De-labeling penicillin-allergic children in outpatients using telemedicine: Potential to replicate in primary care

Empowering Pediatricians With Direct Penicillin Challenges: A Promising Delabeling Strategy

OBJECTIVE

Current literature supports a multidisciplinary approach to penicillin allergy delabeling. Our study aims to review the success rate of penicillin challenges performed at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center Allergy Clinic and assess the reaction rate associated with a direct oral challenge in low-risk patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of the outcomes of pediatric penicillin challenges at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center Allergy and Immunology clinic from June 2019 to May 2023. A total of 74 challenges were included in this study. Patients were initially screened to assess the date of reaction, nature of reaction, if the reaction was life-threatening, and if the patient was hospitalized or sought emergency medical care for the reported reaction. After completion of the screening questionnaire, a direct graded challenge was performed (without skin testing) if a patient's history was deemed low risk. Patients with a recent reaction or a history of multiple drug allergies were more likely to be directed to skin prick testing and intra-dermal testing with Pre-pen and Penicillin-G prior to challenge.

RESULTS

All patients passed all challenges. Thus, there was a 100% pass rate for both direct challenges and skin test with oral challenges.

CONCLUSION

Given the low rate of adverse events in this study, expansion of penicillin delabeling in the primary care setting should be considered in patients deemed to be at low risk. It is important for allergists to empower and educate their peers and push forward a movement to create a multidisciplinary approach to penicillin delabeling.

Nonallergist Delabeling-Should Penicillin Allergy Delabeling Only Be Performed by Allergists?

Penicillin allergy labels (PAL) are common but rarely correspond with a patient's likelihood to tolerate penicillin. This results in unnecessary penicillin avoidance in many patients, driving numerous negative health outcomes. Evaluation strategies for a PAL are driven by risk stratification and include a spectrum of modalities such as delabeling without any testing, direct oral challenge, and skin testing followed by challenge testing. Historically, PAL delabeling has primarily been the domain of the allergist, but this has resulted in significant limitations in access to testing for many patients globally and in the United States. Novel strategies to increase access to penicillin allergy evaluations are urgently needed, and nonallergist delabeling has been proposed as one strategy to help address this. Using a pro/con format, we review the evidence for nonallergist PAL delabeling in children and adults, focusing on direct challenge testing and highlighting considerations to guide nonallergist implementation of penicillin allergy evaluations.

Narrative review of recent developments and the future of penicillin allergy de-labelling by non-allergists

This article outlines recent developments in non-allergist delivered penicillin allergy de-labelling (PADL), discusses remaining controversies and uncertainties and explores the future for non-allergist delivered PADL. Recent developments include national guidelines for non-allergist delivered PADL and validation of penicillin allergy risk assessment tools. Controversies remain on which penicillin allergy features are low risk of genuine allergy. In the future genetic or immunological tests may facilitate PADL.

Is a Prolonged Drug Provocation Test Better Than a Single-Day Drug Provocation Test? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

There is currently no standardized duration of drug provocation test (DPT) for confirming/delabeling beta-lactam hypersensitivity reaction (BL-HSR).

OBJECTIVES

This meta-analysis and systematic review aimed to investigate the added diagnostic value of extended-day over single-day DPT for confirming/delabeling BL-HSR in adults and children.

METHODS

The MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and CINAHL online databases were searched from inception to March 15, 2023, for studies that performed extended-day DPT to confirm/delabel BL-HSR. Risk difference and risk ratio were used to compare the proportions of patients with confirmed BL-HSR by single-day or extended-day DPT.

RESULTS

A total of 10,371 DPTs from 42 studies were included. Extended-day DPTs ranged from 2 to 7 days, or as long as index reactions were reported (maximum 10 days). The overall prevalence of confirmed BL-HSR was 6.96% (3.31% during the first-day DPT, and 3.65% during extended-day DPT). Approximately half of the positive reactions during extended-day DPT occurred during the second/third day. The increased detected pool prevalence of confirmed BL-HSR yielded by extended-day DPT was 0.03 (95% CI, 0.02%-0.04%; I2 = 57.69%; P < .001), and the risk ratio of positive reactions between extended-day and single-day DPT was 1.94 (95% CI, 1.62-2.33; I2 = 36.26%; P < .001). The risk difference increased per 1% increase in prevalence of BL-HSR by 0.6% (95% CI, 0.4%-0.7%; P < .001). Twenty-three severe reactions occurred during DPT, and only 2 severe reactions (0.02%) occurred during extended-day DPT. An additional 28 extended-day DPTs were needed to identify 1 mild reaction.

CONCLUSIONS

The increased prevalence of confirmed BL-HSR observed during extended-day DPT could be attributed to the first-day DPT. As a result, our findings do not conclusively support the use of extended-day DPT over single-day DPT. Further studies, incorporating a washout period, are required to comprehensively compare these 2 approaches.

