Penicillin Allergy Assessment and Skin Testing in the Outpatient Setting

A new clinical opportunity: Rechallenging penicillin allergy in an outpatient pharmacy

In the United States, approximately 27 million people have a documented penicillin allergy, but 90% of the allergies are falsely labeled. By rechallenging suspected allergies, a pharmacist can optimize patient care, fulfill antimicrobial stewardship objectives, and educate patients on true allergies. We suggest a protocol that allows pharmacists to investigate the presence of an allergy and conduct a challenge when indicated. The protocol consists of a patient interview, a risk assessment, an oral rechallenge, and the potential for a skin test. The testing and delabeling of penicillin allergies will enhance the practice of antimicrobial stewardship in the outpatient setting. In the changing landscape of pharmacy, community pharmacists can increase their services and improve patient care. Owing to limited documented experience in the outpatient pharmacy, an opportunity to set the standard and be a leader in the field is present.

An overview of penicillin allergies for nurses

ABSTRACT

Antibiotics are frequently reported as allergies by patients, particularly antibiotics from the penicillin family. Most of these reported allergies are benign, and the consequences of alternative therapies can be significant. This article provides background information on penicillin allergies and serves as a guide to penicillin allergy management.Reprinted with permission from Wrynn, A.F. An overview of penicillin allergies for nurses. Nurse Pract 2022; 47(9): 30-36. Copyright Wolters Kluwer. All rights reserved.

Evaluation of a pharmacist-led penicillin allergy testing service in a community health system

BACKGROUND

Roughly 10% of the U.S. population has a documented penicillin (PCN) allergy. Among these individuals, over 95% are able to tolerate PCNs. The inability to use PCNs can result in suboptimal outcomes. In August 2019, Lawrence Memorial Hospital Health System implemented a pharmacist-led PCN allergy testing service to assist with delabeling PCN allergies and increase access to this class of antibiotics.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to describe the number of patients who underwent PCN allergy testing and were delabeled from PCN allergy. A secondary objective was to report the number of patients who received and tolerated PCN antibiotics after being delabeled from PCN allergy.

METHODS

This retrospective chart review was conducted during the initial 17 months of a pharmacist-led PCN allergy testing service. Eligible patients with a history of an immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated reaction underwent a 3-step test that consisted of a scratch test, an intradermal test, and an oral challenge. Eligible patients who did not have a history of IgE-mediated reaction underwent a 2-step graded oral challenge. Descriptive statistics were used for data analysis.

RESULTS

Between August 2019 and January 2022, 70 patients underwent testing, and 66 patients were delabeled from PCN allergy. Four patients who underwent the 3-step test developed reactions of mild to moderate severity. All patients who underwent the graded oral challenge were delabeled from PCN allergy. The rate of PCN allergy was 5.7%, whereas the rate of type I IgE-mediated reaction was 1.4%. All 23 patients who received an antibiotic from the PCN class after a negative allergy test tolerated the PCN antibiotic without an incident.

CONCLUSION

PCN allergy testing is an effective way to delabel PCN allergies from most patients presenting with a PCN allergy history. Skin testing followed by an oral challenge or a graded oral challenge alone are safe methods for conducting PCN allergy testing in the primary care setting.

Penicillin Allergy Delabeling Program: an exploratory economic evaluation in the Australian context

BACKGROUND

Internationally, clinical and economic advantages of low-risk penicillin delabelling have been explored, supporting changes to healthcare delivery systems where penicillin delabelling is embedded into inpatient usual care.

AIMS

To determine if economic advantages of low-risk inpatient penicillin delabelling, described in the international literature, are realised in the Australian context.

METHODS

This explorative economic evaluation had prospective patient data collection between January and August 2019, across two Australian health services. Part 1: determine the cost per effectively delabelled patient for Penicillin Allergy Delabeling Program inpatients (PADP cohort) compared with Outpatient Antibiotic Allergy Testing Service outpatients (OAATS cohort). Part 2: a cost analysis to compare hospital costs for inpatients with low-risk penicillin allergy who did (PADP cohort) and did not (usual care cohort) undergo PADP delabelling.

RESULTS

Part 1: the PADP (n = 350) and OAATS (n = 27 patients, n = 36 individual visits) cohorts were comparable. In PADP, costs/proportion delabelled was $20.10/0.98, equating to $20.51 per effectively delabelled patient; in OAATS, it was $181.24/0.50, equating to $362. Compared with OAATS, PADP was associated with savings of $341.97 per effectively delabelled patient, indicating the outpatient testing was the dominated strategy, being more costly and less effective. Part 2: the PADP (n = 218) and usual care (n = 32) cohorts were comparable. Significantly favouring the delabelled PADP cohort, the mean difference per patient was -4.41 days (95% confidence interval: -7.64, -1.18) and -$9467.72 (95% confidence interval: -$15 419.98, -$3515.46).

