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

Safe Penicillin Allergy Delabeling in Primary Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Ten percent of the population is labeled as allergic to penicillin(s), when in fact 90% of these labels are inappropriate. Recent studies have shown that inpatient delabeling by a direct drug challenge (dDC) is safe in low-risk patients. However, there is a need for outpatient and nonallergist delabeling.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the safety of delabeling low-risk adults by means of dDC in primary care.

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to March 15, 2022 (updated June 5, 2023) for studies performing dDC in adults in primary care or other outpatient settings. Two researchers independently screened studies for eligibility. The data extraction and critical appraisal were performed by 1 reviewer, and we pooled the results in a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Of 2138 results, 12 studies (1070 participants) were eligible for inclusion. Three studies evaluated delabeling in primary care and 9 studies in an outpatient hospital setting. There were no critical adverse events during dDC. No reaction occurred in 97.13% of the 1070 patients, who previously labeled as penicillin-allergic, and were safely delabeled. Ten patients (<1%) developed an immediate reaction: 3 had self-limiting reactions and 7 needed antihistaminics, steroids, epinephrine, and/or salbutamol.

CONCLUSIONS

No serious allergic reactions are observed during direct amoxicillin challenge in adults in an outpatient setting. However, with the exception of 1 recent report, these studies are of low to moderate quality. Nonspecialist delabeling is promising, but further research is required on correct risk stratification and safety assessment in large cohort studies evaluating dDC in primary care.

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.

Low-risk penicillin allergy delabeling: a scoping review of direct oral challenge practice, implementation, and multi-disciplinary approaches

INTRODUCTION

Penicillin allergy is common, and there is increased clinician interest in direct oral challenge (DOC) as a testing strategy for low-risk penicillin allergy. To aid wider implementation of DOC, consensus definitions of low-risk penicillin allergy phenotypes, and standardized approaches to assessment, DOC procedures, and evaluation, are required.

AREAS COVERED

This review systematically reviews studies that have utilized penicillin DOC in healthcare settings to identify heterogeneity in implementation approaches and synthesize low-risk definitions, procedures, and evaluation.

EXPERT OPINION

Opportunity exists to standardize penicillin DOC procedures in patients with a low-risk penicillin allergy to optimize antimicrobial prescribing and reduce the burden of penicillin allergy. Standardizing the definitions of 'low-risk' and 'positive challenge,' and improving the evaluation of patient safety, alongside the development of a unified approach to the structure of undertaking an oral challenge, is likely to increase uptake and confidence among non-allergist clinicians.

Penicillin allergy de-labelling by non-allergists: a comparison of testing protocols

Optimizing penicillin allergy de-labelling (PADL) to ensure patients with an incorrect penicillin allergy record are de-labelled with minimal patient harm is important for antibiotic stewardship. The heterogeneity of inclusion and exclusion criteria in the published penicillin allergy testing protocols risks suboptimal delivery of PADL. We compared the similarities and the differences between non-allergist-delivered PADL testing protocols and make suggestions for harmonization. The observed variation in testing practice has two broad elements: (i) definitions and terminology; and (ii) differences in the acceptability of perceived risk. All direct drug provocation testing (DDPT) protocols included patients with benign delayed rash as eligible for testing, although the remoteness of the rash, and the terminology used to describe the rash, differed. Patients with features of potential IgE reactions were excluded from most DDPT protocols, but not all of them. There was differing advice on how to manage patients who had subsequently tolerated penicillin since the index reaction and differences in which patients were considered ineligible for DDPT due to acuity of illness, comorbidities and concomitant medications. Standardization of the terminology used in penicillin allergy testing protocols and consensus on inclusion and exclusion criteria are required for safe and efficient PADL delivery at scale by non-allergists.

Penicillin Allergy Impact and Management

There is international evidence that penicillin allergies are associated with inferior prescribing and patient outcomes. A host of tools now exist from assessment (risk assessment tools, clinical decision rules) to delabeling (the removal of a beta-lactam allergy via testing or medical reconciliation) to reduce the impact of these "labels" in the hospital and community setting, as a primary antimicrobial stewardship intervention.

