Identificación y caracterización de herramientas para evaluar la alergia a las penicilinas: Revisión estructurada / Identification and characterization of tools used to assess penicillin allergy: structured review

Introducción: Las reacciones alérgicas son uno de los problemas de seguridad más graves asociadas al uso de medicamentos, siendo la alergia a los antibióticos betalactámicos la más prevalente. Las pruebas de alergia a las penicilinas pueden ayudar a identificar pacientes hospitalizados y ambulatorios que podrían tolerar y usar de manera segura este grupo de antibióticos y evitar rótulos que limiten el uso de antibióticos betalactámicos por tiempo indefinido. Objetivo: Identificar las herramientas disponibles en la literatura para valorar el antecedente de alergia a las penicilinas y proponer una herramienta que consolide la información extraída. Metodología: Revisión estructurada en PubMed/MEDLINE entre 1 junio 2015 hasta 30 noviembre 2022, utilizando los términos MeSH: (((“skin tests”[MeSH Terms]) OR (“skin irritancy tests”[MeSH Terms])) AND (“penicillins”[All Fields])) AND (“drug hypersensitivity”[MeSH Terms]). Publicaciones en inglés y español con acceso a texto completo y estudios realizados en humanos, sobre herramientas disponibles para evaluar la alergia a penicilinas fueron incluidos. Resultados: Se identificaron201 artículos, de los cuales se incluyeron 108. Dentro de las herramientas para evaluar la alergia a las penicilinas se identificaron: a) pruebas in vivo: pruebas cutáneas, pruebas de provocación oral, pruebas del parche; y b) pruebas in vitro: pruebas de IgE específica, determinación de triptasa, histamina. De los 1181 pacientes reportados con alergia a las penicilinas, sólo el 2 % de ellos se confirmó la presencia de alergia. Conclusión: Las pruebas cutáneas y de provocación oral sumado a algunas combinaciones in vivo/in vitro, fueron las herramientas más utilizadas para evaluar la alergia a las penicilinas. (AU)

Introduction: Allergic reactions are one of the most serious safety problems associated with the use of medications, with allergy to beta-lactam antibiotics being the most prevalent. In fact, the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI) states that penicillin allergy testing can help identify inpatients and outpatients who could safely tolerate and use this group of antibiotics and avoid labels that limit the use of beta-lactam antibiotics indefinitely. Objective: To identify the tools available in the literature to assess the history of allergy to penicillins and propose a tool that consolidates the information extracted. Methodology: Structured review on PubMed/MEDLINE between June 1, 2015 until November 30, 2022; using the search terms MeSH: (((“skin tests”[MeSH Terms]) OR (“skin irritancy tests”[MeSH Terms])) AND (“penicillins”[All Fields])) AND (“drug hypersensitivity”[MeSH Terms]). Papers in English and Spanish with access to full text and human trials, regarding available tools used to evaluate penicillin allergies were included. Results: A total of 201 articles were identified, of which after an independent evaluation, 108 were included. Among the tools to evaluate penicillin allergy, in vivo tests were identified: skin tests, oral provocation tests, patch tests and in vitro tests: specific IgE tests, determination of tryptase, histamine, T lymphocytes and basophilic activation tests. Of the patients (1181) reported with penicillin allergy, 905 (77 %) had their allergy assessed with skin testing or oral challenge tests, and only 2 % of them had a confirmed allergic reaction. Conclusion: Skin tests and oral provocation tests added to some in vivo/in vitro combinations were the most used tools to evaluate penicillin allergy. (AU)

Safety of direct oral provocation test to delabel reported mild beta-lactam allergy in infants

Background: Around 10% of people report a drug allergy and avoid some medications because of fear of allergic reactions. However, only after a proper diagnostic workup can some of these reactions be confirmed as allergic or nonallergic hypersensitivities. Beta-lactams (BLs) are the most common medication suspected of being involved in drug hypersensivity reactions (DHRs) in children. Recently, direct oral provocation tests (DPT) with BLs gained popularity within pediatric populations as a tool for delabeling children with suspected BL allergies. This study aimed to evaluate the safety of direct provocation tests in infants with mild cutaneous non-immediate reactions to BLs. Methods: The authors retrospectively analyzed the data of 151 infants between 2015 and 2022, referred for evaluating a suspected allergy to BLs that occurred before age 24 months. Results: The mean age of the children, including 55% male kids, at the suspected reaction was 15.9 months and the mean age at the time of the DPT was 39.6 months. In most cases, antibiotics were prescribed to treat common upper respiratory infections, such as acute otitis (54.3%) and acute tonsillitis (27.2%). Amoxicillin was considered the culprit drug in 62.9% of the cases, and the combination of amoxicillin–clavulanic acid in the case of 33.8% of children. The most frequent associated cutaneous clinical manifestations were maculopapular exanthema in 74.8% and delayed urticaria/angioedema in 25.2%. Of the 151 infants evaluated, parents of 149 infants agreed for a direct DPT, and only three had a positive test (2%). Symptoms resulting from the DPT were mild and easily treatable. Conclusions: A direct DPT without prior tests is a safe and effective procedure to delabel BL allergy, even in infants... (AU)

