1
|
Kwan N, Kang K, Carr RR, Mak R, Roberts A, Jin F, Bone JN, Rassekh SR, Wong T. True Rate of Allergy among Pediatric Inpatients with Penicillin Allergy Labels (TRIAL). Can J Hosp Pharm 2024; 77:e3531. [PMID: 38988874 PMCID: PMC11210598 DOI: 10.4212/cjhp.3531] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/28/2023] [Accepted: 02/25/2024] [Indexed: 07/12/2024]
Abstract
Background Penicillin allergy is a common drug allergy diagnosis in pediatric patients; however, upon appropriate allergy testing, many of these patients are found not to have a true allergy. For patients with a reported allergy, alternative antibiotics are prescribed, which are less effective, more toxic, or more expensive. There is a lack of data evaluating allergies in hospitalized children and comparing allergy assessments conducted by pediatric allergists and pharmacists. Objective To estimate the percentage of pediatric patients admitted with reported penicillin allergy who did not have a true penicillin allergy. Methods This single-centre prospective cohort study included inpatients between 6 months and 17 years of age, with a documented penicillin allergy, who were admitted to the general pediatric and oncology units of a tertiary care children's hospital between November 2019 and March 2023. The allergy history, evaluation, and risk categorization were performed by pharmacists. The history was reviewed with the allergist, and the patient was then referred, underwent skin testing, or received oral amoxicillin challenge with monitoring for 1 hour. Results Thirty patients were included, of whom 29 (97%) had delabelling of their penicillin allergy. Four patients (13%) had delabelling on the basis of history alone, without risk assessment. Twenty-five (83%) of the patients were assessed as having low risk; 24 of these had delabelling following oral challenge, and 1 did not complete the oral challenge because of transfer to another hospital. One patient (3%) was assessed as having moderate risk, with delabelling on the basis of results of skin testing and oral challenge. The pharmacist's and allergist's risk assessments were in agreement in 29 (97%) of the 30 cases. Conclusions Pediatric patients, including those with oncologic malignancies, are often mislabelled as having a penicillin allergy. Pharmacists are able to accurately determine true allergy risk and delabel penicillin allergies for pediatric patients in the hospital setting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Natasha Kwan
- BSc(Pharm), ACPR, PharmD, is with the Department of Pharmacy, Children's and Women's Health Centre of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia
| | - Kristopher Kang
- MD, FRCPC, is with the Division of General Pediatrics, Department of Pediatrics, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia
| | - Roxane R Carr
- BSc, BSc(Pharm), ACPR, PharmD, FCSHP, BCPS, is with the Department of Pharmacy, Children's and Women's Health Centre of British Columbia, and the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia
| | - Raymond Mak
- BSc, MD, FRCPC, is with the Division of Allergy and Immunology, Department of Pediatrics, and the Division of Allergy and Immunology, Department of Medicine, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia
| | - Ashley Roberts
- MD, MEd, FRCPC, is with the Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Pediatrics, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia
| | - Falla Jin
- BA, is with the BC Children's Hospital Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia
| | - Jeffrey N Bone
- MSc, is with the BC Children's Hospital Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia
| | - S Rod Rassekh
- , BSc, MD, MHSc, is with the Division of Hematology, Oncology and Bone Marrow Transplant, Department of Pediatrics, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia
| | - Tiffany Wong
- MD, FRCPC, is with the Division of Allergy and Immunology, Department of Pediatrics, and the BC Children's Hospital Research Institute, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Powell N, Elkhalifa S, Sandoe J. Penicillin allergy de-labelling by non-allergists: a comparison of testing protocols. JAC Antimicrob Resist 2023; 5:dlad134. [PMID: 38115860 PMCID: PMC10729857 DOI: 10.1093/jacamr/dlad134] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/21/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Neil Powell
- School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK
- Pharmacy Department, Royal Cornwall Hospital Trust, Truro, UK
| | - Shuayb Elkhalifa
- Allergy and Immunology Department, Respiratory Institute, Cleveland Clinic Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
| | - Jonathan Sandoe
- Leeds Institute of Medical Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Powell N, Stephens J, Kohl D, Owens R, Ahmed S, Musicha C, Upton M, Kent B, Tonkin-Crine S, Sandoe J. 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. Int J Infect Dis 2023; 129:152-161. [PMID: 36450321 PMCID: PMC10017351 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijid.2022.11.026] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 16.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/15/2022] [Revised: 11/18/2022] [Accepted: 11/22/2022] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Neil Powell
- Pharmacy Department, Royal Cornwall Hospital, Truro, United Kingdom TR1 3LJ / School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom.
