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

Is Penicillin Allergy a Clinical Problem? A Systematic Review of Total Joint Arthroplasty Procedures With Implications for Patient Safety and Antibiotic Stewardship

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty (TJA) who report penicillin allergy (PA) are frequently administered second-line antibiotics, although recent evidence suggests that this may be unnecessary and could increase infection risk. Many institutions have aimed to improve antibiotic deployment via allergy testing and screening; however, there is little standardization to this process. This review aimed to evaluate (1) antibiotic selection in patients who report PA and assess the impact of screening and testing interventions, (2) rates of allergic reactions in patients who report PA, and (3) the association between reported PA and screening or testing programs and odds of surgical site infection or periprosthetic joint infection.

METHODS

PubMed, EBSCOhost, and Google Scholar electronic databases were searched on February 4, 2023 to identify all studies published since January 1, 2000 that evaluated the impact of PA on patients undergoing TJA (PROSPERO study protocol registration: CRD42023394031). Articles were included if full-text manuscripts in English were available, and the study analyzed the impact of PA and related interventions on TJA patients. There were 11 studies evaluating 1,276,663 patients included. Interventions were compared via presentation of key findings regarding rates of clinically relevant or high-risk PA reported upon screenings or testings, cephalosporin utilizations, allergic reactions, and postoperative infections (surgical site infection and periprosthetic joint infection).

RESULTS

All 6 studies found that PA screening and testing markedly increase the use of first-line antibiotics. Testing showed low rates of true allergy (0.7 to 3%) and allergic reaction frequency for patients who have reported PA receiving cephalosporins was between 0% and 2%. Although there were mixed findings across studies, there was a trend toward second-line antibiotic prophylaxis being associated with a slightly higher rate of infection in PA patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Using PA screening and testing can promote antibiotic stewardship by safely increasing the use of first-line antibiotics in patients who have a reported PA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, Therapeutic Study.

Beta-Lactam Allergy De-labeling in a Pediatric Hospital

OBJECTIVE

To assess the ability to de-label pediatric patients of their beta-lactam allergy by using a newly implemented institutional protocol and to identify potential barriers to the de-labeling process.

METHODS

All patients with reported allergies to prespecified beta-lactam antibiotics were eligible for a -beta-lactam allergy interview. Following the interview, patients were grouped into 4 risk categories-no risk, low risk, moderate risk, and high risk-and assessed for intervention eligibility. Potential interventions included de-labeling based on the interview alone or proceeding to an oral amoxicillin challenge with or without penicillin allergy skin testing.

RESULTS

Of the 62 patients eligible for beta-lactam allergy interviews, 40% (n = 25) were de-labeled. Among de-labeled patients, 60% (n = 15) were de-labeled on the basis of the interview alone. Additionally, no failures were documented in patients who underwent an oral amoxicillin challenge or penicillin skin testing. Barriers to performing oral amoxicillin challenges or penicillin skin testing included concomitant systemic steroid or antihistamine use, refusal of intervention, and insufficient resources to perform penicillin skin testing.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a high frequency of patients de-labeled of their beta-lactam allergies in this study. Increased education to patients, parents, and providers on the de-labeling process, as well as increased personnel available to coordinate and perform de-labeling interventions, may result in more beta-lactam allergy de-labeling.

Effectiveness, barriers and facilitating factors of strategies for active delabelling of patients with penicillin allergy labels: a systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Up to 15% of adult patients in the clinical setting report to be allergic to penicillin. However, in most cases, penicillin allergy is not confirmed. Due to the negative aspects associated with erroneous penicillin allergy, the implementation of active delabelling processes for penicillin allergy is an important part of antibiotic stewardship programmes. Depending on the clinical setting, different factors need to be considered during implementation. This review examines the effectiveness of different delabelling interventions and summarises components and structures that facilitate, support or constrain structured penicillin allergy delabelling.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This review will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. The databases MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched for studies reporting on any intervention to identify, assess or rule out uncertain penicillin allergy. To improve completeness, two further databases are also searched for grey literature. Study design, intervention type, professional groups involved, effectiveness, limitations, barriers, facilitating factors, clinical setting and associated regulatory factors will be extracted and analysed. In addition, exclusion criteria for participation in the delabelling intervention and criteria for not delabelling penicillin allergy will be summarised. In case of failed protocols, these are highlighted and quantitatively analysed if possible. Two independent reviewers will perform the screening process and data extraction. Discordant decisions will be resolved through review by a third reviewer. Bias assessment of the individual studies will be performed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Because individual patient-related data are not analysed, an ethical approval is not required. The review will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Impact of penicillin allergy labels on surgical site infections in a large UK cohort of gastrointestinal surgery patients

