Assessing delayed penicillin hypersensitivity using the PENFAST+ score

IF 3.3 Q2 ALLERGY Frontiers in allergy Pub Date : 2023-11-13 DOI:10.3389/falgy.2023.1302567
Julie Castagna, François Chasset, Jean-Eric Autegarden, Claire Le Thai, Emmanuelle Amsler, Annick Barbaud, Angèle Soria
{"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}
引用次数: 0

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).
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用PENFAST+评分评估迟发性青霉素超敏反应
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。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 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
期刊最新文献
Assessing the predictive potential of ADAM8 for disease control in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. The future of food allergy diagnosis. Unraveling heterogeneity and treatment of asthma through integrating multi-omics data. Case Report: Anaphylaxis caused by traditional Chinese medicine in a patient with pollinosis. Case Report: Dual monoclonal antibody therapy in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps and severe eosinophilic asthma-a proteome analysis.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1