Use of a penicillin allergy clinical decision rule to enable direct oral penicillin provocation: an international multicentre randomised control trial in an adult population (PALACE): study protocol

Predictive models and applicability of artificial intelligence-based approaches in drug allergy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Drug allergy is responsible for a huge burden on public healthcare systems, representing in some instances a threat for patient's life. Diagnosis is complex due to the heterogeneity of clinical phenotypes and mechanisms involved, the limitations of in vitro tests, and the associated risk to in vivo tests. Predictive models, including those using recent advances in artificial intelligence, may circumvent these drawbacks, leading to an appropriate classification of patients and improving their management in clinical settings.

RECENT FINDINGS

Scores and predictive models to assess drug allergy development, including patient risk stratification, are scarce and usually apply logistic regression analysis. Over recent years, different methods encompassed under the general umbrella of artificial intelligence, including machine and deep learning, and artificial neural networks, are emerging as powerful tools to provide reliable and optimal models for clinical diagnosis, prediction, and precision medicine in different types of drug allergy.

SUMMARY

This review provides general concepts and current evidence supporting the potential utility of predictive models and artificial intelligence branches in drug allergy diagnosis.

Risk of Self-Reported Penicillin Allergy Despite Removal of Penicillin Allergy Label: Secondary Analysis of the PALACE Randomized Clinical Trial

This secondary analysis of adult patients in the Penicillin Allergy Clinical Decision Rule (PALACE) Study investigates the risk of self-reported penicillin allergy despite removal of penicillin allergy label.

[Penicillin allergy-Truth or duty?]

The beta-lactam antibiotics are some of the safest and best-tolerated antibiotic agents; however, many patients have reported allergies against penicillin. All beta-lactam antibiotics are only restrictively prescribed for these patients and alternative antibiotics are increasingly given, which carries the risk of negative clinical results and socioeconomic sequelae; however, over 95% of patients who reported an allergy to penicillin show a negative result in the allergy tests for penicillin and this antibiotic can safely be prescribed. The use of sensitive and specific instruments for identification of false penicillin allergies should be an important topic within the framework of antibiotic stewardship. Anesthesists can play a central role in the reduction of the enormous individual and public health burden associated with the classification of penicillin allergy by taking an appropriate medical history and a risk stratification for the identification of patients with a penicillin allergy. This overview article presents a possible delabelling algorithm within the framework of the clarification of a beta-lactam antibiotic allergy. The focus is on a structured allergy anamnesis using the penicillin allergy, five or fewer years ago, anaphylaxis/angioedema, severe cutaneous adverse reaction (SCAR) and treatment required for allergy episode (PEN-FAST) score.

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.

Use of oral penicillin challenge in low-risk penicillin allergy

Overview of: Copaescu AM, Vogrin S, James F, et al. Efficacy of a clinical decision rule to enable direct oral challenge in patients with low-risk penicillin allergy: The PALACE randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med 2023;183:944-52.

Safety of Direct Drug Provocation for the Evaluation of Penicillin Allergy in Low-Risk Adults

BACKGROUND

About 10% of patients have a penicillin allergy label, but less than 5% of them are actually allergic. Unnecessary penicillin avoidance is associated with serious medical consequences. Given the growing number of these labels, it is imperative that our diagnostic strategy for penicillin allergy be as efficient as possible. The validity of traditionally used skin tests (STs) has been questioned, whereas drug provocation testing (DPT), the criterion standard, without previous ST appears very safe in most cases.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety of direct DPT without consideration for ST results and the validity of ST in the diagnosis of penicillin allergy.

METHODS

In this prospective cohort study without a control group, we recruited patients consulting an allergist for penicillin allergy. Patients underwent ST followed by DPT regardless of ST results. Patients with anaphylaxis to penicillin within the past 5 years or a severe delayed reaction were excluded, as were those with significant cardiorespiratory comorbidity.

RESULTS

None of the 1002 recruited patients had a serious reaction to DPT. Ten (1.0%) had a mild immediate reaction, of whom only 1 (0.1%) was considered likely IgE-mediated. The positive and negative predictive values of ST for an immediate reaction were 3.6% and 99.1%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In a low-risk adult population reporting penicillin allergy, ST has very poor positive predictive value. Direct DPT without ST is safe and appears to be an ideal diagnostic strategy to remove penicillin allergy labels that could be implemented in first-line practice.

Direct challenges are the gold standard for most antibiotic allergy evaluations

Antibiotic allergies are frequently encountered in clinical practice, and delabeling of these allergies has individual and public health benefits. This review focuses on the evidence supporting graded challenges without preceding skin testing in adult and pediatric patients to the major groups of antibiotics including penicillins, cephalosporins, sulfamethoxazole, fluoroquinolones, tetracyclines, macrolides, metronidazole, carbapenems, and aztreonam. The cost savings, time savings, and evidence for performing graded challenges outside of an allergy/immunology office are also reviewed for graded challenges to penicillins.

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.

Tools for Etiologic Diagnosis of Drug-Induced Allergic Conditions

Drug hypersensitivity reactions are a serious concern in clinical practice because they can be severe and result in lifelong sequelae. An accurate diagnosis and identification of the culprit drug is essential to prevent future reactions as well as for the identification of safe treatment alternatives. Nonetheless, the diagnosis can be challenging. In vivo and in vitro tests can be helpful, although none are conclusive; therefore, the tests are not usually performed in isolation but as part of a diagnostic algorithm. In addition, some in vitro tests are only available in research laboratories, and standardization has not been fully accomplished. Collaborating research is needed to improve drug hypersensitivity reaction diagnosis. In this review, we update the current available in vivo and in vitro tools with their pros and cons and propose an algorithm to integrate them into clinical practice.

Delabelling multiple antibiotic allergy: Practical issues

With the growing incidence of multi-drug resistant organisms, delabelling incorrect antibiotic allergies has become an integral part of antimicrobial stewardship worldwide. For example, around 90% of penicillin allergy labels are found to be inaccurate following a full allergy work-up, which deprive patients the use of effective first-line penicillin antibiotics and increase the risk of antimicrobial resistance with the use of other extended spectrum non-penicillin antimicrobials. Significant numbers of adult and paediatric patients over time are labelled with multiple penicillin and non-penicillin antibiotic allergies often during inappropriate antimicrobial use, resulting in a label of “multiple antibiotic allergy”. In contrast to delabelling penicillin allergy where oral direct provocation tests can be used for low-risk, mild reactions, and sensitivity/specificity/positive and negative predictive values of skin tests have been demonstrated, diagnostic tests for multiple antibiotic allergy often require the use of a combination of in-vivo and in-vitro tests across different antimicrobial classes for evaluation. Shared decision making with patients and informed consent are also needed when prioritising which drugs to delabel first, balancing the risks, benefits of testing vs. interim use of alternative antibiotics. Similar to delabelling penicillin allergy, the cost-effectiveness of delabelling multiple drug allergies is unknown.