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

Labelling patients as allergic to beta-lactam antibiotics is associated with periprosthetic joint infection up to five years following knee arthroplasty

Aims

Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) represent a significant complication of total knee arthroplasty (TKAs). However, the influence of drug or beta-lactam (BL) antibiotic allergy labelling of patients on PJI remains largely unknown. In this study, we examine the association between patients labelled with a BL allergy and the occurrence of PJI among patients undergoing TKA. We also assess the prevalence of incorrect patient labelling and explore the feasibility of a multidisciplinary drug allergy testing initiative to detect mislabelling.

Methods

Longitudinal data from all patients who underwent TKA between January 1993 and December 2021 were analyzed. We investigated the association between different risk factors and PJI, with particular focus on patients labelled as having an antibiotic drug allergy. The outcomes of patients with and without a labelled BL allergy were compared. Additionally, patients labelled as having a BL allergy and who had undergone or were scheduled for TKA were prospectively investigated by formal allergy assessment.

Results

Out of 4,730 TKAs, the overall incidence of PJI was 1.0% (47/4,730). Patients labelled as having a BL allergy had a higher incidence of PJI within the first five years post-TKA compared to those without (3.0% (5/165) vs 0.7% (34/4,565); p = 0.001). The presence of a BL allergy label was identified as an independent risk factor for PJI (hazard ratio 4.86 (95% CI 2.05 to 11.53); p < 0.001). Following negative drug provocation testing, the majority of patients (95% (21/22)) evaluated with BL allergy labels were successfully delabelled.

Conclusion

In this longitudinal study, patients labelled as having a BL allergy were associated with having increased risk of PJI following TKA, particularly within the first five years. Given the high rate of patients being mislabelled, we recommend that patients labelled as having a BL allergy should be prioritized for formal allergy assessment and evaluation. Further studies on the impact of preoperative antibiotic allergy delabelling initiatives should be encouraged.

Drug allergy

Drug allergy encompasses a spectrum of immunologically-mediated hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) with varying mechanisms and clinical presentations. This type of adverse drug reaction (ADR) not only affects patient quality of life, but may also lead to delayed treatment, unnecessary investigations, and increased morbidity and mortality. Given the spectrum of symptoms associated with the condition, diagnosis can be challenging. Therefore, referral to an allergist experienced in the diagnosis and management of drug allergy is recommended if a drug-induced allergic reaction is suspected. Diagnosis relies on a careful history and physical examination and, in some instances, skin testing or in vitro testing and drug challenges. The most effective strategy for the management of allergist-confirmed drug allergy is avoidance or discontinuation of the offending drug. When available, alternative medications with unrelated chemical structures should be substituted. Cross-reactivity among drugs should also be taken into consideration when choosing alternative agents. Additional therapy for drug HSRs may include topical corticosteroids, oral antihistamines and, in severe cases, systemic corticosteroids and other immunomodulators. In the event of anaphylaxis, the treatment of choice is intramuscular epinephrine. If a patient with a history of anaphylaxis requires a specific drug and there is no acceptable alternative, desensitization to that drug may be considered. This article provides a background on drug allergy and strategies for the diagnosis and management of some of the most common drug-induced allergic reactions.

NSAID Allergy Labels Associated With Mortality and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Stroke

BACKGROUND

Mislabeled drug allergy can restrict future prescriptions and medication use, but its prevalence and impact among patients with stroke remain unknown. This study investigated the prevalence of the most commonly labeled drug allergies, their accuracy, and their impact among patients with stroke.

METHODS

In this combined longitudinal and cross-sectional study, we compared the prevalence of allergy labels among the general population and patients with ischemic stroke between 2008 and 2014 from electronic health care records in Hong Kong. Outcomes between patients with stroke with or without the most prevalent labels (ie, NSAID) were compared. Rate of mislabeled NSAID allergy was confirmed by provocation testing.

