Impact of an Integrated Antibiotic Allergy Testing Program on Antimicrobial Stewardship: A Multicenter Evaluation

Rash decisions: Unmasking a risk phenotype in adults with persistent delayed penicillin allergy sensitized during historic infection with Epstein-Barr virus

Background

Penicillin-associated exanthems in the setting of infectious mononucleosis caused by Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) are often viewed as a transient event, not a true allergy. Recent evidence challenges this and suggests that a notable subset of patients retain penicillin hypersensitivity.

Objective

We investigated the occurrence and predictors of persistent adulthood hypersensitivity in those with penicillin-associated rash occurring in the setting of EBV infection.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of data of patients referred for penicillin allergy testing to an Australian tertiary-care hospital captured from 2015 to 2023 was carried out.

Results

Of 2066 patients, 23 (1%) had penicillin-associated rash during an historic EBV infection; 16 (70%) were female; and median (interquartile range) age was 18 (16-20) years at index reaction and 38 (33.5-57) years at allergy testing. Skin prick testing and delayed intradermal testing to a penicillin panel were performed, followed by oral provocation challenge in those testing negative. Persistent sensitization was shown in 6 (26%) of 23; 4 (67%) of 6 positive delayed intradermal testing; and 3 (50%) of 6 had positive oral challenge test. Notably, 5 (83%) of 6 had a severe maculopapular exanthem with facial swelling, including 2 (33%) of 6 with probable drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (aka DRESS) during the index reaction, compared to 0 of 17 in patients tolerating penicillin on reexposure.

Conclusion

This study highlights the requirement of allergy testing in adult patients reporting a penicillin-associated severe maculopapular exanthem in the setting of EBV, even if it occurred during childhood or adolescence.

Perioperative Cefazolin for Total Joint Arthroplasty Patients Who Have a Penicillin Allergy: Is It Safe?

BACKGROUND

Cefazolin is the standard of care for perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in total joint arthroplasty (TJA) in the United States. The potential allergic cross-reactivity between cefazolin and penicillin causes uncertainty regarding optimal antibiotic choice in patients who have a reported penicillin allergy (rPCNA). The purpose of this study was to determine the safety of perioperative cefazolin in PCNA patients undergoing primary TJA.

METHODS

We identified all patients (n = 49,842) undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (n = 25,659) or total knee arthroplasty (n = 24,183) from 2016 to 2022 who received perioperative intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis. Patients who had an rPCNA (n = 5,508) who received cefazolin (n = 4,938, 89.7%) were compared to rPCNA patients who did not (n = 570, 10.3%), and to patients who did not have an rPCNA (n = 43,359). The primary outcome was the rate of allergic reactions within 72 hours postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included the rates of superficial infections, deep infections, and Clostridioides difficile infections within 90 days.

RESULTS

The rate of allergic reactions was 0.1% (n = 5) in rPCNA patients who received cefazolin, compared to 0.2% (n = 1) in rPCNA patients who did not (P = .48) and 0.02% (n = 11) in patients who have no rPCNA (P = .02). Allergic reactions were mild in all 5 rPCNA patients who received cefazolin and were characterized by cutaneous symptoms (n = 4) or dyspnea in the absence of respiratory distress (n = 1) that resolved promptly with antibiotic discontinuation and administration of antihistamines and/or corticosteroids. We observed no differences in the rates of superficial infections (0.1 versus 0.2%, P = .58), deep infections (0.3 versus 0.4%, P = .68), or C difficile infections (0.04% versus 0%, P = .99) within 90 days in rPCNA patients who received cefazolin versus alternative perioperative antibiotics.

CONCLUSIONS

In this series of more than 5,500 patients who had an rPCNA undergoing primary TJA, perioperative prophylaxis with cefazolin resulted in a 0.1% incidence of allergic reactions that were clinically indolent. Cefazolin can be safely administered to most patients, independent of rPCNA severity.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

A call to address penicillin allergy labels in patients with hematopoietic stem cell transplants: How to avoid rash decisions

Among patients with hematopoietic stem cell transplants, infections, particularly multidrug-resistant infections, pose a grave threat. In this setting, penicillin allergy labels are both common and harmful. Though the majority of patients who report penicillin allergy can actually tolerate penicillin, penicillin allergy labels are associated with use of alternative antibiotics, which are often more broad spectrum, less effective, and more toxic. In turn, they are associated with more severe infections, multidrug-resistant infections, Clostridium difficile, and increased mortality. Evaluating penicillin allergy labels can immediately expand access to preferred therapeutic options, which are critical to care in patients with recent hematopoietic stem cell transplants. Point-of-care assessment and clinical decision tools now exist to aid the nonallergist in assessment of penicillin allergy. This can aid in expanding use of other beta-lactam antibiotics and assist in risk-stratifying patients to determine a testing strategy. In patients with low-risk reaction histories, direct oral challenges can be employed to efficiently delabel patients across clinical care settings. We advocate for multidisciplinary efforts to evaluate patients with penicillin allergy labels prior to transplantation.

Beta-lactam allergy in patients: an antibiotic stewardship challenge

BACKGROUND

Patients are commonly reported as being allergic to beta-lactam (BL) antibiotics. However, many patients with this reported allergy are able to receive BL treatments because they do not have true allergies. In many cases these are simply intolerances due to side effects reported as an allergy. Delabelling these patients leads to better clinical outcomes, optimal antibiotic usage, decreased bacterial resistance and reduced healthcare costs. Therefore, the aims of this study were to identify incorrectly labelled BL allergies in hospitalised patients and to assess antibiotic use in delabelled patients in order to establish a quality indicator to optimise antimicrobial treatments.

METHODS

A prospective study was conducted in which hospitalised patients treated with antimicrobial drugs and labelled as 'BL-allergic' were identified by clinical pharmacists. An allergist assessed whether patients were suitable candidates for a skin test or oral challenge. The Allergy Service removed 'BL-allergic' labels if negative results were obtained. Delabelled patients were followed up by clinical pharmacists to study the use of BL antibiotics as a result of the delabelling programme.

RESULTS

A total of 176 suspected allergic patients were identified and 91 (51.7%) were tested either by a skin test or oral challenge based on the patient indicators. Seven (16.4%) patients tested were allergic to BL antibiotics, 76 (83.5%) were totally delabelled and eight (0.1%) were partially delabelled. Thirty-two (38.1%) delabelled patients required antibiotic treatment in another inpatient or outpatient setting, of whom 27 (84.3%) patients with a new infectious episode received BL treatments while five (15.7%) continued to receive antimicrobial treatments without BL.

CONCLUSION

After the implementation of a protocol to detect incorrect BL allergy labels, 83.5% of the patients in this cohort were completely delabelled. This shows that there is a clear opportunity to optimise the use of antibiotics by delabelling 'BL-allergic' patients.

