De-labelling self-reported penicillin allergy within the emergency department through the use of skin tests and oral drug provocation testing

Delabeling, safety, and impact of β-lactam allergy testing: A systematic review

Background

To improve β-lactam delabeling outcomes, we need to understand current practice and the evidence base regarding its outcomes, safety, and impact.

Objectives

We sought to assess the existing published evidence reporting on the effectiveness of penicillin allergy testing and delabeling.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of studies reporting β-lactam delabeling practices and outcomes after testing, including β-lactam use and patient understanding of the delabeling result. Searches of the PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases; clinical trial registries; and websites of professional organizations were conducted. Data were extracted from the included studies in duplicate, with a third extraction if discrepancies remained.

Results

We included 284 publications (covering 98,316 participants); 173 were prospective studies, with no randomized controlled trials. The overall study quality was low. In all, 95.6% of individuals who underwent provocation testing were delabeled. Factors associated with successful delabeling could not be determined because of significant heterogeneity between studies. Anaphylaxis due to testing occurred in 0.3% of participants (95 of 31,667). Subjects who did not undergo skin testing (6,980 patients in 31 studies) before challenge had higher rates of provocation test positivity (8.8% vs 4.1% [P < .0001]) and anaphylaxis (15.9% vs 2.7% [P < .0001]) than those subjects who underwent skin testing (51,607 patients in 177 studies). Six studies (2.1%) followed patients after testing to assess their adherence to prescribing recommendations. In all, 136 participants (20.6%) were actively avoiding β-lactams despite delabeling.

Conclusions

The available data suggest that penicillin allergy testing is safe and effective in delabeling most individuals, but the evidence base is incomplete and more work is required to assess the role of skin testing and the impact that delabeling is having on prescribing habits.

Use of a beta-lactam graded challenge process for inpatients with self-reported penicillin allergies at an academic medical center

Background

The Antimicrobial Stewardship Program (ASP) at Nebraska Medicine collaborated with a board-certified allergist to develop a penicillin allergy guidance document for treating inpatients with self-reported allergy. This guidance contains an algorithm for evaluating and safely challenging penicillin-allergic patients with beta-lactams without inpatient allergy consults being available.

Methods

Following multi-disciplinary review, an order set for beta-lactam graded challenges (GC) was implemented in 2018. This contains recommended monitoring and detailed medication orders to challenge patients with various beta-lactam agents. Inpatient orders for GC from 3/2018-6/2022 were retrospectively reviewed to evaluate ordering characteristics, outcomes of the challenge, and whether documentation of the allergy history was updated. All beta-lactam challenges administered to inpatients were included, and descriptive statistics were performed.

Results

Overall, 157 GC were administered; 13 with oral amoxicillin and 144 with intravenous (IV) beta-lactams. Ceftriaxone accounted for the most challenges (43%). All oral challenges were recommended by an Infectious Diseases consult service, as were a majority of IV challenges (60%). Less than one in five were administered in an ICU (19%). Almost all (n = 150, 96%) were tolerated without any adverse event. There was one reaction (1%) of hives and six (4%) involving a rash, none of which had persistent effects. Allergy information was updated in the electronic health record after 92% of the challenges.

Conclusion

Both intravenous and oral beta-lactam graded challenges were implemented successfully in a hospital without a regular inpatient allergy consult service. They were well-tolerated, administered primarily in non-ICU settings, and were often ordered by non-specialist services. In patients with a self-reported penicillin allergy, these results demonstrate the utility and safety of a broadly adopted beta-lactam GC process.

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 Dutch Working Party on Antibiotic Policy (SWAB) guideline for the approach to suspected antibiotic allergy

OBJECTIVES

Prudent handling of reported antibiotic allergy is an important aspect of antibiotic stewardship. The Dutch Working Party on Antibiotic Policy (SWAB) constituted a multidisciplinary expert committee to provide evidence-based recommendations for bedside decision making in antibiotic therapy in patients that report an antibiotic allergy.

METHODS

The guideline committee generated 12 key questions, most of which were population, intervention, comparison and outcome (PICO) questions relevant for both children and adults with suspected antibiotic allergy. For each question a systematic literature search was performed and reviewed for the best available evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Quality of evidence was graded from very low to high and recommendations were formulated in structured discussions as strong or weak.

