Resources Assessment for Penicillin Allergy Testing Performed by Pharmacists at the Patient's Bedside

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.

Qualitative analysis of healthcare provider perspectives to evaluating beta-lactam allergies

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of understanding of the barriers reported by healthcare providers when evaluating beta-lactam allergies, but knowledge of these barriers is required for practical and effective implementation interventions.

METHODS

Twenty-five healthcare providers, consisting of physicians, nurses and pharmacists practicing in the areas of intensive care, emergency medicine, infectious disease and general hospital practice, were interviewed between September 2021 and July 2023. Twenty-three of these providers were practising in the USA. A semi-structured interview guide grounded in the Theoretical Domain Framework was used for the interviews. Deductive and inductive analysis was performed on the interview transcripts, and translated into intervention recommendations using the Behaviour Change Wheel.

RESULTS

Widely held beliefs included a lack of clear policy for the evaluation of allergies, confusing or missing documentation of allergy information, confidence in their own and their colleagues' ability to evaluate allergies when information is available, and pharmacists as the provider most equipped to evaluate beta-lactam allergies.

CONCLUSIONS

Health systems should adopt and disseminate policies for the evaluation of beta-lactam allergies, and promote the use of pharmacists in the evaluation of drug allergies when possible. Allergy sections of electronic health records should be reworked to encourage unambiguous documentation of allergy reactions and support using previously tolerated beta-lactam antibiotics.

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.