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

Antepartum vs postpartum amoxicillin oral challenge in pregnant patients with a reported penicillin allergy: A two-center prospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

While 10% of pregnant individuals report a penicillin allergy, there is no established best practice for penicillin allergy delabeling in pregnancy. To better understand options for penicillin delabeling, we aimed to evaluate two penicillin allergy delabeling protocols in pregnancy regarding efficacy, adverse events, and patient satisfaction.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

From July 2019 to December 2022, we completed a two-center prospective cohort study, where each site recruited pregnant patients over 24 weeks gestational age with a reported penicillin allergy. One center offered antepartum amoxicillin oral challenges, either directly or after negative skin testing (i.e., antepartum oral challenge site). Our other centers completed a two-step approach with antepartum penicillin skin testing only and deferred oral challenges to the postpartum period (i.e., postpartum oral challenge site). Our primary outcome was the rate of penicillin allergy delabeling, defined as tolerating an antibiotic challenge with penicillin or amoxicillin. Univariate analyses were completed using chi-squared, Fisher's exact, and Wilcoxon rank tests.

RESULTS

During the study period, 276 pregnant patients were assessed, with 207 in the antepartum oral challenge site and 69 in the postpartum oral challenge site. Among the 204 patients who completed antepartum oral challenges, 201 (98%) passed without reactions. Deferring oral challenges to the postpartum period led to a loss of follow-up for 37/53 (70%) of eligible individuals. Overall, 97% (201/207) of patients at the antepartum oral challenge site were delabeled from their penicillin allergy-compared to 38% (26/69) of patients referred to the postpartum oral challenge site (p < 0.0001). Three antepartum oral challenge reactions were noted, including two mild cutaneous reactions and a case of transient abdominal discomfort.

CONCLUSIONS

Antepartum amoxicillin oral challenge is a more effective method to delabel pregnant patients from their penicillin allergy. Deferral of oral challenges to the postpartum period introduces a significant barrier for penicillin allergy delabeling.

Clinical Relevance of Specific IgE in Penicillin Allergy Investigation

INTRODUCTION

Patients with immediate type allergic reactions to penicillins are at risk of anaphylaxis on reexposure. Diagnostic gold standard is drug provocation test (DPT) if allergy is not diagnosed by other means, such as skin testing or in vitro testing with measurement of specific IgE. Specific IgE testing carries low risk for the patient and blood sampling can be performed in primary care, but it is reported to have low sensitivity. The aim of this study was to evaluate if clinical characteristics of patients with suspected allergic reactions to penicillin and elevated specific IgE to penicillins, differed from patients without specific IgE, to identify predictors for elevated specific IgE to penicillins.

METHODS

Levels of specific IgE to five penicillins (penicillin G, penicillin V, amoxicillin, ampicillin, and penicillin minor determinants) were available for 9,100 patients. Using multiple logistic regression, clinical data from 430 patients in this group who had elevated specific IgE to one or more penicillins were compared to data from 4,094 patients without specific IgE to penicillins, who had undergone DPT with a penicillin.

RESULTS

In total 5.2% of patients had elevated specific IgE to one or more penicillins. Significantly more patients with elevated specific IgE had a history of immediate type reactions (<2 h) (OR = 4.34, p < 0.001); circulatory symptoms (OR = 1.63, p = 0.03) or angioedema (OR = 1.46, p = 0.005). Also, significantly more patients with elevated specific IgE had been treated with adrenaline (OR = 2.21, p = 0.005), steroids (OR = 1.76, p < 0.001), or antihistamines (OR = 1.83, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

A history of an immediate type reaction requiring treatment, combined with elevated specific IgE to one or more penicillins is suggestive of an IgE mediated penicillin allergy and further allergy investigations may not be needed. Specific IgE to penicillins may be used early in allergy investigation of patients with severe immediate type reactions to penicillins.

Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions aimed at delabeling low-risk penicillin allergies with consideration for sex and gender

BACKGROUND

Approximately, 10% of people report a penicillin allergy; however, more than 90% can safely undergo delabeling after a detailed history, oral challenge, or other investigations such as penicillin skin testing (PST). Although PST is the gold standard, the results can be heterogeneous, and awaiting specialist assessment may take an inordinate amount of time. Therefore, oral provocation challenge has become acceptable for individuals with low-risk penicillin allergy histories. There also appears to be an association with increased prevalence of adverse drug reaction reporting in female individuals, which may translate to penicillin allergy prevalence; however, the evidence has not been assessed through a sex and gender lens. This systematic review will identify and synthesize the findings from studies that report measures of effectiveness and safety of interventions aimed at delabeling penicillin allergies in low-risk individuals. Information related to sex and gender will be extracted, where available, to understand potential differences in allergy reporting and patient outcomes.

METHODS

The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Centre for Review and Dissemination's Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Health Care will be used as frameworks for conducting this systematic review. The literature search will be conducted by a medical librarian (B. M. M.) and will consist of a search strategy to identify and retrieve published studies that meet our inclusion criteria. Studies that require penicillin skin testing (PST) as a step prior to other interventions will be excluded. Integrated knowledge translation involving co-design was carried out for this systematic review protocol creation. Data extraction will be conducted at four levels: (1) study level, (2) patient level, (3) intervention level, and (4) outcome level. A narrative descriptive synthesis of results and risk of bias of all included studies will be provided, and, if relevant, a meta-analysis will be performed.

DISCUSSION

The dissemination of findings from this knowledge synthesis to various stakeholders is intended to inform on options for evidence-based interventions to aid in delabeling penicillin allergies in individuals with a low risk of experiencing a hypersensitivity reaction. Detailed reporting on the characteristics of delabeling interventions as well as the effectiveness of similar interventions will benefit policy makers considering the implementation of a penicillin allergy delabeling protocol. Additionally, findings from this systematic review will report on the current evidence regarding the role of sex and gender in both the prevalence and outcomes associated with the presence of penicillin allergies.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022336457.

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.

