Barriers to penicillin allergy de-labeling in the inpatient and outpatient settings: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Penicillin allergy is the most commonly reported drug allergy in the US. Despite evidence demonstrating that up to 90% of labels are incorrect, scalable interventions are not well established. As part of a larger mixed methods investigation, we conducted a qualitative study to describe the barriers to implementing a risk-based penicillin de-labeling protocol within a single site Veteran's hospital.

METHODS

We conducted individual and group interviews with multidisciplinary inpatient and outpatient healthcare teams. The interview guides were developed using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to explore workflows and contextual factors influencing identification and evaluation of patients with penicillin allergy. Three researchers iteratively developed the codebook based on TDF domains and coded the data using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

We interviewed 20 clinicians. Participants included three hospitalists, five inpatient pharmacists, one infectious disease physician, two anti-microbial stewardship pharmacists, four primary care providers, two outpatient pharmacists, two resident physicians, and a nurse case manager for the allergy service. The factors that contributed to barriers to penicillin allergy evaluation and de-labeling were classified under six TDF domains; knowledge, skills, beliefs about capabilities, beliefs about consequences, professional role and identity, and environmental context and resources. Participants from all groups acknowledged the importance of penicillin de-labeling. However, they lacked confidence in their skills to perform the necessary evaluations, such as test dose challenges. The fear of inducing an allergic reaction and adding further complexity to patient care exacerbated their reluctance to de-label patients. The lack of ownership of de-labeling initiative was another significant obstacle in establishing consistent clinical workflows. Additionally, heavy workloads, competing priorities, and ease of access to alternative antibiotics prevented the prioritization of tasks related to de-labeling. Space limitations and nursing staff shortages added to challenges in outpatient settings.

CONCLUSION

Our findings demonstrated that barriers to penicillin allergy de-labeling fall under multiple behavioral domains. Better role clarification, opportunities to develop necessary skills, and dedicated resources are needed to overcome these barriers. Future interventions will need to employ a systemic approach that addresses each of the behavioral domains influencing penicillin allergy de-labeling with stakeholder engagement of the inpatient and outpatient health care teams.

A multidisciplinary approach to verify and de-label of drug allergic histories in a university hospital in Thailand: a retrospective descriptive study

BACKGROUND

Mislabeling of drug allergic histories causes avoidable negative impacts on patients and healthcare system. Although multidisciplinary adverse drug reaction (ADR) services to verify and de-label drug allergic histories have been operated in particular hospitals in Thailand, their performances have not been reported. This research aimed to examine the effectiveness of verification of drug allergic history and de-labeling (VD) services of the physician-led multidisciplinary ADR clinic.

METHODS

This research was a retrospective descriptive study. Medical charts of patients with at least one drug allergic history who received VD services at the multidisciplinary clinic between January 2017 to December 2018, were reviewed. Data on the history of drug allergy, VD services, and results were analyzed and presented using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Seventy patients' charts were reviewed, and 171 unconfirmed drug allergic histories were identified. 79.53% of the reported reactions involved skin and soft tissues. The most found adverse skin reactions were maculopapular rash, pruritic and erythematous rash, and angioedema. The remaining 20.47% were systemic reactions which included drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS), anaphylaxis, and nausea/vomiting was the most prevalent. Antituberculosis, beta-lactam antibiotics, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were the most reported suspected drugs. Drug allergic history reviewing by physicians or pharmacists could confirm and de-label for 3 and 20 reactions, respectively. Seven and one reactions were confirmed by enzyme-linked immunospot assay and patch test, respectively. The provocation tests with the suspected or alternative drug were conducted in 64 reactions. Twelve reactions were confirmed, and 45 reactions were de-labeled. Totally, 65/171 (38.01%) allergic histories were successfully de-labeled, 23/171 (13.45%) were confirmed, and 83/171 (48.53%) were inconclusive.

CONCLUSIONS

More than half of drug allergic histories were successfully confirmed or de-labeled by the multidisciplinary ADR team. The collaborative activities of various healthcare professionals, consisting of physicians, nurse, and pharmacists as presented in the study were effective in VD services and should be implemented in other healthcare settings.

Safety, Outcomes, and Recommendations for Two-Step Outpatient Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug Challenges

BACKGROUND

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) outpatient challenge protocols are not standardized. They vary in clinical practice and can be time- and resource-intensive to perform.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the safety and outcomes of two-step outpatient NSAID challenges to evaluate patients with non-aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease (AERD)-related NSAID hypersensitivity.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of patients with a history of NSAID allergy who underwent outpatient NSAID challenges under allergist supervision. Individuals with AERD were excluded. Patient demographics, NSAID reaction history, and drug challenge details and outcomes were collected.

RESULTS

A total of 249 patients (mean age, 51.6 years; 63.5% female) underwent 262 NSAID challenges. Of these, 224 challenges were negative (85.5%). Thirty challenges resulted in an immediate reaction during the challenge procedure (11.5%) and eight resulted in delayed reactions (3.1%). Three individuals with immediate reactions required treatment with intramuscular epinephrine. Factors associated with a positive NSAID challenge included a prior reaction occurring within 5 years of drug challenge (odds ratio [OR] = 3.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.67-8.44), a prior immediate reaction within 3 hours of NSAID ingestion (OR = 2.45; 95% CI, 1.12-5.57), a history of cross-reactive NSAID hypersensitivity to multiple NSAIDs (OR = 2.97; 95% CI, 1.23-6.91), and the presence of comorbid chronic spontaneous urticaria (OR = 2.95; 95% CI, 1.35-6.41).

CONCLUSIONS

More than 85% of two-step non-AERD NSAID drug challenges were negative for an immediate or delayed reaction, which allowed patients to use at least one clinically indicated NSAID. Challenge reactions were generally mild. Two-step NSAID challenge protocols can be safely performed in the outpatient setting.