RESULTS

Compared with the general population (n=702 966), patients with stroke had more labels (n=235) to cardiovascular and hematopoietic system (prevalence, 19.5% versus 9.2%; odds ratio [OR], 2.4 [95% CI, 1.74-3.32]; P<0.001) and radiographic and diagnostic agents (prevalence, 4.2% versus 0.9%; OR, 4.82 [95% CI, 2.56-9.08]; P<0.001). The most common labels were to NSAID (prevalence, 1.8%). Patients with NSAID allergy labels were significantly less likely to be prescribed aspirin after acute stroke (OR, 0.24 [95% CI, 0.09-0.60]; P=0.003) and on follow-up (OR, 0.22 [95% CI, 0.08-0.56]; P=0.002). The median duration of follow-up was 6.7 years (6499±2.49 patient-years). Patients with stroke with NSAID allergy labels also experienced significantly higher mortality (OR, 7.44 [95% CI, 2.44-23.18]; P<0.001), peripheral vascular disease (OR, 9.35 [95% CI, 1.95-44.86]; P=0.005), and major adverse cardiovascular events (OR, 6.09 [95% CI, 2.00-18.58]; P=0.001) in the poststroke period. Patients with NSAID allergy labels (who remained alive and could consent) were referred for allergist assessment and offered drug provocation testing. The majority (80%; 4/5) had negative provocation tests and were delabeled.

CONCLUSIONS

NSAID allergy labels were significantly more prevalent among patients with stroke, associated with excessive mortality, peripheral vascular disease, and major adverse cardiovascular events. Given the high rate of mislabeled allergies, multidisciplinary neuro-allergy interventions could have the potential to improve patient outcomes.

Comparative Performance of 4 Penicillin-Allergy Prediction Strategies in a Large Cohort

BACKGROUND

A safe and pragmatic guide for labelling and delabelling patients with suspected penicillin allergy is mandatory.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the performance of 4 penicillin-allergy prediction strategies in a large independent cohort.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study for subjects presenting between January 2014 and December 2021 at the University Hospital of Montpellier, with a history of hypersensitivity to penicillins. The outcome targeted by the study was a positive penicillin-allergy test.

RESULTS

Of the 1,884 participants included, 382 (20.3%) had positive penicillin-allergy tests. The ENDA (European Network on Drug Allergy) and Blumenthal strategies yielded relatively high sensitivities and low specificities and, by design, did not misclassify any positive subjects with severe index reactions. The PEN-FAST <3 score had a negative predictive value of 90% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 88%-91%), with a sensitivity of 66% (95% CI 62%-71%) and a specificity of 73% (95% CI 71%-75%), and incorrectly delabelled 18 subjects with anaphylaxis and 15 with other severe nonimmediate reactions. For the adapted Chiriac score, the specificity corresponding to 66% sensitivity was 73% (95% CI 70%-75%). Conversely, at a 73% specificity threshold, the sensitivity was 65% (95% CI, 61%-70%). Attempts to improve these prediction algorithms did not substantially enhance performance.

CONCLUSIONS

The ENDA and Blumenthal strategies are safe for high-risk subjects, but their delabelling effectiveness is limited, leading to unnecessary avoidance. Conversely, the PEN-FAST and Chiriac scores are performant in delabelling, but more frequently misclassify high-risk subjects with positive penicillin-allergy tests. Selection of the most appropriate tool requires careful consideration of the target population and the desired goal.

