Penicillin skin testing in hospitalized patients with β-lactam allergies

Evaluation of patients labeled with a penicillin allergy to promote antimicrobial stewardship in dental practice

BACKGROUND

Approximately 10% of the US population self-reports a penicillin allergy history or are labeled as penicillin allergic. However, from 90% through 99% of these patients are not allergic on formal evaluation.

CASE DESCRIPTION

Patients labeled as penicillin allergic receive broader-spectrum and sometimes less-effective antibiotics, thereby contributing to increased treatment failures, antibiotic resistance, and adverse drug reactions. Self-reported penicillin allergy can be eliminated or classified as low-, medium-, or high-risk after a careful review of patient history. This allows these patients to be delabeled; that is, having any reference to their penicillin allergy history or of having an allergy to penicillin eliminated from their health records.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Oral health care professionals are ideally placed to partner in both antibiotic stewardship interventions by means of recognizing pervasive mislabeling and aiding in the process of delabeling.

The Cost of Developing and Implementing an Antepartum Referral Program for Penicillin Allergy Evaluation at a Single Academic Tertiary Care Hospital

OBJECTIVE

Approximately 10% of pregnant individuals report a penicillin allergy, yet most are not truly allergic. Allergy verification during pregnancy is safe and recommended; however, many hospitals lack the infrastructure to execute testing. Our aim was to evaluate the cost of developing and implementing a penicillin allergy referral program for pregnant individuals at an academic institution and to compare costs of care between patients who were referred and not referred through the program.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted an economic analysis of our institution's antepartum penicillin allergy referral program. We prospectively collected detailed resource utilization data and conducted the analysis from the program's perspective, accounting for costs related to program development, allergy verification, antibiotic cost, and delivery hospitalization. Costs were compared between patients who were referred for evaluation versus patients who were not referred using bivariate tests as well as quantile regression adjusting for baseline differences. A sensitivity analysis was performed for allergy testing cost. All cost estimates were inflation adjusted to 2021 U.S. dollars.

RESULTS

The startup cost of program development and educational initiatives was $19,920, or 86 per patient. The median allergy evaluation cost was $397 (interquartile range: $303-663). There was no significant difference in maternal (median: $13,579 vs. 13,999, p = 0.94) or neonatal (median: $3,565 vs. 3,577, p = 0.55) delivery hospitalization cost or antibiotic cost (median: $1.57 vs. 3.87, p = 0.10) between referred and nonreferred patients. Overall, the total cost per person did not differ significantly between study groups (median: $18,931 vs. 18,314, p = 0.69).

CONCLUSION

The cost of developing a penicillin allergy referral program in pregnancy was modest and did not significantly alter short-term cost of care with potential for long-term cost benefit. Verification of a reported penicillin allergy is an integral part of antibiotic stewardship, and the pregnancy period should be utilized as an important opportunity to perform this evaluation.

KEY POINTS

· The cost of developing and implementing an antepartum penicillin allergy referral program is modest.. · Program cost did not significantly alter short-term cost with a potential for long-term cost benefit.. · Penicillin allergy verification is an important part of antibiotic stewardship and should be expanded..

A novel 2-step process for the management of inpatient beta-lactam allergy labels

BACKGROUND

Inpatient beta-lactam allergy labels may increase the unnecessary use of aztreonam and non-beta-lactam antibiotics, which can then lead to more adverse events and increased health care costs, OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of a novel 2-step process (medication history review followed by risk stratification) on rates of beta-lactam delabeling, aztreonam use, and desensitizations on pediatric, adult, and obstetrics inpatients at a tertiary academic center.

METHODS

We prospectively collected data on 700 patients who received inpatient consultation from the Beta-Lactam Allergy Evaluation Service between August 2021 and July 2022. Patients were delabeled either by medication review alone, drug challenge alone if with a low-risk history, or penicillin skin test followed by drug challenge if with a high-risk history. Generalized linear regression modeling was used to compare aztreonam days of therapy in the intervention year with the 2 prior years. Drug desensitizations were assessed by electronic chart review.

RESULTS

Most of the patients (n = 656 of 700, 94%) had more than or equal to 1 beta-lactam allergy label removed, clarified, or both; 77.9% of these patients (n = 511 of 656) had 587 beta-lactam allergy labels removed. Nearly one-third (n = 149, 27.6%) had 162 allergy labels removed solely by medication history review. All 114 penicillin skin tests performed had negative results, and 98% (8 of 381) of the patients who underwent any drug challenge passed. Only 5.7% of the delabeled patients were relabeled. There was a 27% reduction in aztreonam use (P = .007). Beta-lactam desensitizations were reduced by 80%.

CONCLUSION

A full-time inpatient beta-lactam allergy service using medication history review and risk stratification can safely and effectively remove inpatient beta-lactam allergy labels, reduce aztreonam use, and decrease beta-lactam desensitizations.

Effectiveness, barriers and facilitating factors of strategies for active delabelling of patients with penicillin allergy labels: a systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Up to 15% of adult patients in the clinical setting report to be allergic to penicillin. However, in most cases, penicillin allergy is not confirmed. Due to the negative aspects associated with erroneous penicillin allergy, the implementation of active delabelling processes for penicillin allergy is an important part of antibiotic stewardship programmes. Depending on the clinical setting, different factors need to be considered during implementation. This review examines the effectiveness of different delabelling interventions and summarises components and structures that facilitate, support or constrain structured penicillin allergy delabelling.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This review will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. The databases MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched for studies reporting on any intervention to identify, assess or rule out uncertain penicillin allergy. To improve completeness, two further databases are also searched for grey literature. Study design, intervention type, professional groups involved, effectiveness, limitations, barriers, facilitating factors, clinical setting and associated regulatory factors will be extracted and analysed. In addition, exclusion criteria for participation in the delabelling intervention and criteria for not delabelling penicillin allergy will be summarised. In case of failed protocols, these are highlighted and quantitatively analysed if possible. Two independent reviewers will perform the screening process and data extraction. Discordant decisions will be resolved through review by a third reviewer. Bias assessment of the individual studies will be performed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Because individual patient-related data are not analysed, an ethical approval is not required. The review will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

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.

Describing Self-Reported Penicillin Allergy Using a Penicillin Allergy Risk Tool (PEN-FAST) in an Outpatient Setting at a Tertiary Hospital in Saudi Arabia

Introduction Penicillin is a widely used antibiotic and is frequently reported as a cause of allergic reactions. However, many individuals reporting penicillin allergies are later found to be tolerant. This study, conducted in an outpatient setting at King Abdulaziz University Hospital (KAUH) in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, aimed to assess the prevalence of self-reported penicillin allergy and to evaluate further the risk of a positive penicillin allergy test using the PEN-FAST tool. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted via in-person questionnaires with patients in the waiting area at the outpatient clinics of KAUH in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Results Among 140 participants, 4% reported a penicillin allergy, with most identifying their allergies based on symptoms. None of these allergies resulted in severe reactions. Notably, 50% reported nausea and itching as symptoms. The PEN-FAST tool categorized 33.3% as moderate risk and 50% as low to very low risk for a positive penicillin skin test. One participant was confirmed to be allergic via a skin prick test. Discussion and conclusion The prevalence of reported penicillin allergy was lower in our study than that previously reported. Evaluation of the PEN-FAST score demonstrated that this prevalence is even lower at 2%. While this single-center study offers valuable insights, further research in diverse healthcare settings is required to validate these findings and refine our understanding of penicillin allergies.

