Suppr超能文献

开发和验证青霉素过敏临床决策规则。

Development and Validation of a Penicillin Allergy Clinical Decision Rule.

机构信息

Centre for Antibiotic Allergy and Research, Department of Infectious Diseases, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Australia.

Department of Medicine, Austin Health, University of Melbourne, Heidelberg, Australia.

出版信息

JAMA Intern Med. 2020 May 1;180(5):745-752. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.0403.

Abstract

IMPORTANCE

Penicillin allergy is a significant public health issue for patients, antimicrobial stewardship programs, and health services. Validated clinical decision rules are urgently needed to identify low-risk penicillin allergies that potentially do not require penicillin skin testing by a specialist.

OBJECTIVE

To develop and validate a penicillin allergy clinical decision rule that enables point-of-care risk assessment of patient-reported penicillin allergies.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this diagnostic study, a multicenter prospective antibiotic allergy-tested cohort of 622 patients from 2 tertiary care sites in Melbourne, Australia (Austin Health and Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre) was used for derivation and internal validation of a penicillin allergy decision rule. Backward stepwise logistic regression was used to derive the model, including clinical variables predictive of a positive penicillin allergy test result. Internal validation of the final model used bootstrapped samples and the model scoring derived from the coefficients. External validation was performed in retrospective penicillin allergy-tested cohorts consisting of 945 patients from Sydney and Perth, Australia, and Nashville, Tennessee. Patients who reported a penicillin allergy underwent penicillin allergy testing using skin prick, intradermal, or patch testing and/or oral challenge (direct or after skin testing). Data were collected from June 26, 2008, to June 3, 2019, and analyzed from January 9 to 12, 2019.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome for the model was any positive result of penicillin allergy testing performed during outpatient or inpatient assessment.

RESULTS

From an internal derivation and validation cohort of 622 patients (367 female [59.0%]; median age, 60 [interquartile range{IQR}, 48-71] years) and an external validation cohort of 945 patients (662 female [70.1%]; median age, 55 [IQR, 38-68] years), the 4 features associated with a positive penicillin allergy test result on multivariable analysis were summarized in the mnemonic PEN-FAST: penicillin allergy, five or fewer years ago, anaphylaxis/angioedema, severe cutaneous adverse reaction (SCAR), and treatment required for allergy episode. The major criteria included an allergy event occurring 5 or fewer years ago (2 points) and anaphylaxis/angioedema or SCAR (2 points); the minor criterion (1 point), treatment required for an allergy episode. Internal validation showed minimal mean optimism of 0.003 with internally validated area under the curve of 0.805. A cutoff of less than 3 points for PEN-FAST was chosen to classify a low risk of penicillin allergy, for which only 17 of 460 patients (3.7%) had positive results of allergy testing, with a negative predictive value of 96.3% (95% CI, 94.1%-97.8%). External validation resulted in similar findings.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, PEN-FAST was found to be a simple rule that accurately identified low-risk penicillin allergies that do not require formal allergy testing. The results suggest that a PEN-FAST score of less than 3, associated with a high negative predictive value, could be used by clinicians and antimicrobial stewardship programs to identify low-risk penicillin allergies at the point of care.

摘要

重要性

青霉素过敏是患者、抗菌药物管理项目和卫生服务面临的一个重大公共卫生问题。迫切需要经过验证的临床决策规则来识别潜在不需要由专家进行青霉素皮试的低风险青霉素过敏。

目的

制定并验证一种青霉素过敏临床决策规则,以便在患者报告青霉素过敏时进行即时的、基于临床的风险评估。

设计、地点和参与者:在这项诊断研究中,来自澳大利亚墨尔本的 2 个三级保健机构(奥克斯健康和彼得麦卡勒姆癌症中心)的 622 名接受过抗生素过敏测试的患者组成了一个多中心前瞻性抗生素过敏测试队列,用于推导和内部验证青霉素过敏决策规则。使用向后逐步逻辑回归来推导模型,包括预测青霉素过敏测试阳性结果的临床变量。使用 bootstrap 样本和从系数中得出的模型评分对最终模型进行内部验证。外部验证是在由来自澳大利亚悉尼和珀斯以及田纳西州纳什维尔的 945 名接受过青霉素过敏测试的患者组成的回顾性青霉素过敏测试队列中进行的。报告有青霉素过敏的患者接受了青霉素过敏测试,包括皮肤点刺、皮内或斑贴测试和/或口服挑战(直接或在皮肤测试后)。数据收集于 2008 年 6 月 26 日至 2019 年 6 月 3 日,分析于 2019 年 1 月 9 日至 12 日进行。

