Antimicrobial allergy 'labels' drive inappropriate antimicrobial prescribing: lessons for stewardship

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

PURPOSE

Critically ill patients are vulnerable to penicillin allergy labels that may be incorrect. The validity of skin testing in intensive care units (ICUs) is uncertain. Many penicillin allergy labels are low risk, and validated tools exist to identify those amenable to direct oral challenge. This pilot randomised controlled trial explored the feasibility, safety, and validity of direct enteral challenge for low-risk penicillin allergy labels in critical illness.

METHODS

Consenting patients with a low-risk penicillin allergy label (PAL) (PEN-FAST risk assessment score < 3) in four ICUs (Melbourne, Australia) were randomised 1:1 to penicillin (250 mg amoxicillin or implicated penicillin) direct enteral challenge versus routine care (2-h post-randomisation observation for each arm). Repeat challenge was performed post -ICU in the intervention arm. Patients were reviewed at 24 h and 5 days after each challenge/observation.

RESULTS

We screened 533 patients. 130 (24.4%) were eligible and 80/130 (61.5%) enrolled (age median 64.5 years (interquartile range, IQR 53.5, 74), PEN-FAST median 1 (IQR 0,1)), with 40 (50%) randomised to direct enteral challenge. A positive challenge rate of 2.5% was identified. No antibiotic-associated serious adverse events were identified. 32/40 (80%) received a repeat challenge (zero positive). Post-randomisation, 13 (32%) of the intervention arm and 4 (10%) of the control arm received penicillin (odds ratio, OR 4.33 [1.27, 14.78] p = 0.019).

CONCLUSION

These findings support the safety, validity, and feasibility of direct enteral challenge for critically ill patients with PEN-FAST assessed low-risk penicillin allergy. The absence of false negative results was confirmed by subsequent negative repeat challenges. A relatively low recruitment to screened ratio suggests that more inclusive eligibility criteria and integration of allergy assessment into routine ICU processes are needed to optimise allergy delabelling in critical illness.

Prospective, Multicenter, Head-to-Head Comparison Between Allergists Versus Nonallergists in Low-Risk Penicillin Allergy Delabeling: Effectiveness, Safety, and Quality of Life (HK-DADI2)

BACKGROUND

Penicillin "allergy" labels are prevalent but frequently misdiagnosed. Mislabelled allergies are associated with adverse outcomes and increased antimicrobial resistance. With an urgent need to delabel the overwhelming number of mislabeled allergies, nonallergist evaluations have been advocated for low-risk individuals. Despite growing interest in non-allergist-led initiatives, evidence on their effectiveness, safety, and impact by direct comparisons is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the comparative outcomes of penicillin allergy evaluations conducted by allergists versus nonallergists.

METHODS

A prospective, multicenter, pragmatic study was conducted at 4 tertiary hospitals (1 allergist- vs 3 non-allergist-led) for low-risk penicillin allergy patients in Hong Kong-the Hong Kong Drug Allergy Delabelling Initiative 2 (HK-DADI2).

RESULTS

Among 228 low-risk patients who underwent testing (32.9% by allergists, 67.1% by nonallergists), only 14 (6.1%) had positive penicillin allergy testing results. Delabeling rates (94.1% vs 93.3%; P = .777), positive skin test results (2.6% vs 2.7%; P > .99), and drug provocation test results (3.3% vs 2.7%; P = 1.000) were similar between allergists and nonallergists. There were no systemic reactions in either cohort. All patients had significant improvements in health-related quality of life (Drug Hypersensitivity Quality of Life Questionnaire scores -5.00 vs -8.33; P = .072). Nonallergist evaluations had shorter waiting times (0.57 vs 15.7 months; P < .001), whereas allergists required fewer consultations with higher rate of completing evaluations within a single visit (odds ratio, 0.04; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

With training and support, nonallergists can independently evaluate low-risk penicillin allergies. Compared with allergists, evaluation of low-risk penicillin allergy by nonallergists can be comparably effective, safe, and impactful on quality of life. More multidisciplinary partnerships to empower nonallergists to conduct allergy evaluations should be encouraged.

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.

Performance Characteristics of Basophil Activation Tests for Diagnosing Penicillin Allergy: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Approximately 10% of the global population identify themselves as penicillin allergic, yet 90% are not truly allergic and could safely tolerate penicillin. There is no simple way to identify these people. Current in vitro diagnostics include specific immunoglobulin E (with a sensitivity of 19% and specificity of 97%) and a basophil activation test (BAT) with undefined sensitivity and specificity.

OBJECTIVE

To define the sensitivity and specificity of BAT in the diagnosis of penicillin allergy METHODS: We searched PubMed and EMBASE from inception to April 2, 2023, for original studies evaluating the performance characteristics of BAT for penicillin allergy in adults. Study selection, data extraction, risk of bias, assessment with QUADAS-2 tool, certainty assessment with Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology were performed independently, in duplicate. Meta-analysis was performed using Reitsma methodology.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Twelve used the same positive threshold giving a summary point sensitivity 51% (95% confidence interval [95% CI]46%-56%) and specificity 89% (95% CI 85%-93%). Significant risk of bias was identified owing to patient selection. GRADE certainty of evidence rated sensitivity very low due to imprecision and specificity as low. There was great heterogeneity in methods used. Use of 1,000 basophils per test did not improve performance above 500 basophils.

CONCLUSIONS

BAT sensitivity is highly variable across studies and remains too low to be considered as a routine element of clinical practice. BAT specificity is not as good as specific immunoglobulin E in penicillin allergy diagnosis. Significant further work is required in this field before clinical application of BAT in routine practice.

