Safety and effectiveness of a preoperative allergy clinic in decreasing vancomycin use in patients with a history of penicillin allergy

The financial burden of vancomycin as an alternative to cefazolin for periprosthetic joint infection prophylaxis in total knee arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

Vancomycin is less effective than cefazolin at preventing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of this study was to quantify and compare the costs associated with vancomycin and cefazolin TKA prophylaxis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used previously published PJI rates associated with vancomycin and cefazolin prophylaxis to create a model that captured the costs associated with these two options for antibiotic prophylaxis prior to TKA. The model included the cost of the antibiotic used, the cost of staff salaries in both preoperative holding and operating rooms, and the cost of a 2-stage septic TKA revision. National projections were used to account for future TKA volume.

RESULTS

The average per-patient cost associated with cefazolin TKA PJI prophylaxis was $469.79, accounting for a PJI rate of 0.50%. The average per-patient cost associated with vancomycin TKA PJI prophylaxis was $ $1,640.22, accounting for a 1.00% PJI rate. This cost discrepancy could amount to nearly $4.0 billion by 2040 given projections of TKA incidence.

CONCLUSION

The per-patient cost associated with vancomycin TKA prophylaxis is 250% higher than cefazolin. This difference is due to the increased cost of primary treatment, labor costs associated with prolonged infusion time, and differential PJI rates. In an era of value-based care, cefazolin has been consistently demonstrated as the gold standard for TKA PJI prophylaxis and is associated with significant cost advantages.

SAGES white paper on antibiotic omission in the management of acute uncomplicated diverticulitis: why, when, who, and most importantly, how

BACKGROUND

Historically, the management of acute uncomplicated diverticulitis was centered on antibiotics. However, modern theories regarding the pathogenesis of diverticulitis have challenged the notion that antibiotics are necessary in all cases. Despite major reform in many societal guidelines, the adoption of non-antibiotic therapy for uncomplicated diverticulitis has been limited, especially in North America. The purpose of this SAGES White Paper was to review the available evidence on antibiotic omission in uncomplicated diverticulitis and to explore methods of safe implementation.

METHODS

A task force within the SAGES Colorectal Surgery Committee was formed to work on this White Paper. The committee and its leadership approved an outline that would focus on the following topics: (1) Defining the problem with unnecessary antibiotic exposure; (2) Evaluating the evidence on antibiotic omission in uncomplicated diverticulitis; (3) Identifying the appropriate patient for antibiotic omission; (4) Outlining how to counsel patients who are treated without antibiotics; (5) Reviewing methods to safely implement this practice in both the hospital and community setting. These topics were divided up among members of the task force who performed a structured literature search in preparation for their assignments.

RESULTS

Antibiotics are associated with several patient and societal adverse effects, including the rising problem of antimicrobial resistance. Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated no superiority to the routine administration of antibiotics in acute uncomplicated diverticulitis. Appropriate patients for antibiotic omission include those who are immunocompetent, non-septic, and have mild symptoms/disease severity on imaging. Existing frameworks for the safe implementation of new practices can be referenced to help increase adoption of non-antibiotic therapy.

CONCLUSION

The existing body of evidence supports antibiotic omission in appropriate cases of acute uncomplicated diverticulitis. In order to increase the widespread adoption of this practice, buy-in from key stakeholders (both healthcare professionals and patients) is necessary.

Why do antivenoms still terrify Brazilian doctors? Lessons from the penicillin treatment decentralization

Penicillin and antivenom treatments may cause early adverse reactions. Given the low incidence of hypersensitivity reactions attributed to penicillin, the Brazilian Ministry of Health determined the decentralization of the use of this medicine to community health centers, especially to treat syphilis and prophylaxis of congenital syphilis. Regarding antivenoms, the establishment of modern purification technologies in the manufacturing process ensured the increasing efficacy and safety in the country. However, lack of training and the use of outdated evidence on the frequency of adverse reactions and the overdiagnosis of hypersensitivity reactions to antivenoms generates resistance from health professionals to administer these products in non-hospital settings. Also, robust studies on the safety of concomitant medications are lacking in this field. This results in delays in treatment leading to poor clinical outcomes.

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.

Preventing Infections in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) is a commonly performed procedure to treat degenerative conditions of the shoulder. With its growing utilization, techniques to reliably diagnose and treat prosthetic joint infection (PJI) have become increasingly important. In this review we outline the current research and prevention methods of prosthetic joint infection in rTSA. This includes preoperative considerations, intraoperative, and postoperative treatment algorithms.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is currently no established standardized protocol for preoperative infection prevention or post operative management. However, recent studies have identified risk factors for infection, as well as successful prevention techniques that can be implemented to minimize infection risk. Although there is no standardized protocol currently utilized to diagnose and treat shoulder PJI, we outline a potential set of preventative measures and postoperative management strategies that clinicians can use to properly diagnose and treat patients with this difficult condition.

Predicting Penicillin Allergy: A United States Multicenter Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Using the reaction history in logistic regression and machine learning (ML) models to predict penicillin allergy has been reported based on non-US data.

OBJECTIVE

We developed ML positive penicillin allergy testing prediction models from multisite US data.

METHODS

Retrospective data from 4 US-based hospitals were grouped into 4 datasets: enriched training (1:3 case-control matched cohort), enriched testing, nonenriched internal testing, and nonenriched external testing. ML algorithms were used for model development. We determined area under the curve (AUC) and applied the Shapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) framework to interpret risk drivers.

