评估青霉素过敏交叉反应警报修改后门诊增加头孢菌素使用的安全性。

IF 3 4区 医学 Q2 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Bryan Schneider, Kelly M Percival, Anna M Rhinehart, Jared Frye, Deanna L McDanel, Kevin L Bebout, Lukasz D Weiner, Sarah A Auerbach, Amy M Dowden, Dilek Ince, Patrick Kinn
{"title":"评估青霉素过敏交叉反应警报修改后门诊增加头孢菌素使用的安全性。","authors":"Bryan Schneider, Kelly M Percival, Anna M Rhinehart, Jared Frye, Deanna L McDanel, Kevin L Bebout, Lukasz D Weiner, Sarah A Auerbach, Amy M Dowden, Dilek Ince, Patrick Kinn","doi":"10.1017/ice.2025.9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Concerns about penicillin-cephalosporin cross-reactivity have historically led to conservative prescribing and avoidance of cephalosporins in patients with penicillin allergy labels, potentially causing suboptimal outcomes. Recent evidence suggests a lower risk of cross-reactivity, prompting a reassessment of alert systems.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the impact of limited penicillin cross-reactivity alerts on outpatient cephalosporin use and the incidence of adverse reactions in a healthcare setting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study compared cephalosporin prescribing and adverse reactions in patients labeled as penicillin-allergic before and after limiting penicillin cross-reactivity alerts in the electronic medical record at a large academic medical center.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 17,174 patients (8,131 pre- and 9,043 post-implementation), there was a statistically significant increase in outpatient cephalosporin prescribing by 8% (<i>P</i> < .001). The use of alternative antibiotic classes decreased. There was no statistically significant increase in adverse events pre- and post-implementation (0.036%-0.058%, <i>P</i> = .547), and no severe events were attributable to cross-reactivity. The alert modification reduced alerts by 92% (<i>P</i> < .001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The reduction of penicillin-cephalosporin cross-reactivity alerts was associated with increased cephalosporin use, without a significant increase in adverse reactions. This demonstrates that the practice is safe and decreases alert burden.</p>","PeriodicalId":13663,"journal":{"name":"Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology","volume":" ","pages":"1-6"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing the safety of increased outpatient cephalosporin use following the modification of penicillin allergy cross-reactivity alerts.\",\"authors\":\"Bryan Schneider, Kelly M Percival, Anna M Rhinehart, Jared Frye, Deanna L McDanel, Kevin L Bebout, Lukasz D Weiner, Sarah A Auerbach, Amy M Dowden, Dilek Ince, Patrick Kinn\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/ice.2025.9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Concerns about penicillin-cephalosporin cross-reactivity have historically led to conservative prescribing and avoidance of cephalosporins in patients with penicillin allergy labels, potentially causing suboptimal outcomes. Recent evidence suggests a lower risk of cross-reactivity, prompting a reassessment of alert systems.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the impact of limited penicillin cross-reactivity alerts on outpatient cephalosporin use and the incidence of adverse reactions in a healthcare setting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study compared cephalosporin prescribing and adverse reactions in patients labeled as penicillin-allergic before and after limiting penicillin cross-reactivity alerts in the electronic medical record at a large academic medical center.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 17,174 patients (8,131 pre- and 9,043 post-implementation), there was a statistically significant increase in outpatient cephalosporin prescribing by 8% (<i>P</i> < .001). The use of alternative antibiotic classes decreased. There was no statistically significant increase in adverse events pre- and post-implementation (0.036%-0.058%, <i>P</i> = .547), and no severe events were attributable to cross-reactivity. The alert modification reduced alerts by 92% (<i>P</i> < .001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The reduction of penicillin-cephalosporin cross-reactivity alerts was associated with increased cephalosporin use, without a significant increase in adverse reactions. This demonstrates that the practice is safe and decreases alert burden.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13663,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-6\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2025.9\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2025.9","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:对青霉素-头孢菌素交叉反应的担忧历来导致有青霉素过敏标签的患者保守处方和避免使用头孢菌素,这可能导致次优结果。最近的证据表明,交叉反应的风险较低,这促使人们重新评估警报系统。目的:评估有限的青霉素交叉反应警报对门诊头孢菌素使用和医疗机构不良反应发生率的影响。方法:本回顾性队列研究比较了一家大型学术医疗中心电子病历中青霉素交叉反应警报限制前后被标记为青霉素过敏的患者的头孢菌素处方和不良反应。结果:在17174例患者中(实施前8131例,实施后9043例),门诊头孢菌素处方增加了8% (P < 0.001),具有统计学意义。替代抗生素种类的使用减少。实施前后不良事件发生率无统计学差异(0.036% ~ 0.058%,P = .547),且无严重事件可归因于交叉反应。警报修改减少了92%的警报(P < 0.001)。结论:青霉素-头孢菌素交叉反应警报的减少与头孢菌素使用的增加有关,而不良反应没有显著增加。这表明这种做法是安全的,并减少了警报负担。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessing the safety of increased outpatient cephalosporin use following the modification of penicillin allergy cross-reactivity alerts.

Background: Concerns about penicillin-cephalosporin cross-reactivity have historically led to conservative prescribing and avoidance of cephalosporins in patients with penicillin allergy labels, potentially causing suboptimal outcomes. Recent evidence suggests a lower risk of cross-reactivity, prompting a reassessment of alert systems.

Objective: To assess the impact of limited penicillin cross-reactivity alerts on outpatient cephalosporin use and the incidence of adverse reactions in a healthcare setting.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study compared cephalosporin prescribing and adverse reactions in patients labeled as penicillin-allergic before and after limiting penicillin cross-reactivity alerts in the electronic medical record at a large academic medical center.

Results: Among 17,174 patients (8,131 pre- and 9,043 post-implementation), there was a statistically significant increase in outpatient cephalosporin prescribing by 8% (P < .001). The use of alternative antibiotic classes decreased. There was no statistically significant increase in adverse events pre- and post-implementation (0.036%-0.058%, P = .547), and no severe events were attributable to cross-reactivity. The alert modification reduced alerts by 92% (P < .001).

Conclusion: The reduction of penicillin-cephalosporin cross-reactivity alerts was associated with increased cephalosporin use, without a significant increase in adverse reactions. This demonstrates that the practice is safe and decreases alert burden.

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
6.40
自引率
6.70%
发文量
289
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology provides original, peer-reviewed scientific articles for anyone involved with an infection control or epidemiology program in a hospital or healthcare facility. Written by infection control practitioners and epidemiologists and guided by an editorial board composed of the nation''s leaders in the field, ICHE provides a critical forum for this vital information.
×
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