Low-risk penicillin allergy delabeling: a scoping review of direct oral challenge practice, implementation, and multi-disciplinary approaches

INTRODUCTION

Penicillin allergy is common, and there is increased clinician interest in direct oral challenge (DOC) as a testing strategy for low-risk penicillin allergy. To aid wider implementation of DOC, consensus definitions of low-risk penicillin allergy phenotypes, and standardized approaches to assessment, DOC procedures, and evaluation, are required.

AREAS COVERED

This review systematically reviews studies that have utilized penicillin DOC in healthcare settings to identify heterogeneity in implementation approaches and synthesize low-risk definitions, procedures, and evaluation.

EXPERT OPINION

Opportunity exists to standardize penicillin DOC procedures in patients with a low-risk penicillin allergy to optimize antimicrobial prescribing and reduce the burden of penicillin allergy. Standardizing the definitions of 'low-risk' and 'positive challenge,' and improving the evaluation of patient safety, alongside the development of a unified approach to the structure of undertaking an oral challenge, is likely to increase uptake and confidence among non-allergist clinicians.

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.

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.

Efficacy of a Clinical Decision Rule to Enable Direct Oral Challenge in Patients With Low-Risk Penicillin Allergy: The PALACE Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Fewer than 5% of patients labeled with a penicillin allergy are truly allergic. The standard of care to remove the penicillin allergy label in adults is specialized testing involving prick and intradermal skin testing followed by an oral challenge with penicillin. Skin testing is resource intensive, limits practice to specialist-trained physicians, and restricts the global population who could undergo penicillin allergy delabeling.

Objective

To determine whether a direct oral penicillin challenge is noninferior to the standard of care of penicillin skin testing followed by an oral challenge in patients with a low-risk penicillin allergy.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This parallel, 2-arm, noninferiority, open-label, multicenter, international randomized clinical trial occurred in 6 specialized centers, 3 in North America (US and Canada) and 3 in Australia, from June 18, 2021, to December 2, 2022. Eligible adults had a PEN-FAST score lower than 3. PEN-FAST is a prospectively derived and internationally validated clinical decision rule that enables point-of-care risk assessment for adults reporting penicillin allergies.

Interventions

Patients were randomly assigned to either direct oral challenge with penicillin (intervention arm) or a standard-of-care arm of penicillin skin testing followed by oral challenge with penicillin (control arm).

Main Outcome and Measure

The primary outcome was a physician-verified positive immune-mediated oral penicillin challenge within 1 hour postintervention in the intention-to-treat population. Noninferiority was achieved if a 1-sided 95% CI of the risk difference (RD) did not exceed 5 percentage points (pp).

Results

A total of 382 adults were randomized, with 377 patients (median [IQR] age, 51 [35-65] years; 247 [65.5%] female) included in the analysis: 187 in the intervention group and 190 in the control group. Most patients had a PEN-FAST score of 0 or 1. The primary outcome occurred in 1 patient (0.5%) in the intervention group and 1 patient (0.5%) in the control group, with an RD of 0.0084 pp (90% CI, -1.22 to 1.24 pp). The 1-sided 95% CI was below the noninferiority margin of 5 pp. In the 5 days following the oral penicillin challenge, 9 immune-mediated adverse events were recorded in the intervention group and 10 in the control group (RD, -0.45 pp; 95% CI, -4.87 to 3.96 pp). No serious adverse events occurred.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial, direct oral penicillin challenge in patients with a low-risk penicillin allergy was noninferior compared with standard-of-care skin testing followed by oral challenge. In patients with a low-risk history, direct oral penicillin challenge is a safe procedure to facilitate the removal of a penicillin allergy label.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04454229.

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.

Characterizing Antibiotic Allergy Labels in a Large UK Hospital Population to Inform Antimicrobial Stewardship and Delabeling Assessment Strategy

BACKGROUND

Antibiotic allergy labels are important barriers to treatment and antimicrobial stewardship, but their prevalence in UK hospitals is poorly described.

OBJECTIVE

To ascertain the prevalence and characteristics of antibiotic allergy labels in a large UK hospital setting and estimate the proportion of penicillin allergy labels for which point-of-care (POC) delabeling assessment would be appropriate.

METHODS

Electronic health records data were analyzed from all patients treated at Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in 2019. Validated POC delabeling risk stratification criteria were retrospectively applied to penicillin allergy labels.

RESULTS

Recorded reactions to antibiotics were present in 11.8% of all patients (32,148 of 273,216), 16.3% of inpatients (13,874 of 85,230), and 9.7% of outpatients (18,274 of 187,986). Penicillins were the commonest reaction precipitant described (9.0% of patients; 24,646 of 273,216), followed by sulfonamides/trimethoprim (1.4%; 3869 of 273,216) and macrolides/lincosamides (1.3%; 3644 of 273,216). A total of 3.9% of inpatients had recorded reactions to >1 antibiotic class (3348 of 85,230). Cutaneous manifestations were the most commonly described reaction features (40.7% of labels; 15,821 of 38,902). Of 15,949 labels describing probable or possible penicillin "allergy" with sufficient detail to allow for the retrospective assessment of POC delabeling suitability, 1702 were deemed suitable for removal or downgrading of the label to "intolerance" without further investigation (10.7%), 11,887 were appropriate for POC assessment using an oral penicillin challenge (OPC) or OPC with prior bedside skin testing (74.5%), and 2360 were identified as unsuitable for any form of POC assessment (14.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Antibiotic allergy labels are highly prevalent in a UK hospital setting. A large proportion of penicillin allergy labels may be suitable for POC delabeling assessment.