RESULTS

Of 4777 patients (mean age 60 [standard deviation: 17] years; 68% women, 91% White, and 86% non-Hispanic) evaluated for penicillin allergy labels, 513 (11%) had positive penicillin allergy testing. Model input variables were frequently missing: immediate or delayed onset (71%), signs or symptoms (13%), and treatment (31%). The gradient-boosted model was the strongest model with an AUC of 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.57-0.77), which improved to 0.87 (95% CI: 0.73-1) when only cases with complete data were used. Top SHAP drivers for positive testing were reactions within the last year and reactions requiring medical attention; female sex and reaction of hives/urticaria were also positive drivers.

CONCLUSIONS

An ML prediction model for positive penicillin allergy skin testing using US-based retrospective data did not achieve performance strong enough for acceptance and adoption. The optimal ML prediction model for positive penicillin allergy testing was driven by time since reaction, seek medical attention, female sex, and hives/urticaria.

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.

Approach for delabeling beta-lactam allergy in children

A considerable number of pediatric patients treated with beta-lactam (BL) antibiotics develop delayed onset of skin rashes during the course of treatment. Although the most frequent cause of these symptoms is infectious, many cases are labeled as allergic reactions to these drugs. BL allergy labels could have a negative impact, as they imply avoidance of this group of drugs and the use of second-line antibiotics, leading to a potential increase in adverse effects and the utilization of less effective therapies. This constitutes a major public health concern and economic burden, as the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics can result in multidrug-resistant organisms and prolonged hospital stays. Therefore, it is crucial to delabel patients during childhood to avoid false labeling in adult life. Although the label of BL allergy is among the most frequent causes of allergy referral, its management remains controversial, and new diagnostic perspectives are changing the paradigm of managing BL allergies in children. Traditionally, drug provocation testing (DPT) was exclusively performed in patients who had previously obtained negative results from skin tests (STs). However, the sensitivity of STs is low, and the role of in vitro testing in the pediatric population is not well defined. Recent studies have demonstrated the safety of direct DPT without prior ST or serum tests for pediatric patients who report a low-risk reaction to BLs, which is cost-effective. However, there is still a debate on the optimal allergic workup to be performed in children with a benign immediate reaction and the management of children with severe cutaneous adverse drug reactions. In this review, we will discuss the impact of the label of BL allergy and the role of the different tools currently available to efficiently address BL allergy delabeling in children.

Diagnosis and selection of alternative antibiotics in beta-lactams hypersensitivity reactions: Current recommendations and challenges

Beta-lactam (BLM) antibiotics, including amino-penicillin and cephalosporins, are typically the first-choice treatment for bacterial infections. However, adverse reactions to these antibiotics are frequently reported, causing non-allergist physicians to select alternative broad-spectrum antibiotics that can have harmful consequences. Patients with unclear histories of hypersensitivity reactions to BLMs should undergo an allergy workup to establish a firm diagnosis, particularly when different drugs are prescribed simultaneously. However, finding the safest, most precise, and cost-effective methods for confirming BLMs hypersensitivity and selecting the most appropriate alternative BLM is uncertain, particularly in severe delayed reactions. This review aims to provide data and recommendations on the availability and validity of skin tests (STs), drug provocation test (DPT) protocols, based on the latest published literature and guideline. To make the process more practical, we focused on cross-reactivity between BLMs and diagnostic tests. There are two main novel aspects of this document: 1) For T-cell-mediated reactions, patient stratification into high, moderate, and low-risk groups based on the mortality and morbidity of adverse drug reactions. 2) For IgE-mediated reactions, stratification of individuals with isolated limited urticarial without anaphylaxis in a low-risk group and removal of the extensive limitation.

Artificial Intelligence: Exploring the Future of Innovation in Allergy Immunology

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Artificial intelligence (AI) has increasingly been used in healthcare. Given the capacity of AI to handle large data and complex relationships between variables, AI is well suited for applications in healthcare. Recently, AI has been applied to allergy research.

RECENT FINDINGS

In this article, we review how AI technologies have been utilized in basic science and clinical allergy research for asthma, atopic dermatitis, rhinology, adverse reactions to drugs and vaccines, food allergy, anaphylaxis, urticaria, and eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders. We discuss barriers for AI adoption to improve the care of patients with atopic diseases. These studies demonstrate the utility of applying AI to the field of allergy to help investigators expand their understanding of disease pathogenesis, improve diagnostic accuracy, enable prediction for treatments and outcomes, and for drug discovery.

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.

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 and treatment of periprosthetic infection after hip replacement (a review)

Introduction. The frequency of hip arthroplasty is steadily increasing throughout the world and, although this operation has become routine, the likelihood of postoperative complications reaches 4.3 % [1]. The most dangerous of them are infectious lesions in the area of the endoprosthesis and adjacent tissues. At the same time, in addition to the threat of generalization of the infectious process, there are functional disorders in the joint area and a general deterioration in the quality of life of the patient. Timely diagnosis and treatment of the infectious process and related disorders can minimize the adverse effects of infection.

Target. The purpose of this review is to analyze modern methods for diagnosing and treating periprosthetic infection resulting from hip replacement.

Materials and methods. The subject literature was searched using the PubMed and Google Sholar databases.

Results. The main methods for diagnosing periprosthetic infection include histological and bacteriological examination of the biopsy specimen, determination of sensitivity to antibiotics, blood, and synovial fluid analysis for the content of leukocytes, IL-6, CRP, PCR diagnostics of infectious agents. Treatment consists of re-intervention and/or antibiotic therapy.

Conclusion. The most optimal method for diagnosing periprosthetic infection is a bacteriological study of biopsy specimens taken intraoperatively. The preferred method of treatment is determined by the severity of the infection, the degree of involvement of tissues adjacent to the prosthesis, the comorbid background, the nature of the infectious agent, and includes repeated revision surgery.