Introduction of a penicillin allergy de-labelling program with direct oral challenge and its effects on utilization of beta-lactam antimicrobials: a multicenter retrospective parallel cohort study

BACKGROUND

Self-reported penicillin allergy labels are common and often inaccurate after assessment. These labels can lead to reduced use of first-line beta-lactam antibiotics and worse outcomes. We measured the impact of a previously performed inpatient proactive systematic penicillin allergy de-labelling program on subsequent antibiotic use. This prior program included assessment, risk-stratification, and low risk direct oral amoxicillin challenge.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective comparison of parallel cohorts from two separate tertiary care hospital campuses in Ottawa, Canada across two penicillin de-labelling intervention periods across April 15th to April 30th, 2021, and February 15th to March 8th, 2022. Outcomes, including penicillin allergy labelling and antibiotic use, were collected for the index admission and the subsequent 6-month period. Descriptive statistics and multivariate regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 368 patients with penicillin allergy label were included across two campuses and study periods. 24 (13.8%) patients in the intervention groups had sustained penicillin allergy label removal at 30 days from admission vs. 3 (1.5%) in the non-intervention group (p < 0.001). In the 6-months following admission, beta-lactams were prescribed more frequently in the intervention groups vs. the non-intervention groups for all patients (28 [16.1%] vs.15 [7.7%], p = 0.04) and were prescribed more frequently amongst those who received at least one antibiotic (28/46 [60.9%] vs.15/40 [37.5%], p = 0.097). In a multivariate regression analysis, the intervention groups were found to be associated with an increased odds of beta-lactam prescribing in all patients (OR 2.49, 95%CI 1.29-5.02) and in those prescribed at least one antibiotic (OR 2.44, 95%CI 1.00-6.15). No drug-related adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Proactive penicillin allergy de-labelling for inpatients was associated with a reduction in penicillin allergy labels and increased utilization of beta-lactams in the subsequent 6-months.

Impact of penicillin allergy records on antimicrobial prescribing in hospitalised patients

BACKGROUND

The overdiagnosis of penicillin allergy and misclassification of non-truly allergic reactions is a growing public health problem, associated with the overuse of broad-spectrum and restricted antimicrobials. We aimed to evaluate the impact of penicillin allergy status on antimicrobial prescribing.

METHODS

A retrospective study of inpatients with a documented penicillin allergy receiving antimicrobials was conducted from 1 April to 1 July 2021. Antimicrobial prescribing and clinical characteristics were compared between patients with an active penicillin allergy label and those whose label was removed following antimicrobial stewardship team review. Antimicrobials were classified in two categories: i) 'Access' (recommended), ii) 'Watch and Reserve' (restricted) according to WHO AWaRe classification, a tool to guide appropriate antibiotic use.

RESULTS

437 patients with a documented penicillin allergy receiving antimicrobials were included. 353 patients with an active penicillin allergy label, more frequently received antimicrobials from the 'Watch and Reserve list' (283;80% vs 30;37%; p<0.001). In contrast, 84 patients who were de-labelled received more often antimicrobials from the 'Access list' (53;63% vs 64;18%; p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Penicillin allergy reviews and de-labelling strategies may reduce the use of restricted antimicrobials under the 'Watch and Reserve list'. This practice should be encouraged and reinforced in all hospitals.

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.

A retrospective case-control study to evaluate the use of beta-lactam desensitization in the management of penicillin-allergic patients: a potential strategy for Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs

Introduction: Penicillin allergy labels (PAL) are common in the hospital setting and are associated with worse clinical outcomes. Desensitization can be a useful strategy for allergic patients when alternative options are suboptimal or not available. The aim was to compare clinical outcomes of patients with PAL managed with antibiotic desensitization vs. those who received alternative non-beta-lactam antibiotic treatments. Methods: A retrospective 3:1 case-control study was performed between 2015-2022. Cases were adult PAL patients with infection who required antibiotic desensitization; controls were PAL patients with infection managed with an alternative antibiotic treatment. Cases and controls were adjusted for age, sex, infection source, and critical or non-critical medical services. Results: Fifty-six patients were included: 14 in the desensitization group, 42 in the control group. Compared to the control group, desensitized PAL patients had more comorbidities, with a higher Charlson index (7.4 vs. 5; p = 0.00) and more infections caused by multidrug-resistant (MDR) pathogens (57.1% vs. 28.6%; p = 0.05). Thirty-day mortality was 14.3% in the desensitized group, 28.6% in the control group (p = 0.24). Clinical cure occurred in 71.4% cases and 54.8% controls (p = 0.22). Four control patients selected for MDR strains after alternative treatment; selection of MDR strains did not occur in desensitized patients. Five controls had antibiotic-related adverse events, including Clostridioides difficile or nephrotoxicity. No antibiotic-related adverse events were found in the study group. In multivariate analysis, no differences between groups were observed for main variables. Conclusion: Desensitization was not associated with worse clinical outcomes, despite more severe patients in this group. Our study suggests that antibiotic desensitization may be a useful Antimicrobial Stewardship tool for the management of selected PAL patients.

Delabeling, safety, and impact of β-lactam allergy testing: A systematic review

Background

To improve β-lactam delabeling outcomes, we need to understand current practice and the evidence base regarding its outcomes, safety, and impact.

Objectives

We sought to assess the existing published evidence reporting on the effectiveness of penicillin allergy testing and delabeling.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of studies reporting β-lactam delabeling practices and outcomes after testing, including β-lactam use and patient understanding of the delabeling result. Searches of the PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases; clinical trial registries; and websites of professional organizations were conducted. Data were extracted from the included studies in duplicate, with a third extraction if discrepancies remained.

Results

We included 284 publications (covering 98,316 participants); 173 were prospective studies, with no randomized controlled trials. The overall study quality was low. In all, 95.6% of individuals who underwent provocation testing were delabeled. Factors associated with successful delabeling could not be determined because of significant heterogeneity between studies. Anaphylaxis due to testing occurred in 0.3% of participants (95 of 31,667). Subjects who did not undergo skin testing (6,980 patients in 31 studies) before challenge had higher rates of provocation test positivity (8.8% vs 4.1% [P < .0001]) and anaphylaxis (15.9% vs 2.7% [P < .0001]) than those subjects who underwent skin testing (51,607 patients in 177 studies). Six studies (2.1%) followed patients after testing to assess their adherence to prescribing recommendations. In all, 136 participants (20.6%) were actively avoiding β-lactams despite delabeling.

Conclusions

The available data suggest that penicillin allergy testing is safe and effective in delabeling most individuals, but the evidence base is incomplete and more work is required to assess the role of skin testing and the impact that delabeling is having on prescribing habits.

The Burden of Self-Reported Antibiotic Allergies in Health Care and How to Address It: A Systematic Review of the Evidence

BACKGROUND

Antibiotics are the first-line treatment for bacterial infections; however, overuse and inappropriate prescribing have made antibiotics less effective with increased antimicrobial resistance. Unconfirmed reported antibiotic allergy labels create a significant barrier to optimal antimicrobial stewardship in health care, with clinical and economic implications.

