Analysis of profitability in the diagnosis of allergy to beta-lactam antibiotics

Delabelling beta-lactam allergy

Background: Hypersensitivity to beta-lactam (BL) antibiotics is one of the most frequent reported drug allergies. In our population, it is common to find labels of BL allergy in electronic medical records (EMRs) that have not been assessed. The objective of our study was to detect patients with beta-lactam allergy labels in their EMRs and to assess how many of them are false after a correct diagnostic evaluation. Methods: A multicentre prospective study was performed with patients labelled as allergic to BLs in their EMRs in the previous 5 years. Demographical and clinical data, as well as variables regarding the BL allergy label and the characteristics of the index reaction from clinical history and EMRs, were recorded. Then, diagnostic assessments including clinical history, skin tests (STs), and drug provocation tests (DPTs) were conducted in order to confirm or exclude the diagnosis of BL allergy. Results: A total of 249 patients completed the study, of which 160 (64.3%) were women with a median age of 57 years (interquartile range [IQR], 45-68). The most frequent BL allergy labels detected were for penicillin (124), amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (61), and amoxicillin (54). Of the 204 patients who underwent STs, 20.1% were positive. DPTs were performed in 224 patients, showing good tolerance in 87.1% of cases. After the allergy diagnosis work-up, 186 patients (74.7%) were diagnosed as non-allergic to BL antibiotics. Conclusion: In our study population, the number of patients labelled as allergic to BLs in their EMRs was similar to that in previously published studies, with proportions near to 75%-80% being falsely labelled as allergic to BLs.

Direct oral challenge for immediate and non-immediate beta-lactam allergy in children: A real-world multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Allergy to beta-lactam antibiotics (BLA) is frequently suspected in children, but a drug provocation test (DPT) rules it out in over 90% of cases. Direct oral DPT (DODPT), without skin or other previous tests, is increasingly been used to delabel non-immediate BLA reactions. This real-world study aimed to assess the safety and effectiveness of DODPT in children with immediate and non-immediate reactions to BLAs.

METHODS

Ambispective registry study in children (<15 years), attended between 2016 and 2023 for suspected BLA allergy in 15 hospitals in Spain that routinely perform DODPT.

RESULTS

The study included 2133 patients with generally mild reactions (anaphylaxis 0.7%). Drug provocation test with the implicated BLA was performed in 2014 patients (94.4%): 1854 underwent DODPT (86.9%, including 172 patients with immediate reactions). One hundred forty-five (7.2%) had symptoms associated with DPT, although only four reactions were severe: two episodes of anaphylaxis and two of drug-induced enterocolitis syndrome, which resolved rapidly with treatment. Of the 141 patients with mild reactions in the first DPT, a second DPT was considered in 87 and performed in 57, with 52 tolerating it without symptoms. Finally, BLA allergy was ruled out in 90.9% of the sample, confirmed in 3.4%, and remained unverified, usually due to loss to follow-up, in 5.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

Direct oral DPT is a safe, effective procedure even in immediate mild reactions to BLA. Many reactions observed in DPT are doubtful and require confirmation. Severe reactions are exceptional and amenable to treatment. Direct oral DPT can be considered for BLA allergy delabeling in pediatric primary care.

Resource utilization and cost assessment of a proactive penicillin allergy de-labeling program for low-risk inpatients

BACKGROUND

Resource utilization and costs can impede proactive assessment and de-labeling of penicillin allergy among inpatients.

METHODS

Our pilot intervention was a proactive penicillin allergy de-labeling program for new inpatients with penicillin allergy. Patients deemed appropriate for a challenge with a low-risk penicillin allergy history were administered 250 mg amoxicillin and monitored for 1 h. We performed an explorative economic evaluation using various healthcare professional wages.

RESULTS

Over two separate 2-week periods between April 2021 and March 2022, we screened 126 new inpatients with a penicillin allergy. After exclusions, 55 were appropriate for formal assessment. 19 completed the oral challenge, and 12 were directly de-labeled, resulting in a number needed to screen of 4 and a number needed to assess of 1.8 to effectively de-label one patient. The assessor's median time in the hospital per day de-labeling was 4h08 with a range of (0h05, 6h45). A single-site annual implementation would result in 715 penicillin allergy assessments with 403 patients de-labeled assuming 20,234 annual weekday admissions and an 8.9% penicillin allergy rate. Depending on the assessor used, the annual cost of administration would be between $21,476 ($53.29 per effectively de-labeled patient) for a pharmacy technician and $61,121 ($151.67 per effectively de-labeled patient) for a Nurse Practitioner or Physician Assistant.