Delabeling of Penicillin Allergy: Room for Improvement

BACKGROUND

Penicillin allergy labels have been shown to be associated with suboptimal treatment, negative health outcomes, and increased antibiotic resistance. Many inpatients claim to have penicillin allergy, but studies show that allergy can be disproved and the label removed in up to 90% of cases.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of the study was to investigate the proportion of patients with a penicillin allergy label in a Danish hospital and to classify patients according to the risk of having penicillin allergy in "no risk," low, and high risk.

METHODS

For 22 days, inpatients with penicillin allergy labels were interviewed, had their dispensed penicillin prescriptions examined, and were subsequently categorized into risk groups based on the risk evaluation criteria in national guidelines.

RESULTS

In total, 260 patients had a penicillin allergy label (10% of the inpatients). Out of 151 included patients, 25 were "no risk" patients (17%), who could potentially have their penicillin allergy label removed without testing. 42 were low-risk patients (28%). 10 "no risk" patients and 20 low-risk patients had been prescribed and dispensed one or more penicillins despite an allergy label.

CONCLUSION

Ten percent of inpatients have a penicillin allergy label in a Danish hospital. 17% of these could potentially have their penicillin allergy label removed without allergy testing.

Digital Antibiotic Allergy Decision Support Tool Improves Management of β-Lactam Allergies

BACKGROUND

Frontline providers frequently make time-sensitive antibiotic choices, but many feel poorly equipped to handle antibiotic allergies.

OBJECTIVE

We hypothesized that a digital decision support tool could improve antibiotic selection and confidence when managing β-lactam allergies.

METHODS

A digital decision support tool was designed to guide non-allergist providers in managing patients with β-lactam allergy labels. Non-allergists were asked to make decisions in clinical test cases without the tool, and then with it. These decisions were compared using paired t tests. Users also completed surveys assessing their confidence in managing antibiotic allergies.

RESULTS

The tool's algorithm was validated by confirming its recommendations aligned with that of five allergists. Non-allergist providers (n = 102) made antibiotic management decisions in test cases, both with and without the tool. Use of the tool increased the proportion of correct decisions from 0.41 to 0.67, a difference of 0.26 (95% CI, 0.22-0.30; P < .001). Users were more likely to give full-dose antibiotics in low-risk situations, give challenge doses in medium-risk situations, and avoid the antibiotic and/or consult allergy departments in high-risk situations. A total of 98 users (96%) said the tool would increase their confidence when choosing antibiotics for patients with allergies.

CONCLUSIONS

A point-of-care clinical decision tool provides allergist-designed guidance for non-allergists and is a scalable system for addressing antibiotic allergies, irrespective of allergist availability. This tool encouraged appropriate antibiotic use in low- and medium-risk situations and increased caution in high-risk situations. A digital support tool should be considered in quality improvement and antibiotic stewardship efforts.

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.

Basophil Activation Test Shows Poor Sensitivity in Immediate Amoxicillin Allergy

BACKGROUND

In light of the pandemic of spurious penicillin allergy, correct diagnosis of amoxicillin (AX) allergy is of great importance. The diagnosis of immediate hypersensitivity reactions relies on skin tests and specific IgE, and although reliable, these are not absolutely predictive. Therefore, drug challenges are needed in some cases, which contain the risk of severe reactions. Safe in vitro diagnostics as an alternative for the drug challenge in the diagnostic workup of AX allergy would be more than welcome to fill this gap. In this respect, the basophil activation test (BAT) has shown potential, but its clinical reliability is doubtful.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the reliability of the BAT to AX and determining its exact place in the diagnostic algorithm of AX allergy.

METHODS

BAT for AX was performed in 70 exposed control individuals and 66 patients diagnosed according to the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology guidelines for AX allergy. Upregulation of both CD63 and CD203c was flow-cytometrically assessed.

RESULTS

Analyses revealed that 1370 μmol/L and 685 μmol/L were the most discriminative stimulation concentrations for CD63 and CD203c upregulation, respectively, and a diagnostic threshold of 9% for positivity for both markers was identified. At these concentrations, sensitivity and specificity for CD63 upregulation were 13% and 100%, respectively, and for CD203c upregulation, 23% and 98%.

CONCLUSIONS

BAT with dual analysis of CD63 and CD203c is of poor performance to document AX allergy. The sensitivity is too low to let it occupy a prominent role in the diagnostic algorithm.

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.

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

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

Improving antimicrobial stewardship with penicillin allergy testing: a review of current practices and unmet needs

Penicillin allergy, the most frequently reported drug allergy, has been associated with suboptimal antibiotic therapy, increased antimicrobial resistance, increased rates of Clostridioides difficile colonization and infection, as well as extended hospital length of stay and increased cost. Although up to 10% of all patients may report penicillin allergy, most penicillin allergies are not confirmed. As such, most patients with a penicillin allergy can still safely use penicillin and related drugs following a more precise assessment. Herein, we review the current practices and unmet needs in penicillin allergy testing. The diagnostic algorithm is mostly based on a clinical history assessment followed by in vivo testing, i.e. skin test and/or drug challenge. As these tests are labour and resource intensive, there is increased interest in point-of-care penicillin allergy de-labelling solutions incorporated into Antimicrobial Stewardship Programmes including digital assessment tools. These can be locally parameterized on the basis of characteristics of target populations, incidence of specific allergies and local antibiotic usage to perform clinical risk stratification. Safely ruling out any residual risk remains essential and in vivo drug challenge and/or skin testing should be systematically encouraged. Gradual understanding and convergence of the risk stratification of the clinical presentation of penicillin allergy is enabling a wider implementation of this essential aspect of antimicrobial stewardship through digitalized decision tools and in vivo testing. More research is needed to deliver point of care in vitro diagnostic tools to democratize this de-labelling practice, which would be highly beneficial to patient care. This progress, together with better education of patients and clinicians about the availability, efficacy and safety of penicillin allergy testing, will increase the dissemination of penicillin allergy assessment as an important component of Antimicrobial Stewardship Programmes.

