The use of penicillin skin testing to assess the prevalence of penicillin allergy in an emergency department setting

Decoding Beta-Lactam Cross-Reactivity - Longitudinal Patch Testing From 2000 to 2022

INTRODUCTION

Patients with non-immediate hypersensitivity to beta-lactam antibiotics (βL) often avoid all βL, with limitations for future therapy.

OBJECTIVES

Assess cross-reactivity between βL in non-immediate cutaneous adverse drug reactions (ni-CADRs).

METHODS

Retrospective analysis (2000-2022) of patients with suspected ni-CADR with βL as a possible culprit who underwent patch testing (PT) with an extended antibiotic series (10% pet., Chemotechnique Diagnostics or prepared in-house) according to European Society of Contact Dermatitis (ESCD) recommendations. Fisher exact test was used with a significance of 0.05 corrected for multiple testing; positive associations were quantified with odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Four hundred and fourteen patients (270 female/144 male; age 52 ± 19 years) were included, mostly with maculopapular exanthema (367; 89%), drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) (22; 5%) and acute generalised exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP) (12; 3%). Eighty-six patients (21%) had positive results to at least one drug. Fifty-eight patients (14%) had 110 positive results to βL, mostly amoxicillin (33). Co-reactivity within penicillins was almost universal, including piperacillin with other penicillins (p = 0.007; OR 25; CI 3-56). There was co-reactivity to aminopenicillins and aminocephalosporins (p = 0.006; OR 33; CI 4-74) and within the cephalosporin subclass, including between aminocephalosporins and non-aminocephalosporins. Within carbapenems, 1 patient reacted to meropenem and ertapenem, with no extension to imipenem, as confirmed with a provocation test. Two patients reacted both to ceftriaxone and meropenem (p = 0.013; OR: 68; CI:15-612).

CONCLUSION

PT is useful to confirm a probable culprit in ni-CADR to βL. Co-reactivity, interpreted mostly as cross-reactivity, occurred within cephalosporin and, particularly, with penicillin subclasses, including between piperacillin-tazobactam and remaining penicillins, which has seldom been described. There was no association between penicillins and cephalosporins as a whole, except between aminopenicillins and aminocephalosporins, attributable to a similar lateral chain amino group. We found an unexpected association between meropenem and ceftriaxone, probably a concomitant sensitization.

Implementation of a penicillin allergy protocol in open abdominal wall reconstruction: Preoperative optimization program

INTRODUCTION

Beta-lactam prophylaxis is the first-line preoperative antibiotic in open abdominal wall reconstruction. However, of the 11% patients reporting a penicillin allergy (PA), most receive second-line, non-β-lactam prophylaxis. Previously, abdominal wall reconstruction research from our institution demonstrated increased wound complications, readmissions, and reoperations with non-β-lactam prophylaxis. Therefore, a collaborative quality improvement initiative was developed with the infectious disease service, and a penicillin allergy protocol was instituted that stratified patients' risk of allergic reaction with a goal to increase β-lactam prophylaxis use. The effect of the penicillin allergy protocol on open abdominal wall reconstruction outcomes was prospectively evaluated.

METHODS

Patients with penicillin allergy undergoing open abdominal wall reconstruction were identified and grouped according to penicillin allergy protocol implementation. Pre-penicillin allergy protocol underwent open abdominal wall reconstruction before January 1, 2020, predominantly receiving non-β-lactam prophylaxis; post-penicillin allergy protocol underwent open abdominal wall reconstruction between January 1, 2020-November 1, 2023, predominantly receiving β-lactam prophylaxis. Incidence of surgical site infection was the primary outcome. Standard and inferential statistical analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Of 315 patients with penicillin allergy, 250 underwent open abdominal wall reconstruction pre-penicillin allergy protocol and 65 post-penicillin allergy protocol. Pre- and post-penicillin allergy protocol were similar in allergic reaction severity history, sex, race, age, diabetes, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, hernia defect size, and mesh type (P > .05). Post-penicillin allergy protocol had lower body mass index (33.4 ± 7.9 vs 29.8 ± 5.3 kg/m2; P = .002) and fewer active smokers (12.4% vs 1.5%; P = .019). Expectedly, post-penicillin allergy protocol received more β-lactam prophylaxis (22.8% vs 83.1%; P < .001) and no antibiotic-induced allergic reactions. Post-penicillin allergy protocol had significantly fewer surgical site infections (24.4% vs 3.1%; P < .001), wound breakdown (16.0% vs 3.1%; P = .004), reoperations (19.2% vs 0.0%; P < .001), and readmissions (25.3% vs 9.2%; P = .006) but no statistically significant reduction in recurrence (8.4% vs 1.5%; P = .057).

CONCLUSIONS

The penicillin allergy protocol safely increased the number of patients with penicillin allergy undergoing open abdominal wall reconstruction receiving β-lactam prophylaxis and decreased the rate of surgical site infections, wound complications, reoperations, and readmissions. These data supported the systemwide implementation of the penicillin allergy protocol for both general and orthopedic surgery, which has been incorporated into the electronic medical record of 13 hospitals within the system.

Nonallergist Delabeling-Should Penicillin Allergy Delabeling Only Be Performed by Allergists?

Penicillin allergy labels (PAL) are common but rarely correspond with a patient's likelihood to tolerate penicillin. This results in unnecessary penicillin avoidance in many patients, driving numerous negative health outcomes. Evaluation strategies for a PAL are driven by risk stratification and include a spectrum of modalities such as delabeling without any testing, direct oral challenge, and skin testing followed by challenge testing. Historically, PAL delabeling has primarily been the domain of the allergist, but this has resulted in significant limitations in access to testing for many patients globally and in the United States. Novel strategies to increase access to penicillin allergy evaluations are urgently needed, and nonallergist delabeling has been proposed as one strategy to help address this. Using a pro/con format, we review the evidence for nonallergist PAL delabeling in children and adults, focusing on direct challenge testing and highlighting considerations to guide nonallergist implementation of penicillin allergy evaluations.

Comparative Performance of 4 Penicillin-Allergy Prediction Strategies in a Large Cohort

BACKGROUND

A safe and pragmatic guide for labelling and delabelling patients with suspected penicillin allergy is mandatory.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the performance of 4 penicillin-allergy prediction strategies in a large independent cohort.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study for subjects presenting between January 2014 and December 2021 at the University Hospital of Montpellier, with a history of hypersensitivity to penicillins. The outcome targeted by the study was a positive penicillin-allergy test.

RESULTS

Of the 1,884 participants included, 382 (20.3%) had positive penicillin-allergy tests. The ENDA (European Network on Drug Allergy) and Blumenthal strategies yielded relatively high sensitivities and low specificities and, by design, did not misclassify any positive subjects with severe index reactions. The PEN-FAST <3 score had a negative predictive value of 90% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 88%-91%), with a sensitivity of 66% (95% CI 62%-71%) and a specificity of 73% (95% CI 71%-75%), and incorrectly delabelled 18 subjects with anaphylaxis and 15 with other severe nonimmediate reactions. For the adapted Chiriac score, the specificity corresponding to 66% sensitivity was 73% (95% CI 70%-75%). Conversely, at a 73% specificity threshold, the sensitivity was 65% (95% CI, 61%-70%). Attempts to improve these prediction algorithms did not substantially enhance performance.

CONCLUSIONS

The ENDA and Blumenthal strategies are safe for high-risk subjects, but their delabelling effectiveness is limited, leading to unnecessary avoidance. Conversely, the PEN-FAST and Chiriac scores are performant in delabelling, but more frequently misclassify high-risk subjects with positive penicillin-allergy tests. Selection of the most appropriate tool requires careful consideration of the target population and the desired goal.