El farmacéutico clínico en el abordaje del paciente con sospecha de alergia a beta-lactámicos: una revisión sistemática / The role of clinical pharmacists in patients with suspected allergy to B-lactams: A systematic review

Objetivo analizar el papel desempeñado por el farmacéutico clínico y su impacto en el ámbito de los programas de optimización de antimicrobianos ante la sospecha de alergia a antibióticos beta-lactámicos.Método se realizaron 2 búsquedas bibliográficas independientes. Se encontraron un total de 35 artículos incluyéndose 12. Se analizaron los artículos incluidos y se recogieron variables de eficacia, seguridad y aplicabilidad de herramientas de evaluación a pacientes con sospecha de alergia a beta-lactámicos. Además, se analizó la variación en el consumo y en el perfil de prescripción de antibióticos alternativos. Resultados los estudios seleccionados analizaron cuestionarios, desetiquetado, test intradérmicos y pruebas de provocación oral realizados por farmacéuticos. Se hallaron diferencias significativas en la variable principal de eficacia en 4 estudios incluidos a favor de la intervención farmacéutica. En un estudio cuasi experimental, la utilización de cefazolina aumentó tras la intervención farmacéutica (65 vs. 28%; p < 0,01). En otro estudio cuasi experimental, la dosis diaria definida media de aztreonam y la media de días de terapéutica por 1.000 pacientes/día disminuyeron (21,23 vs. 9,05; p < 0,01) y (8,79–4,24; p = 0,016), pre y postintervención, respectivamente, aumentando las desescaladas antibióticas (p ≤ 0,01). En otro estudio, disminuyó la prescripción de antibióticos de uso restringido (42,5 vs. 17,9%; p < 0,01) y en otro, la utilización de antibióticos profilácticos prequirúrgicos alternativos a cefazolina (81,9 vs. 55,9%; p < 0,01). En otro estudio, el tiempo medio por entrevista fue de 5,2 minutos por paciente. No se reportaron eventos adversos en ningún estudio. Conclusiones la intervención del farmacéutico en la evaluación del paciente con sospecha de alergia a beta-lactámicos resulta eficaz, segura y aplicable a la práctica clínica (AU)

Objective To analyze the role played by the clinical pharmacist and its impact in antibiotic stewardship facing suspected allergy to beta-lactam antibiotics. Method We performed two different independent bibliographic searches. A total of 35 articles were found, and the final number included in the study was 12. We analysed the articles and collected variables of efficacy, safety and applicability of evaluation tools applied to patients with suspected allergy to beta-lactams. Also, the variation in the consumption and prescription profile of alternative antibiotics was analyzed. Results The selected studies analysed questionnaires, allergy delabeling, intradermal tests and oral challenge tests performed by pharmacists. Significant differences in the efficacy endpoint were found in 4 studies in favour of pharmaceutical intervention. In the study of Kwiatkowski et al, cefazolin use increased in surgical patients after pharmacist intervention (65 vs. 28%; p < 0.01). In a quasi-experimental study, the mean defined daily dose of aztreonam and the mean days of therapy per 1000 patients/day decreased (21.23 vs 9.05, p <0.01) and (8.79–4.24, p = 0.016), pre and post-intervention, respectively, increasing antibiotic de-escalations (p ≤ 0.01). In another quasi-experimental study, the prescription of restricted-use antibiotics decreased (42.5% vs. 17.9%, p < 0.01) and the use of pre-surgical prophylactic antibiotics alternative to cefazolin (81.9% vs 55.9%, p<0.01) in another study. Other study showed that the mean time per interview was 5.2 minutes per patient. No adverse events were reported in any study. Conclusion The pharmacist intervention in the evaluation of the patient with suspected allergy to beta-lactams is effective, safe and feasible to implement on daily clinical practice (AU)

