Dataset Information

Testing Strategies and Predictors for Evaluating Immediate and Delayed Reactions to Cephalosporins.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Although 1% to 2% of the general population carries a cephalosporin allergy label (CAL), we lack validated testing strategies and predictors of true allergy.

Objective

To identify cross-reactivity patterns and predictors of skin test positive (STP) in geographically disparate patients with a CAL.

Methods

A total of 780 adult patients labeled with a CAL or penicillin allergy label (PAL) with unknown tolerance of cephalosporins identified from the Austin Hospital (Melbourne, Australia) (n = 410) and Vanderbilt University Medical Center (Nashville, TN) (n = 370) between 2014 and 2018 underwent a standardized skin testing.

Results

Of 328 patients with a CAL, 29 (8.8%) tested STP to ≥1 cephalosporin(s). There were no cefazolin or ceftriaxone STP, 0 of 452 (0%), in patients with a PAL only. Of 328 patients with a CAL, 16 (4.8%) were ampicillin STP. Eleven of 16 of these patients had an initial allergy label to cephalexin. Twenty of 29 cephalosporin STP patients demonstrated tolerance to a cephalosporin with a different R1 side chain, and 8 of 14 ampicillin STP patients demonstrated tolerance to ≥1 non-amino R1 group cephalosporin. Eleven of 13 patients STP to cefazolin were skin and ingestion challenge negative to all other penicillins and cephalosporins predicted by its distinct R1/R2 groups. Seven of 15 ceftriaxone STP patients demonstrated cross-reactivity with R1-similar cephalosporins. Time since the original reaction predicted STP testing to both penicillins, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) per year 0.93 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.90, 0.97), and cephalosporins, aOR per year 0.71 (95% CI: 0.56, 0.90).

Conclusions

Cephalosporin cross-reactivity is based on shared R1 groupings. Increasing time since the original reaction and the presence of a PAL with unknown cephalosporin tolerance predict a lower likelihood of cephalosporin STP.

SUBMITTER: Stone CA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7855229 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundBreast reconstruction using the latissimus dorsi (LD) flap is one of the most popular and common breast reconstruction techniques among Asian patients. There are increasing numbers of cases wherein breasts need to be reconstructed to moderate to large sizes among the Asian population. Most reconstructive surgeons use abdominal-based flaps-such as the deep inferior epigastric perforator and transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap, or LD flap with an implant-to supplement the volume. Here, we compare the usefulness of the boomerang LD (bLD) flap-a technique developed by modifying the design of the conventional extended LD flap-with that of the LD flap with implant (LDi).MethodsThis was a prospective cohort study including patients with breast cancer aged between 25 and 60 years who underwent unilateral total or skin/nipple-sparing mastectomy, or postmastectomy. The exclusion criteria were advanced breast cancer (stages 3 and 4); a history of cognitive impairment affecting ability to complete the self-reported questionnaire; a history of neurologic or musculoskeletal disorder; and a history of alcohol or drug abuse. Statistical analysis was performed, and correlations between the two technique types were analyzed [including age, body mass index, preoperative breast volume, operation time, flap elevation time, admission duration, adjuvant treatment (radiotherapy, chemotherapy), drain indwelling duration, and drain total sum volume].ResultsIn total, 85 patients who underwent immediate breast construction through the LDi group (n=63) or bLD group (n=25) techniques after total mastectomy between January 2015 and June 2022 were analyzed (mean age: LDi group, 46±7.7 years; bLD group, 45.6±7.8 years). We observed that the flap weight, operative time, mean admission duration, and drain indwelling duration were statistically significantly different in the bLD group (P<0.05). Body mass index, preoperative breast volume, specimen weight, flap elevation time, and drain total time were comparable between groups.ConclusionsBreast reconstruction using the bLD flap was found to be a suitable alternative technique for patients who desire an autologous tissue transfer (rather than an implant) but are contraindicated for abdominal-based flaps and do not mind long postoperative scars.

Project description:ImportanceApproximately 2 million cataract operations are performed annually in the US, and patterns of cataract surgery delivery are changing to meet the increasing demand. Therefore, a comparative analysis of visual acuity outcomes after immediate sequential bilateral cataract surgery (ISBCS) vs delayed sequential bilateral cataract surgery (DSBCS) is important for informing future best practices.ObjectiveTo compare refractive outcomes of patients who underwent ISBCS, short-interval (1-14 days between operations) DSBCS (DSBCS-14), and long-interval (15-90 days) DSBCS (DSBCS-90) procedures.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study used population-based data from the American Academy of Ophthalmology Intelligent Research in Sight (IRIS) Registry. A total of 1 824 196 IRIS Registry participants with bilateral visual acuity measurements who underwent bilateral cataract surgery were assessed.ExposuresParticipants were divided into 3 groups (DSBCS-90, DSBCS-14, and ISBCS groups) based on the timing of the second eye surgery. Univariable and multivariable linear regression models were used to analyze the refractive outcomes of the first and second surgery eye.Main outcomes and measuresMean postoperative uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) after cataract surgery.ResultsThis study analyzed data from 1 824 196 patients undergoing bilateral cataract surgery (mean [SD] age for those <87 years, 70.03 [7.77]; 684 916 [37.5%] male). Compared with the DSBCS-90 group, after age, self-reported race, insurance status, history of age-related macular degeneration, diabetic retinopathy, and glaucoma were controlled for, the UCVA of the first surgical eye was higher by 0.41 (95% CI, 0.36-0.45; P < .001) letters, and the BCVA was higher by 0.89 (95% CI, 0.86-0.92; P < .001) letters in the DSBCS-14 group, whereas in the ISBCS group, the UCVA was lower by 2.79 (95% CI, -2.95 to -2.63; P < .001) letters and the BCVA by 1.64 (95% CI, -1.74 to -1.53; P < .001) letters. Similarly, compared with the DSBCS-90 group for the second eye, in the DSBCS-14 group, the UCVA was higher by 0.79 (95% CI, 0.74-0.83; P < .001) letters and the BCVA by 0.48 (95% CI, 0.45-0.51; P < .001) letters, whereas in the ISBCS group, the UCVA was lower by -1.67 (95% CI, -1.83 to -1.51; P < .001) letters and the BCVA by -1.88 (95% CI, -1.98 to -1.78; P < .001) letters.Conclusions and relevanceThe results of this cohort study of patients in the IRIS Registry suggest that compared with DSBCS-14 or DSBCS-90, ISBCS is associated with worse visual outcomes, which may or may not be clinically relevant, depending on patients' additional risk factors. Nonrandom surgery group assignment, confounding factors, and large sample size could account for the small but statistically significant differences noted. Further studies are warranted to determine whether these factors should be considered clinically relevant when counseling patients before cataract surgery.