CONCLUSION

A proactive approach, including a direct oral challenge for low-risk in-patients with penicillin allergy, appears safe and feasible. Similar programs could be implemented at other institutions across Canada to increase access to allergy assessment.

Penicillin Allergy Testing Is Cost-Saving: An Economic Evaluation Study

BACKGROUND

Having a penicillin allergy label is associated with the use of less appropriate and more expensive antibiotics and increased healthcare utilization. Penicillin allergy testing results in delabeling most allergy claimants and may be cost-saving. This study aimed to project whether penicillin allergy testing in patients reporting a penicillin allergy is cost-saving.

METHODS

In this economic evaluation study, we built decision models to project the economic impact of 2 strategies for a patient with a penicillin allergy label: (1) perform diagnostic testing (drug challenges, with or without skin tests); and (2) do not perform diagnostic testing. The health service perspective was adopted, considering costs with penicillin allergy tests, and with hospital bed-days/outpatient visits, antibiotic use, and diagnostic testing. Twenty-four base case decision models were built, accounting for differences in the diagnostic workup, setting (inpatient vs outpatient) and geographic region. Uncertainty was explored via probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Penicillin allergy testing was cost-saving in all decision models built. For models assessing the performance of both skin tests and drug challenges, allergy testing resulted in average savings (in United States [US] dollars) of $657 for inpatients (US: $1444; Europe: $489) and $2746 for outpatients (US: $256; Europe: $6045). 75% of simulations obtained through probabilistic sensitivity analysis identified testing as the less costly option.

CONCLUSIONS

Penicillin allergy testing was projected to be cost-saving across different scenarios. These results are devised to inform guidelines, supporting the adoption of policies promoting widespread testing of patients with a penicillin allergy label.

Drug Provocation Tests for Assessing Antibiotic Hypersensitivity: Is Shorter Also Better?

BACKGROUND

Suspected antibiotic hypersensitivity in children is a frequent reason for consultation. Skin test performance and drug provocation test (DPT) duration are controversial issues. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of diagnostic tests used in the study of antibiotic hypersensitivity and to estimate an optimal duration for DPT.

METHODS

Sixty-two children with a suspected hypersensitivity reaction to antibiotics were studied. Skin tests were performed on all patients. In the case of negative results, DPTs were performed for a duration similar to the time elapsed from the start of treatment until the onset of the reaction.

RESULTS

The frequency of antibiotic hypersensitivity in the study population was 8.1% (5 of 62). Only 1 patient showed positive skin tests. The other allergic patients were diagnosed by DPT, which reproduced the reaction within the first 6 hours in all but one of them.

CONCLUSIONS

Shortening DPT duration may decrease the sensitivity of the test for the diagnosis of non-IgE-mediated hypersensitivity; however, it should be considered as an opportunity to reduce the resulting microbial resistances.

Accuracy of penicillin allergy diagnostic tests: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Having a penicillin allergy label associates with a higher risk for antibiotic resistance and increased health care use.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to assess the accuracy of skin tests and specific IgE quantification in the diagnostic evaluation of patients reporting a penicillin/β-lactam allergy.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis, searching on MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science. We included studies conducted in patients reporting a penicillin allergy and in whom skin tests and/or specific IgE quantification were performed and compared with drug challenge results. We quantitatively assessed the accuracy of diagnostic tests with bivariate random-effects meta-analyses. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses were performed to explore causes of heterogeneity. Studies' quality was evaluated using QUADAS-2 criteria.

RESULTS

We included 105 primary studies, assessing 31,761 participants. Twenty-seven studies were assessed by bivariate meta-analysis. Skin tests had a summary sensitivity of 30.7% (95% CI, 18.9%-45.9%) and a specificity of 96.8% (95% CI, 94.2%-98.3%), with a partial area under the summary receiver-operating characteristic curve of 0.686 (I² = 38.2%). Similar results were observed for subanalyses restricted to patients reporting nonimmediate maculopapular exanthema or urticaria/angioedema. Specific IgE had a summary sensitivity of 19.3% (95% CI, 12.0%-29.4%) and a specificity of 97.4% (95% CI, 95.2%-98.6%), with a partial area under the summary receiver-operating characteristic curve of 0.420 (I² = 8.5%). Projected predictive values mainly reflect the low frequency of true penicillin allergy.

CONCLUSIONS

Skin tests and specific IgE quantification appear to have low sensitivity and high specificity. Because current evidence is insufficient for assessing the role of these tests in stratifying patients for delabeling, we identified key requirements needed for future studies.

