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

The appropriateness of penicillin allergy de-labelling by non-allergist clinical ward teams

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to assess the appropriateness of penicillin allergy (PenA) assessment conducted by clinical teams and to review the safety of subsequent exposure of these patients to penicillin.

METHODS

Opportunistic, prospective observational study of usual clinical care, between 16 May 2023 and 14 August 2023, of inpatients with a PenA and requiring antibiotics, in a 750-bed hospital in England. To assess the appropriateness of management, PenA patients prescribed penicillins were grouped into risk categories using a validated antibiotic allergy assessment tool: eligible for de-label on history alone (direct de-label; DDL), eligible for direct oral challenge (DOC), high risk or unable to obtain history.

RESULTS

Of the 123 patients admitted with a PenA (or sensitivity record) and exposed to a penicillin, data were collected for 50. Their PenA records were grouped follows: eligible for DDL 34 (68%), eligible for DOC 11 (22%), high risk 4 (8%) and unable to obtain history 1 (2%). In 14/50 (28%) patients there was no evidence of a current PenA assessment in the medical notes.

CONCLUSIONS

Using the allergy risk tool, most patients with PenA records were exposed to penicillin appropriately. However, patients meeting high-risk criteria were also exposed to penicillin when the tool excluded them. PenA assessment needs to be carried out with appropriate training and governance structures in place.

[Penicillin allergy: A label that is not forever]

Self-reported penicillin allergy is highly prevalent. Different studies estimate that 10% of the population is labeled as such. This label, confirmed or suspected, forces us to take precautions and replace the antibiotic treatment of choice (frequently beta-lactams) with other 2nd or 3rd choice alternatives with worse overall results: side effects, resistance, costs, etc. The penicillin allergy label, once placed, remains in the medical record. It is only confirmed in less than 5% of patients, either because it has been placed inappropriately or because over time the sensitivity decreases and may disappear. Penicillin Allergy Decision Rule -PEN-FAST- is a validated and simple clinical prediction rule that estimates the risk of presenting an allergic reaction. Its use, together with algorithms that involve primary care in the study and delabeling of low-risk patients, can change our clinical practice.

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.

Predicting Penicillin Allergy: A United States Multicenter Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Using the reaction history in logistic regression and machine learning (ML) models to predict penicillin allergy has been reported based on non-US data.

OBJECTIVE

We developed ML positive penicillin allergy testing prediction models from multisite US data.

METHODS

Retrospective data from 4 US-based hospitals were grouped into 4 datasets: enriched training (1:3 case-control matched cohort), enriched testing, nonenriched internal testing, and nonenriched external testing. ML algorithms were used for model development. We determined area under the curve (AUC) and applied the Shapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) framework to interpret risk drivers.

RESULTS

Of 4777 patients (mean age 60 [standard deviation: 17] years; 68% women, 91% White, and 86% non-Hispanic) evaluated for penicillin allergy labels, 513 (11%) had positive penicillin allergy testing. Model input variables were frequently missing: immediate or delayed onset (71%), signs or symptoms (13%), and treatment (31%). The gradient-boosted model was the strongest model with an AUC of 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.57-0.77), which improved to 0.87 (95% CI: 0.73-1) when only cases with complete data were used. Top SHAP drivers for positive testing were reactions within the last year and reactions requiring medical attention; female sex and reaction of hives/urticaria were also positive drivers.

CONCLUSIONS

An ML prediction model for positive penicillin allergy skin testing using US-based retrospective data did not achieve performance strong enough for acceptance and adoption. The optimal ML prediction model for positive penicillin allergy testing was driven by time since reaction, seek medical attention, female sex, and hives/urticaria.

Penicillin allergy reassessment for treatment improvement: A dental office tool to support appropriate penicillin allergy labeling

BACKGROUND

Dental appointments offer an opportunity to evaluate a documented penicillin (PCN) allergy and determine whether the patient might be a candidate for medical reassessment of their allergy. The authors gathered feedback on the Penicillin Allergy Reassessment for Treatment Improvement (PARTI) tool, designed to enhance dentist-patient communications regarding PCN allergies.

METHODS

From January 2022 through May 2023, the authors conducted a mixed-methods study, collecting focus group data from patients with PCN allergies and surveying health care workers (HCWs) regarding the PARTI tool. Feedback focused on reassessment procedures, patient-centered allergy information, and medical records updates. Thematic analysis was used for focus group data.

