Brockow Knut, Wurpts Gerda, Trautmann Axel
Department of Dermatology and Allergology Biederstein, Faculty of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich.
Clinic for Dermatology and Allergology, Aachen Comprehensive Allergy Center (ACAC), University Hospital of RWTH Aachen, and.
Allergol Select. 2022 Feb 1;6:33-41. doi: 10.5414/ALX02310E. eCollection 2022.
In Europe, North America, and Australia, 5% to 10% of the population are now classified as penicillin (β-lactam) allergic. Only ~ 10% of these questionable diagnoses, mostly made in childhood, can be confirmed by allergy diagnostics.
The aim of this review is to show causes and consequences as well as recommendations for dealing with the often questionable diagnosis of penicillin (β-lactam) allergy (BLA).
An incorrect BLA diagnosis may negatively impact antibiotic treatment needed in the future, by using a less effective antibiotic or using a broad-spectrum antibiotic, for example, further exacerbating the problem of increasing antibiotic resistance. Accordingly, there is growing pressure from antibiotic stewardship programs to critically challenge the BLA diagnosis. Conservatively, a suspected BLA is reviewed by an allergist using medical history, skin testing, laboratory testing, and provocation. This clarification is costly and is not remunerated in the German health care system; that is the reason why this testing is only offered in a few specialized clinics and practically not at all in general practice. In view of thousands of affected patients, additional strategies are needed to treat patients with a low risk of hypersensitivity reaction despite suspected allergy with a β-lactam antibiotic. In recent years, various methods have been proposed to eliminate suspected allergy as promptly as possible and directly before necessary treatment with a β-lactam antibiotic, including standardized history (also in the form of an algorithm), skin test with immediate reading after 15 minutes, or administration of a small test dose. Investigations of small case series and also multi-center studies to date have yielded promising results in terms of feasibility and safety.
Of the large number of patients with (questionable) BLA, most have never been tested and - if antibiotic treatment becomes necessary - simply receive an alternative antibiotic. The diagnosis of BLA therefore requires new approaches besides classical allergy testing to critically question BLA.
在欧洲、北美和澳大利亚,目前有5%至10%的人口被归类为对青霉素(β-内酰胺)过敏。这些可疑诊断中,大多在儿童时期做出,只有约10%可通过过敏诊断得到证实。
本综述的目的是展示青霉素(β-内酰胺)过敏(BLA)这一常存疑问的诊断的原因、后果以及应对建议。
错误的BLA诊断可能会对未来所需的抗生素治疗产生负面影响,例如使用效果较差的抗生素或广谱抗生素,进而加剧抗生素耐药性增加的问题。因此,抗生素管理项目施加的压力越来越大,要求对BLA诊断进行严格审视。保守而言,疑似BLA由过敏症专科医生通过病史、皮肤试验、实验室检测和激发试验进行评估。这种诊断澄清成本高昂,在德国医疗保健系统中没有报酬;这就是为什么这种检测仅在少数专科诊所提供,而在全科医疗中几乎根本不提供。鉴于有成千上万受影响的患者,需要额外的策略来治疗尽管疑似对β-内酰胺抗生素过敏但过敏反应风险较低的患者。近年来,已经提出了各种方法,以便在必要的β-内酰胺抗生素治疗之前尽快且直接地消除疑似过敏,包括标准化病史(也采用算法形式)、15分钟后立即读取结果的皮肤试验或给予小剂量试验性药物。迄今为止,对小病例系列的研究以及多中心研究在可行性和安全性方面都取得了有前景的结果。
在大量(可疑)BLA患者中,大多数从未接受过检测,并且——如果需要抗生素治疗——只是简单地接受替代抗生素。因此,除了经典的过敏检测之外,BLA的诊断还需要新的方法来严格质疑BLA。