Objectives

Studies in the USA, Canada and France have reported higher surgical site infection (SSI) risk in patients with a penicillin allergy label (PAL). Here, we investigate the association between PALs and SSI in the UK, a country with distinct epidemiology of infecting pathogens and range of antimicrobial regimens in routine use.

Methods

Electronic health records and national SSI surveillance data were collated for a retrospective cohort of gastrointestinal surgery patients at Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust from 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2021. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression were used to examine the effects of PALs and the use of non-β-lactam-based prophylaxis on likelihood of SSI, 30 day post-operative mortality, 7 day post-operative acute kidney injury and 60 day post-operative infection/colonization with antimicrobial-resistant bacteria or Clostridioides difficile.

Results

Our data comprised 3644 patients and 4085 operations; 461 were undertaken in the presence of PALs (11.3%). SSI was detected after 435/4085 (10.7%) operations. Neither the presence of PALs, nor the use of non-β-lactam-based prophylaxis were found to be associated with SSI: adjusted OR (aOR) 0.90 (95% CI 0.65-1.25) and 1.20 (0.88-1.62), respectively. PALs were independently associated with increased odds of newly identified MRSA infection/colonization in the 60 days after surgery: aOR 2.71 (95% CI 1.13-6.49). Negative association was observed for newly identified infection/colonization with third-generation cephalosporin-resistant Gram-negative bacteria: aOR 0.38 (95% CI 0.16-0.89).

Conclusions

No evidence was found for an association between PALs and the likelihood of SSI in this large UK cohort, suggesting significant international variation in the impact of PALs on surgical patients.

The role of clinical pharmacists in patients with suspected allergy to β-lactams: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the role played by the clinical pharmacist and its impact in antibiotic stewardship facing suspected allergy to beta-lactam antibiotics.

METHOD

We performed two different independent bibliographic searches. A total of 35 articles were found, and the final number included in the study was 12. We analysed the articles and collected variables of efficacy, safety and applicability of evaluation tools applied to patients with suspected allergy to beta-lactams. Also, the variation in the consumption and prescription profile of alternative antibiotics was analyzed.

RESULTS

The selected studies analysed questionnaires, allergy delabeling, intradermal tests and oral challenge tests performed by pharmacists. Significant differences in the efficacy endpoint were found in 4 studies in favour of pharmaceutical intervention. In the study of Kwiatkowski et al, cefazolin use increased in surgical patients after pharmacist intervention (65 vs. 28%; p < 0.01). In a quasi-experimental study, the mean defined daily dose of aztreonam and the mean days of therapy per 1000 patients/day decreased (21.23 vs 9.05, p <0.01) and (8.79-4.24, p = 0.016), pre and post-intervention, respectively, increasing antibiotic de-escalations (p ≤ 0.01). In another quasi-experimental study, the prescription of restricted-use antibiotics decreased (42.5% vs. 17.9%, p < 0.01) and the use of pre-surgical prophylactic antibiotics alternative to cefazolin (81.9% vs 55.9%, p<0.01) in another study. Other study showed that the mean time per interview was 5.2 minutes per patient. No adverse events were reported in any study.