Safety of Direct Drug Provocation for the Evaluation of Penicillin Allergy in Low-Risk Adults

BACKGROUND

About 10% of patients have a penicillin allergy label, but less than 5% of them are actually allergic. Unnecessary penicillin avoidance is associated with serious medical consequences. Given the growing number of these labels, it is imperative that our diagnostic strategy for penicillin allergy be as efficient as possible. The validity of traditionally used skin tests (STs) has been questioned, whereas drug provocation testing (DPT), the criterion standard, without previous ST appears very safe in most cases.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety of direct DPT without consideration for ST results and the validity of ST in the diagnosis of penicillin allergy.

METHODS

In this prospective cohort study without a control group, we recruited patients consulting an allergist for penicillin allergy. Patients underwent ST followed by DPT regardless of ST results. Patients with anaphylaxis to penicillin within the past 5 years or a severe delayed reaction were excluded, as were those with significant cardiorespiratory comorbidity.

RESULTS

None of the 1002 recruited patients had a serious reaction to DPT. Ten (1.0%) had a mild immediate reaction, of whom only 1 (0.1%) was considered likely IgE-mediated. The positive and negative predictive values of ST for an immediate reaction were 3.6% and 99.1%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In a low-risk adult population reporting penicillin allergy, ST has very poor positive predictive value. Direct DPT without ST is safe and appears to be an ideal diagnostic strategy to remove penicillin allergy labels that could be implemented in first-line practice.

Penicillin Allergy Impact and Management

There is international evidence that penicillin allergies are associated with inferior prescribing and patient outcomes. A host of tools now exist from assessment (risk assessment tools, clinical decision rules) to delabeling (the removal of a beta-lactam allergy via testing or medical reconciliation) to reduce the impact of these "labels" in the hospital and community setting, as a primary antimicrobial stewardship intervention.

Impact of antimicrobial stewardship interventions on peripartum antibiotic prescribing in patients with penicillin allergy

BACKGROUND

Beta-lactam antibiotics (eg, penicillins, cephalosporins, and carbapenems) are preferred for group B streptococcus prophylaxis, intra-amniotic infection, and cesarean surgical site infection prophylaxis. Non-beta-lactam alternatives are associated with inferior efficacy and contribute to higher rates of surgical site infection and longer lengths of stay. Most patients who report a penicillin allergy can tolerate penicillins without any adverse reaction. There are low rates of cross-reactivity between penicillins and other beta-lactams, including cephalosporins and carbapenems. Efforts to evaluate penicillin allergy and promote the use of beta-lactams are needed.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate whether an antimicrobial stewardship intervention improved the use of first-line antibiotics for peripartum indications in patients with a reported penicillin allergy, following updates to institutional guidelines.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a retrospective study of adult patients presenting for vaginal or cesarean delivery at 2 hospitals within a healthcare system. Patients received at least 1 dose of antibiotics for a peripartum indication between May 1, 2018, and October 31, 2018 (preintervention group) and May 1, 2020, to October 31, 2020 (postintervention group). The stewardship intervention bundle, which was implemented between March 2019 and April 2020, included updates to institutional antibiotic guidelines, reclassification of severe penicillin allergy, development of obstetrical prophylaxis and treatment order sets, promotion of allergy referral services, and establishment of a physician champion. The primary outcome was the composite rates of patients with reported penicillin allergy who received a preferred antibiotic for a peripartum indication. The secondary measures included maternal and neonatal outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 192 patients with a history of documented penicillin allergy were evaluated (96 patients in the preintervention group and 96 patients in the postintervention group). Hives were the most commonly reported index symptom in both groups (40/96 [41.7%] vs 39/96 [40.6%]; P=.883). After stewardship interventions, there was a significant increase in the rate of preferred antibiotic use (33/96 [34.3%] vs 81/96 [84.3%]; P<.001). The effect was the greatest in patients with nonsevere allergy (14/76 [18.4%] vs 68/82 [82.9%]; P<.001). There was no difference in the rates of postpartum endometritis, 30-day readmission, 90-day surgical site infection, or neonatal early-onset sepsis between the pre- and postintervention groups. Of note, 1 patient in the postintervention group experienced itching, and another patient developed a rash, both of which resolved with medical management.

CONCLUSION

A comprehensive antibiotic stewardship intervention was associated with a 50% increase in the use of preferred antibiotics for peripartum indications in patients with penicillin allergy. Allergic reactions with first-line beta-lactams were minimal and manageable.

Penicillin allergy delabeling: Opportunities for implementation and dissemination

Although existing as a safety measure to prevent iatrogenic harm, unconfirmed penicillin allergy labels have a negative impact on personal and public health. One downstream effect of unconfirmed penicillin allergy is the continued emergence and transmission of resistant bacteria and their associated health care costs. Recognizing the consequences of inaccurate penicillin allergy labels, professional and public health organizations have started promoting the adoption of proactive penicillin allergy evaluations, with the ultimate goal of removing the penicillin allergy label when the allergy is disproved, also known as penicillin allergy "delabeling." A penicillin allergy evaluation includes a comprehensive allergy history often followed by drug challenge, sometimes with preceding skin testing. Currently, penicillin allergy delabeling is largely carried out by allergy specialists in outpatient settings. Penicillin allergy delabeling is performed on inpatients, albeit rarely, often at the time of need, as a point-of-care procedure. Access to penicillin allergy evaluation services is limited. Recent studies demonstrate the feasibility of expanding penicillin allergy evaluations and delabeling to internists, pediatricians, emergency medicine physicians, infectious diseases specialists, and clinical pharmacists. However, reducing the impact of mislabeled penicillin allergy will require comprehensive efforts and new investments. In this review, we summarize the current practices of penicillin allergy delabeling and discuss expansion opportunities for penicillin allergy delabeling as quality improvement.

Administration of β-lactam antibiotics to patients with reported penicillin allergy in the emergency department

BACKGROUND

β-lactam antibiotics are amongst the most commonly prescribed medications in the Emergency Department (ED) due to their role in empiric sepsis therapy; however, inferior therapeutic options are often utilized due to a reported allergy; penicillin (PCN) being most frequent. In the United States, 10% of the population endorses an allergic reaction to PCN while <1% experience IgE-mediated reactions. This study aimed to evaluate the frequency and outcome of patients in the ED whose PCN allergies were challenged with β-lactam antibiotics.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients in the ED at an academic medical center aged ≥18, and who received a β-lactam despite a reported PCN allergy between January 2015 and December 2019. Patients who did not receive a β-lactam or did not report a PCN allergy prior to administration were excluded. The primary outcome was the frequency of IgE-mediated reactions in response to β-lactam administration. A secondary outcome assessed the frequency of continuation of β-lactams upon admission from the ED.

RESULTS

819 patients were included (66% female) with prior reported PCN reactions: hives (22.5%), rash (15.4%), swelling (6.2%), anaphylaxis (3.5%), other (12.1%), or undocumented on medical electronic record (40.3%). No patients experienced an IgE-mediated reaction to the β-lactam administered in the ED. Previously reported allergies had no effect on the continuation of β-lactams when admitted or discharged (OR: 1, 95% CI: 0.7-1.44). Patients who had a history of an IgE-mediated penicillin allergy were frequently continued (77%) on a β-lactam after leaving the ED via admission or discharge.

CONCLUSION

β-lactam administration in patients with previously reported PCN allergies did not result in any IgE-mediated reactions nor in an increase in adverse reactions. Our data contributes to the body of evidence that supports the administration of β-lactams to patients with documented PCN allergies.