Serum metabolomics analysis reveals potential biomarkers of penicillins-induced fatal anaphylactic shock in rats

Immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated immediate hypersensitivity reactions are the most concerning adverse events after penicillin antibiotics (PENs) administration because of their rapid progression and potential for fatal outcome. However, the diagnosis of allergic death is a forensic challenge because it mainly depends on nonspecific characteristic morphological changes, as well as exclusion and circumstantial evidence. In this study, an untargeted metabolomics approach based on liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) was used to screen potential forensic biomarkers of fatal anaphylactic shock induced by four PENs (benzylpenicillin (BP), amoxicillin (AMX), oxacillin (OXA), and mezlocillin (MEZ)), and analyzed the metabolites, metabolic pathway and the mechanism which were closely related to the allergic reactions. The metabolomics results discovered that a total of 24 different metabolites in all four anaphylactic death (AD) groups, seven of which were common metabolites. A biomarker model consisting of six common metabolites (linoleic acid, prostaglandin D2, lysophosphatidylcholine (18:0), N-acetylhistamine, citric acid and indolelactic acid) AUC value of Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve was 0.978. Metabolism pathway analysis revealed that the pathogenesis of PENs-induced AD is closely related to linoleic acid metabolism. Our results revealed that the metabolomic profiling has potential in PENs-induced AD post-mortem diagnosis and metabolic mechanism investigations.

Evaluation of current practice for penicillin allergy labeling using the PEN-FAST tool

Inaccurate penicillin allergy labeling may deter healthcare providers from initiating appropriate therapy and contribute to antibiotic resistance. In a rural urgent care setting, the current practice of penicillin allergy labeling was evaluated using the PEN-FAST tool. The results confirm opportunity to further evaluate and improve current practice for allergy assessment.

Penicillin Allergy in China: Consequences of Inappropriate Skin Testing Practices and Policies

Penicillins are the most frequently prescribed class of medications worldwide and first-line antibiotic of choice for most bacterial infections. They are also commonly labelled as the culprit of drug 'allergy'; leading to obligatory use of second-line antibiotics, suboptimal antibiotic therapy and increased antimicrobial resistance. However, the majority of reported penicillin 'allergy' labels are found to be incorrect after allergy testing, emphasising the importance of proper drug allergy testing and evaluation. Penicillin skin testing (PST) remains an important component of drug allergy diagnosis; however, its practice and policies significantly differ across the world. Inappropriate and non-evidence-based PST practices can lead to consequences associated with allergy mislabelling. Even within different regions of China, with a population exceeding 1.4 billion, there are marked differences in the implementation, execution and interpretation of PST. This review aims to examine the differences in PST between Mainland China, Hong Kong and the rest of the world. We critically analyse the current practice of 'pre-emptive' PST in Mainland China, which has a significant false-positive rate leading to high levels of penicillin allergy mislabelling. Non-evidence-based practices further compound the high false-positive rates of indiscriminatory PST. We postulate that inappropriate PST policies and practices may exacerbate the mislabelling of penicillin allergy, leading to unnecessary overuse of inappropriate second-line antibiotics, increasing antimicrobial resistance and healthcare costs. We advocate for the importance of more collaborative research to improve the contemporary workflow of penicillin allergy diagnosis, reduce mislabelling and promote the dissemination of evidence-based methods for allergy diagnosis.

[Penicillin allergy-Truth or duty?]

The beta-lactam antibiotics are some of the safest and best-tolerated antibiotic agents; however, many patients have reported allergies against penicillin. All beta-lactam antibiotics are only restrictively prescribed for these patients and alternative antibiotics are increasingly given, which carries the risk of negative clinical results and socioeconomic sequelae; however, over 95% of patients who reported an allergy to penicillin show a negative result in the allergy tests for penicillin and this antibiotic can safely be prescribed. The use of sensitive and specific instruments for identification of false penicillin allergies should be an important topic within the framework of antibiotic stewardship. Anesthesists can play a central role in the reduction of the enormous individual and public health burden associated with the classification of penicillin allergy by taking an appropriate medical history and a risk stratification for the identification of patients with a penicillin allergy. This overview article presents a possible delabelling algorithm within the framework of the clarification of a beta-lactam antibiotic allergy. The focus is on a structured allergy anamnesis using the penicillin allergy, five or fewer years ago, anaphylaxis/angioedema, severe cutaneous adverse reaction (SCAR) and treatment required for allergy episode (PEN-FAST) score.

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.