RESULTS

The study included 15 patients in focus groups and 50 HCW survey respondents representing diverse US regions. Patient demographic characteristics included varied races, the mean age was 52 years, and most of the patients were female (53.3%). Most patients had health care interactions within the preceding year, at which 86.6% of patients were asked about drug allergies. HCW respondents primarily consisted of pharmacists (30%) and dentists, dental hygienists, and dental assistants (28%). Feedback on the PARTI tool was constructive, with both patients and HCWs recognizing its potential benefits and providing insights for improvement. Many HCWs (68%) highlighted the importance of step 3 of the PARTI tool, that is, the section on PCN allergy testing. Feedback from participants was incorporated into the final PARTI tool.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient and HCW feedback on the PARTI tool was used to finalize a tool for the dental office to provide to patients who are candidates for PCN allergy reassessment. The feedback will also be used to inform an upcoming pilot study in US dental offices, focused on the process for PCN allergy reassessment and health record documentation.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Deploying the PARTI tool in dental offices is pivotal, as mislabeling patients with PCN allergies could have severe consequences, such as hindering the prescription of lifesaving antibiotics for conditions like endocarditis, in the future. This implementation not only enhances communication between dentists and patients, but it is also crucial for ensuring improved patient safety and maintaining accurate medical records among health care settings.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

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

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

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

A Pharmacist's Role in a Case of Allergy Labeling and Acute Bacterial Rhinosinusitis Treatment

This case report describes a pharmacist's intervention with a 58-year-old female who presented with recurrent rhinosinusitis symptoms and limited treatment options due to a complicated allergy history. Using guidelines for treatment of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis coupled with a thorough antibiotic allergy assessment, the pharmacist developed a treatment plan that was acceptable to both the patient and the provider. Pharmacists can play an essential role in verification of allergies to both medications and non-pharmaceutical products, which further ensures patient safety as well as optimization of appropriate treatment methods.

The role of clinical pharmacists in patients with suspected allergy to β-lactams: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the role played by the clinical pharmacist and its impact in antibiotic stewardship facing suspected allergy to beta-lactam antibiotics.

METHOD

We performed two different independent bibliographic searches. A total of 35 articles were found, and the final number included in the study was 12. We analysed the articles and collected variables of efficacy, safety and applicability of evaluation tools applied to patients with suspected allergy to beta-lactams. Also, the variation in the consumption and prescription profile of alternative antibiotics was analyzed.

RESULTS

The selected studies analysed questionnaires, allergy delabeling, intradermal tests and oral challenge tests performed by pharmacists. Significant differences in the efficacy endpoint were found in 4 studies in favour of pharmaceutical intervention. In the study of Kwiatkowski et al, cefazolin use increased in surgical patients after pharmacist intervention (65 vs. 28%; p < 0.01). In a quasi-experimental study, the mean defined daily dose of aztreonam and the mean days of therapy per 1000 patients/day decreased (21.23 vs 9.05, p <0.01) and (8.79-4.24, p = 0.016), pre and post-intervention, respectively, increasing antibiotic de-escalations (p ≤ 0.01). In another quasi-experimental study, the prescription of restricted-use antibiotics decreased (42.5% vs. 17.9%, p < 0.01) and the use of pre-surgical prophylactic antibiotics alternative to cefazolin (81.9% vs 55.9%, p<0.01) in another study. Other study showed that the mean time per interview was 5.2 minutes per patient. No adverse events were reported in any study.

CONCLUSION

The pharmacist intervention in the evaluation of the patient with suspected allergy to beta-lactams is effective, safe and feasible to implement on daily clinical practice. The standardization of protocols to clarify the history of allergies and development of evaluation tools represent simple screenings to perform delabelling or refer to the Immunoallergology service, improving penicilins use and reducing the need for second line antibiotics. More studies are needed to standardize the desensitization tests made by pharmacists. However, despite these results, the involvement and leadership of the pharmacist in this area is limited and constitutes a future challenge for the profession.

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.

[Translated article] The role of clinical pharmacists in patients with suspected allergy to β-lactams: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the role played by the clinical pharmacist and its impact in antibiotic stewardship facing suspected allergy to beta-lactam antibiotics.

METHOD

We performed 2 different independent bibliographic searches. A total of 35 articles were found, and the final number included in the study was 12. We analyzed the articles and collected variables of efficacy, safety, and applicability of evaluation tools applied to patients with suspected allergy to beta-lactams. Also, the variation in the consumption and prescription profile of alternative antibiotics was analyzed.

RESULTS

The selected studies analyzed questionnaires, allergy delabeling, intradermal tests, and oral challenge tests performed by pharmacists. Significant differences in the efficacy endpoint were found in 4 studies in favor of pharmaceutical intervention. In the study of Kwiatkowski et al., cefazolin use increased in surgical patients after pharmacist intervention (65% vs 28%; P < .01). In a quasi-experimental study, the mean defined daily dose of aztreonam and the mean days of therapy per 1000 patients/day decreased (21.23 vs 9.05, P <.01) and (8.79-4.24, P = .016), pre- and post-intervention, respectively, increasing antibiotic de-escalations (P = < .01). In another quasi-experimental study, the prescription of restricted use antibiotics decreased (42.5% vs 17.9%, P < .01)and the use of pre-surgical prophylactic antibiotics alternative to cefazolin (81.9% vs 55.9%, P < .01)in another study. Other study showed that the mean time per interview was 5.2 min per patient. No adverse events were reported in any study.