Beta-lactam comprehensive allergy management program in a community medical center

Objective

The Beta-lactam Comprehensive Allergy Management Program (CAMP) was implemented to facilitate complete beta-lactam allergy history documentation in the electronic medical record (EMR) and increase beta-lactam utilization. The study objective was to assess the rate of complete allergy histories and days of antimicrobial therapy (DOT) before versus after CAMP implementation.

Design

Quasi-experimental study with interrupted time-series analysis.

Setting

Non-teaching, urban, and community medical center within a multi-hospital health system.

Patients

Adult inpatients with a beta-lactam allergy receiving antimicrobial therapy.

Methods

The multidisciplinary CAMP team screened, interviewed, and collected allergy history details of adult inpatients with a beta-lactam allergy receiving antimicrobial therapy starting January 4, 2021. Patients were stratified as high, moderate, or low risk of IgE-mediated allergy and referred to an allergist for skin testing or drug challenge. The EMR was updated with interview details and drug challenge or skin test results. The primary endpoint was rate of complete allergy history documentation before (12/1/18-4/1/19) compared to after (1/4/21-5/1/21) program implementation. The secondary endpoint was days of inpatient beta-lactam therapy. Implementation logistics, de-labeling rate, and antimicrobial therapy changes were evaluated.

Results

The program evaluated 392 individuals, with 184 and 208 patients comprising the pre- and post-intervention groups, respectively. The post-intervention period was associated with an increase of 19.8% in complete allergy histories (0.359 PPc; R 2 0.26; p = 0.002) and 9.34 beta-lactam DOT per 1,000-days-present (1.106 PPc; R 2 0.194; p = 0.009).

Conclusion

Implementation of a comprehensive beta-lactam allergy management program was associated with higher rates of complete beta-lactam allergy history and beta-lactam use.

Meropenem allergy testing performed at the bedside of hospitalized patients labelled with a penicillin allergy

BACKGROUND

Meropenem is a widely prescribed beta-lactam for hospitalized patients. There are few data on meropenem allergy assessments in inpatients with a reported history of penicillin allergy who require a treatment with meropenem. This can lead to the use of less effective second-line antibiotics that may increase antibiotic resistances. We aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of a meropenem allergy assessment in admitted patients with a reported history of penicillin allergy that required meropenem for the treatment of an acute infection.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on 182 inpatients labelled with a penicillin-allergy who received meropenem after an allergy assessment. The allergy study was performed bedside if meropenem was required urgently. The study included skin prick tests (SPTs) followed by an intradermal skin test (IDT) to meropenem, and a meropenem drug challenge test (DCT). If a non-immediate reaction to a beta-lactam was suspected, it was initiated with patch tests.

RESULTS

The median age of the patients was 59.7 years (range 28-95) and 80 (44%) were women. A total of 196 sets of diagnostic workups were performed, with 189 (96.4%) of them being tolerated. Only two patients had a positive meropenem IV DCT, both presenting a non-severe cutaneous reaction that completely resolved after treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

This study evidenced that a bedside meropenem allergy assessment of hospitalized patients labelled with a 'penicillin allergy' who require a broad-spectrum antibiotic for empiric coverage is a safe and effective procedure, avoiding the use of second-line antimicrobial agents.

Genetic association of beta-lactams-induced hypersensitivity reactions: A systematic review of genome-wide evidence and meta-analysis of candidate genes

Importance

Beta-lactams (BLs) are the most prescribed antibiotics, being the most frequent cause of drug allergy. However, the association between BL allergy and genetic variations is still unclear.

Objective

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize the genetic effects of BL-induced hypersensitivity using existing evidence.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Medline, Scopus, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library from inception to September 15, 2022 with no language restriction. Genetic association studies investigating genetic variant/polymorphism and risk of drug-induced hypersensitivity reactions among individuals receiving BL-antibiotics were included. We excluded studies of acute interstitial nephritis, drug-induced liver injury, serum sickness, and isolated drug fever. Data were comprehensively synthesized and quality of study were assessed using STrengthening the Reporting of Genetic Association Studies (STREGA). The record screening, extraction and quality assessment were performed by two reviewers and discussions were made to resolve discrepancies. The effects of each variant were pooled and evaluated by modified Venice criteria.

Results

A total of 9276 records were identified, and 31 studies were eligible for inclusion. Twenty-seven were candidate-gene association studies (5416 cases and 5939 controls), while the others were next-generation sequencing (NGS) or genome-wide association studies (GWASs) (119 838 cases and 1 487 111 controls). Forty-nine polymorphisms were identified and most of them located in allergic reaction pathways. Meta-analyses of 15 candidate variants in a mixture of both immediate and non-immediate reactions revealed weak genetic effects of rs1801275 (8 studies; n = 1,560; odd ratio 0.73; 95%CI: 0.57-0.93) and rs20541 (4 studies; n = 1,482; odd ratio 1.34; 95%CI: 1.07-1.68) in IL4R and IL13, respectively. Results from GWASs and NGS identified, and confirmed associations in HLA regions including HLA-DRA, HLA-B, HLA-DQA, HLA-DRB1, and HLA-DRB3.

Conclusion

Our study summarized genetic evidence influencing BL-induced hypersensitivity and estimated effects of potential variants. We postulated that the genomic studies provide better insights to the mechanism of reactions and suggest potential effects of HLA Class II variants. However, results were inconsistent and unable to generalize in different settings. Further high-throughput studies with a well-defined function, epigenetic interaction, incorporated with clinical factors, would be beneficial for risk identification in BL-induced hypersensitivity.

Impact of an Inpatient Allergy Guideline on β-Lactam and Alternative Antibiotic Use

BACKGROUND

A guideline identifying when inpatients with penicillin or cephalosporin antibiotic allergy labels (PCAAL) can receive β-lactam antibiotics increased β-lactam receipt at a large northeastern US health care system.

OBJECTIVE

To report outcomes of implementing a similar guideline and electronic order set (OS) at an independent academic health care system.