Improving routine prenatal penicillin allergy testing for reported penicillin allergy

BACKGROUND

Patients with self-reported antibiotic allergies have a higher cost of care, more frequent infections with resistant bacteria and worse health outcomes than patients without antibiotic allergies. Ultimately, less than 5% of patients who report a penicillin allergy have a clinically significant immune-mediated hypersensitivity reaction when tested. As 10%-30% of the population of pregnant patients are colonised for group B Streptococcus (GBS) and guidelines recommend penicillin as the treatment of choice for GBS, current recommendations support penicillin allergy testing in pregnant patients who report an allergy.

METHODS AND INTERVENTION

In this quality improvement project, nursing staff used an algorithm outlining inclusion and exclusion criteria to determine which patients were eligible to have penicillin allergy testing completed. Penicillin allergy testing consisted of a skin test using benzylpenicilloyl polylysine (Pre-Pen), penicillin G potassium, amoxicillin and alkaline hydrolysis mix (penicilloate) as a prick skin test, followed by intradermal skin test and finally an oral challenge with either amoxicillin or penicillin. Patient outcomes were analysed to evaluate the impact of the intervention.

RESULTS

Of the 1266 patients receiving prenatal care during the intervention, 236 (19%) reported a history of penicillin allergy, and 212 if these were eligible for testing. 150 of the eligible patients were offered penicillin allergy testing. 101 patients (67%) completed testing and 49 (33%) declined testing. Seven patients (7%) had positive penicillin allergy testing, while 94 patients (93%) had negative penicillin allergy testing and were immediately de-labelled as penicillin allergic. Seventeen of the de-labelled patients subsequently tested positive for GBS colonisation, and all received intrapartum penicillin without adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Pursuing penicillin allergy testing for pregnant patients with reported penicillin allergy is a safe and feasible approach, allowing for allergy de-labelling and safe, guideline-driven antimicrobial therapy during subsequent labour and delivery hospitalisations. Cost-effectiveness of the allergy testing and impact on later episodes of care should be further investigated.

Management of Beta-Lactam Antibiotics Allergy: A Real-Life Study

Beta-lactam allergy is a common problem in everyday medical practice and is recognized as a major public health issue. Carrying this label frequently leads to the avoidance of all beta-lactam antibiotics, favoring the use of other less preferred classes of antibiotics, that are more expensive and associated with more side effects and increased antimicrobial resistance. Therefore, delabeling a beta-lactam allergy is part of antimicrobial stewardship programs. Herein, we retrospectively examined the clinical records of 576 patients who were referred to our center for a label of allergy to beta-lactam antibiotics and were systematically investigated following a standardized algorithm. Our main aim was to evaluate the frequency of confirmed immediate- and delayed-type allergy to commonly prescribed subclasses of beta-lactam antibiotics (penicillin and cephalosporin), as well as the negative predictive value (NPV) and the sensitivity of skin tests. Our secondary aims were to examine the safety of beta-lactam skin testing and drug challenge. We identified that 260 patients reported a history of immediate reactions, 131 of delayed reactions, and 114 of unknown timing or mechanism of reactions. Following assessment and testing, 86 (18.3%) patients had a confirmed allergy to any beta-lactam antibiotics; 63 (13.4%) with an immediate- and 23 (4.9%) with a delayed-type reaction. Most frequently identified confirmed allergy was to penicillins (65 patients), followed by cephalosporins (21 patients). When immediate-type reactions were examined, NPV of skin tests were 96.3% and 100% for penicillins and cephalosporins, respectively. When delayed reactions were considered, NPV were 91.9 and 87.5% for penicillins and cephalosporins, respectively. Evaluation of the safety of skin tests according to the standardized procedure showed that systemic allergic reactions occurred in only 0.7% of skin tests and in 3.1% of drug challenges. Overall, our data indicate that only 18.3% of patients with a beta-lactam allergy label have a confirmed allergy and non-allergic patients can be safely delabeled through allergic workup based on skin tests and drug challenge. This approach supports the policy of saving second-line antibiotics through a standardized allergy workup.

Promoting β-lactam utilization through suppression of electronic medical record cross-allergy alerts

DISCLAIMER

In an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time.

PURPOSE

Current literature surrounding management of patients with reported β-lactam allergies focuses on allergy delabeling. Standard clinical decision support tools have not been optimized to be compatible with the currently accepted cross-reaction rate of 1% to 2%. This potentially promotes use of non-β-lactam antibiotics, which are often not first-line therapy and may carry increased risks. The impact of electronic medical record (EMR) clinical decision support tool optimization on utilization of β-lactam antibiotics in β-lactam-allergic patients was evaluated.

METHODS

A retrospective pre-post β-lactam cross-allergy EMR alert suppression quality improvement intervention cohort study of β-lactam-allergic adult inpatients prescribed antibiotics was conducted. Preintervention baseline data were collected for an initial cohort admitted during September 2018. The intervention, in which clinical decision support rules were updated to display β-lactam cross-sensitivity allergy alerts only for β-lactam-allergic patients with documentation of organization-defined high-severity reactions of anaphylaxis, hives, and shortness of breath, was implemented August 20, 2019. The postintervention cohort included patients admitted during September 2019.

RESULTS

A 91% increase in the percentage of β-lactam-allergic patients who received a β-lactam agent at any time during their admission was noted after the intervention (26.6% vs 51%, P < 0.001). Statistically significant decreases in prescribing of alternative antibiotic classes were seen for fluoroquinolones (decrease from 45.3% to 26%, P < 0.001), aminoglycosides (decrease from 9.4% to 2.9%, P = 0.002), and aztreonam (decrease from 30% to 16.7%, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

EMR β-lactam cross-allergy alert optimization consistent with current literature significantly improved the utilization of alternative β-lactam subclasses, mostly through β-lactam prescribing as initial therapy in β-lactam-allergic patients.

