Barriers to penicillin allergy de-labeling in the inpatient and outpatient settings: a qualitative study

Adult penicillin allergy programmes in Australian hospitals: a practical guide from the National Antibiotic Allergy Network

Penicillin allergy is a significant burden on patient, prescribing and hospital outcomes. There has been increasing interest in the incorporation of penicillin allergy testing (i.e. delabelling) into antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programmes to reduce the burden of penicillin allergy labels and improve prescribing. In particular, there has been a focus on point-of-care penicillin allergy assessment and direct oral challenge for low-risk phenotypes. The National Antibiotic Allergy Network has provided a guide to assist AMS clinicians with the incorporation of penicillin allergy programmes, in particular direct oral challenge, into Australian hospitals.

Applying the dissemination and implementation sciences to allergy and immunology: A Work Group Report from the AAAAI Quality, Adherence, and Outcomes Committee

Translating evidence-based practice (EBP) into real-world clinical settings often takes a considerable amount of time and resources. In allergy and immunology, the dissemination and implementation (D&I) sciences facilitate the study of how variations in knowledge, resources, patient populations, and staffing models lead to differences in the clinical care of asthma, allergic disease, and primary immunodeficiency. Despite the need for validated approaches to study how to best apply EBP in the real world, the D&I sciences are underutilized. To address this gap, an American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI) work group was convened to provide an overview for the role of the D&I sciences in clinical care and future research within the field. For the D&I sciences to be leveraged effectively, teams should be multidisciplinary and inclusive of community and clinical partners, and multimethods approaches to data collection and analyses should be used. Used appropriately, the D&I sciences provide important tools to promote EBP and health equity as well as optimization of clinical practice in allergy and immunology.

Factors influencing implementation and adoption of direct oral penicillin challenge for allergy delabelling: a qualitative evaluation

BACKGROUND

Over 95% of penicillin allergy labels are inaccurate and may be addressed in low-risk patients using direct oral penicillin challenge (DPC). This study explored the behaviour, attitudes and acceptability of patients, healthcare professionals (HCPs) and managers of using DPC in low-risk patients.

METHODS

Mixed-method, investigation involving patient interviews and staff focus groups at three NHS acute hospitals. Transcripts were coded using inductive and deductive thematic analysis informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework.

FINDINGS

Analysis of 43 patient interviews and three focus groups (28 HCPs: clinicians and managers) highlighted themes of 'knowledge', 'beliefs about capabilities and consequences', 'environmental context', 'resources', 'social influences', 'professional role and identity', 'behavioural regulation and reinforcement' and a cross-cutting theme of digital systems. Overall, study participants supported the DPC intervention. Patients expressed reassurance about being in a monitored, hospital setting. HCPs acknowledged the need for robust governance structures for ensuring clarity of roles and responsibilities and confidence.

CONCLUSION

There were high levels of acceptability among patients and HCPs. HCPs recognised the importance of DPC. Complexities of penicillin allergy (de)labelling were highlighted, and issues of knowledge, risk, governance and workforce were identified as key determinants. These should be considered in future planning and adoption strategies for DPC.

"What if the patient has a severe reaction, and it is my fault?" A qualitative study exploring factors for sustainable implementation of penicillin allergy delabelling

BACKGROUND

Penicillin allergy delabelling (PAD), the process of evaluating penicillin allergy labels, is a key target in antibiotic stewardship, but uptake of the procedure outside clinical studies is limited. We aimed to explore factors that need to be addressed to sustainably implement a clinical pathway for PAD.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study based on semi-structured interviews with focus groups consisting of a purposive sample of twenty-five nurses and physicians working in four different hospitals in Western Norway. Systematic text condensation was applied for analysis.

RESULTS

Psychological safety was reported as crucial for clinicians to perform PAD. A narrative of uncertainty and anticipated negative outcomes were negatively associated with PAD performance. Education, guidelines, and colleague- and leadership support could together create psychological safety and empower health personnel to perform PAD. Key factors for sustainable implementation of PAD were facilitating the informant's profound motivation for providing optimal health care and for reducing antimicrobial resistance. Informants were motivated by the prospect of a simplified PAD procedure. We identified three main needs for implementation of PAD: (1) creating psychological safety; (2) utilising clinicians' inherent motivation and (3) optimal organisational structures.

