The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. In practice · 2016
Cefazolin Hypersensitivity: Toward Optimized Diagnosis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Uyttebroek Astrid P, Decuyper Ine I, Bridts Chris H, Romano Antonino, Hagendorens Margo M, Ebo Didier G, Sabato Vito
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Correct diagnosis of cefazolin hypersensitivity is not straightforward, mainly because of the absence of in vitro tests and uncertainties concerning the optimal cefazolin concentration for skin testing. Cross-reactivity studies suggest cefazolin hypersensitivity to be a selective hypersensitivity.
OBJECTIVE: The first objective was to confirm that the application of a higher than 2 mg/mL test concentration could increase skin test sensitivity. A second part aimed at investigating the cross-reactivity between cefazolin and other β-lactam antibiotics.
METHODS: A total of 66 patients referred to our clinic after experiencing perioperative anaphylaxis, and exposed to cefazolin, underwent skin testing with cefazolin up to 20 mg/mL. Patients exhibiting a positive skin test with cefazolin had a panel of skin tests with other β-lactams and, if indicated, graded drug challenges to study cross-reactivity.
RESULTS: Increasing skin test concentration from the recommended 2 mg/mL to 20 mg/mL identified an additional 7 of 19 (27%) patients, who would otherwise have displayed negative skin testing. The concentration was proven nonirritating in 30 cefazolin-exposed control individuals in whom an alternative culprit for perioperative anaphylaxis was identified. Graded challenge testing, after negative skin testing, displayed that all patients tolerated alternative β-lactam antibiotics (ie, amoxicillin, cephalosporins, monobactams, and carbapenems). Of them, 11 individuals also tolerated an alternative cephalosporin, suggesting that cefazolin hypersensitivity (generally) is a selective allergy.
CONCLUSIONS: Increasing cefazolin concentration for skin tests up to 20 mg/mL benefits the sensitivity of diagnosis. Furthermore, our data confirm that cefazolin hypersensitivity seems to be a selective allergy with good tolerance to other β-lactam antibiotics.
OBJECTIVE: The first objective was to confirm that the application of a higher than 2 mg/mL test concentration could increase skin test sensitivity. A second part aimed at investigating the cross-reactivity between cefazolin and other β-lactam antibiotics.
METHODS: A total of 66 patients referred to our clinic after experiencing perioperative anaphylaxis, and exposed to cefazolin, underwent skin testing with cefazolin up to 20 mg/mL. Patients exhibiting a positive skin test with cefazolin had a panel of skin tests with other β-lactams and, if indicated, graded drug challenges to study cross-reactivity.
RESULTS: Increasing skin test concentration from the recommended 2 mg/mL to 20 mg/mL identified an additional 7 of 19 (27%) patients, who would otherwise have displayed negative skin testing. The concentration was proven nonirritating in 30 cefazolin-exposed control individuals in whom an alternative culprit for perioperative anaphylaxis was identified. Graded challenge testing, after negative skin testing, displayed that all patients tolerated alternative β-lactam antibiotics (ie, amoxicillin, cephalosporins, monobactams, and carbapenems). Of them, 11 individuals also tolerated an alternative cephalosporin, suggesting that cefazolin hypersensitivity (generally) is a selective allergy.
CONCLUSIONS: Increasing cefazolin concentration for skin tests up to 20 mg/mL benefits the sensitivity of diagnosis. Furthermore, our data confirm that cefazolin hypersensitivity seems to be a selective allergy with good tolerance to other β-lactam antibiotics.