Drug Allergy Delabeling Programs: Recent Strategies and Targeted Populations

Drug allergy delabeling programs have become an essential element of antibiotic stewardship. Development of delabeling programs involves careful selection of target patient population, thoughtful design of delabeling approach, stakeholder engagement, assembly of key team members, implementation, and evaluation of clinical and safety outcomes. Recent programs have targeted patients thought to be most likely to benefit from removal of inaccurate antibiotic allergy labels, those with β-lactam antibiotic allergies and high-risk populations likely to need β-lactam antibiotics as first-line treatment. This review provides an overview of current risk stratification methods and β-lactam cross-reactivity data and summarizes how different inpatient and outpatient delabeling programs have used these concepts in delabeling algorithms. β-Lactam delabeling programs for inpatients, pediatric patients, and programs utilizing telehealth have been implemented with good outcomes. This review also focuses on delabeling programs for high-risk populations likely to benefit from first-line β-lactam antibiotics. These populations include perioperative, prenatal, and immunocompromised patients. Delabeling programs have been successful in the inpatient and outpatient settings at enabling appropriate antibiotic use. This article reviews delabeling strategies utilized by these programs with a focus on highlighting elements key to their success and future areas for innovation.

Surgical Antibiotic Prophylaxis in an Era of Antibiotic Resistance: Common Resistant Bacteria and Wider Considerations for Practice

The increasing incidence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) presents a global crisis to healthcare, with longstanding antimicrobial agents becoming less effective at treating and preventing infection. In the surgical setting, antibiotic prophylaxis has long been established as routine standard of care to prevent surgical site infection (SSI), which remains one of the most common hospital-acquired infections. The growing incidence of AMR increases the risk of SSI complicated with resistant bacteria, resulting in poorer surgical outcomes (prolonged hospitalisation, extended durations of antibiotic therapy, higher rates of surgical revision and mortality). Despite these increasing challenges, more data are required on approaches at the institutional and patient level to optimise surgical antibiotic prophylaxis in the era of antibiotic resistance (AR). This review provides an overview of the common resistant bacteria encountered in the surgical setting and covers wider considerations for practice to optimise surgical antibiotic prophylaxis in the perioperative setting.

Implementation and Impact of a β-Lactam Allergy Assessment Protocol in a Veteran Population

Background

Approximately 10% of the US population reports having a β-lactam allergy, although nearly 90% do not have a true immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated reaction. This misconception results in using nonpreferred antibiotics, leading to antimicrobial resistance and treatment failure. To evaluate, clarify, and clear β-lactam allergies, we implemented a pharmacist-driven β-lactam allergy assessment (BLAA) protocol and penicillin allergy clinic (PAC). The purpose of this study was to illustrate the BLAA process, including the pharmacist-run PAC, and assess the impact on allergy clearance.

Methods

Clinical pharmacy specialists (CPS) evaluated hospitalized veterans with β-lactam allergies, using the BLAA protocol. Eligible patients could later be seen in PAC. This was a retrospective observational review of the BLAA protocol to assess recommendations for β-lactam antibiotic use and PAC outcomes.

Results

Between November 2017 and February 2020, 278 patients were evaluated, and 32 were seen in the clinic. The most common allergen was penicillin, and the most reported reaction was a rash (27%) or pruritus and urticaria (18%). Through PAC and the BLAA protocol, 86 patients (31%) were cleared for allergy removal, and 188 (68%) were cleared for alternative β-lactams. The evaluation revealed that 274 patients (99%) were eligible to receive a β-lactam antibiotic, and only 4 patients (1%) were recommended for avoidance of all β-lactams.

Conclusions

These findings highlight the utility of the pharmacist-driven BLAA protocol. We illustrated that most patients with documented β-lactam allergies were eligible for alternative β-lactams. The implementation of the BLAA protocol and pharmacist-run PAC facilitated allergy clearance and has the potential to promote alternative β-lactam use.

Evaluation of a Pharmacist-Led Penicillin Allergy Assessment Program and Allergy Delabeling in a Tertiary Care Hospital

IMPORTANCE

Penicillin allergies are frequently mislabeled, which may contribute to use of less-preferred alternative antibiotics.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate a pharmacist-led allergy assessment program's association with antimicrobial use and clinical outcomes.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A pharmacist-led allergy assessment program was launched in 2 phases (June 1, 2015, and November 2, 2016) at a single-center tertiary referral hospital. The longitudinal cross-sectional study included all study period adult admissions; hospitalwide outcomes were assessed by segmented regression. Individual outcomes were assessed within an embedded propensity score-matched case-control study of inpatients undergoing comprehensive allergy assessment following self-report of penicillin allergy. Analysis occurred from March 1, 2020, to February 29, 2020.

EXPOSURES

The longitudinal study analyzed hospital-level outcomes over 3 periods: preintervention (15 months), phase 1 (structured allergy history alone, 16 months), and phase 2 (comprehensive assessment including penicillin skin testing, 52 months). The case-control study defined cases as individuals undergoing comprehensive allergy assessment.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Hospital-level outcomes included antibiotic days of therapy per 1000 patient-days and hospital-acquired Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) incidence per 10 000 patient-days. Individual outcomes included antibiotic selection, overall survival, and CDI-free survival.

RESULTS

Longitudinal analysis spanned 2014-2020 (median admissions, 46 416 per year; interquartile range [IQR], 46 001-50 091 per year). Hospitalwide, allergy histories were temporally associated with decreased use of nonpenicillin alternative antibiotics (rate ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.79-0.97) and high-CDI-risk antibiotics (rate ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85-0.98). Penicillin skin testing was temporally associated with lower hospital-acquired CDI rates (rate ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.43-0.86). The embedded case-control study included 272 cases and 819 controls. Median age was 63 years (interquartile range, 51-73 years), 553 (50.7%) patients were women, and 229 (21.0%) patients were Black. Allergy-assessed patients were less likely to receive high-CDI-risk antibiotics at discharge (odds ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.44-0.98). Estimated reductions in mortality (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.55-1.07) and hospital-acquired CDI risk (hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.18-1.55) were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Pharmacist-led allergy assessments may be associated with reduced high-CDI-risk antibiotic use at both hospitalwide and individual levels. Although individual reductions in mortality and CDI risk did not achieve significance, divergence of survival curves suggest longer-term benefits of allergy delabeling warrant future study.