Drugs and the skin: A concise review of cutaneous adverse drug reactions

Drug-induced skin disease or cutaneous adverse drug reactions (CADRs) are terms that encompass the clinical manifestations of the skin, mucosae and adnexa induced by a drug or its metabolites. The skin is the organ most frequently affected by drug reactions, which may affect up to 10% of hospitalized patients and occur in 1-3% of multimedicated patients. Most CADRs are mild or self-resolving conditions; however, 2-6.7% of could develop into potentially life-threatening conditions. CADRs represent a heterogeneous field and can be diagnostically challenging as they may potentially mimic any dermatosis. Currently, there are between 29-35 different cutaneous drug-reaction patterns reported ranging from mild dermatitis to an extensively burnt patient. The most frequently reported are maculopapular rash, urticaria/angioedema, fixed drug eruption and erythema multiforme. Less common but more severe patterns include erythroderma, drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, and Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis spectrum. Almost any drug can induce a CADR, but antibiotics, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and antiepileptics are the most frequently involved. Different mechanisms are involved in the pathogenesis of CADRs, although in some cases, these remain still unknown. CADRs could be classified in different ways: (i) type A (augmented) or type B (bizarre); (ii) immediate or delayed; (iii) immune-mediated or nonimmune-mediated; (iv) nonsevere or life-threatening; and (v) by their phenotype, including exanthematous, urticarial, pustular and blistering morphology. Recognizing a specific CADR will mostly depend on the ability of the physician to perform a detailed clinical examination, the proper description of the morphology of the skin lesions and supporting laboratory and/or skin biopsy findings.

Delabelling beta-lactam allergy

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

Challenging dogmas: Intravenous versus oral beta-lactam antibiotic provocation tests

Background

Drug provocation tests (DPT) are considered the gold standard procedure to ascertain the diagnosis of beta-lactam (BL) allergy. Regarding route of administration, current recommendations prioritize oral challenges, considering them safer, and reserving the intravenous route for drugs for which this is the only formulation.

Objective

To compare in terms of tolerance and safety two protocols of BL DPT, using an oral protocol (OR-DPT) and an intravenous protocol (IV-DPT).

Methods

A descriptive, retrospective study was performed, including adult patients who underwent IV-DPT or OR-DPT for suspected immediate or delayed hypersensitivity to BL antibiotics, over a period of 4 years (between January 2018 and December 2021). Demographical data, index hypersensivity reactions' characteristics and tolerance to DPT were reviewed.

Results

A total of 1036 patients underwent DPT, mean age of 56.8 (standard deviation, SD, 17.8) years, 655 were women (63.2%). Immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHR) had occurred in 564 of patients (54.4%). OR-DPT were performed in 439 (42.4%) and IV-DPT in 597 (57.6%). The frequency of reactions during DPT, regardless of the route used, was low (3.6%): only 16 (3.6%) in OR-DPT and 21 (3.5%) in IV-DPT. From IV-DPT, 16 out 21 DHR during DPT were immediate compared with 4 out of 16 in OR-DPT. Adjusted relative risk of developing a hypersensitivity reaction during IV-DPT versus OR-DPT was 1.13 (95% confidence interval (CI)0.57-2.22).

Conclusion

The results suggest that OR-DPT and IV-DPT are both safe procedures when adequately performed. However, IV-DPT protocols showed a higher rate of immediate DHR during DPT probably due to the selection of basal high-risk patients to undergo IV-DPT. In conclusion, IV-DPT may be considered as an option for challenges in drug-allergy studies, entailing a precise administration.

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.

Removing penicillin allergy label in a hospitalized adolescent with a remote penicillin and recent cephalosporin allergy

Background: β-Lactam antibiotics are widely used with increased utilization in hospitalized patients. Of this population, as high as 10-20% report an allergy to β-lactam antibiotics but <5% are at risk of developing clinically significant immunoglobulin E- or T-lymphocyte-mediated reactions. Most of the time, these reported allergies are present during an illness with no previous inquiry of their validity, which makes investigation and possible removal of this allergy label a challenge. Methods: We report a 16-year-old boy who presented with 1 week of night sweats, chills, headaches, and fatigue, followed by 1 day of fever and right knee swelling and who was diagnosed with septic bursitis. Due to concern of a penicillin allergy label, the patient was started on a cefepime infusion. Five minutes into the infusion, the patient reported puffy eyes and itchy throat, followed by a witnessed cascading flat nonpruritic erythematous rash from head to shoulders. This rash went away in 3 minutes after stopping the infusion and the patient being given 50 mg of intravenous diphenhydramine and 10 mg of oral dexamethasone. He was subsequently diagnosed with a cefepime allergy. Results: Allergy/immunology was the speciality consulted, and, by using a screening questionnaire, the patient's reported penicillin allergy was determined to be low risk. Subsequent 1-step oral challenge was the key to providing the patient with the necessary antibiotic course to resolve his infection. Conclusion: Multiple reported antibiotic allergies lead to poor antibiotic stewardship that causes impactful health and financial burden on the patient and health-care system. It is thus important to have an evidence-based systematic approach to de-label penicillin antibiotic allergy labels to reduce these potential harms.

How to Define and Manage Low-Risk Drug Allergy Labels

Risk stratification in drug allergy implies that specific risk categories (eg, low, moderate, and high) classify historical drug hypersensitivity reactions. These risk categories can be based on reaction phenotypic characteristics, the timing of the reaction and evaluation, the required reaction management, and individual characteristics. Although a multitude of frameworks have been described in the literature, particularly for penicillin allergy labels, there has yet to be a global consensus, and approaches continue to vary between allergy centers. Immune-mediated drug allergies can sometimes be confirmed using skin testing, but a negative drug challenge is required to demonstrate tolerance and remove the allergy from the electronic health record ("delabel" the allergy). Even for quintessential IgE-mediated drug allergy, penicillin allergy, recent data reveal that a direct oral challenge, without prior skin testing, is an appropriate diagnostic strategy in those who are considered low-risk. Drug allergy pathogenesis and clinical manifestations may vary depending on the culprit drug, and as such, the optimal approach should be based on risk stratification that considers individual patient and reaction characteristics, the likely hypersensitivity reaction phenotype, the drug class, and the patient's clinical needs. This article will describe low-risk drug allergy labels, focusing on β-lactam and sulfonamide antibiotics, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, iodinated contrast media, and common chemotherapeutics. This review will also address practical management approaches using currently available risk stratification and clinical decision tools.

Effectiveness of Carboplatin-Prescreening Intradermal Skin Tests to Reduce Unanticipated Immediate Hypersensitivity Reactions: A Comparative Study

BACKGROUND

Carboplatin administration poses a risk of immediate hypersensitivity reactions (IHRs) that tend to increase with repeated administration and are mostly IgE-mediated.

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the usefulness of carboplatin-prescreening intradermal skin tests (IDTs).

METHODS

Carboplatin-prescreening IDTs were routinely conducted in patients with a history of receiving six or more carboplatin cycles beginning in January 2021. The primary objective was to assess disparities in the incidence of unanticipated IHRs to carboplatin administration. We compared patients in the intervention group (from 2021 to 2022) and those who did not undergo prescreening IDTs under the same conditions (preintervention group, from 2019 to 2020). Secondary objectives included evaluating the sensitivity and specificity of the prescreening IDT and the incidence of carboplatin IHR according to the number of infusion cycles.