Differences in beta-lactam and penicillin allergy: Beyond the West and focusing on Asia-Pacific

Beta-lactam (BL) antibiotic "allergy" labels are common, but often overdiagnosed. Although much research has been focused on the BL allergy and the delabelling process in the West, studies from other parts of the world remain sparse. This review outlines the contrasting global epidemiology, shifting clinical practices and disparities of BL allergy in the Asia-Pacific region compared with the West. Innovative strategies to overcome barriers in BL allergy workup are discussed and potential directions for future research and service development are also proposed.

Impact of Patient-Reported Penicillin Allergy on Antibiotic Prophylaxis and Surgical Site Infection Among Patients Undergoing Colorectal Surgery

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections are a major preventable source of morbidity, mortality, and increased health care expenditures after colorectal surgery. Patients with penicillin allergy may not receive the recommended preoperative antibiotics, putting them at increased risk for surgical site infections.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of patient-reported penicillin allergy on preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis and surgical site infection rates among patients undergoing major colon and rectal procedures.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective observational study.

SETTING

This study was conducted at a tertiary teaching hospital in Dallas.

PATIENTS

Adults undergoing colectomy or proctectomy between July 2012 and July 2019 were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes measured were preoperative antibiotic choice and surgical site infection.

RESULTS

Among 2198 patients included in the study, 12.26% (n = 307) reported a penicillin allergy. Patients with penicillin allergy were more likely to be white (82%) and female (54%; p < 0.01). The most common type of allergic reaction reported was rash (36.5%), whereas 7.2% of patients reported anaphylaxis. Patients with self-reported penicillin allergy were less likely to receive beta-lactam antibiotics than patients who did not report a penicillin allergy (79.8% vs 96.7%, p < 0.001). Overall, 143 (6.5%) patients had surgical site infections. On multivariable logistic regression, there was no difference in rates of surgical site infection between patients with penicillin allergy vs those without penicillin allergy (adjusted OR 1.14; 95% CI, 0.71-1.82).

LIMITATIONS

A limitation of this study was its retrospective study design.

CONCLUSIONS

Self-reported penicillin allergy among patients undergoing colorectal surgery is common; however, only a small number of these patients report any serious adverse reactions. Patients with self-reported penicillin allergy are less likely to receive beta-lactam antibiotics and more likely to receive non-beta-lactam antibiotics. However, this does not affect the rate of surgical site infection among these patients, and these patients can be safely prescribed non-beta-lactam antibiotics without negatively impacting surgical site infection rates. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B838 .IMPACTO DE LA ALERGIA A LA PENICILINA INFORMADA POR EL PACIENTE EN LA PROFILAXIS ANTIBIÓTICA Y LA INFECCIÓN DEL SITIO OPERATORIO ENTRE PACIENTES DE CIRUGÍA COLORECTAL.

ANTECEDENTES

Las infecciones del sitio operatorio son una de las principales fuentes prevenibles de morbilidad, mortalidad y aumento del gasto sanitario después de cirugía colorrectal. Es posible que los pacientes con alergia a la penicilina no reciban los antibióticos preoperatorios recomendados, lo que los pone en mayor riesgo de infecciones en el sitio operatorio.

OBJETIVO

Este estudio tuvo como objetivo evaluar el impacto de la alergia a la penicilina informada por el paciente sobre la profilaxis antibiótica preoperatoria y las tasas de infección del sitio operatorio entre pacientes sometidos a procedimientos mayores de colon y recto.

DISEO

Estudio observacional retrospectivo.

AJUSTE

Hospital universitario terciario en Dallas.

PACIENTES

Adultos sometidos a colectomía o proctectomía entre julio de 2012 a julio de 2019.

PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE DESENLACE

Elección de antibióticos preoperatorios e infección del sitio operatorio.

RESULTADOS

Entre los 2198 pacientes incluidos en el estudio, el 12,26% (n = 307) informó alergia a la penicilina. Los pacientes con alergia a la penicilina tenían más probabilidades de ser blancos (82%) y mujeres (54%) ( p < 0,01). El tipo más común de reacción alérgica notificada fue erupción cutánea (36,5%), mientras que el 7,2% de los pacientes notificó anafilaxia. Los pacientes con alergia a la penicilina autoinformada tenían menos probabilidades de recibir antibióticos betalactámicos en comparación con los pacientes que no informaron alergia a la penicilina (79,8% frente a 96,7%, p < 0,001). En general, hubo 143 (6,5%) pacientes con infecciones del sitio operatorio. En la regresión logística multivariable no hubo diferencias en las tasas de infección del sitio operatorio entre los pacientes con alergia a la penicilina frente a los que no tenían alergia a la penicilina (razón de probabilidades ajustada 1,14; intervalo de confianza del 95%, 0,71-1,82).

LIMITACIONES

Diseño de estudio retrospectivo.

CONCLUSIONES

La alergia a la penicilina autoinformada entre los pacientes de cirugía colorrectal es común, sin embargo, solo un pequeño número de estos pacientes informan reacciones adversas graves. Los pacientes con alergia a la penicilina autoinformada tienen menos probabilidades de recibir antibióticos betalactámicos y más probabilidades de recibir antibióticos no betalactámicos. Sin embargo, esto no afecta la tasa de infección del sitio quirúrgico entre estos pacientes y se les puede recetar de forma segura con antibióticos no betalactámicos sin afectar negativamente las tasas de infección del sitio quirúrgico. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B838 . (Traducción-Dr. Juan Carlos Reyes ).

Outpatient penicillin allergy evaluation during pregnancy and associated clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND

Beta-lactam antibiotics are often clinically indicated in the peripartum period, posing a challenge for pregnant women who report a penicillin allergy. Allergy verification testing is rarely performed during pregnancy even though most women do not have a true allergy.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate a hospital-wide multidisciplinary program introduced in August 2020 to identify, refer, evaluate, and test pregnant women with unverified penicillin allergies, and assess its association with maternal and neonatal outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a retrospective cohort study at a large academic hospital of all pregnant women with a penicillin allergy documented in the electronic medical record who delivered from September 2020 to October 2021. Data were abstracted by chart review. Women referred for penicillin allergy evaluation were compared to those who were not. Maternal outcomes were alternative antibiotic (clindamycin or vancomycin) use, postpartum infection, and maternal length of postpartum hospital stay. Neonatal outcomes were intensive care unit admission, postnatal blood draw, antibiotic treatment, and birth hospitalization length of hospital stay. Bivariate and multivariable analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Of 689 women with a documented penicillin allergy, 232 (33.7%) were referred for allergy evaluation during the study period. Of those referred, 175 (75.4%) underwent allergy consultation and 167 (95.4%) of them were considered appropriate for allergy verification testing. 117 (70.1%) underwent skin testing with or without graded oral amoxicillin drug challenge, and all but one (99.1%) were found to be penicillin tolerant. Five additional women were de-labeled of their penicillin allergy based on history and pharmacy confirmation of penicillin tolerance subsequent to index reaction. Referred women had a 62% lower likelihood of receiving an alternative antibiotic than those who were not referred, and this significance persisted even after adjusting for potential confounders (aOR 0.49, 95% CI 0.27-0.89). Other maternal and neonatal adverse outcomes were less frequent in those referred, but these associations did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

This study documents the feasibility, safety, and clinical benefit of an outpatient penicillin allergy referral program for pregnant women. Referred patients were significantly less likely to receive alternative antibiotics, however, more patients are needed to assess whether there are additional clinical benefits.

Opportunities for penicillin allergy evaluation in dental clinics

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate opportunities for assessing penicillin allergies among patients presenting to dental clinics.

