Clinical outcomes of penicillin skin testing

Meropenem allergy testing performed at the bedside of hospitalized patients labelled with a penicillin allergy

BACKGROUND

Meropenem is a widely prescribed beta-lactam for hospitalized patients. There are few data on meropenem allergy assessments in inpatients with a reported history of penicillin allergy who require a treatment with meropenem. This can lead to the use of less effective second-line antibiotics that may increase antibiotic resistances. We aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of a meropenem allergy assessment in admitted patients with a reported history of penicillin allergy that required meropenem for the treatment of an acute infection.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on 182 inpatients labelled with a penicillin-allergy who received meropenem after an allergy assessment. The allergy study was performed bedside if meropenem was required urgently. The study included skin prick tests (SPTs) followed by an intradermal skin test (IDT) to meropenem, and a meropenem drug challenge test (DCT). If a non-immediate reaction to a beta-lactam was suspected, it was initiated with patch tests.

RESULTS

The median age of the patients was 59.7 years (range 28-95) and 80 (44%) were women. A total of 196 sets of diagnostic workups were performed, with 189 (96.4%) of them being tolerated. Only two patients had a positive meropenem IV DCT, both presenting a non-severe cutaneous reaction that completely resolved after treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

This study evidenced that a bedside meropenem allergy assessment of hospitalized patients labelled with a 'penicillin allergy' who require a broad-spectrum antibiotic for empiric coverage is a safe and effective procedure, avoiding the use of second-line antimicrobial agents.

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.

Penicillin Allergy Evaluation: A Prospective, Multicenter, Open-Label Evaluation of a Comprehensive Penicillin Skin Test Kit

BACKGROUND

Ten percent of the population claims an allergy to penicillin, but 90% of these individuals are not allergic. Patients labeled as penicillin-allergic have higher medical costs, longer hospital stays, are more likely to be treated with broad-spectrum antibiotics, and develop drug-resistant bacterial infections. Most penicillin skin test reagents are not approved by the Food and drug Administration or readily available to evaluate patients labeled penicillin-allergic.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the negative predictive value (NPV) of the Penicillin Skin Test Kit containing the major allergenic determinant (penicilloyl polylysine), a minor determinant mixture (penicillin G, penicilloate, penilloate), and amoxicillin, produced according to Food and Drug Administration standards.

METHODS

This was a prospective, multicenter, open-label investigation of penicillin skin testing using the Penicillin Skin Test Kit. Skin test-negative subjects were challenged with 250 mg amoxicillin, whereas skin test-positive patients were not challenged. The primary end point was NPV of the Penicillin Skin Test Kit, defined as the percentage of subjects with negative skin test results who did not experience an IgE-dependent reaction within 72 hours of amoxicillin challenge.

RESULTS

In total, 455 patients with a history of penicillin allergy underwent skin testing and 63 (13.8%) had 1 or more positive test results; 65% of the positive test results were to the minor determinant mixture and/or amoxicillin alone. In the per protocol group of 373 skin test-negative subjects, 8 developed potential IgE-dependent reactions following oral amoxicillin challenge, translating to an NPV of 97.9% (95% CI, 95.8-99.1; P < .0001). All but 1 of the reactions was mild or moderate, and most subjects who required treatment received only antihistamines.

CONCLUSIONS

The Penicillin Skin Test Kit, containing all relevant penicillin allergenic determinants, demonstrated very high NPV. Removal of a penicillin allergy label in a large majority of currently mislabeled patients has substantial personal and public health implications.

Antibiotic allergy labels in hospitalized and critically ill adults: A review of current impacts of inaccurate labelling

Antibiotic allergy labels (AALs) are reported by approximately 20% of hospitalized patients, yet over 85% will be negative on formal allergy testing. Hospitalized patients with an AAL have inferior patient outcomes, increased colonization with multidrug-resistant organisms and frequently receive inappropriate antimicrobials. Hospitalized populations have been well studied but, to date, the impact of AALs on patients with critical illness remains less well defined. We review the prevalence and impact of AALs on hospitalized patients, including those in in critical care.

