Impact of a Standardized Beta-Lactam Allergy Questionnaire on Aztreonam Use

The role of clinical pharmacists in patients with suspected allergy to β-lactams: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the role played by the clinical pharmacist and its impact in antibiotic stewardship facing suspected allergy to beta-lactam antibiotics.

METHOD

We performed two different independent bibliographic searches. A total of 35 articles were found, and the final number included in the study was 12. We analysed the articles and collected variables of efficacy, safety and applicability of evaluation tools applied to patients with suspected allergy to beta-lactams. Also, the variation in the consumption and prescription profile of alternative antibiotics was analyzed.

RESULTS

The selected studies analysed questionnaires, allergy delabeling, intradermal tests and oral challenge tests performed by pharmacists. Significant differences in the efficacy endpoint were found in 4 studies in favour of pharmaceutical intervention. In the study of Kwiatkowski et al, cefazolin use increased in surgical patients after pharmacist intervention (65 vs. 28%; p < 0.01). In a quasi-experimental study, the mean defined daily dose of aztreonam and the mean days of therapy per 1000 patients/day decreased (21.23 vs 9.05, p <0.01) and (8.79-4.24, p = 0.016), pre and post-intervention, respectively, increasing antibiotic de-escalations (p ≤ 0.01). In another quasi-experimental study, the prescription of restricted-use antibiotics decreased (42.5% vs. 17.9%, p < 0.01) and the use of pre-surgical prophylactic antibiotics alternative to cefazolin (81.9% vs 55.9%, p<0.01) in another study. Other study showed that the mean time per interview was 5.2 minutes per patient. No adverse events were reported in any study.

CONCLUSION

The pharmacist intervention in the evaluation of the patient with suspected allergy to beta-lactams is effective, safe and feasible to implement on daily clinical practice. The standardization of protocols to clarify the history of allergies and development of evaluation tools represent simple screenings to perform delabelling or refer to the Immunoallergology service, improving penicilins use and reducing the need for second line antibiotics. More studies are needed to standardize the desensitization tests made by pharmacists. However, despite these results, the involvement and leadership of the pharmacist in this area is limited and constitutes a future challenge for the profession.

[Translated article] The role of clinical pharmacists in patients with suspected allergy to β-lactams: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the role played by the clinical pharmacist and its impact in antibiotic stewardship facing suspected allergy to beta-lactam antibiotics.

METHOD

We performed 2 different independent bibliographic searches. A total of 35 articles were found, and the final number included in the study was 12. We analyzed the articles and collected variables of efficacy, safety, and applicability of evaluation tools applied to patients with suspected allergy to beta-lactams. Also, the variation in the consumption and prescription profile of alternative antibiotics was analyzed.

RESULTS

The selected studies analyzed questionnaires, allergy delabeling, intradermal tests, and oral challenge tests performed by pharmacists. Significant differences in the efficacy endpoint were found in 4 studies in favor of pharmaceutical intervention. In the study of Kwiatkowski et al., cefazolin use increased in surgical patients after pharmacist intervention (65% vs 28%; P < .01). In a quasi-experimental study, the mean defined daily dose of aztreonam and the mean days of therapy per 1000 patients/day decreased (21.23 vs 9.05, P <.01) and (8.79-4.24, P = .016), pre- and post-intervention, respectively, increasing antibiotic de-escalations (P = < .01). In another quasi-experimental study, the prescription of restricted use antibiotics decreased (42.5% vs 17.9%, P < .01)and the use of pre-surgical prophylactic antibiotics alternative to cefazolin (81.9% vs 55.9%, P < .01)in another study. Other study showed that the mean time per interview was 5.2 min per patient. No adverse events were reported in any study.

CONCLUSION

The pharmacist intervention in the evaluation of the patient with suspected allergy to beta-lactams is effective, safe, and feasible to implement on daily clinical practice. The standardization of protocols to clarify the history of allergies and development of evaluation tools represent simple screenings to perform delabeling or refer to the Immunoallergology service, improving penicilins use and reducing the need for second-line antibiotics. More studies are needed to standardize the desensitization tests made by pharmacists. However, despite these results, the involvement and leadership of the pharmacist in this area is limited and constitutes a future challenge for the profession.

The effects of beta-lactam allergy relabeling on antibiotic prescribing practices

BACKGROUND

Beta-lactam antibiotic allergy labels are highly prevalent but rarely indicate an allergic intolerance. These patient-reported allergies lead to broad-spectrum antibiotic use, conferred resistance, increased expense, and adverse effects.

OBJECTIVE

To implement and assess the impact of a history-based clinical guideline that directs antibiotic management and beta-lactam allergy relabeling for patients reporting beta-lactam allergies.

METHODS

Patients with beta-lactam allergy labels were identified by our trained multidisciplinary team in diverse clinical settings. This quality improvement project was conducted to evaluate the safety and impact of the guideline on antibiotic use by comparing prescribing practices before and after guideline implementation.