DESIGN

Retrospective cross-sectional study.

SETTING

VA dental clinics.

PATIENTS

Adult patients with a documented penicillin allergy who received an antibiotic from a dentist between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2018, were included.

METHODS

Chart reviews were completed on random samples of 100 patients who received a noncephalosporin antibiotic and 200 patients who received a cephalosporin. Each allergy was categorized by severity. These categories were used to determine patient eligibility for 3 testing groups based on peer-reviewed algorithms: (1) no testing, (2) skin testing, and (3) oral test-dose challenge. Descriptive and bivariate statistics were used to compare facility and patient demographics first between true penicillin allergy, pseudo penicillin allergy, and missing allergy documentation, and between those who received a cephalosporin and those who did not at the dental visit.

RESULTS

Overall, 19% lacked documentation of the nature of allergic reaction, 53% were eligible for skin testing, 27% were eligible for an oral test-dose challenge, and 1% were contraindicated from testing. Male patients and African American patients were less likely to receive a cephalosporin.

CONCLUSIONS

Most penicillin-allergic patients in the VA receiving an antibiotic from a dentist are eligible for penicillin skin testing or an oral penicillin challenge. Further research is needed to understand the role of dentists and dental clinics in assessing penicillin allergies.

Patients with questionable penicillin (beta-lactam) allergy: Causes and solutions

BACKGROUND

In Europe, North America, and Australia, 5% to 10% of the population are now classified as penicillin (β-lactam) allergic. Only ~ 10% of these questionable diagnoses, mostly made in childhood, can be confirmed by allergy diagnostics.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The aim of this review is to show causes and consequences as well as recommendations for dealing with the often questionable diagnosis of penicillin (β-lactam) allergy (BLA).

RESULTS

An incorrect BLA diagnosis may negatively impact antibiotic treatment needed in the future, by using a less effective antibiotic or using a broad-spectrum antibiotic, for example, further exacerbating the problem of increasing antibiotic resistance. Accordingly, there is growing pressure from antibiotic stewardship programs to critically challenge the BLA diagnosis. Conservatively, a suspected BLA is reviewed by an allergist using medical history, skin testing, laboratory testing, and provocation. This clarification is costly and is not remunerated in the German health care system; that is the reason why this testing is only offered in a few specialized clinics and practically not at all in general practice. In view of thousands of affected patients, additional strategies are needed to treat patients with a low risk of hypersensitivity reaction despite suspected allergy with a β-lactam antibiotic. In recent years, various methods have been proposed to eliminate suspected allergy as promptly as possible and directly before necessary treatment with a β-lactam antibiotic, including standardized history (also in the form of an algorithm), skin test with immediate reading after 15 minutes, or administration of a small test dose. Investigations of small case series and also multi-center studies to date have yielded promising results in terms of feasibility and safety.

CONCLUSION

Of the large number of patients with (questionable) BLA, most have never been tested and - if antibiotic treatment becomes necessary - simply receive an alternative antibiotic. The diagnosis of BLA therefore requires new approaches besides classical allergy testing to critically question BLA.

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.

Pharmacist-led Penicillin Allergy Assessment in the Emergency Department Reduced Empiric Fluoroquinolone Use

In a retrospective, quasi-experimental study of 380 adult patients with a reported penicillin allergy who received antibiotics at a community hospital emergency department, a pharmacist-led penicillin allergy assessment via medical records review and patient interview improved guideline-preferred antibiotic use by 13% (P = .018) and reduced fluoroquinolone use by 11% (P = .035).

BET 2: The accuracy of self-reported penicillin allergies in adults

A short-cut review of the available medical literature was carried out to establish the proportion of patients who self-report an allergy to penicillin have a true penicillin allergy. After abstract review, four papers were found to answer this clinical question. The author, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes, results and study weaknesses of these papers are tabulated. It is concluded that many adults who self-report a penicillin allergy are probably not allergic to penicillin antibiotics.

Antibiotic Skin Testing in the Intensive Care Unit: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Recent research has shown that a large majority of patients with a history of penicillin allergy are acutely tolerant of penicillins and that there is no clinically significant immunologic cross-reactivity between penicillins and cephalosporins or other β-lactams. The standard test to confirm acute tolerance is challenge with a therapeutic dose. Skin testing is useful only when the culprit antibiotic can haptenate serum proteins and induce an immunoglobulin E-mediated reaction and the clinical history demonstrates such high risk that a direct oral challenge may result in anaphylaxis.

OBJECTIVE

To review and evaluate the current practice of skin testing for antibiotics (other than penicillin) in critically ill patients by means of a systematic literature review.

METHODS

This systematic review was performed using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines. Several electronic databases were searched using the following terms: antibiotics, skin test (tests, testing), intensive care, intensive care unit, ICU, critical care, critical care unit.

RESULTS

Twenty-three articles were identified for inclusion in this review. The results indicate a lack of standardized skin testing for all antibiotics in critical care settings. Oral challenge with nonirritating concentrations of antibiotics can be helpful in determining allergy to these drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Critical care providers should evaluate antibiotic allergy using nonirritating concentrations before administering antibiotics to patients. Introduction of a standardized skin test for all antibiotics in intensive care unit patients to help select the most appropriate antibiotic treatment regimen might help save lives and reduce costs.

Evaluation of a pharmacist-led penicillin allergy de-labelling ward round: a novel antimicrobial stewardship intervention

BACKGROUND

Antibiotic allergy labels (AALs), reported by up to 25% of hospitalized patients, are a significant barrier to appropriate prescribing and a focus of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programmes.

METHODS

A prospective audit of a pharmacist-led AMS penicillin allergy de-labelling ward round at Austin Health (Melbourne, Australia) was evaluated. Eligible inpatients with a documented penicillin allergy receiving an antibiotic were identified via an electronic medical report and then reviewed by a pharmacist-led AMS team. The audit outcomes evaluated were: (i) AMS post-prescription review recommendations; (ii) direct de-labelling; (iii) inpatient oral rechallenge referral; (iv) skin prick testing/intradermal testing referral; and (v) outpatient antibiotic allergy clinic assessment.

RESULTS

Across a 5 month period, 106 patients were identified from a real-time electronic prescribing antibiotic allergy report. The highest rate of penicillin allergy de-labelling was demonstrated in patients who were referred for an inpatient oral rechallenge with 95.2% (n = 21) successfully having their penicillin AAL removed. From the 22 patients with Type A reactions, 63.6% had their penicillin AAL removed. We demonstrated a significant decrease in the prescribing of restricted antibiotics (defined as third- or fourth-generation cephalosporins, fluoroquinolones, glycopeptides, carbapenems, piperacillin/tazobactam, lincosamides, linezolid or daptomycin) in patients reviewed (pre 42.5% versus post 17.9%, P = 0.0002).

CONCLUSIONS

A pharmacist-led AMS penicillin allergy de-labelling ward round reduced penicillin AALs and the prescribing of restricted antibiotics. This model could be implemented at other hospitals with existing AMS programmes.

The association of penicillin allergy with outcomes after open ventral hernia repair

BACKGROUND

Up to 11% of patients report a penicillin allergy (PA), with 1-2% demonstrating a true IgE mediated allergy upon testing. PA patients often receive non-beta-lactam antibiotic surgical prophylaxis (non-BLP). This study evaluates the relationship of PA to outcomes after open ventral hernia repair (OVHR).

METHODS

A prospective institutional database was queried for patients undergoing OVHR. Demographics, operative characteristics, and outcomes were evaluated by the reported PA and the administration of beta-lactam prophylaxis (BLP).