A pharmacist-led penicillin allergy de-labelling project within a preoperative assessment clinic: the low-hanging fruit is within reach

BACKGROUND

Having a false penicillin-allergy label is linked to longer hospital stays and to an increased risk of Clostridioides difficile and meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection.

AIM

To assess a penicillin-allergy de-labelling tool designed for use by the non-allergist.

METHODS

Patients attending the surgical preoperative assessment clinic (POAC) at a large UK teaching hospital, who reported a penicillin allergy, were directly de-labelled by nursing or pharmacy staff, where appropriate. A penicillin-allergy de-labelling tool designed for use by the non-allergist was adapted and applied; nursing staff were provided with supporting information and education to enable removal of spurious labels. Antimicrobial pharmacists (AMPs) provided follow-up, cross-checked prophylactic antibiotics administered, interrogated clinical notes, and telephoned patients following their surgery, for details of any adverse reactions suffered.

FINDINGS

A total of 163 patients reporting a penicillin allergy were identified for intervention. Twenty-nine (17.8%) patients reported a penicillin-allergy history appropriate for direct de-labelling, of whom eight (27.6%) declined to consent. The remaining 21 patients (12.8%) were directly de-labelled, with 12 (7.4%) patients consenting during their POAC appointment; the remaining nine (5.5%) patients were consented and de-labelled after their surgery by an AMP.

CONCLUSION

The POAC was identified as an appropriate location and time-point in the patient pathway to enable the direct removal of spurious penicillin-allergy labels prior to surgery. Results suggest that this could be undertaken by nursing staff, although support from AMPs enabled a greater number of patients to be de-labelled.

The effectiveness of interventions that support penicillin allergy assessment and delabeling of adult and pediatric patients by nonallergy specialists: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Penicillin allergy records are often incorrect and may result in harm. We aimed to systematically review the effectiveness and safety of nonallergist health care worker delivery of penicillin allergy delabeling.

METHODS

We searched EMBASE/MEDLINE/CINAHL (Ovid), PsycInfo, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception to January 21, 2022 and unpublished studies and gray literature. The proportion of patients allergic to penicillin delabeled and harmed was calculated using random-effects models.

RESULTS

Overall, 5019 patients were delabeled. Using allergy history alone, 14% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9-21%) of 4350 assessed patients were delabeled without reported harm. Direct drug provocation testing resulted in delabeling in 27% (95% CI, 18-37%) of 4207 assessed patients. Of the 1373 patients tested, 98% were delabeled (95% CI, 97-99%), and nonserious harm was reported in 1% (95% CI, 0-2%). Using skin testing, followed by drug provocation testing, 41% (95% CI, 24-59%) of 2890 assessed patients were delabeled. Of the 1294 tested patients, 95.0% (95% CI, 90-99%) were delabeled, and the reported harm was low (0%; (95% CI 0-1%).

CONCLUSION

Penicillin allergy delabeling by nonallergists is efficacious and safe. The proportion of assessed patients who can be delabeled increases with the complexity of testing method, but substantial numbers can be delabeled without skin testing.

BSACI guideline for the set-up of penicillin allergy de-labelling services by non-allergists working in a hospital setting

The Standards of Care Committee of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology (BSACI) and a committee of experts and key stakeholders have developed this guideline for the evaluation and testing of patients with an unsubstantiated label of penicillin allergy. The guideline is intended for UK clinicians who are not trained in allergy or immunology, but who wish to develop a penicillin allergy de-labelling service for their patients. It is intended to supplement the BSACI 2015 guideline "Management of allergy to penicillin and other beta-lactams" and therefore does not detail the epidemiology or aetiology of penicillin allergy, as this is covered extensively in the 2015 guideline (1). The guideline is intended for use only in patients with a label of penicillin allergy and does not apply to other beta-lactam allergies. The recommendations include a checklist to identify patients at low risk of allergy and a framework for the conduct of drug provocation testing by non-allergists. There are separate sections for adults and paediatrics within the guideline, in recognition of the common differences in reported allergy history and likelihood of true allergy.