CONCLUSION

A planned implementation of PAD must acknowledge clinicians' need for psychological safety and aid reassurance through training, leadership, and guidelines. To implement PAD as an everyday practice it must be minimally disruptive and provide a contextually adaptive logistic chain. Also, the clinician's motivation for providing the best possible healthcare should be utilised to aid implementation. The results of this study will aid sustainable implementation of PAD in Norway.

ETHICS

The study was approved by the Western Norway Regional Committee for Medical Research Ethics (Study No:199210).

Leveraging implementation science theories to develop and expand the use of a penicillin allergy de-labeling intervention

BACKGROUND

Penicillin allergy is the most frequently reported drug allergy, yet most patients can tolerate the drug if challenged. Despite this discrepancy, large scale penicillin allergy de-labeling interventions have not been widely implemented in many health care systems. The application of a multi-method implementation science approach can provide key tools to study this evidence to practice gap and provide insight to successfully operationalize penicillin allergy evaluation in real-world clinical settings.

METHODS

We followed a four-step process that leverages qualitative analysis to design evidence-based, actionable strategies to develop an intervention. First, we specified the clinician-perceived barriers to penicillin allergy de-labeling (intervention targets). We then mapped intervention targets onto Theoretical Domains Framework (domains and constructs) and found the root causes of behavior. Next, we linked root causes of behavior with intervention functions (BCW). In the final step, we synthesized participants' suggestions for process improvement with implementation strategies aligning with the intervention functions.

RESULTS

Evidence-based strategies such as focused education and training in penicillin allergy evaluation can address knowledge and confidence barriers reported by frontline clinicians. Other key strategies involve developing a system of champions, improving communications systems, and restructuring the healthcare team. Implementation mapping can provide a powerful multi-method framework to study, design, and customize intervention strategies.

CONCLUSION

Empowering clinicians beyond allergy specialists to conduct penicillin allergy assessments requires designing new workflows and systems and providing additional knowledge to those clinicians.

Rising to the Challenge: An ID Provider-Led Initiative to Address Penicillin Allergy Labels at a Large Veterans Affairs Medical Center

Background

Given the negative consequences associated with a penicillin allergy label, broader penicillin allergy delabeling initiatives are highly desirable but hindered by the shortage of allergists in the United States. To address this problem at our facility, the infectious diseases section introduced a quality improvement initiative to evaluate and remove allergy labels among inpatient veterans.

Methods

Between 15 November 2022 and 15 December 2023, we identified inpatients with a penicillin allergy label. We subsequently interviewed eligible candidates to stratify penicillin allergy risk and attempt to remove the allergy label directly via chart review, following inpatient oral amoxicillin challenge or outpatient community care allergy referral. Delabeling outcomes, subsequent penicillin-class prescriptions, and relabeling were tracked after successful allergy label removal.

Results

We screened 272 veterans, of whom 154 were interviewed for this intervention. A total of 53 patients were delabeled: 26 directly, 23 following oral amoxicillin challenge, and 4 following outpatient allergy referrals. Of the patients who were delabeled, 25 received subsequent penicillin-class prescriptions. No adverse reactions occurred following inpatient oral amoxicillin challenges. Patients with a low-risk penicillin allergy history were more likely to undergo a challenge if admitted with an infectious diseases-related condition. Only 1 inappropriate relabeling event occurred during the study period, which was subsequently corrected.

Conclusions

An infectious diseases provider-led initiative resulted in penicillin allergy label removal in more than one third of inpatients evaluated using direct removal or oral amoxicillin challenge. Efforts focused on patients who had been admitted for infections were particularly successful.

Efficacy of the PEN-FAST score in a French cohort of patients with reported allergy to penicillins

Introduction

Various clinical decision-making tools for penicillin allergy have been developed to guide delabeling strategies.

Objective

To evaluate the penicillin allergy PEN-FAST decision score in a retrospective cohort of patients, adults and children, with penicillin-reported allergy.

Methods

This monocentric retrospective cohort included patients with penicillin-reported allergy. All patients underwent penicillin allergy testing using skin tests and/or drug challenge. The PEN-FAST score sensitivity, specificity, negative (NPV) and positive (PPV) predictive values, and the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) were calculated.

Results

Two hundred and fourteen patients were included (64 children and 150 adults). Allergy was confirmed in 52 cases (24%). A PEN-FAST score <3 points showed a poor discrimination capacity for the whole population (AUC = 0.66; 95% CI: 0.58-0.75), while it demonstrated a better discrimination capacity in the adults group (AUC = 0.71; 95% CI: 0.63-0.80). The sensitivity to identify penicillin allergy using this cutoff of less than 3 points was 0.67 (95% CI: 0.52-0.80); specificity, 0.58 (95% CI: 0.48-0.68); PPV, 0.43 (95% CI: 0.32-0.55); and NPV, 0.78 (95% CI: 0.68-0.87).