RESULTS

Allergy histories were reviewed in 1178 patients. PA was reported in 21.6% of patients, with 55.5% reporting rash or hives, 15.0% airway compromise or anaphylaxis, and 29.5% no specific reaction. BLP was administered to 76.3% of patients, including 22.1% of PA patients and 89.9% of patients without PA. PA patients were more often female (64.6% PA patients vs. 56% non-PA, p = 0.01), with higher rates of chronic steroids, MRSA, anxiety, asthma, COPD, chronic pain, and sleep apnea (p < 0.03 all values). PA patients had higher rates of contaminated cases, including mesh infection and fistula. Of the 683 clean cases, 82.1% received BLP. Of the 117 clean contaminated cases (CDC wound class 2), 82.9% received BLP, which was associated with reduced long-term readmission for hernia complications (21.5 vs. 55%, p = 0.002, OR 0.27, CI 0.09-0.83). In the 120 CDC wound class 3 and 4 patients, 65.8% received BLP. In multivariate analysis, BLP was associated with lower rates of reoperation (OR 0.31, CI 0.12-0.76) and recurrence (OR 0.32, CI 0.11-0.86). BLP was given to 22.1% of the PA patients with no adverse reactions noted.

CONCLUSION

PA patients had more comorbidities and complex ventral hernias. When controlling for contamination and MRSA history, BLP is associated with improved outcomes particularly in contaminated cases. PA may be a risk factor for patient complexity, and further studies are warranted to determine if allergy testing can be warranted in known or anticipated contaminated cases.

Beta-lactam antibiotic test doses in the emergency department

Background

Facilitating beta-lactam antibiotic use in patients reporting beta-lactam allergies in acute care settings is important to individual patient outcomes and public health; however, few initiatives have targeted the Emergency Department (ED) setting.

Methods

We implemented pathways for patients reporting prior penicillin and/or cephalosporin hypersensitivity as part of a hospital guideline in the ED of a large academic medical center in the United States. We described beta-lactam test doses, pathway compliance, hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs), and allergy record updating associated with ED-administered beta-lactam test doses from October 2016 to June 2018.

Results

310 beta-lactam antibiotic test doses were administered to patients with penicillin and/or cephalosporin allergy histories in the study period (average volume 15/month [standard deviation 4]). Test doses were to cephalosporins (85%), penicillins (12%), and carbapenems (4%). 219 (71%) of test doses were compliant with the pathways. Ten patients (3.2%; 95% CI 1.6%-5.9%) had HSRs; five HSR patients (50%) had beta-lactams administered that were not pathway compliant. The allergy record was updated in 146 (47%) of patients, with improvement over the study period (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Inpatient approaches to prescribing beta-lactams in patients reporting beta-lactam allergies can be operationalized in the ED. Additional efforts are required to ensure guideline compliance and appropriate allergy documentation.

A EAACI drug allergy interest group survey on how European allergy specialists deal with β-lactam allergy

An accurate diagnosis of β-lactam (BL) allergy can reduce patient morbidity and mortality. Our aim was to investigate the availability of BL reagents, their use and test procedures in different parts of Europe, as well as any differences in the diagnostic workups for evaluating subjects with BL hypersensitivity. A survey was emailed to all members of the EAACI Drug Allergy Interest Group (DAIG) between February and April 2016, and the questionnaire was meant to study the management of suspected BL hypersensitivity. The questionnaire was emailed to 82 DAIG centres and answered by 57. Amoxicillin alone or combined to clavulanic acid were the most commonly involved BL except in the Danish centre, where penicillin V was the most frequently suspected BL. All centres performed an allergy workup in subjects with histories of hypersensitivity to BL: 53 centres (93%) followed DAIG guidelines, two national guidelines and two local guidelines. However, there were deviations from DAIG recommendations concerning allergy tests, especially drug provocation tests. A significant heterogeneity exists in current practice not only among countries, but also among centres within the same country. This suggests the need to re-evaluate, update and standardize protocols on the management of patients with suspected BL allergy.

Rate of Recurrence of Adverse Events Following Immunization: Results of 19 Years of Surveillance In Quebec, Canada

BACKGROUND

While adverse events following immunization (AEFI) are frequent, there are limited data on the safety of reimmunizing patients who had a prior AEFI. Our objective was to estimate the rate and severity of AEFI recurrences.

METHODS

We analyzed data from the AEFI passive surveillance system in Quebec, Canada, that collects information on reimmunization of patients who had a prior AEFI. Patients with an initial AEFI reported to the surveillance system between 1998 and 2016 were included. Rate of AEFI recurrence was calculated as number of patients with recurrence/total number of patients reimmunized.

RESULTS

Overall, 1350 patients were reimmunized, of which 59% were 2 years of age or younger. The AEFI recurred in 16% (215/1350) of patients, of whom 18% (42/215) rated the recurrence as more severe than the initial AEFI. Large local reactions extending beyond the nearest joint and lasting 4 days or more had the highest recurrence rate (67%, 6/9). Patients with hypotonic hyporesponsive episodes had the lowest rate of recurrence (2%, 1/50). Allergic-like events recurred in 12% (76/659) of patients, but none developed anaphylaxis. Of 33 patients with seizures following measles mumps rubella with/without varicella vaccine, none had a recurrence. Compared with patients with nonserious AEFIs, those with serious AEFIs were less often reimmunized (60% versus 80%; rate ratio: 0.8; 95% confidence interval: 0.66-0.86).

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients with a history of mild or moderate AEFI can be safely reimmunized. Additional studies are needed in patients with serious AEFIs who are less likely to be reimmunized.

A practical management of children with antibiotic allergy

About 10% of the parents reported that their children are allergic to one drug and the betalactam antibiotics are the most frequently suspected. Even if most of the adverse events following antibiotic prescriptions to children are considered allergic, after a full allergy work-up only a few of the suspected reactions are confirmed. For this reason, many children are incorrectly labelled as "allergic" and this represents an important challenge for the choice of the antibiotic therapy in these "labelled" children, who are frequently improperly deprived of narrow-spectrum antibiotics because considered as allergic. When an allergic reaction is suspected a precise diagnosis and a choice of a safe and effective alternative is essential for the future antibiotic option. In the light of this, the main aim of this paper is to try to provide a practical approach to managing the individuals who have reported adverse reactions to antibiotics.

Evaluation and Management of Penicillin Allergy: A Review

IMPORTANCE

β-Lactam antibiotics are among the safest and most effective antibiotics. Many patients report allergies to these drugs that limit their use, resulting in the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics that increase the risk for antimicrobial resistance and adverse events.

OBSERVATIONS

Approximately 10% of the US population has reported allergies to the β-lactam agent penicillin, with higher rates reported by older and hospitalized patients. Although many patients report that they are allergic to penicillin, clinically significant IgE-mediated or T lymphocyte-mediated penicillin hypersensitivity is uncommon (<5%). Currently, the rate of IgE-mediated penicillin allergies is decreasing, potentially due to a decreased use of parenteral penicillins, and because severe anaphylactic reactions to oral amoxicillin are rare. IgE-mediated penicillin allergy wanes over time, with 80% of patients becoming tolerant after a decade. Cross-reactivity between penicillin and cephalosporin drugs occurs in about 2% of cases, less than the 8% reported previously. Some patients have a medical history that suggests they are at a low risk for developing an allergic reaction to penicillin. Low-risk histories include patients having isolated nonallergic symptoms, such as gastrointestinal symptoms, or patients solely with a family history of a penicillin allergy, symptoms of pruritus without rash, or remote (>10 years) unknown reactions without features suggestive of an IgE-mediated reaction. A moderate-risk history includes urticaria or other pruritic rashes and reactions with features of IgE-mediated reactions. A high-risk history includes patients who have had anaphylaxis, positive penicillin skin testing, recurrent penicillin reactions, or hypersensitivities to multiple β-lactam antibiotics. The goals of antimicrobial stewardship are undermined when reported allergy to penicillin leads to the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics that increase the risk for antimicrobial resistance, including increased risk of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus. Broad-spectrum antimicrobial agents also increase the risk of developing Clostridium difficile (also known as Clostridioides difficile) infection. Direct amoxicillin challenge is appropriate for patients with low-risk allergy histories. Moderate-risk patients can be evaluated with penicillin skin testing, which carries a negative predictive value that exceeds 95% and approaches 100% when combined with amoxicillin challenge. Clinicians performing penicillin allergy evaluation need to identify what methods are supported by their available resources.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Many patients report they are allergic to penicillin but few have clinically significant reactions. Evaluation of penicillin allergy before deciding not to use penicillin or other β-lactam antibiotics is an important tool for antimicrobial stewardship.