Experiencia en la vacunación frente a la COVID-19 en personas con antecedentes de alergia / Experience in vaccination against COVID-19 in people with a history of allergy

Fundamentos: Una consulta habitual desde el inicio de la campaña de vacunación frente a la COVID-19 fue la relacionada con personas que tienen antecedentes de alergia a fármacos u otras vacunas. El objetivo del estudio fue describir lo ocurrido tras la administración de la vacuna frente a la COVID-19 en personas con antecedentes de alergia moderada y grave, en un Centro de Urgencias de Atención Primaria (CUAP). Métodos: Se realizó un estudio observacional descriptivo con sesenta y cuatro personas que tenían antecedentes de alergia moderada y grave, vacunadas en CUAP, entre mayo y octubre de 2021, en el Barcelonés Nord i Maresme (provincia de Barcelona), previa valoración por farmacólogos y farmacéuticos de Atención Primaria. Se calculó el porcentaje de personas con acontecimientos adversos ocurridos tras la vacunación en el transcurso de su estancia en el CUAP, los tipos detectados y la gravedad. Posteriormente, se realizó una encuesta telefónica para conocer la satisfacción de los pacientes. Se realizó un análisis descriptivo (cálculo de proporciones). Resultados: La media de edad de las personas participantes fue de 49,7 años (de doce a noventa y cuatro años) y el 90,6% fueron mujeres. El 87,5% de las vacunas administradas fue Comirnaty ®. Se detectaron acontecimientos adversos ocurridos tras la vacunación en quince pacientes (23,4%), de los que en cuatro casos (6,25%) fueron manifestaciones de hipersensibilidad, todas catalogadas como leves. Los motivos de vacunación fueron antecedentes de alergia a AINE (45,3%), antibióticos (32,8%), analgésicos (17,2%), vacunas (28,1%), otras sustancias (40,6%) y anafilaxia (26,6%). El grado de satisfacción general fue de 9,11 (sobre 10). Conclusiones: El porcentaje de pacientes con antecedentes de anafilaxia y reacciones alérgicas a medicamentos que presentan reacciones de hipersensibilidad a las vacunas frente a la COVID-19 es del 6,25% y todas son leves.(AU)

Background: A common consultation since the beginning of the vaccination campaign against COVID-19 was related to people with a history of allergy to drugs or other vaccines. The objective of the study was to describe what happened after the administration of the vaccine against COVID-19 in people with a history of moderate and severe allergy, vaccinated against COVID-19 in a Primary Care Emergency Center (PCEC). Methods/ Observational descriptive study with sixty-four people with a history of moderate and severe allergy was carried out, vaccinated in PCEP, between May and October 2021, in the Barcelonés Nord and Maresme (Barcelona province), after assessment by primary care pharmacologists and pharmacists. The percentage of people with adverse events that occurred after vaccination during their stay in the PCEP, the types detected and severity were calculated. Subsequently, a telephone survey was conducted to determine patient satisfaction. A descriptive analysis (calculation of proportions) was performed. Results: The mean age of 49.7 years (from twelve to ninety-four years) and 90.6% were women. 87.5% of the administered vaccines were Comirnaty ® . Adverse events occurring after vaccination were detected in fifteen patients (23.4%), of whom four (6.25%)were manifestations of hypersensitivity, all classified as mild. The reasons for vaccination were a history of allergy to NSAIDs (45.3%), antibiotics (32.8%), analgesics (17.2%), vaccines (28.1%), other substances (40.6%) and anaphylaxis (26.6%). The degree of generalsatisfaction was 9.11 (out of 10). Conclusions: The percentage of patients with a history of anaphylaxis and allergic drug reactions who present hypersensitivityreactions to COVID-19 vaccines is 6.25% and all are mild.(AU)

Hypersensitivity reactions to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in adults: Beyond current classification

