Mira Maximos, Ryan Pelletier, Sameer Elsayed, Colleen J Maxwell, Sherilyn K D Houle, Brie McConnell, John-Michael Gamble
{"title":"对低风险青霉素过敏干预措施进行系统回顾和荟萃分析,并考虑性别因素。","authors":"Mira Maximos, Ryan Pelletier, Sameer Elsayed, Colleen J Maxwell, Sherilyn K D Houle, Brie McConnell, John-Michael Gamble","doi":"10.1111/bcp.16366","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Sex and gender may influence penicillin allergy label (PAL) prevalence and outcomes. This review evaluates the effectiveness and safety of direct delabelling (DD) and oral challenge (OC) for low-risk patients and examines sex and gender differences in reporting and outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched PubMed, Database of Abstracts of Reviews and Effects, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, medRxiv, Ovid MEDLINE, and Ovid EMBASE until February 2024 for studies including DD or OC compared to no intervention, skin testing or other methods. Two reviewers assessed quality. Meta-analyses were conducted, and subgroup analyses were carried out if I<sup>2</sup> > 75%. Descriptive data was analysed using NVivo 14 and reported narratively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 1046 screened studies, 28 met inclusion criteria (two RCTs, 26 quasi-experimental studies). Sex at baseline was reported in 86% of studies, with 61% females: 18% disaggregated outcomes by sex with a female mean delabelling rate of 66%. Gender variables were not reported. OC was not found to be more or less as effective comparaed to skin testing in RCTs (risk ratio [RR] 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.95, 1.13, I<sup>2</sup> = 74%). DD interventions had a 27% delabelling rate (95% CI 10%, 50%, I<sup>2</sup> = 96%), with nursing staff achieving 29% (95% CI 15%, 47%, I<sup>2</sup> = 63%) and allergists/immunologists 6% (95% CI 0.00, 0.00, I<sup>2</sup> = 20%). Quasi-experimental studies reported 90% delabelling for OC, with 59% by allergists/immunologists and 90% by pharmacists. Adverse events averaged 4% and were non-severe.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>DD and OC are effective for delabelling low-risk penicillin allergies. Comprehensive data is lacking on sex and gender differences, indicating a need for further research.</p>","PeriodicalId":9251,"journal":{"name":"British journal of clinical pharmacology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions to delabel low-risk penicillin allergies with consideration for sex and gender.\",\"authors\":\"Mira Maximos, Ryan Pelletier, Sameer Elsayed, Colleen J Maxwell, Sherilyn K D Houle, Brie McConnell, John-Michael Gamble\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/bcp.16366\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Sex and gender may influence penicillin allergy label (PAL) prevalence and outcomes. This review evaluates the effectiveness and safety of direct delabelling (DD) and oral challenge (OC) for low-risk patients and examines sex and gender differences in reporting and outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched PubMed, Database of Abstracts of Reviews and Effects, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, medRxiv, Ovid MEDLINE, and Ovid EMBASE until February 2024 for studies including DD or OC compared to no intervention, skin testing or other methods. Two reviewers assessed quality. Meta-analyses were conducted, and subgroup analyses were carried out if I<sup>2</sup> > 75%. Descriptive data was analysed using NVivo 14 and reported narratively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 1046 screened studies, 28 met inclusion criteria (two RCTs, 26 quasi-experimental studies). Sex at baseline was reported in 86% of studies, with 61% females: 18% disaggregated outcomes by sex with a female mean delabelling rate of 66%. Gender variables were not reported. OC was not found to be more or less as effective comparaed to skin testing in RCTs (risk ratio [RR] 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.95, 1.13, I<sup>2</sup> = 74%). DD interventions had a 27% delabelling rate (95% CI 10%, 50%, I<sup>2</sup> = 96%), with nursing staff achieving 29% (95% CI 15%, 47%, I<sup>2</sup> = 63%) and allergists/immunologists 6% (95% CI 0.00, 0.00, I<sup>2</sup> = 20%). Quasi-experimental studies reported 90% delabelling for OC, with 59% by allergists/immunologists and 90% by pharmacists. Adverse events averaged 4% and were non-severe.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>DD and OC are effective for delabelling low-risk penicillin allergies. Comprehensive data is lacking on sex and gender differences, indicating a need for further research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9251,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British journal of clinical pharmacology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British journal of clinical pharmacology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.16366\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of clinical pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.16366","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
A systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions to delabel low-risk penicillin allergies with consideration for sex and gender.
Aims: Sex and gender may influence penicillin allergy label (PAL) prevalence and outcomes. This review evaluates the effectiveness and safety of direct delabelling (DD) and oral challenge (OC) for low-risk patients and examines sex and gender differences in reporting and outcomes.
Methods: We searched PubMed, Database of Abstracts of Reviews and Effects, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, medRxiv, Ovid MEDLINE, and Ovid EMBASE until February 2024 for studies including DD or OC compared to no intervention, skin testing or other methods. Two reviewers assessed quality. Meta-analyses were conducted, and subgroup analyses were carried out if I2 > 75%. Descriptive data was analysed using NVivo 14 and reported narratively.
Results: From 1046 screened studies, 28 met inclusion criteria (two RCTs, 26 quasi-experimental studies). Sex at baseline was reported in 86% of studies, with 61% females: 18% disaggregated outcomes by sex with a female mean delabelling rate of 66%. Gender variables were not reported. OC was not found to be more or less as effective comparaed to skin testing in RCTs (risk ratio [RR] 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.95, 1.13, I2 = 74%). DD interventions had a 27% delabelling rate (95% CI 10%, 50%, I2 = 96%), with nursing staff achieving 29% (95% CI 15%, 47%, I2 = 63%) and allergists/immunologists 6% (95% CI 0.00, 0.00, I2 = 20%). Quasi-experimental studies reported 90% delabelling for OC, with 59% by allergists/immunologists and 90% by pharmacists. Adverse events averaged 4% and were non-severe.
Conclusions: DD and OC are effective for delabelling low-risk penicillin allergies. Comprehensive data is lacking on sex and gender differences, indicating a need for further research.
期刊介绍:
Published on behalf of the British Pharmacological Society, the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology features papers and reports on all aspects of drug action in humans: review articles, mini review articles, original papers, commentaries, editorials and letters. The Journal enjoys a wide readership, bridging the gap between the medical profession, clinical research and the pharmaceutical industry. It also publishes research on new methods, new drugs and new approaches to treatment. The Journal is recognised as one of the leading publications in its field. It is online only, publishes open access research through its OnlineOpen programme and is published monthly.