电子青霉素过敏风险评估工具在孕妇群体中的可靠性和验证。

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q2 ALLERGY
Joanne Wang, Chelsea Elwood, Vanessa Paquette, Natasha Kwan, Stephanie Erdle, Melissa Watt, Julie Van Schalkwyk, Jeffrey N Bone, Ashley Roberts, Raymond Mak, Tiffany Wong
{"title":"电子青霉素过敏风险评估工具在孕妇群体中的可靠性和验证。","authors":"Joanne Wang, Chelsea Elwood, Vanessa Paquette, Natasha Kwan, Stephanie Erdle, Melissa Watt, Julie Van Schalkwyk, Jeffrey N Bone, Ashley Roberts, Raymond Mak, Tiffany Wong","doi":"10.1186/s13223-024-00918-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Penicillin allergy adversely impacts patient care, yet most cases do not have true allergies. Clinicians require efficient, reliable clinical tools to identify low risk patients who can be safely de-labeled. Our center implemented the FIRSTLINE electronic point-of-care decision support tool to help non-allergist practitioners risk stratify patients with penicillin allergy. We sought to explore the reliability and validity of this tool in relation to allergist assessment and actual patient outcomes. We additionally compared it with two other published stratification tools, JAMA and PENFAST, to assess ability to accurately identify low risk patients appropriate for direct oral challenge.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this single-center, retrospective, observational study, 181 pregnant females with self-reported penicillin allergy between July 2019 to June 2021 at BC Women's Hospital, Vancouver, Canada were used to assess the reliability and validity of all three tools. Physician-guided history of penicillin use and symptoms were used for scoring. Results and recommendations were compared to actual patient outcomes after clinician decision for direct oral challenge or intradermal tests. We compared the performance of JAMA, PENFAST and FIRSTLINE.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>181 patients were assessed. 176/181 (97.2%) patients were deemed not allergic. Each risk stratification tool labelled majority of patients as low risk with 88.4% of patients PENFAST 0-2, 60.2% of patients JAMA low risk, 86.7% of patients FIRSTLINE very low risk.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We demonstrate that our point-of-care electronic algorithm is reliable in identifying low risk pregnant patients, as compared to an allergist assessment. To our knowledge, this is the first study to provide direct comparison between multiple decision support tools using the same population, minimizing participant bias. Providing clinical algorithms to risk stratify patients, can enable healthcare professionals to safely identify individuals who may be candidates for direct penicillin oral challenges versus needing referral to specialists. This increases the generalizability and efficiency of penicillin allergy de-labeling.</p>","PeriodicalId":51302,"journal":{"name":"Allergy Asthma and Clinical Immunology","volume":"20 1","pages":"55"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11490178/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reliability and validation of an electronic penicillin allergy risk-assessment tool in a pregnant population.\",\"authors\":\"Joanne Wang, Chelsea Elwood, Vanessa Paquette, Natasha Kwan, Stephanie Erdle, Melissa Watt, Julie Van Schalkwyk, Jeffrey N Bone, Ashley Roberts, Raymond Mak, Tiffany Wong\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13223-024-00918-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Penicillin allergy adversely impacts patient care, yet most cases do not have true allergies. Clinicians require efficient, reliable clinical tools to identify low risk patients who can be safely de-labeled. Our center implemented the FIRSTLINE electronic point-of-care decision support tool to help non-allergist practitioners risk stratify patients with penicillin allergy. We sought to explore the reliability and validity of this tool in relation to allergist assessment and actual patient outcomes. We additionally compared it with two other published stratification tools, JAMA and PENFAST, to assess ability to accurately identify low risk patients appropriate for direct oral challenge.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this single-center, retrospective, observational study, 181 pregnant females with self-reported penicillin allergy between July 2019 to June 2021 at BC Women's Hospital, Vancouver, Canada were used to assess the reliability and validity of all three tools. Physician-guided history of penicillin use and symptoms were used for scoring. Results and recommendations were compared to actual patient outcomes after clinician decision for direct oral challenge or intradermal tests. We compared the performance of JAMA, PENFAST and FIRSTLINE.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>181 patients were assessed. 176/181 (97.2%) patients were deemed not allergic. Each risk stratification tool labelled majority of patients as low risk with 88.4% of patients PENFAST 0-2, 60.2% of patients JAMA low risk, 86.7% of patients FIRSTLINE very low risk.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We demonstrate that our point-of-care electronic algorithm is reliable in identifying low risk pregnant patients, as compared to an allergist assessment. To our knowledge, this is the first study to provide direct comparison between multiple decision support tools using the same population, minimizing participant bias. Providing clinical algorithms to risk stratify patients, can enable healthcare professionals to safely identify individuals who may be candidates for direct penicillin oral challenges versus needing referral to specialists. This increases the generalizability and efficiency of penicillin allergy de-labeling.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51302,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Allergy Asthma and Clinical Immunology\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"55\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11490178/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Allergy Asthma and Clinical Immunology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13223-024-00918-3\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ALLERGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Allergy Asthma and Clinical Immunology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13223-024-00918-3","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ALLERGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:青霉素过敏会对患者护理产生不利影响,但大多数病例并非真正过敏。临床医生需要高效、可靠的临床工具来识别可以安全去标签的低风险患者。我们中心采用了 FIRSTLINE 电子护理点决策支持工具,帮助非过敏科医生对青霉素过敏患者进行风险分层。我们试图探究该工具与过敏学家评估和患者实际结果之间的可靠性和有效性。此外,我们还将其与其他两种已发布的分层工具(JAMA 和 PENFAST)进行了比较,以评估准确识别适合直接口服挑战的低风险患者的能力:在这项单中心、回顾性、观察性研究中,我们使用了加拿大温哥华不列颠哥伦比亚省妇女医院在 2019 年 7 月至 2021 年 6 月期间自报青霉素过敏的 181 名孕妇,以评估这三种工具的可靠性和有效性。医生指导下的青霉素使用史和症状用于评分。将结果和建议与临床医生决定直接口服或皮内试验后患者的实际结果进行比较。我们比较了 JAMA、PENFAST 和 FIRSTLINE 的性能:对 181 名患者进行了评估。176/181(97.2%)名患者被认为不过敏。每种风险分层工具都将大多数患者定为低风险,其中 88.4% 的患者 PENFAST 为 0-2,60.2% 的患者 JAMA 为低风险,86.7% 的患者 FIRSTLINE 为极低风险:我们证明,与过敏专科医生的评估相比,我们的护理点电子算法在识别低风险妊娠患者方面是可靠的。据我们所知,这是第一项利用同一人群对多种决策支持工具进行直接比较的研究,最大限度地减少了参与者的偏差。提供临床算法对患者进行风险分层,可使医护人员安全地识别出哪些人可能适合直接接受青霉素口服挑战,而不需要转诊至专科医生。这就提高了青霉素过敏脱敏的通用性和效率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reliability and validation of an electronic penicillin allergy risk-assessment tool in a pregnant population.