OBJECTIVE

A systematic review was conducted to summarize the impact of patient-reported antibiotic allergy on clinical outcomes and various strategies that have been employed to effectively assess and remove these allergy labels, improving patient care.

METHODS

The review was undertaken using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A critical appraisal was conducted on all studies and a narrative synthesis was performed to identify themes.

RESULTS

Four themes emerged: the prevalence of antibiotic allergy, impact of antibiotic allergy on antimicrobial prescribing, impact of antibiotic allergy on clinical outcomes, and delabeling strategies to improve clinical outcomes. Of the 32 studies, including 1,089,675 participants, the prevalence of reported antibiotic allergy was between 5% and 35%. Patients with a reported antibiotic allergy had poorer concordance with prescribing guidelines in 30% to 60% of cases, with a higher use of alternatives such as quinolone, tetracycline, macrolide, lincosamide, and carbapenem and lower use of beta-lactam antibiotics. Antibiotic allergy delabeling was identified as an intervention and recommendation to advance the state of the science.

CONCLUSIONS

There is substantial evidence within the literature that antibiotic allergy labels significantly impact patient clinical outcomes and a consensus that systematic assessment of reported antibiotic allergies, commonly referred to as delabeling, improves the clinical management of patients.

Advances in antibacterial treatment of adults with high-risk febrile neutropenia

BACKGROUND

High-risk febrile neutropenia (HR-FN) is a life-threatening complication in patients with haematological malignancies or receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Since the last international guidelines were published over 10 years ago, there have been major advances in the understanding and management of HR-FN, including on antibiotic pharmacokinetics and discontinuation/de-escalation strategies.

OBJECTIVES

Summarizing major advances in the field of antibacterial therapy in patients with HR-FN: empirical therapy, pharmacokinetics of antibiotics and antibiotic stewardship.

SOURCES

Narrative review based on literature review from PubMed. We focused on studies published between 2010 and 2023 about the pharmacokinetics of antimicrobials, management of antimicrobial administration, and discontinuation/de-escalation strategies. We did not address antimicrobial prophylaxis, viral or fungal infections.

CONTENT

Several high-quality publications have highlighted important modifications of antibiotic pharmacokinetics in HR-FN, with standard dosages exposing patients to underdosing. These recent clinical and population pharmacokinetics studies help improve management protocols with optimized initial dosing and infusion rules for β-lactams, vancomycin, daptomycin and amikacin; they highlight the potential benefits of therapeutic drug monitoring. A growing body of evidence also shows that antibiotic discontinuation/de-escalation strategies are beneficial for bacterial ecology and patients' outcome. We further discuss methods and limitations for implementation of such protocols in haematology.

IMPLICATIONS

We highlight recent information about the management of antibacterial therapy in HR-FN that might be considered in updated guidelines for HR-FN management.

Oral challenge vs routine care to assess low-risk penicillin allergy in critically ill hospital patients (ORACLE): a pilot randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Self-reported penicillin allergies are highly prevalent in hospitalised patients and are associated with poor health and health service outcomes. Critically ill patients have historically been underrepresented in prospective delabelling studies in part due to concerns around clinical stability and reliability of penicillin skin testing. Allergy assessment tools exist to identify low-risk penicillin allergy phenotypes and facilitate direct oral challenge delabelling. PEN-FAST is a clinical decision rule that has been validated to predict true penicillin allergy in a cohort of non-critically ill patients. There is however limited evidence regarding the feasibility, safety and efficacy of direct oral challenges and the use of delabelling clinical decisions rules in the intensive care setting.

METHODS

Critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) with low-risk penicillin allergy phenotypes (PEN-FAST score < 3) will be randomised 1:1 to direct oral penicillin challenge (single dose 250 mg oral amoxicillin or implicated penicillin) or routine care, followed by a 2-h observation period. Patients will receive a second oral challenge/observation prior to hospital discharge (with subsequent observation for 2 h). An assessment for antibiotic-associated adverse events will also be undertaken at 24 h and 5 days post each challenge/observation and again at 90 days post-randomisation. The primary outcome measures are feasibility (proportion of eligible patients recruited and protocol compliance) and safety (proportion of patients who experience an antibiotic-associated immune-mediated adverse event or serious adverse event).

DISCUSSION

We will report the feasibility and safety of point-of-care penicillin direct oral challenge in this first randomised controlled trial of low-risk penicillin allergy in critically ill hospitalised patients. Upon completion of the project, important findings will inform the design of planned large prospective multi-centre clinical trials in Australian and international ICUs, further examining safety and efficacy and exploring antimicrobial prescribing-related outcomes following penicillin oral challenge.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry Registration Number: ACTRN12621000051842 Date registered: 20/01/2021 https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=379735&isReview=true.

Impact of Penicillin Allergy Label on Clinical Outcomes of Pneumonia in Children

BACKGROUND

Penicillin (PCN) allergy label, reported in approximately 5% of children, influences antibiotic choice and prolongs hospital stay. To our knowledge, the impact of PCN allergy label on clinical outcomes of pneumonia in children is not well characterized.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the impact of PCN allergy label on clinical outcomes of pneumonia in children.

METHODS

In this propensity score-matched cohort study, we used the TriNetX research network, a population-based database, to compare the 30-day risk of hospitalization, need for intensive level of care, and acute respiratory failure from pneumonia between pediatric patients (aged 1-17 years) with and without a PCN allergy label after matching the 2 cohorts for demographic and medical comorbidities. Antibiotic prescription patterns were also contrasted.

RESULTS

When comparing 3793 pediatric patients with pneumonia labeled with a PCN allergy with matched children without a PCN allergy label, PCN allergy label was associated with a higher risk of hospitalization (relative risk [RR], 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-1.23), acute respiratory failure (RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.17-1.39), and need for intensive level of care (RR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.15-1.84). PCN allergy label resulted in overutilization of broader-spectrum antibiotics and increased complications including cutaneous drug reactions (RR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.31-4.52) and Clostridioides difficile infection (RR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.14-4.44).

CONCLUSION

Children with a PCN allergy label are more likely to be hospitalized, receive broader-spectrum antibiotics, and develop acute respiratory failure from pneumonia. Delabeling may offer a way to lessen morbidity from pneumonia in children.

Penicillin de-labelling in vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: comparison of approaches, outcomes and future directions

BACKGROUND

Inaccurate penicillin allergy labels lead to inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions and harmful patient consequences. System-wide efforts are needed to remove incorrect penicillin allergy labels, but more health services research is required on how to best deliver these services.

METHODS

Data was extracted from five hospitals in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada from October 2018-May 2022. The primary outcomes of this study were to outline de-labelling protocol designs, identify the roles of various healthcare professionals in de-labelling protocols and identify rates of de-labelling penicillin allergies and associated adverse events at various institutions. Our secondary outcome was to describe de-labelling rates for special populations, including pediatric, obstetric and immunocompromised subpopulations. To achieve these outcomes, participating institutions provided their de-labelling protocol designs and data on program participants. Protocols were then compared to find common themes and differences. Furthermore, adverse events were reviewed and percentages of patients de-labelled at each institution and in total were calculated.