CONCLUSION

The pharmacist intervention in the evaluation of the patient with suspected allergy to beta-lactams is effective, safe, and feasible to implement on daily clinical practice. The standardization of protocols to clarify the history of allergies and development of evaluation tools represent simple screenings to perform delabeling or refer to the Immunoallergology service, improving penicilins use and reducing the need for second-line antibiotics. More studies are needed to standardize the desensitization tests made by pharmacists. However, despite these results, the involvement and leadership of the pharmacist in this area is limited and constitutes a future challenge for the profession.

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 status and its effect on antibiotic prescribing, patient outcomes and antimicrobial resistance (ALABAMA): protocol for a multicentre, parallel-arm, open-label, randomised pragmatic trial

INTRODUCTION

Incorrect penicillin allergy records are recognised as an important barrier to the safe treatment of infection and affect an estimated 2.7 million people in England. Penicillin allergy records are associated with worse health outcome and antimicrobial resistance. The ALlergy AntiBiotics And Microbial resistAnce (ALABAMA) trial aims to determine if an intervention package, centred around a penicillin allergy assessment pathway (PAAP) initiated in primary care, is safe and effective in improving patient health outcomes and antibiotic prescribing.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The ALABAMA trial is a multicentre, parallel-arm, open-label, randomised pragmatic trial with a nested pilot study. Adults (≥18 years) with a penicillin allergy record and who have received antibiotics in the previous 24 months will be eligible for participation. Between 1592 and 2090 participants will be recruited from participating National Health Service general practices in England. Participants will be randomised to either usual care or intervention to undergo a pre-emptive PAAP using a 1:1 allocation ratio. The primary outcome measure is the percentage of treatment response failures within 28 days of an index prescription. 2090 and 1592 participants are estimated to provide 90% and 80% power, respectively, to detect a clinically important absolute difference of 7.9% in primary outcome at 1 year between groups. The trial includes a mixed-methods process evaluation and cost-effectiveness evaluation.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This trial has been approved by London Bridge Research Ethics Committee (ref: 19/LO/0176). It will be conducted in compliance with Good Clinical Practice guidelines according to the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent will be obtained from all subjects involved in the study. The primary trial results will be submitted for publication to an international, peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN20579216.

Delabelling multiple antibiotic allergy: Practical issues

With the growing incidence of multi-drug resistant organisms, delabelling incorrect antibiotic allergies has become an integral part of antimicrobial stewardship worldwide. For example, around 90% of penicillin allergy labels are found to be inaccurate following a full allergy work-up, which deprive patients the use of effective first-line penicillin antibiotics and increase the risk of antimicrobial resistance with the use of other extended spectrum non-penicillin antimicrobials. Significant numbers of adult and paediatric patients over time are labelled with multiple penicillin and non-penicillin antibiotic allergies often during inappropriate antimicrobial use, resulting in a label of “multiple antibiotic allergy”. In contrast to delabelling penicillin allergy where oral direct provocation tests can be used for low-risk, mild reactions, and sensitivity/specificity/positive and negative predictive values of skin tests have been demonstrated, diagnostic tests for multiple antibiotic allergy often require the use of a combination of in-vivo and in-vitro tests across different antimicrobial classes for evaluation. Shared decision making with patients and informed consent are also needed when prioritising which drugs to delabel first, balancing the risks, benefits of testing vs. interim use of alternative antibiotics. Similar to delabelling penicillin allergy, the cost-effectiveness of delabelling multiple drug allergies is unknown.

A review of evidence for pneumococcal vaccination in adults at increased risk of pneumococcal disease: risk group definitions and optimization of vaccination coverage in the United Kingdom

INTRODUCTION

Pneumococcal disease (PD) significantly contributes to morbidity and mortality, carrying substantial economic and public health burden. This article is a targeted review of evidence for pneumococcal vaccination in the UK, the definitions of groups at particular risk of PD and vaccine effectiveness.

AREAS COVERED

Relevant evidence focusing on UK data from surveillance systems, randomized controlled trials, observational studies and publicly available government documents is collated and reviewed. Selected global data are included where appropriate.

EXPERT OPINION

National vaccination programs have reduced the incidence of vaccine-type PD, despite the rising prominence of non-vaccine serotypes in the UK. The introduction of higher-valency conjugate vaccines provides an opportunity to improve protection against PD for adults in risk groups. Several incentives are in place to encourage general practitioners to vaccinate risk groups, but uptake is low-suboptimal particularly among at-risk individuals. Wider awareness and understanding among the public and healthcare professionals may increase vaccination uptake and coverage. National strategies targeting organizational factors are urgently needed to achieve optimal access to vaccines. Finally, identifying new risk factors and approaches to risk assessment for PD are crucial to ensure those at risk of PD can benefit from pneumococcal vaccination.