Use of a penicillin allergy clinical decision rule to enable direct oral penicillin provocation: an international multicentre randomised control trial in an adult population (PALACE): study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Penicillin allergies are highly prevalent in the healthcare setting and associated with the prescription of second-line inferior antibiotics. More than 85% of all penicillin allergy labels can be removed by skin testing and 96%-99% of low-risk penicillin allergy labels can be removed by direct oral challenge. An internally and externally validated clinical assessment tool for penicillin allergy, PEN-FAST, can identify a low-risk penicillin allergy without the need for skin testing; a score of less than 3 has a negative predictive value of 96.3% (95% CI, 94.1 to 97.8) for the presence of a penicillin allergy. It is hypothesised that PEN-FAST is a safe and effective tool for assessing penicillin allergy in an outpatient clinic setting.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is an international, multicentre randomised control trial using the PEN-FAST tool to risk-stratify penicillin allergy labels in adult outpatients. The study's primary objective is to evaluate the non-inferiority of using PEN-FAST score-guided management with direct oral challenge compared with standard care (defined as prick and intradermal skin testing followed by oral penicillin challenge). Participants will be randomised 1:1 to the intervention arm (direct oral penicillin challenge) or standard of care arm (skin testing followed by oral penicillin challenge, if skin testing is negative). The sample size of 380 randomised patients (190 per treatment arm) is required to demonstrate non-inferiority.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study will be performed according to the guidelines of the Helsinki Declaration and is approved by the Austin Health Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/62425/Austin-2020) in Melbourne Australia, Vanderbilt University Institutional Review Board (IRB #202174) in Tennessee, USA, Duke University Institutional Review Board (IRB #Pro00108461) in North Carolina, USA and McGill University Health Centre Research Ethics Board in Canada (PALACE/2022-7605). The results of this study will be published and presented in various scientific forums.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04454229.

Amoxicillin hypersensitivity: patient outcomes in a seven-year retrospective study

BACKGROUND

The beta-lactam antibiotic amoxicillin and the beta-lactamase inhibitor clavulanic acid in combination with amoxicillin are known to both cause immediate and non-immediate type hypersensitivity.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize a large cohort of patients with a history of amoxicillin or amoxicillin-clavulanic acid hypersensitivity.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of demographics, presentation, investigation, and management of 331 patients presenting to one allergy center with a history of hypersensitivity to amoxicillin or amoxicillin-clavulanic acid.

RESULTS

Hypersensitivity was confirmed in 37/221 (17%) patients who took amoxicillin and 47/110 (43%) patients who took amoxicillin-clavulanic acid as the index drug. In immediate hypersensitivity, skin testing confirmed the diagnosis in 66/139 (47%) patients. Penicillin cross-reactivity was observed in 16/36 (44%). 13/16 (81%) cross-reactive patients reacted to amoxicillin-clavulanic acid as the index drug. All skin test negative patients (73/139) underwent drug provocation. The negative predictive value of skin tests was 89%. In non-immediate hypersensitivity, delayed intradermal tests confirmed diagnosis in 12/170 (7%). 8/12 (67%) skin test positive patients presented with DRESS. All skin test negative patients (158/170) underwent drug provocation. The negative predictive value of skin tests was 95%. Penicillin cross-reactivity was observed in 3/12 (25%). Ten patients were diagnosed with hypersensitivity to clavulanic acid.

CONCLUSION

The negative predictive value of skin tests in both immediate and non-immediate hypersensitivity reactions is excellent and excludes severe allergy. Non-immediate hypersensitivity is rare. Confirmed hypersensitivity is more likely if amoxicillin-clavulanic acid is the index drug. Cross-reactivity was more common in patients presenting with immediate hypersensitivity, most commonly involving benzylpenicillin. A minority of patients were allergic to clavulanic acid.