Penicillin minor determinants: History and relevance for current diagnosis

OBJECTIVE

To review the history of the penicillin minor determinants and evaluate their relevance for current diagnosis.

DATA SOURCES

Skin testing to detect immunoglobulin E (IgE) sensitivity to penicillins in patients with a history of penicillin allergy has been the subject of more than 55 years of published research involving tens of thousands of patients.

STUDY SELECTIONS

Selection of data was based on its relevance to the objective of this article.

RESULTS

It was established early on that testing with the major penicilloyl determinant using the polyvalent penicilloyl-polylysine (PPL) is negative in a substantial portion (10% to 64%, including recent increases) of those at risk for immediate hypersensitivity reactions. A variety of minor penicillin determinants are clinically significant in that their use in skin testing is essential to detect all those at risk. In particular, a minor determinant mixture of benzylpenicillin, benzylpenicilloate, and benzylpenilloate, used in conjunction with PPL, has been shown in numerous studies to achieve an average negative predictive value (NPV) of 97.9% in history-positive patients. Benzylpenicillin alone, as the sole minor determinant, leaves many skin test-positive patients undiscovered. Use of amoxicillin as an additional minor determinant reagent appears to identify another 2% to 8% of skin test-positive patients in some populations.

CONCLUSION

IgE skin testing, using both the major and appropriate minor determinants of penicillin, can identify, with a high degree of reliability (NPV ∼97%), penicillin allergy history-positive patients who can receive beta-lactam antibiotics without concern for serious acute allergy, including anaphylaxis. The few false-negative skin tests reported globally are largely confined to minor, self-limited cutaneous reactions.

Patient and Prescriber Views of Penicillin Allergy Testing and Subsequent Antibiotic Use: A Rapid Review

About 10% of U.K. patients believe that they are allergic to penicillin and have a "penicillin allergy label" in their primary care health record. However, around 90% of these patients may be mislabelled. Removing incorrect penicillin allergy labels can help to reduce unnecessary broad-spectrum antibiotic use. A rapid review was undertaken of papers exploring patient and/or clinician views and experiences of penicillin allergy testing (PAT) services and the influences on antibiotic prescribing behaviour in the context of penicillin allergy. We reviewed English-language publications published up to November 2017. Limited evidence on patients' experiences of PAT highlighted advantages to testing as well as a number of concerns. Clinicians reported uncertainty about referral criteria for PAT. Following PAT and a negative result, a number of clinicians and patients remained reluctant to prescribe and consume penicillins. This appeared to reflect a lack of confidence in the test result and fear of subsequent reactions to penicillins. The findings suggest lack of awareness and knowledge of PAT services by both clinicians and patients. In order to ensure correct penicillin allergy diagnosis, clinicians and patients need to be supported to use PAT services and equipped with the skills to use penicillins appropriately following a negative allergy test result.

Improving Aztreonam Stewardship and Cost Through a Penicillin Allergy Testing Clinical Guideline

Background

Patients reporting penicillin allergy often receive unnecessary and costly broad-spectrum alternatives such as aztreonam with negative consequences. Penicillin allergy testing improves antimicrobial therapy but is not broadly used in hospitals due to insufficient testing resources and short-term expenses. We describe a clinical decision support (CDS) tool promoting pharmacist-administered penicillin allergy testing in patients receiving aztreonam and its benefits toward antimicrobial stewardship and costs.

Methods

A CDS tool was incorporated into the electronic medical record, directing providers to order penicillin allergy testing for patients receiving aztreonam. An allergy-trained pharmacist reviewed orders placed through this new guideline and performed skin testing and oral challenges to determine whether these patients could safely take penicillin. Data on tests performed, antibiotic utilization, and cost-savings were compared with patients tested outside the new guideline as part of our institution's standard stewardship program.

Results

The guideline significantly increased penicillin allergy testing among patients receiving aztreonam from 24% to 85% (P < .001) while reducing the median delay between admission and testing completion from 3.31 to 1.05 days (P = 0.008). Patients tested under the guideline saw a 58% increase in penicillin exposure (P = .046). Institutional aztreonam administration declined from 2.54 to 1.47 administrations per 1000 patient-days (P = .016). Average antibiotic costs per patient tested before and after CDS decreased from $1265.81 to $592.08 USD, a 53% savings.

