Screening for Beta-Lactam Allergy in Joint Arthroplasty Patients to Improve Surgical Prophylaxis Practice

A nurse-driven penicillin allergy risk score in the preoperative setting was associated with increased cefazolin use perioperatively

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To characterize and assess the effects of a preoperative, nurse-driven penicillin allergy risk stratification tool on rates of perioperative cefazolin and second-line antibiotic use.

DESIGN

Quasi-experimental quality improvement study of penicillin-allergic surgical patients undergoing procedures for which cefazolin is indicated.

SETTING

Outpatient Perioperative Care Clinic (PCC) for preoperative surgical patients at a tertiary care center.

PATIENTS

670 and 1371 adult penicillin-allergic PCC attendants and non-attendants, respectively.

INTERVENTION

A paper penicillin allergy risk stratification questionnaire was administered during the PCC visit. Nurses were educated on its use.

MEASUREMENTS

Antibiotic (cefazolin, clindamycin, vancomycin) use rates in the 24 months before and 17 months after intervention implementation in November 2020 (November 2018 - April 2022) were assessed in penicillin-allergic PCC attendants with statistical process control charts. Multivariable logistic regression assessed antibiotic use rates pre- and post-intervention adjusting for age, sex, surgical specialty and penicillin allergy history severity. Similar analyses were done in penicillin-allergic PCC non-attendants.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 670 penicillin-allergic PCC attendants, 451 (median [IQR] age, 66 (Sousa-Pinto et al., 2021 [14])) were analyzed pre-intervention and 219 (median [IQR] age, 66 (Mine et al., 1970 [13])) post-intervention. One month after implementation, process measures demonstrated an upward shift in cefazolin use for PCC attendants versus no shift or other special cause variation for PCC non-attendants. There were increased odds of cefazolin use (aOR 1.67, 95% CI [1.09-2.57], P = 0.019), decreased odds of clindamycin use (aOR 0.61, 95% CI [0.42-0.89], P = 0.010) and decreased odds of vancomycin use (aOR 0.56, 95% CI [0.35-0.88], P = 0.013) in PCC attendants post-intervention. This effect did not occur in PCC non-attendants. There was no increase in perioperative anaphylaxis post-intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

A simple penicillin allergy risk stratification tool implemented in the preoperative setting was associated with increased use of cefazolin and decreased rates of second-line agents post implementation.

Surgical prophylaxis in pediatric orthopedic patients with penicillin allergy: a multicentered retrospective prognostic study

Up to 20% of orthopedic surgeons still avoid the use of cephalosporins in patients with penicillin allergies despite its reported safety in the adult and general surgery pediatric population. The primary objective is to determine the incidence of adverse effects and allergic reactions when using cephalosporins in pediatric orthopedic patients labeled as penicillin-allergic as compared to those without previously reported penicillin allergy. A multicenter retrospective chart review was performed across three level 1 trauma centers from January 2013 to February 2020 to identify penicillin-allergic as well as non-penicillin-allergic pediatric patients treated for orthopedic injuries. Data were collected regarding patient demographics, antibiotic administered, timing of antibiotic administration, reported drug allergy, and described allergic reaction. Postoperative or intraoperative allergic reactions to antibiotics, surgical site infections, and complications were recorded. A total of 2289 surgeries performed by four fellowship-trained surgeons were evaluated. Eighty-five patients diagnosed with penicillin allergy were identified and underwent 95 surgeries and 95 patients without previously reported penicillin allergy underwent 95 surgeries. One patient, with a documented history of anaphylaxis to cefazolin, sustained an anaphylactic reaction intraoperatively to cefazolin. There were no other reported reactions, surgical site infections, or complications. There was no statistically significant difference in rate of allergic reaction in patients with previously reported penicillin allergy treated with cefazolin and those with no previous reported reaction ( P > 0.05). Prophylaxis with cephalosporins is not associated with increased risk for allergic reaction. Cephalosporins can be safely administered to pediatric patients with penicillin allergy undergoing orthopedic intervention. Level of evidence: Level II, Multicenter Retrospective Prognostic Study.

Is Penicillin Allergy a Clinical Problem? A Systematic Review of Total Joint Arthroplasty Procedures With Implications for Patient Safety and Antibiotic Stewardship

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty (TJA) who report penicillin allergy (PA) are frequently administered second-line antibiotics, although recent evidence suggests that this may be unnecessary and could increase infection risk. Many institutions have aimed to improve antibiotic deployment via allergy testing and screening; however, there is little standardization to this process. This review aimed to evaluate (1) antibiotic selection in patients who report PA and assess the impact of screening and testing interventions, (2) rates of allergic reactions in patients who report PA, and (3) the association between reported PA and screening or testing programs and odds of surgical site infection or periprosthetic joint infection.

METHODS

PubMed, EBSCOhost, and Google Scholar electronic databases were searched on February 4, 2023 to identify all studies published since January 1, 2000 that evaluated the impact of PA on patients undergoing TJA (PROSPERO study protocol registration: CRD42023394031). Articles were included if full-text manuscripts in English were available, and the study analyzed the impact of PA and related interventions on TJA patients. There were 11 studies evaluating 1,276,663 patients included. Interventions were compared via presentation of key findings regarding rates of clinically relevant or high-risk PA reported upon screenings or testings, cephalosporin utilizations, allergic reactions, and postoperative infections (surgical site infection and periprosthetic joint infection).

RESULTS

All 6 studies found that PA screening and testing markedly increase the use of first-line antibiotics. Testing showed low rates of true allergy (0.7 to 3%) and allergic reaction frequency for patients who have reported PA receiving cephalosporins was between 0% and 2%. Although there were mixed findings across studies, there was a trend toward second-line antibiotic prophylaxis being associated with a slightly higher rate of infection in PA patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Using PA screening and testing can promote antibiotic stewardship by safely increasing the use of first-line antibiotics in patients who have a reported PA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, Therapeutic Study.

Randomized Multicenter Trial for the Validation of an Easy-to-Administer Algorithm to Define Penicillin Allergy Status in Sexually Transmitted Infection Clinic Outpatients

BACKGROUND

Approximately 15% of patients in sexually transmitted infection (STI) clinics report penicillin allergies, complicating treatment for syphilis and gonorrhea. Nonetheless, >90% do not have a penicillin allergy when evaluated. We developed and validated an algorithm to define which patients reporting penicillin allergy can be safely treated at STI clinics with these drugs.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trial to assess feasibility and safety of penicillin allergy evaluations in STI clinics. Participants with reported penicillin allergy answered an expert-developed questionnaire to stratify risk. Low-risk participants underwent penicillin skin testing (PST) followed by amoxicillin 250 mg challenge or a graded oral challenge (GOC)-amoxicillin 25 mg followed by 250 mg. Reactions were recorded, and participant/provider surveys were conducted.

RESULTS

Of 284 participants, 72 (25.3%) were deemed high risk and were excluded. Of 206 low-risk participants, 102 (49.5%) underwent PST without reactions and 3 (3%) had mild reactions during the oral challenge. Of 104 (50.5%) participants in the GOC, 95 (91.3%) completed challenges without reaction, 4 (4.2%) had mild symptoms after 25 mg, and 4 (4.2%) after 250-mg doses. Overall, 195 participants (94.7%) successfully completed the study and 11 (5.3%) experienced mild symptoms. Of 14 providers, 12 (85.7%) completed surveys and 11 (93%) agreed on the safety/effectiveness of penicillin allergy assessment in STI clinics.

CONCLUSIONS

An easy-to-administer risk-assessment questionnaire can safely identify patients for penicillin allergy evaluation in STI clinics by PST or GOC, with GOC showing operational feasibility. Using this approach, 67% of participants with reported penicillin allergy could safely receive first-line treatments for gonorrhea or syphilis. Clinical Trials Registration. Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04620746).

Perioperative Cefazolin for Total Joint Arthroplasty Patients Who Have a Penicillin Allergy: Is It Safe?

BACKGROUND

Cefazolin is the standard of care for perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in total joint arthroplasty (TJA) in the United States. The potential allergic cross-reactivity between cefazolin and penicillin causes uncertainty regarding optimal antibiotic choice in patients who have a reported penicillin allergy (rPCNA). The purpose of this study was to determine the safety of perioperative cefazolin in PCNA patients undergoing primary TJA.