Assessment of the Frequency of Dual Allergy to Penicillins and Cefazolin: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Importance

Cefazolin is the preoperative antibiotic of choice because it is safer and more efficacious than second-line alternatives. Surgical patients labeled as having penicillin allergy are less likely to prophylactically receive cefazolin and more likely to receive clindamycin or vancomycin, which results in higher rates of surgical site infections.

Objective

To examine the incidence of dual allergy to cefazolin and natural penicillins.

Data Sources

MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were searched without language restrictions for relevant articles published from database inception until July 31, 2020.

Study Selection

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, a search of MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase was performed for articles published from database inception to July 31, 2020, for studies that included patients who had index allergies to a natural penicillin and were tested for tolerability to cefazolin or that included patients who had index allergies to cefazolin and were tested for tolerability to a natural penicillin. A total of 3228 studies were identified and 2911 were screened for inclusion.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Data were independently extracted by 2 authors. Bayesian meta-analysis was used to estimate the frequency of allergic reactions.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Dual allergy to cefazolin and a natural penicillin.

Results

Seventy-seven unique studies met the eligibility criteria, yielding 6147 patients. Cefazolin allergy was identified in 44 participants with a history of penicillin allergy, resulting in a dual allergy meta-analytical frequency of 0.7% (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.1%-1.7%; I2 = 74.9%). Such frequency was lower for participants with unconfirmed (0.6%; 95% CrI, 0.1%-1.3%; I2 = 54.3%) than for those with confirmed penicillin allergy (3.0%; 95% CrI, 0.01%-17.0%; I2 = 88.2%). Thirteen studies exclusively assessed surgical patients (n = 3884), among whom 0.7% (95% CrI, 0%-3.3%; I2 = 85.5%) had confirmed allergy to cefazolin. Low heterogeneity was observed for studies of patients with unconfirmed penicillin allergy who had been exposed to perioperative cefazolin (0.1%; 95% CrI, 0.1%-0.3%; I2 = 13.1%). Penicillin allergy was confirmed in 16 participants with a history of cefazolin allergy, resulting in a meta-analytical frequency of 3.7% (95% CrI, 0.03%-13.3%; I2 = 64.4%). The frequency of penicillin allergy was 4.4% (95% CrI, 0%-23.0%; I2 = 75%) for the 8 studies that exclusively assessed surgical patients allergic to cefazolin.

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that most patients with a penicillin allergy history may safely receive cefazolin. The exception is patients with confirmed penicillin allergy in whom additional care is warranted.

Skin testing and drug challenge in the evaluation of drug hypersensitivity reactions

Immediate hypersensitivity to drugs is characterized by symptoms such as hives, swelling, and wheezing. To prevent a negative impact on care, assessment by an allergist is important. Evaluation requires a clear clinical history, but it is often lacking or vague, which makes a diagnosis difficult. Allergists instead can use skin testing and drug challenge to evaluate drug hypersensitivity reactions, which help the patient and provider understand the causative drug(s) and, more importantly, enables the use of the exonerated drug(s). Although penicillin skin testing is standardized, well described, and widely used, skin testing for most other drugs requires the use of a nonirritating skin testing concentration that can have a low negative predictive value. Drug challenges are the criterion standard for confirming tolerance. The allergist must obtain an in-depth clinical history and then follow with skin testing and/or drug challenges when indicated to determine which drugs can be de-labelled and which should be avoided. In this review, we focused on the evaluation of drug hypersensitivity reactions to antibiotics, perioperative agents, biologics, and chemotherapeutics.

Penicillin Allergy Delabeling Can Decrease Antibiotic Resistance, Reduce Costs, and Optimize Patient Outcomes

Background

Antibiotics are one of the most frequently prescribed medications. Among all classes of antibiotics, penicillins are prescribed due to their clinical efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and general safety. Unfortunately, penicillins also are the most common drug allergy listed in patient medical records. Increasing evidence shows that > 90% of patients labeled with a penicillin allergy are not allergic to penicillins and associated β-lactams. The health care consequences of penicillin allergy in the setting of military medicine and readiness are important to consider.

Observations

In the US, 8 to 10% of the population and up to 15% of hospitalized patients have a documented penicillin allergy, limiting the use of these effective antibiotics. When treating a patient with a penicillin allergy, many clinicians avoid prescribing all β-lactam antibiotics and stay away from cephalosporins due to the concern for potential cross-reactivity. The cost of treating those with a documented penicillin allergy is greater than the cost for those who can receive penicillin, as treatment with broad-spectrum antibiotics often results in longer hospitalizations with increased rates of adverse effects (AEs). Despite preventive programs such as vaccinations, hygiene measures, and prophylactic antibiotics, military personnel are at increased risk for infections due to the military's mobile nature and crowded living situations.

Conclusions

Many patients report an allergy to penicillin, but only a small portion have a true immune-mediated allergy. Given the clinical, public health, and economic costs associated with a penicillin allergy label, evaluation and clearance of penicillin allergies improves clinical outcomes, decreases AEs from higher risk alternative broad-spectrum antibiotics, and prevents the spread of antibiotic resistance. In military personnel, penicillin delabeling improves readiness with optimal antibiotic options and avoidance of unnecessary risks, expediting return to full duty.