Conclusions

Targeting penicillin allergy testing to patients on aztreonam yields therapeutic and economic benefits during a single admission. This provides a cost-effective model for inpatient testing.

Evaluation of Penicillin Allergy in the Hospitalized Patient: Opportunities for Antimicrobial Stewardship

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Penicillin allergy is often misdiagnosed and is associated with adverse consequences, but testing is infrequently done in the hospital setting. This article reviews historical and contemporary innovations in inpatient penicillin allergy testing and its impact on antimicrobial stewardship.

RECENT FINDINGS

Adoption of the electronic medical record allows rapid identification of admitted patients carrying a penicillin allergy diagnosis. Collaboration with clinical pharmacists and the development of computerized clinical guidelines facilitates increased testing and appropriate use of penicillin and related β-lactams. Education of patients and their outpatient providers is the key to retaining the benefits of penicillin allergy de-labeling. Penicillin allergy testing is feasible in the hospital and offers tangible benefits towards antimicrobial stewardship. Allergists should take the lead in this endeavor and work towards overcoming personnel limitations by partnering with other health care providers and incorporating technology that improves the efficiency of allergy evaluation.

Penicillin and Beta-Lactam Hypersensitivity

Ten percent of patients report penicillin allergy, but more than 90% of these individuals can tolerate penicillins. Skin testing remains the optimal method for evaluation of possible IgE-mediated penicillin allergy and is recommended by professional societies, as the harms for alternative antibiotics include antimicrobial resistance, prolonged hospitalizations, readmissions, and increased costs. Removal of penicillin allergy leads to decreased utilization of broad-spectrum antibiotics, such as fluoroquinolones and vancomycin. There is minimal allergic cross-reactivity between penicillins and cephalosporins. IgE-mediated allergy to cephalosporins is usually side-chain specific and may warrant graded challenge with cephalosporins containing dissimilar R1 or R2 group side chains.

Clinical outcomes following inpatient penicillin allergy testing: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A documented penicillin allergy is associated with increased morbidity including length of hospital stay and an increased incidence of resistant infections attributed to use of broader-spectrum antibiotics. The aim of the systematic review was to identify whether inpatient penicillin allergy testing affected clinical outcomes during hospitalization.

METHODS

We performed an electronic search of Ovid MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library over the past 20 years. Inpatients having a documented penicillin allergy that underwent penicillin allergy testing were included.

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies met eligibility criteria. Study sample size was between 24 and 252 patients in exclusively inpatient cohorts. Penicillin skin testing (PST) with or without oral amoxicillin challenge was the main intervention described (18 studies). The population-weighted mean for a negative PST was 95.1% [CI 93.8-96.1]. Inpatient penicillin allergy testing led to a change in antibiotic selection that was greater in the intensive care unit (77.97% [CI 72.0-83.1] vs 54.73% [CI 51.2-58.2], P<.01). An increased prescription of penicillin (range 9.9%-49%) and cephalosporin (range 10.7%-48%) antibiotics was reported. Vancomycin and fluoroquinolone use was decreased. Inpatient penicillin allergy testing was associated with decreased healthcare cost in four studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Inpatient penicillin allergy testing is safe and effective in ruling out penicillin allergy. The rate of negative tests is comparable to outpatient and perioperative data. Patients with a documented penicillin allergy who require penicillin should be tested during hospitalization given its benefit for individual patient outcomes and antibiotic stewardship.

Feasibility, Benefits, and Limitations of a Penicillin Allergy Skin Testing Service

OBJECTIVE

To critically examine the feasibility, benefits, and limitations of an inpatient penicillin skin testing service and how pharmacists can be utilized.