METHODS

We identified all patients (n = 49,842) undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (n = 25,659) or total knee arthroplasty (n = 24,183) from 2016 to 2022 who received perioperative intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis. Patients who had an rPCNA (n = 5,508) who received cefazolin (n = 4,938, 89.7%) were compared to rPCNA patients who did not (n = 570, 10.3%), and to patients who did not have an rPCNA (n = 43,359). The primary outcome was the rate of allergic reactions within 72 hours postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included the rates of superficial infections, deep infections, and Clostridioides difficile infections within 90 days.

RESULTS

The rate of allergic reactions was 0.1% (n = 5) in rPCNA patients who received cefazolin, compared to 0.2% (n = 1) in rPCNA patients who did not (P = .48) and 0.02% (n = 11) in patients who have no rPCNA (P = .02). Allergic reactions were mild in all 5 rPCNA patients who received cefazolin and were characterized by cutaneous symptoms (n = 4) or dyspnea in the absence of respiratory distress (n = 1) that resolved promptly with antibiotic discontinuation and administration of antihistamines and/or corticosteroids. We observed no differences in the rates of superficial infections (0.1 versus 0.2%, P = .58), deep infections (0.3 versus 0.4%, P = .68), or C difficile infections (0.04% versus 0%, P = .99) within 90 days in rPCNA patients who received cefazolin versus alternative perioperative antibiotics.

CONCLUSIONS

In this series of more than 5,500 patients who had an rPCNA undergoing primary TJA, perioperative prophylaxis with cefazolin resulted in a 0.1% incidence of allergic reactions that were clinically indolent. Cefazolin can be safely administered to most patients, independent of rPCNA severity.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Management of Penicillin Allergy in the Perioperative Setting

The selection of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis is challenging in patients with a history of penicillin allergy; as such, we present a literature review exploring current best practices and the associated supporting evidence, as well as areas for future research. Guidelines recommend the use of alternative agents in patients with an IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reaction, but those alternative agents are associated with worse outcomes, including an increased risk of surgical site infection, and higher cost. More recent data suggest that the risk of cross-reactivity between penicillins and cephalosporins, particularly cefazolin, is extremely low, and that cefazolin can be used safely in most penicillin-allergic patients. Studies have therefore explored how best to implement first-line cefazolin use in patients with a penicillin allergy label. A variety of interventions, including preoperative allergy de-labeling with incorporation of penicillin skin testing, use of patient risk-stratification questionnaires, and utilization of clinician algorithms to guide antibiotic selection intraoperatively, have all been shown to significantly increase cefazolin utilization without a corresponding increase in adverse events. Further studies are needed to clarify the most effective interventions and implementation strategies, as well as to evaluate whether patients with severe delayed hypersensitivity reactions to penicillin should continue to be excluded from receipt of other beta-lactams.

Approach for delabeling beta-lactam allergy in children

A considerable number of pediatric patients treated with beta-lactam (BL) antibiotics develop delayed onset of skin rashes during the course of treatment. Although the most frequent cause of these symptoms is infectious, many cases are labeled as allergic reactions to these drugs. BL allergy labels could have a negative impact, as they imply avoidance of this group of drugs and the use of second-line antibiotics, leading to a potential increase in adverse effects and the utilization of less effective therapies. This constitutes a major public health concern and economic burden, as the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics can result in multidrug-resistant organisms and prolonged hospital stays. Therefore, it is crucial to delabel patients during childhood to avoid false labeling in adult life. Although the label of BL allergy is among the most frequent causes of allergy referral, its management remains controversial, and new diagnostic perspectives are changing the paradigm of managing BL allergies in children. Traditionally, drug provocation testing (DPT) was exclusively performed in patients who had previously obtained negative results from skin tests (STs). However, the sensitivity of STs is low, and the role of in vitro testing in the pediatric population is not well defined. Recent studies have demonstrated the safety of direct DPT without prior ST or serum tests for pediatric patients who report a low-risk reaction to BLs, which is cost-effective. However, there is still a debate on the optimal allergic workup to be performed in children with a benign immediate reaction and the management of children with severe cutaneous adverse drug reactions. In this review, we will discuss the impact of the label of BL allergy and the role of the different tools currently available to efficiently address BL allergy delabeling in children.

Should Penicillin Allergy Testing Be Included as Part of Preoperative Testing?

INTRODUCTION

Penicillin allergy is the most commonly reported drug allergy in the United States. Patients labeled with penicillin allergy are at risk of receiving broad-spectrum antibiotics for surgical site infection prophylaxis, which can lead to increased antibiotic resistance, higher morbidity, suboptimal antibiotic therapy, and higher medical costs. This study aimed to determine the true prevalence of penicillin allergy among surgical patients and to decrease the unnecessary use of broad-spectrum antibiotics.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed of patients who underwent urogynecologic surgery in 2017. In 2018, a quality initiative was started, and all patients reporting penicillin allergies were offered antibiotic allergy testing as part of their preoperative testing.

RESULTS

In 2017, 15% of patients reported penicillin allergy and 52% of them received surgical prophylaxis with broad-spectrum antibiotics. In 2018, 463 patients underwent surgery, 55 of whom reported penicillin allergy and were offered penicillin allergy testing. 35 (64%) agreed to proceed with testing, and of those tested, 33 (94%) tested negative for penicillin allergy.

CONCLUSIONS

94% of patients with stated penicillin allergy who consented to allergy testing proved to have negative test. Penicillin allergy testing should be considered as part of preoperative management.

Penicillin allergy delabeling: Opportunities for implementation and dissemination

Although existing as a safety measure to prevent iatrogenic harm, unconfirmed penicillin allergy labels have a negative impact on personal and public health. One downstream effect of unconfirmed penicillin allergy is the continued emergence and transmission of resistant bacteria and their associated health care costs. Recognizing the consequences of inaccurate penicillin allergy labels, professional and public health organizations have started promoting the adoption of proactive penicillin allergy evaluations, with the ultimate goal of removing the penicillin allergy label when the allergy is disproved, also known as penicillin allergy "delabeling." A penicillin allergy evaluation includes a comprehensive allergy history often followed by drug challenge, sometimes with preceding skin testing. Currently, penicillin allergy delabeling is largely carried out by allergy specialists in outpatient settings. Penicillin allergy delabeling is performed on inpatients, albeit rarely, often at the time of need, as a point-of-care procedure. Access to penicillin allergy evaluation services is limited. Recent studies demonstrate the feasibility of expanding penicillin allergy evaluations and delabeling to internists, pediatricians, emergency medicine physicians, infectious diseases specialists, and clinical pharmacists. However, reducing the impact of mislabeled penicillin allergy will require comprehensive efforts and new investments. In this review, we summarize the current practices of penicillin allergy delabeling and discuss expansion opportunities for penicillin allergy delabeling as quality improvement.

Study protocol for PREPARE: a phase II feasibility/safety randomised controlled trial on PeRiopErative Penicillin AlleRgy TEsting

INTRODUCTION

Patient-reported antibiotic allergy labels (AALs) are common. These labels have been demonstrated to have a negative impact on use of appropriate antibiotics and patient-related health outcomes. These patients are more likely to receive suboptimal antibiotics, have increased rates of surgical site infections and are more likely to be colonised with multidrug-resistant organisms. Increasing recognition that antibiotic allergy forms a key part of good antimicrobial stewardship has led to calls for greater access to antibiotic allergy assessment.PREPARE is a pilot randomised controlled trial of beta-lactam allergy assessment and point of care delabelling in perioperative patients utilising a validated antibiotic allergy assessment tool that has been repurposed into a smartphone application. The aim of the study is to assess the feasibility and safety of this approach in the perioperative outpatient setting.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Adult participants requiring elective surgery and are likely to require prophylactic intravenous antibiotics will be recruited. During the intervention phase, participants will be randomised to the intervention or control arm, with control patients receiving usual standard of care. Those randomised to intervention undertake a risk assessment via the smartphone application, with those deemed low risk proceeding to direct oral provocation with either a penicillin or cephalosporin. Study outcomes will be evaluated in the postintervention phase, 30 and 90 days after surgery.Feasibility of intervention delivery and recruitment will be reported as proportions with respective 95% CIs. Participants who experience an antibiotic adverse event will be reported by group with respective 95% CIs and compared using modified Poisson regression model with robust SE estimation.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This protocol has received approval from the Austin Health human research and ethics committee, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia (HREC/17/Austin/575). Results will be disseminated via publication in peer-reviewed journals as well as presentation at international conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12620001295932.

