The democratization of de-labeling: a review of direct oral challenge in adults with low-risk penicillin allergy

Oral challenge vs routine care to assess low-risk penicillin allergy in critically ill hospital patients (ORACLE): a pilot safety and feasibility randomised controlled trial

PURPOSE

Critically ill patients are vulnerable to penicillin allergy labels that may be incorrect. The validity of skin testing in intensive care units (ICUs) is uncertain. Many penicillin allergy labels are low risk, and validated tools exist to identify those amenable to direct oral challenge. This pilot randomised controlled trial explored the feasibility, safety, and validity of direct enteral challenge for low-risk penicillin allergy labels in critical illness.

METHODS

Consenting patients with a low-risk penicillin allergy label (PAL) (PEN-FAST risk assessment score < 3) in four ICUs (Melbourne, Australia) were randomised 1:1 to penicillin (250 mg amoxicillin or implicated penicillin) direct enteral challenge versus routine care (2-h post-randomisation observation for each arm). Repeat challenge was performed post -ICU in the intervention arm. Patients were reviewed at 24 h and 5 days after each challenge/observation.

RESULTS

We screened 533 patients. 130 (24.4%) were eligible and 80/130 (61.5%) enrolled (age median 64.5 years (interquartile range, IQR 53.5, 74), PEN-FAST median 1 (IQR 0,1)), with 40 (50%) randomised to direct enteral challenge. A positive challenge rate of 2.5% was identified. No antibiotic-associated serious adverse events were identified. 32/40 (80%) received a repeat challenge (zero positive). Post-randomisation, 13 (32%) of the intervention arm and 4 (10%) of the control arm received penicillin (odds ratio, OR 4.33 [1.27, 14.78] p = 0.019).

CONCLUSION

These findings support the safety, validity, and feasibility of direct enteral challenge for critically ill patients with PEN-FAST assessed low-risk penicillin allergy. The absence of false negative results was confirmed by subsequent negative repeat challenges. A relatively low recruitment to screened ratio suggests that more inclusive eligibility criteria and integration of allergy assessment into routine ICU processes are needed to optimise allergy delabelling in critical illness.

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.

A retrospective case-control study to evaluate the use of beta-lactam desensitization in the management of penicillin-allergic patients: a potential strategy for Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs

Introduction: Penicillin allergy labels (PAL) are common in the hospital setting and are associated with worse clinical outcomes. Desensitization can be a useful strategy for allergic patients when alternative options are suboptimal or not available. The aim was to compare clinical outcomes of patients with PAL managed with antibiotic desensitization vs. those who received alternative non-beta-lactam antibiotic treatments. Methods: A retrospective 3:1 case-control study was performed between 2015-2022. Cases were adult PAL patients with infection who required antibiotic desensitization; controls were PAL patients with infection managed with an alternative antibiotic treatment. Cases and controls were adjusted for age, sex, infection source, and critical or non-critical medical services. Results: Fifty-six patients were included: 14 in the desensitization group, 42 in the control group. Compared to the control group, desensitized PAL patients had more comorbidities, with a higher Charlson index (7.4 vs. 5; p = 0.00) and more infections caused by multidrug-resistant (MDR) pathogens (57.1% vs. 28.6%; p = 0.05). Thirty-day mortality was 14.3% in the desensitized group, 28.6% in the control group (p = 0.24). Clinical cure occurred in 71.4% cases and 54.8% controls (p = 0.22). Four control patients selected for MDR strains after alternative treatment; selection of MDR strains did not occur in desensitized patients. Five controls had antibiotic-related adverse events, including Clostridioides difficile or nephrotoxicity. No antibiotic-related adverse events were found in the study group. In multivariate analysis, no differences between groups were observed for main variables. Conclusion: Desensitization was not associated with worse clinical outcomes, despite more severe patients in this group. Our study suggests that antibiotic desensitization may be a useful Antimicrobial Stewardship tool for the management of selected PAL patients.

