使用PENFAST+评分评估迟发性青霉素超敏反应

IF 3.3 Q2 ALLERGY
Julie Castagna, François Chasset, Jean-Eric Autegarden, Claire Le Thai, Emmanuelle Amsler, Annick Barbaud, Angèle Soria
{"title":"使用PENFAST+评分评估迟发性青霉素超敏反应","authors":"Julie Castagna, François Chasset, Jean-Eric Autegarden, Claire Le Thai, Emmanuelle Amsler, Annick Barbaud, Angèle Soria","doi":"10.3389/falgy.2023.1302567","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction Approximately 10% of individuals report a suspected allergy to penicillin, but according to allergy work-ups, only 10%–15% of them are truly allergic. A clinical decision score, the PEN-FAST, was developed and validated to identify adults with low-risk penicillin allergy. Objectives The objective of this study was to improve the performance of the PEN-FAST score, particularly for those with delayed hypersensitivity (HS), by improving the negative predictive value. Methods STEP 1: Retrospective evaluation of the PEN-FAST score in patients with proven immediate and delayed penicillin allergy. STEP 2: Identification of additional criteria among Step 1 patients misclassified by PEN-FAST score. Development of the PEN-FAST+ score using multivariable logistic regression in a prospective cohort of patients with a suspicion of HS to penicillin. STEP 3: Comparison of diagnostic performances of PEN-FAST and PEN-FAST+ scores. Results The PEN-FAST score showed limitations in predicting the relapse of immediate skin HS or delayed maculopapular exanthema, with 28.6% and 38.4% of patients misclassified, respectively. We identified two potential additional criteria: skin rash lasting more than 7 days and immediate reaction occurring in less than 1 h (generalized or localized on palmoplantar area or scalp itching/heat feeling). A total of 32/252 (12.7%) patients were confirmed to be allergic to penicillin. With PEN-FAST, 37% of patients ( n = 10) with delayed allergic penicillin HS were misclassified. With PEN-FAST+, 3 patients with delayed HS confirmed by a ST (11.1%) were misclassified. The AUC was significantly higher for PEN-FAST+ than PEN-FAST (85% vs. 72%, p = 0.03).","PeriodicalId":73062,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in allergy","volume":"129 10","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing delayed penicillin hypersensitivity using the PENFAST+ score\",\"authors\":\"Julie Castagna, François Chasset, Jean-Eric Autegarden, Claire Le Thai, Emmanuelle Amsler, Annick Barbaud, Angèle Soria\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/falgy.2023.1302567\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction Approximately 10% of individuals report a suspected allergy to penicillin, but according to allergy work-ups, only 10%–15% of them are truly allergic. A clinical decision score, the PEN-FAST, was developed and validated to identify adults with low-risk penicillin allergy. Objectives The objective of this study was to improve the performance of the PEN-FAST score, particularly for those with delayed hypersensitivity (HS), by improving the negative predictive value. Methods STEP 1: Retrospective evaluation of the PEN-FAST score in patients with proven immediate and delayed penicillin allergy. STEP 2: Identification of additional criteria among Step 1 patients misclassified by PEN-FAST score. Development of the PEN-FAST+ score using multivariable logistic regression in a prospective cohort of patients with a suspicion of HS to penicillin. STEP 3: Comparison of diagnostic performances of PEN-FAST and PEN-FAST+ scores. Results The PEN-FAST score showed limitations in predicting the relapse of immediate skin HS or delayed maculopapular exanthema, with 28.6% and 38.4% of patients misclassified, respectively. We identified two potential additional criteria: skin rash lasting more than 7 days and immediate reaction occurring in less than 1 h (generalized or localized on palmoplantar area or scalp itching/heat feeling). A total of 32/252 (12.7%) patients were confirmed to be allergic to penicillin. With PEN-FAST, 37% of patients ( n = 10) with delayed allergic penicillin HS were misclassified. With PEN-FAST+, 3 patients with delayed HS confirmed by a ST (11.1%) were misclassified. The AUC was significantly higher for PEN-FAST+ than PEN-FAST (85% vs. 72%, p = 0.03).\",\"PeriodicalId\":73062,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in allergy\",\"volume\":\"129 10\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in allergy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/falgy.2023.1302567\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ALLERGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in allergy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/falgy.2023.1302567","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ALLERGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

大约10%的人报告怀疑对青霉素过敏,但根据过敏检查,只有10% - 15%的人真正过敏。开发并验证了临床决策评分PEN-FAST,以识别低风险青霉素过敏的成人。本研究的目的是通过提高阴性预测值来提高PEN-FAST评分的性能,特别是对于延迟性超敏反应(HS)患者。方法:步骤1:回顾性评估立即和延迟青霉素过敏患者的PEN-FAST评分。步骤2:在被PEN-FAST评分错误分类的第1步患者中确定额外的标准。在怀疑对青霉素有HS的前瞻性队列患者中使用多变量logistic回归建立PEN-FAST+评分。步骤3:PEN-FAST与PEN-FAST+评分诊断性能比较。结果penfast评分在预测即刻性皮肤HS或延迟性黄斑丘疹复发方面存在局限性,分别有28.6%和38.4%的患者分错。我们确定了两个潜在的附加标准:持续7天以上的皮疹和在不到1小时内发生的立即反应(全身或局限于掌足底区或头皮瘙痒/发热感)。共有32/252例(12.7%)患者被确诊为青霉素过敏。在PEN-FAST中,37% (n = 10)迟发性过敏性青霉素HS患者被错误分类。在PEN-FAST+中,3例经ST确诊的迟发性HS患者(11.1%)被误诊。PEN-FAST+的AUC显著高于PEN-FAST (85% vs. 72%, p = 0.03)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessing delayed penicillin hypersensitivity using the PENFAST+ score
Introduction Approximately 10% of individuals report a suspected allergy to penicillin, but according to allergy work-ups, only 10%–15% of them are truly allergic. A clinical decision score, the PEN-FAST, was developed and validated to identify adults with low-risk penicillin allergy. Objectives The objective of this study was to improve the performance of the PEN-FAST score, particularly for those with delayed hypersensitivity (HS), by improving the negative predictive value. Methods STEP 1: Retrospective evaluation of the PEN-FAST score in patients with proven immediate and delayed penicillin allergy. STEP 2: Identification of additional criteria among Step 1 patients misclassified by PEN-FAST score. Development of the PEN-FAST+ score using multivariable logistic regression in a prospective cohort of patients with a suspicion of HS to penicillin. STEP 3: Comparison of diagnostic performances of PEN-FAST and PEN-FAST+ scores. Results The PEN-FAST score showed limitations in predicting the relapse of immediate skin HS or delayed maculopapular exanthema, with 28.6% and 38.4% of patients misclassified, respectively. We identified two potential additional criteria: skin rash lasting more than 7 days and immediate reaction occurring in less than 1 h (generalized or localized on palmoplantar area or scalp itching/heat feeling). A total of 32/252 (12.7%) patients were confirmed to be allergic to penicillin. With PEN-FAST, 37% of patients ( n = 10) with delayed allergic penicillin HS were misclassified. With PEN-FAST+, 3 patients with delayed HS confirmed by a ST (11.1%) were misclassified. The AUC was significantly higher for PEN-FAST+ than PEN-FAST (85% vs. 72%, p = 0.03).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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