Evaluation on the correlation between gender and drug allergy agent and its incidence frequency

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the correlation between gender, and drug allergy agent and its incidence frequency. Material and Methods: The population of this retrospective study included individuals who applied to the polyclinics for any reason between 2015 and 2021 and who reported a drug allergy. The total numbers of applications, number of examinations, gender, and the presence of drug allergy and the drug allergy agent were recorded in the data form using the archive review method. Data were analyzed with the IBM SPSS V23. Results: The total number of applications to the polyclinic was 151.036 and the number of singular patient applications was 31.915. Among 31.915 patients, 312 patients reported a drug allergy. Of these patients, 79 (25.3%) were male and 233 (74.7%) were female. The most common allergen reported was penicillin, and 58.2% of men and 45.5% of women had this allergy. No statistically significant difference was found between the distributions of allergen agents based on gender (p>0.096). There was a significant difference only between Gadobutrol and gender, and a correlation was found with male gender (p=0.021). No correlation was found when drug agents were dived into groups. Conclusion: Since it has become easy to access healthcare services as well as drugs, the incidence frequency of drug allergies has also increased. Although it is predicted that gender might be effective in the occurrence of drug allergies due to hormonal and genetic differences, no correlation was found in this study. Thus, it should be noted that the risk of drug allergy incidence might exist for both genders.

Keywords

• gender
• drug
• drug allergy

Thanks

We thank Yücel Özalp ([e-mail], from Brussels, Belgium) for the illustration drawing of Figure 1.

References

1. Khan DA, Solensky R. Drug allergy. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 2010;125(2):126-137.
2. Demoly P, Adkinson NF, Brockow K, et al. International Consensus on drug allergy. Allergy. 2014;69(4):420-437.
3. Gomes ER, Demoly P. Epidemiology of hypersensitivity drug reactions. Current opinion in allergy and clinical immunology 2005;5(4):309-316.
4. Blanca M, Romano A, Torres MJ, et al. Update on the evaluation of hypersensitivity reactions to betalactams. Allergy. 2009;64(2):183-193.
5. Bircher AJ, Hofmeier KS, Drug hypersensitivity reactions: Inconsistency in the use of the classification of immediate and nonimmediate reactions. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 2012;129(1):263.
6. Ozturk O, Fidanci I. A general look at pharmacogenetic and its future. Journal of Family Medicine and Health Care 2015;1(3):33-35.
7. Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. Jama. 1998;279(15):1200-1205.
8. Classen DC, Pestotnik SL, Evans RS, et al. Adverse drug events in hospitalized patients: excess length of stay, extra costs, and attributable mortality. Jama. 1997;277(4):301-306.

9. Temple ME, Robinson RF, Miller JC, Hayes JR, Nahata MC. Frequency and preventability of adverse drug reactions in paediatric patients. Drug safety. 2004;27(11):819-829.
10. Impicciatore P, Choonara I, Clarkson A, Provasi D, Pandolfini C, Bonati M. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in paediatric in/out‐patients: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of prospective studies. British journal of clinical pharmacology 2001; 52(1): 77-83.
11. Rebelo Gomes E, Fonseca J, Araujo L, Demoly P. Drug allergy claims in children: from self‐reporting to confirmed diagnosis. Clinical & Experimental Allergy 2008; 38(1): 191-198.
12. Tan T, Van Bever H. Prevalence of self-reported adverse drug reaction/drug allergy in a Singaporean paediatric population. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 2007; 119(1): 125.
13. Yolsal G. Edirne İl merkezinde kreş ve anaokullarına devam eden çocuklarda astım ve alerjik hastalıkların prevalansının ve alerjik duyarlılığın araştırılması (tez). Edirne: Trakya Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi, 2005.
14. Orhan F, Karakas T, Cakir M, Akkol N, Bahat E, Sonmez FM, Gedik Y. Parental‐reported drug allergy in 6‐to 9‐yr‐old urban schoolchildren. Pediatric allergy and immunology 2008; 19(1): 82-85.
15. Pouyanne P, Haramburu F, Imbs JL, Bégaud B. Admissions to hospital caused by adverse drug reactions: cross sectional incidence study. Bmj 2000; 320(7241): 1036.
16. Kidon MI, See Y. Adverse drug reactions in Singaporean children. Singapore Med J. 2004; 45(12): 574-7.
17. Riedl MA, Casillas AM. Adverse drug reactions: types and treatment options. American family physician 2003; 68(9): 1781-1790.
18. Fattinger K, Roos M, Vergères P, et al. Epidemiology of drug exposure and adverse drug reactions in two Swiss departments of internal medicine. British journal of clinical pharmacology 2000; 49(2): 158-167.
19. Kimland E, Rane A, Ufer M, Panagiotidis G. Paediatric adverse drug reactions reported in Sweden from 1987 to 2001. Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety, 14(7), 493-499.
20. Gomes E, Cardoso MF, Praca F, Gomes L, Marino E, Demoly P. Self‐reported drug allergy in a general adult Portuguese population. Clinical & Experimental Allergy 2004; 34(10): 1597-1601.
21. Forsting M, Palkowitsch P. Prevalence of acute adverse reactions to gadobutrol—a highly concentrated macrocyclic gadolinium chelate: review of 14,299 patients from observational trials. European journal of radiology 2010; 74(3): 186-192.
22. Prince MR, Lee HG, Lee CH, et al. Safety of gadobutrol in over 23,000 patients: the GARDIAN study, a global multicentre, prospective, non-interventional study. European radiology 2017; 27(1): 286-295.
23. Gutierrez JE, Koenig S, Breuer J. Overview on the efficacy and safety of gadobutrol: an MRI contrast agent for the CNS, body and vessels. Imaging in Medicine 2012; 4(1): 25.
24. Bhargava R, Noga M. Safety and efficacy of gadobutrol-enhanced MRI in patients aged under 2 years-a single-center, observational study. Magnetic Resonance Insights 2013; 6: 1-12.