View clinical trials related to Allergy Penicillin.
Filter by:This study aims to evaluate the outcomes of a rural-DOC Pilot clinic which will be established in the Huntsville site of Muskoka Algonquin Healthcare. Patients from the Muskoka region who are confirmed to have a low-risk penicillin allergy are eligible for participation in the DOC clinic. Following their experience with the DOC, participation in this study will be voluntary and feedback will be requested from each participant, and local primary care providers. The feedback will be used to assess the impact of the DOC clinic on participants and the medical community over the 2 - year study. Feedback will also be collected to investigate ongoing antimicrobial use for those participants who were successfully delabeled. This will be accomplished by surveying participants at six and twelve months after their DOC.
This study focuses on the experience of the military patient reporting a suspected drug allergy, with its own specificities. Suspicions of drug allergies during a mission expose the doctor to difficulties. This study will improve understanding of the allergy patient's point of view. The end result could be a set of ideas for measures to raise awareness among these patients, and motivate them to undergo an allergological assessment.
The most common drug allergy reported is penicillin allergy, approximately 10% of the world's population. According to the latest studies, only 1-2% of them have a proven hypersensitivity to penicillins. Being wrongly labeled "allergic" leads to a loss of chance for patients to be treated with a molecule of less efficacy than penicillins, an increase in bacterial resistance by broadening the spectrum of action of the molecules prescribed as an alternative and ultimately a additional financial cost. There are several forms of hypersensitivity: the two most classic: immediate hypersensitivity (type I according to Gell and Combs) with a reaction within an hour of taking and non-immediate hypersensitivity with a reaction occurring several days later (type IV according to Gell and Combs). A large majority of patients report a history of allergy in childhood that is poorly described and most often absent from health records. In most cases, this may be a viral rash concomitant with a febrile episode mistakenly mistaken for an allergic skin reaction. Patients are then tested for several decades, in adulthood, after their initial reaction. This latency of time involves a risk of negativation of the allergic tests and it is not excluded that the skin tests or drug reintroductions re cause sensitization to the antibiotic tested and that ultimately the patient reacts when taking the future drug. In fact, it is recommended to optimally explore patients approximately 6 months after an allergic reaction (except for severe drug eruptions). The exploration of drug hypersensitivity to penicillins therefore involves a strict questioning of the circumstances of the so-called allergic reaction allowing the reaction to be classified as immediate or delayed, then skin tests (prick test, IDR and Patch test according to the immediate profile or delayed) and finally the hospital provocation test. While provocation tests are carried out conventionally most often within one day, it has been shown that some patients react several days after taking penicillin repeatedly: 6.1% have a reaction in their protocol of taking for 5 days at home in the context of a delayed allergy. In the allergology service at hôpital Paris Saint-Joseph, the protocol corresponds to 2 successive reintroductions. This study is to evaluate the protocol for reintroducing Amoxicillin or Augmentin carried out over two stages: a first with 100 mg (i.e. 1 / 10th of a dose) then a second with a dose of 1200 mg 1 month later. It would be a question of seeing if with the second reintroduction, one could not catch up with allergic people who would have presented a false negative during the first reintroduction because of explorations too far away from their initial reaction.