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

Beta-lactam allergy in patients: an antibiotic stewardship challenge

BACKGROUND

Patients are commonly reported as being allergic to beta-lactam (BL) antibiotics. However, many patients with this reported allergy are able to receive BL treatments because they do not have true allergies. In many cases these are simply intolerances due to side effects reported as an allergy. Delabelling these patients leads to better clinical outcomes, optimal antibiotic usage, decreased bacterial resistance and reduced healthcare costs. Therefore, the aims of this study were to identify incorrectly labelled BL allergies in hospitalised patients and to assess antibiotic use in delabelled patients in order to establish a quality indicator to optimise antimicrobial treatments.

METHODS

A prospective study was conducted in which hospitalised patients treated with antimicrobial drugs and labelled as 'BL-allergic' were identified by clinical pharmacists. An allergist assessed whether patients were suitable candidates for a skin test or oral challenge. The Allergy Service removed 'BL-allergic' labels if negative results were obtained. Delabelled patients were followed up by clinical pharmacists to study the use of BL antibiotics as a result of the delabelling programme.

RESULTS

A total of 176 suspected allergic patients were identified and 91 (51.7%) were tested either by a skin test or oral challenge based on the patient indicators. Seven (16.4%) patients tested were allergic to BL antibiotics, 76 (83.5%) were totally delabelled and eight (0.1%) were partially delabelled. Thirty-two (38.1%) delabelled patients required antibiotic treatment in another inpatient or outpatient setting, of whom 27 (84.3%) patients with a new infectious episode received BL treatments while five (15.7%) continued to receive antimicrobial treatments without BL.

CONCLUSION

After the implementation of a protocol to detect incorrect BL allergy labels, 83.5% of the patients in this cohort were completely delabelled. This shows that there is a clear opportunity to optimise the use of antibiotics by delabelling 'BL-allergic' patients.

Management and Implications of Beta-Lactam Allergies

Beta-lactam antibiotics are essential components in the current antimicrobial treatment strategy, playing a crucial role in ambulatory patients and hospitalized patients. Despite their prominent therapeutic index, the use of beta-lactam can lead to adverse effects, with allergic reactions being the most concerning because of their severity. Additionally, the phenomenon of cross-reactivity may occur among various beta-lactam families, with side chains significantly contributing to immunological recognition, making these structures often responsible for the cross-allergic reactivity of beta-lactams. Tools to assess beta-lactam allergy include taking a patient's medical history, performing skin tests, and conducting provocation tests. This research aims to analyze the relevant aspects related to the safe administration of beta-lactam antibiotics in hospitalized patients as well as provide knowledge on the proper management of patients with such hypersensitivity, by doing systemic research. This research was made using Google Scholar and keywords such as "Beta-lactam allergy," "Hypersensitivity," "Cross-reactivity," "Desensitization," and "Beta-lactam allergy management." In conclusion, substituting a beta-lactam antibiotic with an alternative antibiotic may not always be the best management option for these patients, as it may lead to more adverse effects, be less effective, and prolong hospitalization time. It may also result in higher rates of antibiotic-resistant infections and increased medical costs, as these alternatives are often more expensive. However, an alternative within the beta-lactam family can be sought by conducting the appropriate analyses. Although cross-reactivity does not always occur among all beta-lactams, potential cross-reactivity should always be considered.

A novel framework to guide antibiotic stewardship nursing practice

BACKGROUND

There is a pervasive view among some nurses and health care disciplines that antibiotic stewardship (AS) is solely a physician or pharmacist responsibility. There is an urgent need to alter this view so that nurses can seize every opportunity to prevent patient harm from antibiotics and optimize antibiotic use. One challenge to achieving full nurse engagement as equal members of the AS team is lack of an organizing framework to illustrate relationships of phenomena and concepts inherent to adoption of AS nursing practices.

METHODS

We sought to create a framework derived from the peer-reviewed literature, systematic and scoping reviews, and professional standards, consensus statements and white papers. The emerging framework went through multiple iterations as it was vetted with nurse clinicians, scholars and educators, physicians, pharmacists, infection preventionists and AS subject matter experts.