Background: Penicillin allergy adversely impacts patient care, yet most cases do not have true allergies. Clinicians require efficient, reliable clinical tools to identify low risk patients who can be safely de-labeled. Our center implemented the FIRSTLINE electronic point-of-care decision support tool to help non-allergist practitioners risk stratify patients with penicillin allergy. We sought to explore the reliability and validity of this tool in relation to allergist assessment and actual patient outcomes. We additionally compared it with two other published stratification tools, JAMA and PENFAST, to assess ability to accurately identify low risk patients appropriate for direct oral challenge.

Methods: In this single-center, retrospective, observational study, 181 pregnant females with self-reported penicillin allergy between July 2019 to June 2021 at BC Women's Hospital, Vancouver, Canada were used to assess the reliability and validity of all three tools. Physician-guided history of penicillin use and symptoms were used for scoring. Results and recommendations were compared to actual patient outcomes after clinician decision for direct oral challenge or intradermal tests. We compared the performance of JAMA, PENFAST and FIRSTLINE.

Results: 181 patients were assessed. 176/181 (97.2%) patients were deemed not allergic. Each risk stratification tool labelled majority of patients as low risk with 88.4% of patients PENFAST 0-2, 60.2% of patients JAMA low risk, 86.7% of patients FIRSTLINE very low risk.

Conclusion: We demonstrate that our point-of-care electronic algorithm is reliable in identifying low risk pregnant patients, as compared to an allergist assessment. To our knowledge, this is the first study to provide direct comparison between multiple decision support tools using the same population, minimizing participant bias. Providing clinical algorithms to risk stratify patients, can enable healthcare professionals to safely identify individuals who may be candidates for direct penicillin oral challenges versus needing referral to specialists. This increases the generalizability and efficiency of penicillin allergy de-labeling.

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
4.30
自引率
3.70%
发文量
96
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology (AACI), the official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (CSACI), is an open access journal that encompasses all aspects of diagnosis, epidemiology, prevention and treatment of allergic and immunologic disease. By offering a high-visibility forum for new insights and discussions, AACI provides a platform for the dissemination of allergy and clinical immunology research and reviews amongst allergists, pulmonologists, immunologists and other physicians, healthcare workers, medical students and the public worldwide. AACI reports on basic research and clinically applied studies in the following areas and other related topics: asthma and occupational lung disease, rhinoconjunctivitis and rhinosinusitis, drug hypersensitivity, allergic skin diseases, urticaria and angioedema, venom hypersensitivity, anaphylaxis and food allergy, immunotherapy, immune modulators and biologics, immune deficiency and autoimmunity, T cell and B cell functions, regulatory T cells, natural killer cells, mast cell and eosinophil functions, complement abnormalities.
×
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