METHODS

Penicillin/cephalosporin receipt (percentage of inpatients receiving full doses) and alternative antibiotic use (days of therapy per 1000 patient-days [DOT/1000PD]) were compared over 3 periods before (February 1, 2017, to January 31, 2018) and after guideline implementation (February 1, 2018, to January 31, 2019), and after OS implementation (February 1, 2019, to January 31, 2020) among inpatients with PCAAL admitted on medical services with access to guideline/OS and education (Medical-PCAAL, n = 8721), surgical services with access to guideline/OS without education (Surgical-PCAAL, n = 5069), and obstetrics/gynecology services without interventions (Ob/Gyn-PCAAL, n = 798) and inpatients without PCAAL admitted on the same services (Medical-No-PCAAL, n = 50,840; Surgical-No-PCAAL, n = 29,845; Ob/Gyn-No-PCAAL, n = 6109). χ2 tests were used to compare categorical variables, and analysis of variance was used to compare continuous and interrupted time series analyses (ITSA) to investigate the guideline/OS implementation effect on penicillin/cephalosporin receipt.

RESULTS

In the Medical-PCAAL group, penicillin/cephalosporin receipt increased (58%-68%, P < .001), specifically for cefazolin (8%-11%, P = .02) and third- to fifth-generation cephalosporins (43%-48%, P = .04), and aztreonam use decreased (12 DOT/1000PD, P = .03). In the Medical-No-PCAAL group, penicillin/cephalosporin receipt increased (88%-90%, P = .004), specifically for penicillin (40%-44%, P < .001), without changes in aztreonam use. Significant changes were not observed in these outcomes on surgical or obstetrics/gynecology services. Per ITSA, guideline/OS implementation was associated with increased penicillin/cephalosporin receipt in the Medical-PCAAL group only.

CONCLUSION

Guideline and OS implementation was associated with improved antibiotic stewardship on inpatient services that also received allergy education.

The Who, What, When, and Where of Inpatient Direct Oral Penicillin Challenge-Implications for Health Services Implementation

Inpatient direct oral challenge programs are increasingly deployed as part of antimicrobial stewardship initiatives to reduce the burden and impacts of penicillin allergy labels on antibiotic prescribing. Using data from a prospective, multicenter cohort inpatient penicillin allergy program, we identify the key targets for delabeling to aid health service implementation.

Impact of a Documented Penicillin Allergy on Antibiotic Selection in Pediatric Patients With Osteomyelitis

Penicillin allergy labels are common in hospitalized patients, and there is a frequent misconception that these patients cannot receive cephalosporins. Through retrospective review, we found that patients with reported penicillin allergies were significantly less likely to receive first-line therapy for acute hematogenous osteomyelitis.

Administration of β-lactam antibiotics to patients with reported penicillin allergy in the emergency department

BACKGROUND

β-lactam antibiotics are amongst the most commonly prescribed medications in the Emergency Department (ED) due to their role in empiric sepsis therapy; however, inferior therapeutic options are often utilized due to a reported allergy; penicillin (PCN) being most frequent. In the United States, 10% of the population endorses an allergic reaction to PCN while <1% experience IgE-mediated reactions. This study aimed to evaluate the frequency and outcome of patients in the ED whose PCN allergies were challenged with β-lactam antibiotics.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients in the ED at an academic medical center aged ≥18, and who received a β-lactam despite a reported PCN allergy between January 2015 and December 2019. Patients who did not receive a β-lactam or did not report a PCN allergy prior to administration were excluded. The primary outcome was the frequency of IgE-mediated reactions in response to β-lactam administration. A secondary outcome assessed the frequency of continuation of β-lactams upon admission from the ED.

RESULTS

819 patients were included (66% female) with prior reported PCN reactions: hives (22.5%), rash (15.4%), swelling (6.2%), anaphylaxis (3.5%), other (12.1%), or undocumented on medical electronic record (40.3%). No patients experienced an IgE-mediated reaction to the β-lactam administered in the ED. Previously reported allergies had no effect on the continuation of β-lactams when admitted or discharged (OR: 1, 95% CI: 0.7-1.44). Patients who had a history of an IgE-mediated penicillin allergy were frequently continued (77%) on a β-lactam after leaving the ED via admission or discharge.

CONCLUSION

β-lactam administration in patients with previously reported PCN allergies did not result in any IgE-mediated reactions nor in an increase in adverse reactions. Our data contributes to the body of evidence that supports the administration of β-lactams to patients with documented PCN allergies.

The Quality and Management of Penicillin Allergy Labels in Pediatric Primary Care

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Penicillin allergy labels are the most common drug allergy label. The objective of this study was to describe the quality and management of penicillin allergy labels in the pediatric primary care setting.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review of 500 of 18 015 children with penicillin allergy labels born from January 1, 2010 to June 30, 2020 randomly selected from an outpatient birth cohort from Texas Children's Pediatrics and Children's Hospital of Philadelphia networks. Penicillin allergy risk classification ("not allergy," "low risk," "moderate or high risk," "severe risk," "unable to classify") was determined based on documentation within (1) the allergy tab and (2) electronic healthcare notes. Outcomes of allergy referrals and penicillin re-exposure were noted.

RESULTS

Half of penicillin allergy labels were "unable to classify" based on allergy tab documentation. Risk classification agreement between allergy tabs and healthcare notes was fair (Cohen's ĸ = 0.35 ± 0.02). Primary care physicians referred 84 of 500 (16.8%) children to an allergist, but only 54 (10.8%) were seen in allergy clinic. All children who were challenged (25 of 25) passed skin testing. Removal of allergy labels was uncommon (69 of 500, 13.8%) but occurred more often following allergy appointments (26 of 54, 48%) than not (43 of 446, 9.6%, P < .001). Children delabeled by primary care physicians were as likely to tolerate subsequent penicillin-class antibiotics as those delabeled by an allergist (94% vs 93%, P = .87).

CONCLUSIONS

Penicillin allergy documentation within the allergy tab was uninformative, and children were infrequently referred to allergists. Future quality improvement studies should improve penicillin allergy documentation and expand access to allergy services.

Tools to improve the diagnosis and management of T-cell mediated adverse drug reactions

Delayed drug T-cell immune-mediated hypersensitivity reactions have a large clinical heterogeneity varying from mild maculopapular exanthema (MPE) to severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCARs) such as acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) and severe skin necrosis and blistering as seen in Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN). Given the knowledge gaps related to the immunopathogenesis of these conditions, the absence of validated diagnostic tools and the significant associated morbidity and mortality, patients with SCARs often have limited drug choices. We performed a comprehensive review aiming to evaluate in vivo diagnostic tools such as delayed intradermal skin and patch testing and ex vivo/in vitro research assays such as the lymphocyte transformation test (LTT) and the enzyme-linked ImmunoSpot (ELISpot) assay. We searched through PubMed using the terms “drug allergy,” “in vivo” and “ex vivo” for original papers in the last 10 years. A detailed meticulous approach adapted to the various clinical phenotypes is recommended for the diagnostic and management of delayed drug hypersensitivity reactions. This review highlights the current diagnostic tools for the delayed drug hypersensitivity phenotypes.