Safety and value of pretransplant antibiotic allergy delabeling in a quaternary transplant center

BACKGROUND

Self-reported antibiotic allergies, also known as antibiotic allergy labels, are common and may lead to worse patient outcomes. Within immunocompromized patients, antibiotic allergy labels can lead to inappropriate use of antimicrobials and may limit options for prophylactic and therapeutic options in the posttransplant period. While antibiotic allergy delabeling is considered an important aspect of antibiotic stewardship protocols, evidence and awareness of its application in transplant recipients is limited.

METHODS

We describe our experience with an antibiotic allergy delabeling intervention in the pretransplant evaluation period and its impact on posttransplant antimicrobial utilization. This was a retrospective analysis of patients with an antibiotic allergy label who underwent evaluation for solid organ or stem cell transplantation between 2015 and 2020. Patients included in this analysis were those who completed pretransplant antibiotic allergy delabeling through our Drug Allergy Clinic and were retained in care for 6 months after transplant.

RESULTS

Twenty-six of 27 patients underwent pretransplant antibiotic allergy delabeling and safely received the delabeled antibiotic posttransplant. There were no reported side effects to the delabeled antibiotic within 6 months posttransplant. Specific examination of sulfonamide (sulfa)-antibiotic delabeling showed cost savings of $254 to $2910 per patient in the posttransplant period compared to the use of alternative antibiotics for prophylaxis protocol.

CONCLUSION

Antibiotic allergy delabeling prior to transplant is safe, is of high value, and should be considered in the pretransplant evaluation period. More resources are needed for the development of delabeling guidelines and support for broad implementation of pretransplant antibiotic allergy delabeling programs.

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.

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.

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).

Infection prevention requirements for the medical care of immunosuppressed patients: recommendations of the Commission for Hospital Hygiene and Infection Prevention (KRINKO) at the Robert Koch Institute

In Germany, guidelines for hygiene in hospitals are given in form of recommendations by the Commission for Hospital Hygiene and Infection Prevention (Kommission für Krankenhaushygiene und Infektionsprävention, "KRINKO"). The KRINKO and its voluntary work are legitimized by the mandate according to § 23 of the Infection Protection Act (Infektionsschutzgesetz, "IfSG"). The original German version of this document was published in February 2021 and has now been made available to the international professional public in English. The guideline provides recommendations on infection prevention and control for immunocompromised individuals in health care facilities. This recommendation addresses not only measures related to direct medical care of immunocompromised patients, but also management aspects such as surveillance, screening, antibiotic stewardship, and technical/structural aspects such as patient rooms, air quality, and special measures during renovations.

Outcome of a de-labelling algorithm compared with results of penicillin (β-lactam) allergy testing

Background

Penicillin allergy labels frequently impede guideline-directed treatment with a penicillin or other β-lactam antibiotics. Despite presumed allergy, targeted questioning may indicate a low probability of sensitization and permit reasonably safe administration of the antibiotic in question. In this study, we evaluated a standardized algorithm aiming to differentiate non-allergic patients from those with true allergic β-lactam hypersensitivity.

Methods

We retrospectively applied a de-labelling algorithm in 800 consecutive patients with suspected β-lactam hypersensitivity. All had undergone complete allergy work-up permitting to definitely exclude or diagnose β-lactam allergy between 2009 and 2019.

Results

In 595 (74.4%) out of 800 cases evaluated, β-lactam allergy could be excluded by negative challenge testing. IgE-mediated anaphylaxis was diagnosed in 70 (8.7%) patients, delayed-type hypersensitivity in 135 (16.9%). In 62 (88.6%) anaphylaxis cases, the algorithm correctly advised to use an alternative antibiotic. Accuracy was higher in patients with moderate to severe anaphylaxis (97.7%) compared to those with a history of mild reactions (73.1%). The algorithm correctly identified 122 (90.4%) patients with proven delayed-type hypersensitivity. It permitted de-labelling in 330 (55.5%) out of 595 patients with diagnostic exclusion of penicillin hypersensitivity, but failed to identify the remaining 265 (44.5%) as low-risk cases.

Conclusions

The algorithm detected 89.8% of cases with penicillin (β-lactam) allergy, sensitivity was optimal for moderate to severe anaphylaxis. Study data justify the implementation of a standardized de-labelling algorithm under close supervision in order to permit guideline-directed treatment and reduce the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics as part of an antibiotic stewardship program.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13223-022-00659-1.

Instruction and Simulation to Improve Pharmacy Students' Knowledge and Confidence Regarding Assessment of Penicillin Allergies