DATA SOURCES

A PubMed search was performed from July 2016 through September 2016 using the following search terms: penicillin skin testing, penicillin allergy, β-lactam allergy. Additional references were identified from a review of literature citations.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

All English-language studies assessing the use of penicillin skin testing as well as management and clinical outcomes of patients with a β-lactam allergy were evaluated.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The prevalence of people self-identifying as penicillin allergic ranges from 10% to 20% in the United States. Being improperly labeled as penicillin allergic is associated with higher health care costs, worse clinical outcomes, and an increased prevalence of multidrug-resistant infections. Penicillin skin testing can be a tool used to clarify penicillin allergies and has been demonstrated to be a successful addition to antimicrobial stewardship programs in multiple health care settings. Prior to implementing a penicillin skin testing service, institutions will need to perform a feasibility analysis of who will supply labor and accept the financial burden as well as identify if the positive benefits of a penicillin skin testing service overcome the limitations of this diagnostic test.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that institutions with high percentages of patients receiving non-β-lactams because of penicillin allergy labels would likely benefit the most from a penicillin skin testing service.

Penicillin skin testing is a safe and effective tool for evaluating penicillin allergy in the pediatric population

BACKGROUND

Penicillin skin testing has been validated in the evaluation of adult patients with penicillin allergy. However, the commercially available benzylpenicilloyl polylysine (Pre-Pen) is not indicated in the pediatric population. Moreover, the safety and validity of penicillin skin testing in the pediatric population has not been well studied.

OBJECTIVE

We describe the safety and validity of penicillin skin testing in the evaluation of children with a history of penicillin allergy.

METHODS

Children (<18 years) with a history of penicillin allergy were evaluated with penicillin skin tests and were reviewed for basic demographics, penicillin skin test results, adverse drug reaction to penicillin after penicillin skin test, and adverse reaction to penicillin skin test. By using the χ(2) test, we compared the differences in the proportion of children and adults with a positive penicillin skin test. P value (<.05) was considered statistically significant. The institutional review board approved the study, and all the subjects signed written informed consents.

RESULTS

A total of 778 children underwent penicillin skin testing; 703 of 778 patients had a negative penicillin skin test (90.4%), 66 had a positive test (8.5%), and 9 had an equivocal test (1.1%). Children were more likely to have a positive penicillin skin test (P < .0001) compared with adults (64 of 1759 [3.6%]); 369 of 703 patients with negative penicillin skin test (52%) were challenged with penicillin, and 14 of 369 patients (3.8%) had an adverse drug reaction. No adverse reactions to penicillin skin testing were observed.

CONCLUSION

Penicillin skin testing was safe and effective in the evaluation of children with a history of penicillin allergy.

Evaluation of antibiotic allergy: the role of skin tests and drug challenges

Antibiotic allergies are frequently reported in both adult and pediatric populations. While a detailed drug history is essential in the evaluation of antibiotic allergy, the history is typically insufficient to determine the presence of a drug allergy. The most readily available diagnostic testing for evaluating antibiotic allergies are drug skin testing and drug challenges. This review will focus on updates in the evaluation of antibiotic allergy utilizing immediate skin tests, delayed intradermal testing, drug patch tests, and drug challenges for both adults and children with histories of antibiotic allergies.

Beta-Lactam Hypersensitivity and Cross-Reactivity

Penicillin is the most frequently reported cause of drug allergy, and cross-reactivity of penicillins with other beta-lactam antibiotics is an area of debate. This review evaluates the available data on immunoglobulin E-mediated penicillin hypersensitivity and cross-reactivity with cephalosporin, carbapenem, and monobactam antibiotics. A MEDLINE search was conducted from 1950 to October 2013, and selected references from review articles were also evaluated. There is a wide variety in reported incidences of cross-reactivity between penicillins and cephalosporins or carbapenems, with early retrospective studies suggesting up to 41.7% and 47.4% cross-reactivity, respectively. Conversely, the use of monobactam antibiotics is frequently employed in the case of a penicillin allergy, as prescribers believe that there is no cross-reactivity between the 2 drug classes. More recent prospective studies suggest that the rates of cross-reactivity with cephalosporins and carbapenems are <5% and <1%, respectively. Similarities in penicillin and cephalosporin side chains may play a role in cross-reactivity between these classes. Cross-reactivity with monobactams is essentially negligible; however, there are some clinical data to support an interaction between ceftazidime and aztreonam, due to the similarity of their side chains. The data reviewed suggest that avoidance of other beta-lactams in patients with type 1 hypersensitivity to penicillins should be reconsidered.