Penicillin Allergy and Perioperative Anaphylaxis

Penicillin allergy is the most commonly reported drug allergy, while perioperative anaphylaxis is overall rare. This review covers the epidemiology of both penicillin allergy and perioperative anaphylaxis both separately and taken together. Considerations regarding anaphylaxis to penicillin during pregnancy are also discussed, since penicillin is the drug of choice for Group B Streptococcus prophylaxis. The minimal cross reactivity between penicillins and cephalosporins is addressed, since the vast majority of patients with a penicillin allergy label can receive perioperative cephalosporins. The management of the patient who has experienced perioperative anaphylaxis, including the importance of allergy referral is covered. Approaches to pre-operative penicillin allergy evaluations and opportunities for education are highlighted.

Increasing Cefazolin Use for Perioperative Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Penicillin-Allergic Children

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Cefazolin, a first-generation cephalosporin, is the most commonly recommended antibiotic for perioperative prophylaxis to reduce surgical site infections. Children with a reported penicillin allergy often receive an alternative antibiotic because of a common misunderstanding of the cross-reactivity between these antibiotics. This use of alternative antibiotics in surgical populations have been associated with increased infections, antibiotic resistance, and health care costs. We aimed to increase the percentage of patients with nonsevere penicillin-class allergies who receive cefazolin for antibiotic prophylaxis.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary team conducted this quality improvement initiative, with a series of 3 plan-do-study-act cycles aimed at children with nonsevere penicillin-class allergies undergoing surgical procedures that require antibiotic prophylaxis. The primary outcome measure was the percentage of surgical encounters among patients with nonsevere penicillin-class allergies who received cefazolin as antibiotic prophylaxis. Statistical process control charts were used to measure improvement over time.

RESULTS

Approximately 400 children were involved in this project. There was special cause variation and a shift in the center line from 60% to 80% of eligible patients receiving cefazolin for antibiotic prophylaxis, which was sustained for the duration of the project. In the last month, 90% of eligible patient received cefazolin, surpassing our goal of 85%. This improvement has been sustained in the 5 months after project completion. We had no cases of severe allergic reactions in the operating room.

CONCLUSIONS

Our multidisciplinary education-focused interventions were associated with a significant increase in the use of cefazolin for perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in patient with penicillin allergies.

Antimicrobial-associated anaphylaxis at a tertiary care medical city

BACKGROUND

Antimicrobial-associated anaphylaxis occurs at different rates and can lead to worsening infection-related outcomes, we sought to describe the incidence and complications of such episodes at a tertiary care hospital.

METHOD

A retrospective cohort study was conducted between January 2016 and December 2019. Cases of antimicrobial-associated anaphylaxis were identifiedusing the hospital's electronic healthcare records. Outcomes included: mortality related to anaphylaxis, infection-related mortality, hospitalization and impact on antimicrobial prescribing.

RESULTS

The estimated rate of antimicrobial-associated anaphylaxis was 18.6 (95% CI: 11.8-29.5) cases per 100,000 exposures, which required hospitalization in 23.8% of the cases and ICU admission in 19% of the cases.

CONCLUSION

Implications from antimicrobial-associated anaphylaxis is beyond the episode itself, and can be associated with poor clinical outcomes such as infection-related mortality and hospitalization.

Direct Challenges for the Evaluation of Beta-Lactam Allergy: Evidence and Conditions for Not Performing Skin Testing

In the western world, up to 10% of the general population and more than 15% of hospitalized patients report penicillin allergy. After a comprehensive evaluation, more than 95% of patients who report a penicillin allergy can subsequently tolerate this antibiotic. Traditionally, the most widely accepted protocol to evaluate beta-lactam (BL) allergy consisted of skin testing (ST) followed by a drug provocation test (DPT) in ST-negative patients. DPT is the gold standard for proving or excluding BL allergy and is considered the final and definitive step in the evaluation. Recently, studies have been published that support the use of direct DPTs without preceding ST for both pediatric and adult patients who report a low-risk historical reaction to BLs. However, these studies use various risk-stratification criteria to determine eligibility for a direct DPT. A standardized protocol for DPT is also lacking. In this review, we assess the current literature and evidence for performing direct DPT in the pediatric and adult populations. On the basis of this evidence, we also present risk-based algorithms for the evaluation of BL allergy in pediatric and adult populations based on a description of the historical reaction.

