The Limited Value of Prolonged Drug Challenges in Nonimmediate Amoxicillin (Clavulanic Acid) Hypersensitivity

Direct oral challenge for immediate and non-immediate beta-lactam allergy in children: A real-world multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Allergy to beta-lactam antibiotics (BLA) is frequently suspected in children, but a drug provocation test (DPT) rules it out in over 90% of cases. Direct oral DPT (DODPT), without skin or other previous tests, is increasingly been used to delabel non-immediate BLA reactions. This real-world study aimed to assess the safety and effectiveness of DODPT in children with immediate and non-immediate reactions to BLAs.

METHODS

Ambispective registry study in children (<15 years), attended between 2016 and 2023 for suspected BLA allergy in 15 hospitals in Spain that routinely perform DODPT.

RESULTS

The study included 2133 patients with generally mild reactions (anaphylaxis 0.7%). Drug provocation test with the implicated BLA was performed in 2014 patients (94.4%): 1854 underwent DODPT (86.9%, including 172 patients with immediate reactions). One hundred forty-five (7.2%) had symptoms associated with DPT, although only four reactions were severe: two episodes of anaphylaxis and two of drug-induced enterocolitis syndrome, which resolved rapidly with treatment. Of the 141 patients with mild reactions in the first DPT, a second DPT was considered in 87 and performed in 57, with 52 tolerating it without symptoms. Finally, BLA allergy was ruled out in 90.9% of the sample, confirmed in 3.4%, and remained unverified, usually due to loss to follow-up, in 5.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

Direct oral DPT is a safe, effective procedure even in immediate mild reactions to BLA. Many reactions observed in DPT are doubtful and require confirmation. Severe reactions are exceptional and amenable to treatment. Direct oral DPT can be considered for BLA allergy delabeling in pediatric primary care.

EAACI/ENDA position paper on drug provocation testing

In drug hypersensitivity, drug provocation testing (DPT), also called drug challenge, is the gold standard for investigation. In recent years, risk stratification has become an important tool for adjusting the diagnostic strategy to the perceived risk, whilst still maintaining a high level of safety for the patient. Skin tests are recommended before DPT but may be omitted in low-risk patients. The task force suggests a strict definition of such low-risk patients in children and adults. Based on experience and evidence from studies of allergy to beta-lactam antibiotics, an algorithm on how to adjust DPT to the risk, and when to omit skin tests before DPT, is presented. For other antibiotics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and other drugs, skin tests are poorly validated and DPT is frequently necessary. We recommend performing DPT with chemotherapeutics and biologicals to avoid unnecessary desensitization procedures and DPT with skin tests negative contrast media. We suggest DPT with anesthetics only in highly specialized centers. Specifics of DPT to proton pump inhibitors, anticonvulsants and corticosteroids are discussed. This position paper provides general recommendations and guidance on optimizing use of DPT, whilst balancing benefits with patient safety and optimizing the use of the limited available resources.

Is a Prolonged Drug Provocation Test Better Than a Single-Day Drug Provocation Test? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

There is currently no standardized duration of drug provocation test (DPT) for confirming/delabeling beta-lactam hypersensitivity reaction (BL-HSR).

OBJECTIVES

This meta-analysis and systematic review aimed to investigate the added diagnostic value of extended-day over single-day DPT for confirming/delabeling BL-HSR in adults and children.

METHODS

The MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and CINAHL online databases were searched from inception to March 15, 2023, for studies that performed extended-day DPT to confirm/delabel BL-HSR. Risk difference and risk ratio were used to compare the proportions of patients with confirmed BL-HSR by single-day or extended-day DPT.

