Challenge Test Results in Patients With Suspected Penicillin Allergy, but No Specific IgE

Safety of direct oral provocation testing using the Amoxicillin-2-step-challenge in children with history of non-immediate reactions to amoxicillin

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have shown that direct oral provocation tests, without prior skin testing, in children having delayed onset, benign rashes to beta-lactam antibiotic is safe and effective. Although, this test is useful in confirming drug hypersensitivity reactions, there is no standard protocol recommendation of drug provocation tests. This study aimed to evaluate the safety of the direct oral provocation test, using the Amoxicillin-2-step-challenge without prior skin testing, in children with history of non-immediate reactions to amoxicillin.

METHODS

The Amoxicillin-2-step-challenge protocol was performed in children with history of non-immediate reactions to amoxicillin. This protocol is composed of 2 doses of amoxicillin, with a 30-min interval; continued for a total of 5 days. All of the patients had not undergone skin testing before the oral provocation test.

RESULTS

This study included 54 children, having a median age of 6.6 years, with 70.4% being male. Amoxicillin and amoxicillin-clavulanic acid were reported as the culprit drug in 75.9% and 24.1%, respectively. The index reactions were maculopapular (MP) rash in 79.6% and delayed urticarial rash/angioedema in 20.4%. Five patients (9.3%) had a reaction during the provocation test, all of these patients had delayed urticaria and were treated with oral antihistamine. However, 1 patient developed a fever alongside an MP rash. Laboratory investigation for this patient showed increased atypical lymphocytes and liver enzymes elevation.

CONCLUSIONS

Direct oral provocation tests, using the Amoxicillin-2-step-challenge, without prior skin testing, revealed good, immediate safety for the diagnosis of amoxicillin hypersensitivity in children with history of non-immediate reactions to amoxicillin.

Frequency of severe reactions following penicillin drug provocation tests: A Bayesian meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients with a penicillin allergy label tend to have worse clinical outcomes and increased healthcare use. Drug provocation tests (DPT) are the gold-standard in the diagnostic workup of penicillin allergy, but safety concerns may hinder their performance. We aimed to assess the frequency of severe reactions following a DPT in patients with reported allergy to penicillins or other β-lactams.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review, searching MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science. We included primary studies assessing participants with a penicillin allergy label who underwent a DPT. We performed a Bayesian meta-analysis to estimate the pooled frequency of severe reactions to penicillin DPTs. Sources of heterogeneity were explored by subgroup and metaregression analyses.

RESULTS

We included 112 primary studies which included a total of 26,595 participants. The pooled frequency of severe reactions was estimated at 0.06% (95% credible interval [95% CrI] = 0.01%-0.13%; I2  = 57.9%). Most severe reactions (80/93; 86.0%) consisted of anaphylaxis. Compared to studies where the index reaction was immediate, we observed a lower frequency of severe reactions for studies assessing non-immediate index reactions (OR = 0.05; 95% CrI = 0-0.31). Patients reporting anaphylaxis as their index reaction were found to be at increased risk of developing severe reactions (OR = 13.5; 95% CrI = 7.7-21.5; I2  = 0.3%). Performance of direct DPTs in low-risk patients or testing with the suspected culprit drug were not associated with clinically relevant increased risk of severe reactions.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with a penicillin allergy label, severe reactions resulting from DPTs are rare. Therefore, except for patients with potentially life-threatening index reactions or patients with positive skin tests-who were mostly not assessed in this analysis -, the safety of DPTs supports their performance in the diagnostic assessment of penicillin allergy.

Towards a more precise diagnosis of hypersensitivity to beta-lactams - an EAACI position paper

A recent survey of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Drug Allergy Interest Group (DAIG) on how European allergy specialists deal with beta-lactam (BL) hypersensitivity demonstrated a significant heterogeneity in current practice, suggesting the need to review and update existing EAACI guidelines in order to make the diagnostic procedures as safe and accurate, but also as cost-effective, as possible. For this purpose, a bibliographic search on large studies regarding BL hypersensitivity diagnosis was performed by an EAACI task force, which reviewed and evaluated the literature data using the GRADE system for quality of evidence and strength of recommendation. The updated guidelines provide a risk stratification in BL hypersensitivity according to index reaction(s), as well as an algorithmic approach, based on cross-reactivity studies, in patients with a suspicion of BL hypersensitivity and an immediate need for antibiotic therapy, when referral to an allergist is not feasible. Furthermore, the update addresses availability and concentrations of skin test (ST) reagents, ST and drug provocation test (DPT) protocols, and diagnostic algorithms and administration of alternative BL in allergic subjects. Specifically, distinct diagnostic algorithms are suggested depending on risk stratification of the patient into high and low risk based on the morphology and chronology of the reaction, immediate (ie, occurring within 1-6 hours after the last administered dose) or nonimmediate (ie, occurring more than 1 hour after the initial drug administration), and the reaction severity. Regarding the allergy workup, the main novelty of this document is the fact that in some low-risk nonimmediate reactions ST are not mandatory, especially in children. For DPT, further studies are necessary to provide data supporting the standardization of protocols, especially of those regarding nonimmediate reactions, for which there is currently no consensus.