Management of penicillin allergy in primary care: a qualitative study with patients and primary care physicians

Background

Six percent of patients are allergic to penicillin according to their medical records. While this designation protects a small number of truly allergic patients from serious reactions, those who are incorrectly labelled may be denied access to recommended first line treatment for many infections. Removal of incorrect penicillin allergy may have positive health consequences for the individual and the general population.

We aimed to explore primary care physicians’ (PCPs) and patients’ views and understanding of penicillin allergy with a focus on clinical management of infections in the face of a penicillin allergy record.

Methods

We conducted an interview study with 31 patients with a penicillin allergy record, and 19 PCPs in the North of England. Data were analysed thematically.

Results

Patients made sense of their allergy status by considering the timing and severity of symptoms. Diagnosis of penicillin allergy was reported to be ‘imperfect’ with PCPs relying on patient reports and incomplete medical records. PCPs and patients often suspected that an allergy record was incorrect, but PCPs were reluctant to change records. PCPs had limited knowledge of allergy services. PCPs often prescribed alternative antibiotics which were easy to identify. Both patients and PCPs differed in the extent to which they were aware of the negative consequences of incorrect penicillin allergy records, their relevance and importance to their lives, and management of penicillin allergy.

Conclusions

PCPs and patients appear insufficiently aware of potential harms associated with incorrect penicillin allergy records. Some of the problems experienced by PCPs could be reduced by ensuring the details of newly diagnosed reactions to antibiotics are clearly documented. In order for PCPs to overturn more incorrect penicillin records through appropriate use of allergy services, more information and training about these services will be needed.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-021-01465-1.

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.

Impact of an Antibiotic Side-Chain-Based Cross-reactivity Chart Combined With Enhanced Allergy Assessment Processes for Surgical Prophylaxis Antimicrobials in Patients With β-Lactam Allergies

BACKGROUND

β-Lactam antibiotics are first-line therapy for perioperative prophylaxis; however, patient-reported allergies often lead to increased prescribing of alternative antibiotics that may increase the incidence of surgical site infections. The R-group side chain of the β-lactam ring is responsible for allergic cross-reactivity and experts recommend the use of β-lactams that are structurally dissimilar.

METHODS

An internally developed, antibiotic side-chain-based cross-reactivity chart was developed and implemented alongside enhanced allergy assessment processes. This single-center, quasi-experimental study analyzed antibiotic prescribing in all adult patients with a documented β-lactam allergy undergoing an inpatient surgical procedure between quartile (Q) 1 (2012)-Q3 (2014) (historical group) and Q3 (2016)-Q3 (2018) (intervention group). Propensity-weighted scoring analyses compared categorical and continuous outcomes. Interrupted time-series analysis further analyzed key outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 1119 and 1089 patients were included in the historical and intervention cohorts, respectively. There was a significant difference in patients receiving a β-lactam alternative antibiotic between cohorts (84.9% vs 15.1%; P < .001). There was a decrease in 30-day readmissions in the intervention cohort (7.9% vs 6.3%; P = .035); however, there was no difference in the incidence of SSIs in patients readmitted (14.8% vs 13%; P = .765). No significant differences were observed in allergic reactions (0.5% vs 0.3%; P = .323), surgical site infections, in-hospital and 30-day mortality, healthcare facility-onset Clostridiodes difficile infection, acute kidney injury, or hospital costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of an antibiotic cross-reactivity chart combined with enhanced allergy assessment processes significantly improved the prescribing of β-lactam antibiotics for surgical prophylaxis.