Outcome of preoperative cefazolin use for infection prophylaxis in patients with self-reported penicillin allergy

BACKGROUND

Cephalosporins are the preferred antibiotics for prophylaxis against surgical site infections. Most studies give a rate of combined IgE and non-IgE penicillin allergy yet it is recommended that cephalosporins be avoided in patients having the former but can be used in those with the latter. Some studies use penicillin allergy while others penicillin family allergy rates. The primary goal of this study was to determine the rates of IgE and non-IgE allergy as well as cross reactions to both penicillin and the penicillin family. Secondary goals were to determine the surgical services giving preoperative cefazolin and the types of self reported reactions that patients' had to penicillin prompting their allergy status.

METHODS

All patients undergoing elective and emergency surgery at a University Health Sciences Centre were retrospectively studied. The hospital electronic medical record was used for data collection.

RESULTS

8.9% of our patients reported non-IgE reactions to penicillin with a cross reactivity rate of 0.9% with cefazolin. 4.0% of our patients reported IgE reactions to penicillin with a cross reactivity rate of 4.0% with cefazolin. 10.5% of our patients reported non-IgE reactions to the penicillin family with a cross reactivity rate of 0.8% with cefazolin. 4.3% of our patients reported IgE reactions to the penicillin family with a cross reactivity rate of 4.0% with cefazolin.

CONCLUSIONS

Our rate of combined IgE and non-IgE reactions for both penicillin and penicillin family allergy was within the range reported in the literature. Our rate of cross reactivity between cefazolin and combined IgE and non-IgE allergy both to penicillin and the penicillin family were lower than reported in the old literature but within the range of the newer literature. We found a lower rate of allergic reaction to a cephalosporin than reported in the literature. We documented a wide range of IgE and non-IgE reactions. We also demonstrated that cefazolin is frequently the preferred antibiotics for prophylaxis against surgical site infections by many surgical services and that de-labelling patients with penicillin allergy is unnecessary.

Does the Prosthetic Phase of Dental Implants Justify the Prescription of Preventive Antibiotics in Healthy Patients? A Systematic Review

Recently published surveys data show that the routine prescription of preventive antibiotics (PA) in the prosthetic phase of dental implants is more common than might be expected. The present study aimed to answer the PICO (population, intervention, comparison, and outcome) question "In healthy patients starting the implant prosthetic phase, does the prescription of PA compared with not prescribing PA decrease the incidence of infectious complications?" by a systematic literature review. A search was performed in 5 databases. The criteria employed were those described in the PRISMA Declaration. Studies included were those that provided information on the need to prescribe PA in the prosthetic phase of implants, that is, in second-stage surgeries, impression-taking, and prosthesis placement. The electronic search identified 3 studies that met the established criteria. The prescription of PA in the prosthetic phase of implants does not show a justified benefit/risk ratio. Preventive antibiotic therapy (PAT) may be indicated in the second stages or in peri-implant plastic surgery procedures lasting more than 2 hours and/or where soft tissue grafts are used extensively. In these cases, given the current lack of evidence, it is recommended to prescribe 2 g of amoxicillin 1 hour before surgery and, in allergic patients, to prescribe 500 mg of azithromycin 1 hour preoperatively.

Documented Penicillin Allergies Should Not Preclude Use of Preoperative Cefazolin in Hip and Knee Arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

Perioperative cefazolin administration for total joint arthroplasty is a first-line antibiotic recommended by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) guidelines for the prevention of periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs). We aim to analyze the clinical viability of giving patients with a documented penicillin allergy (PA) a perioperative full-strength cefazolin "test dose" under anesthesia.

METHODS

This is a retrospective chart review of 2,451 total joint arthroplasties from a high-volume arthroplasty orthopaedic surgeon over a 5-year period from January 2013 through December 2017. This surgeon routinely gave patients with a documented PA a full-strength cefazolin test dose while under anesthesia instead of administrating a second-line antibiotic. The primary outcomes examined were allergic reaction and postoperative infection.

RESULTS

Cefazolin was given to 87.1% of all patients (1,990) and 46.0% of patients with a PA (143). The total rate of allergic reactions among all patients was 0.5% (11). Only one patient with a documented PA who received cefazolin had an allergic reaction. The reaction was not severe and did not require any additional treatment. In patients who had no reported allergies and received cefazolin, 0.3% (6) had an allergic reaction. There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of allergic reaction when comparing patients with and without a PA (P = 0.95). Patients receiving cefazolin had an overall PJI rate of 2.9% (57) versus those patients receiving antibiotics other than cefazolin who sustained a 5.5% PJI rate (16), which was statistically significant (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

This study found that utilization of a full-strength test dose of cefazolin in patients with a documented PA is a feasible, safe, and effective way of increasing the rate of cefazolin administration and thus mitigating the risk of PJIs.

Impact of Patient-Reported Penicillin Allergy on Antibiotic Prophylaxis and Surgical Site Infection Among Patients Undergoing Colorectal Surgery

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections are a major preventable source of morbidity, mortality, and increased health care expenditures after colorectal surgery. Patients with penicillin allergy may not receive the recommended preoperative antibiotics, putting them at increased risk for surgical site infections.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of patient-reported penicillin allergy on preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis and surgical site infection rates among patients undergoing major colon and rectal procedures.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective observational study.

SETTING

This study was conducted at a tertiary teaching hospital in Dallas.

PATIENTS

Adults undergoing colectomy or proctectomy between July 2012 and July 2019 were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes measured were preoperative antibiotic choice and surgical site infection.

RESULTS

Among 2198 patients included in the study, 12.26% (n = 307) reported a penicillin allergy. Patients with penicillin allergy were more likely to be white (82%) and female (54%; p < 0.01). The most common type of allergic reaction reported was rash (36.5%), whereas 7.2% of patients reported anaphylaxis. Patients with self-reported penicillin allergy were less likely to receive beta-lactam antibiotics than patients who did not report a penicillin allergy (79.8% vs 96.7%, p < 0.001). Overall, 143 (6.5%) patients had surgical site infections. On multivariable logistic regression, there was no difference in rates of surgical site infection between patients with penicillin allergy vs those without penicillin allergy (adjusted OR 1.14; 95% CI, 0.71-1.82).

LIMITATIONS

A limitation of this study was its retrospective study design.

CONCLUSIONS

Self-reported penicillin allergy among patients undergoing colorectal surgery is common; however, only a small number of these patients report any serious adverse reactions. Patients with self-reported penicillin allergy are less likely to receive beta-lactam antibiotics and more likely to receive non-beta-lactam antibiotics. However, this does not affect the rate of surgical site infection among these patients, and these patients can be safely prescribed non-beta-lactam antibiotics without negatively impacting surgical site infection rates. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B838 .IMPACTO DE LA ALERGIA A LA PENICILINA INFORMADA POR EL PACIENTE EN LA PROFILAXIS ANTIBIÓTICA Y LA INFECCIÓN DEL SITIO OPERATORIO ENTRE PACIENTES DE CIRUGÍA COLORECTAL.

ANTECEDENTES

Las infecciones del sitio operatorio son una de las principales fuentes prevenibles de morbilidad, mortalidad y aumento del gasto sanitario después de cirugía colorrectal. Es posible que los pacientes con alergia a la penicilina no reciban los antibióticos preoperatorios recomendados, lo que los pone en mayor riesgo de infecciones en el sitio operatorio.

OBJETIVO

Este estudio tuvo como objetivo evaluar el impacto de la alergia a la penicilina informada por el paciente sobre la profilaxis antibiótica preoperatoria y las tasas de infección del sitio operatorio entre pacientes sometidos a procedimientos mayores de colon y recto.

DISEO

Estudio observacional retrospectivo.

AJUSTE

Hospital universitario terciario en Dallas.

PACIENTES

Adultos sometidos a colectomía o proctectomía entre julio de 2012 a julio de 2019.

PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE DESENLACE

Elección de antibióticos preoperatorios e infección del sitio operatorio.