RESULTS

Protocols demonstrated a high level of variability, including different methods of participant identification, risk-stratification and roles of providers. All protocols used oral and direct oral challenges, heavily involved pharmacists and had physician oversight. Despite the differences, of the 711 patients enrolled in all programs, 697 (98.0%) were de-labelled. There were 9 adverse events (1.3%) with oral challenges with mainly minor symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data demonstrates that de-labelling programs effectively and safely remove penicillin allergy labels, including pediatric, obstetric and immunocompromised patients. Consistent with current literature, most patients with a penicillin allergy label are not allergic. De-labelling programs could benefit from increasing clinician engagement by increasing accessibility of resources to providers, including guidance for de-labelling of special populations.

Delabelling multiple antibiotic allergy: Practical issues

With the growing incidence of multi-drug resistant organisms, delabelling incorrect antibiotic allergies has become an integral part of antimicrobial stewardship worldwide. For example, around 90% of penicillin allergy labels are found to be inaccurate following a full allergy work-up, which deprive patients the use of effective first-line penicillin antibiotics and increase the risk of antimicrobial resistance with the use of other extended spectrum non-penicillin antimicrobials. Significant numbers of adult and paediatric patients over time are labelled with multiple penicillin and non-penicillin antibiotic allergies often during inappropriate antimicrobial use, resulting in a label of “multiple antibiotic allergy”. In contrast to delabelling penicillin allergy where oral direct provocation tests can be used for low-risk, mild reactions, and sensitivity/specificity/positive and negative predictive values of skin tests have been demonstrated, diagnostic tests for multiple antibiotic allergy often require the use of a combination of in-vivo and in-vitro tests across different antimicrobial classes for evaluation. Shared decision making with patients and informed consent are also needed when prioritising which drugs to delabel first, balancing the risks, benefits of testing vs. interim use of alternative antibiotics. Similar to delabelling penicillin allergy, the cost-effectiveness of delabelling multiple drug allergies is unknown.

Advances in Diagnostics of Sexually Transmitted Infections

Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) are caused by various pathogens, many of which have common symptoms. Diagnostic tests are critical to supporting clinical evaluations in making patient management decisions. Molecular diagnostics are the preferred test type when available, especially in asymptomatic patients for many STIs. However, for some infections, serology offers the best insight into infectious status. Clinicians should be aware of the performance characteristics of the available STI diagnostic tests and understand how to use them. Point-of-care tests are helpful to implement rapid and accurate treatment responses, which are particularly helpful in certain at-risk populations.

Study protocol for PREPARE: a phase II feasibility/safety randomised controlled trial on PeRiopErative Penicillin AlleRgy TEsting

INTRODUCTION

Patient-reported antibiotic allergy labels (AALs) are common. These labels have been demonstrated to have a negative impact on use of appropriate antibiotics and patient-related health outcomes. These patients are more likely to receive suboptimal antibiotics, have increased rates of surgical site infections and are more likely to be colonised with multidrug-resistant organisms. Increasing recognition that antibiotic allergy forms a key part of good antimicrobial stewardship has led to calls for greater access to antibiotic allergy assessment.PREPARE is a pilot randomised controlled trial of beta-lactam allergy assessment and point of care delabelling in perioperative patients utilising a validated antibiotic allergy assessment tool that has been repurposed into a smartphone application. The aim of the study is to assess the feasibility and safety of this approach in the perioperative outpatient setting.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Adult participants requiring elective surgery and are likely to require prophylactic intravenous antibiotics will be recruited. During the intervention phase, participants will be randomised to the intervention or control arm, with control patients receiving usual standard of care. Those randomised to intervention undertake a risk assessment via the smartphone application, with those deemed low risk proceeding to direct oral provocation with either a penicillin or cephalosporin. Study outcomes will be evaluated in the postintervention phase, 30 and 90 days after surgery.Feasibility of intervention delivery and recruitment will be reported as proportions with respective 95% CIs. Participants who experience an antibiotic adverse event will be reported by group with respective 95% CIs and compared using modified Poisson regression model with robust SE estimation.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This protocol has received approval from the Austin Health human research and ethics committee, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia (HREC/17/Austin/575). Results will be disseminated via publication in peer-reviewed journals as well as presentation at international conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12620001295932.

Outcome of preoperative cefazolin use for infection prophylaxis in patients with self-reported penicillin allergy

BACKGROUND

Cephalosporins are the preferred antibiotics for prophylaxis against surgical site infections. Most studies give a rate of combined IgE and non-IgE penicillin allergy yet it is recommended that cephalosporins be avoided in patients having the former but can be used in those with the latter. Some studies use penicillin allergy while others penicillin family allergy rates. The primary goal of this study was to determine the rates of IgE and non-IgE allergy as well as cross reactions to both penicillin and the penicillin family. Secondary goals were to determine the surgical services giving preoperative cefazolin and the types of self reported reactions that patients' had to penicillin prompting their allergy status.

METHODS

All patients undergoing elective and emergency surgery at a University Health Sciences Centre were retrospectively studied. The hospital electronic medical record was used for data collection.

RESULTS

8.9% of our patients reported non-IgE reactions to penicillin with a cross reactivity rate of 0.9% with cefazolin. 4.0% of our patients reported IgE reactions to penicillin with a cross reactivity rate of 4.0% with cefazolin. 10.5% of our patients reported non-IgE reactions to the penicillin family with a cross reactivity rate of 0.8% with cefazolin. 4.3% of our patients reported IgE reactions to the penicillin family with a cross reactivity rate of 4.0% with cefazolin.

CONCLUSIONS

Our rate of combined IgE and non-IgE reactions for both penicillin and penicillin family allergy was within the range reported in the literature. Our rate of cross reactivity between cefazolin and combined IgE and non-IgE allergy both to penicillin and the penicillin family were lower than reported in the old literature but within the range of the newer literature. We found a lower rate of allergic reaction to a cephalosporin than reported in the literature. We documented a wide range of IgE and non-IgE reactions. We also demonstrated that cefazolin is frequently the preferred antibiotics for prophylaxis against surgical site infections by many surgical services and that de-labelling patients with penicillin allergy is unnecessary.

Comparative Effectiveness, Safety, and Real-World Outcomes of a Nurse-Led, Protocol-Driven Penicillin Allergy Evaluation From the Hong Kong Drug Allergy Delabelling Initiative (HK-DADI)

BACKGROUND

There is a high prevalence of unconfirmed penicillin allergy, which is associated with a multitude of adverse clinical outcomes. With the overwhelming burden of currently incorrect labels and the lack of allergy specialist services, new delabeling strategies are urgently needed.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness, safety, and real-world outcomes of a nurse-led, protocol-driven evaluation of penicillin allergy, the Hong Kong Drug Allergy Delabelling Initiative (HK-DADI).