Is Vancomycin More Effective than Taurolidine? Comparative Analysis of Their Preventive Effect against Spinal Infection in 1000 Patients with Spinal Fusion

This study aimed to examine the effect of taurolidine irrigation on preventing surgical site infection by comparing the spinal infection rate after spinal fusion surgery using vancomycin powder application and taurolidine irrigation. Of 1081 participants, 369 underwent taurolidine irrigation, 221 underwent vancomycin powder application, and 491 were controls. Of the 20 surgical site infections (1.85%), 14 occurred in the control group (2.85%), 5 in the vancomycin group (2.26%), and 1 (0.27%) in the taurolidine group. Among the various variables, age at the time of surgery, smoking, surgical site, and hemovac removal time were significant in the univariate logistic regression. The final result was derived after variable selection using the stepwise method. In the univariate model, the odds ratios were 0.09 and 0.79 in each of the vancomycin and taurolidine groups compared to that of the control group. In the multivariate model, the odds ratios were 0.09 and 0.83 in each of the vancomycin and taurolidine groups compared to that of the control group. The preventive effect of vancomycin powder application was not statistically significant. However, the vancomycin group showed a less effective tendency than the taurolidine group. Taurolidine irrigation may be a good substitute for the vancomycin powder application.

Review of Pharmacist Driven Penicillin Allergy Assessments and Skin Testing: A Multi-Center Case-Series

Objective: To describe the impact of pharmacy driven penicillin allergy assessments on de-labeling penicillin allergies and antibiotic streamlining opportunities for hospitalized patients. Design: Multi-center, retrospective case-series study. Setting: A health system of 4 non-teaching hospitals. Participants: Patients aged 18 years and older with a physician order for a pharmacist penicillin allergy assessment. Exclusion criteria consisted of patients with anaphylaxis or a type II penicillin allergy, anaphylaxis of any cause within 4 weeks, refusal of penicillin allergy skin test (PAST), antihistamine use within 24 hours, penicillin intolerance, immunosuppression or immunosuppressive medications, or skin conditions that could interfere with PAST. Interventions: The primary endpoint evaluated the number of de-labeled penicillin allergies after pharmacists provided penicillin allergy assessments. Secondary endpoints evaluated the percent of patients with antibiotics deescalated to beta-lactam antibiotics and classification of notable interventions made by pharmacists. Measurements and Main Results: There were 35 patients who met inclusion criteria. Twenty-four patients underwent both penicillin allergy skin testing and oral (PO) amoxicillin challenge. Five patients had allergies de-labeled only after a pharmacist interview. Four patients received only the PO amoxicillin challenge and 2 patients received only PAST. Penicillin allergies were de-labeled from the electronic health record (EHR) in 31 (89%) patients despite all testing negative for a penicillin allergy from PAST or a PO amoxicillin challenge. Four patients had the allergy re-added to the chart on subsequent admissions. No patients experienced a reaction from PAST, PO amoxicillin challenge, or subsequent beta-lactam antibiotics. Twenty-eight (80%) patients had their antibiotic therapy changed as a result of the allergy assessment. Seventeen patients were de-escalated onto beta-lactam antibiotics and aztreonam was stopped in 6 patients. Conclusion: Results from this study suggests that pharmacists expanding their scope of practice with PAST is a safe and effective allergy de-labeling tool. Pharmacist-driven penicillin allergy assessments could provide antibiotic cost savings and avoid aztreonam use. The study supports the need to emphasize education for patients and caretakers regarding allergy testing results to avoid relabeling in future hospital visits.

Economic burden of drug-induced anaphylaxis: what can we do better?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This systematic review evaluates published data related to the economic burden of drug-induced anaphylaxis (DIA) to understand preventive cost saving measures that could reduce the burden of these conditions.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although DIA has a relevant societal impact, there are limited and heterogenous available data related to its cost. Direct costs related to the management of acute phase of DIA was estimated by $529.6 to $3125, depending on the number of emergency room visits/hospitalizations, emergency kits and transports in ambulance. Direct costs of investigations of DIA varied from $288 to $2292.95 and the desensitization was estimated by $6796. Main variables for this were: personnel, allergy screening procedures, medical consumables and space cost. The mean indirect cost was based on a mean absenteeism of 3 days per DIA corresponding to $381.2.

SUMMARY

More than reviewing the published data, we were able to identify variables that, if correctly managed, can reduce the economic burden of DIA, such as adjusting the timing of referral and etiological diagnosis, identification of potential risk and/or co-factors, correct written recommendations to patients. The evidence presented highlights the need of optimization of healthcare patients to patients suffering from DIA.

Genetic Association of Beta-Lactams-Induced Hypersensitivity Reactions: A Protocol for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Beta-lactam (BL) antibiotics are among the drugs commonly related to hypersensitivity reactions. Several candidate gene studies and genome-wide association studies have reported associations of genetic variants and hypersensitivity reactions induced by BL antibiotics. However, the results were inconclusive. This protocol details a comprehensive systematic review of genetic factors associated with BL-induced hypersensitivity. A systematic search of literature related to genetic associations of BL-induced hypersensitivity will be performed through PubMed, Medline, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, and the Cochrane central register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from their inception dates with no language restrictions. Two reviewers will independently screen, extract, and appraise the risk of bias. Frequencies of genetic variants that comply with Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium will be extracted and pooled. Genetic models will be applied to variant effect calculation as per allele and genotype analysis. Based on statistical heterogeneity among studies, common effect estimation (odds ratio) and its corresponding 95% confidence interval will be analyzed. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses will be performed to determine the robustness of eligible studies. This systematic review and meta-analysis will provide comprehensive evidence of genetic effects regarding BL-induced hypersensitivity. The findings will enlighten the determination of disease-related genotypes that would potentially reveal allergy profiling in patients.

Outcome of a de-labelling algorithm compared with results of penicillin (β-lactam) allergy testing

Background

Penicillin allergy labels frequently impede guideline-directed treatment with a penicillin or other β-lactam antibiotics. Despite presumed allergy, targeted questioning may indicate a low probability of sensitization and permit reasonably safe administration of the antibiotic in question. In this study, we evaluated a standardized algorithm aiming to differentiate non-allergic patients from those with true allergic β-lactam hypersensitivity.

Methods

We retrospectively applied a de-labelling algorithm in 800 consecutive patients with suspected β-lactam hypersensitivity. All had undergone complete allergy work-up permitting to definitely exclude or diagnose β-lactam allergy between 2009 and 2019.

Results

In 595 (74.4%) out of 800 cases evaluated, β-lactam allergy could be excluded by negative challenge testing. IgE-mediated anaphylaxis was diagnosed in 70 (8.7%) patients, delayed-type hypersensitivity in 135 (16.9%). In 62 (88.6%) anaphylaxis cases, the algorithm correctly advised to use an alternative antibiotic. Accuracy was higher in patients with moderate to severe anaphylaxis (97.7%) compared to those with a history of mild reactions (73.1%). The algorithm correctly identified 122 (90.4%) patients with proven delayed-type hypersensitivity. It permitted de-labelling in 330 (55.5%) out of 595 patients with diagnostic exclusion of penicillin hypersensitivity, but failed to identify the remaining 265 (44.5%) as low-risk cases.