Efficacy of a Clinical Decision Rule to Enable Direct Oral Challenge in Patients With Low-Risk Penicillin Allergy: The PALACE Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Fewer than 5% of patients labeled with a penicillin allergy are truly allergic. The standard of care to remove the penicillin allergy label in adults is specialized testing involving prick and intradermal skin testing followed by an oral challenge with penicillin. Skin testing is resource intensive, limits practice to specialist-trained physicians, and restricts the global population who could undergo penicillin allergy delabeling.

Objective

To determine whether a direct oral penicillin challenge is noninferior to the standard of care of penicillin skin testing followed by an oral challenge in patients with a low-risk penicillin allergy.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This parallel, 2-arm, noninferiority, open-label, multicenter, international randomized clinical trial occurred in 6 specialized centers, 3 in North America (US and Canada) and 3 in Australia, from June 18, 2021, to December 2, 2022. Eligible adults had a PEN-FAST score lower than 3. PEN-FAST is a prospectively derived and internationally validated clinical decision rule that enables point-of-care risk assessment for adults reporting penicillin allergies.

Interventions

Patients were randomly assigned to either direct oral challenge with penicillin (intervention arm) or a standard-of-care arm of penicillin skin testing followed by oral challenge with penicillin (control arm).

Main Outcome and Measure

The primary outcome was a physician-verified positive immune-mediated oral penicillin challenge within 1 hour postintervention in the intention-to-treat population. Noninferiority was achieved if a 1-sided 95% CI of the risk difference (RD) did not exceed 5 percentage points (pp).

Results

A total of 382 adults were randomized, with 377 patients (median [IQR] age, 51 [35-65] years; 247 [65.5%] female) included in the analysis: 187 in the intervention group and 190 in the control group. Most patients had a PEN-FAST score of 0 or 1. The primary outcome occurred in 1 patient (0.5%) in the intervention group and 1 patient (0.5%) in the control group, with an RD of 0.0084 pp (90% CI, -1.22 to 1.24 pp). The 1-sided 95% CI was below the noninferiority margin of 5 pp. In the 5 days following the oral penicillin challenge, 9 immune-mediated adverse events were recorded in the intervention group and 10 in the control group (RD, -0.45 pp; 95% CI, -4.87 to 3.96 pp). No serious adverse events occurred.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial, direct oral penicillin challenge in patients with a low-risk penicillin allergy was noninferior compared with standard-of-care skin testing followed by oral challenge. In patients with a low-risk history, direct oral penicillin challenge is a safe procedure to facilitate the removal of a penicillin allergy label.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04454229.

Oral challenge vs routine care to assess low-risk penicillin allergy in critically ill hospital patients (ORACLE): a pilot randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Self-reported penicillin allergies are highly prevalent in hospitalised patients and are associated with poor health and health service outcomes. Critically ill patients have historically been underrepresented in prospective delabelling studies in part due to concerns around clinical stability and reliability of penicillin skin testing. Allergy assessment tools exist to identify low-risk penicillin allergy phenotypes and facilitate direct oral challenge delabelling. PEN-FAST is a clinical decision rule that has been validated to predict true penicillin allergy in a cohort of non-critically ill patients. There is however limited evidence regarding the feasibility, safety and efficacy of direct oral challenges and the use of delabelling clinical decisions rules in the intensive care setting.

METHODS

Critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) with low-risk penicillin allergy phenotypes (PEN-FAST score < 3) will be randomised 1:1 to direct oral penicillin challenge (single dose 250 mg oral amoxicillin or implicated penicillin) or routine care, followed by a 2-h observation period. Patients will receive a second oral challenge/observation prior to hospital discharge (with subsequent observation for 2 h). An assessment for antibiotic-associated adverse events will also be undertaken at 24 h and 5 days post each challenge/observation and again at 90 days post-randomisation. The primary outcome measures are feasibility (proportion of eligible patients recruited and protocol compliance) and safety (proportion of patients who experience an antibiotic-associated immune-mediated adverse event or serious adverse event).

