Consequences of avoiding β-lactams in patients with β-lactam allergies

Systematic review of professional liability when prescribing β-lactams for patients with a known penicillin allergy

OBJECTIVE

To describe medical negligence and malpractice cases in which a patient with a known penicillin allergy received a β-lactam and experienced an adverse reaction related to the β-lactam.

DATA SOURCES

Lexis-Nexus, Westlaw, and Google Scholar were searched.

STUDY SELECTIONS

Medical negligence and malpractice cases were eligible for inclusion if they met the following criteria: the plaintiff had a known penicillin allergy, received a β-lactam, and experienced an adverse event. All United States federal and state cases were eligible.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven unique cases met the inclusion criteria. Eighteen cases involved the receipt of a penicillin-based antibiotic; of these cases with a known legal outcome, the plaintiff (patient or representative) prevailed or settled in 3 cases and defendants (providers) prevailed in 7 cases. Seven cases involved the receipt of a cephalosporin; of these cases with a known legal outcome, the plaintiff settled with physicians before trial in 1 case and defendants prevailed in 3 cases. Two cases involved the receipt of a carbapenem. Defendants prevailed in one case and the legal outcome of the other case is unknown. In cases in which the defense successfully moved for summary judgment, judges cited a lack of scientific evidence demonstrating a cephalosporin or carbapenem was contraindicated for a patient with a penicillin allergy.

CONCLUSION

The cases with published legal outcomes found limited professional liability for clinicians who prescribed cephalosporins or carbapenems to a patient with a known penicillin allergy. These results may decrease the litigation fears of practitioners and risk managers within health care systems.

Addressing Inpatient Beta-Lactam Allergies: A Multihospital Implementation

Addressing inaccurate penicillin allergies is encouraged as part of antibiotic stewardship in the inpatient setting. However, implementing interventions targeted at the 10% to 15% of inpatients reporting a previous penicillin allergy can pose substantial logistic challenges. We implemented a computerized guideline for patients with reported beta-lactam allergy at 5 hospitals within a single health care system in the Boston area. In this article, we describe our implementation roadmap, including both successes achieved and challenges faced. We explain key implementation steps, including assembling a team, stakeholder engagement, developing or selecting an approach, spreading the change, establishing measures, and measuring impact. The objective was to detail the lessons learned while empowering others to be part of this important, multidisciplinary work to improve the care of patients with reported beta-lactam allergies.

Evaluation of Penicillin Allergy in the Hospitalized Patient: Opportunities for Antimicrobial Stewardship

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Penicillin allergy is often misdiagnosed and is associated with adverse consequences, but testing is infrequently done in the hospital setting. This article reviews historical and contemporary innovations in inpatient penicillin allergy testing and its impact on antimicrobial stewardship.

RECENT FINDINGS

Adoption of the electronic medical record allows rapid identification of admitted patients carrying a penicillin allergy diagnosis. Collaboration with clinical pharmacists and the development of computerized clinical guidelines facilitates increased testing and appropriate use of penicillin and related β-lactams. Education of patients and their outpatient providers is the key to retaining the benefits of penicillin allergy de-labeling. Penicillin allergy testing is feasible in the hospital and offers tangible benefits towards antimicrobial stewardship. Allergists should take the lead in this endeavor and work towards overcoming personnel limitations by partnering with other health care providers and incorporating technology that improves the efficiency of allergy evaluation.

Antimicrobial Stewardship Approaches in the Intensive Care Unit

Antimicrobial stewardship programs aim to monitor, improve, and measure responsible antibiotic use. The intensive care unit (ICU), with its critically ill patients and prevalence of multiple drug-resistant pathogens, presents unique challenges. This article reviews approaches to stewardship with application to the ICU, including the value of diagnostics, principles of empirical and definitive therapy, and measures of effectiveness. There is good evidence that antimicrobial stewardship results in more appropriate antimicrobial use, shorter therapy durations, and lower resistance rates. Data demonstrating hard clinical outcomes, such as adverse events and mortality, are more limited but encouraging; further studies are needed.

Pro and Contra: Provocation Tests in Drug Hypersensitivity

Drug provocation test (DPT) is the controlled administration of a drug to diagnose immune- or non-immune-mediated drug hypersensitivity and the last step for accurate recognition of drug hypersensitivity reactions when the previous diagnostic evaluations are negative or unavailable. A DPT is performed only if other conventional tests fail to yield conclusive results. In each clinical presentation, "to provoke or not to provoke" a patient should be decided after careful assessment of the risk-benefit ratio. Well-defined benefits of DPT include confirmative exclusion of diagnoses of drug hypersensitivity and provision of safe alternatives. However, disadvantages such as safety, difficulty in interpretations of results, lack of objective biomarkers, risks of resensitization, efficiency in daily practice, and lack of standardized protocols, are poorly debated. This review summarizes the current published research concerning DPT, with particular emphasis on the advantages and disadvantages of DPT in an evidence-based manner.