Conclusions

The algorithm detected 89.8% of cases with penicillin (β-lactam) allergy, sensitivity was optimal for moderate to severe anaphylaxis. Study data justify the implementation of a standardized de-labelling algorithm under close supervision in order to permit guideline-directed treatment and reduce the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics as part of an antibiotic stewardship program.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13223-022-00659-1.

Documented β-Lactam Allergy and Risk for Cesarean Surgical Site Infection

Objective

To examine the relationship between documented β-lactam allergy and cesarean delivery (CD) surgical site infection (SSI). Study Design. We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of women who underwent CD at Ben Taub Hospital and Texas Children's Pavilion for Women (Houston, TX) from August 1, 2011, to December 31, 2019. The primary exposure was a documented β-lactam allergy, and the second exposure of interest was the type of perioperative antibiotic received. The primary outcome was the prevalence of SSI. Maternal characteristics were stratified by the presence or absence of a documented β-lactam allergy, and significance was evaluated using Pearson's chi-squared test for categorical variables and t-test for continuous variables. A logistic regression model estimated odds of SSI after adjusting for possible confounders.

Results

Of the 12,954 women included, 929 (7.2%) had a documented β-lactam allergy while 12,025 (92.8%) did not. Among the 929 women with a β-lactam allergy, 495 (53.3%) received non-β-lactam perioperative prophylaxis. SSI occurred in 38 (4.1%) of women who had a β-lactam allergy versus 238 (2.0%) who did not (p ≤ 0.001). β-Lactam allergy was associated with higher odds of SSI compared to no allergy (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.97; 95%confidence interval (CI) = 1.24-3.14; p = 0.004) after controlling for age, race, ethnicity, insurance status, delivery body mass index (BMI), tobacco use, intra-amniotic infection in labor, duration of membrane rupture, preterm delivery, delivery indication, diabetes, hypertension, group B Streptococcus colonization, and type of perioperative antibiotic received.

Conclusion

The presence of a β-lactam allergy is associated with increased odds of developing a CD SSI after controlling for possible confounders, including the type of perioperative antibiotic received.

Drug Allergy Delabeling Programs: Recent Strategies and Targeted Populations

Drug allergy delabeling programs have become an essential element of antibiotic stewardship. Development of delabeling programs involves careful selection of target patient population, thoughtful design of delabeling approach, stakeholder engagement, assembly of key team members, implementation, and evaluation of clinical and safety outcomes. Recent programs have targeted patients thought to be most likely to benefit from removal of inaccurate antibiotic allergy labels, those with β-lactam antibiotic allergies and high-risk populations likely to need β-lactam antibiotics as first-line treatment. This review provides an overview of current risk stratification methods and β-lactam cross-reactivity data and summarizes how different inpatient and outpatient delabeling programs have used these concepts in delabeling algorithms. β-Lactam delabeling programs for inpatients, pediatric patients, and programs utilizing telehealth have been implemented with good outcomes. This review also focuses on delabeling programs for high-risk populations likely to benefit from first-line β-lactam antibiotics. These populations include perioperative, prenatal, and immunocompromised patients. Delabeling programs have been successful in the inpatient and outpatient settings at enabling appropriate antibiotic use. This article reviews delabeling strategies utilized by these programs with a focus on highlighting elements key to their success and future areas for innovation.

Implementation and Impact of a β-Lactam Allergy Assessment Protocol in a Veteran Population

Background

Approximately 10% of the US population reports having a β-lactam allergy, although nearly 90% do not have a true immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated reaction. This misconception results in using nonpreferred antibiotics, leading to antimicrobial resistance and treatment failure. To evaluate, clarify, and clear β-lactam allergies, we implemented a pharmacist-driven β-lactam allergy assessment (BLAA) protocol and penicillin allergy clinic (PAC). The purpose of this study was to illustrate the BLAA process, including the pharmacist-run PAC, and assess the impact on allergy clearance.

Methods

Clinical pharmacy specialists (CPS) evaluated hospitalized veterans with β-lactam allergies, using the BLAA protocol. Eligible patients could later be seen in PAC. This was a retrospective observational review of the BLAA protocol to assess recommendations for β-lactam antibiotic use and PAC outcomes.

Results

Between November 2017 and February 2020, 278 patients were evaluated, and 32 were seen in the clinic. The most common allergen was penicillin, and the most reported reaction was a rash (27%) or pruritus and urticaria (18%). Through PAC and the BLAA protocol, 86 patients (31%) were cleared for allergy removal, and 188 (68%) were cleared for alternative β-lactams. The evaluation revealed that 274 patients (99%) were eligible to receive a β-lactam antibiotic, and only 4 patients (1%) were recommended for avoidance of all β-lactams.

Conclusions

These findings highlight the utility of the pharmacist-driven BLAA protocol. We illustrated that most patients with documented β-lactam allergies were eligible for alternative β-lactams. The implementation of the BLAA protocol and pharmacist-run PAC facilitated allergy clearance and has the potential to promote alternative β-lactam use.

Predictive factors of amoxicillin immediate hypersensitivity and validation of PEN-FAST clinical decision rule

BACKGROUND

The challenge of delabeling amoxicillin allergy is an important issue for patients and clinicians, especially when anaphylaxis is reported. A recent study has proposed a clinical decision rule, PEN-FAST, to identify low-risk penicillin allergies.

OBJECTIVE

To validate the PEN-FAST clinical decision rule in a population with high risk of suspected immediate amoxicillin allergy and to identify clinical predictive factors of amoxicillin immediate hypersensitivity.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed medical records of patients with a suspected immediate amoxicillin allergy who carried out an allergologic evaluation by a specialist in the Allergy Unit of Strasbourg University Hospital from 2015 to 2020.

RESULTS

A total of 142 adult patients (88 women [62.0%]; median age, 52 [interquartile range, 40.3-62.0] years) were analyzed. Most of them reported anaphylaxis (68.8%). Internal validation of PEN-FAST score revealed a good discrimination with area under the curve of 0.86 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.92). A cutoff of less than 3 points for PEN-FAST was used to classify 29 from 142 patients at low risk of allergy, of whom only 2 (6.9%) received positive results of allergy testing. The negative predictive value for successful delabeling was 0.93 (95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.99). Predictive clinical features for immediate amoxicillin hypersensitivity were time since reaction (P < .001), time elapsed between drug intake and first symptom (P < .001), severity grade reaction (P < .001), and treatment or hospitalization required (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

PEN-FAST has been validated to identify low-risk penicillin allergies in our European cohort of patients mainly reporting anaphylaxis. This is the first reported external validation of a penicillin allergy clinical decision rule internationally.