Accuracy of penicillin allergy diagnostic tests: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Having a penicillin allergy label associates with a higher risk for antibiotic resistance and increased health care use.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to assess the accuracy of skin tests and specific IgE quantification in the diagnostic evaluation of patients reporting a penicillin/β-lactam allergy.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis, searching on MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science. We included studies conducted in patients reporting a penicillin allergy and in whom skin tests and/or specific IgE quantification were performed and compared with drug challenge results. We quantitatively assessed the accuracy of diagnostic tests with bivariate random-effects meta-analyses. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses were performed to explore causes of heterogeneity. Studies' quality was evaluated using QUADAS-2 criteria.

RESULTS

We included 105 primary studies, assessing 31,761 participants. Twenty-seven studies were assessed by bivariate meta-analysis. Skin tests had a summary sensitivity of 30.7% (95% CI, 18.9%-45.9%) and a specificity of 96.8% (95% CI, 94.2%-98.3%), with a partial area under the summary receiver-operating characteristic curve of 0.686 (I² = 38.2%). Similar results were observed for subanalyses restricted to patients reporting nonimmediate maculopapular exanthema or urticaria/angioedema. Specific IgE had a summary sensitivity of 19.3% (95% CI, 12.0%-29.4%) and a specificity of 97.4% (95% CI, 95.2%-98.6%), with a partial area under the summary receiver-operating characteristic curve of 0.420 (I² = 8.5%). Projected predictive values mainly reflect the low frequency of true penicillin allergy.

CONCLUSIONS

Skin tests and specific IgE quantification appear to have low sensitivity and high specificity. Because current evidence is insufficient for assessing the role of these tests in stratifying patients for delabeling, we identified key requirements needed for future studies.

A Closer Look at Penicillin Allergy History: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Tolerance to Drug Challenge

BACKGROUND

True allergy to penicillin is rare, despite the high frequency with which it is reported. While most patients reporting penicillin allergy are not prone to anaphylaxis, it is not currently known what percentage of these patients will tolerate dose challenges of penicillin-based antibiotics. This review aims to determine the rate of tolerance in patients reporting penicillin allergy when challenged with penicillin-based antibiotics.

METHODS

We searched MedLine, Embase, and Cochrane Library for publications with English language translations between the years 2000 and 2017. We included randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental, and observational studies of participants reporting penicillin allergy who received at least one systemic dose of a penicillin in the form of a drug challenge. At least 2 independent reviewers extracted data from included studies and assessed the quality of each included study. To generate primary outcome data, we calculated a summary estimate rate of penicillin tolerance from a pooled proportion of participants receiving penicillin with no adverse effects.

RESULTS

Initial literature search yielded 2945 studies, of which 23 studies were ultimately included in our review; 5056 study participants with reported history of penicillin allergy were challenged with a penicillin. After weighting for study sample size, a pooled average of 94.4% (95% confidence interval, 93.7%-95%) of participants tolerated the dose challenge without any adverse reaction.

CONCLUSION

Misrepresented penicillin allergy drives unnecessary use of alternative antibiotics, which may be less effective, more toxic, and more expensive than using penicillin. In addressing the problem of penicillin allergy over-diagnosis, evaluation should go beyond risk for type 1 hypersensitivity. Our data suggest that 94.4% of 5056 participants with reported penicillin allergy determined to be clinically appropriate for allergy evaluation tolerated repeat administration of penicillin-based antibiotics without any adverse reactions. This review generates meaningful information useful to clinical predictive analytics, in evaluating and managing patients with a reported history of penicillin allergy.