RESULTS

The intervention group was composed of 67 patients who were administered 347 carboplatin cycles whereas the preintervention group included 96 patients who were administered 464 carboplatin cycles. The risk of unanticipated carboplatin IHRs decreased by 83.2% in the intervention group compared with results in the preintervention group (preintervention group, 3.45%, n = 16 vs intervention group, 0.58%, n = 2; P = .005). The prescreening IDT showed a sensitivity and specificity of 77.78% and 99.41%, respectively. The risk of newly developed IHRs based on the number of carboplatin cycles was less than 1% (cycles 1-5), 2.11% (cycle 6), 3.90% (cycles 7-12), 2.90% (cycles 13-18), and 0.74% (cycles 19 and greater), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Initiating carboplatin-prescreening IDTs from the seventh cycle on significantly reduced the risk of unanticipated IHRs.

Penicillin Allergy Testing and Delabeling for Patients Who Are Prescribed Penicillin: A Systematic Review for a World Health Organization Guideline

Secondary prevention with penicillin aims to prevent further episodes of acute rheumatic fever and subsequent development of rheumatic heart disease (RHD). Penicillin allergy, self-reported by 10% of the population, can affect secondary prevention programs. We aimed to assess the role for (i) routine penicillin allergy testing and the (ii) safety of penicillin allergy delabeling approaches in this context. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, ISRCTN, and CPCI-S to identify the relevant reports. We found 2419 records, but no studies addressed our initial question. Following advice from the WHO-Guideline committee and experts, we identified 6 manuscripts on allergy testing focusing on other populations showing that the prevalence of allergy confirmed by testing was low and the incidence of life-threatening reactions to BPG was very low (< 1-3/1000 individuals treated). A subsequent search addressed penicillin allergy delabeling. This found 516 records, and 5 studies addressing the safety of direct oral drug challenge vs. skin testing followed by drug administration in patients with suspected penicillin allergy. Immediate allergic reactions of minor severity were observed for a minority of patients and occurred less frequently in the direct drug challenge group: 2.3% vs. 11.5%; RR = 0.25, 95%CI 0.15-0.45, P < 0.00001, I2 = 0%. No anaphylaxis or deaths were observed. Severe allergic reactions to penicillin are extremely rare and can be recognized and dealt by trained healthcare workers. Confirmation of penicillin allergy diagnosis or delabeling using direct oral drug challenge or penicillin skin testing seems to be safe and is associated with a low rate of adverse reactions.

Performance Characteristics of Basophil Activation Tests for Diagnosing Penicillin Allergy: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Approximately 10% of the global population identify themselves as penicillin allergic, yet 90% are not truly allergic and could safely tolerate penicillin. There is no simple way to identify these people. Current in vitro diagnostics include specific immunoglobulin E (with a sensitivity of 19% and specificity of 97%) and a basophil activation test (BAT) with undefined sensitivity and specificity.

OBJECTIVE

To define the sensitivity and specificity of BAT in the diagnosis of penicillin allergy METHODS: We searched PubMed and EMBASE from inception to April 2, 2023, for original studies evaluating the performance characteristics of BAT for penicillin allergy in adults. Study selection, data extraction, risk of bias, assessment with QUADAS-2 tool, certainty assessment with Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology were performed independently, in duplicate. Meta-analysis was performed using Reitsma methodology.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Twelve used the same positive threshold giving a summary point sensitivity 51% (95% confidence interval [95% CI]46%-56%) and specificity 89% (95% CI 85%-93%). Significant risk of bias was identified owing to patient selection. GRADE certainty of evidence rated sensitivity very low due to imprecision and specificity as low. There was great heterogeneity in methods used. Use of 1,000 basophils per test did not improve performance above 500 basophils.

CONCLUSIONS

BAT sensitivity is highly variable across studies and remains too low to be considered as a routine element of clinical practice. BAT specificity is not as good as specific immunoglobulin E in penicillin allergy diagnosis. Significant further work is required in this field before clinical application of BAT in routine practice.

Safety of Direct Drug Provocation for the Evaluation of Penicillin Allergy in Low-Risk Adults

BACKGROUND

About 10% of patients have a penicillin allergy label, but less than 5% of them are actually allergic. Unnecessary penicillin avoidance is associated with serious medical consequences. Given the growing number of these labels, it is imperative that our diagnostic strategy for penicillin allergy be as efficient as possible. The validity of traditionally used skin tests (STs) has been questioned, whereas drug provocation testing (DPT), the criterion standard, without previous ST appears very safe in most cases.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety of direct DPT without consideration for ST results and the validity of ST in the diagnosis of penicillin allergy.

METHODS

In this prospective cohort study without a control group, we recruited patients consulting an allergist for penicillin allergy. Patients underwent ST followed by DPT regardless of ST results. Patients with anaphylaxis to penicillin within the past 5 years or a severe delayed reaction were excluded, as were those with significant cardiorespiratory comorbidity.

RESULTS

None of the 1002 recruited patients had a serious reaction to DPT. Ten (1.0%) had a mild immediate reaction, of whom only 1 (0.1%) was considered likely IgE-mediated. The positive and negative predictive values of ST for an immediate reaction were 3.6% and 99.1%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In a low-risk adult population reporting penicillin allergy, ST has very poor positive predictive value. Direct DPT without ST is safe and appears to be an ideal diagnostic strategy to remove penicillin allergy labels that could be implemented in first-line practice.

Inpatient allergy delabeling of pediatric patients with low-risk penicillin allergy status through direct oral amoxicillin challenge

Background: Less than 5% of children who report penicillin allergy have clinically pertinent type 1 immunoglobulin E mediated hypersensitivity reaction by using direct oral amoxicillin challenge. Several pathways have been developed to delabel penicillin allergy by using direct oral amoxicillin challenge, mostly in the outpatient settings, but there is relative scarcity on published outcomes of these pathways, especially in the inpatient pediatric settings. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the performance of an institutionally derived inpatient penicillin allergy screening tool. Methods: Patients were stratified into three penicillin allergy risk categories by using an institutional screening questionnaire. Patients with a no-risk status were delabeled without challenge testing. Patients with low-risk status underwent direct graded oral amoxicillin challenge and delabeled based on their response. Patients with high-risk status were referred to allergy service. Results: Ninety-two patients were identified with penicillin allergy. Forty of the 92 patients (43%) were screened. Of the 40 patients screened, 6 (15%) were identified as no risk, 28 (70%) were identified as low risk, and 6 (15%) were identified as high risk. Twenty-four of the 28 patients at low risk (86%) were eligible for direct amoxicillin oral challenge. Seventeen of the 24 (71%) consented to oral challenge but only 12 (71%) underwent direct amoxicillin oral challenge. Eleven of the 12 who underwent oral challenge (92%) were successfully delabeled. Five of the six patients at no risk (83%) were successfully delabeled. Three of the six patients at high risk (50%) were referred for further allergy evaluation. Overall, 16 of the 40 patients screened (40%) were successfully delabeled. Conclusion: In this small pediatric inpatient study, our institutional risk stratification screening tool identified patients at low risk for penicillin allergy and direct graded oral amoxicillin challenge was safely administered to delabel penicillin allergy in these patients.Clinical trial NCT05020327, www.clinicaltrials.gov.

