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":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate if provider characteristics affect attitude toward carbonic anhydrase inhibitors (CAI) prescription for patients with history of sulfonamide antibiotic (SA) hypersensitivity.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":12125,"journal":{"name":"Eye","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Eye","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/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
Objective: To evaluate if provider characteristics affect attitude toward carbonic anhydrase inhibitors (CAI) prescription for patients with history of sulfonamide antibiotic (SA) hypersensitivity.
Methods: 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.
Results: 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.
Conclusions: 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.
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.