Frequency of severe reactions following penicillin drug provocation tests: A Bayesian meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients with a penicillin allergy label tend to have worse clinical outcomes and increased healthcare use. Drug provocation tests (DPT) are the gold-standard in the diagnostic workup of penicillin allergy, but safety concerns may hinder their performance. We aimed to assess the frequency of severe reactions following a DPT in patients with reported allergy to penicillins or other β-lactams.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review, searching MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science. We included primary studies assessing participants with a penicillin allergy label who underwent a DPT. We performed a Bayesian meta-analysis to estimate the pooled frequency of severe reactions to penicillin DPTs. Sources of heterogeneity were explored by subgroup and metaregression analyses.

RESULTS

We included 112 primary studies which included a total of 26,595 participants. The pooled frequency of severe reactions was estimated at 0.06% (95% credible interval [95% CrI] = 0.01%-0.13%; I2  = 57.9%). Most severe reactions (80/93; 86.0%) consisted of anaphylaxis. Compared to studies where the index reaction was immediate, we observed a lower frequency of severe reactions for studies assessing non-immediate index reactions (OR = 0.05; 95% CrI = 0-0.31). Patients reporting anaphylaxis as their index reaction were found to be at increased risk of developing severe reactions (OR = 13.5; 95% CrI = 7.7-21.5; I2  = 0.3%). Performance of direct DPTs in low-risk patients or testing with the suspected culprit drug were not associated with clinically relevant increased risk of severe reactions.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with a penicillin allergy label, severe reactions resulting from DPTs are rare. Therefore, except for patients with potentially life-threatening index reactions or patients with positive skin tests-who were mostly not assessed in this analysis -, the safety of DPTs supports their performance in the diagnostic assessment of penicillin allergy.

Clinical Outcomes of Daptomycin Versus Anti-Staphylococcal Beta-Lactams in Definitive Treatment of Methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus Bloodstream Infections

OBJECTIVES

Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) is the leading cause of bacteraemia and infective endocarditis worldwide. The preferred management of patients with methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) bacteraemia includes definitive therapy with intravenous anti-staphylococcal beta-lactam (ASBL) antibiotics. Daptomycin (DAP) has been targeted as a viable substitute for beta-lactam allergic or intolerant patients.

METHODS

This single-center retrospective cohort study assessed clinical outcomes of DAP compared with ASBL antibiotics [nafcillin (NAF) or cefazolin (CFZ)] for the treatment of MSSA bacteraemia in patients hospitalised from 01 November 2011 to 31 October 2018. The primary outcome was a composite of the following: clinical failure, MSSA recurrence and MSSA persistence or inpatient infection-related mortality. Secondary outcomes included duration of MSSA bacteraemia, infection-related length of stay, infection-related 90-day readmission, 30-day all-cause mortality, and adverse events necessitating a change in therapy.

RESULTS

Of 89 patients with MSSA bacteraemia who were included: 29 received DAP, 30 received NAF and 30 received CFZ. There was no difference in the composite primary outcome in patients treated with DAP compared with ASBL (10% vs. 5%, P = 0.39). The DAP cohort had a longer hospital length of stay compared with the ASBL group (20 days vs. 11.5 days, P = 0.0007). No differences were detected between other secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that DAP may serve as a comparable alternative to ASBLs for treatment of MSSA bacteraemia, as no differences in clinical outcomes were identified. Larger studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Penicillin Allergy Delabeling: A Multidisciplinary Opportunity

The penicillin allergy label has been consistently linked with deleterious effects that span the health care spectrum, including suboptimal clinical outcomes, the emergence of bacterial resistance, and increased health care expenditures. These risks have recently motivated professional organizations and public health institutes to advocate for the implementation of penicillin allergy delabeling initiatives; however, the burden of delabeling millions of patients is too expansive for any one discipline to bear alone. This review presents the unique perspectives and roles of various stakeholder groups involved in penicillin allergy diagnosis, assessment, and delabeling; we emphasize opportunities, barriers, and promising areas of innovation. We summarize penicillin allergy methods and tools that have proven successful in delabeling efforts. A multidisciplinary approach to delabeling patients with reported penicillin allergy, bolstered by evidence-based clinical practices, is recommended to reduce the risks that associate with the penicillin allergy label.

A meta-analysis of the local application of vancomycin powder to prevent surgical site infection after spinal surgeries

Objective

This study aimed to systematically analyze the effectiveness and safety of the local application of vancomycin powder to prevent surgical site infection (SSI) after spinal surgeries and provide guidance for clinical practice.

Methods

Two researchers independently searched PubMed, Web of Science, Elsevier, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure using the MeSH terms “spinal surgery,” “vancomycin,” “local,” “topical,” “prophylactic,” “surgical site infection,” and “SSI” to identify studies published between January 2010 and January 2020 on the local application of vancomycin powder for preventing SSI after spinal surgeries. The outcome assessment indicators were analyzed using RevMan 5.3 software.

Results

Three randomized controlled trials, two prospective studies, and 26 retrospective studies were included in the current research. The results of the meta-analysis revealed significant differences between the vancomycin and control groups (non-vancomycin group) concerning the incidence of SSI (risk ratio = 0.39, 95% confidence interval = 0.28–0.55, Z = 5.46), indicating that local application of vancomycin powder can significantly reduce the incidence of SSI.

Conclusion

Local application of vancomycin powder is an effective and safe method to prevent SSI after spinal surgeries.

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.

Skin Testing for Penicillin Allergy: a Review of the Literature

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Self-reported penicillin allergies are frequently reported, though more than 95% of those are not truly allergic when challenged. These patients are more likely to receive alternative antibiotic regimens resulting in the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics that may be less effective, more toxic, and/or more expensive than preferred agents. Given the significant burden on patient outcomes and the healthcare system, the ability to reconcile an allergy and broaden future antibiotic options is essential.

RECENT FINDINGS

This is a narrative review describing risk stratification for penicillin skin testing, practical advice for implementation, and future directions. A summary of studies within the last 5 years is provided. The trend over the past several years has been to offer oral drug challenges to low-risk patients and skin testing to high-risk patients with a reported penicillin allergy. This review provides support for risk stratification assessment of reported penicillin allergy to optimize antibiotic use and prevent emergence of antimicrobial resistance.

Matched Case-Control Study of the Long-Term Impact of Beta-Lactam Antibiotic Allergy Testing

Whereas the short-term impacts of antibiotic allergy testing on delabeling and antibiotic usage have been demonstrated, the long-term impacts have been less well defined. In a single-center matched case-control study from Melbourne, Australia, we demonstrate that a beta-lactam antibiotic allergy testing program has a significant impact on antibiotic usage and infection-related outcomes. This study supports implementation of an antibiotic allergy testing program as a standard of care of antimicrobial stewardship programs.

Antibiotic Skin Testing in the Intensive Care Unit: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Recent research has shown that a large majority of patients with a history of penicillin allergy are acutely tolerant of penicillins and that there is no clinically significant immunologic cross-reactivity between penicillins and cephalosporins or other β-lactams. The standard test to confirm acute tolerance is challenge with a therapeutic dose. Skin testing is useful only when the culprit antibiotic can haptenate serum proteins and induce an immunoglobulin E-mediated reaction and the clinical history demonstrates such high risk that a direct oral challenge may result in anaphylaxis.

