Prescribing carbonic anhydrase inhibitors to patients with “sulfa” antibiotics allergy: do we dare?

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q1 OPHTHALMOLOGY Eye Pub Date : 2025-02-15 DOI:10.1038/s41433-025-03674-9
Raquel Quintanilla, Luke van Leeuwen, Arjun Sharma, Ta Chen Chang, Elizabeth Hodapp, John McSoley, Alana Grajewski, Elena Bitrian
{"title":"Prescribing carbonic anhydrase inhibitors to patients with “sulfa” antibiotics allergy: do we dare?","authors":"Raquel Quintanilla, Luke van Leeuwen, Arjun Sharma, Ta Chen Chang, Elizabeth Hodapp, John McSoley, Alana Grajewski, Elena Bitrian","doi":"10.1038/s41433-025-03674-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"To evaluate if provider characteristics affect attitude toward carbonic anhydrase inhibitors (CAI) prescription for patients with history of sulfonamide antibiotic (SA) hypersensitivity. A survey querying providers’ attitudes toward CAI prescription in hypothetical patients with prior SA hypersensitivity was distributed to four ophthalmology and optometry organizations. Logistic regression was used to assess the relationship between avoiding CAI and profession, specialty, organizational affiliation, and years in practice. Of 250 respondents, 27% and 52% would avoid topical and oral CAI, respectively, in patients with prior SA rash and/or urticaria. >90% would avoid oral CAI in patients with prior severe SA hypersensitivity. Respondents with >10 years in practice were more likely to avoid oral CAI in patients with prior SA rash and/or urticaria than those with ≤10 (OR 2.27, p = 0.002). Respondents affiliated with non-glaucoma organizations were more likely to avoid oral CAI in patients with prior SA rash and/or urticaria than those affiliated with glaucoma organizations (p = 0.03). Providers without glaucoma training were more likely to avoid topical CAI in patients with prior SA rash and/or urticaria (p = 0.004) and anaphylaxis (p = 0.01) than glaucoma-trained providers. Despite no supporting evidence, a significant number of respondents would avoid CAI in patients with prior SA hypersensitivity. Respondents without glaucoma training, no affiliation with a glaucoma organization, and >10 years in practice are more likely to avoid CAI in patients with type I SA hypersensitivity. Providers should be informed of the low cross-reactivity risk between CAI and SA so more patients may benefit from these drugs.","PeriodicalId":12125,"journal":{"name":"Eye","volume":"39 8","pages":"1495-1500"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12089305/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Eye","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41433-025-03674-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

To evaluate if provider characteristics affect attitude toward carbonic anhydrase inhibitors (CAI) prescription for patients with history of sulfonamide antibiotic (SA) hypersensitivity. A survey querying providers’ attitudes toward CAI prescription in hypothetical patients with prior SA hypersensitivity was distributed to four ophthalmology and optometry organizations. Logistic regression was used to assess the relationship between avoiding CAI and profession, specialty, organizational affiliation, and years in practice. Of 250 respondents, 27% and 52% would avoid topical and oral CAI, respectively, in patients with prior SA rash and/or urticaria. >90% would avoid oral CAI in patients with prior severe SA hypersensitivity. Respondents with >10 years in practice were more likely to avoid oral CAI in patients with prior SA rash and/or urticaria than those with ≤10 (OR 2.27, p = 0.002). Respondents affiliated with non-glaucoma organizations were more likely to avoid oral CAI in patients with prior SA rash and/or urticaria than those affiliated with glaucoma organizations (p = 0.03). Providers without glaucoma training were more likely to avoid topical CAI in patients with prior SA rash and/or urticaria (p = 0.004) and anaphylaxis (p = 0.01) than glaucoma-trained providers. Despite no supporting evidence, a significant number of respondents would avoid CAI in patients with prior SA hypersensitivity. Respondents without glaucoma training, no affiliation with a glaucoma organization, and >10 years in practice are more likely to avoid CAI in patients with type I SA hypersensitivity. Providers should be informed of the low cross-reactivity risk between CAI and SA so more patients may benefit from these drugs.

Abstract Image

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
给“磺胺类”抗生素过敏患者开碳酸酐酶抑制剂:我们敢吗?
目的:评价提供者特征是否影响磺胺类抗生素(SA)过敏史患者对碳酸酐酶抑制剂(CAI)处方的态度。方法:对四家眼科验光机构进行问卷调查,询问医生对假定有SA过敏史患者的CAI处方态度。采用Logistic回归评估回避CAI与专业、专业、组织隶属关系和实践年限之间的关系。结果:在250名应答者中,分别有27%和52%的既往SA皮疹和/或荨麻疹患者会避免局部和口服CAI。>90%既往有严重SA超敏反应的患者会避免口服CAI。对于有SA皮疹和/或荨麻疹病史的患者,bbb10年的应答者比那些≤10年的应答者更有可能避免口服CAI (or 2.27, p = 0.002)。与青光眼组织的应答者相比,非青光眼组织的应答者更有可能避免有SA皮疹和/或荨麻疹的患者口服CAI (p = 0.03)。与受过青光眼培训的医生相比,没有受过青光眼培训的医生更有可能避免对有SA皮疹和/或荨麻疹(p = 0.004)和过敏反应(p = 0.01)的患者进行局部CAI治疗。结论:尽管没有支持证据,但相当多的受访者会避免对既往SA过敏的患者进行CAI。未接受过青光眼培训、与青光眼组织无关联、从业10年以上的受访者更有可能避免I型SA超敏患者行CAI。提供者应该被告知CAI和SA之间的低交叉反应风险,以便更多的患者可以从这些药物中受益。
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
Eye
Eye 医学-眼科学
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
5.10%
发文量
481
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Eye seeks to provide the international practising ophthalmologist with high quality articles, of academic rigour, on the latest global clinical and laboratory based research. Its core aim is to advance the science and practice of ophthalmology with the latest clinical- and scientific-based research. Whilst principally aimed at the practising clinician, the journal contains material of interest to a wider readership including optometrists, orthoptists, other health care professionals and research workers in all aspects of the field of visual science worldwide. Eye is the official journal of The Royal College of Ophthalmologists. Eye encourages the submission of original articles covering all aspects of ophthalmology including: external eye disease; oculo-plastic surgery; orbital and lacrimal disease; ocular surface and corneal disorders; paediatric ophthalmology and strabismus; glaucoma; medical and surgical retina; neuro-ophthalmology; cataract and refractive surgery; ocular oncology; ophthalmic pathology; ophthalmic genetics.
期刊最新文献
A commentary on the updated research priorities in ophthalmology: implications and future directions. Pigment loss and pseudo-albinism in Birdshot chorioretinitis. Large-scale study of ocular biometry in Korean adults: age-related trends and associations. Facing dynamic changes in the era of pickleball ocular injuries. Metastatic iris lesion from non-small cell lung cancer primary.
×
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:604180095
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