CONCLUSION

The pharmacist intervention in the evaluation of the patient with suspected allergy to beta-lactams is effective, safe and feasible to implement on daily clinical practice. The standardization of protocols to clarify the history of allergies and development of evaluation tools represent simple screenings to perform delabelling or refer to the Immunoallergology service, improving penicilins use and reducing the need for second line antibiotics. More studies are needed to standardize the desensitization tests made by pharmacists. However, despite these results, the involvement and leadership of the pharmacist in this area is limited and constitutes a future challenge for the profession.

[Translated article] The role of clinical pharmacists in patients with suspected allergy to β-lactams: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the role played by the clinical pharmacist and its impact in antibiotic stewardship facing suspected allergy to beta-lactam antibiotics.

METHOD

We performed 2 different independent bibliographic searches. A total of 35 articles were found, and the final number included in the study was 12. We analyzed the articles and collected variables of efficacy, safety, and applicability of evaluation tools applied to patients with suspected allergy to beta-lactams. Also, the variation in the consumption and prescription profile of alternative antibiotics was analyzed.

RESULTS

The selected studies analyzed questionnaires, allergy delabeling, intradermal tests, and oral challenge tests performed by pharmacists. Significant differences in the efficacy endpoint were found in 4 studies in favor of pharmaceutical intervention. In the study of Kwiatkowski et al., cefazolin use increased in surgical patients after pharmacist intervention (65% vs 28%; P < .01). In a quasi-experimental study, the mean defined daily dose of aztreonam and the mean days of therapy per 1000 patients/day decreased (21.23 vs 9.05, P <.01) and (8.79-4.24, P = .016), pre- and post-intervention, respectively, increasing antibiotic de-escalations (P = < .01). In another quasi-experimental study, the prescription of restricted use antibiotics decreased (42.5% vs 17.9%, P < .01)and the use of pre-surgical prophylactic antibiotics alternative to cefazolin (81.9% vs 55.9%, P < .01)in another study. Other study showed that the mean time per interview was 5.2 min per patient. No adverse events were reported in any study.

CONCLUSION

The pharmacist intervention in the evaluation of the patient with suspected allergy to beta-lactams is effective, safe, and feasible to implement on daily clinical practice. The standardization of protocols to clarify the history of allergies and development of evaluation tools represent simple screenings to perform delabeling or refer to the Immunoallergology service, improving penicilins use and reducing the need for second-line antibiotics. More studies are needed to standardize the desensitization tests made by pharmacists. However, despite these results, the involvement and leadership of the pharmacist in this area is limited and constitutes a future challenge for the profession.

The epidemiology of cephalosporin allergy labels in pediatric primary care

Background

Recent studies have sought to understand the epidemiology and impact of beta-lactam allergy labels on children; however, most of these studies have focused on penicillin allergy labels. Fewer studies assess cephalosporin antibiotic allergy labels in children. The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence, factors associated with, and impact of cephalosporin allergy labels in children cared for in the primary care setting.

Methods

Cephalosporin allergy labels were reviewed among children in a dual center, retrospective, birth cohort who were born between 2010 and 2020 and followed in 90 pediatric primary care practices. Antibiotic prescriptions for acute otitis media were compared in children with and without cephalosporin allergies.

Results

334,465 children comprised the birth cohort and 2,877 (0.9%) were labeled as cephalosporin allergic during the study period at a median age of 1.6 years. Third-generation cephalosporins were the most common class of cephalosporin allergy (83.0%). Cephalosporin allergy labels were more common in children with penicillin allergy labels than those without (5.8% vs. 0.6%). Other factors associated with a cephalosporin allergy label included white race, private insurance, presence of a chronic condition, and increased health care utilization. Children with third-generation cephalosporin allergy labels received more amoxicillin/clavulanate (28.8% vs. 10.2%) and macrolides (10.4% vs. 1.9%) and less amoxicillin (55.8% vs. 70.9%) for treatment of acute otitis media than non-allergic peers p < 0.001.

Conclusions

One in 100 children is labeled as cephalosporin allergic, and these children receive different antibiotics for the treatment of acute otitis media compared to non-allergic peers.

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.