RESULTS

Sixty recommendations were provided for suspected allergy to beta-lactam antibiotics (BLA) and non-beta-lactam antibiotics (NBLA). Due to the absence of randomized controlled trials in this field, the underlying evidence was predominantly graded as low or very low. Available data supports that a detailed allergy history should always be performed and critically appraised. When cross-allergy between BLA groups is not to be expected due to absence of molecular similarity of the side chains, the patient can be safely exposed to the alternative BLA. An exception to this rule are severe delayed type reactions, in which reexposure to a BLA should only be considered after consultation of a multidisciplinary team.

CONCLUSIONS

Accumulated scientific data now supports a more liberal approach that better balances benefits of treatment with first choice and usually smaller spectrum antibiotics with appropriate avoidance of antibiotics in case of a truly high risk of a (severe) allergic reaction. In the Netherlands, a formal guideline was developed that provides recommendations for the approach towards suspected allergy to BLA and frequently used NBLA, thereby strongly supporting antimicrobial stewardship.

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.

Tools to improve the diagnosis and management of T-cell mediated adverse drug reactions

Delayed drug T-cell immune-mediated hypersensitivity reactions have a large clinical heterogeneity varying from mild maculopapular exanthema (MPE) to severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCARs) such as acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) and severe skin necrosis and blistering as seen in Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN). Given the knowledge gaps related to the immunopathogenesis of these conditions, the absence of validated diagnostic tools and the significant associated morbidity and mortality, patients with SCARs often have limited drug choices. We performed a comprehensive review aiming to evaluate in vivo diagnostic tools such as delayed intradermal skin and patch testing and ex vivo/in vitro research assays such as the lymphocyte transformation test (LTT) and the enzyme-linked ImmunoSpot (ELISpot) assay. We searched through PubMed using the terms “drug allergy,” “in vivo” and “ex vivo” for original papers in the last 10 years. A detailed meticulous approach adapted to the various clinical phenotypes is recommended for the diagnostic and management of delayed drug hypersensitivity reactions. This review highlights the current diagnostic tools for the delayed drug hypersensitivity phenotypes.

Standardized testing and written communication improve patient understanding of beta-lactam allergy testing outcomes: A multicenter, prospective study

Background

Historical penicillin allergy is commonly reported, but the lack of standardized allergy clinic practices may diminish the ability to delabel beta-lactam allergy appropriately.

Objective

We sought to improve beta-lactam allergy testing and patient understanding of their antibiotic allergy status by standardizing testing and communication practices between 7 adult and pediatric hospital centers.

Methods

Phase 1 prospectively described the beta-lactam allergy testing practices at each center. Following this, practice was standardized to achieve a defined panel of skin testing reagents, pro forma result letters for patients and referring doctors, and provision of medical alert jewelry to those with confirmed allergy. Testing outcomes and patient perception regarding allergy status 8 weeks postassessment were compared before (phase 1) and after standardization (phase 2). Primary outcomes were the percentage of participants delabeled after testing, and concordance rates between participant perception of their allergy status and their status as determined by the treating physician at 8-week follow-up.

Results

Of 195 adult and pediatric participants (median age, 50 years; 21.5% <18 years; 36.9% males), 75% were delabeled of their beta-lactam allergy. No patient experienced anaphylaxis related to any beta-lactam delabeling testing. In phase 1, 75% of participants received written results, 52% were informed verbally, and 48% received results in more than 1 form. All phase 2 participants received written results (P < .01), 61% received verbal results from a physician as well (P > .05). At 8-week follow-up, 54% of phase 1 participants had concordant perceptions of their allergy status as the testing team versus 91.6% in phase2 (P < .001). Of the 17 participants who were delabeled and treated with a beta-lactam antibiotic during the 8-week follow-up period, there were no reported allergic reactions, although 1 participant experienced anaphylaxis following exposure to amoxicillin-clavulanic acid 1 year after delabeling.

Conclusions

Standardization of testing and written patient information improved short-term patient perception of beta-lactam allergy status.

Assessment of the validity of the beta-lactam antibiotic allergy assessment tool for use in the rural context, QLD

OBJECTIVE(S)

The objective of the study was to validate a clinical aid to guide the assessment and management of a patient's listed beta-lactam antibiotic allergy for use in rural areas of Australia.