RESULTADOS

Entre los 2198 pacientes incluidos en el estudio, el 12,26% (n = 307) informó alergia a la penicilina. Los pacientes con alergia a la penicilina tenían más probabilidades de ser blancos (82%) y mujeres (54%) ( p < 0,01). El tipo más común de reacción alérgica notificada fue erupción cutánea (36,5%), mientras que el 7,2% de los pacientes notificó anafilaxia. Los pacientes con alergia a la penicilina autoinformada tenían menos probabilidades de recibir antibióticos betalactámicos en comparación con los pacientes que no informaron alergia a la penicilina (79,8% frente a 96,7%, p < 0,001). En general, hubo 143 (6,5%) pacientes con infecciones del sitio operatorio. En la regresión logística multivariable no hubo diferencias en las tasas de infección del sitio operatorio entre los pacientes con alergia a la penicilina frente a los que no tenían alergia a la penicilina (razón de probabilidades ajustada 1,14; intervalo de confianza del 95%, 0,71-1,82).

LIMITACIONES

Diseño de estudio retrospectivo.

CONCLUSIONES

La alergia a la penicilina autoinformada entre los pacientes de cirugía colorrectal es común, sin embargo, solo un pequeño número de estos pacientes informan reacciones adversas graves. Los pacientes con alergia a la penicilina autoinformada tienen menos probabilidades de recibir antibióticos betalactámicos y más probabilidades de recibir antibióticos no betalactámicos. Sin embargo, esto no afecta la tasa de infección del sitio quirúrgico entre estos pacientes y se les puede recetar de forma segura con antibióticos no betalactámicos sin afectar negativamente las tasas de infección del sitio quirúrgico. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B838 . (Traducción-Dr. Juan Carlos Reyes ).

The Impact of Patient-Reported Penicillin or Cephalosporin Allergy on the Occurrence of the Periprosthetic Joint Infection in Primary Knee and Hip Arthroplasty

Reducing the risk of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) requires a multi-pronged strategy including usage of a prophylactic antibiotic. A history of penicillin or cephalosporin allergy often leads to a change in prophylactic antibiotic regimen to avoid serious side effects. The purpose of the present retrospective study was to determine incidence of PJI based on perioperative antibiotic regimen in total hip arthroplasty (THA), total knee arthroplasty (TKA) or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). A review of all primary THAs, primary TKAs and primary UKAs, undertaken between 2011 and 2020 in a tertiary referral hospital, was performed. The standard perioperative antibiotic for joint arthroplasty (JA) in the analyzed tertiary hospital is cefuroxime. There were no differences in prophylactic antibiotic regimen over time. In 7.9% (211 of 2666) of knee arthroplasties and in 6.0% (206 of 3419) of total hip arthroplasties, a second-line prophylactic antibiotic was used. There was no statistically significant higher occurrence of PJI between the first-line and second-line prophylactic antibiotic in knee arthroplasties (p = 0.403) as well as in total hip arthroplasties (p = 0.309). No relevant differences in age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score and body mass index (BMI) between the groups were observed.

The Impact of Reported β-Lactam Allergy on Clinical Outcomes and Antibiotic Use Among Solid Organ Transplant Recipients

Background

Reported β-lactam allergies (BLAs) are common and frequently inaccurate, but there are limited data on the clinical implications of BLA among solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. We examined the impact of BLA on clinical outcomes and antibiotic use among SOT recipients.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study included adult patients undergoing single-organ heart, kidney, liver, lung, or pancreas transplant at a United States academic medical center from 1 April 2017 to 31 December 2020. Demographic and clinical data were collected from the electronic health record. Multivariate median regression was performed to evaluate the association between BLA and days alive and out of the hospital in the first 180 days posttransplant (DAOH180). Multivariate logistic regression was performed to evaluate the association between BLA and antibiotic use.

Results

Among 1700 SOT recipients, 285 (16.8%) had a BLA at the time of transplant. BLA was not associated with DAOH180 (adjusted median difference, -0.8 days [95% confidence interval {CI}, -2.7 to 1.2]; P = .43). Patients with BLA were more likely to receive intravenous vancomycin (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.8 [95% CI, 1.3-2.6]; P < .001), clindamycin (aOR, 9.9 [95% CI, 5.1-18.9]; P < .001), aztreonam (aOR, 19.6 [95% CI, 5.9-64.4]; P < .001), fluoroquinolones (aOR, 3.8 [95% CI, 2.8-5.0]; P < .001), or aminoglycosides (aOR, 3.9 [95% CI, 2.5-6.2]; P < .001).

Conclusions

BLA was associated with use of β-lactam alternative antibiotics but not DAOH180 among SOT recipients.

The Use of Electronic Health Records to Study Drug-Induced Hypersensitivity Reactions from 2000 to 2021

Electronic health records (EHRs) have revolutionized the field of drug hypersensitivity reaction (DHR) research. In this systematic review, we assessed 140 articles from 2000-2021, classifying them under six themes: observational studies (n=61), clinical documentation (n=27), case management (n=22), clinical decision support (CDS) (n=18), case identification (n=9), and genetic studies (n=3). EHRs provide convenient access to millions of medical records, facilitating epidemiological studies of DHRs. Though the goal of CDS is to promote safe drug prescribing, allergy alerts must be designed and used in a way that supports this effort. Ultimately, accurate allergy documentation is essential for DHR prevention.

Surgical Antimicrobial Prophylaxis in Neonates and Children with Special High-Risk Conditions: A RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method Consensus Study

Surgical site infections (SSIs), which are a potential complications in surgical procedures, are associated with prolonged hospital stays and increased postoperative mortality rates, and they also have a significant economic impact on health systems. Data in literature regarding risk factors for SSIs in pediatric age are scarce, with consequent difficulties in the management of SSI prophylaxis and with antibiotic prescribing attitudes in the various surgical procedures that often tend to follow individual opinions. The lack of pediatric studies is even more evident when we consider surgeries performed in subjects with underlying conditions that may pose an increased risk of complications. In order to respond to this shortcoming, we developed a consensus document to define optimal surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis (SAP) in neonates and children with specific high-risk conditions. These included the following: (1) colonization by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and by multidrug resistant (MDR) bacteria other than MRSA; (2) allergy to first-line antibiotics; (3) immunosuppression; (4) splenectomy; (5) comorbidity; (6) ongoing antibiotic therapy or prophylaxis; (7) coexisting infection at another site; (8) previous surgery in the last month; and (9) presurgery hospitalization lasting more than 2 weeks. This work, made possible by the multidisciplinary contribution of experts belonging to the most important Italian scientific societies, represents, in our opinion, the most up-to-date and comprehensive collection of recommendations relating to behaviors to be undertaken in a perioperative site in the presence of specific categories of patients at high-risk of complications during surgery. The application of uniform and shared protocols in these high-risk categories will improve surgical practice with a reduction in SSIs and consequent rationalization of resources and costs, as well as being able to limit the phenomenon of antimicrobial resistance.

Promoting β-lactam utilization through suppression of electronic medical record cross-allergy alerts

DISCLAIMER

In an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time.

PURPOSE

Current literature surrounding management of patients with reported β-lactam allergies focuses on allergy delabeling. Standard clinical decision support tools have not been optimized to be compatible with the currently accepted cross-reaction rate of 1% to 2%. This potentially promotes use of non-β-lactam antibiotics, which are often not first-line therapy and may carry increased risks. The impact of electronic medical record (EMR) clinical decision support tool optimization on utilization of β-lactam antibiotics in β-lactam-allergic patients was evaluated.

METHODS

A retrospective pre-post β-lactam cross-allergy EMR alert suppression quality improvement intervention cohort study of β-lactam-allergic adult inpatients prescribed antibiotics was conducted. Preintervention baseline data were collected for an initial cohort admitted during September 2018. The intervention, in which clinical decision support rules were updated to display β-lactam cross-sensitivity allergy alerts only for β-lactam-allergic patients with documentation of organization-defined high-severity reactions of anaphylaxis, hives, and shortness of breath, was implemented August 20, 2019. The postintervention cohort included patients admitted during September 2019.

RESULTS

A 91% increase in the percentage of β-lactam-allergic patients who received a β-lactam agent at any time during their admission was noted after the intervention (26.6% vs 51%, P < 0.001). Statistically significant decreases in prescribing of alternative antibiotic classes were seen for fluoroquinolones (decrease from 45.3% to 26%, P < 0.001), aminoglycosides (decrease from 9.4% to 2.9%, P = 0.002), and aztreonam (decrease from 30% to 16.7%, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

EMR β-lactam cross-allergy alert optimization consistent with current literature significantly improved the utilization of alternative β-lactam subclasses, mostly through β-lactam prescribing as initial therapy in β-lactam-allergic patients.

