Akish Luintel , Joseph Healy , Michael Blank , Aashika Luintel , Simon Dryden , Abhishek Das , Ara Darzi , Graham Cooke
{"title":"报告青霉素过敏的全球流行:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Akish Luintel , Joseph Healy , Michael Blank , Aashika Luintel , Simon Dryden , Abhishek Das , Ara Darzi , Graham Cooke","doi":"10.1016/j.jinf.2025.106429","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>Patients labelled with penicillin allergy (PenA) often receive broader spectrum antibiotics, associated with antimicrobial resistance and poorer outcomes. However, ∼95% of patients are likely mis-labelled. Whilst de-labelling programmes are gaining momentum, they have been restricted to a few countries. Here, we address the global prevalence of PenA, to inform the wider potential impact for de-labelling programmes.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis including all studies on adult PenA prevalence between January 2003 and June 2023. Data on PenA prevalence, allergy recording methods, healthcare setting, and country income were extracted. This study is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023437718).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>174 studies from 28 countries were included (18,352 screened). Global PenA prevalence was 9·4% (95% CI 8·4–10·4%). 92% of peer-reviewed publications were from high-income countries(HICs), with 72% from the UK, USA or Australia. HICs had higher PenA prevalence 9·9% (95% CI 8·8–11·0%), compared to middle-income countries (MICs), 4·4% (95% CI 2·8–6·2%), p<0.0001. Primary care data was seldom reported (16% of studies), and the method of allergy recording significantly influenced reported prevalence.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Studies reporting PenA prevalence are skewed towards HICs and secondary care, with little data from Africa, most of Asia and South America. This highlights an unmet need to broaden epidemiological analysis in under-represented regions.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":50180,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Infection","volume":"90 2","pages":"Article 106429"},"PeriodicalIF":10.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The global prevalence of reported penicillin allergy: A systematic review and meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Akish Luintel , Joseph Healy , Michael Blank , Aashika Luintel , Simon Dryden , Abhishek Das , Ara Darzi , Graham Cooke\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jinf.2025.106429\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>Patients labelled with penicillin allergy (PenA) often receive broader spectrum antibiotics, associated with antimicrobial resistance and poorer outcomes. However, ∼95% of patients are likely mis-labelled. Whilst de-labelling programmes are gaining momentum, they have been restricted to a few countries. Here, we address the global prevalence of PenA, to inform the wider potential impact for de-labelling programmes.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis including all studies on adult PenA prevalence between January 2003 and June 2023. Data on PenA prevalence, allergy recording methods, healthcare setting, and country income were extracted. This study is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023437718).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>174 studies from 28 countries were included (18,352 screened). Global PenA prevalence was 9·4% (95% CI 8·4–10·4%). 92% of peer-reviewed publications were from high-income countries(HICs), with 72% from the UK, USA or Australia. HICs had higher PenA prevalence 9·9% (95% CI 8·8–11·0%), compared to middle-income countries (MICs), 4·4% (95% CI 2·8–6·2%), p<0.0001. Primary care data was seldom reported (16% of studies), and the method of allergy recording significantly influenced reported prevalence.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Studies reporting PenA prevalence are skewed towards HICs and secondary care, with little data from Africa, most of Asia and South America. This highlights an unmet need to broaden epidemiological analysis in under-represented regions.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50180,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Infection\",\"volume\":\"90 2\",\"pages\":\"Article 106429\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":10.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Infection\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163445325000234\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/26 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Infection","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163445325000234","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:标记为青霉素过敏(PenA)的患者通常接受广谱抗生素治疗,这与抗菌素耐药性和较差的预后有关。然而,约95%的患者可能被贴错了标签。虽然去标签规划正在获得动力,但它们仅限于少数国家。在这里,我们讨论了PenA的全球流行情况,以告知对去标签计划的更广泛的潜在影响。方法:我们对2003年1月至2023年6月期间成人PenA患病率的所有研究进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析。提取有关PenA患病率、过敏记录方法、医疗保健环境和国家收入的数据。本研究已在PROSPERO注册(CRD42023437718)。结果:纳入了来自28个国家的174项研究(筛选了18352项)。全球PenA患病率为9.4% (95% CI为8.4 - 10.4%)。92%的同行评审出版物来自高收入国家(HICs), 72%来自英国、美国或澳大利亚。与中等收入国家(MICs)相比,高收入国家的PenA患病率较高,为9.9% (95% CI 8.8 - 11.0%),为4.4% (95% CI 2.8 - 6.2%)。结论:报告PenA患病率的研究倾向于高收入国家和二级医疗,非洲、亚洲大部分地区和南美洲的数据很少。这突出表明在代表性不足的地区扩大流行病学分析的需要尚未得到满足。
The global prevalence of reported penicillin allergy: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Objectives
Patients labelled with penicillin allergy (PenA) often receive broader spectrum antibiotics, associated with antimicrobial resistance and poorer outcomes. However, ∼95% of patients are likely mis-labelled. Whilst de-labelling programmes are gaining momentum, they have been restricted to a few countries. Here, we address the global prevalence of PenA, to inform the wider potential impact for de-labelling programmes.
Methods
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis including all studies on adult PenA prevalence between January 2003 and June 2023. Data on PenA prevalence, allergy recording methods, healthcare setting, and country income were extracted. This study is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023437718).
Results
174 studies from 28 countries were included (18,352 screened). Global PenA prevalence was 9·4% (95% CI 8·4–10·4%). 92% of peer-reviewed publications were from high-income countries(HICs), with 72% from the UK, USA or Australia. HICs had higher PenA prevalence 9·9% (95% CI 8·8–11·0%), compared to middle-income countries (MICs), 4·4% (95% CI 2·8–6·2%), p<0.0001. Primary care data was seldom reported (16% of studies), and the method of allergy recording significantly influenced reported prevalence.
Conclusions
Studies reporting PenA prevalence are skewed towards HICs and secondary care, with little data from Africa, most of Asia and South America. This highlights an unmet need to broaden epidemiological analysis in under-represented regions.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Infection publishes original papers on all aspects of infection - clinical, microbiological and epidemiological. The Journal seeks to bring together knowledge from all specialties involved in infection research and clinical practice, and present the best work in the ever-changing field of infection.
Each issue brings you Editorials that describe current or controversial topics of interest, high quality Reviews to keep you in touch with the latest developments in specific fields of interest, an Epidemiology section reporting studies in the hospital and the general community, and a lively correspondence section.