Vancomycin Prophylaxis for Total Joint Arthroplasty: Incorrectly Dosed and Has a Higher Rate of Periprosthetic Infection Than Cefazolin

BACKGROUND

In total joint arthroplasty (TJA), vancomycin is used as perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with penicillin allergy or in patients colonized with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Although vancomycin dosing should be weight-based (15 mg/kg), not all surgeons are aware of this; a fixed 1-g dose is instead frequently administered.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) Is there a difference in the risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in patients receiving vancomycin or cefazolin prophylaxis after primary TJA? (2) What proportion of patients is adequately dosed with vancomycin? (3) Compared with actual fixed dosing, does weight-based dosing result in a greater proportion of patients staying above the recommended 15-mg/L level at the beginning and end of surgery? (4) Are patients overdosed with vancomycin at greater risk of developing nephrotoxicity and acute kidney injury?

METHODS

A single-institution, retrospective study was performed on 1828 patients undergoing primary TJAs who received vancomycin prophylaxis between 2008 and 2014. During the same period, 5810 patients underwent primary TJA and received cefazolin monotherapy. A chart review was performed to obtain patient characteristics, antibiotic dose and timing of administration, and microbiology data. Adequate vancomycin dosing was defined as 15 mg/kg and within the 125-mg range. Vancomycin levels were calculated at the beginning and end of surgery using pharmacokinetic equations. Levels of 15 mg/L were considered adequate. Logistic regression, chi square tests, and analysis of variance were performed.

RESULTS

Among primary TJAs, patients receiving vancomycin had a higher rate of PJI (32 of 1828 [2%]) compared with patients receiving cefazolin prophylaxis (62 of 5810 [1%]; adjusted odds ratio, 1.587 [1.004-2.508]; p = 0.048). Ten percent of PJIs in the vancomycin underdosed group (two of 20) was caused by MRSA, and no patients with adequate dosing or overdosing of vancomycin developed PJI with MRSA. Of all procedures in which vancomycin monotherapy was used, 28% (518 of 1828) was adequately dosed according to weight-based dosage recommendations. Furthermore, 94% (1726 of 1828) of patients received a fixed 1-g dose of vancomycin, of whom 64% (1105 of 1726) were underdosed. All patients had vancomycin infusion initiated within 2 hours before incision. A weight-based protocol would have resulted in fewer patients having unacceptably low vancomycin levels (< 15 mg/L) compared with those with actual fixed dosing, both for the beginning of surgery at the time of incision (zero of 1828 [0%] versus 471 of 1828 [26%]; odds ratio, 0.001 [0.000-0.013]; p < 0.001) and at the end of surgery (33 of 1828 [2%] versus 746 of 1828 [41%]; odds ratio, 0.027 [0.019-0.038]; p < 0.001). Between the vancomycin dosage groups, there were no differences in the rate of nephrotoxicity (underdosed: 12 of 1130 [1%], adequately dosed: five of 518 [1%], overdosed: four of 180 [2%], p = 0.363) and acute kidney injury (underdosed: 28 of 1130 [2%], adequately dosed: 10 of 518 [2%], overdosed: six of 180 [3%], p = 0.561).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of patients given vancomycin prophylaxis are underdosed according to the weight-based dosage recommendations, and MRSA did not occur in patients who were adequately dosed with vancomycin. Surgeons should thus ensure that their patients are adequately dosed with vancomycin using the recommendation of 15 mg/kg and that the dose of vancomycin is administered in a timely fashion. Furthermore, and based on the findings of this study, we have moved toward limiting the utilization of vancomycin prophylaxis for patients undergoing elective arthroplasty at our institution.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Management of allergy to penicillins and other beta-lactams

The Standards of Care Committee of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology (BSACI) and an expert panel have prepared this guidance for the management of immediate and non-immediate allergic reactions to penicillins and other beta-lactams. The guideline is intended for UK specialists in both adult and paediatric allergy and for other clinicians practising allergy in secondary and tertiary care. The recommendations are evidence based, but where evidence is lacking, the panel reached consensus. During the development of the guideline, all BSACI members were consulted using a Web-based process and all comments carefully considered. Included in the guideline are epidemiology of allergic reactions to beta-lactams, molecular structure, formulations available in the UK and a description of known beta-lactam antigenic determinants. Sections on the value and limitations of clinical history, skin testing and laboratory investigations for both penicillins and cephalosporins are included. Cross-reactivity between penicillins and cephalosporins is discussed in detail. Recommendations on oral provocation and desensitization procedures have been made. Guidance for beta-lactam allergy in children is given in a separate section. An algorithm to help the clinician in the diagnosis of patients with a history of penicillin allergy has also been included.