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.

Delabeling, safety, and impact of β-lactam allergy testing: A systematic review

Background

To improve β-lactam delabeling outcomes, we need to understand current practice and the evidence base regarding its outcomes, safety, and impact.

Objectives

We sought to assess the existing published evidence reporting on the effectiveness of penicillin allergy testing and delabeling.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of studies reporting β-lactam delabeling practices and outcomes after testing, including β-lactam use and patient understanding of the delabeling result. Searches of the PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases; clinical trial registries; and websites of professional organizations were conducted. Data were extracted from the included studies in duplicate, with a third extraction if discrepancies remained.

Results

We included 284 publications (covering 98,316 participants); 173 were prospective studies, with no randomized controlled trials. The overall study quality was low. In all, 95.6% of individuals who underwent provocation testing were delabeled. Factors associated with successful delabeling could not be determined because of significant heterogeneity between studies. Anaphylaxis due to testing occurred in 0.3% of participants (95 of 31,667). Subjects who did not undergo skin testing (6,980 patients in 31 studies) before challenge had higher rates of provocation test positivity (8.8% vs 4.1% [P < .0001]) and anaphylaxis (15.9% vs 2.7% [P < .0001]) than those subjects who underwent skin testing (51,607 patients in 177 studies). Six studies (2.1%) followed patients after testing to assess their adherence to prescribing recommendations. In all, 136 participants (20.6%) were actively avoiding β-lactams despite delabeling.

Conclusions

The available data suggest that penicillin allergy testing is safe and effective in delabeling most individuals, but the evidence base is incomplete and more work is required to assess the role of skin testing and the impact that delabeling is having on prescribing habits.

Fatal ampicillin-sulbactam anaphylaxis in a 34-year-old male

A 34-year-old man receiving his first dose of ampicillin-sulbactam for osteomyelitis in a hospital setting experienced fatal drug-induced anaphylaxis.

The Burden of Self-Reported Antibiotic Allergies in Health Care and How to Address It: A Systematic Review of the Evidence

BACKGROUND

Antibiotics are the first-line treatment for bacterial infections; however, overuse and inappropriate prescribing have made antibiotics less effective with increased antimicrobial resistance. Unconfirmed reported antibiotic allergy labels create a significant barrier to optimal antimicrobial stewardship in health care, with clinical and economic implications.

OBJECTIVE

A systematic review was conducted to summarize the impact of patient-reported antibiotic allergy on clinical outcomes and various strategies that have been employed to effectively assess and remove these allergy labels, improving patient care.

METHODS

The review was undertaken using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A critical appraisal was conducted on all studies and a narrative synthesis was performed to identify themes.

RESULTS

Four themes emerged: the prevalence of antibiotic allergy, impact of antibiotic allergy on antimicrobial prescribing, impact of antibiotic allergy on clinical outcomes, and delabeling strategies to improve clinical outcomes. Of the 32 studies, including 1,089,675 participants, the prevalence of reported antibiotic allergy was between 5% and 35%. Patients with a reported antibiotic allergy had poorer concordance with prescribing guidelines in 30% to 60% of cases, with a higher use of alternatives such as quinolone, tetracycline, macrolide, lincosamide, and carbapenem and lower use of beta-lactam antibiotics. Antibiotic allergy delabeling was identified as an intervention and recommendation to advance the state of the science.

CONCLUSIONS

There is substantial evidence within the literature that antibiotic allergy labels significantly impact patient clinical outcomes and a consensus that systematic assessment of reported antibiotic allergies, commonly referred to as delabeling, improves the clinical management of patients.

The Value of Current Laboratory Tests in Diagnosing Food, Venom, and Drug Allergies

An accurate diagnosis of IgE-mediated allergies is necessary to inform risk management for severe allergic reactions including anaphylaxis for food, venom, and drug allergies. The most widely available laboratory test for allergy is serum-specific IgE testing, which is routinely used for food allergy and insect sting allergy. Testing for specific IgE is limited by high sensitivity and low specificity, resulting in concern regarding overdiagnosis. Testing of allergen components has led to improved diagnosis for some food and venom allergens. Additional options for laboratory tests, such as epitope analysis, basophil activation, and mast cell activation, are being investigated for their potential to optimize diagnosis and provide predictors for reaction severity and treatment response. In contrast, laboratory testing for drug allergy is more limited because to date, there are no well-validated commercial assays in the United States. Furthermore, it is important to diagnose delayed reactions to medications, because these also significantly affect decision-making regarding therapeutic options for infectious disorders. Reliable tests for both immediate and delayed drug hypersensitivity are much needed, because drug allergy labels can significantly limit treatment options for patients. Research in this area is emerging.

Diagnosis and selection of alternative antibiotics in beta-lactams hypersensitivity reactions: Current recommendations and challenges

Beta-lactam (BLM) antibiotics, including amino-penicillin and cephalosporins, are typically the first-choice treatment for bacterial infections. However, adverse reactions to these antibiotics are frequently reported, causing non-allergist physicians to select alternative broad-spectrum antibiotics that can have harmful consequences. Patients with unclear histories of hypersensitivity reactions to BLMs should undergo an allergy workup to establish a firm diagnosis, particularly when different drugs are prescribed simultaneously. However, finding the safest, most precise, and cost-effective methods for confirming BLMs hypersensitivity and selecting the most appropriate alternative BLM is uncertain, particularly in severe delayed reactions. This review aims to provide data and recommendations on the availability and validity of skin tests (STs), drug provocation test (DPT) protocols, based on the latest published literature and guideline. To make the process more practical, we focused on cross-reactivity between BLMs and diagnostic tests. There are two main novel aspects of this document: 1) For T-cell-mediated reactions, patient stratification into high, moderate, and low-risk groups based on the mortality and morbidity of adverse drug reactions. 2) For IgE-mediated reactions, stratification of individuals with isolated limited urticarial without anaphylaxis in a low-risk group and removal of the extensive limitation.