Antibiotic allergy

Antibiotics are the commonest cause of life-threatening immune-mediated drug reactions that are considered off-target, including anaphylaxis, and organ-specific and severe cutaneous adverse reactions. However, many antibiotic reactions documented as allergies were unknown or not remembered by the patient, cutaneous reactions unrelated to drug hypersensitivity, drug-infection interactions, or drug intolerances. Although such reactions pose negligible risk to patients, they currently represent a global threat to public health. Antibiotic allergy labels result in displacement of first-line therapies for antibiotic prophylaxis and treatment. A penicillin allergy label, in particular, is associated with increased use of broad-spectrum and non-β-lactam antibiotics, which results in increased adverse events and antibiotic resistance. Most patients labelled as allergic to penicillins are not allergic when appropriately stratified for risk, tested, and re-challenged. Given the public health importance of penicillin allergy, this Review provides a global update on antibiotic allergy epidemiology, classification, mechanisms, and management.

Antibiotic allergy labels in hospitalized and critically ill adults: A review of current impacts of inaccurate labelling

Antibiotic allergy labels (AALs) are reported by approximately 20% of hospitalized patients, yet over 85% will be negative on formal allergy testing. Hospitalized patients with an AAL have inferior patient outcomes, increased colonization with multidrug-resistant organisms and frequently receive inappropriate antimicrobials. Hospitalized populations have been well studied but, to date, the impact of AALs on patients with critical illness remains less well defined. We review the prevalence and impact of AALs on hospitalized patients, including those in in critical care.

Penicillin minor determinants: History and relevance for current diagnosis

OBJECTIVE

To review the history of the penicillin minor determinants and evaluate their relevance for current diagnosis.

DATA SOURCES

Skin testing to detect immunoglobulin E (IgE) sensitivity to penicillins in patients with a history of penicillin allergy has been the subject of more than 55 years of published research involving tens of thousands of patients.

STUDY SELECTIONS

Selection of data was based on its relevance to the objective of this article.

RESULTS

It was established early on that testing with the major penicilloyl determinant using the polyvalent penicilloyl-polylysine (PPL) is negative in a substantial portion (10% to 64%, including recent increases) of those at risk for immediate hypersensitivity reactions. A variety of minor penicillin determinants are clinically significant in that their use in skin testing is essential to detect all those at risk. In particular, a minor determinant mixture of benzylpenicillin, benzylpenicilloate, and benzylpenilloate, used in conjunction with PPL, has been shown in numerous studies to achieve an average negative predictive value (NPV) of 97.9% in history-positive patients. Benzylpenicillin alone, as the sole minor determinant, leaves many skin test-positive patients undiscovered. Use of amoxicillin as an additional minor determinant reagent appears to identify another 2% to 8% of skin test-positive patients in some populations.

CONCLUSION

IgE skin testing, using both the major and appropriate minor determinants of penicillin, can identify, with a high degree of reliability (NPV ∼97%), penicillin allergy history-positive patients who can receive beta-lactam antibiotics without concern for serious acute allergy, including anaphylaxis. The few false-negative skin tests reported globally are largely confined to minor, self-limited cutaneous reactions.

Medication Allergy and Adverse Drug Reaction Documentation Discrepancies in an Urban, Academic Emergency Department

INTRODUCTION

Medication histories, including knowledge of allergies and adverse drug reactions (ADRs), are a nationally recognized quality measure. Medication histories in the emergency department (ED) are often inaccurate or incomplete. Our objective was to determine the prevalence and nature of medication allergy and ADR discrepancies in an urban ED.

METHODS

This was a prospective observational descriptive study, enrolling a convenience sample of adults over 7 months at a single academic urban ED. Trained personnel recorded patient demographics and number of daily medications. Patients listed any prior drug allergies or non-allergic ADRs. Following the ED encounter, the patients' self-reported allergies and ADRs were compared to the electronic medical record (EMR) to identify and describe discrepancies.

RESULTS

A sample of 1014 patients, predominantly black (81%), female (60%), and in the 18- to 59-year-old range (69%), was recruited. Most patients were taking at least one daily medication (74%). Three hundred fifteen patients reported at least one allergy (31%), and 252 (25%) at least one ADR. Four hundred sixteen patients (41%) had a discrepancy between their self-report of allergy or ADR and the EMR. Omissions were the most frequent discrepancy. Full descriptions of allergies or ADR were present in 18.4% of charts. Fifty-seven patients (5.6%) were administered a medication which could have interacted with a documented allergy or ADR; none of the allergy EMR records were updated to reflected this.

CONCLUSIONS

In this cross-sectional ED study, drug allergies and ADRs were both highly prevalent. There were significant discrepancies in documentation of allergies and ADRs between patient self-report and the EMR.

The 3 Cs of Antibiotic Allergy-Classification, Cross-Reactivity, and Collaboration

Antibiotic allergy labeling is highly prevalent and negatively impacts patient outcomes and antibiotic appropriateness. Reducing the prevalence and burden of antibiotic allergies requires the engagement of key stakeholders such as allergists, immunologists, pharmacists, and infectious diseases physicians. To help address this burden of antibiotic allergy overlabeling, we review 3 key antibiotic allergy domains: (1) antibiotic allergy classification, (2) antibiotic cross-reactivity, and (3) multidisciplinary collaboration. We review the available evidence and research gaps of currently used adverse drug reaction classification systems, antibiotic allergy cross-reactivity, and current and future models of antibiotic allergy care.

Evaluation of Penicillin Allergy in the Hospitalized Patient: Opportunities for Antimicrobial Stewardship

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Penicillin allergy is often misdiagnosed and is associated with adverse consequences, but testing is infrequently done in the hospital setting. This article reviews historical and contemporary innovations in inpatient penicillin allergy testing and its impact on antimicrobial stewardship.

RECENT FINDINGS

Adoption of the electronic medical record allows rapid identification of admitted patients carrying a penicillin allergy diagnosis. Collaboration with clinical pharmacists and the development of computerized clinical guidelines facilitates increased testing and appropriate use of penicillin and related β-lactams. Education of patients and their outpatient providers is the key to retaining the benefits of penicillin allergy de-labeling. Penicillin allergy testing is feasible in the hospital and offers tangible benefits towards antimicrobial stewardship. Allergists should take the lead in this endeavor and work towards overcoming personnel limitations by partnering with other health care providers and incorporating technology that improves the efficiency of allergy evaluation.