DESIGN

Rural generalists, pharmacists and junior doctors completed an online assessment of eight patient case studies using the tool.

SETTING

The study was conducted in the Southern Downs, QLD.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-seven rural generalists, nine pharmacists and eight junior doctors.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The sensitivity of the selected allergy phenotype and management option for each case study was calculated by profession and overall. Hazardous responses were reported by management category and profession.

RESULTS

The sensitivity overall for phenotype selection was 82.4% (95% CI, 78.0-86.2) and for management 88.1% (95% CI, 84.2-91.2). The sensitivity for phenotype selection was lower for junior doctors than other professions 73.4% (95% CI, 60.9-83.7), but did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.08). A total of 10/308 responses for management recommended the least restrictive option of direct delabelling or oral challenge, where the correct answer was skin prick testing or referral to an allergist.

CONCLUSION(S)

With further education the tool could be a key component of increased antimicrobial stewardship in rural areas in Australia.

Antimicrobial-associated anaphylaxis at a tertiary care medical city

BACKGROUND

Antimicrobial-associated anaphylaxis occurs at different rates and can lead to worsening infection-related outcomes, we sought to describe the incidence and complications of such episodes at a tertiary care hospital.

METHOD

A retrospective cohort study was conducted between January 2016 and December 2019. Cases of antimicrobial-associated anaphylaxis were identifiedusing the hospital's electronic healthcare records. Outcomes included: mortality related to anaphylaxis, infection-related mortality, hospitalization and impact on antimicrobial prescribing.

RESULTS

The estimated rate of antimicrobial-associated anaphylaxis was 18.6 (95% CI: 11.8-29.5) cases per 100,000 exposures, which required hospitalization in 23.8% of the cases and ICU admission in 19% of the cases.

CONCLUSION

Implications from antimicrobial-associated anaphylaxis is beyond the episode itself, and can be associated with poor clinical outcomes such as infection-related mortality and hospitalization.

Burden of antibiotic allergy labels in Australian aged care residents: Findings from a national point-prevalence survey

OBJECTIVE

To determine the prevalence of antibiotic allergy labels (AALs) in Australian aged care residents and to describe the impact of labels on antibiotic prescribing practices.

DESIGN

Point-prevalence survey.

SETTING

Australian residential aged care facilities.

PARTICIPANTS

We surveyed 1,489 residents in 407 aged care facilities.

METHODS

Standardized data were collected on a single day between June 1 and August 31, 2018, for residents prescribed an antibiotic. An AAL was reported if it was documented in the resident's health record. Resident-level data were used to calculate overall prevalence, and antibiotic-level data were used to report relative frequency of AALs for individual antibiotics and classes.

RESULTS

Among 1,489 residents, 356 (24%) had 1 or more documented AALs. The AALs for penicillin (28.3%), amoxicillin or amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (10.5%), cefalexin (7.2%), and trimethoprim (7.0%) were most commonly reported. The presence of an AAL was associated with significantly less prescribing of penicillins (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.31-0.62; P < .001) and significantly more prescribing of lincosamides (OR, 4.81; P < .001), macrolides (OR, 2.03; P = .007), and tetracyclines (OR, 1.54; P = .033). Of residents with AALs, 7 residents (1.9%) were prescribed an antibiotic that was listed on the allergy section of their health record.

CONCLUSIONS

A high prevalence of AALs was observed among residents of Australian aged care facilities, comparable to the prevalence of AALs in high-risk hospitalized patients. Significant increases in prescribing of lincosamide, macrolide, and tetracycline agents poses a potential risk to aged populations, and future studies must evaluate the benefits of AAL delabelling programs tailored for aged care settings.

Frequency of severe reactions following penicillin drug provocation tests: A Bayesian meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients with a penicillin allergy label tend to have worse clinical outcomes and increased healthcare use. Drug provocation tests (DPT) are the gold-standard in the diagnostic workup of penicillin allergy, but safety concerns may hinder their performance. We aimed to assess the frequency of severe reactions following a DPT in patients with reported allergy to penicillins or other β-lactams.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review, searching MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science. We included primary studies assessing participants with a penicillin allergy label who underwent a DPT. We performed a Bayesian meta-analysis to estimate the pooled frequency of severe reactions to penicillin DPTs. Sources of heterogeneity were explored by subgroup and metaregression analyses.