METHODS

Adult patients with suspected penicillin allergy were recruited into HK-DADI. Allergy and postdelabeling outcomes were retrospectively compared between patients evaluated via HK-DADI or traditional allergist evaluation.

RESULTS

A total of 312 completed penicillin allergy evaluation: 84 (27%) and 228 (73%) via HK-DADI and traditional pathways, respectively. Overall, 280 penicillin allergies were delabeled (90%). The delabeling rate between HK-DADI and traditional pathways was similar (90% vs 89%; P = .796). Among patients of the HK-DADI pathway, the delabeling rate was significantly higher among low-risk (LR) compared with non-LR patients (97% vs 77%; P = .010). Skin tests did not add diagnostic value among LR patients. No patients developed severe or systemic reactions during the evaluation. Upon 6- to 12-month follow-up (median, 10 months), 123 patients experienced infective episodes (44%) and 63 used penicillins again after delabeling (23%). This proportion was significantly higher in patients who were delabeled via HK-DADI compared with the traditional pathway (32% vs 19%; P = .026).

CONCLUSIONS

The Hong Kong Drug Allergy Delabelling Initiative, a nurse-led, protocol-driven evaluation, was safe and effective in penicillin allergy delabeling. It led to an even higher rate of future penicillin use after delabeling and mitigated the need for unnecessary skin testing among LR patients.

Does the Prosthetic Phase of Dental Implants Justify the Prescription of Preventive Antibiotics in Healthy Patients? A Systematic Review

Recently published surveys data show that the routine prescription of preventive antibiotics (PA) in the prosthetic phase of dental implants is more common than might be expected. The present study aimed to answer the PICO (population, intervention, comparison, and outcome) question "In healthy patients starting the implant prosthetic phase, does the prescription of PA compared with not prescribing PA decrease the incidence of infectious complications?" by a systematic literature review. A search was performed in 5 databases. The criteria employed were those described in the PRISMA Declaration. Studies included were those that provided information on the need to prescribe PA in the prosthetic phase of implants, that is, in second-stage surgeries, impression-taking, and prosthesis placement. The electronic search identified 3 studies that met the established criteria. The prescription of PA in the prosthetic phase of implants does not show a justified benefit/risk ratio. Preventive antibiotic therapy (PAT) may be indicated in the second stages or in peri-implant plastic surgery procedures lasting more than 2 hours and/or where soft tissue grafts are used extensively. In these cases, given the current lack of evidence, it is recommended to prescribe 2 g of amoxicillin 1 hour before surgery and, in allergic patients, to prescribe 500 mg of azithromycin 1 hour preoperatively.

Tracking antimicrobial stewardship activities beyond days of therapy (DOT): Comparison of days of antibiotic spectrum coverage (DASC) and DOT at a single center

Even though antimicrobial days of therapy did not significantly decrease during a period of robust stewardship activities at our center, we detected a significant downward trend in antimicrobial spectrum, as measured by days of antibiotic spectrum coverage (DASC). The DASC metric may help more broadly monitor the effect of stewardship activities.

Barriers to paediatric penicillin allergy de-labelling in UK secondary care: a regional survey

BACKGROUND

Incorrect penicillin allergy labels result in the use of inappropriately broad-spectrum antibiotics. De-labelling inaccurate penicillin allergy promotes antimicrobial stewardship and optimises prescribing practices. The objectives were to evaluate paediatric clinicians' knowledge and understanding of penicillin allergy and to identify barriers in tackling incorrect penicillin allergy labels.

METHODS

Paediatric clinicians from across the West Midlands of the UK were surveyed using an online, anonymised questionnaire between 1 August and 30 September 2021. Domains explored were (1) approach to penicillin allergy clinical vignettes, (2) knowledge of the impact of penicillin allergy labels, (3) frequency of allergy-focused history questions and (4) barriers in tackling incorrect penicillin allergy.

RESULTS

Responses were received from 307 paediatric clinicians across 12 hospitals. Sixty-one per cent would not prescribe a penicillin-based antibiotic if a family history of penicillin allergy was reported. There was an overall deficit in taking an allergy-focused history with only 36.5% inquiring about diagnostic confirmation. Absence, or lack of awareness of a referral pathway for antibiotic allergy evaluation (58.6%) and unfamiliarity of the indications for oral provocation testing (55%) were the most common reported barriers to penicillin allergy de-labelling. Fifty-one per cent would rather 'play it safe' than explore penicillin allergy confirmation as it is felt that alternative treatments were readily available.

CONCLUSIONS

The deficiency in antibiotic allergy-focused history among paediatric clinicians highlights the need for better allergy education across all clinical grades. Pragmatic algorithms and clear referral pathways could address barriers faced by non-allergists in de-labelling incorrect penicillin allergy.

Allergy Electronic Health Record Documentation: A 2022 Work Group Report of the AAAAI Adverse Reactions to Drugs, Biologicals, and Latex Committee

The allergy section of the electronic health record (EHR) is ideally reviewed and updated by health care workers during routine outpatient visits, emergency room visits, inpatient hospitalizations, and surgical procedures. This EHR section has the potential to help proactively and comprehensively avoid exposures to drugs, contact irritants, foods, and other agents for which, based on an individual's medical history and/or genetics, there is increased risk for adverse outcomes with future exposures. Because clinical decisions are made and clinical decision support is triggered based on allergy details from the EHR, the allergy module needs to provide meaningful, accurate, timely, and comprehensive allergy information. Although the allergy section of the EHR must meet these requirements to guide appropriate clinical decisions and treatment plans, current EHR allergy modules have not achieved this standard. We urge EHR vendors to collaborate with allergists to optimize and modernize allergy documentation. A work group within the Adverse Reactions to Drugs, Biologicals, and Latex Committee of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology was formed to create recommendations for allergy documentation in the EHR. Whereas it is recognized that the term "allergy" is often used incorrectly because most adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are not true immune-mediated hypersensitivity reactions, "allergy" in this article includes allergies and hypersensitivities as well as side effects and intolerances. Our primary objective is to provide guidance for the current state of allergy documentation in the EHR. This guidance includes clarification of the definition of specific ADR types, reconciliation of confirmed ADRs, and removal of disproved or erroneous ADRs. This document includes a proposal for the creation, education, and implementation of a drug allergy labeling system that may allow for more accurate EHR documentation for improved patient safety.

