The Impact of Penicillin Skin Testing on Aztreonam Stewardship and Cost Savings in Immunocompromised Cancer Patients

β-Lactam allergy delabeling is safe and saves costs in Primary Care

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the β-lactam allergy delabeling was safe and cost-saving in Primary Care (PC) patients.

DESIGN

We have conducted a retrospective chart review of PC patients with β-lactam allergy label evaluated in our Allergy Unit between 2017 and 2022. SITE: Allergy Department. Hospital Virgen del Rocio (Sevilla).

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 391 patients labeled for β-lactam allergy in PC were studied.

MAIN MEASUREMENTS

(a) Outcome evaluation of a β-lactam allergy delabeling procedure. (b) A ratio between the total e-prescribed antibiotic cost and the number of treatment days (the experimental daily antibiotic cost or EDAC) before and after delabeling was analyzed in delabeled and truly allergic patients.

RESULTS

The results of skin testing were positive in 9.2% of the reported cases (36 of 391 patients). The reactions to oral provocation challenge (OPC) occurred in 2.14% of the patients who underwent negative skin testing to offending β-lactam (in 15 of 699 OPC). A total of 307 patients (78.5%) were delabeled; 70 (17.9%) had a β-lactam selective response and 14 (3.59%) reacted to both penicillin and cephalosporin. The EDAC before and after the procedure in delabeled patients was significantly lower (0.88 € vs 0.62 €, p<10-3), than that observed in truly allergic group (0.87 € vs. 0.76 €, p=not significant).

CONCLUSION

To delabel β-lactam allergy in Primary Care patients is safe in most patients, cost-saving in antibioticotherapy, and allows identify the main clinical β-lactam allergy phenotypes that benefit from this procedure.

A novel 2-step process for the management of inpatient beta-lactam allergy labels

BACKGROUND

Inpatient beta-lactam allergy labels may increase the unnecessary use of aztreonam and non-beta-lactam antibiotics, which can then lead to more adverse events and increased health care costs, OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of a novel 2-step process (medication history review followed by risk stratification) on rates of beta-lactam delabeling, aztreonam use, and desensitizations on pediatric, adult, and obstetrics inpatients at a tertiary academic center.

METHODS

We prospectively collected data on 700 patients who received inpatient consultation from the Beta-Lactam Allergy Evaluation Service between August 2021 and July 2022. Patients were delabeled either by medication review alone, drug challenge alone if with a low-risk history, or penicillin skin test followed by drug challenge if with a high-risk history. Generalized linear regression modeling was used to compare aztreonam days of therapy in the intervention year with the 2 prior years. Drug desensitizations were assessed by electronic chart review.

RESULTS

Most of the patients (n = 656 of 700, 94%) had more than or equal to 1 beta-lactam allergy label removed, clarified, or both; 77.9% of these patients (n = 511 of 656) had 587 beta-lactam allergy labels removed. Nearly one-third (n = 149, 27.6%) had 162 allergy labels removed solely by medication history review. All 114 penicillin skin tests performed had negative results, and 98% (8 of 381) of the patients who underwent any drug challenge passed. Only 5.7% of the delabeled patients were relabeled. There was a 27% reduction in aztreonam use (P = .007). Beta-lactam desensitizations were reduced by 80%.

CONCLUSION

A full-time inpatient beta-lactam allergy service using medication history review and risk stratification can safely and effectively remove inpatient beta-lactam allergy labels, reduce aztreonam use, and decrease beta-lactam desensitizations.

Development of a Pipeline for Removing Allergy Labels in Patients Undergoing Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation

Penicillin allergy is reported by 10% to 20 % of patients, but when evaluated only 1% to 2% may have a true allergy. Patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) have a high likelihood of requiring beta-lactam antibiotics due to increased infection risk, which can be limited by a penicillin allergy label. When a penicillin allergy is recorded, alternatives are needed, including more expensive broader-spectrum antibiotics, with increases in drug-resistant bacteria, longer hospital stays, higher expenditures, and increases in nosocomial infections, such as Clostridium difficile colitis. This group of patients already undergoes extensive pretreatment testing and would especially benefit from allergy delabeling. This study aimed to develop a self-sustaining, low-cost pipeline between an HSCT clinic and an allergy clinic to identify and successfully delabel low-risk patients who endorse an allergy to penicillin, amoxicillin, amoxicillin-clavulanate, piperacillin-tazobactam, or ampicillin before admission to the hospital. We developed a survey to triage allergy risk, identified key stakeholders in building the pipeline, and underwent 4 plan, do, study, act (PDSA) cycles. Changes were made in each of the PDSA cycles to minimize cost and uncompensated provider time, as well as to increase patient retention throughout the pipeline by increasing appointment availability and decreasing reliance on patients to independently progress through the pathway. Of the 410 patients with planned HSCT who were screened over 11 months, 89 (21.7%) were listed as having a penicillin and/or beta lactam allergy. All but 1 (66 of 67; 98.5%) of the participants completed the survey accurately when confirmed by an allergist, and the survey was 100% accurate in predicting delabeling success in low-risk patients. Of eligible patients, 43.8% (n = 39) were successfully delabeled before their transplant date, and 97.4% of these (n = 38) have undergone HSCT to date. This pipeline is maintained by approximately 5 hours of work per week (1 hour of allergy physician time, 4 hours of nurse and/or clinical coordinator time), with no other direct costs. There is an estimated direct savings of at least $1914.93 per patient delabeled. We successfully designed and implemented a pipeline between the HSCT clinic and the allergy clinic as a quality improvement initiative to identify and address high rates of reported beta-lactam allergies. We identified and addressed patient-based factors, logistical, temporal, and financial barriers that impacted patient retention and sustainability. This model is expected to yield significant and sustained cost savings for the healthcare system as well as to improve patient outcomes, and this hypothesis is currently undergoing formal analysis. We anticipate that this model can be used to create a similar pipeline in other healthcare systems for HSCT recipients, as well as patients in other clinical settings, such as oncology and chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy.