RESULTS

We included 112 primary studies which included a total of 26,595 participants. The pooled frequency of severe reactions was estimated at 0.06% (95% credible interval [95% CrI] = 0.01%-0.13%; I2  = 57.9%). Most severe reactions (80/93; 86.0%) consisted of anaphylaxis. Compared to studies where the index reaction was immediate, we observed a lower frequency of severe reactions for studies assessing non-immediate index reactions (OR = 0.05; 95% CrI = 0-0.31). Patients reporting anaphylaxis as their index reaction were found to be at increased risk of developing severe reactions (OR = 13.5; 95% CrI = 7.7-21.5; I2  = 0.3%). Performance of direct DPTs in low-risk patients or testing with the suspected culprit drug were not associated with clinically relevant increased risk of severe reactions.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with a penicillin allergy label, severe reactions resulting from DPTs are rare. Therefore, except for patients with potentially life-threatening index reactions or patients with positive skin tests-who were mostly not assessed in this analysis -, the safety of DPTs supports their performance in the diagnostic assessment of penicillin allergy.

Penicillin Allergy Delabeling: A Multidisciplinary Opportunity

The penicillin allergy label has been consistently linked with deleterious effects that span the health care spectrum, including suboptimal clinical outcomes, the emergence of bacterial resistance, and increased health care expenditures. These risks have recently motivated professional organizations and public health institutes to advocate for the implementation of penicillin allergy delabeling initiatives; however, the burden of delabeling millions of patients is too expansive for any one discipline to bear alone. This review presents the unique perspectives and roles of various stakeholder groups involved in penicillin allergy diagnosis, assessment, and delabeling; we emphasize opportunities, barriers, and promising areas of innovation. We summarize penicillin allergy methods and tools that have proven successful in delabeling efforts. A multidisciplinary approach to delabeling patients with reported penicillin allergy, bolstered by evidence-based clinical practices, is recommended to reduce the risks that associate with the penicillin allergy label.

Skin Testing for Penicillin Allergy: a Review of the Literature

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Self-reported penicillin allergies are frequently reported, though more than 95% of those are not truly allergic when challenged. These patients are more likely to receive alternative antibiotic regimens resulting in the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics that may be less effective, more toxic, and/or more expensive than preferred agents. Given the significant burden on patient outcomes and the healthcare system, the ability to reconcile an allergy and broaden future antibiotic options is essential.

RECENT FINDINGS

This is a narrative review describing risk stratification for penicillin skin testing, practical advice for implementation, and future directions. A summary of studies within the last 5 years is provided. The trend over the past several years has been to offer oral drug challenges to low-risk patients and skin testing to high-risk patients with a reported penicillin allergy. This review provides support for risk stratification assessment of reported penicillin allergy to optimize antibiotic use and prevent emergence of antimicrobial resistance.

Evaluation of Clinical Properties and Diagnostic Test Results of Cephalosporin Allergy in Children

INTRODUCTION

Beta-lactams (BLs) are one of the most frequent causes of drug hypersensitivity reactions (HRs), and cephalosporins are a widely used subclass of BLs, especially in children. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical features and diagnostic test results of pediatric patients evaluated for suspected cephalosporin allergy.

METHODS

This study included patients who presented to our pediatric allergy clinic with a history of reactions attributed to cephalosporins between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2019, and whose diagnostic tests were completed for the diagnosis.

RESULTS

This study included 120 pediatric patients and 69 (57.5%) of them were girls. The median age was 38.63 (interquartile range 10.5-85.7) months. Reactions occurring within 1 h of drug intake were reported in 33 patients (27.5%). Reactions were maculopapular rash in 55 (45.8%) patients, urticaria and/or angioedema in 49 (40.8%), anaphylaxis in 11 (9.2%), severe cutaneous drug reaction in 4 (3.3%), and fixed drug reaction in 1 patient (0.83%). The most frequently suspected agent was cefixime in 41 patients (34.2%). In total, 30 (25%) patients were diagnosed as having cephalosporin hypersensitivity. Confirmation of HRs was also significantly more frequent among patients who were older (p: 0.000), who had taken the drug parenterally (p: 0.000) and with immediate reactions (p: 0.000).