CONCLUSIONS

Consistent with international literature, delabelling low-risk penicillin allergies in the inpatient setting had economic advantages in the Australian context. Fully powered economic evaluations are urgently required to consolidate these findings.

Safety and value of pretransplant antibiotic allergy delabeling in a quaternary transplant center

BACKGROUND

Self-reported antibiotic allergies, also known as antibiotic allergy labels, are common and may lead to worse patient outcomes. Within immunocompromized patients, antibiotic allergy labels can lead to inappropriate use of antimicrobials and may limit options for prophylactic and therapeutic options in the posttransplant period. While antibiotic allergy delabeling is considered an important aspect of antibiotic stewardship protocols, evidence and awareness of its application in transplant recipients is limited.

METHODS

We describe our experience with an antibiotic allergy delabeling intervention in the pretransplant evaluation period and its impact on posttransplant antimicrobial utilization. This was a retrospective analysis of patients with an antibiotic allergy label who underwent evaluation for solid organ or stem cell transplantation between 2015 and 2020. Patients included in this analysis were those who completed pretransplant antibiotic allergy delabeling through our Drug Allergy Clinic and were retained in care for 6 months after transplant.

RESULTS

Twenty-six of 27 patients underwent pretransplant antibiotic allergy delabeling and safely received the delabeled antibiotic posttransplant. There were no reported side effects to the delabeled antibiotic within 6 months posttransplant. Specific examination of sulfonamide (sulfa)-antibiotic delabeling showed cost savings of $254 to $2910 per patient in the posttransplant period compared to the use of alternative antibiotics for prophylaxis protocol.

CONCLUSION

Antibiotic allergy delabeling prior to transplant is safe, is of high value, and should be considered in the pretransplant evaluation period. More resources are needed for the development of delabeling guidelines and support for broad implementation of pretransplant antibiotic allergy delabeling programs.

Penicillin allergies: A guide for NPs

ABSTRACT

Antibiotics are frequently reported as allergies by patients, particularly antibiotics from the penicillin family. Most of these reported allergies are benign, and the consequences of alternative therapies can be significant. This article will deliver background information on penicillin allergies and serve as a guide to penicillin allergy management.

Review of Pharmacist Driven Penicillin Allergy Assessments and Skin Testing: A Multi-Center Case-Series

Objective: To describe the impact of pharmacy driven penicillin allergy assessments on de-labeling penicillin allergies and antibiotic streamlining opportunities for hospitalized patients. Design: Multi-center, retrospective case-series study. Setting: A health system of 4 non-teaching hospitals. Participants: Patients aged 18 years and older with a physician order for a pharmacist penicillin allergy assessment. Exclusion criteria consisted of patients with anaphylaxis or a type II penicillin allergy, anaphylaxis of any cause within 4 weeks, refusal of penicillin allergy skin test (PAST), antihistamine use within 24 hours, penicillin intolerance, immunosuppression or immunosuppressive medications, or skin conditions that could interfere with PAST. Interventions: The primary endpoint evaluated the number of de-labeled penicillin allergies after pharmacists provided penicillin allergy assessments. Secondary endpoints evaluated the percent of patients with antibiotics deescalated to beta-lactam antibiotics and classification of notable interventions made by pharmacists. Measurements and Main Results: There were 35 patients who met inclusion criteria. Twenty-four patients underwent both penicillin allergy skin testing and oral (PO) amoxicillin challenge. Five patients had allergies de-labeled only after a pharmacist interview. Four patients received only the PO amoxicillin challenge and 2 patients received only PAST. Penicillin allergies were de-labeled from the electronic health record (EHR) in 31 (89%) patients despite all testing negative for a penicillin allergy from PAST or a PO amoxicillin challenge. Four patients had the allergy re-added to the chart on subsequent admissions. No patients experienced a reaction from PAST, PO amoxicillin challenge, or subsequent beta-lactam antibiotics. Twenty-eight (80%) patients had their antibiotic therapy changed as a result of the allergy assessment. Seventeen patients were de-escalated onto beta-lactam antibiotics and aztreonam was stopped in 6 patients. Conclusion: Results from this study suggests that pharmacists expanding their scope of practice with PAST is a safe and effective allergy de-labeling tool. Pharmacist-driven penicillin allergy assessments could provide antibiotic cost savings and avoid aztreonam use. The study supports the need to emphasize education for patients and caretakers regarding allergy testing results to avoid relabeling in future hospital visits.

