Antimicrobial stewardship intervention: optimizing antibiotic treatment in hospitalized patients with reported antibiotic allergy

Prospective, Multicenter, Head-to-Head Comparison Between Allergists Versus Nonallergists in Low-Risk Penicillin Allergy Delabeling: Effectiveness, Safety, and Quality of Life (HK-DADI2)

BACKGROUND

Penicillin "allergy" labels are prevalent but frequently misdiagnosed. Mislabelled allergies are associated with adverse outcomes and increased antimicrobial resistance. With an urgent need to delabel the overwhelming number of mislabeled allergies, nonallergist evaluations have been advocated for low-risk individuals. Despite growing interest in non-allergist-led initiatives, evidence on their effectiveness, safety, and impact by direct comparisons is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the comparative outcomes of penicillin allergy evaluations conducted by allergists versus nonallergists.

METHODS

A prospective, multicenter, pragmatic study was conducted at 4 tertiary hospitals (1 allergist- vs 3 non-allergist-led) for low-risk penicillin allergy patients in Hong Kong-the Hong Kong Drug Allergy Delabelling Initiative 2 (HK-DADI2).

RESULTS

Among 228 low-risk patients who underwent testing (32.9% by allergists, 67.1% by nonallergists), only 14 (6.1%) had positive penicillin allergy testing results. Delabeling rates (94.1% vs 93.3%; P = .777), positive skin test results (2.6% vs 2.7%; P > .99), and drug provocation test results (3.3% vs 2.7%; P = 1.000) were similar between allergists and nonallergists. There were no systemic reactions in either cohort. All patients had significant improvements in health-related quality of life (Drug Hypersensitivity Quality of Life Questionnaire scores -5.00 vs -8.33; P = .072). Nonallergist evaluations had shorter waiting times (0.57 vs 15.7 months; P < .001), whereas allergists required fewer consultations with higher rate of completing evaluations within a single visit (odds ratio, 0.04; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

With training and support, nonallergists can independently evaluate low-risk penicillin allergies. Compared with allergists, evaluation of low-risk penicillin allergy by nonallergists can be comparably effective, safe, and impactful on quality of life. More multidisciplinary partnerships to empower nonallergists to conduct allergy evaluations should be encouraged.

Beta-lactam allergy in patients: an antibiotic stewardship challenge

BACKGROUND

Patients are commonly reported as being allergic to beta-lactam (BL) antibiotics. However, many patients with this reported allergy are able to receive BL treatments because they do not have true allergies. In many cases these are simply intolerances due to side effects reported as an allergy. Delabelling these patients leads to better clinical outcomes, optimal antibiotic usage, decreased bacterial resistance and reduced healthcare costs. Therefore, the aims of this study were to identify incorrectly labelled BL allergies in hospitalised patients and to assess antibiotic use in delabelled patients in order to establish a quality indicator to optimise antimicrobial treatments.

METHODS

A prospective study was conducted in which hospitalised patients treated with antimicrobial drugs and labelled as 'BL-allergic' were identified by clinical pharmacists. An allergist assessed whether patients were suitable candidates for a skin test or oral challenge. The Allergy Service removed 'BL-allergic' labels if negative results were obtained. Delabelled patients were followed up by clinical pharmacists to study the use of BL antibiotics as a result of the delabelling programme.

RESULTS

A total of 176 suspected allergic patients were identified and 91 (51.7%) were tested either by a skin test or oral challenge based on the patient indicators. Seven (16.4%) patients tested were allergic to BL antibiotics, 76 (83.5%) were totally delabelled and eight (0.1%) were partially delabelled. Thirty-two (38.1%) delabelled patients required antibiotic treatment in another inpatient or outpatient setting, of whom 27 (84.3%) patients with a new infectious episode received BL treatments while five (15.7%) continued to receive antimicrobial treatments without BL.

CONCLUSION

After the implementation of a protocol to detect incorrect BL allergy labels, 83.5% of the patients in this cohort were completely delabelled. This shows that there is a clear opportunity to optimise the use of antibiotics by delabelling 'BL-allergic' patients.