Objective. To evaluate pharmacy students' knowledge of and confidence regarding penicillin allergy assessment and skin testing (PAAST) before and after a focused didactic instruction and simulation (FDIS).Methods. A multicenter, quasi-experimental, cross-sectional survey study was performed among pharmacy students before and after FDIS on PAAST at two schools of pharmacy. The FDIS on PAAST consisted of an infectious disease faculty-led seminar, student-led penicillin allergy counseling interviews, penicillin skin testing simulation, and case studies to assess penicillin allergy scenarios and management. An anonymous, voluntary, electronic survey was distributed to students (n=159) before and after the FDIS. The pre- and post-intervention survey contained 10 PAAST knowledge-based questions and multi-step, five-point Likert scale statements related to students' confidence in PAAST. The post-intervention survey also evaluated students' perceptions of the FDIS on PAAST. Descriptive statistics were performed, and the Student t test was used to compare pre- and post-intervention responses.Results. One hundred forty-three surveys were completed, resulting in a survey response rate of 90%. Students' PAAST knowledge scores (mean±SD) increased overall following the FDIS on PAAST (6.67±1.51 vs 7.81±1.39). Knowledge scores increased considerably for questions related to penicillin allergy consequences, cross-reactivity, and correct steps of PAAST. Pharmacy students' PAAST confidence scores (mean±SD) also improved following the interactive instruction and simulation (2.30±0.7 vs 3.22±0.67) with considerable confidence increases in penicillin skin testing. Pharmacy students' perceptions of the FDIS on PAAST were also positive overall.Conclusion. Pharmacy students' knowledge and confidence of PAAST improved following FDIS. This may be an effective strategy to implement PAAST education during pharmacy school.

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.

A novel framework to guide antibiotic stewardship nursing practice

BACKGROUND

There is a pervasive view among some nurses and health care disciplines that antibiotic stewardship (AS) is solely a physician or pharmacist responsibility. There is an urgent need to alter this view so that nurses can seize every opportunity to prevent patient harm from antibiotics and optimize antibiotic use. One challenge to achieving full nurse engagement as equal members of the AS team is lack of an organizing framework to illustrate relationships of phenomena and concepts inherent to adoption of AS nursing practices.

METHODS

We sought to create a framework derived from the peer-reviewed literature, systematic and scoping reviews, and professional standards, consensus statements and white papers. The emerging framework went through multiple iterations as it was vetted with nurse clinicians, scholars and educators, physicians, pharmacists, infection preventionists and AS subject matter experts.

RESULTS

Our evidence-based Antibiotic Stewardship Nursing Practice SCAN-P Framework provides the much-needed context and clarity to help guide local-level nurses to participate in and lead AS nursing practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Nurses worldwide are ideally situated to provide holistic person-centered care, advocate for judicious use of antibiotics to minimize antibiotic resistance, and be AS educators of their patients, communities and the general public. The Antibiotic Stewardship Nursing Practice SCAN-P Framework provides a tool to do so.

OUP accepted manuscript

The National Antimicrobial Prescribing Survey (NAPS) is a web-based qualitative auditing platform that provides a standardized and validated tool to assist hospitals in assessing the appropriateness of antimicrobial prescribing practices. Since its release in 2013, the NAPS has been adopted by all hospital types within Australia, including public and private facilities, and supports them in meeting the national standards for accreditation. Hospitals can generate real-time reports to assist with local antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) activities and interventions. De-identified aggregate data from the NAPS are also submitted to the Antimicrobial Use and Resistance in Australia surveillance system, for national reporting purposes, and to strengthen national AMS strategies. With the successful implementation of the programme within Australia, the NAPS has now been adopted by countries with both well-resourced and resource-limited healthcare systems. We provide here a narrative review describing the experience of users utilizing the NAPS programme in Canada, Malaysia and Bhutan. We highlight the key barriers and facilitators to implementation and demonstrate that the NAPS methodology is feasible, generalizable and translatable to various settings and able to assist in initiatives to optimize the use of antimicrobials.

Completeness and accuracy of adverse drug reaction documentation in electronic medical records at a tertiary care hospital in Australia

Background: A large proportion of patients presenting to hospitals have experienced a previous adverse drug reaction (ADR). Electronic medical records (EMRs) present an opportunity to accurately document ADRs and alert clinicians against inadvertent rechallenge where there is a pre-existing reaction. However, EMR systems are imperfect and rely on the accuracy of the data entered. Objective: To ascertain the completeness of ADR documentation and the accuracy of the classification of ADRs as allergy versus intolerance in the EMR at a major metropolitan hospital in Australia. Method: Cross-sectional audit of the ADR field of the EMR for a sample of patients on four different wards over 3 weeks to ascertain the completeness of ADR documentation and the accuracy of classification of ADRs. Results: Of the 264 patients assessed, 102 (38.6%) had a total of 210 ADRs documented in the EMR. Of these, 105 (50%) were considered to have complete documentation; 63/210 (30.0%) were missing a reaction description and 88/210 (41.9%) were missing severity information. For those ADRs with a reaction description (n = 147), 97 (66.0%) were considered to be appropriately classified as allergy or intolerance. Conclusion: Incomplete and inaccurate ADR documentation was common. These findings highlight a need for optimising ADR documentation to improve appropriate medication use in hospital. Implications: Improved EMR design and education of healthcare workers on the importance of complete and accurate documentation of reactions are needed to improve completeness and accuracy of ADR classification.

Antimicrobial stewardship in Australia: the role of qualitative research in programme development

Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) in Australia is supported by a number of factors, including enabling national policies, sectoral clinical governance frameworks and surveillance programmes, clinician-led educational initiatives and health services research. A One Health research programme undertaken by the National Centre for Antimicrobial Stewardship (NCAS) in Australia has combined antimicrobial prescribing surveillance with qualitative research focused on developing antimicrobial use-related situational analyses and scoping AMS implementation options across healthcare settings, including metropolitan hospitals, regional and rural hospitals, aged care homes, general practice clinics and companion animal and agricultural veterinary practices. Qualitative research involving clinicians across these diverse settings in Australia has contributed to improved understanding of contextual factors that influence antimicrobial prescribing, and barriers and facilitators of AMS implementation. This body of research has been underpinned by a commitment to supplementing 'big data' on antimicrobial prescribing practices, where available, with knowledge of the sociocultural, technical, environmental and other factors that shape prescribing behaviours. NCAS provided a unique opportunity for exchange and cross-pollination across the human and animal health programme domains. It has facilitated synergistic approaches to AMS research and education, and implementation of resources and stewardship activities. The NCAS programme aimed to synergistically combine quantitative and qualitative approaches to AMS research. In this article, we describe the qualitative findings of the first 5 years.