The Impact of Patient-Reported Penicillin or Cephalosporin Allergy on the Occurrence of the Periprosthetic Joint Infection in Primary Knee and Hip Arthroplasty

Reducing the risk of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) requires a multi-pronged strategy including usage of a prophylactic antibiotic. A history of penicillin or cephalosporin allergy often leads to a change in prophylactic antibiotic regimen to avoid serious side effects. The purpose of the present retrospective study was to determine incidence of PJI based on perioperative antibiotic regimen in total hip arthroplasty (THA), total knee arthroplasty (TKA) or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). A review of all primary THAs, primary TKAs and primary UKAs, undertaken between 2011 and 2020 in a tertiary referral hospital, was performed. The standard perioperative antibiotic for joint arthroplasty (JA) in the analyzed tertiary hospital is cefuroxime. There were no differences in prophylactic antibiotic regimen over time. In 7.9% (211 of 2666) of knee arthroplasties and in 6.0% (206 of 3419) of total hip arthroplasties, a second-line prophylactic antibiotic was used. There was no statistically significant higher occurrence of PJI between the first-line and second-line prophylactic antibiotic in knee arthroplasties (p = 0.403) as well as in total hip arthroplasties (p = 0.309). No relevant differences in age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score and body mass index (BMI) between the groups were observed.

Beta-lactam allergies, surgical site infections, and prophylaxis in solid organ transplant recipients at a single center: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Beta-lactam allergies (BLAs) are common in hospitalized patients, including transplant recipients. BLA is associated with decreased use of preferred surgical site infection (SSI) prophylaxis and increased SSIs, but this has not been studied in the transplant population.

METHODS

We reviewed adult heart, kidney, and liver transplant recipients between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2019 to characterize reported BLA and collect SSI prophylaxis regimens at time of transplant. We compared the use of preferred SSI prophylaxis and SSI incidence based on reported BLA status. Post hoc we collected antibiotic days of therapy (DOT) (excluding pneumocystis prophylaxis) in the 30-day period posttransplant for patients without SSI. We utilized descriptive statistics for comparisons.

RESULTS

Of 691 patients included (116 heart, 400 kidney, and 175 liver transplant recipients), 118 (17%) reported BLA. Rash and hives were the two most reported BLA reactions (36% and 24%), categorized as potential T-cell mediated and IgE mediated, respectively. Preferred SSI prophylaxis was prescribed in 13 (11%) patients with BLA and 573 (92%) without BLA (p < .001). No difference could be detected in SSI incidence between BLA and non-BLA patients (4.2 vs. 4.3%, p = 1.0). Of 659 without SSI, 169 (25.6%) received antibiotics within 30 days of transplant; mean antibiotic DOT for BLA and non-BLA patients were 3.5 ± 8.0 versus 2.3 ± 5.8, p = .12.

CONCLUSION

BLA transplant recipients received nonpreferred SSI prophylaxis more frequently than non-BLA recipients, but there was no difference in 30-day SSIs between the groups. One-fourth of solid organ transplant recipients received systemic antibiotics within 30 days of transplant.

Antimicrobial stewardship in solid organ transplant recipients: Current challenges and proposed metrics

BACKGROUND

Solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients are challenging populations for antimicrobial stewardship interventions due to a variety of reasons, including immunosuppression, consequent risk of opportunistic and donor-derived infections, high rates of infection with multi-drug resistant organisms (MDROs), Clostridioides difficile, and need for prolonged antimicrobial prophylaxis. Despite this, data on stewardship interventions and metrics that address the distinct needs of these patients are limited.

METHODS

We performed a narrative review of the current state of antimicrobial stewardship in SOT recipients, existing interventions and metrics in this population, and considerations for implementation of transplant-specific stewardship programs.

RESULTS

Antimicrobial stewardship metrics are evolving even in the general patient population. Data on metrics applicable to the SOT population are even more limited. Standard process, outcomes, and balancing metrics may not always apply to the SOT population. A successful stewardship program for SOT recipients requires reviewing existing data, applying general stewardship principles, and understanding the nuances of SOT patients.

CONCLUSION

As antimicrobial stewardship interventions are being implemented in SOT recipients; new metrics are needed to assess their impact. In conclusion, SOT patients present a challenging but important opportunity for antimicrobial stewards.

ABBREVIATIONS

SOT, antimicrobial stewardship program, MDRO, Clostridioides difficile infection, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Infectious Diseases Society of America, prospective audit and feedback, hematopoietic cell transplant, cytomegalovirus, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, surgical site infections, nucleic acid amplification testing, days of therapy, defined daily dose, and length of stay.

Use of a penicillin allergy clinical decision rule to enable direct oral penicillin provocation: an international multicentre randomised control trial in an adult population (PALACE): study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Penicillin allergies are highly prevalent in the healthcare setting and associated with the prescription of second-line inferior antibiotics. More than 85% of all penicillin allergy labels can be removed by skin testing and 96%-99% of low-risk penicillin allergy labels can be removed by direct oral challenge. An internally and externally validated clinical assessment tool for penicillin allergy, PEN-FAST, can identify a low-risk penicillin allergy without the need for skin testing; a score of less than 3 has a negative predictive value of 96.3% (95% CI, 94.1 to 97.8) for the presence of a penicillin allergy. It is hypothesised that PEN-FAST is a safe and effective tool for assessing penicillin allergy in an outpatient clinic setting.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is an international, multicentre randomised control trial using the PEN-FAST tool to risk-stratify penicillin allergy labels in adult outpatients. The study's primary objective is to evaluate the non-inferiority of using PEN-FAST score-guided management with direct oral challenge compared with standard care (defined as prick and intradermal skin testing followed by oral penicillin challenge). Participants will be randomised 1:1 to the intervention arm (direct oral penicillin challenge) or standard of care arm (skin testing followed by oral penicillin challenge, if skin testing is negative). The sample size of 380 randomised patients (190 per treatment arm) is required to demonstrate non-inferiority.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study will be performed according to the guidelines of the Helsinki Declaration and is approved by the Austin Health Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/62425/Austin-2020) in Melbourne Australia, Vanderbilt University Institutional Review Board (IRB #202174) in Tennessee, USA, Duke University Institutional Review Board (IRB #Pro00108461) in North Carolina, USA and McGill University Health Centre Research Ethics Board in Canada (PALACE/2022-7605). The results of this study will be published and presented in various scientific forums.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04454229.

Standardized testing and written communication improve patient understanding of beta-lactam allergy testing outcomes: A multicenter, prospective study

Background

Historical penicillin allergy is commonly reported, but the lack of standardized allergy clinic practices may diminish the ability to delabel beta-lactam allergy appropriately.

Objective

We sought to improve beta-lactam allergy testing and patient understanding of their antibiotic allergy status by standardizing testing and communication practices between 7 adult and pediatric hospital centers.

Methods

Phase 1 prospectively described the beta-lactam allergy testing practices at each center. Following this, practice was standardized to achieve a defined panel of skin testing reagents, pro forma result letters for patients and referring doctors, and provision of medical alert jewelry to those with confirmed allergy. Testing outcomes and patient perception regarding allergy status 8 weeks postassessment were compared before (phase 1) and after standardization (phase 2). Primary outcomes were the percentage of participants delabeled after testing, and concordance rates between participant perception of their allergy status and their status as determined by the treating physician at 8-week follow-up.

