with similar side chains (viz, cephalexin, cefadroxil, and cefoxitin) to patients with a documented allergy to penicillins. This study was conducted to assess and confirm the safety of the adjusted alerting rules; the primary outcome was the prevalence of anaphylaxis on β-lactam re-exposure.

Methods: Retrospective chart review was conducted for patients who, under the reformed alerting rules, received a β-lactam antibiotic post-documentation of an allergy to penicillins in their EMR from April 2018 to July 2019 at a 268-bed community hospital. Given the volume of eligible patients, a 25% sample was randomly selected for review from initiation of the β-lactam antibiotic up to 30 days post-exposure to determine the prevalence of anaphylaxis.

Results: Of the 325 charts reviewed, 300 patients (92.3%) received a β-lactam antibiotic with a different side chain than penicillins (not alerted on prescribing). Chart review of these 300 patients confirmed no reports of anaphylaxis secondary to β-lactam exposure (0%), and two patients developed non-anaphylactic delayed reactions (rash).

Conclusions: There were no reports of immediate life-threatening anaphylaxis under the reformed alerting rules, despite 25 patients (7.7%) receiving an alerted drug, such as piperacillin-tazobactam. The reformed alerting rules better reflect current literature and reduce the risk of prescriber-alerting fatigue without compromising patient safety. The occurrence of delayed reactions reinforced the need to monitor for these reactions on β-lactam antibiotic prescribing.

Abstract Image

在新的电子病历系统和警报规则实施后,有青霉素过敏记录的患者的β-内酰胺暴露结果
背景:最近的研究表明,β-内酰胺类抗生素之间的I型超敏交叉反应性是由于侧链相似,而不是由于共同的β-内酰胺环。因此,电子医疗记录(EMR)系统的处方提醒规则被调整为仅在向记录有青霉素过敏的患者开青霉素或具有类似侧链的β-内酰胺类药物(即头孢氨苄、头孢丙罗西林和头孢西丁)时才标示处方者。本研究旨在评估和确认调整后的报警规则的安全性;主要结局是β-内酰胺再暴露后的过敏反应发生率。方法:回顾性分析2018年4月至2019年7月在一家拥有268张床位的社区医院,根据改革后的预警规则,在EMR中对青霉素过敏记录后接受β-内酰胺类抗生素治疗的患者。考虑到符合条件的患者数量,随机选择25%的样本进行审查,从开始使用β-内酰胺抗生素到暴露后30天,以确定过敏反应的患病率。结果:在回顾的325份图表中,300名患者(92.3%)接受了与青霉素侧链不同的β-内酰胺类抗生素(处方时未提示)。对这300名患者的图表审查证实,没有报告β-内酰胺暴露继发过敏反应(0%),2名患者出现非过敏性延迟反应(皮疹)。结论:在改革后的警示规则下,尽管有25例(7.7%)患者使用了警示药物,如哌拉西林-他唑巴坦,但没有立即危及生命的过敏反应报告。改革后的警示规则更好地反映了当前的文献,并在不损害患者安全的情况下减少了处方警示疲劳的风险。延迟反应的发生加强了在β-内酰胺类抗生素处方中监测这些反应的必要性。
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
JAMMI
JAMMI Medicine-Infectious Diseases
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
48
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信