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.

ANAPHYLAXIS AND PREGNANCY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND CALL FOR PUBLIC HEALTH ACTIONS

BACKGROUND

Although rare, anaphylaxis during pregnancy implies a risk to both mothers and newborns.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review is intended to identify key issues in the diagnosis and management of this condition in order to support prevention strategies and decrease the risk of death related to anaphylaxis during pregnancy.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane, Lilacs, Scielo and Science Direct databases for manuscripts concerning terms "anaphylaxis during pregnancy" without language restrictions. We screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias independently in duplicate.

RESULTS

We selected 12 articles. Frequency of anaphylaxis during pregnancy is estimated between 1.5 to 3.8 per 100 000 maternities. Only one study provided anaphylaxis mortality data in pregnant women, and the rate of anaphylaxis-related maternal mortality is estimated at 0.05 per 100 000 live births. No standard definition of anaphylaxis severity has been utilized. Forty-nine percent to 74% of anaphylaxis cases were described during caesarean sections. Beta-lactam antibiotics (58%), latex (25%) and anaesthetic agents (17%) were the main culprits. In 17% of papers, causative agents were proven by allergy testing. Seventy two percent of articles proposed the same management and treatment for a clinical episode of anaphylaxis during pregnancy as in non-pregnant patients, and, use of epinephrine in the patient's care during anaphylaxis in pregnancy.

CONCLUSION

Few studies address anaphylaxis during pregnancy, and the majority have been produced by non-allergy specialists. Collaboration between different specialists involved in the care of pregnant women should be established in order to support preventive strategies and reduce avoidable deaths.

Antibiotic appropriateness and guideline adherence in hospitalized children: results of a nationwide study

BACKGROUND

Information on the nature and appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing for children in hospitals is important, but scarce.

OBJECTIVES

To analyse antimicrobial prescribing and appropriateness, and guideline adherence, in hospitalized children across Australia.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We analysed data from the National Antimicrobial Prescribing Survey (NAPS) from 2014 to 2017. Surveys were performed in hospital facilities of all types (public and private; major city, regional and remote). Participants were admitted children <18 years old. Risk factors associated with inappropriate prescribing were explored using logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Among 6219 prescriptions for 3715 children in 253 facilities, 19.6% of prescriptions were deemed inappropriate. Risk factors for inappropriate prescribing included non-tertiary paediatric hospital admission [OR 1.37 (95% CI 1.20-1.55)] and non-major city hospital location [OR 1.52 (95% CI 1.30-1.77)]. Prescriptions for neonates, immunocompromised children and those admitted to an ICU were less frequently inappropriate. If a restricted antimicrobial was prescribed and not approved, the prescription was more likely to be inappropriate [OR 12.9 (95% CI 8.4-19.8)]. Surgical prophylaxis was inappropriate in 59% of prescriptions.

CONCLUSIONS

Inappropriate antimicrobial prescribing in children was linked to specific risk factors identified here, presenting opportunities for targeted interventions to improve prescribing. This information, using a NAPS dataset, allows for analysis of antimicrobial prescribing among different groups of hospitalized children. Further exploration of barriers to appropriate prescribing and facilitators of best practice in this population is recommended.

Prevalence of Antibiotic Allergy Labels in a Tertiary Referral Center in Belgium

BACKGROUND

Antibiotic (AB) allergies are among the most frequently occurring adverse drug reactions. In US literature, AB allergy labels (AAL) are reported in 10% to 15% of patients' charts; however, large-scale European analyses are scarce.

OBJECTIVES

To retrospectively assess the prevalence of AAL in a tertiary referral hospital in Belgium between 2010 and 2018.

METHODS

Patients who consulted and/or were hospitalized during the study period, who had been labeled with an AB allergy, were selected for further analysis.

RESULTS

Of 1,009,598 unique patients (outpatients, n = 736,469; inpatients, n = 273,129), 28,147 patients (3%) were registered with 1 or more AAL, being 1% of outpatients (n = 9562) and 7% of inpatients (n = 18,585). Women were more likely to carry an AAL (68%) compared with men (32%, P < .001). In patients with an AAL, 9% had multiple labels and 5% had labels for multiple AB classes. Most frequently, beta-lactams were involved (84% of AAL), followed by quinolones (7%) and sulfonamides and macrolides (both 3%). Moreover, 88% of the reactions were self-reported, mostly being an unspecified rash (53%), whereas only 3% were considered confirmed AAL.

CONCLUSION

With an overall prevalence of 3%, the burden of AAL is less in our Western European center compared with US reports. However, this prevalence most likely still represents an overestimation of genuine AB allergic patients because most labels lack confirmation and/or specifications. Our work indicates that knowledge of the local epidemiology of AAL is necessary to estimate the impact of better allergy labeling and delabeling strategies.