Evolution of diagnostic approaches in betalactam hypersensitivity

INTRODUCTION

Betalactams are the most widely used drugs against infections and the primary cause of antibiotic hypersensitivity reactions. Reaction patterns for different betalactams have been changing in accordance with consumption trends, and vary among countries. As a consequence, in vivo and in vitro tests have had to change with to keep up with new tendencies. Areas covered: This review is focused on advances in betalactam hypersensitivity diagnosis. Changes in in vivo methods have been limited to the inclusion of new haptens. In contrast, major progress has been achieved for in vitro tests since the 1960s, from the first description of immunoassays, the basophil activation test and the lymphocyte transformation test, to the more sophisticated assays developed in last years. Expert commentary: Issues with diagnosis are related to test sensitivity. In vivo tests show higher sensitivity, however they can be risky, especially in severe and life-threatening reactions. Therefore, we believe that in vitro tests should be the preferred method. Current efforts are under way to enhance their sensitivity. Only multidisciplinary approaches involving immunology, proteomics, nanotechnology and chemistry can help us to fully understand conjugate structures and mechanisms involved in hypersensitivity reactions to betalactams, and consequently lead to advances in in vitro methods.

Tackling inpatient penicillin allergies: Assessing tools for antimicrobial stewardship

BACKGROUND

Reported penicillin allergy rarely reflects penicillin intolerance. Failure to address inpatient penicillin allergies results in more broad-spectrum antibiotic use, treatment failures, and adverse drug events.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to determine the optimal approach to penicillin allergies among medical inpatients.

METHODS

We evaluated internal medicine inpatients reporting penicillin allergy in 3 periods: (1) standard of care (SOC), (2) penicillin skin testing (ST), and (3) computerized guideline application with decision support (APP). The primary outcome was use of a penicillin or cephalosporin, comparing interventions to SOC using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

There were 625 patients: SOC, 148; ST, 278; and APP, 199. Of 278 ST patients, 179 (64%) were skin test eligible; 43 (24%) received testing and none were allergic. In the APP period, there were 292 unique Web site views; 112 users (38%) completed clinical decision support. Although ST period patients did not have increased odds of penicillin or cephalosporin use overall (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.3; 95% CI, 0.8-2.0), we observed significant increased odds of penicillin or cephalosporin use overall in the APP period (aOR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-2.9) and in a per-protocol analysis of the skin tested subset (aOR, 5.7; 95% CI, 2.6-12.5).

CONCLUSIONS

Both APP and ST-when completed-increased the use of penicillin and cephalosporin antibiotics among inpatients reporting penicillin allergy. While the skin tested subset showed an almost 6-fold impact, the computerized guideline significantly increased penicillin or cephalosporin use overall nearly 2-fold and was readily implemented.

Feasibility, Benefits, and Limitations of a Penicillin Allergy Skin Testing Service

OBJECTIVE

To critically examine the feasibility, benefits, and limitations of an inpatient penicillin skin testing service and how pharmacists can be utilized.

DATA SOURCES

A PubMed search was performed from July 2016 through September 2016 using the following search terms: penicillin skin testing, penicillin allergy, β-lactam allergy. Additional references were identified from a review of literature citations.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

All English-language studies assessing the use of penicillin skin testing as well as management and clinical outcomes of patients with a β-lactam allergy were evaluated.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The prevalence of people self-identifying as penicillin allergic ranges from 10% to 20% in the United States. Being improperly labeled as penicillin allergic is associated with higher health care costs, worse clinical outcomes, and an increased prevalence of multidrug-resistant infections. Penicillin skin testing can be a tool used to clarify penicillin allergies and has been demonstrated to be a successful addition to antimicrobial stewardship programs in multiple health care settings. Prior to implementing a penicillin skin testing service, institutions will need to perform a feasibility analysis of who will supply labor and accept the financial burden as well as identify if the positive benefits of a penicillin skin testing service overcome the limitations of this diagnostic test.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that institutions with high percentages of patients receiving non-β-lactams because of penicillin allergy labels would likely benefit the most from a penicillin skin testing service.