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.

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.

Amoxicillin oral provocation challenge in a primary care clinic: a descriptive analysis

BACKGROUND

Penicillin is the most frequently reported drug allergen; however, most of these allergies are not true allergies and do not justify the prescription of alternative, less effective and more expensive antibiotic drugs. We aimed to show that patients at low risk of amoxicillin allergy can safely and efficiently undergo oral provocation challenge (OPC) by their primary care physician.

METHODS

In this descriptive analysis, we conducted a retrospective chart review of all primary care patients who had undergone OPC from November 2017 to October 2019 in the Amoxicillin Allergy Clinic at the North Perth Family Health Team, Listowel, Ontario. Eligibility for OPC among patients 18 months and older was determined through review of a self-reported patient intake form asking about symptoms, onset, duration, history and family history of allergic reactions, as well as the patient's electronic medical record. Patients were considered to be at low risk of true penicillin allergy if there was no history of anaphylaxis or severe cutaneous reactions. Those with low-risk allergic reactions returned for testing with an OPC to amoxicillin. We collected data on clinical characteristics, antibiotic exposure, parental drug allergy, response to OPC and wait time from referral. We used t tests to describe and compare these variables. Our primary outcome was reaction to OPC by severity as categorized by the World Allergy Organization grading system. Our secondary outcome was the time from referral to completed testing.

RESULTS

In total, we included 99 patients (mean age 28.3, standard deviation [SD] 21.2 yr); 72 (73%) were female. Of those tested, 97% (n = 96) completed the OPC with no reaction, 3% (n = 3) had mild immediate reactions, and no serious immediate reactions developed. Mean wait time to testing was 59.0 (SD 69.8) days, with a median (interquartile range) of 39.5 (13.5-70.0) days.

INTERPRETATION

Oral provocation challenge presents a safe and accessible opportunity for primary care providers to address erroneous allergy labels to penicillin and related drugs within the primary care office setting. There could be positive public health implications if OPC to penicillin drugs is implemented in primary care.

Safety and efficacy of de-labelling penicillin allergy in adults using direct oral challenge: a systematic review

Background

Approximately 10% of people have an unverified penicillin allergy, with multiple personal and public health consequences.

Objectives

To assess the efficacy and safety of direct oral challenge, without prior skin testing, in this population.

Methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library and Google Scholar were searched from inception to 28 June 2020 (updated November 2020) to find published and unpublished studies that reported direct oral challenge for the purpose of removal of penicillin allergy labels. Population weighted mean was used to calculate the proportion of patients who developed an immediate or delayed reaction to direct oral challenge across the studies.

Results

Thirteen studies were included in the review, with a sample size of 1202 (range 7–328). Studies included inpatient and outpatient cohorts assessed as low risk for true allergy. In pooled analysis of all 13 studies there were 41/1202 (3.41%) mild immediate or delayed reactions to direct oral challenge. The population-weighted mean incidence of immediate or delayed reaction to an oral challenge across studies was also 3.41% (95% CI: 2.38%–4.43%). There were no reports of serious adverse reactions, 96.5% of patients could be de-labelled and many were subsequently successfully treated with penicillin.

Conclusions

Direct oral challenge is safe and effective for de-labelling patients assessed as low risk for true allergy. Non-specialist clinicians competent in using an assessment algorithm can offer evaluation of penicillin allergy labels using direct oral challenge in appropriate patients. These measures will facilitate optimal infection treatment for patients, support antimicrobial stewardship, and minimize antimicrobial resistance.

