An algorithm for safe de-labelling of antibiotic allergy in adult hospital in-patients

Patient-related factors impact the implementation of inpatient antibiotic allergy delabeling

Background

The clinical consequences of an antibiotic allergy label are detrimental, impacting health care delivery and patient outcomes. We assessed hospital inpatients with intent to offer free antibiotic allergy labeling (AAL) assessment within a randomized controlled trial.

Objective

We sought to determine the feasibility of establishing an adult antibiotic allergy delabeling service in a Western Australian tertiary public hospital.

Methods

Inpatients (N = 1503) with AAL were identified through medical records and screened for eligibility to participate in a randomized controlled trial. Those recruited were randomized to undergo assessment by skin testing ± oral challenge, or direct oral challenge. A control group received usual care.

Results

Of the 1503 inpatients with an AAL, 429 (28.5%) were eligible for AAL assessment. The primary excluding factor (1074 [71.5%]) was contraindicated medication use (387 [36.0%]), followed by cognitive impairment (298 [27.9%]). Thirty-nine patients were randomized, of which 20 received allergy testing and 19 usual care; all patients were followed up for 5 years. Older patients were less likely to be eligible (10-year increase: odds ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.77-0.88; P < .0001), whereas surgical patients were more likely to be eligible than medical patients (odds ratio, 2.49; 95% CI, 1.97-3.16; P < .0001).

Conclusions

Antibiotic allergy delabeling in the acute care context is not straightforward. Competing clinical concerns and patient acceptance are some barriers to an inpatient service. Nor is it apparent that inpatient versus outpatient testing is cost saving although select patient groups may benefit. Testing younger people and those with predicted high antibiotic usage will derive maximal individual and health system benefits.

A multicentre observational study to investigate feasibility of a direct oral penicillin challenge in de-labelling 'low risk' patients with penicillin allergy by non-allergy healthcare professionals (SPACE study): Implications for healthcare systems

OBJECTIVE

The huge burden of inaccurate penicillin allergy labels (PALs) is an important driver of antimicrobial resistance. This is magnified by insufficient allergy specialists and lack of 'point-of-care' tests. We investigated the feasibility of non-allergy healthcare professionals (HCPs) delivering direct oral penicillin challenges (DPCs) for penicillin allergy de-labelling.

METHODS

This prospective observational study was conducted in three hospitals in England across three settings (acute medical, pre-surgical and haematology-oncology). Patients with a PAL were screened and stratified as low risk/high risk. Low risk patients (non-immune mediated symptoms, benign rash, tolerated amoxicillin since and family history) underwent a DPC.

RESULTS

N = 2257 PALs were screened, 1054 were eligible; 643 were approached, 373 declined, 270 consented and 259 risk stratified (low risk = 155; high risk = 104). One hundred and twenty-six low risk patients underwent DPC, 122 (96.8%) were de-labelled with no serious allergic reactions. Conversion rate from screening-to-consent was 12% [3.3% and 17.9% in acute and elective settings respectively; odds ratios for consent were 3.42 (p < 0.001) and 5.53 (p < 0.001) in haematology-oncology and pre-surgical setting respectively. Common reasons for failure to progress in the study included difficulty in reaching patients, clinical instability/medical reasons, lacking capacity to consent and psychological factors.

INTERPRETATION

DPCs can be delivered by non-allergy HCPs. A high proportion of patients with PALs did not progress in the study pathway. Strategies to deliver DPC at optimal points of the care pathway are needed to enhance uptake. Elective settings offer greater opportunities than acute settings for DPC. The safety and simplicity of DPCs lends itself to adoption by healthcare systems beyond the UK, including in resource-limited settings.

EAACI/ENDA position paper on drug provocation testing

In drug hypersensitivity, drug provocation testing (DPT), also called drug challenge, is the gold standard for investigation. In recent years, risk stratification has become an important tool for adjusting the diagnostic strategy to the perceived risk, whilst still maintaining a high level of safety for the patient. Skin tests are recommended before DPT but may be omitted in low-risk patients. The task force suggests a strict definition of such low-risk patients in children and adults. Based on experience and evidence from studies of allergy to beta-lactam antibiotics, an algorithm on how to adjust DPT to the risk, and when to omit skin tests before DPT, is presented. For other antibiotics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and other drugs, skin tests are poorly validated and DPT is frequently necessary. We recommend performing DPT with chemotherapeutics and biologicals to avoid unnecessary desensitization procedures and DPT with skin tests negative contrast media. We suggest DPT with anesthetics only in highly specialized centers. Specifics of DPT to proton pump inhibitors, anticonvulsants and corticosteroids are discussed. This position paper provides general recommendations and guidance on optimizing use of DPT, whilst balancing benefits with patient safety and optimizing the use of the limited available resources.

Non-allergist healthcare workers views on delivering a penicillin allergy de-labelling inpatient pathway: identifying the barriers and enablers

Background

Non-allergist delivered PADL is supported by UK and World Health Organization guidelines but is not yet routine in UK hospitals. Understanding the views of healthcare workers (HCWs) on managing patients with penA records and exploring perspectives on delivering a PADL inpatient pathway are required to inform the development of non-allergist delivered PADL pathways.

Objective

To explore the perspectives of non-allergist HCWs working in medical specialties on managing patients with penA records, and to explore the enablers and barriers to embedding PADL as a standard of care for inpatients.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews with doctors, nurses, pharmacists and medicines optimization pharmacy technicians working in a district general hospital in the UK. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data.

Results

The PADL pathway was considered a shared responsibility of the multidisciplinary team, which needed to be structured and supported by a framework. PADL aligns with HCW roles but time to deliver PADL was a barrier. Training for HCWs on the benefits of PADL and delivering PADL for those patients where a penicillin might be beneficial during the current episode of care would both motivate HCWs to deliver PADL.