Standardizing In Vitro β-Lactam Antibiotic Allergy Testing with Synthetic IgE

The global prevalence of β-lactam allergy poses a major challenge in administering first-line antibiotics, such as penicillins, to a significant portion of the population. The lack of β-lactam IgE antibody pools with defined selectivity hampers the standardization and validation of in vitro assays for β-lactam allergy testing. To address this limitation, this study introduces a synthetic IgE specific to β-lactam antibiotics as a valuable tool for drug allergy research and diagnostic tests. Using phage display technology, we constructed a library of human single-chain antibody fragments (scFv) to target the primary determinant of amoxicillin, a widely used β-lactam antibiotic. Subsequently, we produced a complete human synthetic IgE molecule using the highly efficient baculovirus expression vector system. This synthetic IgE molecule served as a standard in an in vitro chemiluminescence immunoassay for β-lactam antibiotic allergy testing. Our results demonstrated a detection limit of 0.05 IU/mL (0.63 pM), excellent specificity (100%), and a four-fold higher clinical sensitivity (73%) compared to the in vitro reference assay when testing a cohort of 150 serum samples. These findings have significant implications for reliable interlaboratory comparison studies, accurate labeling of allergic patients, and combating the global public health threat of antimicrobial resistance. Furthermore, by serving as a valuable trueness control material, the synthetic IgE facilitates the standardization of diagnostic tests for β-lactam allergy and demonstrates the potential of utilizing this synthetic strategy as a promising approach for generating reference materials in drug allergy research and diagnostics.

DNA methylation as a triage marker for colposcopy referral in HPV-based cervical cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Screening plays a key role in secondary prevention of cervical cancer. High-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing, a highly sensitive test but with limited specificity, has become the gold standard frontline for screening programs. Thus, the importance of effective triage strategies, including DNA methylation markers, has been emphasized. Despite the potential reported in individual studies, methylation markers still require validation before being recommended for clinical practice. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the performance of DNA methylation-based biomarkers for detecting high-grade intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) in hrHPV-positive women.

METHODS

Hence, PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies that assessed methylation in hrHPV-positive women in cervical scrapes. Histologically confirmed HSIL was used as endpoint and QUADAS-2 tool enabled assessment of study quality. A bivariate random-effect model was employed to pool the estimated sensitivity and specificity as well as positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies were included in this meta-analysis, from which cohort and referral population-based studies corresponded to nearly 65%. Most of the women analyzed were Dutch, and CADM1, FAM19A4, MAL, and miR124-2 were the most studied genes. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.68 (CI 95% 0.63-0.72) and 0.75 (CI 95% 0.71-0.80) for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2+ detection, respectively. For CIN3+ detection, pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.78 (CI 95% 0.74-0.82) and 0.74 (CI 95% 0.69-0.78), respectively. For pooled prevalence, PPV for CIN2+ and CIN3+ detection were 0.514 and 0.392, respectively. Furthermore, NPV for CIN2+ and CIN3+ detection were 0.857 and 0.938, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis confirmed the great potential of DNA methylation-based biomarkers as triage tool for hrHPV-positive women in cervical cancer screening. Standardization and improved validation are, however, required. Nevertheless, these markers might represent an excellent alternative to cytology and genotyping for colposcopy referral of hrHPV-positive women, allowing for more cost-effective screening programs.

The state and consideration for skin test of β-lactam antibiotics in pediatrics

β-lactam antibiotics are the most frequently used drugs and the most common drugs that cause allergic reactions in pediatrics. The occurrence of some allergic reactions can be predicted by skin testing, especially severe adverse reactions such as anaphylactic shock. Thus, penicillin and cephalosporin skin tests are widely used to predict allergic reactions before medication in pediatrics. However, false-positive results from skin tests were more often encountered in pediatrics than in adults. In fact, many children labeled as allergic to β-lactam are not allergic to the antibiotic, leading to the use of alternative antibiotics, which are less effective and more toxic, and the increase of antibiotic resistance. There has been controversy over whether β-lactam antibiotics should be tested for skin allergies before application in children. Based on the great controversy in the implementation of β-lactam antibiotic skin tests, especially the controversial cephalosporin skin tests in pediatrics, the mechanism and reasons of anaphylaxis to β-lactam antibiotics, the significance of β-lactam antibiotic skin tests, the current state of β-lactam antibiotic skin tests at home and abroad, and the problems of domestic and international skin tests were analyzed to determine a unified standard of β-lactam antibiotic skin tests in pediatrics to prevent and decrease adverse drug reactions, avoid waste of drugs, and a large amount of manpower and material resource consumption.

Pearls for practice from the 2022 joint task force drug allergy practice parameter

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review updated recommendations in the 2022 Drug Allergy Practice Parameters for the evaluation and management of drug hypersensitivity reactions.

RECENT FINDINGS

Adverse drug reactions have become increasingly prominent with the advent of new and emerging pharmacologic therapies. Hypersensitivity reactions encompass a significant proportion of adverse drug reactions and negatively impact both the individual patient and overall health system. Reactions are heterogeneous in presentation and may be immediate (onset of symptoms ≤6 h) or delayed (onset of symptoms >6 h to months) after drug exposure. The 2022 Drug Allergy Practice Parameter provides consensus-based statements for evaluation of hypersensitivity reactions to antibiotics, NSAIDs, cancer chemotherapies, immune checkpoint inhibitors, biologics, and excipients. In general, the guideline highlights the importance of patient history in elucidating the phenotype and severity of the index reaction. Drug challenge remains the gold standard for diagnosis and is increasingly favored over skin testing in patients with nonsevere, nonanaphylactic drug reaction histories.

SUMMARY

The 2022 Drug Allergy Practice Parameter provides an updated framework for physicians to reference in clinical practice when managing patients with drug hypersensitivity reactions.

Relationship of Reaction History to Positive Penicillin Skin Tests

BACKGROUND

Previous data suggest that up to one-third of patients classified as allergic based on positive penicillin skin tests have a vague reaction history. Direct oral challenge (DOC) has been recommended for patients with a low-risk reaction history. A variety of published models stratify reaction risk to guide the use of DOC.

OBJECTIVE

To reassess the proportion of penicillin skin test-positive patients with vague or low-risk reaction histories and evaluate the relationship between the reaction risk history and the likelihood of positive skin test results.

METHODS

We identified patients who underwent penicillin allergy evaluation over a 5-year period. We recorded drug reaction history, demographic variables, skin testing, and challenge results. Matched controls whose skin tests were negative were identified for skin test-positive patients. Drug reaction histories were assigned a risk category based on 2 previously published risk stratification models. We used logistic regression to investigate whether reaction history risk was associated with positive skin test results.