Penicillin Allergy De-labeling Results in Significant Changes in Outpatient Antibiotic Prescribing Patterns

Unverified penicillin allergies are common but most patients with a penicillin allergy label can safely use penicillin antibiotics. Penicillin allergy labels are associated with poor clinical outcomes and overuse of second-line antibiotics. There is increasing focus on penicillin allergy "de-labeling" as a tool to improve antibiotic prescribing and antimicrobial stewardship. The effect of outpatient penicillin allergy de-labeling on long-term antibiotic use is uncertain. We performed a retrospective pre- and post- study of antibiotic dispensing patterns, from an electronic dispensing data repository, in patients undergoing penicillin allergy assessment at Auckland City Hospital, New Zealand. Over a mean follow-up of 4.55 years, 215/304 (70.7%) of de-labeled patients were dispensed a penicillin antibiotic. Rates of penicillin antibiotic dispensing were 0.24 (0.18-0.30) penicillin courses per year before de-labeling and 0.80 (0.67-0.93) following de-labeling with a reduction in total antibiotic use from 2.30 (2.06-2.54) to 1.79 (1.59-1.99) antibiotic courses per year. In de-labeled patients, the proportion of antibiotic courses that were penicillin antibiotics increased from 12.81 to 39.62%. Rates of macrolide, cephalosporin, trimethoprim/co-trimoxazole, fluoroquinolone, "other" non-penicillin antibiotic use, and broad-spectrum antibiotic use were all lower following de-labeling. Further, antibiotic costs were lower following de-labeling. In this study, penicillin allergy de-labeling was associated with significant changes in antibiotic dispensing patterns.

Reported β-Lactam and Other Antibiotic Allergies in Solid Organ and Hematopoietic Cell Transplant Recipients

BACKGROUND

Patients with reported β-lactam antibiotic allergies (BLAs) are more likely to receive broad-spectrum antibiotics and experience adverse outcomes. Data describing antibiotic allergies among solid organ transplant (SOT) and hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) recipients are limited.

METHODS

We reviewed records of adult SOT or allogeneic HCT recipients from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2017 to characterize reported antibiotic allergies at time of transplantation. Inpatient antibiotic use was examined for 100 days posttransplant. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) comparing antibiotic use in BLA and non-BLA groups were calculated using multivariable negative binomial models for 2 metrics: days of therapy (DOT) per 1000 inpatient days and percentage of antibiotic exposure-days.

RESULTS

Among 2153 SOT (65%) and HCT (35%) recipients, 634 (29%) reported any antibiotic allergy and 347 (16%) reported BLAs. Inpatient antibiotics were administered to 2020 (94%) patients during the first 100 days posttransplantation; average antibiotic exposure was 41% of inpatient-days (interquartile range, 16.7%-62.5%). BLA patients had significantly higher DOT for vancomycin (IRR, 1.4 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.2-1.7]; P < .001), clindamycin (IRR, 7.6 [95% CI, 2.2-32.4]; P = .001), and aztreonam in HCT (IRR, 9.7 [95% CI, 3.3-35.0]; P < .001), and fluoroquinolones in SOT (IRR, 2.9 [95% CI, 2.1-4.0]; P < .001); these findings were consistent when using percentage of antibiotic exposure-days.

CONCLUSIONS

Transplant recipients are frequently exposed to antibiotics and have a high prevalence of reported antibiotic allergies. Reported BLA was associated with greater use of β-lactam antibiotic alternatives. Pretransplant antibiotic allergy evaluation may optimize antibiotic use in this population.

The impact of antibiotic allergy labels on antibiotic exposure, clinical outcomes, and healthcare costs: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

A growing body of evidence suggests that antibiotic allergy labels as documented in medical records are a risk factor for poor clinical outcomes. In this systematic review, we aimed to determine how antibiotic allergy labels influence 3 domains: antibiotic use and exposure, clinical outcomes, and healthcare-related costs.

DESIGN

We performed a systematic review to identify studies reporting outcomes in patients with antibiotic allergy labels compared to nonallergic counterparts. The search included PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, EBSCO, Cochrane Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Web of Science. Two reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion and abstracted data. Studies were graded using the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale. Study outcomes included antibiotic use, clinical outcomes, and economic outcomes.

RESULTS

In total, 41 studies met our criteria for inclusion. These studies varied in medical specialty, patient population, healthcare delivery system, and design, but most were conducted among adults age >18 years (85%) in the inpatient setting (82.5%). Among 34 studies examining antibiotic exposure, 32 (94%) found that patients with antibiotic allergy labels received more broad-spectrum antibiotics. Moreover, 31 studies examined clinical outcomes such as length of hospitalization, ICU admission, hospital readmission, multidrug-resistant or opportunistic infection, or mortality, and 27 (87%) found that allergy-labeled patients had at least 1 negative outcome. Of 9 studies examining healthcare costs, 7 (78%) found that allergy-labeled patients incurred significantly higher drug or hospital-related costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Antibiotic allergy labels have negative effects on antibiotic use, clinical outcomes, and economic outcomes in a variety of clinical settings and populations.

Antibiotic allergy labels and optimal antimicrobial stewardship

BACKGROUND

Although common, antimicrobial allergy labels (AAL) rarely reflect immunologically-mediated hypersensitivity and can lead to poorer outcomes from alternative antimicrobial agents. Antimicrobial stewardship programs are ideally placed to assess AAL early as a means of improving antimicrobial use.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the prevalence of AAL in patients referred for antimicrobial stewardship review and assess their impact on antibiotic prescribing, patient mortality, hospital length of stay, readmission, and rates of multidrug-resistant infections.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of adult patients referred for inpatient antimicrobial prospective audit and feedback rounds (PAFR) via an electronic referral system (eReferrals) over a 12-month period in 2015. Outcome data was collected for a period of 36 months following the initial review.

RESULTS

Of the 639 patient records reviewed, 630 met inclusion criteria; 103 (16%) had an AAL, of which 82 (13%) had reported allergies to β-lactam antibiotics. Those with AAL were significantly less likely to be receiving guideline-recommended antimicrobial therapy (50% versus 64%, p=0.0311), however there were no significant difference in mortality, hospital length of stay, readmission or increased incidence of multidrug-resistant infections.

