This website uses cookies. By using our website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy. Read more - OK, thanks

Suggested Publications
Evaluation and management of penicillin allergy: a review
This week we suggest to read "Evaluation and management of penicillin allergy", an article published on Jama Network on January 15, 2019. SUMMARY Antibiotics are among the most commonly prescribed medications across health care settings. A substantial portion of antibiotic use is inappropriate, which contributes to antimicrobial resistance and a variety of adverse outcomes. Antibiotic selection is often guided by a patient’s allergy history, with an allergy to penicillin commonly reported. Yet, true IgE-mediated allergies, that cause anaphylaxis, are uncommon. Most patients labeled with penicillin allergy do not undergo any evaluation. The authors summarized the work of different scientific societies, which reviewed articles published between January 1, 2005, and September 30, 2018, about the epidemiology of, clinical consequences of, and methods for evaluating penicillin allergy, providing toolkits to facilitate these evaluations. Penicillin is commonly associated with hypersensitivity reactions, most likely related to their frequent use and infection-related drug interactions. About 0.5% to 2.0% of penicillin administrations result in a reaction that could be consistent with a hypersensitivity reaction, but that could also be nonallergic. Most reports of penicillin allergy describe an unknown or cutaneous reaction. Many patients (26%) with a reported penicillin allergy do not have any reaction characteristics documented in the electronic health record (EHR); other commonly documented reactions are rash (38%), hives (18%), angioedema (9%), gastrointestinal upset (6%), anaphylaxis (5%), and itching (5%). For patients, whose allergy history excludes blistering rash, hemolytic anemia, nephritis, hepatitis, fever, and joint pain suggestive of organ involvement or severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCAR) in response to penicillin, an allergy evaluation of some form is indicated. More than 95% of patients who do not have a history of serious penicillin allergy reactions are penicillin tolerant. The consequences of being labeled as having a penicillin allergy include the use of alternative antibiotics, that cause more treatment failures and adverse effects than β-lactams (e.g., increased risk of surgical site infections when used in perioperative prophylaxis), contribute to antimicrobial resistance development (e.g., C. difficile infection, methicillin-resistant S. aureus, and vancomycin resistant enterococcus), and increase pharmacy costs. A comprehensive history is essential for proper evaluation of a patient with a reported penicillin allergy. Although there are many types of rashes that result from infectious, environmental, and/or autoimmune triggers, the authors proposed 3 general categories: IgE-mediated cutaneous reactions (e.g., urticaria), benign T-lymphocyte–mediated cutaneous reactions, and SCAR. After the allergy history is determined to be inconsistent with SCAR, hemolytic anemia, an organ-specific reaction, drug fever, or serum sickness, patients can be stratified into low, moderate, and high risk. The baseline risk for any reaction to β-lactam antibiotics is approximately 2.0%. Patients with low-risk history (most of the patients): prescribe amoxicillin or perform a direct amoxicillin challenge (250 mg or 500 mg, divided into 2 or 3 separate administrations, with 1 hour of observation demonstrates penicillin tolerance). Demonstration of amoxicillin tolerance enables future use of all penicillin antibiotics. Patients with moderate-risk history (pruritic rashes or reactions, but not anaphylactic reactions): penicillin skin testing should be done; if positive, patients are allergic and should not be challenged; if negative, they carry a predictive value of about 100%, when combined with oral amoxicillin challenge. Patients with high-risk history (anaphylaxis, positive penicillin skin testing results, recurrent penicillin reactions, and hypersensitivities to multiple β-lactam antibiotics) should be referred to allergy/immunology specialist or undergo desensitization. Algorithms exist to help prescribe β-lactam agents to patients with a reported penicillin allergy. However, evaluating the penicillin allergy directly is the simplest approach. Penicillin allergy evaluation can be safely performed before the need for antibiotic use. Most reactions that occur, as a result of testing, are either subjective symptoms or minor cutaneous reactions. Rarely, patients may develop anaphylaxis. If an amoxicillin challenge is tolerated, the medical record notation that a patient is allergic to penicillin should be deleted (updating the EHR). Amoxicillin challenges virtually exclude IgE-mediated allergies, but patients may experience other benign skin rashes, as the general population. The authors concluded highlighting that many patients report an allergy to penicillin, but few have clinically significant reactions, and that evaluation of penicillin allergy, before deciding not to use penicillin or other β-lactam antibiotics, is an important tool for antimicrobial stewardship. AUTHORS: Erica S. Shenoy, Eric Macy, Theresa Rowe The article is available here:
Diagnostic performances of the Xpert MTB/RIF in Brazil
This week we suggest to read "Diagnostic performances of the Xpert MTB/RIF in Brazil", an article published on "Respiratory Medicine", volume 134, in January 2018.  SUMMARY Tuberculosis (TB) is a first-class health priority, with over 10.4 million cases notified in 2015, of whom 480,000 are affected by multidrug-resistant (MDR) form and additional 100,000 have rifampicin-resistant TB (RR-TB) following diagnosis with Xpert MTB/RIF. In Brazil, 84,000 TB incident cases were estimated to occur in 2015, with 1900 MDR- and RR TB cases. Xpert MTB/RIF has changed the programmatic approach to TB diagnosis, allowing the clinician to know in less than 2 hours if the case is affected by TB and if there is resistance to rifampicin. This is particularly true in high incidence TB countries, where the sensitivity and specificity of the test are high. The test was endorsed by World Health Organization (WHO) in 2011. However, the sensitivity of Xpert MTB/RIF is higher in sputum smear positive than in negative cases. The positive and negative predictive values of the test critically depend on the prevalence of TB. In countries where the incidence of TB is intermediate, like in Brazil, information on Xpert MTB/RIF is lacking. The authors reported a study designed to evaluate the diagnostic performances of the test in the HIV- uninfected and – infected patients, within the framework of the ERS (European Respiratory Society)/SBPT (Brazilian Society of Respiratory Diseases) collaborative TB project. 407 patients with culture-confirmed TB were retrospectively enrolled in an outpatient TB clinic, located in Alvorada – Rio Grande do Sul, from January 2015 to December 2016. No specific selection criteria were adopted. Paediatric cases were excluded. The majority was male (238, 58.5%), white (313/407, 76.9%) with a median age of 54 years. More than 70% of the cases were current or former smokers and 23.9% had a previous TB episode. The proportion of HIV- infected patients was higher than 10%. More than 60% did not show radiological abnormalities at the chest radiography. Only 1.0% of the patients were resistant to rifampicin. Treatment outcome was described for 159 patients: 70.4% were cured, 17.6% defaulted, 7.6% failed, and 4.4% died. The Xpert MTB/RIF and the culture were performed in all 407 patients. Using culture as the gold standard, the diagnostic performance of the Xpert MTB/RIF in the HIV-negative patients was as follows: sensitivity 100.0%, specificity 92.8%; positive and negative predictive values were 71.4% and 100.0%, respectively. In the HIV- infected subgroup the specificity was significantly lower (59.3%), probably due to the relatively small sample size and the immunosuppression-related lower sputum smear positivity rate. Out of 108 Xpert positive TB cases, 33 (30.6%) were culture negative: they all were likely to have TB, and 11/33 (33.3%) were HIV infected. The multivariate logistic regression analysis found that a true positivity is associated with increasing age. The authors concluded, highlighting the importance of their study as the first describing the association between age and positive Xpert test in an adult population, and investigating the performances of the test in a country with an intermediate TB incidence, revealing a very high sensitivity and specificity in HIV-negative patients,  underlining its importance to ensure quality-assured diagnosis and effective treatment, which are core activities to control TB. AUTHORS: Denise Rossato Silva, Giovanni Sotgiu, Lia D'Ambrosio, Giovana Rodrigues Pereira, Márcia Silva Barbosa, Natan José Dutra Dias, Laura Saderi, Rosella Centis, Giovanni Battista Migliori Read more here.  
Latest News
Friday 5 April 2019
Antibiotics and the treatment of diarrhoea: Slideset by Per Ashorn and Miguel O'Ryan
Friday 22 February 2019
WAidid video pills: Professor Nicola Principi on obesity in children.
Monday 18 February 2019
WAidid video pills: Lieke Sanders on PCV7 followed by PCV10 Dutch data on IPD and pneumonia.
Clinical Advice