β-Lactam allergy testing and delabeling-Experiences and lessons from Singapore

Beta-lactam allergy in patients: an antibiotic stewardship challenge

BACKGROUND

Patients are commonly reported as being allergic to beta-lactam (BL) antibiotics. However, many patients with this reported allergy are able to receive BL treatments because they do not have true allergies. In many cases these are simply intolerances due to side effects reported as an allergy. Delabelling these patients leads to better clinical outcomes, optimal antibiotic usage, decreased bacterial resistance and reduced healthcare costs. Therefore, the aims of this study were to identify incorrectly labelled BL allergies in hospitalised patients and to assess antibiotic use in delabelled patients in order to establish a quality indicator to optimise antimicrobial treatments.

METHODS

A prospective study was conducted in which hospitalised patients treated with antimicrobial drugs and labelled as 'BL-allergic' were identified by clinical pharmacists. An allergist assessed whether patients were suitable candidates for a skin test or oral challenge. The Allergy Service removed 'BL-allergic' labels if negative results were obtained. Delabelled patients were followed up by clinical pharmacists to study the use of BL antibiotics as a result of the delabelling programme.

RESULTS

A total of 176 suspected allergic patients were identified and 91 (51.7%) were tested either by a skin test or oral challenge based on the patient indicators. Seven (16.4%) patients tested were allergic to BL antibiotics, 76 (83.5%) were totally delabelled and eight (0.1%) were partially delabelled. Thirty-two (38.1%) delabelled patients required antibiotic treatment in another inpatient or outpatient setting, of whom 27 (84.3%) patients with a new infectious episode received BL treatments while five (15.7%) continued to receive antimicrobial treatments without BL.

CONCLUSION

After the implementation of a protocol to detect incorrect BL allergy labels, 83.5% of the patients in this cohort were completely delabelled. This shows that there is a clear opportunity to optimise the use of antibiotics by delabelling 'BL-allergic' patients.

EAACI/ENDA position paper on drug provocation testing

In drug hypersensitivity, drug provocation testing (DPT), also called drug challenge, is the gold standard for investigation. In recent years, risk stratification has become an important tool for adjusting the diagnostic strategy to the perceived risk, whilst still maintaining a high level of safety for the patient. Skin tests are recommended before DPT but may be omitted in low-risk patients. The task force suggests a strict definition of such low-risk patients in children and adults. Based on experience and evidence from studies of allergy to beta-lactam antibiotics, an algorithm on how to adjust DPT to the risk, and when to omit skin tests before DPT, is presented. For other antibiotics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and other drugs, skin tests are poorly validated and DPT is frequently necessary. We recommend performing DPT with chemotherapeutics and biologicals to avoid unnecessary desensitization procedures and DPT with skin tests negative contrast media. We suggest DPT with anesthetics only in highly specialized centers. Specifics of DPT to proton pump inhibitors, anticonvulsants and corticosteroids are discussed. This position paper provides general recommendations and guidance on optimizing use of DPT, whilst balancing benefits with patient safety and optimizing the use of the limited available resources.

Is a Prolonged Drug Provocation Test Better Than a Single-Day Drug Provocation Test? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

There is currently no standardized duration of drug provocation test (DPT) for confirming/delabeling beta-lactam hypersensitivity reaction (BL-HSR).

OBJECTIVES

This meta-analysis and systematic review aimed to investigate the added diagnostic value of extended-day over single-day DPT for confirming/delabeling BL-HSR in adults and children.

METHODS

The MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and CINAHL online databases were searched from inception to March 15, 2023, for studies that performed extended-day DPT to confirm/delabel BL-HSR. Risk difference and risk ratio were used to compare the proportions of patients with confirmed BL-HSR by single-day or extended-day DPT.

RESULTS

A total of 10,371 DPTs from 42 studies were included. Extended-day DPTs ranged from 2 to 7 days, or as long as index reactions were reported (maximum 10 days). The overall prevalence of confirmed BL-HSR was 6.96% (3.31% during the first-day DPT, and 3.65% during extended-day DPT). Approximately half of the positive reactions during extended-day DPT occurred during the second/third day. The increased detected pool prevalence of confirmed BL-HSR yielded by extended-day DPT was 0.03 (95% CI, 0.02%-0.04%; I2 = 57.69%; P < .001), and the risk ratio of positive reactions between extended-day and single-day DPT was 1.94 (95% CI, 1.62-2.33; I2 = 36.26%; P < .001). The risk difference increased per 1% increase in prevalence of BL-HSR by 0.6% (95% CI, 0.4%-0.7%; P < .001). Twenty-three severe reactions occurred during DPT, and only 2 severe reactions (0.02%) occurred during extended-day DPT. An additional 28 extended-day DPTs were needed to identify 1 mild reaction.

CONCLUSIONS

The increased prevalence of confirmed BL-HSR observed during extended-day DPT could be attributed to the first-day DPT. As a result, our findings do not conclusively support the use of extended-day DPT over single-day DPT. Further studies, incorporating a washout period, are required to comprehensively compare these 2 approaches.

β-Lactam allergy testing and delabeling-Experiences and lessons from Singapore

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.