Treatment of patients with a history of penicillin allergy in a large tertiary-care academic hospital

BACKGROUND

Prescribing antibiotics to patients with a history of penicillin allergy is common in clinical practice. Opting for non-beta-lactam antibiotics has its inconveniences and is often unnecessary, because most of these patients are in fact not allergic.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine how physicians in a large Canadian tertiary-care academic hospital without allergists on staff treat patients with a history of penicillin allergy.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted during a 1-year period among all patients hospitalized in the intensive care unit, coronary care unit, and internal medicine wards. Files of patients with a record of penicillin allergy were reviewed to assess the need for antibiotics during their hospitalization and the decision-making process underlying the choice of antibiotic. The additional costs of alternative antibiotics were calculated.

RESULTS

The files of 1738 patients admitted over a 1-year period were hand reviewed. A history of penicillin allergy was found in 172 patients (9.9%). The allergic reaction was described in only 30% of cases and left unmentioned in 20.7%. Beta-lactam antibiotics were used on 56 occasions despite a history of penicillin allergy. The use of alternative antibiotics in place of the beta-lactam standard of care carried an additional cost of $15,672 Canadian.

CONCLUSION

Alleged penicillin allergy is common among hospitalized patients and leads to substantial additional costs. Poor documentation of penicillin allergy likely reflects a lack of knowledge on this issue in the medical community, which impairs optimal treatment of these patients. Increased education on this matter is needed, and allergists on staff could be part of the solution.

Practical management of antibiotic allergy in adults

This review looks at the main issues around immediate hypersensitivity and the role and limitations of testing. The majority of literature on antibiotic hypersensitivity relates to β-lactam antibiotics, mainly because of the heavy usage of this class of drugs. Concerns around cross-reactivity always worry clinicians, particularly in the emergency situation. Reasonable data now exist in relation to β-lactam antibiotics and derivatives, which enable appropriate risk management to be undertaken. The available literature for other classes of antibiotics is also discussed.

Penicillin skin testing in the evaluation and management of penicillin allergy

OBJECTIVE

to review the role of penicillin skin testing in the evaluation and management of penicillin allergy mediated by IgE.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed and OVID search of English-language articles regarding penicillin allergy, penicillin allergy testing, and management of penicillin allergy.

STUDY SELECTION

articles pertinent to the subject matter were selected and reviewed.

RESULTS

the major determinant (benzylpenicillin polylysine) detects the greatest number of penicillin allergic patients during skin testing, and the minor determinants of penicillin increase the sensitivity of penicillin skin testing. Penicillin skin testing to the major and minor determinants was found to have a negative predictive value of 97% to 99%. The incidence of systemic adverse reaction to penicillin skin testing is less than 1%.

CONCLUSION

a detailed history of the prior reaction to penicillin is an integral part of the evaluation, but it is not accurate in predicting a positive penicillin skin test result. A patient with a negative penicillin skin test result to the major and minor determinants is at a low risk of an immediate-type hypersensitivity reaction to penicillin. Patients with a positive skin test result should undergo desensitization to penicillin or an alternative antibiotic should be considered.

The current practice of skin testing for antibiotics in Korean hospitals

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Antibiotic skin testing is a useful procedure for identifying patients with IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to antibiotics. The procedures, however, have not been standardized, and the testing is performed with diverse protocols in Korean hospitals wards. Thus, we examined the current practice of antibiotic skin testing in Korea.

METHODS

We sent questionnaires to 12 allergists working in secondary or tertiary referral hospitals and collected them by e-mail or fax. The questionnaire included items such as the types and concentrations of the tested antibiotics, the methods of antibiotic skin testing, and the interpretation of the results.