Understanding Penicillin Allergy, Cross-reactivity, and Antibiotic Selection in the Preoperative Setting

Penicillin allergies are reported by 8% to 15% of the US population, but up to 95% of these allergies do not correspond to a true allergy when tested. Recent studies have demonstrated that having a penicillin allergy label (PAL) results in a 50% increased odds of surgical site infection among patients reporting a penicillin allergy entirely attributable to the use of a beta-lactam alternative antibiotic (primarily clindamycin or vancomycin). This study provides a review of the prevalence of PAL, the cross-reactivity with cefazolin, immunogenic components of cefazolin and penicillin, and current guidelines for preoperative antibiotic selection in patients with PALs. On understanding these principles, a new set of guidelines and a risk stratification tool are proposed for assessing allergies and determining appropriate antibiotic choice, dosage, and timing in the orthopaedic preoperative setting.

Preventive Antibiotic Therapy in the Placement of Immediate Implants: A Systematic Review

Immediate implants present a high risk of early failure. To avoid this, preventive antibiotics (PAs) are prescribed; however, their inappropriate administration leads to antimicrobial resistance. The present study aims to clarify whether the prescription of PAs reduces the rate of early failure of immediate implants and to establish guidelines to avoid the overprescription of these drugs. An electronic search of the MEDLINE database (via PubMed), Web of Science, Scopus, LILACS and OpenGrey was carried out. The criteria described in the PRISMA^® statement were used. The search was temporarily restricted from 2010 to 2021. The risk of bias was analysed using the SIGN Methodological Assessment Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and the JBI Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool. After searching, eight studies were included that met the established criteria. With the limitations of this study, it can be stated that antibiotic prescription in immediate implants reduces the early failure rate. Preoperative administration of 2–3 g amoxicillin one hour before surgery followed by 500 mg/8 h for five to seven days is recommended. It is considered prudent to avoid the use of clindamycin in favour of azithromycin, clarithromycin or metronidazole in penicillin allergy patients until further studies are conducted.

A Simple Algorithmic Approach Allows the Safe Use of Cephalosporin in "Penicillin-Allergic" Patients without the Need for Allergy Testing

BACKGROUND

Patients who report a penicillin allergy are often given second-line antibiotic prophylaxis during total joint arthroplasty (TJA), with only a minority of patients undergoing additional consultations and allergy testing. In an effort to increase the use of cephalosporin prophylaxis in TJA, the present study aimed to assess the effectiveness of a simple, protocol-driven penicillin allergy screening program without the need for additional work-up.

METHODS

Following implementation of a questionnaire-based screening protocol in May 2019, all patients scheduled for primary TJA were risk-stratified into low or high-risk categories. The low-risk cohort received cefazolin, and the high-risk cohort received non-cefazolin antibiotics. Patients were monitored prospectively, and data on antibiotic usage and adverse outcomes were documented. The protocol group (n = 2,078) was propensity score matched 1:1 with a control group that included patients who underwent TJA in the same institution prior to implementation of the protocol. The primary end point was the efficacy of the protocol in reducing unnecessary use of non-cephalosporin antibiotics for prophylaxis. Secondary outcomes included the rate of surgical site infections and allergic reactions to the administered antibiotic.

RESULTS

A total of 357 patients (17.2%) reported a penicillin allergy in the protocol group compared with 310 patients (14.9%) with a recorded allergy in the control group (p = 0.052). The number of patients who received non-cephalosporin antibiotics was significantly lower in the protocol group (5.7% compared with 15.2% in the control group; p < 0.001), whereas there was no difference in the rate of total allergic reactions (0.8% compared with 0.7%, respectively; p = 0.857). Of the 239 low-risk patients (66.9%) in the protocol group, only 3 (1.3%) experienced a mild cutaneous reaction following cefazolin administration. There were no differences in the rates of superficial wound, deep periprosthetic, or Clostridioides difficile infections between the protocol and control groups.

CONCLUSIONS

A simple screening protocol allowed two-thirds of patients with a self-reported allergy to receive cefazolin without the need for additional consultations or testing. We believe this protocol can be safely implemented to increase the rate of cefazolin usage without a corresponding increase in the number of allergic reactions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

The Effect of Operating Room Size on Orthopaedic Surgical Site Infection Rates

OBJECTIVE

With many preventable causes of surgical site infections (SSIs) identified, the effect of operating room (OR) size on SSI rates has not been assessed. This study investigated the effect of OR size on incidence of SSIs for orthopaedic procedures.

BACKGROUND

SSIs remain a common complication within the perioperative realm. Responsible for increasing length of hospitalization and costs, SSIs result in a decreased quality of life for patients.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 11,163 patients who underwent orthopaedic surgery-including total knee and hip arthroplasties, laminectomies, and spinal fusions-between January 2018 and January 2020 were reviewed. Total net square footage (NSF) of all ORs was recorded, and incidence of SSIs was calculated. Cases were categorized based on the size of the OR (small: 250 to 399 NSF; medium: 400 to 549 NSF; and large: 550 to 699 NSF). Chi-square analysis compared infection rates between the different OR sizes, and a binary logistic regression model identified other predictors of infection.

RESULTS

Overall, 137 patients (1.2%) developed an SSI. Of these infections, 16 (11.7%) occurred in small ORs, 83 (60.6%) in medium ORs, and 38 (27.7%) in large ORs. The incidence of SSIs was 0.7% in small ORs, 1.3% in medium ORs, and 1.8% in large ORs. Factors found to significantly impact SSI's included medium-sized ORs, younger patients, procedure type (fusions and emergencies/traumas), longer procedures, and higher American Society of Anesthesiologists scores (>3).

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that OR size in addition to various other perioperative parameters plays a role in the rate of SSIs for orthopaedic procedures.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Retrospective Cohort Study; Level III Evidence.

Is Penicillin Allergy a Risk Factor for Early Dental Implant Failure? A Systematic Review

The prescription of preventive antibiotics in dental implant treatments reduces the incidence of early failures. This study has focused mainly on the influence of amoxicillin, which is contraindicated in penicillin-allergic patients. The present systematic review aimed to determine whether penicillin-allergic patients have a higher risk of implant failure compared to non-allergic patients. An electronic search was performed on Medline and Web of Science using the following MeSH terms: (penicillin allergy OR clindamycin OR erythromycin OR azithromycin OR metronidazole) AND (dental implant OR dental implant failure OR dental implant complications). The criteria employed were those described in the PRISMA^® Declaration. Only five articles were included that analyzed the failure rates of implants placed in penicillin-allergic patients who were prescribed clindamycin compared to non-allergic patients who were prescribed amoxicillin. With the limitations of this study, it is not possible to state that penicillin allergy per se constitutes a risk factor for early dental implant failure as most of the studies included self-reported allergic patients. Clindamycin has been associated with a significantly elevated risk of failure and an up to six times increased risk of infection. Immediate implants also have a 5.7 to 10 times higher risk of failure.

Sexually Transmitted Infections Treatment Guidelines, 2021

These guidelines for the treatment of persons who have or are at risk for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) were updated by CDC after consultation with professionals knowledgeable in the field of STIs who met in Atlanta, Georgia, June 11–14, 2019. The information in this report updates the 2015 guidelines. These guidelines discuss 1) updated recommendations for treatment of Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Chlamydia trachomatis, and Trichomonas vaginalis; 2) addition of metronidazole to the recommended treatment regimen for pelvic inflammatory disease; 3) alternative treatment options for bacterial vaginosis; 4) management of Mycoplasma genitalium; 5) human papillomavirus vaccine recommendations and counseling messages; 6) expanded risk factors for syphilis testing among pregnant women; 7) one-time testing for hepatitis C infection; 8) evaluation of men who have sex with men after sexual assault; and 9) two-step testing for serologic diagnosis of genital herpes simplex virus. Physicians and other health care providers can use these guidelines to assist in prevention and treatment of STIs.

Optimizing preoperative antibiotics in patients with β-lactam allergies: A role for pharmacy

Disclaimer

In an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time.

Purpose

Patients with a reported β-lactam allergy (BLA) are often given alternative perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis, increasing risk of surgical site infections (SSIs), acute kidney injury (AKI), and Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI). The purpose of this study was to implement and evaluate a pharmacist-led BLA clarification interview service in the preoperative setting.

Methods

A pharmacist performed BLA clarification telephone interviews before elective procedures from November 2018 to March 2019. On the basis of allergy history and a decision algorithm, first-line preoperative antibiotics, alternative antibiotics, or allergy testing referral was recommended. The pharmacist intervention (PI) group was compared to a standard of care (SOC) group who underwent surgery from November 2017 to March 2018.