OBJECTIVE

To review and evaluate the current practice of skin testing for antibiotics (other than penicillin) in critically ill patients by means of a systematic literature review.

METHODS

This systematic review was performed using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines. Several electronic databases were searched using the following terms: antibiotics, skin test (tests, testing), intensive care, intensive care unit, ICU, critical care, critical care unit.

RESULTS

Twenty-three articles were identified for inclusion in this review. The results indicate a lack of standardized skin testing for all antibiotics in critical care settings. Oral challenge with nonirritating concentrations of antibiotics can be helpful in determining allergy to these drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Critical care providers should evaluate antibiotic allergy using nonirritating concentrations before administering antibiotics to patients. Introduction of a standardized skin test for all antibiotics in intensive care unit patients to help select the most appropriate antibiotic treatment regimen might help save lives and reduce costs.

Skin testing and oral amoxicillin challenge in the outpatient allergy and clinical immunology clinic in pregnant women with penicillin allergy

BACKGROUND

Penicillin allergy is frequently reported. In pregnant women, reported penicillin allergy is associated with negative health outcomes and suboptimal group B streptococcal prophylaxis. For individuals having penicillin allergy, skin testing followed by an observed oral challenge is recommended. Previous data indicate a low risk of adverse reaction with skin testing in pregnant women, but the subsequent oral challenge was not routinely pursued.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether skin testing followed by the outpatient oral challenge is tolerated by pregnant women.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of all pregnant women who underwent penicillin allergy evaluation at an outpatient allergy and clinical immunology clinic. The patients underwent oral amoxicillin challenges based on the discretion of the allergy provider. We evaluated the index reaction history, skin test results, oral challenge results, and subsequent antibiotic exposure.

RESULTS

A total of 46 pregnant women underwent skin testing without adverse reactions, of whom 44 patients (95.6%) received negative results. A total of 18 women (39%) completed an oral challenge without adverse reactions. Patients challenged vs not challenged did not differ in patient age, gestational age, latency since index reaction, or reaction history risk level. Notably, 28 women received intrapartum antibiotics. There was no difference in intrapartum antibiotic administration between those who did or who did not complete an in-office oral challenge (P = .90).

CONCLUSION

Penicillin skin testing and oral challenge in pregnant women can safely be performed in the outpatient setting. There was no difference in the intrapartum antibiotic use between women who were and those who were not challenged. Further research is needed to determine the utility of oral challenge in pregnant patients.

New Avenues for Antimicrobial Stewardship: The Case for Penicillin Skin Testing by Pharmacists

It is well-appreciated that patients with documented penicillin allergies often receive broader-spectrum antibiotics. This practice has been associated with increased antimicrobial resistance and cost. In recent years, considerable efforts have been made to spread awareness on the implications of self-reported penicillin allergies. The use of penicillin skin testing to evaluate for true allergies has been strongly recommended by major organizations for decades. However, testing remains underutilized. Current literature has suggested various models of incorporating penicillin allergy screening and testing by different healthcare practitioners (ie, physicians, allergists, nurses, pharmacists). We suggest broader adoption for the role of pharmacists in the provision of penicillin skin testing. This would help expand the service and maximize the potential benefits of penicillin skin testing.

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.

A Closer Look at Penicillin Allergy History: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Tolerance to Drug Challenge

BACKGROUND

True allergy to penicillin is rare, despite the high frequency with which it is reported. While most patients reporting penicillin allergy are not prone to anaphylaxis, it is not currently known what percentage of these patients will tolerate dose challenges of penicillin-based antibiotics. This review aims to determine the rate of tolerance in patients reporting penicillin allergy when challenged with penicillin-based antibiotics.

METHODS

We searched MedLine, Embase, and Cochrane Library for publications with English language translations between the years 2000 and 2017. We included randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental, and observational studies of participants reporting penicillin allergy who received at least one systemic dose of a penicillin in the form of a drug challenge. At least 2 independent reviewers extracted data from included studies and assessed the quality of each included study. To generate primary outcome data, we calculated a summary estimate rate of penicillin tolerance from a pooled proportion of participants receiving penicillin with no adverse effects.

RESULTS

Initial literature search yielded 2945 studies, of which 23 studies were ultimately included in our review; 5056 study participants with reported history of penicillin allergy were challenged with a penicillin. After weighting for study sample size, a pooled average of 94.4% (95% confidence interval, 93.7%-95%) of participants tolerated the dose challenge without any adverse reaction.

CONCLUSION

Misrepresented penicillin allergy drives unnecessary use of alternative antibiotics, which may be less effective, more toxic, and more expensive than using penicillin. In addressing the problem of penicillin allergy over-diagnosis, evaluation should go beyond risk for type 1 hypersensitivity. Our data suggest that 94.4% of 5056 participants with reported penicillin allergy determined to be clinically appropriate for allergy evaluation tolerated repeat administration of penicillin-based antibiotics without any adverse reactions. This review generates meaningful information useful to clinical predictive analytics, in evaluating and managing patients with a reported history of penicillin allergy.

The challenge of de-labeling penicillin allergy

BACKGROUND

Even though 8%-25% of most populations studied globally are labeled as penicillin allergic, most diagnoses of penicillin allergy are made in childhood and relate to events that are either not allergic in nature, are low risk for immediate hypersensitivity, or are a potential true allergy that has waned over time. Penicillin allergy labels directly impact antimicrobial stewardship by leading to use of less effective and broader spectrum antimicrobials and are associated with antimicrobial resistance. They may also delay appropriate antimicrobial therapy and lead to increased risk of specific adverse healthcare outcomes. Operationalizing penicillin allergy de-labeling into a new arm of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) has become an increasing global focus.

METHODS

We performed an evidence-based narrative review of the literature of penicillin allergy label carriage, the adverse effects of penicillin allergy labels, and current approaches and barriers to penicillin allergy de-labeling. Over the period 1928-2018 in Pubmed and Medline, search terms used included "penicillin allergy" or "penicillin hypersensitivity" alone or in combination with "adverse events," "testing," "evaluation," "effects," "label," "de-labeling," "prick or epicutaneous," and "intradermal" skin testing, "oral challenge or provocation," "cross-reactivity," and "antimicrobial stewardship".

RESULTS

Penicillin allergy labels are highly prevalent, largely inaccurate and their carriage may lead to unnecessary treatment and inferior outcomes with alternative agents as well as adverse public health outcomes such as antibiotic resistance.

CONCLUSIONS

Operationalizing penicillin allergy de-labeling as an aspect of ASP has become an increasing global focus. There is a need for validated approaches that optimally combine the use of history and ingestion challenge with or without proceeding formal skin testing to tackle penicillin allergy efficiently within complex healthcare systems. At the same time, there is great promise for penicillin allergy evaluation and de-labeling as an individual and public health strategy to reduce adverse healthcare outcomes, improve antimicrobial stewardship, and decrease healthcare costs.