The role of a clinical pharmacist in spurious Penicillin allergy: a narrative review

Background A label of penicillin allergy is held by 6-10% of the general population and 15-20% of inpatients. > 90% of these labels are found to be spurious after formal allergy assessment. Carrying an unnecessary label of penicillin allergy is not benign. Such patients may receive second line, more expensive antibiotics, representing a significant impediment to antimicrobial stewardship. Aim of the review To (a) Explain the burden of spurious penicillin allergy, and evaluate the safety of direct oral penicillin challenge in 'low risk' patients (b) appraise the place for a clinical pharmacist-led penicillin allergy de-labelling programme. Method Narrative review. Search engines: PubMed, Google Scholar and Cochrane reviews. Search criteria: English language; search terms: penicillin allergy, antimicrobial stewardship, antimicrobial resistance, clostridium difficile, vancomycin resistant enterococci, risk stratification, clinical pharmacist and direct oral provocation test Results Penicillin allergy labels are associated with: longer hospital stay, higher readmission rates, enhanced risk of surgical site infections, risk of Clostridioides difficile infection and Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection, a delay in the first dose of an antibiotic in sepsis and higher healthcare costs. A direct oral penicillin challenge in 'low risk' patients has proven to be safe. Discussion Recent studies including those led by a clinical pharmacist have demonstrated safety of a direct oral penicillin challenge in 'low risk' patients. This intervention needs validation within individual health services. Conclusion Direct oral penicillin challenge reduces the adverse impact of spurious penicillin allergy. A pharmacist-led penicillin allergy de-labelling program needs further validation in prospective multi-centre studies.

Developing a behavioural intervention package to identify and amend incorrect penicillin allergy records in UK general practice and subsequently change antibiotic use

OBJECTIVES

To develop a behavioural intervention package to support clinicians and patients to amend incorrect penicillin allergy records in general practice. The intervention aimed to: (1) support clinicians to refer patients for penicillin allergy testing (PAT), (2) support patients to attend for PAT and (3) support clinicians and patients to prescribe or consume penicillin, when indicated, following a negative PAT result.

METHODS

Theory-based, evidence-based and person-based approaches were used in the intervention development. We used evidence from a rapid review, two qualitative studies, and expert consultations with the clinical research team to identify the intervention 'guiding principles' and develop an intervention plan. Barriers and facilitators to the target behaviours were mapped to behaviour change theory in order to describe the proposed mechanisms of change. In the final stage, think-aloud interviews were conducted to optimise intervention materials.

RESULTS

The collated evidence showed that the key barriers to referral of patients by clinicians were limited experience of referral and limited knowledge of referral criteria and PAT. Barriers for patients attending PAT were lack of knowledge of the benefits of testing and lack of motivation to get tested. The key barriers to the prescription and consumption of first-line penicillin following a negative test result were patient and clinician beliefs about the accuracy of PAT and whether taking penicillin was safe. Intervention materials were designed and developed to address these barriers.

CONCLUSIONS

We present a novel behavioural intervention package designed to address the multiple barriers to uptake of PAT in general practice by clinicians and patients. The intervention development details how behaviour change techniques have been incorporated to hypothesise how the intervention is likely to work to help amend incorrect penicillin allergy records. The intervention will go on to be tested in a feasibility trial and randomised controlled trial in England.

The democratization of de-labeling: a review of direct oral challenge in adults with low-risk penicillin allergy

INTRODUCTION

Penicillin antibiotic allergy labels (AALs) are common and lead to significant negative health and health system outcomes. Direct oral challenge offers a rapid and cost-effective way of removing inaccurate AALs and improving outcomes.

AREAS COVERED

A narrative review (Medline, May 2020) of direct oral challenge in low-risk penicillin allergy in adults is described, and the evidence for the safety and efficacy of this approach in inpatients, outpatients, and special patient groups is presented.

EXPERT OPINION

Whilst the current literature demonstrates the safety and efficacy of direct oral challenge in de-labeling low-risk penicillin allergy in adults, novel approaches are needed to improve access to antibiotic allergy assessment and address the growing global need.