Challenging dogmas: Intravenous versus oral beta-lactam antibiotic provocation tests

Background

Drug provocation tests (DPT) are considered the gold standard procedure to ascertain the diagnosis of beta-lactam (BL) allergy. Regarding route of administration, current recommendations prioritize oral challenges, considering them safer, and reserving the intravenous route for drugs for which this is the only formulation.

Objective

To compare in terms of tolerance and safety two protocols of BL DPT, using an oral protocol (OR-DPT) and an intravenous protocol (IV-DPT).

Methods

A descriptive, retrospective study was performed, including adult patients who underwent IV-DPT or OR-DPT for suspected immediate or delayed hypersensitivity to BL antibiotics, over a period of 4 years (between January 2018 and December 2021). Demographical data, index hypersensivity reactions' characteristics and tolerance to DPT were reviewed.

Results

A total of 1036 patients underwent DPT, mean age of 56.8 (standard deviation, SD, 17.8) years, 655 were women (63.2%). Immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHR) had occurred in 564 of patients (54.4%). OR-DPT were performed in 439 (42.4%) and IV-DPT in 597 (57.6%). The frequency of reactions during DPT, regardless of the route used, was low (3.6%): only 16 (3.6%) in OR-DPT and 21 (3.5%) in IV-DPT. From IV-DPT, 16 out 21 DHR during DPT were immediate compared with 4 out of 16 in OR-DPT. Adjusted relative risk of developing a hypersensitivity reaction during IV-DPT versus OR-DPT was 1.13 (95% confidence interval (CI)0.57-2.22).

Conclusion

The results suggest that OR-DPT and IV-DPT are both safe procedures when adequately performed. However, IV-DPT protocols showed a higher rate of immediate DHR during DPT probably due to the selection of basal high-risk patients to undergo IV-DPT. In conclusion, IV-DPT may be considered as an option for challenges in drug-allergy studies, entailing a precise administration.

Management and Implications of Beta-Lactam Allergies

Beta-lactam antibiotics are essential components in the current antimicrobial treatment strategy, playing a crucial role in ambulatory patients and hospitalized patients. Despite their prominent therapeutic index, the use of beta-lactam can lead to adverse effects, with allergic reactions being the most concerning because of their severity. Additionally, the phenomenon of cross-reactivity may occur among various beta-lactam families, with side chains significantly contributing to immunological recognition, making these structures often responsible for the cross-allergic reactivity of beta-lactams. Tools to assess beta-lactam allergy include taking a patient's medical history, performing skin tests, and conducting provocation tests. This research aims to analyze the relevant aspects related to the safe administration of beta-lactam antibiotics in hospitalized patients as well as provide knowledge on the proper management of patients with such hypersensitivity, by doing systemic research. This research was made using Google Scholar and keywords such as "Beta-lactam allergy," "Hypersensitivity," "Cross-reactivity," "Desensitization," and "Beta-lactam allergy management." In conclusion, substituting a beta-lactam antibiotic with an alternative antibiotic may not always be the best management option for these patients, as it may lead to more adverse effects, be less effective, and prolong hospitalization time. It may also result in higher rates of antibiotic-resistant infections and increased medical costs, as these alternatives are often more expensive. However, an alternative within the beta-lactam family can be sought by conducting the appropriate analyses. Although cross-reactivity does not always occur among all beta-lactams, potential cross-reactivity should always be considered.

Examining Antimicrobial Stewardship Program Implementation in Carceral Settings

Antimicrobial resistance is a global threat that inequitably affects minoritized populations, including Black, Latinx, and Indigenous people-especially in carceral settings-and is largely driven by inappropriate antimicrobial prescribing practices. People whose identities are minoritized are more likely to be incarcerated, and people who are incarcerated experience higher disease risk than people who are not incarcerated. This article draws on a case of dental infection suffered by a woman who is incarcerated to consider key ethical and clinical complexities of antimicrobial prescribing in carceral settings.

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.