Safe De-Labeling of Patients at Low Risk of Penicillin Allergy in Denmark

INTRODUCTION

Penicillin allergy is suspected in 10% of hospital inpatients but can be disproved in 90% of cases. Direct oral provocation without preceding tests among low-risk patients has proven to be safe in studies of both children and adults and is gaining use across the world. The aims of this study were to investigate the rate of severe allergic reactions to direct oral drug provocation, without preceding tests, in penicillin allergy patients stratified to be at low risk, as well as to examine if these patients have barriers to penicillin allergy de-labeling and future use of penicillins.

METHODS

Adult patients referred to a university hospital allergy clinic with a suspected penicillin allergy were prospectively risk evaluated. Patients stratified to be at low risk were offered a direct oral provocation with a single-dose amoxicillin followed by 4 days of continued treatment. The same risk stratification criteria were applied to a larger retrospective cohort.

RESULTS

In the prospective study population, 202 patients had a direct oral drug provocation and 20 (10%) were positive. There were no cases of anaphylaxis or severe delayed hypersensitivity. Fifteen reactions were benign rashes with onset >1 day after initial dosing, and 13 of these were maculopapular rashes. The same low-risk criteria were applied retrospectively to patients in a drug provocation database, and 1,759 patients fulfilled the criteria; of these, 10% had positive provocations, and there were no cases of anaphylaxis or severe delayed hypersensitivity. De-labeled patients in the prospective study reported not to fear future penicillin intake, after prolonged provocation.

CONCLUSION

The risk stratification criteria for identifying low-risk patients for the oral drug provocation test without prior skin testing were safe in terms of avoiding anaphylaxis or severe delayed hypersensitivity. Benign delayed skin reactions still occurred, and access to allergy advice and follow-up is necessary.

Comparing Direct Challenge to Penicillin Skin Testing for the Outpatient Evaluation of Penicillin Allergy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Direct challenge (DC) may be a safe and effective alternative to penicillin skin testing (PST) in low-risk patients.

OBJECTIVE

To complete a prospective, randomized, controlled trial comparing PST followed by a challenge to amoxicillin versus a 2-step DC to amoxicillin without preceding skin testing in a predefined low-risk patient population.

METHODS

Penicillin allergy histories were reviewed in patients presenting to an outpatient allergy/immunology practice from April 2018 to August 2018. Patients 5 years or older with a cutaneous-only or unknown reaction (>1 year ago for those aged 5-17 years, >10 years ago for those 18 years or older) were randomized 1:1 to PST or 2-step DC. All children younger than 5 years underwent DC, and patients with extracutaneous reaction histories underwent PST. All groups were monitored 30 minutes after administration of amoxicillin.

RESULTS

Penicillin allergy was reported in 363 of 2465 (14.7%) patients, of which 185 consented to further evaluation. Thirteen patients younger than 5 years underwent DC; all were negative. Thirteen patients with angioedema and/or extracutaneous symptoms underwent PST; 2 of 13 patients had positive PST result. A total of 159 patients were randomized to DC (49.7%) or PST (50.3%). PST result was negative in 70 of 80 (87.5%) patients. All 70 patients had a negative amoxicillin challenge. DC was negative in 76 of 79 (96.2%) patients; positive DC reactions were minor. Average time for patients undergoing PST was 72.7 ± 5.3 minutes and for patients undergoing DC was 66.7 ± 4.8 minutes.

CONCLUSIONS

In low-risk patients, DC provided a safe and effective alternative to PST in delabeling penicillin allergy. Compared with PST, DC may also take less time, cost less money, and lead to fewer penicillin allergy evaluations with false-positive results.

Improving the Effectiveness of Penicillin Allergy De-labeling

BACKGROUND

Approximately 10-20% of hospitalized patients are labeled as penicillin allergic, and this is associated with significant health and economic costs.

OBJECTIVES

We looked at the effectiveness of penicillin allergy de-labeling in clinical practice with the aim of deriving risk stratification models to guide testing strategies.

METHODS

Consecutive patients aged 15 years or more, referred to a Western Australian public hospital drug allergy service between 2008 and 2013 for beta-lactam allergy, were included. Follow-up surveys were conducted. Results of skin prick testing and intradermal testing (SPT/IDT) and oral challenge (OC), and follow-up of post testing antibiotic usage were the main outcomes.

RESULTS

SPT/IDT was performed in 401 consecutive patients with immediate (IMM) (≤ 1 hour) (n = 151) and nonimmediate (NIM) (>1 hour) (n = 250) reactions. Of 341 patients, 42 (12.3%) were SPT/IDT+ to ≥ 1 penicillin reagents, including 35/114 (30.4%) in the IMM group and 7/227 (3.1%) in the NIM group (P < .0001). Of 355 SPT/IDT patients, 3 (0.8%), all in the IMM group, had nonserious positive OC reactions to single dose penicillin VK (SPT/IDT negative predictive value [NPV] 99.2%). Selective or unrestricted beta-lactam was recommended in almost 90% overall, including 238/250 (95.2%) in the NIM group and 126/151 (83.4%) in the IMM group (P = .0001). Of 182 patients, 137 (75.3%) were following the allergy label modifications (ALM) at the time of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Penicillin SPT/IDT/OC safely de-labels penicillin-allergic patients and identifies selective beta-lactam allergies; however, incomplete adherence to ALM recommendations impairs effectiveness. Infrequent SPT/IDT+ and absent OC reactions in patients with NIM reactions suggest OC alone to be a safe and cost-effective de-labeling strategy that could improve the coverage of penicillin allergy de-labeling in lower risk populations.