Patient perspectives on antibiotic allergy delabeling: Enablers and barriers

Health-Related Quality of Life and Mental Health in Drug Hypersensitivity Reactions and Drug-Induced Anaphylaxis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) are adverse drug reactions (ADRs) that are particularly impactful on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and mental health. Although the role of HRQoL as an important patient-reported outcome has been recognized in past years, HRQoL and mental health in patients with ADRs are still poorly investigated.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the prevalence, severity, and risk factors of HRQoL and mental health in DHRs, with a particular focus on drug-induced anaphylaxis.

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE, Scopus, and American Psychological Association PsycArticles databases to identify all studies up to December 31, 2022 that included subjects with at least one episode of DHR and assessments of mental health and/or quality of life. Results were reported as qualitative and quantitative analyses, with meta-analyses after assessment for risk of bias and heterogeneity.

RESULTS

A total of 45 observational studies were included. Overall, a high prevalence of depression (up to 51.4%; odd ratio = 2.94; 95% CI, 1.42-6.10) and anxiety (up to 48%; odd ratio = 3.92; 95% CI, 1.91-8.05) were reported compared with healthy subjects. The HRQoL was significantly affected, especially in the case of drug-induced anaphylaxis (mean score, +5.88; 95% CI, 0.77-10.98).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the scarce and heterogeneous studies on this topic, the review shows that HRQoL and mental health are markedly affected after ADRs. A better assessment of HRQoL and characterization of patients' mental status may improve the efficacy of therapeutic strategies, which should include psychological support.

Penicillin Allergy Delabeling Program: an exploratory economic evaluation in the Australian context

BACKGROUND

Internationally, clinical and economic advantages of low-risk penicillin delabelling have been explored, supporting changes to healthcare delivery systems where penicillin delabelling is embedded into inpatient usual care.

AIMS

To determine if economic advantages of low-risk inpatient penicillin delabelling, described in the international literature, are realised in the Australian context.

METHODS

This explorative economic evaluation had prospective patient data collection between January and August 2019, across two Australian health services. Part 1: determine the cost per effectively delabelled patient for Penicillin Allergy Delabeling Program inpatients (PADP cohort) compared with Outpatient Antibiotic Allergy Testing Service outpatients (OAATS cohort). Part 2: a cost analysis to compare hospital costs for inpatients with low-risk penicillin allergy who did (PADP cohort) and did not (usual care cohort) undergo PADP delabelling.

RESULTS

Part 1: the PADP (n = 350) and OAATS (n = 27 patients, n = 36 individual visits) cohorts were comparable. In PADP, costs/proportion delabelled was $20.10/0.98, equating to $20.51 per effectively delabelled patient; in OAATS, it was $181.24/0.50, equating to $362. Compared with OAATS, PADP was associated with savings of $341.97 per effectively delabelled patient, indicating the outpatient testing was the dominated strategy, being more costly and less effective. Part 2: the PADP (n = 218) and usual care (n = 32) cohorts were comparable. Significantly favouring the delabelled PADP cohort, the mean difference per patient was -4.41 days (95% confidence interval: -7.64, -1.18) and -$9467.72 (95% confidence interval: -$15 419.98, -$3515.46).

CONCLUSIONS

Consistent with international literature, delabelling low-risk penicillin allergies in the inpatient setting had economic advantages in the Australian context. Fully powered economic evaluations are urgently required to consolidate these findings.

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.

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.