Preoperative penicillin allergy testing in patients undergoing cardiac surgery

BACKGROUND

Cefazolin is a first-line prophylactic antibiotic used to prevent surgical site infections (SSIs) in cardiac surgery. Patients with a history of penicillin allergy often receive less effective second-line antibiotics, which is associated with an increased SSI risk.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the impact of preoperative penicillin allergy evaluation on perioperative cefazolin use in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients with a documented penicillin allergy who underwent cardiac surgery at the Massachusetts General Hospital from September 2015 to December 2018. We describe penicillin allergy evaluation assessment and outcomes. We evaluated the association between preoperative penicillin allergy evaluation and first-line perioperative antibiotic use using a multivariable logistic regression model.

RESULTS

Of 3802 cardiac surgical patients, 510 (13%) had a documented penicillin allergy; 165 (33%) were referred to allergy and immunology practitioners. Of 160 patients (31%) who underwent penicillin allergy evaluation (ie, penicillin skin testing and, if results were negative, an amoxicillin challenge), 154 (97%) were found not to have a penicillin allergy. Patients who underwent preoperative penicillin allergy evaluation were more likely to receive the first-line perioperative antibiotic (92% vs 38%, P < .001). After adjusting for potential confounders, patients who underwent preoperative penicillin allergy evaluation had higher odds of first-line perioperative antibiotic use (adjusted odds ratio, 26.6; 95% CI, 12.8-55.2).

CONCLUSION

Integrating penicillin allergy evaluation into routine preoperative care ensured that almost all evaluated patients undergoing cardiac surgery received first-line antibiotic prophylaxis, a critical component of SSI risk reduction. Further efforts are needed to increase access to preoperative allergy evaluation.

Hospital Infection Control: Clostridioides difficile

Clostridioides difficile remains a leading cause of healthcare-associated infection. Efforts at C. difficile prevention have been hampered by an increasingly complex understanding of transmission patterns and a high degree of heterogeneity among existing studies. Effective prevention of C. difficile infection requires multimodal interventions, including contact precautions, hand hygiene with soap and water, effective environmental cleaning, use of sporicidal cleaning agents, and antimicrobial stewardship. Roles for probiotics, avoidance of proton pump inhibitors, and isolation of asymptomatic carriers remain poorly defined.

Penicillin Allergy…Maybe Not? The Military Relevance for Penicillin Testing and De-labeling

INTRODUCTION

Penicillin allergy is the most common drug allergy reported. About 8-10% of individuals in the USA have a documented penicillin allergy, yet 90% are not truly allergic to penicillin. A penicillin allergy "label" results in increased antibiotic-related adverse reactions and increased health care costs, thus impacting the overall "readiness" of the military.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A review of the current literature and approaches to penicillin allergy and "de-labeling" a patient who reports penicillin allergy was conducted and future strategies to identify and assess military beneficiaries were outlined. Military allergists had a formal discussion at the Tri-service Military Allergy Immunology Assembly regarding the state of penicillin allergy testing in military allergy clinics.

RESULTS

A PubMed search yielded 5,775 results for "penicillin allergy" and 484 results for "penicillin allergy testing." There were two formalized penicillin testing programs in the military treatment facilities. In 2017, the military trained nearly 165,000 new recruits. If 5-10% reported a penicillin allergy and 90% were de-labeled, that would yield a $15-30 million cost savings annually. Further, de-labeling of the 9.4 million active duty, beneficiaries and retirees with a 90% success rate could result in even greater savings for the military health care system.

CONCLUSION

A penicillin allergy label is a risk to military readiness secondary to associated increases in the length of hospitalizations and emergency department and medical visits. Penicillin de-labeling is a simple intervention that can improve readiness, significantly decrease health care costs and prevent antibiotic resistance, as well as antibiotic-associated adverse events. The military allergist should be "front and center" providing expertise guidance and leadership for clinic and hospital-based penicillin de-labeling efforts which are nested within the antibiotic stewardship programs.

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.

The challenge of de-labeling penicillin allergy

BACKGROUND

Even though 8%-25% of most populations studied globally are labeled as penicillin allergic, most diagnoses of penicillin allergy are made in childhood and relate to events that are either not allergic in nature, are low risk for immediate hypersensitivity, or are a potential true allergy that has waned over time. Penicillin allergy labels directly impact antimicrobial stewardship by leading to use of less effective and broader spectrum antimicrobials and are associated with antimicrobial resistance. They may also delay appropriate antimicrobial therapy and lead to increased risk of specific adverse healthcare outcomes. Operationalizing penicillin allergy de-labeling into a new arm of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) has become an increasing global focus.

METHODS

We performed an evidence-based narrative review of the literature of penicillin allergy label carriage, the adverse effects of penicillin allergy labels, and current approaches and barriers to penicillin allergy de-labeling. Over the period 1928-2018 in Pubmed and Medline, search terms used included "penicillin allergy" or "penicillin hypersensitivity" alone or in combination with "adverse events," "testing," "evaluation," "effects," "label," "de-labeling," "prick or epicutaneous," and "intradermal" skin testing, "oral challenge or provocation," "cross-reactivity," and "antimicrobial stewardship".

RESULTS

Penicillin allergy labels are highly prevalent, largely inaccurate and their carriage may lead to unnecessary treatment and inferior outcomes with alternative agents as well as adverse public health outcomes such as antibiotic resistance.

CONCLUSIONS

Operationalizing penicillin allergy de-labeling as an aspect of ASP has become an increasing global focus. There is a need for validated approaches that optimally combine the use of history and ingestion challenge with or without proceeding formal skin testing to tackle penicillin allergy efficiently within complex healthcare systems. At the same time, there is great promise for penicillin allergy evaluation and de-labeling as an individual and public health strategy to reduce adverse healthcare outcomes, improve antimicrobial stewardship, and decrease healthcare costs.