RESULTS

Penicillin skin testing was performed in 3382 patients; 207 (6.1%) were positive. Positive skin tests were more frequent in outpatients (P < .001), younger patients (P < .001), and female patients (P < .001). Percentages of each risk category in each model were similar in cases versus matched controls. The likelihood for positive skin tests increased with a high-risk reaction history in one stratification model.

CONCLUSION

Our data confirm that a substantial proportion of patients who self-report penicillin allergy and have positive skin test results have a low-risk history and imply that penicillin skin testing is associated with a poor positive predictive value.

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.

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

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Skin testing as a biomarker in drug allergy

Despite the significant negative impact drug allergies can have on patient care, the diagnosis is largely based on clinical history, and there are limited diagnostic tests that can be done at the time of a reaction. Biomarkers are needed to improve the diagnosis and the identification of the culprit medication. Skin testing is the most useful biomarker for immediate- and delayed-type reactions available, but it is limited by its low sensitivity. To improve its accuracy and reproducibility, a standardized procedure must be used. For immediate-type reactions, penicillin skin testing is the most widely studied, and it can be used in patients with history of anaphylaxis or recent immunoglobulin E-mediated reaction or for whom there is a significant risk if a reaction were to occur, such as pregnancy. Skin testing is also important in allergy to platinum agents allowing for continued first-line therapy. For delayed-type reactions, patch testing and delayed intradermal testing, used in conjunction with clinical history, can help to improve identification of the culprit medication depending on the type of reaction. Other biomarkers including in vitro testing for specific immunoglobulin E, basophil activation test, lymphocyte transformation test, ELISpot, and genetic factors that increase the likelihood of reaction are under investigation, and they may be most helpful when used in combination with the clinical history and skin testing results.

Drug Allergy Practice Parameter Updates to Incorporate Into Your Clinical Practice

The drug allergy practice parameter was developed to provide guidance on the diagnosis and management of drug hypersensitivity reactions. It was last updated in 2010. With the growth of research and evidence-based data since then, experts came together to update the practice parameter with a focus on sections that the work group deemed to have significant changes (or were not addressed) in the previous practice parameter. This review is a focused update on aspects of the practice parameter deemed to have the greatest impact on clinical practice and includes significant updates on diagnosis of antibiotic allergy including penicillin, cephalosporin, sulfonamide, fluoroquinolone, and macrolide allergies. Other topics include the evolution in our management approach to patients with aspirin/nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug allergy, diagnostic testing for delayed drug hypersensitivity and allergy to chemotherapeutics and biologics, and the key consensus-based statements for clinical practice. Specifically, the updated practice parameter helps allergists understand the place of 1- or 2-step drug challenges that are valuable tools often without the need for skin testing in many clinical situations. A proactive approach to delabeling penicillin allergy as well as unnecessary avoidance of safe antibiotic alternatives for patients with proven penicillin allergy is emphasized. New guidance is provided on management of patients with different phenotypes of aspirin and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug hypersensitivity reactions. Approaches to delayed drug hypersensitivity and use of delayed intradermal and patch testing for specific phenotypes are reviewed. Lastly, practical approaches to management of patients with reactions to chemotherapeutics and biologics are discussed.

Beta-lactam allergy and drug challenge test in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Most cases of beta-lactam allergy in children are likely to be mislabeled. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of true positives, as determined by drug challenge tests, and the rate of false negatives in children with suspected allergies and confirm the safety of the drug challenge test.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis according to established procedures. Study participants were children with suspected beta-lactam allergy who underwent a drug challenge. PubMed MEDLINE, Dialog EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched from inception until March 5, 2021.

RESULTS

The pooled prevalence of (a) positive results in the first challenge was 0.049 (95% CI, 0.041-0.057; I² = 71%) from 78 studies; (b) serious adverse events was 0.00 (95% CI, 0.00-0.00; I² = 0.0%) from 62 studies; and (c) positive results in the second challenge after the first negative result was 0.028 (95% CI, 0.016-0.043; I² = 38%) from 18 studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of children with suspected beta-lactam allergy with true-positive results and false-negative results from the drug challenge test was very low. Serious adverse events resulting from drug challenge tests were also very rare.

IMPACT

Most children with suspected beta-lactam allergy were likely to be mislabeled. Serious adverse events caused by the drug challenge test were rare. Few false-negative results were obtained from the drug challenge test.

In Vitro Assays for Diagnosis of Drug-Induced Nonsevere Exanthemas: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Frequent mislabelled causal relationship between drug hypersensitivity reactions and culprit drugs reinforces the need for an accurate diagnosis. The systematic reviews and meta-analyses of in vitro assays published so far focused on immediate reactions and the most severe delayed reactions, while the most frequent drug-induced delayed reactions-nonsevere exanthemas-have been underestimated. We aim to fill this gap. A systematic review of studies on in vitro assays used in the diagnosis of nonsevere drug-induced delayed reactions was conducted following the methodology of Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies Statement. The EMBASE and PubMed databases were searched. We have included 33 studies from which we extracted the data, then performed meta-analysis where possible, or synthesised the evidence narratively. The quality of the analysed studies was assessed with the QUADAS-2 tool. The tests identified the most frequently were lymphocyte transformation test (LTT), ELISpot, and ELISA. In the meta-analysis carried out for LTT in reactions induce by beta-lactams, the pool estimate of sensitivity and specificity amounted to 49.1% (95% CI: 14.0%, 85.0%) and 94.6% (95% CI: 81.7%, 98.6%), respectively. The studies showed heterogeneity in study design and laboratory settings, which resulted in a wide range of specificity and sensitivity of testing.

Drug allergy evaluation in children with suspected mild antibiotic allergy

Background

Adverse antibiotic reactions caused by an immunological mechanism are known as allergic reactions. The percentage of reported antibiotic allergies is likely to differ from the one validated after a drug provocation test (DPT) with the culprit antibiotic. This study aimed to compare the percentage of children who were thought to be allergic to a certain antibiotic with those who have a true allergy, as confirmed by DPTs. We also validated Skin Prick Tests (SPTs) and Intradermal Tests (IDTs) by assessing their sensitivity and specificity, in diagnosing antibiotic allergies using DPT as the gold standard. Furthermore, we investigated epidemiological risk factors such as personal and family history of atopic disease and eosinophilia.

Methods

Children with a history of possible allergic reaction to an antibiotic underwent a diagnostic procedure that included: (1) Eosinophil blood count, (2) SPTs, (3) IDTs and (4) DPTs. The parameters were compared with Pearson's Chi-Square and Fisher's Exact Test. Several risk factors that were found significant in univariate analysis, such as personal and family history of atopic disease, and positive SPTs and IDTs were examined with multiple logistic regression analysis to see if they were related to a higher risk for a positive DPT.