Results

Of 195 adult and pediatric participants (median age, 50 years; 21.5% <18 years; 36.9% males), 75% were delabeled of their beta-lactam allergy. No patient experienced anaphylaxis related to any beta-lactam delabeling testing. In phase 1, 75% of participants received written results, 52% were informed verbally, and 48% received results in more than 1 form. All phase 2 participants received written results (P < .01), 61% received verbal results from a physician as well (P > .05). At 8-week follow-up, 54% of phase 1 participants had concordant perceptions of their allergy status as the testing team versus 91.6% in phase2 (P < .001). Of the 17 participants who were delabeled and treated with a beta-lactam antibiotic during the 8-week follow-up period, there were no reported allergic reactions, although 1 participant experienced anaphylaxis following exposure to amoxicillin-clavulanic acid 1 year after delabeling.

Conclusions

Standardization of testing and written patient information improved short-term patient perception of beta-lactam allergy status.

Standards for practical intravenous rapid drug desensitization & delabeling: A WAO committee statement

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) to intravenous drugs can be severe and might leave patients and doctors in a difficult position where an essential treatment or intervention has to be suspended. Even if virtually any intravenous medication can potentially trigger a life-threatening DHR, chemotherapeutics, biologics, and antibiotics are amongst the intravenous drugs most frequently involved in these reactions. Admittedly, suspending such treatments may negatively impact the survival outcomes or the quality of life of affected patients. Delabeling pathways and rapid drug desensitization (RDD) can help reactive patients stay on first-choice therapies instead of turning to less efficacious, less cost-effective, or more toxic alternatives. However, these are high-complexity and high-risk techniques, which usually need expert teams and allergy-specific techniques (skin testing, in vitro testing, drug provocation testing) to ensure safety, an accurate diagnosis, and personalized management. Unfortunately, there are significant inequalities within and among countries in access to allergy departments with the necessary expertise and resources to offer these techniques and tackle these DHRs optimally. The main objective of this consensus document is to create a great benefit for patients worldwide by aiding allergists to expand the scope of their practice and support them with evidence, data, and experience from leading groups from around the globe. This statement of the Drug Hypersensitivity Committee of the World Allergy Organization (WAO) aims to be a comprehensive practical guide on the technical aspects of implementing acute-onset intravenous hypersensitivity delabeling and RDD for a wide range of drugs. Thus, the manuscript does not only focus on clinical pathways. Instead, it also provides guidance on topics usually left unaddressed, namely, internal validation, continuous quality improvement, creating a healthy multidisciplinary environment, and redesigning care (including a specific supplemental section on a real-life example of how to design a dedicated space that can combine basic and complex diagnostic and therapeutic techniques in allergy).

Assessment of the validity of the beta-lactam antibiotic allergy assessment tool for use in the rural context, QLD

OBJECTIVE(S)

The objective of the study was to validate a clinical aid to guide the assessment and management of a patient's listed beta-lactam antibiotic allergy for use in rural areas of Australia.

DESIGN

Rural generalists, pharmacists and junior doctors completed an online assessment of eight patient case studies using the tool.

SETTING

The study was conducted in the Southern Downs, QLD.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-seven rural generalists, nine pharmacists and eight junior doctors.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The sensitivity of the selected allergy phenotype and management option for each case study was calculated by profession and overall. Hazardous responses were reported by management category and profession.

RESULTS

The sensitivity overall for phenotype selection was 82.4% (95% CI, 78.0-86.2) and for management 88.1% (95% CI, 84.2-91.2). The sensitivity for phenotype selection was lower for junior doctors than other professions 73.4% (95% CI, 60.9-83.7), but did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.08). A total of 10/308 responses for management recommended the least restrictive option of direct delabelling or oral challenge, where the correct answer was skin prick testing or referral to an allergist.

CONCLUSION(S)

With further education the tool could be a key component of increased antimicrobial stewardship in rural areas in Australia.

ESCAPE-Allergy: Evaluating screening for children and adolescents with penicillin allergy

AIM

Penicillin allergy labels are frequently encountered in children and are associated with significant harms. Most children are falsely labelled and can safely tolerate a penicillin but delabelling strategies are underutilised and paediatric-specific resources are lacking. The aim of this study was to evaluate an allergy assessment tool for children in hospital.

METHODS

We evaluated a paediatric-adapted penicillin allergy assessment tool, using an online survey of clinicians in a tertiary paediatric hospital, with 10 hypothetical potential penicillin allergy or adverse reaction cases (including non-allergy reactions). For each case, respondents were asked to use the tool to assign a reaction phenotype and recommend management. We determined the tool's sensitivity, specificity and acceptability to end users.

RESULTS

We evaluated 30 complete survey responses from senior and junior medical staff, nurses and pharmacists. The tool's overall sensitivity was 80.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 74.2-87.1%) for assigning the correct reaction phenotype and 85.3% (95% CI 79.4-91.3%) for appropriate management. The tool had high sensitivity for identifying immediate hypersensitivity reactions at 95.6% (95% CI 90.2-100%). Most respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they would use the tool in their practice (22/30, 73.3%).

CONCLUSION

This survey evaluated a paediatric-adapted penicillin allergy assessment tool in a tertiary paediatric hospital among multidisciplinary clinician groups. The tool performed well overall and had high safety in identifying immediate hypersensitivity reactions. Further research to support implementation of allergy assessment and delabelling programmes among children is required.

Preventive Antibiotic Therapy in the Placement of Immediate Implants: A Systematic Review

Immediate implants present a high risk of early failure. To avoid this, preventive antibiotics (PAs) are prescribed; however, their inappropriate administration leads to antimicrobial resistance. The present study aims to clarify whether the prescription of PAs reduces the rate of early failure of immediate implants and to establish guidelines to avoid the overprescription of these drugs. An electronic search of the MEDLINE database (via PubMed), Web of Science, Scopus, LILACS and OpenGrey was carried out. The criteria described in the PRISMA^® statement were used. The search was temporarily restricted from 2010 to 2021. The risk of bias was analysed using the SIGN Methodological Assessment Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and the JBI Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool. After searching, eight studies were included that met the established criteria. With the limitations of this study, it can be stated that antibiotic prescription in immediate implants reduces the early failure rate. Preoperative administration of 2–3 g amoxicillin one hour before surgery followed by 500 mg/8 h for five to seven days is recommended. It is considered prudent to avoid the use of clindamycin in favour of azithromycin, clarithromycin or metronidazole in penicillin allergy patients until further studies are conducted.