Self-reported beta-lactam allergy and the risk of surgical site infection: A retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether a self-reported β-lactam allergy is associated with an increased risk of surgical site infection (SSI) across a broad range of procedures and to determine whether this association is mediated by the receipt of an alternate antibiotic to cefazolin.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

PARTICIPANTS

Surgical procedures sampled by an institutional National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database over an 18-month period (January 2017 to June 2018) from 7 surgical specialties.

SETTING

Tertiary-care academic hospital.

RESULTS

Of the 3,589 surgical procedures included in the study, 369 (10.3%) were performed in patients with a reported β-lactam allergy. Those with a reported β-lactam allergy were significantly less likely to receive cefazolin (38.8% vs 95.5%) or metronidazole (20.3% vs 26.1%) and were more likely to receive clindamycin (52.0% vs 0.2%), gentamicin (3.5% vs 0%), or vancomycin (2.2% vs 0.1%) than those without allergy. An SSI occurred in 154 of 3,220 procedures (4.8%) in patients without reported allergy and 27 of 369 (7.3%) with reported allergy. In the multivariable regression model, a reported β-lactam allergy was associated with a statistically significant increase in SSI risk (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-2.51; P = .03). This effect was completely mediated by receipt of an alternate antibiotic to cefazolin (indirect effect aOR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.17-2.34; P = .005).

CONCLUSIONS

Self-reported β-lactam allergy was associated with an increased SSI risk mediated through receipt of alternate antibiotic prophylaxis. Safely increasing use of cefazolin prophylaxis in patients with reported β-lactam allergy can potentially lower the risk of SSIs.

Impact of β-Lactam Allergies on Antimicrobial Selection in an Outpatient Setting

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this study was to determine whether patients prescribed nonpreferred antibiotics received appropriate alternative antibiotics.

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational analysis of military veteran patients with a β-lactam allergy treated in an outpatient clinic or emergency department for an infection during a 5-year span. Antibiotic regimens were first stratified as preferred or nonpreferred based on infection-specific guidelines. The nonpreferred regimens were then evaluated for appropriateness based on allergy history and culture and sensitivity reports.

RESULTS

Of 445 fills of antibiotics evaluated, 269 met inclusion criteria, comprising 253 unique infections in 80 patients. Patients received nonpreferred antibiotics for their infection type in 57% of cases. Of the nonpreferred antibiotics, 56% were inappropriate based on guideline-recommended alternatives, allergy history, and culture and sensitivity data. Of the 88 allergies, 97% were historical/self-reported and 48% were cutaneous. In addition, 39% of patients safely received β-lactam antibiotics after documentation of their allergy.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with documented β-lactam allergies are at high risk of receiving nonpreferred and inappropriate antibiotics, and many reactions likely do not reflect true allergies. These data emphasize the negative impact of the "β-lactam allergy" label and the importance of reassessing allergies.

The Impact of a Reported Penicillin Allergy on Surgical Site Infection Risk

Background

A reported penicillin allergy may compromise receipt of recommended antibiotic prophylaxis intended to prevent surgical site infections (SSIs). Most patients with a reported penicillin allergy are not allergic. We determined the impact of a reported penicillin allergy on the development of SSIs.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort study of Massachusetts General Hospital hip arthroplasty, knee arthroplasty, hysterectomy, colon surgery, and coronary artery bypass grafting patients from 2010 to 2014, we compared patients with and without a reported penicillin allergy. The primary outcome was an SSI, as defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Healthcare Safety Network. The secondary outcome was perioperative antibiotic use.

Results

Of 8385 patients who underwent 9004 procedures, 922 (11%) reported a penicillin allergy, and 241 (2.7%) had an SSI. In multivariable logistic regression, patients reporting a penicillin allergy had increased odds (adjusted odds ratio, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-2.22) of SSI. Penicillin allergy reporters were administered less cefazolin (12% vs 92%; P < .001) and more clindamycin (49% vs 3%; P < .001), vancomycin (35% vs 3%; P < .001), and gentamicin (24% vs 3%; P < .001) compared with those without a reported penicillin allergy. The increased SSI risk was entirely mediated by the patients' receipt of an alternative perioperative antibiotic; between 112 and 124 patients with reported penicillin allergy would need allergy evaluation to prevent 1 SSI.

Conclusions

Patients with a reported penicillin allergy had a 50% increased odds of SSI, attributable to the receipt of second-line perioperative antibiotics. Clarification of penicillin allergies as part of routine preoperative care may decrease SSI risk.

2019 John Charnley Award: Increased risk of prosthetic joint infection following primary total knee and hip arthroplasty with the use of alternative antibiotics to cefazolin: the value of allergy testing for antibiotic prophylaxis

AIMS

The aims of this study were to characterize antibiotic choices for perioperative total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) prophylaxis, assess antibiotic allergy testing efficacy, and determine rates of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) based on perioperative antibiotic regimen.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We evaluated all patients undergoing primary TKA or THA at a single academic institution between January 2004 and May 2017, yielding 29 695 arthroplasties (22 705 patients), with 3411 arthroplasties in 2576 patients (11.5%) having undergone preoperative allergy testing. A series of institutional databases were combined to identify allergy consultation outcomes, perioperative antibiotic regimen, and infection-free survivorship until final follow-up.

RESULTS

Among 2576 allergy-tested patients, 2493 patients (97%) were cleared to use cephalosporins. For the entire cohort, 28 174 arthroplasties (94.9%) received cefazolin and 1521 (5.1%) received non-cefazolin antibiotics. Infection-free survivorship was significantly higher among arthroplasties receiving cefazolin compared with non-cefazolin antibiotics, with 0.06% higher survival free of infection at one month, 0.56% at two months, 0.61% at one year, and 1.19% at ten years (p < 0.001). Overall, the risk of PJI was 32% lower in patients treated with cefazolin after adjusting for the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, joint arthroplasty (TKA or THA), and body mass index (BMI; p < 0.001). The number needed to treat with cefazolin to prevent one PJI was 164 patients at one year and 84 patients at ten years. Therefore, potentially 6098 PJIs could be prevented by one year and 11 905 by ten years in a cohort of 1 000 000 primary TKA and THA patients.

