The economics of drug allergy

Safe Penicillin Allergy Delabeling in Primary Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Ten percent of the population is labeled as allergic to penicillin(s), when in fact 90% of these labels are inappropriate. Recent studies have shown that inpatient delabeling by a direct drug challenge (dDC) is safe in low-risk patients. However, there is a need for outpatient and nonallergist delabeling.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the safety of delabeling low-risk adults by means of dDC in primary care.

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to March 15, 2022 (updated June 5, 2023) for studies performing dDC in adults in primary care or other outpatient settings. Two researchers independently screened studies for eligibility. The data extraction and critical appraisal were performed by 1 reviewer, and we pooled the results in a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Of 2138 results, 12 studies (1070 participants) were eligible for inclusion. Three studies evaluated delabeling in primary care and 9 studies in an outpatient hospital setting. There were no critical adverse events during dDC. No reaction occurred in 97.13% of the 1070 patients, who previously labeled as penicillin-allergic, and were safely delabeled. Ten patients (<1%) developed an immediate reaction: 3 had self-limiting reactions and 7 needed antihistaminics, steroids, epinephrine, and/or salbutamol.

CONCLUSIONS

No serious allergic reactions are observed during direct amoxicillin challenge in adults in an outpatient setting. However, with the exception of 1 recent report, these studies are of low to moderate quality. Nonspecialist delabeling is promising, but further research is required on correct risk stratification and safety assessment in large cohort studies evaluating dDC in primary care.

Ethics of antibiotic allergy

Antibiotic allergies are commonly reported among patients, but most do not experience reactions on rechallenge with the same agents. These reported allergies complicate management of infections in patients labelled as having penicillin allergy, including serious infections where penicillin-based antibiotics are the first-line (most effective and least toxic) treatment option. Allergy labels are rarely questioned in clinical practice, with many clinicians opting for inferior second-line antibiotics to avoid a perceived risk of allergy. Reported allergies thereby can have significant impacts on patients and public health, and present major ethical challenges. Antibiotic allergy testing has been described as a strategy to circumvent this dilemma, but it carries limitations that often make it less feasible in patients with acute infections or in community settings that lack access to allergy testing. This article provides an empirically informed ethical analysis of key considerations in this clinical dilemma, using Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia in patients with penicillin allergies as a case study. We argue that prescribing first-line penicillin-based antibiotics to patients with reported allergies may often present a more favourable ratio of benefits to risks, and may therefore be more ethically appropriate than using second-line drugs. We recommend changes to policy-making, clinical research and medical education, in order to promote more ethically acceptable responses to antibiotic allergies than the status quo.

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).