RESULTS

A total of 10,371 DPTs from 42 studies were included. Extended-day DPTs ranged from 2 to 7 days, or as long as index reactions were reported (maximum 10 days). The overall prevalence of confirmed BL-HSR was 6.96% (3.31% during the first-day DPT, and 3.65% during extended-day DPT). Approximately half of the positive reactions during extended-day DPT occurred during the second/third day. The increased detected pool prevalence of confirmed BL-HSR yielded by extended-day DPT was 0.03 (95% CI, 0.02%-0.04%; I2 = 57.69%; P < .001), and the risk ratio of positive reactions between extended-day and single-day DPT was 1.94 (95% CI, 1.62-2.33; I2 = 36.26%; P < .001). The risk difference increased per 1% increase in prevalence of BL-HSR by 0.6% (95% CI, 0.4%-0.7%; P < .001). Twenty-three severe reactions occurred during DPT, and only 2 severe reactions (0.02%) occurred during extended-day DPT. An additional 28 extended-day DPTs were needed to identify 1 mild reaction.

CONCLUSIONS

The increased prevalence of confirmed BL-HSR observed during extended-day DPT could be attributed to the first-day DPT. As a result, our findings do not conclusively support the use of extended-day DPT over single-day DPT. Further studies, incorporating a washout period, are required to comprehensively compare these 2 approaches.

Drug provocation tests in children: All that glitters is not gold

A proper allergy work-up, based on the gold standard drug provocation test (DPT), usually rules out suspected drug hypersensitivity in children. These tests are generally open, given their high efficiency compared with double-blind placebo-controlled DPTs. Although their negative predictive value is excellent, no studies have calculated their positive predictive value, highly dependent on the prevalence of the disease. Most studies have found a rate of <5%-10% of true beta-lactam hypersensitivity in children. Given this low prevalence (pre-test probability), a few false-positive results can significantly reduce the estimated positive predictive value. False positives may arise from the nocebo effect during the test, including nocebo by proxy, or from observer bias, which depends on professional expertise and organizational circumstances. Some studies have found a high rate of tolerance on a second DPT in children who failed the first, but these results may be affected by the interval between the two tests, of a year or more in most cases, reflecting a loss of hypersensitivity over time. Taking into account the low rate of positive DPTs, with commonly mild reactions, we suggest confirming nonsevere positive DPTs with a second provocation performed soon after the first, especially in the case of beta-lactam antibiotics, in order to improve the diagnostic accuracy, de-label more patients, and achieve a better estimation of true drug hypersensitivity prevalence. In case of mild immediate reactions, the potential benefits of a second DPT should be carefully weighed against the risk of anaphylaxis.

Pearls for practice from the 2022 joint task force drug allergy practice parameter

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review updated recommendations in the 2022 Drug Allergy Practice Parameters for the evaluation and management of drug hypersensitivity reactions.

RECENT FINDINGS

Adverse drug reactions have become increasingly prominent with the advent of new and emerging pharmacologic therapies. Hypersensitivity reactions encompass a significant proportion of adverse drug reactions and negatively impact both the individual patient and overall health system. Reactions are heterogeneous in presentation and may be immediate (onset of symptoms ≤6 h) or delayed (onset of symptoms >6 h to months) after drug exposure. The 2022 Drug Allergy Practice Parameter provides consensus-based statements for evaluation of hypersensitivity reactions to antibiotics, NSAIDs, cancer chemotherapies, immune checkpoint inhibitors, biologics, and excipients. In general, the guideline highlights the importance of patient history in elucidating the phenotype and severity of the index reaction. Drug challenge remains the gold standard for diagnosis and is increasingly favored over skin testing in patients with nonsevere, nonanaphylactic drug reaction histories.

SUMMARY

The 2022 Drug Allergy Practice Parameter provides an updated framework for physicians to reference in clinical practice when managing patients with drug hypersensitivity reactions.

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.

Penicillin-allergy delabelling resources for clinicians practicing in resource-limited settings: a full educational resource review of the grey literature

Background

The clinical and financial consequences associated with a penicillin-allergy label are increasingly evident and have garnered support from international organizations to prioritize penicillin-allergy delabelling programmes. Most settings lack access to resources including drug allergy specialists and rely on general practitioners (GPs) and pharmacists.

Objectives

The aim of this scoping review was to identify and describe freely available penicillin-allergy delabelling materials to guide clinicians practising in resource-limited settings with initiative application.