RESULTS

All hospitals responded to the questionnaire. The antibiotic skin testing protocols were variable, inconsistent, and differed with regard to the type and concentrations of antibiotics, the volume injected, and the interpretation of the results. Moreover, the protocols differed from the commonly recommended procedures in the medical literature.

CONCLUSIONS

Standardized guidelines for antibiotic skin testing are needed for the safe and effective use of antibiotics in Korea.

Nonimmediate reactions to betalactams

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Nonimmediate reactions to beta-lactams include several clinical entities, from maculopapular rash to severe reactions such as Steven-Johnson syndrome. Toxic epidermal necrolysis and organ-specific reactions may also occur.

RECENT FINDINGS

Progress has been made in understanding the role of the immunological system in nonimmediate reactions to beta-lactams. Different T-cell subsets recognize beta-lactams after haptenation of serum or cell proteins in the context of major histocompatibility complex. Studies using T-cell lines and clones have shown that a heterogeneous response is generated, with the expression of different cytokine profiles. Betalactams also act on dendritic cells, inducing changes that enable them to interact with naïve lymphocytes, becoming memory T cells. Tissue-activated CD4 and CD8 cells express perforin and other cytotoxic mediators that elicit the lesions. Studies on the clinical course of these entities indicate that cells migrate, establishing a recirculation with homing to the skin and back to the circulation. These cells thus participate not only in skin lesions but probably also in the repair process.

SUMMARY

Understanding the immunological mechanisms involved in nonimmediate reactions to beta-lactams has improved over the last few years, with better definition of the different T-cell subpopulations involved. Experimental studies and monitoring of the response support the implication of different cell subsets.

Penicillin allergy skin testing: what do we do now?

Drug-induced anaphylaxis remains a relatively infrequent event. However, penicillin and associated beta-lactam antibiotics remain a primary cause of anaphylaxis. Penicillin allergies are undoubtedly overreported, and patients with suspected penicillin allergy can be treated with antibiotic alternatives. Penicillin allergy skin testing is a simple and effective way to identify true penicillin allergy. Skin testing involves testing for both major and minor determinants and should be conducted in a facility with available life-support equipment. The commercial major determinant product, benzylpenicilloyl-polylysine, was removed from the market in 2004; this action compromised the ability of clinicians to evaluate a patient's likely response to penicillin therapy. Alternatives to skin testing include laboratory synthesis of major determinants, use of the radioallergosorbent test (RAST), or a combination of RAST and minor determinant skin testing. Patients with suspected penicillin allergy can undergo desensitization if they require penicillin therapy. The planned return of a commercial major determinant will hopefully resolve this issue.

Penicillin skin testing in patients with a history of beta-lactam allergy

BACKGROUND

Vancomycin and fluoroquinolones are commonly used in patients with a history of penicillin allergy.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the safety and utility of penicillin skin testing (PST).

METHODS

Retrospective study of patients with a history of penicillin allergy between April 1, 1999, and September 30, 2004. Penicillin skin testing was performed by means of standard methods using benzylpenicilloyl-polysine, penicillin G, and histamine and saline controls.

RESULTS

Of 596 patients studied, 25.3% were outpatients, 50.3% were inpatients, and 24.3% were intensive care unit patients. The most common antibiotics used during the time of PST were vancomycin and fluoroquinolones. Results of PST were negative in 88.4% of patients, positive in 8.2%, and indeterminate in 3.4%. One patient (0.17%) developed urticaria immediately after PST. Fifty-five percent of patients with negative PST results were changed to a beta-lactam drug, more frequently in the intensive care unit vs the outpatient setting (70.3% vs 8.6%; P < .001) and in adults vs patients younger than 18 years (58.6% vs 8.1%; P < .001). A beta-lactam antibiotic was used in 290 patients with negative PST results. Of the patients given beta-lactam antibiotics, 5 (1.7%) had adverse reactions: 2 had hives after 16 and 20 days of therapy, 1 had a nonspecific rash after 17 days of therapy, 1 had flushing and urticaria 3 hours after a test dose of piperacillin-tazobactam, and 1 had a pruritic rash after 12 hours of therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with a history of penicillin allergy can safely use beta-lactam drugs if negative PST results.