Background: Hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are a significant clinical issue. Several classifications have been proposed to categorize these reactions, including the current European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology/European Network for Drug Allergy (EAACI/ENDA) classification. This study aimed to evaluate the applicability of this classification in a real-world clinical setting. Methods: We conducted a national multicenter study involving patients from nine hospitals in four major urban centers in Turkey. All patients had a suggestive clinical history of hypersensitivity reactions to NSAIDs. Researchers collected data using a structured form and classified reactions based on the EAACI/ENDA classification. Oral provocation tests with several NSAIDs were performed using a single-blind challenge per EAACI/ENDA guidelines. Results: Our retrospective study included 966 adult patients with a history of hypersensitivity to NSAIDs. The most common triggers were Acetylsalicylic Acid (ASA), paracetamol, and metamizole. The most prevalent acute NSAID hypersensitivity group was NSAID-induced urticaria/angioedema (NIUA) (34.3%). However, 17.3% of patients did not fit neatly into the current EAACI/ENDA classification. Notably, patients with underlying asthma or allergic rhinoconjunctivitis exhibited unusual reactions, such as urticaria and/or angioedema induced by multiple chemical groups of NSAIDs, blended mixed reactions, and isolated periorbital angioedema in response to multiple chemical groups of NSAIDs. Conclusions: While the EAACI/ENDA classification system stratifies NSAID-induced hypersensitivity reactions into five distinct endotypes or phenotypes, it may not fully capture the diversity of these reactions. Our findings suggest a need for further research to refine this classification system and better accommodate patients with atypical presentations (AU)

Confianza y actitud tras un diagnóstico negativo de alergia a fármacos betalactámicos y/o AINE / Trust and attitude after a negative diagnosis for allergy to betalactam drugs and/or NSAIDs

Objetivo: determinar el grado de confianza en el diagnóstico de exclusión de alergia en pacientes con sospecha de hipersensibilidad a antibióticos betalactámicos y/o AINE. Adicionalmente se pretendía describir la actitud del paciente hacia la toma futura del fármaco que motivó el estudio.Método: se realizó un estudio descriptivo transversal. Se seleccionaron 103 pacientes mayores de 18 años, de ambos sexos y con un resultado negativo en las pruebas diagnósticas de alergia a betalactámicos y/o AINE. Los participantes fueron evaluados mediante un cuestionario heteroadministrado en la práctica clínica habitual de alergología.Resultados: el grado de confianza hacia la etiqueta previa de alergia fue moderado para antibióticos betalactámicos (6,4/10) y para AINE (6,1/10), elevado hacia el diagnóstico negativo de alergia (betalactámicos: 7,5/10; AINE: 7,9/10), y moderado con relación a la futura toma del fármaco estudiado, tras un diagnóstico negativo de alergia (betalactámicos: 6,7/10; AINE: 6,3/10). El grado de confianza hacia el diagnóstico de exclusión de alergia a betalactámicos o AINE aumenta con relación al conferido previamente por el de sospecha, en ambos fármacos (p= 0,01).Conclusiones: el grado de confianza de los pacientes en el diagnóstico de exclusión de alergia a fármacos betalactámicos y/o AINE es elevado. Sin embargo, la confianza para la toma futura del fármaco que motivó el estudio, tras un diagnóstico negativo de alergia, se reduce a moderada. Los profesionales de la salud deben proporcionar una educación sanitaria efectiva que resuelva las inseguridades hacia la realización de la prueba y refuerce la confianza del paciente para la toma futura del fármaco.(AU)

Objective: to determine the level of trust in the diagnosis excluding allergy in patients with suspected hypersensitivity to betalactam antibiotics and/or NSAIDs. Additionally, it was intended to describe the attitude of patients towards taking in the future the drug which motivated the study.Method: a descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted; 103 >18-year old patients were selected, of both genders and with a negative result in diagnostic tests for betalactam drugs and/or NSAIDs. Participants were evaluated through a heteroadministered questionnaire at their usual Allergology clinical practice.Results: the level of trust towards the previous allergy label was moderate for betalactam antibiotics (6.4/10) and for NSAIDs (6.1/10), high towards the negative diagnosis for allergy (betalactam drugs: 7.5/10; NSAIDs: 7.9/10), and moderate regarding taking in the future the drug under study, after a negative diagnosis for allergy (betalactam drugs: 6.7/10; NSAIDs: 6.3/10). The degree of trust towards the diagnosis excluding allergy to betalactam drugs or NSAIDs increased regarding the previous degree for suspected allergy, in both drugs (p= 0.01).Conclusions: there is a high degree of trust in patients regarding their diagnosis excluding allergy to betalactam drugs and/or NSAIDs. However, trust regarding taking in the future the drug which motivated the study, after a negative diagnosis of allergy, was reduced to moderate. Health professionals must provide effective health education that solves uncertainties in terms of conducting the test and reinforces trust by patients for taking the drug in the future.(AU)