Conclusions

Although our data confirm a rather good discrimination value of a PEN-FAST score <3 points, its low negative predictive value (78%) did not advocate for its use as an accurate, simple and cost-effective clinical decision-making tool to effectively reduce the number of penicillin skin tests required before direct oral challenge. Further studies are required to improve the predictive capacity of the PEN-FAST score.

Penicillin Allergy in China: Consequences of Inappropriate Skin Testing Practices and Policies

Penicillins are the most frequently prescribed class of medications worldwide and first-line antibiotic of choice for most bacterial infections. They are also commonly labelled as the culprit of drug 'allergy'; leading to obligatory use of second-line antibiotics, suboptimal antibiotic therapy and increased antimicrobial resistance. However, the majority of reported penicillin 'allergy' labels are found to be incorrect after allergy testing, emphasising the importance of proper drug allergy testing and evaluation. Penicillin skin testing (PST) remains an important component of drug allergy diagnosis; however, its practice and policies significantly differ across the world. Inappropriate and non-evidence-based PST practices can lead to consequences associated with allergy mislabelling. Even within different regions of China, with a population exceeding 1.4 billion, there are marked differences in the implementation, execution and interpretation of PST. This review aims to examine the differences in PST between Mainland China, Hong Kong and the rest of the world. We critically analyse the current practice of 'pre-emptive' PST in Mainland China, which has a significant false-positive rate leading to high levels of penicillin allergy mislabelling. Non-evidence-based practices further compound the high false-positive rates of indiscriminatory PST. We postulate that inappropriate PST policies and practices may exacerbate the mislabelling of penicillin allergy, leading to unnecessary overuse of inappropriate second-line antibiotics, increasing antimicrobial resistance and healthcare costs. We advocate for the importance of more collaborative research to improve the contemporary workflow of penicillin allergy diagnosis, reduce mislabelling and promote the dissemination of evidence-based methods for allergy diagnosis.

True Rate of Allergy among Pediatric Inpatients with Penicillin Allergy Labels (TRIAL)

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.

Prospective, Multicenter, Head-to-Head Comparison Between Allergists Versus Nonallergists in Low-Risk Penicillin Allergy Delabeling: Effectiveness, Safety, and Quality of Life (HK-DADI2)

BACKGROUND

Penicillin "allergy" labels are prevalent but frequently misdiagnosed. Mislabelled allergies are associated with adverse outcomes and increased antimicrobial resistance. With an urgent need to delabel the overwhelming number of mislabeled allergies, nonallergist evaluations have been advocated for low-risk individuals. Despite growing interest in non-allergist-led initiatives, evidence on their effectiveness, safety, and impact by direct comparisons is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the comparative outcomes of penicillin allergy evaluations conducted by allergists versus nonallergists.

METHODS

A prospective, multicenter, pragmatic study was conducted at 4 tertiary hospitals (1 allergist- vs 3 non-allergist-led) for low-risk penicillin allergy patients in Hong Kong-the Hong Kong Drug Allergy Delabelling Initiative 2 (HK-DADI2).

RESULTS

Among 228 low-risk patients who underwent testing (32.9% by allergists, 67.1% by nonallergists), only 14 (6.1%) had positive penicillin allergy testing results. Delabeling rates (94.1% vs 93.3%; P = .777), positive skin test results (2.6% vs 2.7%; P > .99), and drug provocation test results (3.3% vs 2.7%; P = 1.000) were similar between allergists and nonallergists. There were no systemic reactions in either cohort. All patients had significant improvements in health-related quality of life (Drug Hypersensitivity Quality of Life Questionnaire scores -5.00 vs -8.33; P = .072). Nonallergist evaluations had shorter waiting times (0.57 vs 15.7 months; P < .001), whereas allergists required fewer consultations with higher rate of completing evaluations within a single visit (odds ratio, 0.04; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

With training and support, nonallergists can independently evaluate low-risk penicillin allergies. Compared with allergists, evaluation of low-risk penicillin allergy by nonallergists can be comparably effective, safe, and impactful on quality of life. More multidisciplinary partnerships to empower nonallergists to conduct allergy evaluations should be encouraged.

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.