Results

Semi-synthetic penicillin was the most common group of antibiotics thought to cause allergic reactions in this study. Overall, 123 children with a personal history of an adverse reaction to a certain antibiotic, were evaluated. In 87.8% of the cases, the symptoms had occurred several hours after administration of the culprit antibiotic. Both SPTs and IDTs had low sensitivity but high specificity. Moreover, they had a high positive predictive value (PPV). In contrast, eosinophilia was not recognized as a risk factor. Seventeen patients (13.8%) had a true antibiotic allergy, as confirmed by a positive DPT. A positive IDT was a strong predictor of a positive DPT, along with a positive personal and family history of atopy.

Conclusion

SPTs and IDTs are very reliable in confirming antibiotic allergy when found positive. A negative result of a SPT highly predicts a negative DPT. A positive IDT and a positive personal and family history of atopy were recognized as significant risk factors for antibiotic allergy.

Improving antimicrobial stewardship with penicillin allergy testing: a review of current practices and unmet needs

Penicillin allergy, the most frequently reported drug allergy, has been associated with suboptimal antibiotic therapy, increased antimicrobial resistance, increased rates of Clostridioides difficile colonization and infection, as well as extended hospital length of stay and increased cost. Although up to 10% of all patients may report penicillin allergy, most penicillin allergies are not confirmed. As such, most patients with a penicillin allergy can still safely use penicillin and related drugs following a more precise assessment. Herein, we review the current practices and unmet needs in penicillin allergy testing. The diagnostic algorithm is mostly based on a clinical history assessment followed by in vivo testing, i.e. skin test and/or drug challenge. As these tests are labour and resource intensive, there is increased interest in point-of-care penicillin allergy de-labelling solutions incorporated into Antimicrobial Stewardship Programmes including digital assessment tools. These can be locally parameterized on the basis of characteristics of target populations, incidence of specific allergies and local antibiotic usage to perform clinical risk stratification. Safely ruling out any residual risk remains essential and in vivo drug challenge and/or skin testing should be systematically encouraged. Gradual understanding and convergence of the risk stratification of the clinical presentation of penicillin allergy is enabling a wider implementation of this essential aspect of antimicrobial stewardship through digitalized decision tools and in vivo testing. More research is needed to deliver point of care in vitro diagnostic tools to democratize this de-labelling practice, which would be highly beneficial to patient care. This progress, together with better education of patients and clinicians about the availability, efficacy and safety of penicillin allergy testing, will increase the dissemination of penicillin allergy assessment as an important component of Antimicrobial Stewardship Programmes.

Oral Challenge without Penicillin Skin Tests in Children with Suspected Beta-Lactam Hypersensitivity

Objective A misdiagnosed “penicillin allergy” is a common problem in childhood. Recently, skipping skin tests (STs) and performing a direct oral challenge test (OCT) have become an increasingly common approach in children with suspected β-lactam (BL) allergy. In our study, we aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of OCT without using ST in children who had a history of hypersensitivity reactions with BL antibiotics.

Materials and Methods We retrospectively evaluated direct OCT outcomes in children with both nonimmediate and immediate-type reaction history with BL antibiotics. STs were not performed before the challenge test. The patients were monitored for 4 hours after the challenge and continued using the drug in two divided doses for 3 days at home.

Results In this study, 72 patients were included, with median age of 7 years (interquartile range: 4; min: 1 year to max: 16 years), and of these, 56% were male. Forty-five subjects (63%) reported immediate-type adverse reactions. The most common clinical manifestation was urticaria/angioedema (51%, n: 37) and maculopapular exanthema in 46% (n: 33) of patients, respectively. The most commonly suspected drug was 71% amoxicillin-clavulanate. A 3-day OCT without preceding ST was performed in all patients. Only three patients (4.2%) showed a positive response to the oral drug challenge test. None of these reactions observed was more severe than index reactions.

Conclusion Performing OCT without STs is a safe and convenient method to exclude BL hypersensitivity in the pediatric age group.

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.

Antibiotic Allergy De-Labeling: A Pathway against Antibiotic Resistance

Antibiotics are one of the most frequently prescribed drugs. Unfortunately, they also are the most common cause for self-reported drug allergy, limiting the use of effective therapies. However, evidence shows that more than 90% of patients labeled as allergic to antibiotics are not allergic. Importantly, the label of antibiotic allergy, whether real or not, constitutes a major public health problem as it directly impacts antimicrobial stewardship: it has been associated with broad-spectrum antibiotic use, often resulting in the emergence of bacterial resistance. Therefore, an accurate diagnosis is crucial for de-labeling patients who claim to be allergic but are not really allergic. This review presents allergy methods for achieving successful antibiotic allergy de-labeling. Patient clinical history is often inaccurately reported, thus not being able to de-label most patients. In vitro testing offers a complementary approach but it shows limitations. Immunoassay for quantifying specific IgE is the most used one, although it gives low sensitivity and is limited to few betalactams. Basophil activation test is not validated and not available in all centers. Therefore, true de-labeling still relies on in vivo tests including drug provocation and/or skin tests, which are not risk-exempt and require specialized healthcare professionals for results interpretation and patient management. Moreover, differences on the pattern of antibiotic consumption cause differences in the diagnostic approach among different countries. A multidisciplinary approach is recommended to reduce the risks associated with the reported penicillin allergy label.

Standardized testing and written communication improve patient understanding of beta-lactam allergy testing outcomes: A multicenter, prospective study

Background

Historical penicillin allergy is commonly reported, but the lack of standardized allergy clinic practices may diminish the ability to delabel beta-lactam allergy appropriately.

Objective

We sought to improve beta-lactam allergy testing and patient understanding of their antibiotic allergy status by standardizing testing and communication practices between 7 adult and pediatric hospital centers.

Methods

Phase 1 prospectively described the beta-lactam allergy testing practices at each center. Following this, practice was standardized to achieve a defined panel of skin testing reagents, pro forma result letters for patients and referring doctors, and provision of medical alert jewelry to those with confirmed allergy. Testing outcomes and patient perception regarding allergy status 8 weeks postassessment were compared before (phase 1) and after standardization (phase 2). Primary outcomes were the percentage of participants delabeled after testing, and concordance rates between participant perception of their allergy status and their status as determined by the treating physician at 8-week follow-up.