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

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

Penicillin Allergy Impact and Management

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

Removal of incorrect penicillin allergy labels in a UK hospital

OBJECTIVES

Penicillin allergy records are common, often incorrect and are associated with broad spectrum antibiotic use. We piloted a pharmacist-led multidisciplinary penicillin allergy de-labelling daily ward round to determine the opportunity for penicillin allergy de-labelling in a UK hospital.

METHODS

A daily ward round, delivered by antibiotic pharmacists or junior doctors, identified adult medical and surgical patients between 7 November 2022 and 31 January 2023 with a penicillin allergy record that was preventing first-line penicillin use. An allergy history was taken before risk stratifying likelihood of future harm from penicillin re-exposure and an allergy testing method was determined (direct de-label on history alone or after direct drug provocation testing). After successful allergy de-label, the antibiotic was switched to a penicillin antibiotic.

RESULTS

Of 7214 inpatients during the study period, 1133 (15.7%) had a penicillin allergy record. Of 285 allergy histories taken, 105 (36.8%) met high-risk criteria, 45 (15.8%) met low-risk criteria eligible for direct de-label and 73 (25.6%) met criteria eligible for direct drug provocation testing. We were unable to obtain a history for 61 (21.4%) patients. Of 45 low-risk patients eligible for direct de-label, 40 (88.9%) were de-labelled of whom 24 (53.3%) were switched to a penicillin antibiotic. Of 73 patients with a low-risk allergy history eligible for direct drug provocation testing, 16 (21.9%) received direct drug provocation testing, of whom 9 were switched to a penicillin antibiotic. Two direct de-label patients experienced harm (thrush within 5 days and delayed skin reaction after day 5); none of the direct drug provocation testing patients had a reaction by day 5. The switches resulted in reduced alternative antibiotic use by 173 Daily Defined Doses (DDDs).

DISCUSSION

Penicillin allergy de-labelling patient pathway delivered by pharmacists and junior doctors was safe and effective and well accepted by patients and the wider clinical teams.

Characterizing Antibiotic Allergy Labels in a Large UK Hospital Population to Inform Antimicrobial Stewardship and Delabeling Assessment Strategy

BACKGROUND

Antibiotic allergy labels are important barriers to treatment and antimicrobial stewardship, but their prevalence in UK hospitals is poorly described.

OBJECTIVE

To ascertain the prevalence and characteristics of antibiotic allergy labels in a large UK hospital setting and estimate the proportion of penicillin allergy labels for which point-of-care (POC) delabeling assessment would be appropriate.

METHODS

Electronic health records data were analyzed from all patients treated at Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in 2019. Validated POC delabeling risk stratification criteria were retrospectively applied to penicillin allergy labels.

RESULTS

Recorded reactions to antibiotics were present in 11.8% of all patients (32,148 of 273,216), 16.3% of inpatients (13,874 of 85,230), and 9.7% of outpatients (18,274 of 187,986). Penicillins were the commonest reaction precipitant described (9.0% of patients; 24,646 of 273,216), followed by sulfonamides/trimethoprim (1.4%; 3869 of 273,216) and macrolides/lincosamides (1.3%; 3644 of 273,216). A total of 3.9% of inpatients had recorded reactions to >1 antibiotic class (3348 of 85,230). Cutaneous manifestations were the most commonly described reaction features (40.7% of labels; 15,821 of 38,902). Of 15,949 labels describing probable or possible penicillin "allergy" with sufficient detail to allow for the retrospective assessment of POC delabeling suitability, 1702 were deemed suitable for removal or downgrading of the label to "intolerance" without further investigation (10.7%), 11,887 were appropriate for POC assessment using an oral penicillin challenge (OPC) or OPC with prior bedside skin testing (74.5%), and 2360 were identified as unsuitable for any form of POC assessment (14.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Antibiotic allergy labels are highly prevalent in a UK hospital setting. A large proportion of penicillin allergy labels may be suitable for POC delabeling assessment.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