Discussion and conclusion

The PADL pathway was acceptable to HCWs and aligned with their roles and current healthcare processes but their capacity to deliver PADL in a time pressured environment was a significant barrier.

Penicillin allergy de-labelling by non-allergists: a comparison of testing protocols

Optimizing penicillin allergy de-labelling (PADL) to ensure patients with an incorrect penicillin allergy record are de-labelled with minimal patient harm is important for antibiotic stewardship. The heterogeneity of inclusion and exclusion criteria in the published penicillin allergy testing protocols risks suboptimal delivery of PADL. We compared the similarities and the differences between non-allergist-delivered PADL testing protocols and make suggestions for harmonization. The observed variation in testing practice has two broad elements: (i) definitions and terminology; and (ii) differences in the acceptability of perceived risk. All direct drug provocation testing (DDPT) protocols included patients with benign delayed rash as eligible for testing, although the remoteness of the rash, and the terminology used to describe the rash, differed. Patients with features of potential IgE reactions were excluded from most DDPT protocols, but not all of them. There was differing advice on how to manage patients who had subsequently tolerated penicillin since the index reaction and differences in which patients were considered ineligible for DDPT due to acuity of illness, comorbidities and concomitant medications. Standardization of the terminology used in penicillin allergy testing protocols and consensus on inclusion and exclusion criteria are required for safe and efficient PADL delivery at scale by non-allergists.

Removal of incorrect penicillin allergy labels in a UK hospital

OBJECTIVES

Penicillin allergy records are common, often incorrect and are associated with broad spectrum antibiotic use. We piloted a pharmacist-led multidisciplinary penicillin allergy de-labelling daily ward round to determine the opportunity for penicillin allergy de-labelling in a UK hospital.

METHODS

A daily ward round, delivered by antibiotic pharmacists or junior doctors, identified adult medical and surgical patients between 7 November 2022 and 31 January 2023 with a penicillin allergy record that was preventing first-line penicillin use. An allergy history was taken before risk stratifying likelihood of future harm from penicillin re-exposure and an allergy testing method was determined (direct de-label on history alone or after direct drug provocation testing). After successful allergy de-label, the antibiotic was switched to a penicillin antibiotic.

RESULTS

Of 7214 inpatients during the study period, 1133 (15.7%) had a penicillin allergy record. Of 285 allergy histories taken, 105 (36.8%) met high-risk criteria, 45 (15.8%) met low-risk criteria eligible for direct de-label and 73 (25.6%) met criteria eligible for direct drug provocation testing. We were unable to obtain a history for 61 (21.4%) patients. Of 45 low-risk patients eligible for direct de-label, 40 (88.9%) were de-labelled of whom 24 (53.3%) were switched to a penicillin antibiotic. Of 73 patients with a low-risk allergy history eligible for direct drug provocation testing, 16 (21.9%) received direct drug provocation testing, of whom 9 were switched to a penicillin antibiotic. Two direct de-label patients experienced harm (thrush within 5 days and delayed skin reaction after day 5); none of the direct drug provocation testing patients had a reaction by day 5. The switches resulted in reduced alternative antibiotic use by 173 Daily Defined Doses (DDDs).

DISCUSSION

Penicillin allergy de-labelling patient pathway delivered by pharmacists and junior doctors was safe and effective and well accepted by patients and the wider clinical teams.

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.

Addressing the Challenges of Penicillin Allergy Delabeling With Electronic Health Records and Mobile Applications

Allergy labels are common, often incorrect, and potentially harmful. There are many opportunities for clinical decision support (CDS) tools integrated in the electronic health record (EHR) and mobile apps to address the challenges with drug allergy management, including penicillin allergy delabeling (PADL). Effective delabeling solutions must consider multidisciplinary clinical workflow and multistep processes, including documentation, assessment, plan (eg, allergy testing and referral), record update, drug allergy alert management, and allergy reconciliation over time. Developing a systematic infrastructure to manage allergies across the EHR is critical to improve the accuracy and completeness of a patient's allergy and avoid inadvertently relabeling. Improving the appropriateness and relevancy of drug allergy alerts is important to reduce alert fatigue. Using alerts to guide clinicians on appropriate antibiotic use may reduce unnecessary β-lactam avoidance. To date, EHR CDS tools have facilitated non-allergists to provide PADL at the point of care. A mobile app was shown to support PADL and provide specialist support and education. Future research is needed to standardize, integrate, and evaluate innovative CDS tools in the EHR to demonstrate patient safety and clinical utility and facilitate wider adoption.

Parent-reported penicillin allergies in children: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Penicillin allergies are commonly reported in children. Most reported penicillin allergies are false, resulting in the unnecessary selection of alternative antibiotic treatments that promote antibiotic resistance. While formal allergy testing is encouraged to establish a diagnosis of penicillin allergy, children are rarely referred for allergy testing, and study of parents' experiences and perceptions of their child's reported penicillin allergy is limited. We aimed to describe parents' experiences and perceptions of their child's penicillin allergy and attitudes towards penicillin allergy testing to identify opportunities to engage parents in antimicrobial stewardship efforts.

METHODS

This was a qualitative descriptive study.

RESULTS

Eighteen parents participated in this study. Parents' children were on average 2 years old when the index reaction occurred, and 7 years had passed since the reaction. Transcripts revealed that participants were receptive to penicillin allergy testing for their child after learning the consequences of penicillin allergy and availability of allergy testing. Four major themes emerged from data (1) parents' making sense of allergy; (2) parents' impressions of allergy label, (3) parents' attitudes towards allergy testing, and (4) parents' desire to be informed of testing availability.

CONCLUSIONS

Efforts are needed to engage parents in addressing spuriously reported penicillin allergies.