Results

Eighty-seven patients were included, with 50 (57%) and 37 (43%) in the SOC and PI groups, respectively. The most common surgeries included orthopedic surgery in 41 patients (47%) and neurosurgery in 17 patients (20%). In the PI group, all BLA labels were updated after interview. Twenty-three patients were referred for allergy testing, 12 of the 23 (52%) completed BLA testing, and penicillin allergies were removed for 9 of the 12 patients. Overall, 28 of the 37 (76%) pharmacy antibiotic recommendations were accepted. Cefazolin use significantly increased from 28% to 65% after the intervention (P = 0.001). SSI occurred in 5 (10%) patients in the SOC group and no patients in the PI group (P = 0.051). All of these SSIs were associated with alternative antibiotics. Incidence of AKI and CDI was similar between the groups. No allergic reactions occurred in either group.

Conclusion

Implementation of a pharmacy-driven BLA reconciliation significantly increased β-lactam preoperative use without negative safety outcomes.

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.

Impact of the Allergy Clarification for Cefazolin Evidence-based Prescribing Tool on Receipt of Preferred Perioperative Prophylaxis: An Interrupted Time Series Study

Implementation of a perioperative allergy and antibiotic assessment tool in patients with reported beta-lactam allergy resulted in a pronounced and sustained increase in perioperative cefazolin use. This intervention could result in improved efficiencies surrounding perioperative antibiotic administration and possible reductions in surgical site infection rates.

Safety of administering cefazolin versus other antibiotics in penicillin-allergic patients for surgical prophylaxis at a major Canadian teaching hospital

BACKGROUND

Cefazolin surgical prophylaxis is associated with better patient outcomes; however, its use in penicillin-allergic patients is controversial. We evaluated the safety of cefazolin as surgical prophylaxis in penicillin-allergic patients, including those with anaphylaxis histories.

METHODS

We conducted a pre and postintervention quality improvement evaluation of an institution-wide policy change at a tertiary-care hospital, before (October 2017-January 2018), during (February 2018-September 2018), and after (October 2018-October 2019) transition to routine cefazolin prophylaxis for penicillin-allergic patients, including those with anaphylaxis histories but excluding severe delayed reactions (eg, Stevens-Johnson syndrome). Retrospective data was collected on all surgical prophylaxis patients with penicillin-anaphylactic histories between October 2017 and September 2018. From October 2018, we prospectively reviewed adverse events with cefazolin. Primary outcome was adverse events in penicillin-allergic patients receiving cefazolin perioperatively.

RESULTS

From October 2017 to October 2019, 27,467 operations were performed. Of 220 patients with penicillin-anaphylactic histories reviewed prior to the full policy change, no statistically significant differences were reported in allergic reactions (P = .70), surgical site infections (P = 1.00), or adverse events (P = .32) with cefazolin compared to other antibiotics. Postpolicy implementation, cefazolin usage increased 18.2%, while vancomycin and clindamycin decreased by 11.4% and 62.0%, respectively. No anaphylaxis was documented in penicillin-allergic patients receiving cefazolin in either the review or quality assurance follow-up after the change. Of 3 patients developing reactions to cefazolin, none had histories of penicillin allergy. Surgical site infection rates were similar between pre and postpolicy time periods (P = .842).

CONCLUSION

Administration of cefazolin in penicillin-anaphylactic patients for surgical prophylaxis appears to be safe.

Is Patient-reported Penicillin Allergy Independently Associated with Increased Risk of Prosthetic Joint Infection After Total Joint Arthroplasty of the Hip, Knee, and Shoulder?

BACKGROUND

Patients with a patient-reported penicillin allergy may be at greater risk for postoperative prosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total joint arthroplasty of the hip, knee, or shoulder. The increased risk of PJI in these patients has been attributed to these patients receiving a less-effective perioperative antibiotic. However, prior reports did not fully address the clinical characteristics of these unique patients, who may inherently be at greater risk of having a PJI, which may confound prior findings.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

After controlling for risk factors for PJI such as BMI, anxiety, depression, and other comorbidities, we asked: Are patients with a patient-reported penicillin allergy more likely to have a PJI after THA, TKA, or total shoulder arthroplasty than patients without such a reported allergy?

METHODS

We queried patient records from 2010 to 2017 from a nationwide administrative claims database of 122 million patients to adequately power an investigation comparing the 1-year incidence of PJI after TKA, total shoulder arthroplasty, and THA in patients with patient-reported penicillin allergy versus patients without a patient-reported penicillin allergy. Operative treatments for deep joint infection, identified by Current Procedural Terminology and ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes were used as a surrogate for PJI. Clinical characteristics such as age, sex, BMI, length of stay, and Charlson comorbidity index and specific comorbidities including alcohol abuse, anemia, anxiety, cardiac disease, diabetes, immunocompromised status, rheumatoid arthritis, depression, liver disease, chronic kidney disease, tobacco use, and peripheral vascular disease were queried for each study group. The odds of PJI within 1 year of THA, TKA, or total shoulder arthroplasty were compared using multiple logistic regression after adjusting for potential confounders.

RESULTS

After adjusting for potential confounding factors such as BMI, anxiety, depression and other comorbidities, we found that patient-reported penicillin allergy was independently associated with an increased odds of PJI after TKA (odds ratio 1.3 [95% confidence interval 1.1 to 1.4]; p < 0.01) and total shoulder arthroplasty (OR 3.9 [95% CI 2.7 to 5.4]; p < 0.01). However, patient-reported penicillin allergy was not independently associated with an increased odds of PJI after THA (OR 1.1 [95% CI 0.9 to 1.3]; p = 0.36) after controlling for the same risk factors.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we found that patients with patient-reported penicillin allergy were at an increased risk for PJI after TKA and total shoulder arthroplasty, which we suspect-but cannot prove-is likely a function of those patients receiving a second-line antibiotic for presurgical prophylaxis. Since prior research has found that many patients listed in medical records as having a penicillin allergy are in fact not allergic to penicillin, we suggest that surgeons consider preoperative allergy testing, such as using an intraoperative test dose, to aid in choosing the most appropriate antibiotic choice before knee or shoulder arthroplasty and to amend patient medical records based on testing results. Future studies should determine whether this additional diagnostic maneuver is cost-effective.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Penicillin Allergy Assessment in Pregnancy: Safety and Impact on Antibiotic Use

BACKGROUND

Penicillin and other beta-lactam antibiotics are recommended for group B Streptococcus and cesarean section prophylaxis, but approximately 10% of pregnant patients report a penicillin allergy.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the safety and impact of penicillin allergy evaluation in pregnant patients.

METHODS

In this retrospective study of obstetrician-ordered Allergy/Immunology (AI) electronic consultations (e-consults) from September 20, 2017 through December 31, 2019, we reviewed the electronic health record for e-consult recommendation; patient demographic, obstetric, and allergy histories; and peripartum antibiotic utilization with indication. For patients whose electronic consultation recommended an in-person AI evaluation, testing outcomes were determined, and multivariable logistic regression models were used to compare antibiotic use between patients who did and did not receive an in-person AI evaluation.

RESULTS

Of 389 obstetrician-ordered e-consults, 363 (93%) recommended an in-person AI evaluation; of these, 222 (61%) patients received an in-person AI evaluation. Of 220 (99%) patients skin tested, 209 (95%) had their penicillin allergy label safely removed. Compared with patients who did not receive an in-person AI evaluation despite it being recommended (n = 141), patients with in-person AI evaluation (n = 222) had reduced peripartum vancomycin (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.07; 95% CI, 0.01-0.33), clindamycin (aOR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.08-0.34), and gentamicin (aOR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.19-0.78) use and increased penicillin (aOR, 18.0; 95% CI, 6.30-51.2) use. The fully AI evaluated patients had increased first-line antibiotic prophylaxis for group B Streptococcus (aOR, 26.9; 95% CI, 6.32-114) and cesarean section (aOR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.06-3.52).

CONCLUSIONS

In a sample of 220 pregnant patients with penicillin allergy histories and in-person AI evaluation, penicillin allergy testing was safe and associated with significantly reduced broad-spectrum antibiotic use and increased first-line beta-lactam antibiotic use.