Results

Of 195 adult and pediatric participants (median age, 50 years; 21.5% <18 years; 36.9% males), 75% were delabeled of their beta-lactam allergy. No patient experienced anaphylaxis related to any beta-lactam delabeling testing. In phase 1, 75% of participants received written results, 52% were informed verbally, and 48% received results in more than 1 form. All phase 2 participants received written results (P < .01), 61% received verbal results from a physician as well (P > .05). At 8-week follow-up, 54% of phase 1 participants had concordant perceptions of their allergy status as the testing team versus 91.6% in phase2 (P < .001). Of the 17 participants who were delabeled and treated with a beta-lactam antibiotic during the 8-week follow-up period, there were no reported allergic reactions, although 1 participant experienced anaphylaxis following exposure to amoxicillin-clavulanic acid 1 year after delabeling.

Conclusions

Standardization of testing and written patient information improved short-term patient perception of beta-lactam allergy status.

Economic Viability of Penicillin Allergy Testing to Avoid Improper Clindamycin Surgical Prophylaxis

OBJECTIVE

Patients mislabeled with a penicillin allergy are often unnecessarily given prophylactic clindamycin. Thus, otolaryngologists may cause harm due to clindamycin's associated risk of Clostridioides difficile infections (CDI) and surgical site infections (SSI). The objective of this study was to determine the economic feasibility of penicillin allergy testing in preventing unnecessary clindamycin use among patients with an unconfirmed penicillin allergy prior to otolaryngologic surgery.

METHODS

A break-even analysis was performed using the average cost of penicillin allergy testing and a CDI/SSI to calculate the absolute risk reduction (ARR) in baseline CDI/SSI rate due to clindamycin required for penicillin testing to be economically sustainable. The binomial distribution was used to calculate the probability that current penicillin testing can achieve this study's ARR.

RESULTS

Preoperative penicillin testing was found to be economically sustainable if it could decrease the baseline CDI rate by an ARR of 1.06% or decrease the baseline SSI rate by an ARR of 1.34%. The probability of penicillin testing achieving these ARRs depended on the baseline CDI and SSI rates. When the CDI rate was at least 5% or the SSI rate was at least 7%, penicillin allergy testing was guaranteed to achieve economic sustainability.

CONCLUSION

In patients mislabeled with a penicillin allergy, preoperative penicillin allergy testing may be an economically sustainable option to prevent the unnecessary use of prophylactic clindamycin during otolaryngologic surgery. Current practice guidelines should be modified to recommend penicillin allergy testing in patients with an unconfirmed allergy prior to surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

N/A Laryngoscope, 2022.

Intradermal testing increases the accuracy of an immediate-type cefaclor hypersensitivity diagnosis

Background

Hypersensitivity reactions to cefaclor have increased in accordance with its frequent use. However, only limited data are available on the diagnostic value of skin tests for these conditions, particularly intradermal tests (IDTs).

Objective

To evaluate the clinical usefulness of IDT compared to the ImmunoCAP test in patients with cefaclor-induced immediate-type hypersensitivity.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective chart review from January 2010 to June 2020 of adult subjects from 2 tertiary hospitals in Korea with a history of suspected immediate-type hypersensitivity to cefaclor, and who had undergone ImmunoCAP and IDT.

Results

Overall, 131 subjects diagnosed with cefaclor hypersensitivity were included in the analysis. Fifty-nine patients (59/131, 45.04%) were positive in both IDT and ImmunoCAP. Fifty-four (54/131, 41.22%) and 6 (6/131, 4.58%) subjects showed positive results only with IDT or the ImmunoCAP test, respectively. Twelve subjects (12/131, 9.16%) were negative by both tests but reacted positively in a drug provocation test. The frequency of IDT positivity was similar regardless of the severity of reactions. However, positivity of ImmunoCAP was lower in subjects with mild reactions compared to those with anaphylaxis. Regarding the diagnosis of cefaclor hypersensitivity, the overall sensitivity of IDT and ImmunoCAP was 0.863 and 0.496, respectively while the specificity was 1. The combination of IDT and ImmunoCAP further increased this sensitivity to 0.908.

Conclusion

IDT was more sensitive than ImmunoCAP for the diagnosis of cefaclor allergy, regardless of the severity of the hypersensitivity reaction. Therefore, we recommend a combination of IDT and ImmunoCAP for the diagnosis of cefaclor hypersensitivity.

New diagnostıc perspectives in the management of pediatrıc beta-lactam allergy

Since overdiagnosis of beta-lactam (BL) allergy is common in the pediatric population, delabeling is a critical part of antimicrobial stewardship. Undesirable consequences of inaccurate BL allergy labeling can be handled by incorporating traditional delabeling or newer risk-based strategies into antibiotic stewardship programs. Conventional assessment of BL allergy relies upon a stepwise algorithm including a clinical history with skin testing followed by drug provocation tests (DPTs). However, a growing number of studies highlighted the suboptimal diagnostic value of skin testing in children. Recently, there has been a paradigm shift in the practice of BL allergy assessment due to recent challenging data which emphasize the safety and accuracy of direct DPTs in children with a suspicion of non-immediate mild cutaneous reactions such as maculopapular eruption, delayed urticaria, and possibly also for benign immediate reactions such as urticaria/angioedema. Identifying low-risk BL allergy patients, in whom skin tests can be skipped and proceeding directly to DPTs could be safe, has become a hot topic in recent years. New risk stratification and predictive modeling studies that have the potential to better predict BL allergy risk status have recently been introduced into the field of drug allergy, particularly in adults. However, in contrast to adults, risk assessment studies in children are rare, and optimal risk definitions are controversial. In the coming years, promising potential methods to elucidate the predictors of BL allergy in children will require multidimensional approaches that may include predictive analytics, artificial intelligence techniques, and point-of-care clinical decision tools.

Isolierte Zungenschwellung nach Penizillin und negative Allergieabklärung – alles in Butter?

Penizilline können alle Arten spezifischer Immunreaktionen nach der erweiterten Coombs- und Gell-Klassifikation auslösen und zählen zu den häufigsten Ursachen unerwünschter Arzneimittelreaktionen. Das diagnostische Armamentarium umfasst neben den verschiedenen Hauttesten den Nachweis spezifischer IgE gegen allergene Determinanten am Betalaktam-Molekül und ggf. zelluläre Aktivierungsteste. Im Fall negativer Ergebnisse bei den genannten Testen kann ggf. noch die Toleranz im Rahmen eines Provokationstestes nachgewiesen werden. Die Sensitivität der diagnostischen Teste ist – mit Ausnahme des Provokationstests – aber limitiert, und falsch negative Teste sind möglich. Wir präsentieren zwei Fälle mit einer isolierten Zungenschwellung nach Gabe von Amoxicillin bei vollständig negativem, wiederholtem allergologischen Work-up. Bei beiden Patienten konnte die Überempfindlichkeit nur mit einer Reexposition nachgewiesen werden.