CONCLUSIONS

Our cohort demonstrated that AAL was associated with reduced adherence to antibiotic guidelines. The lack of association with adverse outcomes may reflect limitations within the study including retrospective cohort study numbers and observational nature, further skewed by high rates of poor documentation. A clear opportunity exists for antimicrobial stewardship programs to incorporate allergy assessment, delabelling, challenge and referral into these rounds. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Implementation of a pharmacist-led penicillin allergy de-labelling service in a public hospital

BACKGROUND

Inaccurate allergy labelling results in inappropriate antimicrobial management of the patient, which may affect clinical outcome, increase the risk of adverse events and increase costs. Inappropriate use of alternative antibiotics has implications for antimicrobial stewardship programmes and microbial resistance.

METHODS

All adult inpatients labelled as penicillin allergic were identified and screened for eligibility by the study pharmacist. An accurate allergy and medication history was taken. Patients were 'de-labelled', underwent oral challenge or were referred to an immunology clinic, if study criteria were met. All patients included in the study were followed-up 1 year after intervention.

RESULTS

Two hundred and fifty eligible patients with a label of 'penicillin allergy' were identified. The prevalence of reported penicillin allergy at Middlemore Hospital was 11%. We found that 80% of study patients could be 'de-labelled'. Of those, 80% were 'de-labelled' after an interview with the pharmacist alone, 16% had an uneventful oral challenge and 4% were deemed to be inappropriately labelled after referral to an immunology clinic. Appropriately labelled patients accounted for 20% of the study population. Changes to inpatient antibiotic therapy were recommended in 61% of 'de-labelled' patients, of which no patients had adverse events after commencing on penicillin antibiotics. At the 1 year follow-up, 98% of patients who were 'de-labelled' had no adverse events to repeated administration of penicillin antibiotics.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that a pharmacist-led allergy management service is a safe option to promote antimicrobial stewardship and appropriate allergy labelling.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

The democratization of de-labeling: a review of direct oral challenge in adults with low-risk penicillin allergy

INTRODUCTION

Penicillin antibiotic allergy labels (AALs) are common and lead to significant negative health and health system outcomes. Direct oral challenge offers a rapid and cost-effective way of removing inaccurate AALs and improving outcomes.

AREAS COVERED

A narrative review (Medline, May 2020) of direct oral challenge in low-risk penicillin allergy in adults is described, and the evidence for the safety and efficacy of this approach in inpatients, outpatients, and special patient groups is presented.

EXPERT OPINION

Whilst the current literature demonstrates the safety and efficacy of direct oral challenge in de-labeling low-risk penicillin allergy in adults, novel approaches are needed to improve access to antibiotic allergy assessment and address the growing global need.

Development and Validation of a Penicillin Allergy Clinical Decision Rule

IMPORTANCE

Penicillin allergy is a significant public health issue for patients, antimicrobial stewardship programs, and health services. Validated clinical decision rules are urgently needed to identify low-risk penicillin allergies that potentially do not require penicillin skin testing by a specialist.

OBJECTIVE

To develop and validate a penicillin allergy clinical decision rule that enables point-of-care risk assessment of patient-reported penicillin allergies.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this diagnostic study, a multicenter prospective antibiotic allergy-tested cohort of 622 patients from 2 tertiary care sites in Melbourne, Australia (Austin Health and Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre) was used for derivation and internal validation of a penicillin allergy decision rule. Backward stepwise logistic regression was used to derive the model, including clinical variables predictive of a positive penicillin allergy test result. Internal validation of the final model used bootstrapped samples and the model scoring derived from the coefficients. External validation was performed in retrospective penicillin allergy-tested cohorts consisting of 945 patients from Sydney and Perth, Australia, and Nashville, Tennessee. Patients who reported a penicillin allergy underwent penicillin allergy testing using skin prick, intradermal, or patch testing and/or oral challenge (direct or after skin testing). Data were collected from June 26, 2008, to June 3, 2019, and analyzed from January 9 to 12, 2019.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome for the model was any positive result of penicillin allergy testing performed during outpatient or inpatient assessment.

RESULTS

From an internal derivation and validation cohort of 622 patients (367 female [59.0%]; median age, 60 [interquartile range{IQR}, 48-71] years) and an external validation cohort of 945 patients (662 female [70.1%]; median age, 55 [IQR, 38-68] years), the 4 features associated with a positive penicillin allergy test result on multivariable analysis were summarized in the mnemonic PEN-FAST: penicillin allergy, five or fewer years ago, anaphylaxis/angioedema, severe cutaneous adverse reaction (SCAR), and treatment required for allergy episode. The major criteria included an allergy event occurring 5 or fewer years ago (2 points) and anaphylaxis/angioedema or SCAR (2 points); the minor criterion (1 point), treatment required for an allergy episode. Internal validation showed minimal mean optimism of 0.003 with internally validated area under the curve of 0.805. A cutoff of less than 3 points for PEN-FAST was chosen to classify a low risk of penicillin allergy, for which only 17 of 460 patients (3.7%) had positive results of allergy testing, with a negative predictive value of 96.3% (95% CI, 94.1%-97.8%). External validation resulted in similar findings.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, PEN-FAST was found to be a simple rule that accurately identified low-risk penicillin allergies that do not require formal allergy testing. The results suggest that a PEN-FAST score of less than 3, associated with a high negative predictive value, could be used by clinicians and antimicrobial stewardship programs to identify low-risk penicillin allergies at the point of care.