The Evaluation of pediatric patients with suspected polyethylene glycol and polysorbate allergy before mRNA SARS-CoV2 vaccination

mRNA vaccines, particularly, have been associated with an increased risk of allergic reactions and rarely anaphylaxis. Although rare, vaccine reactions can cause significant anxiety and fear in the population, leading to indecision and vaccine refusal. This study aimed to retrospectively evaluate the role of polyethylene glycol (PEG) sensitivity in vaccination decision-making in pediatric patients at high risk of allergy or with suspected allergic reactions to the first dose of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) vaccine. Seventeen enrolled patients were found to have decreased readiness to receive the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine after developing hypersensitivity to multiple and/or injectable drugs. Skin testing was performed. A basophil activation test with PEG-2000 and 4000 was performed on three patients who were ineligible for skin prick tests. Nine patients with negative tests received the vaccine without complications. One patient had urticarial angioedema despite negative tests. Three patients with positive tests did not agree to desensitization with the mRNA vaccine, and one of them was vaccinated with the inactivated COVID-19 vaccine. Four patients recurred despite negative tests. The general recommendation for patients describing severe reactions to drugs, foods, and allergens, such as toxins that do not contain the adjuvants of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, is to be routinely vaccinated with safety precautions. Excipients such as PEG and polysorbate-80 used in COVID-19 vaccines could be potential allergens, but this hypothesis is unclear. The predictive values of these adjuvants for skin testing and in vitro testing are controversial. Further research is needed on the hypersensitivity reactions of adjuvants, the predictive values of skin tests, and etiopathogenesis (AU)

Implementing Drug Reaction with Eosinophilia and Systemic Symptoms (DRESS) syndrome management system by hospital pharmacists in Samutsakhon Hospital, Thailand

Objectives: To study the process of implementing the DRESS management system by pharmacists and its results, during 2016-2020. Research Method: Operational Research, starting from the process of implementing the DRESS management system by the pharmacy department of Samutsakhon Hospital and reporting the results to the Pharmacy and Therapeutic Committee in patients diagnosed with DRESS according to the RegiSCAR criteria, collecting data from an electronic medical records database. Study Results: The main DRESS management system implementation process is: 1) listing the High alert drugs which may cause an adverse reaction and preparation of pharmacists in DRESS; 2) Using RegiSCAR for patient assessment; 3) Suggesting a genotyping test before the patient receives the drug, starting with carbamazepine and allopurinol; 4) Using a Computerized Decision Support System (CDSS) to facilitate the screening alert. 5) Proposing to the Pharmacy and Therapeutic Committee for approval on gene testing. As a result, a total of 184 patients were sent for genotyping testing, and 92 of the drug allergy genes were identified, making the prevention or monitoring of patients more effectively. 31 patients were diagnosed with DRESS, and 54.84% were male. The 4 drug items with the highest incidence were phenytoin 28.95%, nevirapine 10.53%, rifampicin 7.89%, and pyrazinamide 7.89%. Clinical symptoms were rash 100.00%, fever 90.32%, lymphadenopathy 6.45%, at least one dysfunction in the internal organ system 74.19%, liver dysfunction 80.65%, and eosinophilia 58.65%. Phenytoin had a statistically significant induced eosinophil (p=0.044), which could be used as a factor in the CDSS drug surveillance. (AU)

Platin desensitizations in thoracic malignancies and risk factors for breakthrough reactions

Although platin desensitization is a safe and effective alternative for patients with hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs), sometimes breakthrough reactions (BTRs) can be encountered. However, data about the risk factors for BTRs are limited. The aim of this study is to define the outcomes of desensitization, the characteristics of BTRs, and to identify the risk factors for BTRs with platins in thoracic malignancies. This is a retrospective report of patients with thoracic malignancies who underwent platin desensitization. Patients’ demographics, initial HSR characteristics, skin test results, desensitization outcomes, and BTR characteristics were recorded. Thirty-three lung cancer and 14 malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) patients were included in the study. The culprit drug was cisplatin in 29 and was carboplatin in 18 patients. Skin test positivity was 43.5% with cisplatin, 50% with carboplatin, and it was found to be higher if the interval between the initial HSR and skin testing (ST) was ˃20 days (p = 0.027). One hundred and five desensitization courses were performed. Twenty-two patients had 33 BTRs. Skin test positivity was higher in the BTR-positive group (p = 0.025). BTRs (18.2%; n = 6) were more severe than initial HSR. In the case of epinephrine administration during initial HSR, epinephrine administration during the first BTR was found to be more (p = 0.036). The target dose was achieved in 92.4% of desensitization courses. The number of previous platin infusions ≥10 was found to be an independent risk factor for BTR development (p = 0.036 OR:17.641, 95% CI: 1.211–256.971). Identification of risk factors for BTR will guide appropriate management and desensitization approaches for platin HSRs (AU)