Allergy Testing in Children With Low-Risk Penicillin Allergy Symptoms

BACKGROUND

Penicillin allergy is commonly reported in the pediatric emergency department (ED). True penicillin allergy is rare, yet the diagnosis results from the denial of first-line antibiotics. We hypothesize that all children presenting to the pediatric ED with symptoms deemed to be low-risk for immunoglobulin E-mediated hypersensitivity will return negative results for true penicillin allergy.

METHODS

Parents of children aged 4 to 18 years old presenting to the pediatric ED with a history of parent-reported penicillin allergy completed an allergy questionnaire. A prespecified 100 children categorized as low-risk on the basis of reported symptoms completed penicillin allergy testing by using a standard 3-tier testing process. The percent of children with negative allergy testing results was calculated with a 95% confidence interval.

RESULTS

Five hundred ninety-seven parents completed the questionnaire describing their child's reported allergy symptoms. Three hundred two (51%) children had low-risk symptoms and were eligible for testing. Of those, 100 children were tested for penicillin allergy. The median (interquartile range) age at testing was 9 years (5-12). The median (interquartile range) age at allergy diagnosis was 1 year (9 months-3 years). Rash (97 [97%]) and itching (63 [63%]) were the most commonly reported allergy symptoms. Overall, 100 children (100%; 95% confidence interval 96.4%-100%) were found to have negative results for penicillin allergy and had their labeled penicillin allergy removed from their medical record.

CONCLUSIONS

All children categorized as low-risk by our penicillin allergy questionnaire were found to have negative results for true penicillin allergy. The utilization of this questionnaire in the pediatric ED may facilitate increased use of first-line penicillin antibiotics.

Tackling inpatient penicillin allergies: Assessing tools for antimicrobial stewardship

BACKGROUND

Reported penicillin allergy rarely reflects penicillin intolerance. Failure to address inpatient penicillin allergies results in more broad-spectrum antibiotic use, treatment failures, and adverse drug events.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to determine the optimal approach to penicillin allergies among medical inpatients.

METHODS

We evaluated internal medicine inpatients reporting penicillin allergy in 3 periods: (1) standard of care (SOC), (2) penicillin skin testing (ST), and (3) computerized guideline application with decision support (APP). The primary outcome was use of a penicillin or cephalosporin, comparing interventions to SOC using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

There were 625 patients: SOC, 148; ST, 278; and APP, 199. Of 278 ST patients, 179 (64%) were skin test eligible; 43 (24%) received testing and none were allergic. In the APP period, there were 292 unique Web site views; 112 users (38%) completed clinical decision support. Although ST period patients did not have increased odds of penicillin or cephalosporin use overall (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.3; 95% CI, 0.8-2.0), we observed significant increased odds of penicillin or cephalosporin use overall in the APP period (aOR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-2.9) and in a per-protocol analysis of the skin tested subset (aOR, 5.7; 95% CI, 2.6-12.5).

CONCLUSIONS

Both APP and ST-when completed-increased the use of penicillin and cephalosporin antibiotics among inpatients reporting penicillin allergy. While the skin tested subset showed an almost 6-fold impact, the computerized guideline significantly increased penicillin or cephalosporin use overall nearly 2-fold and was readily implemented.

Prophylactic Antibiotic Choice and Risk of Surgical Site Infection After Hysterectomy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate associations between prophylactic preoperative antibiotic choice and surgical site infection rates after hysterectomy.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed of patients in the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative undergoing hysterectomy from July 2012 to February 2015. The primary outcome was a composite outcome of any surgical site infection (superficial surgical site infections or combined deep organ space surgical site infections). Preoperative antibiotics were categorized based on the recommendations set forth by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Surgical Care Improvement Project. Patients receiving a recommended antibiotic regimen were categorized into those receiving β-lactam antibiotics and those receiving alternatives to β-lactam antibiotics. Patients receiving nonrecommended antibiotics were categorized into those receiving overtreatment (excluded from further analysis) and those receiving nonstandard antibiotics. Multivariable logistic regression models were developed to estimate the independent effect of antibiotic choice. Propensity score matching analysis was performed to validate the results.

RESULTS

The study included 21,358 hysterectomies. The overall rate of any surgical site infection was 2.06% (n=441). Unadjusted rates of "any surgical site infection" were 1.8%, 3.1%, and 3.7% for β-lactam, β-lactam alternatives, and nonstandard groups, respectively. After adjusting for patient and operative factors within clusters of hospitals, compared with the β-lactam antibiotics (reference group), the risk of "any surgical site infection" was higher for the group receiving β-lactam alternatives (odds ratio [OR] 1.7, confidence interval [CI] 1.27-2.07) or the nonstandard antibiotics (OR 2.0, CI 1.31-3.1).

CONCLUSION

Compared with women receiving β-lactam antibiotic regimens, there is a higher risk of surgical site infection after hysterectomy among those receiving a recommended β-lactam alternative or nonstandard regimen.

Implementation of an Infectious Disease Fellow-Managed Penicillin Allergy Skin Testing Service

An inpatient penicillin allergy skin testing program can be successfully managed by infectious diseases fellows under attending supervision offering a novel practice area for infectious diseases practitioners.

Background. A large percentage of patients presenting to acute care facilities report penicillin allergies that are associated with suboptimal antibiotic therapy. Penicillin skin testing (PST) can clarify allergy histories but is often limited by access to testing. We aimed to implement an infectious diseases (ID) fellow-managed PST program and to assess the need for PST via national survey.

Methods. We conducted a prospective observational study of the implementation of an ID fellow-managed penicillin allergy skin testing service. The primary outcome of the study was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of an ID fellow-managed PST service and its impact on the optimization of antibiotic selection. In addition, a survey of PST practices was sent out to all ID fellowship program directors in the United States.

Results. In the first 11 months of the program, 90 patients were assessed for PST and 76 patients were tested. Of the valid tests, 96% were negative, and 84% with a negative test had antibiotic changes; 63% received a narrower spectrum antibiotic, 80% received more effective therapy, and 61% received more cost-effective therapy. The majority of survey of respondents (n = 50) indicated that overreporting of penicillin allergy is a problem in their practice that affects antibiotic selection but listed inadequate personnel and time as the main barriers to PST.

Conclusions. Inpatient PST can be successfully managed by ID fellows, thereby promoting optimal antibiotic use in patients reporting penicillin allergies. This model can increase access to PST at institutions without adequate access to allergists while also providing an important educational experience to ID trainees.

The Impact of Reporting a Prior Penicillin Allergy on the Treatment of Methicillin-Sensitive Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia

BACKGROUND

Methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) bacteremia is a morbid infection with mortality benefit from receipt of parenteral β-lactam therapy. A substantial portion of MSSA bacteremia patients report penicillin allergy, but infrequently have true allergy.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the frequency and predictors of optimal and adequate therapy in patients with MSSA bacteremia.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult inpatients with MSSA bacteremia, January 2009 through October 2013.

MAIN MEASURES

The primary measure was a trial of optimal therapy (OT), defined as ≥3 inpatient days or discharge on any first-line agents (nafcillin, oxacillin, cefazolin, or penicillin G, if susceptible). The secondary measure was completion of adequate therapy (AT), defined as ≥10 inpatient days or discharge on an agent appropriate for MSSA bacteremia. Data were electronically gathered with key variables manually validated through chart review. Log-binomial regression models were used to determine the frequency and predictors of outcomes.

KEY RESULTS

Of 456 patients, 346 (76%) received a trial of OT. Patients reporting penicillin allergy (13%) were less likely to receive OT trial than those without penicillin allergy (47% vs. 80%, p <0.001). Adjusting for other factors, penicillin allergy was the largest negative predictor of OT trial (RR 0.64 [0.49, 0.83]). Infectious Disease (ID) consultation was the largest positive predictor of OT trial across all patients (RR 1.34 [1.14, 1.57]). Allergy/Immunology consultation was the single most important predictor of OT trial among patients reporting penicillin allergy (RR 2.33 [1.44, 3.77]). Of 440 patients, 391 (89%) completed AT, with ID consultation the largest positive predictor of the outcome (RR 1.28 [1.15, 1.43]).

