No abstract

No abstract

Background Treatment guidelines are not well established in AIDS-related Kaposi sarcoma (KS).Objective We aim to review the evidence on efficacy of treatments for AIDS-related Kaposi sarcoma.Methods We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase Database from date of database inception till July 2020. Randomized controlled trials reporting intervention consisting of any type of treatment compared to control/placebo to a different treatment modality or different combination of treatment/treatment doses with a diagnosis of AIDSrelated KS are selected.Main outcomes and measures Primary outcomes were response rates defined as complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), or progressive disease (PD). Secondary outcomes were cosmesis and adverse outcomes such as pain and erythema.Results Thirteen out of 536 articles met our eligibility criteria. Three studies reported the efficacy of chemotherapy, two studies looked at different doses of radiotherapy regimes, and three studies compared different antiretroviral therapy (ART) and chemotherapy regimens. Other studies reported topical therapies such as alitretinoin gel, IM862, and bHCG injection which showed varied efficacies.Limitations Lack of standardization classification of disease activity and clinical outcomes and treatment modalities precluded meaningful comparison of studies. ConclusionThe evidence of efficacy of any particular intervention is overall varied and there was insufficient evidence to recommend any particular intervention. We have provided an overview of treatments for KS but larger studies need to be carried out to verify the efficacy of treatment options reported in the literature.

Background: β-Lactam allergy is over-reported and this leads to greater healthcare costs. Allergy testing has inherent risks, yet patients who test negative may continue avoiding β-lactams. Objective: To evaluate the safety and diagnostic value of β-lactams allergy testing locally and usage of antibiotics following negative testing. Methods: We performed a retrospective medical record review and follow-up survey of patients who underwent β-lactam testing between 2010 and 2016 at the National Skin Centre, Singapore. Results: We reviewed the records of 166 patients, with a total of 173 β-lactam allergy labels. Eighty (46.2%) labels were to penicillin, 75 (43.1%) to amoxicillin/amoxicillin-clavulanic acid, 11 (6.4%) to cephalexin, and 5 (2.9%) to others. Skin tests were performed in 142 patients and drug provocation tests (DPTs) in 141 patients. Eleven (6.6%) patients defaulted DPTs after skin testing. Out of 166 patients, 22 (13.3%) patients were proven allergic by either skin tests (16) or DPTs (6). Patients who tested positive had nonsevere reactions. Out of 155 patients who were conclusively evaluated, 133 (85.8%) were not allergic. Of these patients, 30 (22.6%) used the tested β-lactam subsequently, with one reporting a mild reaction. Fifty-one (38.3%) patients were uncontactable or uncertain if they consumed a β-lactam since testing negative. Fifty-two (39.1%) patients had no re-exposure (35 had no indication, 17 were fearful of reactions). Conclusion: Drug allergy testing was safe and removed inappropriate labels. Clinical Implication: Allergy testing is efficacious, but fears of subsequent rechallenge should be addressed to maximize the effectiveness of allergy delabeling.