Oral challenge without skin tests in children with non-severe beta-lactam hypersensitivity: Time to change the paradigm?

Suspected allergy to penicillins and cephalosporins is very common in childhood. After a proper evaluation, allergy will be confirmed only in a small portion of them. Intradermal tests are usually part of the allergy workup, but they are painful for children and time-consuming, and their role has been debated. A systematic review found only two studies reporting a positive predictive value of skin tests in children of 36% and 33%, respectively, leading to a high rate of inaccurate diagnosis. Moreover, considering that skin tests are negative in more than 90%-95% of cases, an oral provocation test (OPT) is finally needed to confirm tolerance in most of these children. Positive OPT are rare, and even where children demonstrate reproducible signs on challenge, they rarely constitute immediate or serious symptoms. Therefore, OPT to the index antibiotic without skin tests are increasingly being considered an accepted procedure for children with a suspected mild non-immediate reaction related to a beta-lactam antibiotic. Furthermore, a recent research has taken the same approach including children with suspected mild immediate reactions, with similar safety and positive results. In light of recent evidence highlighted, it is now the time for large and multicentric studies to confirm that OPT with the index antibiotic, without skin tests, are safe and convenient for children with a history of a mild reaction with a beta-lactam antibiotic before it can be recommended in pediatric allergy guidelines.

The Cost of Penicillin Allergy Evaluation

BACKGROUND

Unverified penicillin allergy leads to adverse downstream clinical and economic sequelae. Penicillin allergy evaluation can be used to identify true, IgE-mediated allergy.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the cost of penicillin allergy evaluation using time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC).

METHODS

We implemented TDABC throughout the care pathway for 30 outpatients presenting for penicillin allergy evaluation. The base-case evaluation included penicillin skin testing and a 1-step amoxicillin drug challenge, performed by an allergist. We varied assumptions about the provider type, clinical setting, procedure type, and personnel timing.

RESULTS

The base-case penicillin allergy evaluation costs $220 in 2016 US dollars: $98 for personnel, $119 for consumables, and $3 for space. In sensitivity analyses, lower cost estimates were achieved when only a drug challenge was performed (ie, no skin test, $84) and a nurse practitioner provider was used ($170). Adjusting for the probability of anaphylaxis did not result in a changed estimate ($220); although other analyses led to modest changes in the TDABC estimate ($214-$246), higher estimates were identified with changing to a low-demand practice setting ($268), a 50% increase in personnel times ($269), and including clinician documentation time ($288). In a least/most costly scenario analyses, the lowest TDABC estimate was $40 and the highest was $537.

CONCLUSIONS

Using TDABC, penicillin allergy evaluation costs $220; even with varied assumptions adjusting for operational challenges, clinical setting, and expanded testing, penicillin allergy evaluation still costs only about $540. This modest investment may be offset for patients treated with costly alternative antibiotics that also may result in adverse consequences.

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.

The High Impact of Penicillin Allergy Registration in Hospitalized Patients

BACKGROUND

Suspected penicillin allergy (Pen-A) is often not verified or excluded by diagnostic testing.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the prevalence and impact of Pen-A registration in a Dutch University Medical Center.

METHODS

In a prospective matched cohort study, all admitted patients (July 2013-July 2014) who underwent a pharmacotherapeutic interview were selected. Patients with a registered Pen-A were matched on age, sex, and department of admission with up to 3 patients without a registered Pen-A. Relative risks (RRs) of receiving a reserve antibiotic, death during hospitalization, and rehospitalization were compared in the 2 cohorts. The number and type of antibiotics prescribed during admission and duration of hospitalization were compared.

RESULTS

Of 17,959 patients, 1010 (5.6%) patients (66.7% women; median age, 55 years) had a Pen-A registration. These patients had a higher risk of receiving reserve antibiotics (RR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.22-1.56) and of being rehospitalized within 12 weeks (RR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.10-1.49). A significantly larger proportion of Pen-A registered patients received reserve antibiotics such as tetracyclines (1.8% vs 0.8%), macrolides/lincosamides/streptogramins (12.5% vs 4.9%), and quinolones (7.9% vs 4.3%) or received 2 or more types of antibiotics during hospitalization (21.7% vs 16.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

Prevalence of Pen-A registration in hospitalized patients is high, has high impact on antibiotic prescribing, and is associated with a higher risk of readmission. Verification of the Pen-A in hospitalized patients might restrict the use of reserve antibiotics and improve patient outcome.