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly 25% of patients with MSSA bacteremia did not receive OT trial and about 10% did not receive AT completion. Reported penicillin allergy reduced, and ID consult increased, the likelihood of OT. Allergy evaluation, coupled with ID consultation, may improve outcomes in MSSA bacteremic patients.

The High Impact of Penicillin Allergy Registration in Hospitalized Patients

BACKGROUND

Suspected penicillin allergy (Pen-A) is often not verified or excluded by diagnostic testing.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the prevalence and impact of Pen-A registration in a Dutch University Medical Center.

METHODS

In a prospective matched cohort study, all admitted patients (July 2013-July 2014) who underwent a pharmacotherapeutic interview were selected. Patients with a registered Pen-A were matched on age, sex, and department of admission with up to 3 patients without a registered Pen-A. Relative risks (RRs) of receiving a reserve antibiotic, death during hospitalization, and rehospitalization were compared in the 2 cohorts. The number and type of antibiotics prescribed during admission and duration of hospitalization were compared.

RESULTS

Of 17,959 patients, 1010 (5.6%) patients (66.7% women; median age, 55 years) had a Pen-A registration. These patients had a higher risk of receiving reserve antibiotics (RR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.22-1.56) and of being rehospitalized within 12 weeks (RR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.10-1.49). A significantly larger proportion of Pen-A registered patients received reserve antibiotics such as tetracyclines (1.8% vs 0.8%), macrolides/lincosamides/streptogramins (12.5% vs 4.9%), and quinolones (7.9% vs 4.3%) or received 2 or more types of antibiotics during hospitalization (21.7% vs 16.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

Prevalence of Pen-A registration in hospitalized patients is high, has high impact on antibiotic prescribing, and is associated with a higher risk of readmission. Verification of the Pen-A in hospitalized patients might restrict the use of reserve antibiotics and improve patient outcome.

Management and Prevention of Anaphylaxis

Anaphylaxis prevalence has increased within the last few years. This may be due to a marked increase in allergic sensitization to foods especially in the pediatric population, as well as to an increase in outdoor recreational habits and the availability of new biologic medications.  Furthermore, guidelines for the diagnosis of anaphylaxis have been published, thus facilitating the recognition of this disorder. Diagnosis of anaphylaxis is mainly based on history and clinical criteria of organ system involvement. The serum tryptase assay is now commercially available and may be a helpful diagnostic tool in certain clinical situations involving hypotension, but not in the context of food-induced anaphylaxis. Treatment of anaphylaxis mainly involves the use of epinephrine as a first line medication for severe manifestations followed by  symptomatic management of specific  symptoms, such as antihistamines for urticaria and albuterol for wheezing. Although commonly practiced, treatment with systemic corticosteroids  is not supported by evidence-based literature. Observation in a medical facility for 4-6 hours is recommended to monitor for late phase reactions, although these rarely occur. Education is an essential component of management of a patient with a previous history of anaphylaxis, emphasizing early use of epinephrine and providing a written action plan. Referral to a board-certified allergist/immunologist is recommended to determine  the cause of the anaphylaxis as well as to rule out other potential conditions. In this review, our main focus will be on the treatment and prevention of anaphylaxis while providing our readers with a brief introduction to the diagnosis of anaphylaxis, its prevalence and its most common causes.

Immediate-type hypersensitivity drug reactions

Hypersensitivity reactions including anaphylaxis have been reported for nearly all classes of therapeutic reagents and these reactions can occur within minutes to hours of exposure. These reactions are unpredictable, not directly related to dose or the pharmacological action of the drug and have a relatively high mortality risk. This review will focus on the clinical presentation, immune mechanisms, diagnosis and prevention of the most serious form of immediate onset drug hypersensitivity reaction, anaphylaxis. The incidence of drug-induced anaphylaxis deaths appears to be increasing and our understanding of the multiple and complex reasons for the unpredictable nature of anaphylaxis to drugs is also expanding. This review highlights the importance of enhancing our understanding of the biology of the patient (i.e. immune response, genetics) as well as the pharmacology and chemistry of the drug when investigating, diagnosing and treating drug hypersensitivity. Misdiagnosis of drug hypersensitivity leads to substantial patient risk and cost. Although oral provocation is often considered the gold standard of diagnosis, it can pose a potential risk to the patient. There is an urgent need to improve and standardize diagnostic testing and desensitization protocols as other diagnostic tests currently available for assessment of immediate drug allergy are not highly predictive.

Impact of a clinical guideline for prescribing antibiotics to inpatients reporting penicillin or cephalosporin allergy

BACKGROUND

Self-reported penicillin allergy infrequently reflects an inability to tolerate penicillins. Inpatients reporting penicillin allergy receive alternative antibiotics that might be broader spectrum, more toxic, or less effective.

OBJECTIVE

To develop and assess a clinical guideline for the general inpatient provider that directs taking a history and prescribing antibiotics for patients with penicillin or cephalosporin allergy.

METHODS

A guideline was implemented to assist providers with assessing allergy history and prescribing antibiotics for patients with reported penicillin or cephalosporin allergy. The guideline used a standard 2-step graded challenge or test dose. A quasi-experimental study was performed to assess safety, feasibility, and impact on antibiotic use by comparing treatment 21 months before guideline implementation with 12 months after guideline implementation.

RESULTS

Significantly more test doses to β-lactam antibiotics were performed monthly after vs before guideline implementation (median 14.5, interquartile range 13-16.25, vs 2, interquartile range 1-3.25, P < .001). Seven adverse drug reactions occurred during guideline-driven test doses, with no significant difference in rate (3.9% vs 6.1%, P = .44) or severity (P > .5) between periods. Guideline-driven test doses decreased alternative antimicrobial therapy after the test dose, including vancomycin (68.3% vs 37.2%, P < .001), aztreonam (11.5% vs 0.5%, P < .001), aminoglycosides (6.0% vs 1.1%, P = .004), and fluoro quinolones (15.3% vs 3.3%, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

The implementation of an inpatient antibiotic prescribing guideline for patients with penicillin or cephalosporin allergy was associated with an almost 7-fold increase in the number of test doses to β-lactams without increased adverse drug reactions. Patients assessed with guideline-driven test doses were observed to have significantly decreased alternative antibiotic exposure.

Sexually transmitted diseases treatment guidelines, 2015

These guidelines for the treatment of persons who have or are at risk for sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) were updated by CDC after consultation with a group of professionals knowledgeable in the field of STDs who met in Atlanta on April 30-May 2, 2013. The information in this report updates the Sexually Transmitted Diseases Treatment Guidelines, 2010 (MMWR Recomm Rep 2010;59 [No. RR-12]). These updated guidelines discuss 1) alternative treatment regimens for Neisseria gonorrhoeae; 2) the use of nucleic acid amplification tests for the diagnosis of trichomoniasis; 3) alternative treatment options for genital warts; 4) the role of Mycoplasma genitalium in urethritis/cervicitis and treatment-related implications; 5) updated HPV vaccine recommendations and counseling messages; 6) the management of persons who are transgender; 7) annual testing for hepatitis C in persons with HIV infection; 8) updated recommendations for diagnostic evaluation of urethritis; and 9) retesting to detect repeat infection. Physicians and other health-care providers can use these guidelines to assist in the prevention and treatment of STDs.