Characteristics of Antibiotic Prophylaxis and Risk of Surgical Site Infections in Primary Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Despite numerous antibiotic prophylaxis options for total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA), an assessment of practice patterns and comparative effectiveness is lacking. We aimed to characterize antibiotic utilization patterns and associations with infection risk and hypothesized differences in infection risk based on regimen.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed using data from 436,724 THA and 862,918 TKA (Premier Healthcare Database; 2006-2016). Main exposures were antibiotic type and duration: day of surgery only (day 0) or through postoperative day 1 (day 1). The primary outcome was surgical site infection (SSI) <30 days postoperation. Mixed-effect models measured associations between prophylaxis regimen and SSI as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

SSI prevalence was 0.21% (n = 914) for THA and 0.22% (n = 1914) for TKA. Among THA procedures, the most commonly used antibiotics were cefazolin (74.1%), vancomycin (8.4%), "other" antibiotic combinations (7.1%), vancomycin + cefazolin (5.1%), and clindamycin (3.3%). Here, 51.8% received prophylaxis on day 0 only, whereas 48.2% received prophylaxis through day 1. Similar patterns existed for TKA. Relative to cefazolin, higher SSI odds were seen with vancomycin (OR = 1.36; CI 1.09-1.71) in THA and with vancomycin (OR = 1.29; CI = 1.10-1.52), vancomycin + cefazolin (OR = 1.35; CI = 1.12-1.64), clindamycin (OR = 1.38; CI = 1.11-1.71), and "other" antibiotic combinations (OR = 1.28; CI = 1.07-1.53) in TKA. Prophylaxis duration did not alter SSI odds. Results were corroborated in sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

Antibiotic prophylaxis regimens other than cefazolin were associated with increased SSI risk among THA/TKA patients. These findings emphasize a modifiable intervention to mitigate infection risk.

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.

Preoperative penicillin allergy testing in patients undergoing cardiac surgery

BACKGROUND

Cefazolin is a first-line prophylactic antibiotic used to prevent surgical site infections (SSIs) in cardiac surgery. Patients with a history of penicillin allergy often receive less effective second-line antibiotics, which is associated with an increased SSI risk.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the impact of preoperative penicillin allergy evaluation on perioperative cefazolin use in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients with a documented penicillin allergy who underwent cardiac surgery at the Massachusetts General Hospital from September 2015 to December 2018. We describe penicillin allergy evaluation assessment and outcomes. We evaluated the association between preoperative penicillin allergy evaluation and first-line perioperative antibiotic use using a multivariable logistic regression model.

RESULTS

Of 3802 cardiac surgical patients, 510 (13%) had a documented penicillin allergy; 165 (33%) were referred to allergy and immunology practitioners. Of 160 patients (31%) who underwent penicillin allergy evaluation (ie, penicillin skin testing and, if results were negative, an amoxicillin challenge), 154 (97%) were found not to have a penicillin allergy. Patients who underwent preoperative penicillin allergy evaluation were more likely to receive the first-line perioperative antibiotic (92% vs 38%, P < .001). After adjusting for potential confounders, patients who underwent preoperative penicillin allergy evaluation had higher odds of first-line perioperative antibiotic use (adjusted odds ratio, 26.6; 95% CI, 12.8-55.2).

CONCLUSION

Integrating penicillin allergy evaluation into routine preoperative care ensured that almost all evaluated patients undergoing cardiac surgery received first-line antibiotic prophylaxis, a critical component of SSI risk reduction. Further efforts are needed to increase access to preoperative allergy evaluation.

The association of penicillin allergy with outcomes after open ventral hernia repair

BACKGROUND

Up to 11% of patients report a penicillin allergy (PA), with 1-2% demonstrating a true IgE mediated allergy upon testing. PA patients often receive non-beta-lactam antibiotic surgical prophylaxis (non-BLP). This study evaluates the relationship of PA to outcomes after open ventral hernia repair (OVHR).

METHODS

A prospective institutional database was queried for patients undergoing OVHR. Demographics, operative characteristics, and outcomes were evaluated by the reported PA and the administration of beta-lactam prophylaxis (BLP).

RESULTS

Allergy histories were reviewed in 1178 patients. PA was reported in 21.6% of patients, with 55.5% reporting rash or hives, 15.0% airway compromise or anaphylaxis, and 29.5% no specific reaction. BLP was administered to 76.3% of patients, including 22.1% of PA patients and 89.9% of patients without PA. PA patients were more often female (64.6% PA patients vs. 56% non-PA, p = 0.01), with higher rates of chronic steroids, MRSA, anxiety, asthma, COPD, chronic pain, and sleep apnea (p < 0.03 all values). PA patients had higher rates of contaminated cases, including mesh infection and fistula. Of the 683 clean cases, 82.1% received BLP. Of the 117 clean contaminated cases (CDC wound class 2), 82.9% received BLP, which was associated with reduced long-term readmission for hernia complications (21.5 vs. 55%, p = 0.002, OR 0.27, CI 0.09-0.83). In the 120 CDC wound class 3 and 4 patients, 65.8% received BLP. In multivariate analysis, BLP was associated with lower rates of reoperation (OR 0.31, CI 0.12-0.76) and recurrence (OR 0.32, CI 0.11-0.86). BLP was given to 22.1% of the PA patients with no adverse reactions noted.

CONCLUSION

PA patients had more comorbidities and complex ventral hernias. When controlling for contamination and MRSA history, BLP is associated with improved outcomes particularly in contaminated cases. PA may be a risk factor for patient complexity, and further studies are warranted to determine if allergy testing can be warranted in known or anticipated contaminated cases.

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.

Self-reported beta-lactam allergy and the risk of surgical site infection: A retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether a self-reported β-lactam allergy is associated with an increased risk of surgical site infection (SSI) across a broad range of procedures and to determine whether this association is mediated by the receipt of an alternate antibiotic to cefazolin.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

PARTICIPANTS

Surgical procedures sampled by an institutional National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database over an 18-month period (January 2017 to June 2018) from 7 surgical specialties.

SETTING

Tertiary-care academic hospital.

RESULTS

Of the 3,589 surgical procedures included in the study, 369 (10.3%) were performed in patients with a reported β-lactam allergy. Those with a reported β-lactam allergy were significantly less likely to receive cefazolin (38.8% vs 95.5%) or metronidazole (20.3% vs 26.1%) and were more likely to receive clindamycin (52.0% vs 0.2%), gentamicin (3.5% vs 0%), or vancomycin (2.2% vs 0.1%) than those without allergy. An SSI occurred in 154 of 3,220 procedures (4.8%) in patients without reported allergy and 27 of 369 (7.3%) with reported allergy. In the multivariable regression model, a reported β-lactam allergy was associated with a statistically significant increase in SSI risk (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-2.51; P = .03). This effect was completely mediated by receipt of an alternate antibiotic to cefazolin (indirect effect aOR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.17-2.34; P = .005).

CONCLUSIONS

Self-reported β-lactam allergy was associated with an increased SSI risk mediated through receipt of alternate antibiotic prophylaxis. Safely increasing use of cefazolin prophylaxis in patients with reported β-lactam allergy can potentially lower the risk of SSIs.

The Impact of Patient-Reported Penicillin Allergy on Risk for Surgical Site Infection in Total Joint Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Penicillin (PCN) allergy is reported in 10% to 20% of the population; studies show that only 1% to 3% of patients have a true allergy. Most patients reporting a PCN allergy receive second-line antibiotic prophylaxis preoperatively, which raises concerns about antimicrobial efficacy. Studies also suggest that second-line antibiotics may increase the rate of surgical site infection (SSI). In this study we aim to analyze the effect of PCN allergy on antibiotic type prescribed and SSI in our total joint arthroplasty population.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 4,903 primary total hip and total knee arthroplasty performed from January 2015 to June 2017 in a single institution. A detailed chart review was performed to identify reported reactions and antibiotic prescribed.

RESULTS

Seven hundred ninety-six patients (16.2%) reported a PCN allergy; the reactions were classified into three tiers. Six hundred fifteen patients (12.5%) reported an IgE-mediated allergy, hypersensitivity, or a possible allergy; 89 (1.8%) reported an adverse effect; and 92 (1.9%) had an unknown reaction. Patients reporting a PCN allergy were less likely to receive cefazolin (94.9 versus 6.9%; P < 0.001) and more likely to receive clindamycin (1.1 versus 80.7%; P < 0.001) or vancomycin (4.0 versus 12.4%; P < 0.001). There was no difference in infection rate by reported PCN allergy (0.6 versus 0.4%; P = 0.473) or antibiotic prescribed (0.5 versus 0.6%; P = 0.4817).