| | - Jennie Stephens
- Intensive Care Department, Royal Cornwall Hospital, Truro, United Kingdom
| | - Declan Kohl
- School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Rhys Owens
- Core Medical Trainee, Royal Cornwall Hospital, Truro, United Kingdom
| | - Shadia Ahmed
- Leeds Institute of Medical Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Crispin Musicha
- Medical Statistics, Faculty of Health, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom
| | - Mathew Upton
- School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom
| | - Bridie Kent
- School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom
| | - Sarah Tonkin-Crine
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Jonathan Sandoe
- Leeds Institute of Medical Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Li PH, Wong JCY, Chan JMC, Chik TSH, Chu MY, Ho GCH, Leung WS, Li TCM, Ng YY, Shum R, Sin WWY, Tso EYK, Wu AKL, Au EYL. Hong Kong Drug Allergy Delabelling Initiative (HK-DADI) consensus statements for penicillin allergy testing by nonallergists. FRONTIERS IN ALLERGY 2022; 3:974138. [PMID: 36133403 PMCID: PMC9483020 DOI: 10.3389/falgy.2022.974138] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/20/2022] [Accepted: 08/15/2022] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction Penicillin allergy testing has been traditionally performed by allergists, but there remains a huge deficit of specialists. A multidisciplinary effort with nonallergists would be invaluable to overcome the magnitude of penicillin allergy labels via the Hong Kong Drug Allergy Delabelling Initiative (HK-DADI). These consensus statements (CSs) offer recommendations and guidance to enable nonallergists to screen for low-risk (LR) patients and perform penicillin allergy testing. Methods CSs were formulated by the HK-DADI Group using the Delphi method. An agreement was defined as greater than or equal to 80% consensus. Results A total of 26 CSs reached consensus after multiple rounds of Delphi. CSs were categorized into risk assessment, skin testing, drug provocation testing (DPT), and post-testing management. For risk assessment, the essentials of allergy history and exclusion criteria were detailed. Patients with only LR features can proceed with testing by nonallergists. Skin tests should be performed prior to DPT. Details regarding the timing, preparation, and interpretation of skin tests were elaborated. DPT remains the gold standard to diagnose genuine allergy or tolerance and should be performed when there is a low pretest probability following negative skin testing. Details of DPT preparations, dosing protocols, and interpretation were elaborated. For post-testing management, inaccurate allergy labels should be delabeled following negative DPT with proper patient counseling. Conclusion CSs support penicillin allergy testing by nonallergists in Hong Kong. LR cases can be managed by nonallergists at Spoke Clinics, with training and support of an allergist-led Hub.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Philip H. Li
- Division of Rheumatology & Clinical Immunology, Department of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong SAR, China
- Correspondence: Philip H. Li
| | - Jane C. Y. Wong
- Division of Rheumatology & Clinical Immunology, Department of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong SAR, China
| | - Jacky M. C. Chan
- Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine & Geriatrics, Kwong Wah Hospital, Hong Kong SAR, China
| | - Thomas S. H. Chik
- Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine & Geriatrics, Kwong Wah Hospital, Hong Kong SAR, China
| | - M. Y. Chu
- Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Hong Kong SAR, China
| | - Grace C. H. Ho
- Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Hong Kong SAR, China
| | - W. S. Leung
- Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine & Geriatrics, Kwong Wah Hospital, Hong Kong SAR, China
| | - Timothy C. M. Li
- Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine & Therapeutics, Prince of Wales Hospital, Hong Kong SAR, China
| | - Y. Y. Ng
- Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine & Geriatrics, Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong SAR, China
| | - Rocky Shum
- Division of Microbiology, Department of Clinical Pathology, Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong SAR, China
| | - Winnie W. Y. Sin
- Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Alice Ho Miu Ling Nethersole Hospital, Hong Kong SAR, China
| | - Eugene Y. K. Tso
- Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine & Geriatrics, United Christian Hospital, Hong Kong SAR, China
| | - Alan K. L. Wu
- Division of Microbiology, Department of Clinical Pathology, Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital, Hong Kong SAR, China
| | - Elaine Y. L. Au
- Division of Clinical Immunology, Department of Pathology, Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong SAR, China
| |
Collapse
|