RESULTS

Our evidence-based Antibiotic Stewardship Nursing Practice SCAN-P Framework provides the much-needed context and clarity to help guide local-level nurses to participate in and lead AS nursing practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Nurses worldwide are ideally situated to provide holistic person-centered care, advocate for judicious use of antibiotics to minimize antibiotic resistance, and be AS educators of their patients, communities and the general public. The Antibiotic Stewardship Nursing Practice SCAN-P Framework provides a tool to do so.

New perspectives on propofol allergy

PURPOSE

Propofol is an intravenous sedative used in many patient populations and care settings. Although generally considered safe and effective, the drug has historically been avoided in patients with reported allergies to egg, soy, and/or peanut on the basis of the manufacturer's prescribing information. Concerns exist for potential adverse events, increased medication costs, reduced efficacy, and risk of medication errors when using alternative agents. Here we present a critical examination of the literature concerning cross-reactivity of food allergies with propofol to provide evidence-based recommendations for the evaluation and management of potential allergic reactions.

SUMMARY

Literature regarding the history of propofol allergy warnings and clinical trial data were assessed to provide an alternative perspective on avoidance of propofol in patients with food allergies. Suspected trigger molecules are discussed with evaluation of the antigenic potential of excipient ingredients used in the manufacture of multiple propofol formulations. Evidence-based recommendations are provided for pharmacist-led screening of adult patients with reported food allergies to support selection of propofol or alternative therapy.

CONCLUSION

There is a lack of definitive evidence that propofol must be routinely avoided in patients with reported allergies to egg, soy, and/or peanut products. Data from clinical trials suggest that propofol is safe for patients with nonanaphylactic food allergies. Patients who do experience allergic reactions following administration of propofol should undergo further testing to definitively identify the specific trigger and prevent future unnecessary avoidance of preferred medication regimens. Pharmacists can play an important role in interviewing patients with reported food allergies to better determine the risk vs benefit of propofol avoidance.

Management of penicillin allergy in primary care: a qualitative study with patients and primary care physicians

Background

Six percent of patients are allergic to penicillin according to their medical records. While this designation protects a small number of truly allergic patients from serious reactions, those who are incorrectly labelled may be denied access to recommended first line treatment for many infections. Removal of incorrect penicillin allergy may have positive health consequences for the individual and the general population.

We aimed to explore primary care physicians’ (PCPs) and patients’ views and understanding of penicillin allergy with a focus on clinical management of infections in the face of a penicillin allergy record.

Methods

We conducted an interview study with 31 patients with a penicillin allergy record, and 19 PCPs in the North of England. Data were analysed thematically.

Results

Patients made sense of their allergy status by considering the timing and severity of symptoms. Diagnosis of penicillin allergy was reported to be ‘imperfect’ with PCPs relying on patient reports and incomplete medical records. PCPs and patients often suspected that an allergy record was incorrect, but PCPs were reluctant to change records. PCPs had limited knowledge of allergy services. PCPs often prescribed alternative antibiotics which were easy to identify. Both patients and PCPs differed in the extent to which they were aware of the negative consequences of incorrect penicillin allergy records, their relevance and importance to their lives, and management of penicillin allergy.

Conclusions

PCPs and patients appear insufficiently aware of potential harms associated with incorrect penicillin allergy records. Some of the problems experienced by PCPs could be reduced by ensuring the details of newly diagnosed reactions to antibiotics are clearly documented. In order for PCPs to overturn more incorrect penicillin records through appropriate use of allergy services, more information and training about these services will be needed.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-021-01465-1.

Penicillin Allergy Assessment and Skin Testing in the Outpatient Setting

Penicillin allergies are among of the most commonly reported allergies, yet only 10% of these patients are truly allergic. This leads to potential inadvertent negative consequences for patients and makes treatment decisions challenging for clinicians. Thus, allergy assessment and penicillin skin testing (PST) are important management strategies to reconcile and clarify labeled penicillin allergies. While PST is more common in the inpatient setting where the results will immediately impact antibiotic management, this process is becoming of increasing importance in the outpatient setting. PST in the outpatient setting allows clinicians to proactively de-label and educate patients accordingly so beta-lactam antibiotics may be appropriately prescribed when necessary for future infections. While allergists have primarily been responsible for PST in the outpatient setting, there is an increasing role for pharmacist involvement in the process. This review highlights the importance of penicillin allergy assessments, considerations for PST in the outpatient setting, education and advocacy for patients and clinicians, and the pharmacist’s role in outpatient PST.