A case of persistent IgE sensitisation almost two decades following ampicillin anaphylaxis

Background: Although most immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated penicillin allergy wanes with time, sensitisation may occasionally persist for many years. Previous reports on the loss of penicillin-specific IgE sensitisation were based on non-anaphylaxis cases and, although uncommon, persistent sensitisation may still be possible in the minority of cases. Objective: This case highlights that irrespective of the elapsed duration since the index reaction, it is important to remain vigilant when approaching patients with a history of severe reactions. Material and Methods: We described a case of persistent IgE sensitisation almost two decades following ampicillin anaphylaxis. Results: A 78-year-old male with a history of perioperative penicillin anaphylaxis in 2003 was referred for allergy workup in 2022 before his knee joint replacement surgery. The patient had strictly avoided all beta-lactams since the index reaction. However, his penicillin-specific sensitisation persisted, evidenced by positive skin tests (with generalised urticaria after intradermal testing) and basophil activation tests. Conclusion: To our knowledge, this was the first case of positive BAT tested around two decades following the index reaction. This case illustrates that a cautious approach may still be warranted in patients with a history of severe reaction to penicillin regardless of the duration since the reported index reaction (AU)

Management of patients with suspected or confirmed antibiotic allergy. Executive summary of guidance from the Spanish Society of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology (SEIMC), the Spanish Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (SEAIC), the Spanish Society of Hospital Pharmacy (SEFH) and the Spanish Society of Intensive Medicine and Coronary Care Units (SEMICYUC) / Resumen ejecutivo de la Guía de práctica clínica de la Sociedad Española de Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiología Clínica (SEIMC), la Sociedad Española de Alergología e Inmunología Clínica (SEAIC), la Sociedad Española de Farmacia Hospitalaria (SEFH) y la Sociedad Española de Medicina Intensiva Crítica y Unidades Coronarias (SEMICYUC) sobre el manejo de personas con alergia a antibióticos sospechada o confirmada

Suspected or confirmed antibiotic allergy is a frequently encountered clinical circumstance that influences antimicrobial prescribing and often leads to the avoidable use of less efficacious and/or more toxic or costly drugs than first-line antimicrobials. Optimizing antimicrobial therapy in patients with antibiotic allergy labels has become one of the priorities of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASP) in several countries. This guidance document aims to make recommendations for the systematic approach to patients with suspected or confirmed antibiotic allergy based on current evidence. A panel of eleven members of involved Scientific Societies with expertise in the management of patients with suspected or confirmed antibiotic allergy formulated questions about the management of patients with suspected or confirmed antibiotic allergy. A systematic literature review was performed by a medical librarian. The questions were distributed among panel members who selected the most relevant references, summarized the evidence and formulated graded recommendations when possible. The answers to all questions were finally reviewed by all panel members. A systematic approach to patients with suspected or confirmed antibiotic allergy is recommended to improve antibiotic selection and, consequently clinical outcomes. A clinically oriented, 3-category risk-stratification strategy was recommended for patients with suspected antibiotic allergy. Complementary assessments should consider both clinical risk category and preferred antibiotic agent. Empirical therapy recommendations for the most relevant clinical syndromes in patients with suspected or confirmed β-lactam allergy were formulated. Recommendations on the implementation and monitoring of the impact of the guidelines were formulated. ASP and allergists should design and implement activities that facilitate the most adequate antibiotic use in these patients.(AU)