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.

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.

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 Safety of the Direct Drug Provocation Test in Beta-Lactam Hypersensitivity in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Direct drug provocation test (DPT) without prior skin testing (ST) has been investigated in children suspected of being at risk for beta-lactam (BL) hypersensitivity reaction (HSR). However, no systematic review and meta-analysis has investigated the efficacy and safety of direct DPT for BL-HSR in children.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the prevalence of BL-HSR by direct DPT and the safety of direct DPT in children.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and CINAHL from their inception to July 23, 2022, for studies that performed direct DPT in children with suspected BL-HSR, or for studies that performed DPT in all cases with ST results, but they ignored the ST results. The true prevalence was defined as the proportion of children who experienced an HSR during direct DPT. Safety was determined according to the proportion of children who developed a dangerous reaction following DPT.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight studies with 8,334 direct challenges were included. Fifteen studies included patients who presented with either immediate or nonimmediate HSR, and the majority of the index reactions were nonsevere. Amoxicillin/amoxicillin-clavulanic acid was the most commonly used during the DPT. The pooled prevalence of confirmed BL-HSR was 5.23% (95% CI 4.17-6.39; I² = 72%). Immediate and nonimmediate HSR were reported in 0.8% (95% CI 0.43-1.25; I² = 55.1%) and 3.69% (95% CI 2.66-4.87; I² = 79.77%), respectively. Severe reactions were found in 3 cases with the frequency of 0.036% (95% CI 0.012-0.112; I² = 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of BL-HSR by direct DPT was 5.23%, and the frequency of severe reactions from direct DPT was very low (0.036%). Our findings support direct DPT as a safe and effective delabeling tool in children with suspected nonsevere BL-HSR.

Simplifying the drug provocation test in non-immediate hypersensitivity reactions to amoxicillin in children: The experience of a tertiary care allergy unit

BACKGROUND

Mild non-immediate reactions (NIR) to beta-lactams (βLs) are the most common manifestation of adverse drug reactions in children, and the drug provocation test (DPT) remains the gold standard for diagnosis. However, there are still controversies about the protocol that should be used, especially regarding the administration of doses and the DPT length.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate a pediatric population with a history of mild NIR to amoxicillin (AMX) or to amoxicillin-clavulanic acid (AMX/CL) who underwent a diagnostic workup including a DPT with the culprit drug, to understand if a graded DPT or, instead, a single full dose could be the most appropriate way of administration in clinical practice.

METHODS

The data of children were retrospectively analyzed for a 5-year period, with demographic and clinical characteristics collected. We reported the allergy workup and the results of the DPT performed with the administration of incremental doses and a prolonged DPT at home for a total of 5 days.

RESULTS

Three hundred fifty-four patients were included. Overall, 23/354 (6.5%) DPTs were positive: 11/23 patients showed a reaction after 2-8 h after the last dose on the 1st or 2nd day (1 reacted 30 min after the last dose), 1/23 reacted with urticaria 30 min after the first dose, 11/23 reacted at home on the 5th day of the DPT.

CONCLUSION

This paper indirectly suggests that a single therapeutic dose administered on the 1st day of a DPT could be safe in the diagnostic workup of mild NIR to AMX/CL. Moreover, this could be less time-consuming as patients would spend less time in the hospital, also considering the public health restrictions imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Current allergy educational needs in primary care. Results of the EAACI working group on primary care survey exploring the confidence to manage and the opportunity to refer patients with allergy

The aim of this survey was to explore the specific educational needs of a cohort of European GPs with regards to allergy training so that future educational initiatives may better support the delivery of allergy services in primary care.

METHOD

This study took the form of a cross-sectional observational study in which a structured electronic questionnaire was distributed to primary care providers, in eight languages, across 8 European countries between September 2019 and November 2019. Data associated with demographic parameters, professional qualifications, type of employment, level of confidence regarding competencies for diagnosis and treatment of allergic diseases, referral of patients to allergist and preferred method of learning and assessment were collected. A 5-point Likert scale was used to assess level of confidence. Exploratory analysis was carried out.

RESULTS

A total of 687 responses were available for analysis, with 99.3% of responders working within Europe. 70.1% of participants were female; and 48.0% and 48.0% of participants respectively had received some undergraduate and/or postgraduate allergy education. Confidence in dealing with different aspect of allergy management differed between countries. The main reason for specialist referral was a perceived need for tertiary assessment (54.3%), and the main barrier for referral was the consideration that the patient's condition could be appropriately diagnosed and treated in a primary care facility. Up to 44.7% and 55.3% of participants reported that they preferred e-Learning over traditional learning.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified the specific areas of skills training and educational needs of GPs in managing allergic conditions in primary care, and provided insights into possible strategies for more feasible and cost-effective approaches.