Methods

This scoping review searched two grey literature databases, six targeted websites and consulted content experts to identify freely available materials in the English language that provided evidence-based and actionable penicillin-allergy delabelling strategies. Study investigators ranked and voted on which screened resources should be included in the final review. Characteristics of resources were evaluated and compared.

Results

Out of 1191 total citations, 6 open-access resources were included. Penicillin-allergy toolkits featuring various delabelling strategies were identified in four resources. The toolkits supported a broad range of downloadable and adaptable materials, predominantly targeted towards GPs. Patient educational materials were also provided. Another resource highlighted a point-of-care penicillin-allergy risk assessment calculator via a free mobile app that quickly and accurately identified low-risk penicillin-allergic patients. The final resource, a supplemental instructional video, presented impactful and standardized delabelling strategies that clinicians can adopt into daily practices.

Conclusions

Limited penicillin-allergy delabelling materials are available in the grey literature but existing resources provide broad and diverse opportunities. Additional support from health protection agencies is critical to augment ongoing delabelling efforts.

The Safety of the Direct Drug Provocation Test in Beta-Lactam Hypersensitivity in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Direct drug provocation test (DPT) without prior skin testing (ST) has been investigated in children suspected of being at risk for beta-lactam (BL) hypersensitivity reaction (HSR). However, no systematic review and meta-analysis has investigated the efficacy and safety of direct DPT for BL-HSR in children.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the prevalence of BL-HSR by direct DPT and the safety of direct DPT in children.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and CINAHL from their inception to July 23, 2022, for studies that performed direct DPT in children with suspected BL-HSR, or for studies that performed DPT in all cases with ST results, but they ignored the ST results. The true prevalence was defined as the proportion of children who experienced an HSR during direct DPT. Safety was determined according to the proportion of children who developed a dangerous reaction following DPT.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight studies with 8,334 direct challenges were included. Fifteen studies included patients who presented with either immediate or nonimmediate HSR, and the majority of the index reactions were nonsevere. Amoxicillin/amoxicillin-clavulanic acid was the most commonly used during the DPT. The pooled prevalence of confirmed BL-HSR was 5.23% (95% CI 4.17-6.39; I² = 72%). Immediate and nonimmediate HSR were reported in 0.8% (95% CI 0.43-1.25; I² = 55.1%) and 3.69% (95% CI 2.66-4.87; I² = 79.77%), respectively. Severe reactions were found in 3 cases with the frequency of 0.036% (95% CI 0.012-0.112; I² = 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of BL-HSR by direct DPT was 5.23%, and the frequency of severe reactions from direct DPT was very low (0.036%). Our findings support direct DPT as a safe and effective delabeling tool in children with suspected nonsevere BL-HSR.

Drug Allergy Practice Parameter Updates to Incorporate Into Your Clinical Practice

The drug allergy practice parameter was developed to provide guidance on the diagnosis and management of drug hypersensitivity reactions. It was last updated in 2010. With the growth of research and evidence-based data since then, experts came together to update the practice parameter with a focus on sections that the work group deemed to have significant changes (or were not addressed) in the previous practice parameter. This review is a focused update on aspects of the practice parameter deemed to have the greatest impact on clinical practice and includes significant updates on diagnosis of antibiotic allergy including penicillin, cephalosporin, sulfonamide, fluoroquinolone, and macrolide allergies. Other topics include the evolution in our management approach to patients with aspirin/nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug allergy, diagnostic testing for delayed drug hypersensitivity and allergy to chemotherapeutics and biologics, and the key consensus-based statements for clinical practice. Specifically, the updated practice parameter helps allergists understand the place of 1- or 2-step drug challenges that are valuable tools often without the need for skin testing in many clinical situations. A proactive approach to delabeling penicillin allergy as well as unnecessary avoidance of safe antibiotic alternatives for patients with proven penicillin allergy is emphasized. New guidance is provided on management of patients with different phenotypes of aspirin and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug hypersensitivity reactions. Approaches to delayed drug hypersensitivity and use of delayed intradermal and patch testing for specific phenotypes are reviewed. Lastly, practical approaches to management of patients with reactions to chemotherapeutics and biologics are discussed.