Is a Reported Penicillin Allergy Sufficient Grounds to Forgo the Multidimensional Antimicrobial Benefits of β-Lactam Antibiotics?

The majority of patients with reported penicillin allergy are not allergic when tested or challenged. Penicillin allergy testing has been shown to significantly reduce annual healthcare expenditures. Data have emerged showing β-lactams have multidimensional antibacterial effects in vivo, far beyond what is appreciated in standard bacteriological susceptibility testing media. These include enhancing bacterial killing by the innate immune system. Supporting the clinical relevance of these secondary underappreciated effects are recent clinical and pharmacoeconomic analyses that show worse outcomes in patients with reported penicillin allergies who receive non-β-lactam antibiotics when compared to their non-penicillin-allergic counterparts. This is particularly relevant in the treatment of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. This article reviews the tremendous advantages offered by β-lactam therapy and makes a strong case that the debunking of false penicillin allergies through a detailed allergy history and penicillin allergy testing should be a vital component of antimicrobial stewardship practices.

Anaphylaxis for Internists: Definition, Evaluation, and Management, with a Focus on Commonly Encountered Problems

Anaphylaxis is an acute systemic allergic reaction that can be life threatening. In adults, the most common causes of anaphylaxis are foods, drugs, and insect stings. This article reviews the definition, classification, evaluation, differential diagnosis, prognosis, complications, and management of anaphylaxis. Tailored for internists, the article focuses on anaphylactic medication allergies. It provides a guide to optimally evaluate and manage patients with antibiotic allergy using a simple, rapid risk stratification technique, graded antibiotic challenge (test dose), and/or allergist-guided drug desensitization. It also reviews other causes of anaphylaxis that internists are likely to encounter, and an approach to their management.

Things We Do For No Reason™: Failing to Question a Penicillin Allergy History

Inspired by the ABIM Foundation's Choosing Wisely^® campaign, the "Things We Do for No Reason™" (TWDFNR) series reviews practices that have become common parts of hospital care but may provide little value to our patients. Practices reviewed in the TWDFNR series do not represent "black and white" conclusions or clinical practice standards but are meant as a starting place for research and active discussions among hospitalists and patients. We invite you to be part of that discussion.

The Impact of Reported Beta-Lactam Allergy in Hospitalized Patients With Hematologic Malignancies Requiring Antibiotics

Background

Patients hospitalized with hematologic malignancy are particularly vulnerable to infection. The impact of reported beta-lactam (BL) allergy in this population remains unknown.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study of adult inpatients with hematologic malignancy admitted at 2 tertiary care hospitals from 2010 through 2015. The primary outcome was hospital length of stay (LOS) after administration of the first antibiotic. Secondary outcomes included readmission, mortality, complications, hospital charges, and antibiotic usage. Our goal was to define the impact of BL-only allergy (BLOA) label on clinical outcomes compared to those with no BL allergy (NBLA) in hematologic malignancy inpatients who required systemic antibiotics.

Results

In our cohort (n = 4671), 38.3% had leukemia, 4.9% had Hodgkin lymphoma, 36.1% had non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and 20.7% had multiple myeloma. Among patients, 35.1% reported antibiotic allergy, and 14.1% (n = 660) had BLOA (including 9.3% with penicillin-only allergy and 3.3% cephalosporin-only allergy). Patients with BLOA had longer median LOS compared to patients with NBLA (11.3 vs 7.6 days, P < .001), which remained significant after multivariable adjustment. Patients with BLOA also had significantly worse outcomes in terms of mortality rate at 30 days (7.6% vs 5.3%, P = .017) and 180 days (15.8% vs 12.2%, P = .013), 30-day readmission rate, Clostridium difficile rate, hospital charges ($223 046 vs $173 256, P < .001), antibiotic classes used, and antibiotic duration.

Conclusions

In hospitalized patients with hematologic malignancy, patients with reported BL allergy had worse clinical outcomes and higher healthcare cost than those without BL allergy label.

Long-term impacts of antibiotic allergy testing on patient perceptions and antibiotic utilization

Objectives

To define the long-term impacts of antibiotic allergy testing (AAT) on patient allergy perception and antibiotic utilization.

Methods

Patients were identified from a prospective AAT database as having completed testing during a 15 month period beginning January 2017. Patients were contacted for a follow-up survey at least 12 months post-AAT. For those contacted, baseline demographics, antibiotic allergy label (AAL) history, age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index, infection history, antibiotic de-labelling (≥1 AAL removed following AAT) and antibiotic usage for 12 months prior to testing (pre-AAT) and 12 months following testing (post-AAT) were recorded for each patient.

Results

From the follow-up survey of 112 patients post-AAT, 95.2% (59/62) of patients with complete AAL removal expressed willingness to use ‘de-labelled’ antibiotics and 91.9% (57/62) were adherent to allergy label modification. Comparing antibiotic utilization 12 months pre-AAT versus 12 months post-AAT, AAT was associated with a significant increase in preferred antibiotic therapy [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 3.29, 95% CI 1.56–6.92] and reduction in restricted antibiotic utilization (aOR 0.42, 95% CI 0.19–0.93).

Conclusions

An antimicrobial stewardship (AMS)-led AAT programme was safe and effective in the long term in the promotion of preferred and narrow-spectrum antibiotic usage, and favourable patient perception towards the AAT testing results was identified. This study further supports the routine incorporation of AAT into AMS programmes, confirming safety and durability of testing impacts on patients as well as increasing preferred antibiotic utilization.

Penicillin allergy skin testing as an antibiotic stewardship intervention reduces alternative antibiotic exposures in hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Antibiotic allergy de-labeling using penicillin allergy skin testing (PAST) can reduce the use and cost of alternative, non-β-lactam antibiotics in general inpatient populations. This strategy's role in hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients is unclear.

METHODS

This study aimed to determine the effect of a pre-transplant PAST protocol on antibiotic use, days of therapy (DOT), and cost in an immunocompromised population at a single center from 7/1/2010-2/1/2019. Patients who received chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy and those who underwent transplantation in the outpatient setting were excluded.

RESULTS

Of 1560 patients who underwent inpatient HSCT during the study period, 208 reported β-lactam allergy (136/844 [16%] pre- and 72/716 [10%] post-implementation; P < .001). PAST was performed on 7% and 54% of HSCT recipients pre- and post-implementation, respectively. Only two positive PAST were noted. There were no adverse reactions to PAST. There were no significant differences in the disease and transplant characteristics between the two groups. Days of therapy and cost of alternative antibiotics significantly decreased post-implementation (mean 788 vs 627 days, P = .01; mean $24 425 vs $17 518, P = .009).

CONCLUSION

Penicillin allergy skin testing adjudicates reported β-lactam allergy in HSCT recipients, lowering use, DOT, and cost of alternative antibiotics and promoting effective formulary agents to treat immunocompromised HSCT recipients.