CONCLUSION

Cephalosporin allergy has been confirmed in approximately one-fourth of the patients evaluated for suspected cephalosporin allergy. Confirmation of HRs was significantly more common among patients who were older, had immediate reactions, and had taken the drug parenterally.

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.

Neo-antigens for the serological diagnosis of IgE-mediated drug allergic reactions to antibiotics cephalosporin, carbapenem and monobactam

New antigens deriving from -lloyl and -llanyl, major and minor determinants, respectively, were produced for β-lactam antibiotics cefuroxime, cefotaxime, ceftriaxone, meropenem and aztreonam. Twenty β-lactam antigens were produced using human serum albumin and histone H1 as carrier proteins. Antigens were tested by multiplex in vitro immunoassays and evaluated based on the detection of specific IgG and IgE in the serum samples. Both major and minor determinants were appropriate antigens for detecting specific anti-β-lactam IgG in immunised rabbit sera. In a cohort of 37 allergic patients, we observed that only the minor determinants (-llanyl antigens) were suitable for determining specific anti-β-lactam IgE antibodies with high sensitivity (< 0.01 IU/mL; 24 ng/L) and specificity (100%). These findings reveal that not only the haptenisation of β-lactam antibiotics renders improved molecular recognition events when the 4-member β-lactam ring remains unmodified, but also may contribute to develop promising minor antigens suitable for detecting specific IgE-mediated allergic reactions. This will facilitate the development of sensitive and selective multiplexed in vitro tests for drug-allergy diagnoses to antibiotics cephalosporin, carbapenem and monobactam.

Accuracy of penicillin allergy diagnostic tests: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Having a penicillin allergy label associates with a higher risk for antibiotic resistance and increased health care use.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to assess the accuracy of skin tests and specific IgE quantification in the diagnostic evaluation of patients reporting a penicillin/β-lactam allergy.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis, searching on MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science. We included studies conducted in patients reporting a penicillin allergy and in whom skin tests and/or specific IgE quantification were performed and compared with drug challenge results. We quantitatively assessed the accuracy of diagnostic tests with bivariate random-effects meta-analyses. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses were performed to explore causes of heterogeneity. Studies' quality was evaluated using QUADAS-2 criteria.

RESULTS

We included 105 primary studies, assessing 31,761 participants. Twenty-seven studies were assessed by bivariate meta-analysis. Skin tests had a summary sensitivity of 30.7% (95% CI, 18.9%-45.9%) and a specificity of 96.8% (95% CI, 94.2%-98.3%), with a partial area under the summary receiver-operating characteristic curve of 0.686 (I² = 38.2%). Similar results were observed for subanalyses restricted to patients reporting nonimmediate maculopapular exanthema or urticaria/angioedema. Specific IgE had a summary sensitivity of 19.3% (95% CI, 12.0%-29.4%) and a specificity of 97.4% (95% CI, 95.2%-98.6%), with a partial area under the summary receiver-operating characteristic curve of 0.420 (I² = 8.5%). Projected predictive values mainly reflect the low frequency of true penicillin allergy.

CONCLUSIONS

Skin tests and specific IgE quantification appear to have low sensitivity and high specificity. Because current evidence is insufficient for assessing the role of these tests in stratifying patients for delabeling, we identified key requirements needed for future studies.

Development and Validation of a Penicillin Allergy Clinical Decision Rule

IMPORTANCE

Penicillin allergy is a significant public health issue for patients, antimicrobial stewardship programs, and health services. Validated clinical decision rules are urgently needed to identify low-risk penicillin allergies that potentially do not require penicillin skin testing by a specialist.

OBJECTIVE

To develop and validate a penicillin allergy clinical decision rule that enables point-of-care risk assessment of patient-reported penicillin allergies.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this diagnostic study, a multicenter prospective antibiotic allergy-tested cohort of 622 patients from 2 tertiary care sites in Melbourne, Australia (Austin Health and Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre) was used for derivation and internal validation of a penicillin allergy decision rule. Backward stepwise logistic regression was used to derive the model, including clinical variables predictive of a positive penicillin allergy test result. Internal validation of the final model used bootstrapped samples and the model scoring derived from the coefficients. External validation was performed in retrospective penicillin allergy-tested cohorts consisting of 945 patients from Sydney and Perth, Australia, and Nashville, Tennessee. Patients who reported a penicillin allergy underwent penicillin allergy testing using skin prick, intradermal, or patch testing and/or oral challenge (direct or after skin testing). Data were collected from June 26, 2008, to June 3, 2019, and analyzed from January 9 to 12, 2019.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome for the model was any positive result of penicillin allergy testing performed during outpatient or inpatient assessment.

