The Burden of Self-Reported Antibiotic Allergies in Health Care and How to Address It: A Systematic Review of the Evidence.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotics are the first-line treatment for bacterial infections; however, overuse and inappropriate prescribing have made antibiotics less effective with increased antimicrobial resistance. Unconfirmed reported antibiotic allergy labels create a significant barrier to optimal antimicrobial stewardship in health care, with clinical and economic implications. OBJECTIVE: A systematic review was conducted to summarize the impact of patient-reported antibiotic allergy on clinical outcomes and various strategies that have been employed to effectively assess and remove these allergy labels, improving patient care. METHODS: The review was undertaken using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A critical appraisal was conducted on all studies and a narrative synthesis was performed to identify themes. RESULTS: Four themes emerged: the prevalence of antibiotic allergy, impact of antibiotic allergy on antimicrobial prescribing, impact of antibiotic allergy on clinical outcomes, and delabeling strategies to improve clinical outcomes. Of the 32 studies, including 1,089,675 participants, the prevalence of reported antibiotic allergy was between 5% and 35%. Patients with a reported antibiotic allergy had poorer concordance with prescribing guidelines in 30% to 60% of cases, with a higher use of alternatives such as quinolone, tetracycline, macrolide, lincosamide, and carbapenem and lower use of beta-lactam antibiotics. Antibiotic allergy delabeling was identified as an intervention and recommendation to advance the state of the science. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial evidence within the literature that antibiotic allergy labels significantly impact patient clinical outcomes and a consensus that systematic assessment of reported antibiotic allergies, commonly referred to as delabeling, improves the clinical management of patients.

Oral glucose efficacy on neonate's pain responses at the NICU: A quasi experimental trial of two clinical procedures.

AIM: This research was undertaken with the purpose of testing two research hypotheses regarding the efficacy of 10% oral glucose solution on procedural pain associated with venepuncture and nasopharyngeal suctioning within three neonatal intensive care units (NICU). The hypotheses were formulated from previous conclusions reached by other researchers highlighting the efficacy of sucrose solutions on neonates' pain responses during minor painful procedures. METHOD: A quasi-experimental trial utilising a time series design with one group was used. Data from a total of 90 neonates included 60 neonates who underwent a venepuncture and 30 neonates who underwent a nasopharyngeal suctioning procedure for clinical purposes. The neonate's pain response for each procedure was scored using the Neonatal Pain Assessment Scale (NPAS) on two separate occasions over three time periods. The pre-procedural score (T0) when the neonate received no sucrose, the inter-procedural score (T1) when the neonate was given 2ml of 10% glucose solution two minutes before the procedure (intervention group) or where oral glucose was withheld (control group) and the post-procedural score (T2) being at the end of the procedure. RESULTS: The results showed the mean NPAS scores in response to venepuncture or nasopharyngeal suctioning were significantly lower in the intervention group than the control group. CONCLUSION: This showed that oral glucose (10%) had a positive effect on the pain response during venepuncture and nasopharyngeal suctioning procedures.