En la práctica clínica, un antecedente de alergia a los antibióticos, confirmada o sospechada, es frecuente y condiciona la selección de antibióticos, lo que requiere, con frecuencia, el uso de fármacos menos eficaces, más tóxicos o más caros que los antibióticos de primera línea. La optimización del uso de antibióticos en pacientes con este antecedente es una de las prioridades de los programas de optimización de uso de antibióticos (PROA) en varios países. Estas guías pretenden formular recomendaciones para evaluar de una manera sistemática a estos pacientes mediante una aproximación basada en la evidencia. Un panel multidisciplinar constituido por alergólogos, infectólogos, farmacéuticos hospitalarios e intensivistas formularon una serie de preguntas sobre el manejo de estos pacientes. Una documentalista realizó la revisión bibliográfica. Las preguntas se distribuyeron entre los miembros del grupo de trabajo, quienes seleccionaron las referencias más relevantes y formularon las correspondientes recomendaciones, que fueron revisadas y aprobadas por todos los miembros del grupo. Es necesaria una aproximación sistemática a los pacientes con antecedente de alergia a antibióticos para optimizar la selección del tratamiento antibiótico y mejorar los resultados clínicos de estos pacientes cuando precisan antibioterapia. El presente documento recomienda una estrategia de estratificación clínica del riesgo en 3 categorías. La recomendación de realizar evaluaciones complementarias se basa en el riesgo clínico y el antibiótico de primera línea necesario. Además, se formulan recomendaciones de tratamiento antibiótico empírico para los principales síndromes infecciosos en pacientes con alergia confirmada o sospechada. Finalmente se formulan recomendaciones sobre la implementación y monitorización del impacto de las recomendaciones de la guía. Los programas PROA y los alergólogos deben trabajar...(AU)

Eficiencia del estudio alergológico en el diagnóstico de reacciones a beta-lactámicos / Efficiency of the allergological study in the diagnosis of allergic reactions to beta-lactams

Objetivos Valorar qué proporción de pacientes etiquetados como alérgicos β-lactámicos siguen teniendo dicha etiqueta en su historial médico tras realizarles un estudio alergológico, a qué proporción de los no alérgicos se les volvió a recetar uno de estos antibióticos y si el estudio alergológico es rentable. Métodos Est udio retrospectivo entre 2019 y 2021 en el que valoramos los pacientes por sospecha de alergia a β-lactámicos (n=688). A través del estudio alergológico se aclaró si tenían dicha alergia. Posteriormente, se revisó si continuaba constando la etiqueta de alérgico en el historial médico. A través de la prescripción digital en la tarjeta sanitaria se ha observado si se les volvió a recetar dicho antibiótico tras el estudio y si lo retiraron de la farmacia. Resultados Un 11,3% de pacientes presentaban hipersensibilidad a β-lactámicos. Sin embargo, en un 33,1% de pacientes continuaban presentando la etiqueta de alérgicos en su historial médico a pesar de no serlo. En un 32% de pacientes en los que se había confirmado la alergia tenían la etiqueta de alérgicos en su historial sin revisar por su médico de atención primaria y en un 32,8% se les había recetado de nuevo un β-lactámico. Conclusiones Es igual de importante descartar la alergia a dichos antibióticos como modificar la etiqueta de alérgico en su historial médico tras el estudio. Una proporción de no alérgicos siguen constando como alérgicos tras el estudio. Estar etiquetado como alérgicos a los β-lactámicos tiene consecuencias a corto y largo plazo tanto para el propio paciente como para el gasto sanitario. (AU)

Aims Assessing the rate of β-lactams-allergic patients who are still labelled as such in their medical records after being performed an allergic test; as well as the rate of no allergic patients who were prescribed one of these antibiotics; and pondering whether the allergic test is hence cost-effective. Methods This is a retrospective study developed from 2019 to 2021 focusing on patients suspected of β-lactams allergy (n=688). By means of an allergy test, it was cleared out if they were actually allergic. Later, we checked if the patient was still labelled as allergic in their medical record. Tracking through the digital health services card, we followed up if the antibiotic was ever prescribed again, and if the drug was then dispensed to the patient. Results 11.3% of the patients showed hypersensitivity to β-lactams. Nonetheless, 33.1% of the patients were still considered allergic to these antibiotics in their medical record even though not being such. 32% of the patients – who had their allergy confirmed – had been labelled without the general practitioner's acknowledgment, and 32.8% had even been prescribed a β-lactam again. Conclusions Discarding any allergy to β-lactams is as important as registering the allergy on medical records after testing the patient. A remarkable quantity of non-allergic patients is still addressed as actual allergic, in spite not being such. Labelling patients as β-lactams allergic may have consequences, short-term and long-term, for the patient but also for the health service budget. (AU)