Diagnosis of non-immediate hypersensitivity to amoxicillin in children by skin test and drug provocation tests: A retrospective case-series study

BACKGROUND

Skin rash often occurs upon oral administration of amoxicillin in children, due to non-immediate hypersensitivity. However, information on delayed hypersensitivity to amoxicillin is scarce. Moreover, the appropriate diagnostic method and actual diagnostic rate of delayed hypersensitivity to amoxicillin among Japanese children are unclear. We conducted intradermal tests (IDTs) and drug provocation tests (DPTs) and retrospectively investigated the proportion of children with a definitive diagnosis of non-immediate hypersensitivity to amoxicillin. We then evaluated the characteristics of patients with a positive allergic workup.

METHODS

We enrolled children referred for suspected findings of mild or moderate non-immediate hypersensitivity to amoxicillin between August 2018 and March 2020. If the IDT in the delayed phase was negative, DPT with amoxicillin (60-90 mg/kg/day) was performed for 7 days. Non-immediate hypersensitivity to amoxicillin was defined when IDT or DPT was positive. We evaluated the potential of the drug-induced lymphocyte stimulation test (DLST) to reveal hypersensitivity to amoxicillin.

RESULTS

This study enrolled 27 children. Fourteen children (52%) had hypersensitivity to amoxicillin, of whom 12 had positive IDTs and two had positive DPTs. No differences in age, sex, history of allergic disease, days from oral use to symptom onset, type of rash at symptom onset, generalized rash, and DLST results were observed between the hypersensitivity and non-hypersensitivity groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Examination should be performed for children with mild or moderate reactions because positive cases have no significant features and half of the suspected cases are negative.

Delabeling Delayed Drug Hypersensitivity: How Far Can You Safely Go?

Delayed immune-mediated adverse drug reactions (IM-ADRs) are defined as reactions occurring more than 6 hours after dosing. They include heterogeneous clinical phenotypes that are typically T-cell-mediated reactions with distinct mechanisms across a wide spectrum of severity from benign exanthems through to life-threatening cutaneous or organ-specific diseases. For mild reactions such as benign exanthem, considerations for delabeling are similar to immediate reactions and may include a graded or single-dose drug challenge with or without preceding skin or patch testing. Evaluation of challenging cases such as the patient who is on multiple drugs at the time a severe delayed IM-ADR occurs should prioritize clinical ascertainment of the most likely phenotype and implicated drug(s). Although not widely available and validated, procedures such as patch testing, delayed intradermal skin testing, and laboratory-based functional drug assays or genetic (human leukocyte antigen) testing may provide valuable information to further help risk stratify patients and identify the likely implicated and/or cross-reactive drug(s). The decision to use a drug challenge as a diagnostic or delabeling tool in a patient with a severe delayed IM-ADR should weigh the risk-benefit ratio, balancing the severity and priority for the treatment of the underlying, and the availability of alternative efficacious and safe treatments.

Advances and novel developments in drug hypersensitivity diagnosis

A correct diagnosis of drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) is very important for both the patient and health system. However, DHRs diagnosis is complex, time consuming, requires trained personnel, is not standardized for many drugs, involves procedures not exempt of risk, and in most cases lacks standardized in vivo and in vitro tests. Thus, there is an urgent need for improving the different approaches to diagnose patients with suspected DHRs. In this review, we have analyzed the advances performed in immediate and nonimmediate DHRs diagnosis during the last two years and obtained several conclusions: the significant heterogeneity in current practice among centers illustrates the need to re-evaluate, update, and standardize in vivo tests and protocols for the diagnosis and management of patients with suspected drug allergy. Regarding in vitro tests, the latest studies have focused on increasing their sensitivity or on establishing the sensitivity and specificity for the tests performed with new drugs. There seems to be a consensus about combining in vivo and in vitro tests as the best way to increase the diagnostic accuracy.

Perioperative Allergic Reactions: Allergy Assessment and Subsequent Anesthesia

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based guidelines are needed in the United States to improve evaluation of perioperative allergic reactions including recommendations for subsequent anesthesia.