The Use of Electronic Health Records to Study Drug-Induced Hypersensitivity Reactions from 2000 to 2021: A Systematic Review

Electronic health records (EHRs) have revolutionized the field of drug hypersensitivity reaction (DHR) research. In this systematic review, we assessed 140 articles from 2000-2021, classifying them under six themes: observational studies (n=61), clinical documentation (n=27), case management (n=22), clinical decision support (CDS) (n=18), case identification (n=9), and genetic studies (n=3). EHRs provide convenient access to millions of medical records, facilitating epidemiological studies of DHRs. Though the goal of CDS is to promote safe drug prescribing, allergy alerts must be designed and used in a way that supports this effort. Ultimately, accurate allergy documentation is essential for DHR prevention.

Effectiveness of interventions that support penicillin allergy assessment and de-labelling of patients by non-allergy specialists: a systematic review protocol

OBJECTIVE

This review will systematically examine and synthesize the evidence evaluating the effectiveness and safety of interventions that enable non-allergy specialist health care workers to assess allergy risk in patients with reported penicillin allergies and subsequently remove erroneous allergy records.

INTRODUCTION

The potential benefits of removing erroneous penicillin allergy labels (de-labeling) are wide-ranging. Penicillin allergy assessment and de-labeling is an antibiotic stewardship priority. Delivery of such assessment and de-labeling by non-allergy specialists has been reported in several studies, but the effectiveness and safety have not been formally synthesized. This is a necessary step in the upscaling of penicillin allergy assessment services.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

This review will consider quantitative studies using appropriate designs. The studies will include adults and pediatric patients who have undergone penicillin allergy assessment and de-labeling by non-allergy specialists in any health care setting.

METHODS

A range of databases will be searched to identify studies published in English, with no date limit. Unpublished studies and gray literature will also be searched. Title and abstract screening, and assessment of selected full texts against the inclusion criteria will be conducted by at least two independent reviewers. Identified studies will be assessed for methodological quality using standardized critical appraisal instruments. Data will be extracted and categorized using the EPOC taxonomy, and the effectiveness and safety of the intervention will be determined. Where possible, data will be pooled to facilitate meta-analysis. Data from heterogeneous studies will be reported narratively. The GRADE approach for grading the certainty of evidence will be followed.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42020219044.

Prevalence of Antibiotic Allergy Labels in a Tertiary Referral Center in Belgium

BACKGROUND

Antibiotic (AB) allergies are among the most frequently occurring adverse drug reactions. In US literature, AB allergy labels (AAL) are reported in 10% to 15% of patients' charts; however, large-scale European analyses are scarce.

OBJECTIVES

To retrospectively assess the prevalence of AAL in a tertiary referral hospital in Belgium between 2010 and 2018.

METHODS

Patients who consulted and/or were hospitalized during the study period, who had been labeled with an AB allergy, were selected for further analysis.

RESULTS

Of 1,009,598 unique patients (outpatients, n = 736,469; inpatients, n = 273,129), 28,147 patients (3%) were registered with 1 or more AAL, being 1% of outpatients (n = 9562) and 7% of inpatients (n = 18,585). Women were more likely to carry an AAL (68%) compared with men (32%, P < .001). In patients with an AAL, 9% had multiple labels and 5% had labels for multiple AB classes. Most frequently, beta-lactams were involved (84% of AAL), followed by quinolones (7%) and sulfonamides and macrolides (both 3%). Moreover, 88% of the reactions were self-reported, mostly being an unspecified rash (53%), whereas only 3% were considered confirmed AAL.

CONCLUSION

With an overall prevalence of 3%, the burden of AAL is less in our Western European center compared with US reports. However, this prevalence most likely still represents an overestimation of genuine AB allergic patients because most labels lack confirmation and/or specifications. Our work indicates that knowledge of the local epidemiology of AAL is necessary to estimate the impact of better allergy labeling and delabeling strategies.

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

Background

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

Objectives

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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