主要结果和措施

该模型的主要结果是在门诊或住院评估期间进行的任何阳性青霉素过敏测试结果。

结果

在内部推导和验证队列的 622 名患者(367 名女性[59.0%];中位数年龄 60[四分位距{IQR},48-71]岁)和外部验证队列的 945 名患者(662 名女性[70.1%];中位数年龄 55[IQR,38-68]岁)中,多变量分析中与青霉素过敏测试阳性结果相关的 4 个特征总结为 mnemonic PEN-FAST:青霉素过敏、5 年内、过敏反应/血管性水肿、严重皮肤不良反应(SCAR)和过敏发作需要治疗。主要标准包括过敏事件发生在 5 年内(2 分)和过敏反应/血管性水肿或 SCAR(2 分);次要标准(1 分)为过敏发作需要治疗。内部验证显示出最小的平均乐观性为 0.003,内部验证的曲线下面积为 0.805。选择 PEN-FAST 评分小于 3 分来分类为青霉素过敏的低风险,其中只有 460 名患者中的 17 名(3.7%)过敏测试结果阳性,阴性预测值为 96.3%(95%CI,94.1%-97.8%)。外部验证得出了类似的结果。

结论和相关性

在这项研究中,发现 PEN-FAST 是一种简单的规则,可以准确识别不需要正式过敏测试的低风险青霉素过敏。结果表明,PEN-FAST 评分小于 3 分,具有较高的阴性预测值,可由临床医生和抗菌药物管理项目在即时护理点用于识别低风险的青霉素过敏。

相似文献

5
[Penicillin allergy-Truth or duty?].[青霉素过敏——真相还是责任?]
Anaesthesiologie. 2024 Jul;73(7):436-443. doi: 10.1007/s00101-024-01425-1. Epub 2024 Jun 21.

引用本文的文献

1
The impact of drug allergy on planetary health and sustainability.药物过敏对地球健康与可持续性的影响。
Asia Pac Allergy. 2025 Sep;15(3):121-123. doi: 10.5415/apallergy.0000000000000229. Epub 2025 Sep 10.
8
[Principles of antimicrobial stewardship].[抗菌药物管理原则]
Dermatologie (Heidelb). 2025 Aug;76(8):465-469. doi: 10.1007/s00105-025-05530-z. Epub 2025 Jul 9.

本文引用的文献

2
Risk Stratification and Prediction in Beta-Lactam Allergic Patients.β-内酰胺类过敏患者的风险分层与预测
J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2019 Sep-Oct;7(7):2182-2184. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2019.05.045.
4
Identifying Low-Risk Beta-Lactam Allergy Patients in a UK Tertiary Centre.在英国一家三级中心确定低风险β-内酰胺类过敏患者。
J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2019 Sep-Oct;7(7):2173-2181.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2019.03.015. Epub 2019 Mar 25.
5
Evaluating Penicillin Allergies Without Skin Testing.不进行皮肤试验评估青霉素过敏。
Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2019 Mar 22;19(5):27. doi: 10.1007/s11882-019-0854-6.
8
Controversies in drug allergy: Testing for delayed reactions.药物过敏的争议:迟发性反应的检测。
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2019 Jan;143(1):66-73. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2018.10.030. Epub 2018 Dec 17.
9
Antibiotic allergy.抗生素过敏。
Lancet. 2019 Jan 12;393(10167):183-198. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32218-9. Epub 2018 Dec 14.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验