Sustaining and spreading penicillin allergy delabelling: A narrative review of the challenges for service delivery and patient safety

Many patients report allergies to penicillin, although in over 90% of these the label of penicillin allergy is shown to be incorrect following comprehensive testing. Inappropriate and inaccurate penicillin allergy labelling is a barrier to antimicrobial stewardship and can lead to patient harm. This review assesses an emergent evidence base and trend favouring delabelling using direct oral penicillin challenges following a stratified risk assessment of the likelihood and existence of true penicillin allergy, to identify and make recommendations for key components for implementation in standard practice. Research to date has focussed on the feasibility and clinical and financial outcomes of these direct delabelling strategies. There is a paucity of studies exploring the views and engagement of patients and healthcare professionals, and a gap in the evidence for prerequisites to safely deliver, sustain and spread the implementation of such services across health systems.

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.

Peri-Operative Anaphylaxis-An Investigational Challenge

Patients with suspected peri-operative anaphylaxis (POP) require thorough investigation to identify underlying trigger(s) and enable safe anesthesia for subsequent surgery. The changing epidemiology of POP has been striking. Previous estimates of the incidence of POP have ranged between 1:6,000 and1:20,000 anesthetics, but more recent data from France and the United Kingdom suggest an estimated incidence of 1:10,000. Other important changes include a change in the hierarchy of well-recognized triggers, with antibiotics (beta-lactams) supplanting neuromuscular blockers (NMB) as the leading cause of POP. The emergence of chlorhexidine, patent blue dye, and teicoplanin as important triggers have also been noteworthy findings. The mainstay of investigation revolves around critical analysis of the time-line of events leading up to anaphylaxis coupled with judicious skin testing. Skin tests have limitations with respect to unknown predictive values for most drugs/agents and therefore, knowledge of background positivity in healthy controls, test characteristics of individual drugs and the use of non-irritant concentrations is essential to avoid both false-positive and false-negative results. Specific IgE assays for individual drugs are available only for a limited number of agents and are not a substitute for skin testing. Acute serum total tryptase has a high specificity and positive predictive value in IgE-mediated POP anaphylaxis but is limited by its moderate sensitivity and negative predictive value. Planning for safe anesthesia in this group of patients is particularly challenging and consequently anesthetists need to be alert to the possibility of repeat episodes of anaphylaxis. Because of the limitations of current investigations for POP, collecting systematic data on the outcome of repeat anesthesia is valuable in validating current investigatory approaches. This paper reviews the changing epidemiology of POP with reference to the main triggers, and the investigation and outcome of subsequent anesthesia.

Focus group study exploring the issues and the solutions to incorrect penicillin allergy-labelled patients: an antibiotic stewardship patient safety initiative

OBJECTIVES

Approximately 10% of the general population are reported to have a penicillin allergy, but more than 90% of these patients are able to tolerate penicillins after formal assessment. Patients with penicillin allergy labels have poorer health outcomes and incorrect labels impact negatively on healthcare systems. Identifying patients with incorrect penicillin allergy labels (those who can safely take penicillin) has the potential to benefit patients and healthcare systems. This study explores barriers and enablers towards identifying and removing incorrect penicillin allergy labels in inpatients ('delabelling').

METHODS

Two focus groups were completed with a total of 17 doctors, nurses and pharmacists at a 750-bed district general hospital in England.

RESULTS

Thematic analysis identified four main themes: managing penicillin allergic patients, environmental barriers, education for patients and staff and a future delabelling process. Staff reported that identifying and delabelling incorrect penicillin allergy records was a complex task and not a priority during the acute presentation. Participants felt confident removing erroneous allergy records if the patient was able to describe the reaction. Balancing time to confirm and delabel with competing duties was felt to be a challenge. Revisiting the discussion with the patient when time was less pressured was offered as a solution to the problem. The lack of provision to translate uncertainty about allergy status in the electronic health record was mentioned as a barrier to accurate documentation of allergy history. Ensuring all patient records were amended to reflect the new allergy status was identified as a challenge. A delabelling process involving nurses, doctors and pharmacist was discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

Delabelling patients with erroneous penicillin allergy labels was recognised as a complex problem. A patient pathway involving nurses, doctors and pharmacist is likely to be the optimal method to safely delabel patients.