DISCUSSION

We will report the feasibility and safety of point-of-care penicillin direct oral challenge in this first randomised controlled trial of low-risk penicillin allergy in critically ill hospitalised patients. Upon completion of the project, important findings will inform the design of planned large prospective multi-centre clinical trials in Australian and international ICUs, further examining safety and efficacy and exploring antimicrobial prescribing-related outcomes following penicillin oral challenge.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry Registration Number: ACTRN12621000051842 Date registered: 20/01/2021 https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=379735&isReview=true.

The Who, What, When, and Where of Inpatient Direct Oral Penicillin Challenge-Implications for Health Services Implementation

Inpatient direct oral challenge programs are increasingly deployed as part of antimicrobial stewardship initiatives to reduce the burden and impacts of penicillin allergy labels on antibiotic prescribing. Using data from a prospective, multicenter cohort inpatient penicillin allergy program, we identify the key targets for delabeling to aid health service implementation.

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.

Antibiotic desensitization as a potential tool in antimicrobial stewardship programs: retrospective data analysis and systematic literature review

OBJECTIVES

Antibiotic allergy labels (AAL) are related to worse therapeutic results. Strategies to improve the management of these patients, such as the implementation of antibiotic desensitization, are essential for Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs (ASP). The aim of our study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of antibiotic desensitization procedures for the management of patients with AAL.

METHODS

A retrospective study from 2015 to 2022 was performed to describe all antibiotic desensitization conducted in our institution, within the framework of ASP. A systematic literature review using electronic databases, such as PubMed, was also done to identify studies describing antibiotic desensitization between 2000 and 2022.

RESULTS

Sixteen antibiotic desensitization protocols were carried out in our institution. In fourteen cases, the desensitization was successfully completed, and the antibiotic could be used to treat the infection. In the systematic review, twenty-two studies were included, with a total of 202 desensitization episodes . In 97% of them, the desensitization was completed successfully. No desensitization-related mortality was observed neither in our cohort nor in literature review.

CONCLUSIONS

Antibiotic desensitization strategies should be considered a safe and effective tool that can be included in ASP for patients with a high risk of or confirmed allergy to penicillin.

Effects of pH and Metal Ions on the Hydrothermal Treatment of Penicillin: Kinetic, Pathway, and Antibacterial Activity

Antibiotic residues lead to the risk of resistance gene enrichment, which is the main reason why penicillin mycelial dreg (PMD) is defined as hazardous waste. Hydrothermal treatment (HT) is an effective method to treat penicillin mycelial dreg, but the degradation mechanism of penicillin is unclear. In the study, we researched the effects of pH (4-10) at 80-100 °C and metal ions (Mn²⁺, Fe²⁺, Cu²⁺, and Zn²⁺) at several concentrations on the HT of penicillin, identified the degradation products (DPs) under different conditions, and evaluated the antibacterial activity of hydrothermally treated samples. The results show that penicillin degradation kinetics highly consistent with pseudo-first-order model (R² = 0.9447-0.9999). The degradation rates (k) at pH = 4, 7, and 10 were 0.1603, 0.0039, and 0.0485 min^-1, indicating acidic conditions were more conducive to penicillin degradation. Among the four tested metal ions, Zn²⁺ had the most significant catalytic effect. Adding 5 mg·L^-1 Zn²⁺ caused 100% degradation rate at pH = 7 after HT for 60 min. Six degradation products (DPs) with low mass-to-charge (m/z ≤ 335) were detected under acidic condition. However, only two and three DPs were observed in the samples catalyzed by Zn²⁺ and alkali, respectively, and penilloic acid (m/z = 309) was the main DPs under these conditions. Furthermore, no antibacterial activity to Bacillus pumilus was detected in the medium with up to 50% addition of the treated samples under acidic condition. Even though acid, alkali, and some metal ions can improve the degradation ability of penicillin, it was found that the most effective way for removing its anti-bacterial activity was under the acidic condition. Therefore, resistance residue indicates the amount of additive in the process of resource utilization, and avoids the enrichment of resistance genes.