CONCLUSION

PJI rates are significantly higher when non-cefazolin antibiotics are used for perioperative TKA and THA prophylaxis, highlighting the positive impact of preoperative antibiotic allergy testing to increase cefazolin usage. Given the low rate of true penicillin allergy positivity, and the readily modifiable risk factor that antibiotic choice provides, we recommend perioperative testing and clearance for all patients presenting with penicillin and cephalosporin allergies. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B(6 Supple B):9-15.

Proceedings from the 2018 International Consensus Meeting on Orthopedic Infections: prevention of periprosthetic shoulder infection

The Second International Consensus Meeting on Orthopedic Infections was held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in July 2018. Over 800 international experts from all 9 subspecialties of orthopedic surgery and allied fields of infectious disease, microbiology, and epidemiology were assembled to form a consensus workgroup. The following proceedings on the prevention of periprosthetic shoulder infection come from 16 questions evaluated by delegates from the shoulder section.

Penicillin Allergy Evaluation: A Prospective, Multicenter, Open-Label Evaluation of a Comprehensive Penicillin Skin Test Kit

BACKGROUND

Ten percent of the population claims an allergy to penicillin, but 90% of these individuals are not allergic. Patients labeled as penicillin-allergic have higher medical costs, longer hospital stays, are more likely to be treated with broad-spectrum antibiotics, and develop drug-resistant bacterial infections. Most penicillin skin test reagents are not approved by the Food and drug Administration or readily available to evaluate patients labeled penicillin-allergic.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the negative predictive value (NPV) of the Penicillin Skin Test Kit containing the major allergenic determinant (penicilloyl polylysine), a minor determinant mixture (penicillin G, penicilloate, penilloate), and amoxicillin, produced according to Food and Drug Administration standards.

METHODS

This was a prospective, multicenter, open-label investigation of penicillin skin testing using the Penicillin Skin Test Kit. Skin test-negative subjects were challenged with 250 mg amoxicillin, whereas skin test-positive patients were not challenged. The primary end point was NPV of the Penicillin Skin Test Kit, defined as the percentage of subjects with negative skin test results who did not experience an IgE-dependent reaction within 72 hours of amoxicillin challenge.

RESULTS

In total, 455 patients with a history of penicillin allergy underwent skin testing and 63 (13.8%) had 1 or more positive test results; 65% of the positive test results were to the minor determinant mixture and/or amoxicillin alone. In the per protocol group of 373 skin test-negative subjects, 8 developed potential IgE-dependent reactions following oral amoxicillin challenge, translating to an NPV of 97.9% (95% CI, 95.8-99.1; P < .0001). All but 1 of the reactions was mild or moderate, and most subjects who required treatment received only antihistamines.

CONCLUSIONS

The Penicillin Skin Test Kit, containing all relevant penicillin allergenic determinants, demonstrated very high NPV. Removal of a penicillin allergy label in a large majority of currently mislabeled patients has substantial personal and public health implications.

Management of a surgical patient with a label of penicillin allergy: narrative review and consensus recommendations

Unsubstantiated penicillin-allergy labels are common in surgical patients, and can lead to significant harm through avoidance of best first-line prophylaxis of surgical site infections and increased infection with resistant bacterial strains. Up to 98% of penicillin-allergy labels are incorrect when tested. Because of the scarcity of trained allergists in all healthcare systems, only a minority of surgical patients have the opportunity to undergo testing and de-labelling before surgery. Testing pathways can be modified and shortened in selected patients. A variety of healthcare professionals can, with appropriate training and in collaboration with allergists, provide testing for selected patients. We review how patients might be assessed, the appropriate testing strategies that can be used, and the minimum standards of safe testing.

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.

Penicillin allergy de-labelling ahead of elective surgery: feasibility and barriers

BACKGROUND

Around 10-15% of the in-patient population carry unsubstantiated 'penicillin allergy' labels, the majority incorrect when tested. These labels are associated with harm from use of broad-spectrum non-penicillin antibiotics. Current testing guidelines incorporate both skin and challenge tests; this is prohibitively expensive and time-consuming to deliver on a large scale. We aimed to establish the feasibility of a rapid access de-labelling pathway for surgical patients, using direct oral challenge.

METHODS

'Penicillin allergic' patients, recruited from a surgical pre-assessment clinic, were risk-stratified using a screening questionnaire. Patients at low risk of true, immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated allergy were offered direct oral challenge using incremental amoxicillin to a total dose of 500 mg. A 3-day course was completed at home. De-labelled patients were followed up to determine antibiotic use in surgery, and attitudes towards de-labelling were explored.

RESULTS

Of 219 patients screened, 74 were eligible for inclusion and offered testing. We subsequently tested 56 patients; 55 were de-labelled. None had a serious reaction to the supervised challenge, or thereafter. On follow-up, 17 of 19 patients received appropriate antimicrobial prophylaxis during surgery. Only three of 33 de-labelled patients would have been happy for the label to be removed without prior specialist testing.

CONCLUSION

Rapid access de-labelling, using direct oral challenge in appropriately risk-stratified patients, can be incorporated into the existing surgical care pathway. This provides immediate and potential long-term benefit for patients. Interest in testing is high among patients, and clinicians appear to follow clinic recommendations. Patients are unlikely to accept removal of their allergy label on the basis of history alone.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: AN17/92982.

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.