CONCLUSION

No patient with a PCN allergy and given cefazolin experienced a reaction; based on reported reactions, most patients with a PCN allergy can safely receive first-line antibiotic therapy. In this population, PCN allergy and second-line antibiotic therapy did not influence the rate of SSI.

The Impact of a Reported Penicillin Allergy on Surgical Site Infection Risk

Background

A reported penicillin allergy may compromise receipt of recommended antibiotic prophylaxis intended to prevent surgical site infections (SSIs). Most patients with a reported penicillin allergy are not allergic. We determined the impact of a reported penicillin allergy on the development of SSIs.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort study of Massachusetts General Hospital hip arthroplasty, knee arthroplasty, hysterectomy, colon surgery, and coronary artery bypass grafting patients from 2010 to 2014, we compared patients with and without a reported penicillin allergy. The primary outcome was an SSI, as defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Healthcare Safety Network. The secondary outcome was perioperative antibiotic use.

Results

Of 8385 patients who underwent 9004 procedures, 922 (11%) reported a penicillin allergy, and 241 (2.7%) had an SSI. In multivariable logistic regression, patients reporting a penicillin allergy had increased odds (adjusted odds ratio, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-2.22) of SSI. Penicillin allergy reporters were administered less cefazolin (12% vs 92%; P < .001) and more clindamycin (49% vs 3%; P < .001), vancomycin (35% vs 3%; P < .001), and gentamicin (24% vs 3%; P < .001) compared with those without a reported penicillin allergy. The increased SSI risk was entirely mediated by the patients' receipt of an alternative perioperative antibiotic; between 112 and 124 patients with reported penicillin allergy would need allergy evaluation to prevent 1 SSI.

Conclusions

Patients with a reported penicillin allergy had a 50% increased odds of SSI, attributable to the receipt of second-line perioperative antibiotics. Clarification of penicillin allergies as part of routine preoperative care may decrease SSI risk.

Management of a surgical patient with a label of penicillin allergy: narrative review and consensus recommendations

Unsubstantiated penicillin-allergy labels are common in surgical patients, and can lead to significant harm through avoidance of best first-line prophylaxis of surgical site infections and increased infection with resistant bacterial strains. Up to 98% of penicillin-allergy labels are incorrect when tested. Because of the scarcity of trained allergists in all healthcare systems, only a minority of surgical patients have the opportunity to undergo testing and de-labelling before surgery. Testing pathways can be modified and shortened in selected patients. A variety of healthcare professionals can, with appropriate training and in collaboration with allergists, provide testing for selected patients. We review how patients might be assessed, the appropriate testing strategies that can be used, and the minimum standards of safe testing.

Evaluation and Management of Penicillin Allergy: A Review

IMPORTANCE

β-Lactam antibiotics are among the safest and most effective antibiotics. Many patients report allergies to these drugs that limit their use, resulting in the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics that increase the risk for antimicrobial resistance and adverse events.

OBSERVATIONS

Approximately 10% of the US population has reported allergies to the β-lactam agent penicillin, with higher rates reported by older and hospitalized patients. Although many patients report that they are allergic to penicillin, clinically significant IgE-mediated or T lymphocyte-mediated penicillin hypersensitivity is uncommon (<5%). Currently, the rate of IgE-mediated penicillin allergies is decreasing, potentially due to a decreased use of parenteral penicillins, and because severe anaphylactic reactions to oral amoxicillin are rare. IgE-mediated penicillin allergy wanes over time, with 80% of patients becoming tolerant after a decade. Cross-reactivity between penicillin and cephalosporin drugs occurs in about 2% of cases, less than the 8% reported previously. Some patients have a medical history that suggests they are at a low risk for developing an allergic reaction to penicillin. Low-risk histories include patients having isolated nonallergic symptoms, such as gastrointestinal symptoms, or patients solely with a family history of a penicillin allergy, symptoms of pruritus without rash, or remote (>10 years) unknown reactions without features suggestive of an IgE-mediated reaction. A moderate-risk history includes urticaria or other pruritic rashes and reactions with features of IgE-mediated reactions. A high-risk history includes patients who have had anaphylaxis, positive penicillin skin testing, recurrent penicillin reactions, or hypersensitivities to multiple β-lactam antibiotics. The goals of antimicrobial stewardship are undermined when reported allergy to penicillin leads to the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics that increase the risk for antimicrobial resistance, including increased risk of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus. Broad-spectrum antimicrobial agents also increase the risk of developing Clostridium difficile (also known as Clostridioides difficile) infection. Direct amoxicillin challenge is appropriate for patients with low-risk allergy histories. Moderate-risk patients can be evaluated with penicillin skin testing, which carries a negative predictive value that exceeds 95% and approaches 100% when combined with amoxicillin challenge. Clinicians performing penicillin allergy evaluation need to identify what methods are supported by their available resources.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Many patients report they are allergic to penicillin but few have clinically significant reactions. Evaluation of penicillin allergy before deciding not to use penicillin or other β-lactam antibiotics is an important tool for antimicrobial stewardship.

Antibiotic allergy

Antibiotics are the commonest cause of life-threatening immune-mediated drug reactions that are considered off-target, including anaphylaxis, and organ-specific and severe cutaneous adverse reactions. However, many antibiotic reactions documented as allergies were unknown or not remembered by the patient, cutaneous reactions unrelated to drug hypersensitivity, drug-infection interactions, or drug intolerances. Although such reactions pose negligible risk to patients, they currently represent a global threat to public health. Antibiotic allergy labels result in displacement of first-line therapies for antibiotic prophylaxis and treatment. A penicillin allergy label, in particular, is associated with increased use of broad-spectrum and non-β-lactam antibiotics, which results in increased adverse events and antibiotic resistance. Most patients labelled as allergic to penicillins are not allergic when appropriately stratified for risk, tested, and re-challenged. Given the public health importance of penicillin allergy, this Review provides a global update on antibiotic allergy epidemiology, classification, mechanisms, and management.

Controversies in Drug Allergy: Drug Allergy Pathways

Drug allergy pathways are standardized approaches for patients reporting prior drug allergies with the aim of quality improvement and promotion of antibiotic stewardship. At the International Drug Allergy Symposium during the 2018 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology/World Allergy Organization Joint Congress in Orlando, Florida, drug allergy pathways were discussed from international perspectives with a focus on beta-lactam allergy pathways and pragmatic approaches for acute care hospitals. In this expert consensus document, we review current pathways, and detail important considerations in devising, implementing, and evaluating beta-lactam allergy pathways for hospitalized patients. We describe the key patient and institutional factors that must be considered in risk stratification, the central feature of pathway design. We detail shared obstacles to widespread beta-lactam allergy pathway implementation and identify potential solutions to address these challenges.

Penicillin allergy de-labelling ahead of elective surgery: feasibility and barriers

BACKGROUND

Around 10-15% of the in-patient population carry unsubstantiated 'penicillin allergy' labels, the majority incorrect when tested. These labels are associated with harm from use of broad-spectrum non-penicillin antibiotics. Current testing guidelines incorporate both skin and challenge tests; this is prohibitively expensive and time-consuming to deliver on a large scale. We aimed to establish the feasibility of a rapid access de-labelling pathway for surgical patients, using direct oral challenge.

METHODS

'Penicillin allergic' patients, recruited from a surgical pre-assessment clinic, were risk-stratified using a screening questionnaire. Patients at low risk of true, immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated allergy were offered direct oral challenge using incremental amoxicillin to a total dose of 500 mg. A 3-day course was completed at home. De-labelled patients were followed up to determine antibiotic use in surgery, and attitudes towards de-labelling were explored.

RESULTS

Of 219 patients screened, 74 were eligible for inclusion and offered testing. We subsequently tested 56 patients; 55 were de-labelled. None had a serious reaction to the supervised challenge, or thereafter. On follow-up, 17 of 19 patients received appropriate antimicrobial prophylaxis during surgery. Only three of 33 de-labelled patients would have been happy for the label to be removed without prior specialist testing.

CONCLUSION

Rapid access de-labelling, using direct oral challenge in appropriately risk-stratified patients, can be incorporated into the existing surgical care pathway. This provides immediate and potential long-term benefit for patients. Interest in testing is high among patients, and clinicians appear to follow clinic recommendations. Patients are unlikely to accept removal of their allergy label on the basis of history alone.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: AN17/92982.