Is Penicillin Allergy a Risk Factor for Early Dental Implant Failure? A Systematic Review

The prescription of preventive antibiotics in dental implant treatments reduces the incidence of early failures. This study has focused mainly on the influence of amoxicillin, which is contraindicated in penicillin-allergic patients. The present systematic review aimed to determine whether penicillin-allergic patients have a higher risk of implant failure compared to non-allergic patients. An electronic search was performed on Medline and Web of Science using the following MeSH terms: (penicillin allergy OR clindamycin OR erythromycin OR azithromycin OR metronidazole) AND (dental implant OR dental implant failure OR dental implant complications). The criteria employed were those described in the PRISMA^® Declaration. Only five articles were included that analyzed the failure rates of implants placed in penicillin-allergic patients who were prescribed clindamycin compared to non-allergic patients who were prescribed amoxicillin. With the limitations of this study, it is not possible to state that penicillin allergy per se constitutes a risk factor for early dental implant failure as most of the studies included self-reported allergic patients. Clindamycin has been associated with a significantly elevated risk of failure and an up to six times increased risk of infection. Immediate implants also have a 5.7 to 10 times higher risk of failure.

Burden of antibiotic allergy labels in Australian aged care residents: Findings from a national point-prevalence survey

OBJECTIVE

To determine the prevalence of antibiotic allergy labels (AALs) in Australian aged care residents and to describe the impact of labels on antibiotic prescribing practices.

DESIGN

Point-prevalence survey.

SETTING

Australian residential aged care facilities.

PARTICIPANTS

We surveyed 1,489 residents in 407 aged care facilities.

METHODS

Standardized data were collected on a single day between June 1 and August 31, 2018, for residents prescribed an antibiotic. An AAL was reported if it was documented in the resident's health record. Resident-level data were used to calculate overall prevalence, and antibiotic-level data were used to report relative frequency of AALs for individual antibiotics and classes.

RESULTS

Among 1,489 residents, 356 (24%) had 1 or more documented AALs. The AALs for penicillin (28.3%), amoxicillin or amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (10.5%), cefalexin (7.2%), and trimethoprim (7.0%) were most commonly reported. The presence of an AAL was associated with significantly less prescribing of penicillins (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.31-0.62; P < .001) and significantly more prescribing of lincosamides (OR, 4.81; P < .001), macrolides (OR, 2.03; P = .007), and tetracyclines (OR, 1.54; P = .033). Of residents with AALs, 7 residents (1.9%) were prescribed an antibiotic that was listed on the allergy section of their health record.

CONCLUSIONS

A high prevalence of AALs was observed among residents of Australian aged care facilities, comparable to the prevalence of AALs in high-risk hospitalized patients. Significant increases in prescribing of lincosamide, macrolide, and tetracycline agents poses a potential risk to aged populations, and future studies must evaluate the benefits of AAL delabelling programs tailored for aged care settings.

Impact of Antibiotic Allergy Labels on Patient Outcomes in a Tertiary Paediatric Hospital

OBJECTIVES

Antibiotic allergies are reported in 5 to 15% of children. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of common β-lactam antibiotic allergy labels (AALs) on hospital treatment, focussing on length of stay and appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study over 21-months at the Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne, Australia. A subset of children with the most common β-lactam allergies, and who required admission for intravenous antibiotics over a 12-month period, was analysed for appropriateness of prescribing. Non-allergic patients were matched to evaluate associations between AALs and hospital treatment.

RESULTS

There were 98,912 children admitted over the study period, of whom 938 (1%) had at least one AAL on first admission. Of all encounters, 5145 (2.5%) were for children with AALs. The most common AALs were to amoxicillin and amoxicillin-clavulanic acid combinations (40.8%), cefalexin (14.4%) and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (9.7%). For the subset, there were 66 admissions for children who required intravenous antibiotics. Documentation was adequate for 27% of AALs. Inappropriate prescribing occurred in almost half (47%). Hospital stay was longer for children with AALs (median 4.7 days; IQR 2.3 to 9.2) compared to non-allergic controls (median 3.9 days; IQR 1.9 to 6.8; P=0.02). Children with AALs were more likely to receive restricted antibiotics (aOR 3.03; 95%CI, 1.45 to 6.30; p=0.003).

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to demonstrate high rates of inappropriate prescribing in children with AALs. Children with AALs were significantly more likely to receive restricted antibiotics and had a longer length of stay compared with non-allergic controls.

The Penicillin Allergy Delabeling Program: A Multicenter Whole-of-Hospital Health Services Intervention and Comparative Effectiveness Study

BACKGROUND

Penicillin allergies are associated with inferior patient and antimicrobial stewardship outcomes. We implemented a whole-of-hospital program to assess the efficacy of inpatient delabeling for low-risk penicillin allergies in hospitalized inpatients.

METHODS

Patients ≥ 18 years of age with a low-risk penicillin allergy were offered a single-dose oral penicillin challenge or direct label removal based on history (direct delabeling). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients delabeled. Key secondary endpoints were antibiotic utilization pre- (index admission) and post-delabeling (index admission and 90 days).

RESULTS

Between 21 January 2019 and 31 August 2019, we assessed 1791 patients reporting 2315 antibiotic allergies, 1225 with a penicillin allergy. Three hundred fifty-five patients were delabeled: 161 by direct delabeling and 194 via oral penicillin challenge. Ninety-seven percent (194/200) of patients were negative upon oral penicillin challenge. In the delabeled patients, we observed an increase in narrow-spectrum penicillin usage (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 10.51 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 5.39-20.48]), improved appropriate antibiotic prescribing (adjusted OR, 2.13 [95% CI, 1.45-3.13]), and a reduction in restricted antibiotic usage (adjusted OR, 0.38 [95% CI, .27-.54]). In the propensity score analysis, there was an increase in narrow-spectrum penicillins (OR, 10.89 [95% CI, 5.09-23.31]) and β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitors (OR, 6.68 [95% CI, 3.94-11.35]) and a reduction in restricted antibiotic use (OR, 0.52 [95% CI, .36-.74]) and inappropriate prescriptions (relative risk ratio, 0.43 [95% CI, .26-.72]) in the delabeled group compared with the group who retained their allergy label.

CONCLUSIONS

This health services program using a combination of direct delabeling and oral penicillin challenge resulted in significant impacts on the use of preferred antibiotics and appropriate prescribing.

Sexually Transmitted Infections Treatment Guidelines, 2021

These guidelines for the treatment of persons who have or are at risk for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) were updated by CDC after consultation with professionals knowledgeable in the field of STIs who met in Atlanta, Georgia, June 11–14, 2019. The information in this report updates the 2015 guidelines. These guidelines discuss 1) updated recommendations for treatment of Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Chlamydia trachomatis, and Trichomonas vaginalis; 2) addition of metronidazole to the recommended treatment regimen for pelvic inflammatory disease; 3) alternative treatment options for bacterial vaginosis; 4) management of Mycoplasma genitalium; 5) human papillomavirus vaccine recommendations and counseling messages; 6) expanded risk factors for syphilis testing among pregnant women; 7) one-time testing for hepatitis C infection; 8) evaluation of men who have sex with men after sexual assault; and 9) two-step testing for serologic diagnosis of genital herpes simplex virus. Physicians and other health care providers can use these guidelines to assist in prevention and treatment of STIs.

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.