MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reaction Risk to Direct Penicillin Challenges

2024· review· en· W4402580375 on OpenAlexaff
Kimberly G. Blumenthal, Liam R. Smith, J Mann, Ingrid Salciccioli, John Accarino, Ruchi J. Shah, Fatima I. Alvi, António Cardoso‐Fernandes, Renato Ferreira-da-Silva, Holger J. Schünemann, Bernardo Sousa‐Pinto

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Internal Medicine · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDrug-Induced Adverse Reactions
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePenicillinIntensive care medicineMicrobiologyAntibiotics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: While direct penicillin challenges might support the expansion of penicillin allergy delabeling efforts, the perceived risk of reactions remains a key barrier. Objective: To evaluate the frequency of reactions to direct penicillin challenges in individuals with penicillin allergy labels and to identify factors associated with such reactions. Data Sources: Three electronic databases were searched (MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Scopus) from inception to July 19, 2023, for primary studies assessing patients undergoing direct penicillin challenges. Articles were included regardless of publication year, language, status, or definition of allergy risk. Study Selection: Two reviewers independently selected original studies reporting the frequency of immunologically mediated reactions following a direct penicillin challenge in patients reporting a penicillin allergy. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers independently extracted data and independently assessed the quality of each primary study using a risk-of-bias tool for prevalence studies. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the frequency of reactions to direct penicillin challenges as calculated using random-effects bayesian meta-analysis of proportions. Secondary outcomes included risk factors for reactions and the frequency of severe reactions. Results: A total of 56 primary studies involving 9225 participants were included. Among participants, 438 experienced reactions to direct penicillin challenges without prior testing, corresponding to an overall meta-analytic frequency of 3.5% (95% credible interval [CrI], 2.5%-4.6%). Meta-regression analyses revealed that studies performed in North America had lower rates of reaction to direct challenges (odds ratio [OR], 0.36; 95% CrI, 0.20-0.61), while studies performed in children (OR, 3.37; 95% CrI, 1.98-5.98), in outpatients (OR, 2.19; 95% CrI, 1.08-4.75), and with a graded (OR, 3.24; 95% CrI, 1.50-7.06) or prolonged (OR, 5.45; 95% CrI, 2.38-13.28) challenge had higher rates of reaction. Only 5 severe reactions (3 anaphylaxis, 1 fever with rash, and 1 acute kidney injury) were reported, none of which were fatal. Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review and meta-analysis found that reactions to direct penicillin challenges are infrequent, with rates comparable to indirect challenges after allergy testing. These findings suggest that direct challenges are safe for incorporation into penicillin allergy evaluation efforts across age groups and clinical settings.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.151
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.163

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.151
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.008
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.103
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations44
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Internal MedicineSame topicDrug-Induced Adverse ReactionsFrench-language works237,207