Subject(s)
Allergens/immunology , Contrast Media/adverse effects , Drug Hypersensitivity/diagnosis , Drug Hypersensitivity/immunology , Iodine Compounds/adverse effects , Allergens/administration & dosage , Contrast Media/administration & dosage , Disease Management , Humans , Iodine Compounds/administration & dosage , Skin TestsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: About 10% of subjects report suspected penicillin allergy, but 85-90% of these patients are not truly allergic and could safely receive beta-lactam antibiotics Objective: To design and validate a clinical decision-making algorithm, based on anamnesis (chronology, severity, and duration of the suspected allergic reactions) and reaching a 100% sensitivity and negative predictive value, to assess allergy risk related to a penicillin prescription in general practise. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: All patients were included prospectively and explorated based on ENDA/EAACI recommendations. Results of penicillin allergy work-up (gold standard) were compared with results of the algorithm. RESULTS: Allergological work-up diagnosed penicillin hypersensitivity in 41/259 patients (15.8%) [95% CI: 11.5-20.3]. Three of these patients were diagnosed as having immediate-type hypersensitivity to penicillin, but had been misdiagnosed as low risk patients using the clinical algorithm. Thus, the sensitivity and negative predictive value of the algorithm were 92.7% [95% CI: 80.1-98.5] and 96.3% [95% CI: 89.6-99.2], respectively, and the probability that a patient with true penicillin allergy had been misclassified was 3.7% [95% CI: 0.8-10.4]. CONCLUSIONS: Although the risk of misclassification is low, we cannot recommend the use of this algorithm in general practice. However, the algorithm can be useful in emergency situations in hospital settings. Key messages True penicillin allergy is considerably lower than alleged penicillin allergy (15.8%; 41 of the 259 patients with suspected penicillin allergy). A clinical algorithm based on the patient's clinical history of the supposed allergic event to penicillin misclassified 3/41 (3.7%) truly allergic patients.
Subject(s)
Algorithms , Anti-Bacterial Agents/adverse effects , Clinical Decision-Making , Drug Hypersensitivity/diagnosis , Penicillins/adverse effects , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Anti-Bacterial Agents/immunology , Child , Female , Humans , Male , Medical History Taking , Middle Aged , Penicillins/immunology , Risk Factors , Sensitivity and Specificity , Skin Tests/statistics & numerical data , Young AdultSubject(s)
Drug Eruptions/etiology , Glatiramer Acetate/adverse effects , Hypersensitivity, Immediate/chemically induced , Immunosuppressive Agents/adverse effects , Adult , Drug Eruptions/diagnosis , Drug Eruptions/therapy , Female , Humans , Hypersensitivity, Immediate/diagnosis , Hypersensitivity, Immediate/therapy , Male , Middle Aged , Remission, Spontaneous , Skin Tests , Urticaria/chemically inducedABSTRACT
[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0158235.].
ABSTRACT
In the present study, we examined the potential symptomatic and/or disease-modifying effects of monthly bee venom injections compared to placebo in moderatly affected Parkinson disease patients. We conducted a prospective, randomized double-blind study in 40 Parkinson disease patients at Hoehn & Yahr stages 1.5 to 3 who were either assigned to monthly bee venom injections or equivalent volumes of saline (treatment/placebo group: n = 20/20). The primary objective of this study was to assess a potential symptomatic effect of s.c. bee venom injections (100 µg) compared to placebo 11 months after initiation of therapy on United Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) III scores in the « off ¼ condition pre-and post-injection at a 60 minute interval. Secondary objectives included the evolution of UPDRS III scores over the study period and [123I]-FP-CIT scans to evaluate disease progression. Finally, safety was assessed by monitoring specific IgE against bee venom and skin tests when necessary. After an 11 month period of monthly administration, bee venom did not significantly decrease UPDRS III scores in the « off ¼ condition. Also, UPDRS III scores over the study course, and nuclear imaging, did not differ significantly between treatment groups. Four patients were excluded during the trial due to positive skin tests but no systemic allergic reaction was recorded. After an initial increase, specific IgE against bee venom decreased in all patients completing the trial. This study did not evidence any clear symptomatic or disease-modifying effects of monthly bee venom injections over an 11 month period compared to placebo using a standard bee venom allergy desensitization protocol in Parkinson disease patients. However, bee venom administration appeared safe in non-allergic subjects. Thus, we suggest that higher administration frequency and possibly higher individual doses of bee venom may reveal its potency in treating Parkinson disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01341431.