Drug Allergy Delabeling Programs: Recent Strategies and Targeted Populations

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

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

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

Praktischer Leitfaden zum Einsatz telemedizinischer Anwendungen bei der Betreuung von Allergiepatienten

Seit Frühjahr 2020 führten die weitreichenden Maßnahmen zur Kontaktbeschränkung im Rahmen der SARS-CoV-2-Pandemie auch zu einer Reduktion der Arzt-Patienten-Kontakte im ambulanten Versorgungsbereich. Telemedizinische Anwendungen werden zunehmend eine Möglichkeit darstellen, die Patientenversorgung unter Infektionsschutzmaßnahmen effizient zu gewährleisten. Auch in der Allergologie können telemedizinische wie digitale Anwendungen den klinischen Alltag deutlich erleichtern. Die mit der Implementierung digitaler Strategien verbundenen technischen und rechtlichen Hürden müssen hierfür jedoch generell überwunden werden.

Penicillin Allergy Delabeling: A Multidisciplinary Opportunity

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

Unconfirmed penicillin allergy labels in the paediatric outpatient setting: A call for research and quality improvement initiatives

Over the last 10 years, the electronic medical record has redefined medical documentation, and physicians rely on accurate records to make clinical decisions. Penicillin allergy labels (PALs) are important pieces of the medical history that guide physicians in selecting specific antibiotic classes for the treatment of infectious diseases. However, most children labelled as penicillin-allergic do not have an IgE-mediated (immediate) allergic reaction to penicillin or its derivatives. In the absence of confirmatory penicillin allergy testing or additional history, these children receive alternative, often broad-spectrum and second-line, antibiotics. Addressing unconfirmed PALs requires an understanding of how and why labels get added to the electronic medical record. This viewpoint highlights the knowledge gaps in paediatric outpatient penicillin allergy labelling and proposes an acronym ('LABEL') that primary care providers and antimicrobial stewards can utilise when designing initiatives to address unconfirmed PALs in the community.

Telemedicine in allergology: practical aspects: A position paper of the Association of German Allergists (AeDA)

Since spring 2020, the wide-ranging contact restriction measures in the context of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic have also led to a reduction in physician–patient contacts in the ambulatory care setting. Telemedicine applications will increasingly provide a way to efficiently deliver patient care under infection control measures. In allergology, telemedical as well as digital applications can also significantly facilitate everyday clinical practice. However, the technical and legal hurdles associated with the implementation of digital strategies must be overcome for this to happen. The aim of this article is to provide an intuitive overview of the aspects to be considered in the implementation of telemedicine consultations and to highlight the current state of the framework as well as optimization possibilities and perspectives in allergology. If a structured use is guaranteed, digital and telemedical applications can improve patient care—also in allergology. There is potential to be exploited in many areas, from the remote collection of clinical history, and video consultations, to the discussion of diagnostic findings, disease monitoring, and therapy support. The use of telemedical applications, especially video consultations, has experienced a remarkable acceleration in the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The present overview of the legal, technical and professional framework is intended to support the anchoring of digital and telemedical technologies in everyday allergology. However, in order to consolidate these in the future, an agreement is needed regarding professional standards of action as well as a remuneration structure that is permanently defined beyond the current pandemic.

Drug Allergy Labels Lost in Translation: From Patient to Charts and Backwards

The current method of defining, reporting, assessment, labeling, delabeling, and reconciliation of adverse drug reactions (ADRs), and specifically immunologically mediated drug hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs), in electronic health records (EHRs) is inadequate and compromises care quality and safety. It is critical to accurately and succinctly report the signs and symptoms associated with ADRs and suspected HSRs to enable clinicians to determine the plausible reaction type and help guide appropriate future management plans. Despite the current limitations of the EHR allergy module, we must encourage improved clinical documentation and demand technological improvements. Telehealth methods have been shown to be valuable in the assessment of ADRs and HSRs, particularly in the case of penicillin allergy evaluation and delabeling. The implementation, assessment, and refinement of advanced technologies, including clinical informatics and artificial intelligence, along with continued education of health care providers have potential to improve EHR documentation and communication, thereby advancing patient safety efforts.

The Potential of Clinical Decision Support Systems for Prevention, Diagnosis, and Monitoring of Allergic Diseases

Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) aid health care professionals (HCP) in evaluating large sets of information and taking informed decisions during their clinical routine. CDSS are becoming particularly important in the perspective of precision medicine, when HCP need to consider growing amounts of data to create precise patient profiles for personalized diagnosis, treatment and outcome monitoring. In allergy care, several CDSS are being developed and investigated, mainly for respiratory allergic diseases. Although the proposed solutions address different stakeholders, the majority aims at facilitating evidence-based and shared decision-making, incorporating guidelines, and real-time clinical data. We offer here an overview on existing tools, new developments and novel concepts and discuss the potential of digital CDSS in improving prevention, diagnosis and monitoring of allergic diseases.