OBJECTIVE

To identify causative agent(s) and evaluate patients' tolerability of subsequent anesthesia in patients evaluated by Allergy/Immunology (A/I) at Massachusetts General Hospital.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of patients referred to the outpatient A/I clinic for perioperative allergic reactions between October 2003 and May 2017. Patient demographics, atopic history, and prior adverse drug reactions were reviewed. Patients underwent a comprehensive evaluation with testing including skin testing (ST), drug challenges (when appropriate), tryptase level measurement, and specific IgE to latex measurement. Tolerance of subsequent procedures requiring anesthesia was assessed.

RESULTS

Of 123 patients referred, 74 (60%) were female and the mean age was 46 (±18) years. At least 1 causative agent was identified in 28 patients (24%, n = 28 of 118). Seventeen of 28 (61%) patients were ST positive to an antibiotic, including 13 (46%) positive to cefazolin; 3 patients (11%) had a positive latex specific IgE. Of 85 patients who had subsequent anesthesia with a known outcome, 78 (91%) did not have another perioperative allergic reaction. Two of 5 patients with an elevated baseline tryptase level did not tolerate subsequent anesthesia.

CONCLUSION

The majority of patients safely received subsequent anesthesia after comprehensive A/I evaluation for their perioperative allergic reactions; however, improved algorithmic care is needed in the United States. Among ST-positive patients (24%), antibiotics (especially cefazolin) were the most common culprits. An elevated baseline tryptase level was associated with an increased risk of recurrent perioperative allergic reactions.

Practical guide for evaluation and management of beta-lactam allergy: position statement from the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology

The vast majority of individuals labelled as allergic are not deemed truly allergic upon appropriate assessment by an allergist. A label of beta-lactam allergy carries important risks for individual and public health. This article provides an overview of beta-lactam allergy, implications of erroneous beta-lactam allergy labels and the impact that can be provided by structured allergy assessment. We provide recommendations on how to stratify risk of beta-lactam allergy, beta lactam challenge protocols as well as management of patients at high risk of beta-lactam allergy.

Update on penicillin allergy delabeling

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review phenotyping and risk classification of penicillin allergy and provide an update on penicillin allergy delabeling strategies for primary care.

RECENT FINDINGS

Beta-lactams are considered the treatment of choice for a wide range of bacterial pathogens; however, many patients receive second-line agents due to being labeled as having an allergy to penicillin. This approach can lead to antibiotic resistance and inferior health outcomes. While 10% of the population is labeled as penicillin allergic, penicillin anaphylaxis occurs in less than 1% of patients. For patients with delayed benign skin rashes (e.g., urticaria or maculopapular exanthem >1 h after administration) attributable to beta-lactam administration occurring more than 12 months ago, direct oral challenge (rechallenge with antibiotic in the clinical setting) can be a safe and effective strategy, with immediate reactions occurring in less than 5% of such low-risk patients and delayed reactions appearing infrequently. In patients with penicillin-associated immediate urticaria, other IgE-mediated features, or anaphylaxis, further allergy evaluation and penicillin skin testing is warranted. Any severe idiosyncratic cutaneous adverse reaction is rare, but can be dangerous so prompt removal of the inciting agent is required.

SUMMARY

Penicillin allergy delabeling is a high-value service that can be effectively delivered through a multidisciplinary collaborative approach.

The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice 2019 Highlights

This article provides highlights of the clinically impactful original studies and reviews published in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice in 2019 on the subjects of anaphylaxis, asthma, dermatitis, drug allergy, food allergy, immunodeficiency, immunotherapy, rhinitis/sinusitis, and urticaria/angioedema/mast cell disorders. Within each topic, practical aspects of diagnosis and management are emphasized. Treatments discussed include lifestyle modifications, allergen avoidance therapy, positive and negative effects of pharmacologic therapy, and various forms of immunologic and desensitization management. We designed this review to help readers consolidate and use this extensive and practical knowledge for the benefit of their patients.