RESULTS

A total of 79 patients with beta-lactam allergies were identified (penicillins-90%, cephalosporins-10%). After guideline implementation, outcomes of allergy relabeling included the following: (1) complete removal, indicating an unlikely true allergy (27%); (2) updated to detail successfully tolerated beta-lactam courses (48%); or (3) no change made to current label (25%). Beta-lactam antibiotic courses before and after guideline implementation compared with total antibiotic courses: allergy removed (44% vs 70%; P < .001), allergy updated (32% vs 68%; P < .001), and no change (27% vs 41%; P = .08). Compared with before guideline implementation, beta-lactam antibiotics were 3 times more likely to be prescribed after allergy assessment (odds ratio, 3.22; 95% confidence interval, 2.4-4.3; P < .05).

CONCLUSION

The implementation of the beta-lactam allergy clinical guideline resulted in most patients' allergy labels being removed or advantageously updated. These allergy label changes correlated with a substantial increase in the percentage of beta-lactam antibiotics prescribed. After guideline implementation, beta-lactam antibiotics had a 3-fold increased odds of being prescribed independent of allergy label outcome.

Optimizing preoperative antibiotics in patients with β-lactam allergies: A role for pharmacy

Disclaimer

In an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time.

Purpose

Patients with a reported β-lactam allergy (BLA) are often given alternative perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis, increasing risk of surgical site infections (SSIs), acute kidney injury (AKI), and Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI). The purpose of this study was to implement and evaluate a pharmacist-led BLA clarification interview service in the preoperative setting.

Methods

A pharmacist performed BLA clarification telephone interviews before elective procedures from November 2018 to March 2019. On the basis of allergy history and a decision algorithm, first-line preoperative antibiotics, alternative antibiotics, or allergy testing referral was recommended. The pharmacist intervention (PI) group was compared to a standard of care (SOC) group who underwent surgery from November 2017 to March 2018.

Results

Eighty-seven patients were included, with 50 (57%) and 37 (43%) in the SOC and PI groups, respectively. The most common surgeries included orthopedic surgery in 41 patients (47%) and neurosurgery in 17 patients (20%). In the PI group, all BLA labels were updated after interview. Twenty-three patients were referred for allergy testing, 12 of the 23 (52%) completed BLA testing, and penicillin allergies were removed for 9 of the 12 patients. Overall, 28 of the 37 (76%) pharmacy antibiotic recommendations were accepted. Cefazolin use significantly increased from 28% to 65% after the intervention (P = 0.001). SSI occurred in 5 (10%) patients in the SOC group and no patients in the PI group (P = 0.051). All of these SSIs were associated with alternative antibiotics. Incidence of AKI and CDI was similar between the groups. No allergic reactions occurred in either group.

Conclusion

Implementation of a pharmacy-driven BLA reconciliation significantly increased β-lactam preoperative use without negative safety outcomes.

Assessing Use of a Standardized Allergy History Questionnaire for Patients with Reported Allergy to Penicillin

BACKGROUND

Inappropriate allergy labelling is associated with significant clinical and pharmacoeconomic implications. Detailed antimicrobial allergy assessments represent a key component of antimicrobial stewardship and aid in identifying true type I (immediate hypersensitivity) reactions. The allergy history form currently used at the University Hospital of Northern British Columbia (UHNBC), in Prince George, relies on the assessor's ability to ask appropriate prompting questions to obtain a thorough history, but it may not be sufficient to accurately identify true allergies.

OBJECTIVE

To compare a standardized allergy history questionnaire and the current allergy history form in terms of the quality and quantity of documentation gathered.

METHODS

This prospective observational study involved patients who were admitted to medical and surgical services at UHNBC from November 2018 to January 2019 with a penicillin-class allergy reported on their electronic medical record (EMR). A list of patients with EMR-reported allergies was generated by the hospital's health information software system, and these patients were interviewed using the standardized allergy history questionnaire.

RESULTS

A total of 48 patients were assessed during the study period. Nineteen (40%) of the patients had an inappropriate allergy label on their EMR. Only 36 (75%) had an allergic reaction described on their EMR. Furthermore, only 36 (75%) of the 48 patients had the same allergy recorded on the EMR and on the allergy history form contained in their paper chart, of whom 22 had a documented reaction. The mean time to complete the standardized allergy history questionnaire was 2 minutes.

CONCLUSIONS

At the study institution, documentation of allergy histories was often incomplete. Detailed allergy assessments are the first step in identifying true immunoglobulin E-mediated hypersensitivity reactions. Utilization of a standardized allergy history questionnaire is feasible and may serve to improve documentation and overall antimicrobial stewardship.

Impact of a structured interview on beta-lactam reaction documentation quality

Incomplete documentation of β-lactam reactions often leads to inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of a structured interview on the quality of β-lactam reaction documentation. After 203 interviews, documentation of the core components of a β-lactam reaction improved (48% vs 1%; P < .001).

Strategies for Clarifying Penicillin Allergies When Skin Testing Is Not an Option

Patients with reported penicillin allergies have been proven to experience negative health consequences, such as increased cost, suboptimal antimicrobial therapy, and adverse reactions. Though skin testing has been proposed as a method to clarify penicillin allergies, many institutions may lack the resources to perform skin testing on a wide scale. This literature review describes the current literature surrounding the use of penicillin allergy interviews when skin testing is not an option. Specifically, the review highlights the steps in carrying out a successful antibiotic allergy patient interview, summarizes the clinical evidence surrounding antibiotic allergy clarifications, and addresses key advantages and disadvantages of clarifying antibiotic allergies without the availability of skin testing.