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 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.

Beta-lactam allergies, surgical site infections, and prophylaxis in solid organ transplant recipients at a single center: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Beta-lactam allergies (BLAs) are common in hospitalized patients, including transplant recipients. BLA is associated with decreased use of preferred surgical site infection (SSI) prophylaxis and increased SSIs, but this has not been studied in the transplant population.

METHODS

We reviewed adult heart, kidney, and liver transplant recipients between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2019 to characterize reported BLA and collect SSI prophylaxis regimens at time of transplant. We compared the use of preferred SSI prophylaxis and SSI incidence based on reported BLA status. Post hoc we collected antibiotic days of therapy (DOT) (excluding pneumocystis prophylaxis) in the 30-day period posttransplant for patients without SSI. We utilized descriptive statistics for comparisons.

RESULTS

Of 691 patients included (116 heart, 400 kidney, and 175 liver transplant recipients), 118 (17%) reported BLA. Rash and hives were the two most reported BLA reactions (36% and 24%), categorized as potential T-cell mediated and IgE mediated, respectively. Preferred SSI prophylaxis was prescribed in 13 (11%) patients with BLA and 573 (92%) without BLA (p < .001). No difference could be detected in SSI incidence between BLA and non-BLA patients (4.2 vs. 4.3%, p = 1.0). Of 659 without SSI, 169 (25.6%) received antibiotics within 30 days of transplant; mean antibiotic DOT for BLA and non-BLA patients were 3.5 ± 8.0 versus 2.3 ± 5.8, p = .12.

CONCLUSION

BLA transplant recipients received nonpreferred SSI prophylaxis more frequently than non-BLA recipients, but there was no difference in 30-day SSIs between the groups. One-fourth of solid organ transplant recipients received systemic antibiotics within 30 days of transplant.

Antimicrobial stewardship in solid organ transplant recipients: Current challenges and proposed metrics

BACKGROUND

Solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients are challenging populations for antimicrobial stewardship interventions due to a variety of reasons, including immunosuppression, consequent risk of opportunistic and donor-derived infections, high rates of infection with multi-drug resistant organisms (MDROs), Clostridioides difficile, and need for prolonged antimicrobial prophylaxis. Despite this, data on stewardship interventions and metrics that address the distinct needs of these patients are limited.

METHODS

We performed a narrative review of the current state of antimicrobial stewardship in SOT recipients, existing interventions and metrics in this population, and considerations for implementation of transplant-specific stewardship programs.

RESULTS

Antimicrobial stewardship metrics are evolving even in the general patient population. Data on metrics applicable to the SOT population are even more limited. Standard process, outcomes, and balancing metrics may not always apply to the SOT population. A successful stewardship program for SOT recipients requires reviewing existing data, applying general stewardship principles, and understanding the nuances of SOT patients.

CONCLUSION

As antimicrobial stewardship interventions are being implemented in SOT recipients; new metrics are needed to assess their impact. In conclusion, SOT patients present a challenging but important opportunity for antimicrobial stewards.

ABBREVIATIONS

SOT, antimicrobial stewardship program, MDRO, Clostridioides difficile infection, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Infectious Diseases Society of America, prospective audit and feedback, hematopoietic cell transplant, cytomegalovirus, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, surgical site infections, nucleic acid amplification testing, days of therapy, defined daily dose, and length of stay.

Overcoming challenges to removing inappropriate penicillin allergy labels: A quality improvement report

Over 3 months, we provided monthly education to internal medicine residents and distributed resources regarding penicillin-allergy history taking. Allergy information in the electronic record was updated more often during the intervention compared to the period before the intervention (16.1% vs 10.9%; P = .02). Education and interdepartmental collaboration have the potential to affect provider behavior.

BET 2: The accuracy of self-reported penicillin allergies in adults

A short-cut review of the available medical literature was carried out to establish the proportion of patients who self-report an allergy to penicillin have a true penicillin allergy. After abstract review, four papers were found to answer this clinical question. The author, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes, results and study weaknesses of these papers are tabulated. It is concluded that many adults who self-report a penicillin allergy are probably not allergic to penicillin antibiotics.

The economics of drug allergy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

As drug allergy research aims to inform clinical practice, implementation of best practices may be influenced by financial resources required to incorporate new interventions and the resulting clinical and economic returns on those resource investments. The present review summarizes new insights into the economics of drug allergy over the past year.

RECENT FINDINGS

While considering economic implications of recent drug allergy research, many studies have addressed different contextual factors related to the setting, provider, or outcomes. Advances in technology have enabled specialized allergists to support remote settings through telemedicine consultation. Training opportunities and interdisciplinary approaches to address drug allergy challenges have enabled multiple provider types to play a role in screening, diagnosis, and management. Penicillin allergy testing has been a major focus for many institutions, with several studies focused on de-labeling strategies including confirmatory skin testing and direct oral challenges.

SUMMARY

Studies over the past year provide new opportunities for the field of drug allergy research. The focus of current research to capture direct health costs or savings associated with drug allergy interventions demonstrates opportunity for more cost-effective care delivery and opportunity to explore greater benefits to society.