Standards for practical intravenous rapid drug desensitization & delabeling: A WAO committee statement

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) to intravenous drugs can be severe and might leave patients and doctors in a difficult position where an essential treatment or intervention has to be suspended. Even if virtually any intravenous medication can potentially trigger a life-threatening DHR, chemotherapeutics, biologics, and antibiotics are amongst the intravenous drugs most frequently involved in these reactions. Admittedly, suspending such treatments may negatively impact the survival outcomes or the quality of life of affected patients.

Delabeling pathways and rapid drug desensitization (RDD) can help reactive patients stay on first-choice therapies instead of turning to less efficacious, less cost-effective, or more toxic alternatives. However, these are high-complexity and high-risk techniques, which usually need expert teams and allergy-specific techniques (skin testing, in vitro testing, drug provocation testing) to ensure safety, an accurate diagnosis, and personalized management. Unfortunately, there are significant inequalities within and among countries in access to allergy departments with the necessary expertise and resources to offer these techniques and tackle these DHRs optimally.

The main objective of this consensus document is to create a great benefit for patients worldwide by aiding allergists to expand the scope of their practice and support them with evidence, data, and experience from leading groups from around the globe.

This statement of the Drug Hypersensitivity Committee of the World Allergy Organization (WAO) aims to be a comprehensive practical guide on the technical aspects of implementing acute-onset intravenous hypersensitivity delabeling and RDD for a wide range of drugs. Thus, the manuscript does not only focus on clinical pathways. Instead, it also provides guidance on topics usually left unaddressed, namely, internal validation, continuous quality improvement, creating a healthy multidisciplinary environment, and redesigning care (including a specific supplemental section on a real-life example of how to design a dedicated space that can combine basic and complex diagnostic and therapeutic techniques in allergy).

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.

A combined risk modeling strategy for clinical prediction of beta-lactam allergies in children

Background: Drug provocation test (DPT) without skin tests is increasingly recommended in the evaluation of children with low-risk beta-lactam (BL) allergies. However, risk definitions are unclear. Objective: The aim of this study was to compose a clinical predictive model that could identify the children at low risk who could safely undergo direct DPT. Methods: The clinical data of 204 children who underwent a full diagnostic algorithm for suspected BL allergy were analyzed. Clinical data were used to construct mathematical predictive model for confirmed BL allergies. A prospective new sample was used for external validation of the final model. Results: The presentations during the index reaction were anaphylaxis in 5.9% and cutaneous reactions in the majority. BL allergy was confirmed in 15.7% of suspected cases. A backward multiple logistic regression model showed that a family history of drug allergy (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 5.52), anaphylaxis (aOR, 5.14), any atopic disease other than asthma (aOR, 4.38), and a reaction interval of 0-6 hours during the index reaction (aOR, 5.32) were significantly associated with a confirmed BL allergy. A mathematical combined model based on these factors showed a sensitivity of 77.8% and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 94.3%. The validation study replicated sensitivity and NPV values of the main cohort. Conclusion: The risk definition in BL allergies should depend on population-specific predictive models, including a combination of significant risk factors rather than empiric risk approaches. This may help to accurately determinate children at low risk who may safely proceed to direct DPT.

Overview of Beta-Lactam Allergy and the Role of the Pharmacist in Management

Unverified beta-lactam allergies are a substantial public health problem, as the majority of patients labeled as beta-lactam allergic do not have clinically significant allergies that may hinder the use beta-lactam therapy when indicated. Outdated or inaccurate beta-lactam or penicillin allergies can result in serious consequences, including suboptimal antibiotic therapy, increased risk of adverse effects, and use of broader spectrum antibiotics than indicated, which may contribute to antimicrobial resistance. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of beta-lactam allergy and highlight the role of pharmacists in managing beta-lactam allergies. Studies have shown that pharmacists can play a vital role in allergy assessment, penicillin skin testing, beta-lactam desensitization, evaluation of beta-lactam cross-reactivity and recommending appropriate antibiotic therapy in patients with beta-lactam allergies.