Instruction and Simulation to Improve Pharmacy Students' Knowledge and Confidence Regarding Assessment of Penicillin Allergies

Objective. To evaluate pharmacy students' knowledge of and confidence regarding penicillin allergy assessment and skin testing (PAAST) before and after a focused didactic instruction and simulation (FDIS).Methods. A multicenter, quasi-experimental, cross-sectional survey study was performed among pharmacy students before and after FDIS on PAAST at two schools of pharmacy. The FDIS on PAAST consisted of an infectious disease faculty-led seminar, student-led penicillin allergy counseling interviews, penicillin skin testing simulation, and case studies to assess penicillin allergy scenarios and management. An anonymous, voluntary, electronic survey was distributed to students (n=159) before and after the FDIS. The pre- and post-intervention survey contained 10 PAAST knowledge-based questions and multi-step, five-point Likert scale statements related to students' confidence in PAAST. The post-intervention survey also evaluated students' perceptions of the FDIS on PAAST. Descriptive statistics were performed, and the Student t test was used to compare pre- and post-intervention responses.Results. One hundred forty-three surveys were completed, resulting in a survey response rate of 90%. Students' PAAST knowledge scores (mean±SD) increased overall following the FDIS on PAAST (6.67±1.51 vs 7.81±1.39). Knowledge scores increased considerably for questions related to penicillin allergy consequences, cross-reactivity, and correct steps of PAAST. Pharmacy students' PAAST confidence scores (mean±SD) also improved following the interactive instruction and simulation (2.30±0.7 vs 3.22±0.67) with considerable confidence increases in penicillin skin testing. Pharmacy students' perceptions of the FDIS on PAAST were also positive overall.Conclusion. Pharmacy students' knowledge and confidence of PAAST improved following FDIS. This may be an effective strategy to implement PAAST education during pharmacy school.

Penicillin Allergy Delabeling: A Multidisciplinary Opportunity

The penicillin allergy label has been consistently linked with deleterious effects that span the health care spectrum, including suboptimal clinical outcomes, the emergence of bacterial resistance, and increased health care expenditures. These risks have recently motivated professional organizations and public health institutes to advocate for the implementation of penicillin allergy delabeling initiatives; however, the burden of delabeling millions of patients is too expansive for any one discipline to bear alone. This review presents the unique perspectives and roles of various stakeholder groups involved in penicillin allergy diagnosis, assessment, and delabeling; we emphasize opportunities, barriers, and promising areas of innovation. We summarize penicillin allergy methods and tools that have proven successful in delabeling efforts. A multidisciplinary approach to delabeling patients with reported penicillin allergy, bolstered by evidence-based clinical practices, is recommended to reduce the risks that associate with the penicillin allergy label.

Lemierre Syndrome: Unusual Presentation With Superior Ophthalmic Vein Thrombosis

ABSTRACT

Lemierre syndrome (LS) is a rare, but serious condition most commonly associated with oropharyngeal bacterial infection. Infection results in thrombophlebitis of the internal jugular vein and its tributaries. It usually affects previously healthy young adults. The authors report an unusual case of an elderly patient with penicillin allergy who developed Lemierre syndrome from an odontogenic infection (Streptococcus intermedius) resistant to clindamycin. She developed thrombosis of the internal jugular vein and superior ophthalmic vein resulting in visual changes. Treatment required incision and drainage, intravenous antibiotics and anticoagulation. Antibiotics were tailored to culture and sensitivities after testing response to a beta-lactam. With antibiotic resistance increasing, investigation of penicillin allergies is warranted for severe head and neck infections.

Penicillin Allergy Skin Testing in the Inpatient Setting

The consequences of a documented penicillin allergy in the medical record are especially troublesome in acutely ill, hospitalized patients. A penicillin allergy label may lead to alternative or second line therapies resulting in adverse drug events, negative clinical outcomes and increased costs. Reconciling penicillin allergies is a necessity to facilitate early, optimal therapy and is a shared responsibility among the healthcare team. Penicillin skin testing (PST) has been utilized successfully in hospitalized patients to de-label erroneous penicillin allergies and optimize antibiotic therapy. This targeted review aims to discuss the practical development and implementation of PST in the inpatient setting. This includes a needs assessment checklist with common considerations allowing for customization to one’s institution based on available personnel, time, and technological resources.