RESULTS

From an internal derivation and validation cohort of 622 patients (367 female [59.0%]; median age, 60 [interquartile range{IQR}, 48-71] years) and an external validation cohort of 945 patients (662 female [70.1%]; median age, 55 [IQR, 38-68] years), the 4 features associated with a positive penicillin allergy test result on multivariable analysis were summarized in the mnemonic PEN-FAST: penicillin allergy, five or fewer years ago, anaphylaxis/angioedema, severe cutaneous adverse reaction (SCAR), and treatment required for allergy episode. The major criteria included an allergy event occurring 5 or fewer years ago (2 points) and anaphylaxis/angioedema or SCAR (2 points); the minor criterion (1 point), treatment required for an allergy episode. Internal validation showed minimal mean optimism of 0.003 with internally validated area under the curve of 0.805. A cutoff of less than 3 points for PEN-FAST was chosen to classify a low risk of penicillin allergy, for which only 17 of 460 patients (3.7%) had positive results of allergy testing, with a negative predictive value of 96.3% (95% CI, 94.1%-97.8%). External validation resulted in similar findings.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, PEN-FAST was found to be a simple rule that accurately identified low-risk penicillin allergies that do not require formal allergy testing. The results suggest that a PEN-FAST score of less than 3, associated with a high negative predictive value, could be used by clinicians and antimicrobial stewardship programs to identify low-risk penicillin allergies at the point of care.

A Closer Look at Penicillin Allergy History: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Tolerance to Drug Challenge

BACKGROUND

True allergy to penicillin is rare, despite the high frequency with which it is reported. While most patients reporting penicillin allergy are not prone to anaphylaxis, it is not currently known what percentage of these patients will tolerate dose challenges of penicillin-based antibiotics. This review aims to determine the rate of tolerance in patients reporting penicillin allergy when challenged with penicillin-based antibiotics.

METHODS

We searched MedLine, Embase, and Cochrane Library for publications with English language translations between the years 2000 and 2017. We included randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental, and observational studies of participants reporting penicillin allergy who received at least one systemic dose of a penicillin in the form of a drug challenge. At least 2 independent reviewers extracted data from included studies and assessed the quality of each included study. To generate primary outcome data, we calculated a summary estimate rate of penicillin tolerance from a pooled proportion of participants receiving penicillin with no adverse effects.

RESULTS

Initial literature search yielded 2945 studies, of which 23 studies were ultimately included in our review; 5056 study participants with reported history of penicillin allergy were challenged with a penicillin. After weighting for study sample size, a pooled average of 94.4% (95% confidence interval, 93.7%-95%) of participants tolerated the dose challenge without any adverse reaction.

CONCLUSION

Misrepresented penicillin allergy drives unnecessary use of alternative antibiotics, which may be less effective, more toxic, and more expensive than using penicillin. In addressing the problem of penicillin allergy over-diagnosis, evaluation should go beyond risk for type 1 hypersensitivity. Our data suggest that 94.4% of 5056 participants with reported penicillin allergy determined to be clinically appropriate for allergy evaluation tolerated repeat administration of penicillin-based antibiotics without any adverse reactions. This review generates meaningful information useful to clinical predictive analytics, in evaluating and managing patients with a reported history of penicillin allergy.

The challenge of de-labeling penicillin allergy

BACKGROUND

Even though 8%-25% of most populations studied globally are labeled as penicillin allergic, most diagnoses of penicillin allergy are made in childhood and relate to events that are either not allergic in nature, are low risk for immediate hypersensitivity, or are a potential true allergy that has waned over time. Penicillin allergy labels directly impact antimicrobial stewardship by leading to use of less effective and broader spectrum antimicrobials and are associated with antimicrobial resistance. They may also delay appropriate antimicrobial therapy and lead to increased risk of specific adverse healthcare outcomes. Operationalizing penicillin allergy de-labeling into a new arm of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) has become an increasing global focus.

METHODS

We performed an evidence-based narrative review of the literature of penicillin allergy label carriage, the adverse effects of penicillin allergy labels, and current approaches and barriers to penicillin allergy de-labeling. Over the period 1928-2018 in Pubmed and Medline, search terms used included "penicillin allergy" or "penicillin hypersensitivity" alone or in combination with "adverse events," "testing," "evaluation," "effects," "label," "de-labeling," "prick or epicutaneous," and "intradermal" skin testing, "oral challenge or provocation," "cross-reactivity," and "antimicrobial stewardship".

RESULTS

Penicillin allergy labels are highly prevalent, largely inaccurate and their carriage may lead to unnecessary treatment and inferior outcomes with alternative agents as well as adverse public health outcomes such as antibiotic resistance.

CONCLUSIONS

Operationalizing penicillin allergy de-labeling as an aspect of ASP has become an increasing global focus. There is a need for validated approaches that optimally combine the use of history and ingestion challenge with or without proceeding formal skin testing to tackle penicillin allergy efficiently within complex healthcare systems. At the same time, there is great promise for penicillin allergy evaluation and de-labeling as an individual and public health strategy to reduce adverse healthcare outcomes, improve antimicrobial stewardship, and decrease healthcare costs.

Management of a surgical patient with a label of penicillin allergy: narrative review and consensus recommendations

Unsubstantiated penicillin-allergy labels are common in surgical patients, and can lead to significant harm through avoidance of best first-line prophylaxis of surgical site infections and increased infection with resistant bacterial strains. Up to 98% of penicillin-allergy labels are incorrect when tested. Because of the scarcity of trained allergists in all healthcare systems, only a minority of surgical patients have the opportunity to undergo testing and de-labelling before surgery. Testing pathways can be modified and shortened in selected patients. A variety of healthcare professionals can, with appropriate training and in collaboration with allergists, provide testing for selected patients. We review how patients might be assessed, the appropriate testing strategies that can be used, and the minimum standards of safe testing.

Antibiotic allergy

Antibiotics are the commonest cause of life-threatening immune-mediated drug reactions that are considered off-target, including anaphylaxis, and organ-specific and severe cutaneous adverse reactions. However, many antibiotic reactions documented as allergies were unknown or not remembered by the patient, cutaneous reactions unrelated to drug hypersensitivity, drug-infection interactions, or drug intolerances. Although such reactions pose negligible risk to patients, they currently represent a global threat to public health. Antibiotic allergy labels result in displacement of first-line therapies for antibiotic prophylaxis and treatment. A penicillin allergy label, in particular, is associated with increased use of broad-spectrum and non-β-lactam antibiotics, which results in increased adverse events and antibiotic resistance. Most patients labelled as allergic to penicillins are not allergic when appropriately stratified for risk, tested, and re-challenged. Given the public health importance of penicillin allergy, this Review provides a global update on antibiotic allergy epidemiology, classification, mechanisms, and management.

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.

Enhancing antibiotic stewardship by tackling "spurious" penicillin allergy

Approximately 90-99% of patients with a label of penicillin allergy (PenA) are not allergic when comprehensively investigated. An inaccurate label of PenA has major public health implications-longer hospital stay, more frequent hospital admissions, greater use of fluoroquinolones, glycopeptides, cephalosporins and other expensive antibiotics resulting in significantly higher costs to the health service and predisposing to Clostridium difficile, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections and vancomycin-resistant enterococcus. We describe lessons learnt from recent studies regarding possible reasons contributing to an inaccurate label of PenA as well as propose a concerted multidisciplinary approach to address this important public health problem. Given the unmet need for allergy services in the UK and several other countries and knowledge gaps regarding PenA amongst healthcare professionals, we describe the potential role for a computerized clinical decision support system to enable non-specialists rapidly identify and de-label "low-risk" hospitalized patients with a label of PenA thereby obviating the need for allergy tests. This approach however needs rigorous evaluation for feasibility, safety, patient and physician acceptability, cost-effectiveness and its compatibility with information technology systems currently employed in the health service.