ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF DRUGS--BY PHARMACISTS.

K. Barker

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Rising to the Challenge: An ID Provider–Led Initiative to Address Penicillin Allergy Labels at a Large Veterans Affairs Medical Center

Reuben J Arasaratnam,Jessica M Guastadisegni,Marcus A Kouma,Daniel Maxwell,Linda Yang,Donald F Storey

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofae396

2024-07-11

Open Forum Infectious Diseases

Abstract:Abstract Background Given the negative consequences associated with a penicillin allergy label, broader penicillin allergy delabeling initiatives are highly desirable but hindered by the shortage of allergists in the United States. To address this problem at our facility, the Infectious Diseases section introduced a quality improvement initiative to evaluate and remove allergy labels among inpatient veterans. Methods Between November 15, 2022 and December 15, 2023, we identified inpatients with a penicillin allergy label. We subsequently interviewed eligible candidates to stratify penicillin allergy risk and attempt to remove the allergy label directly via chart review, following inpatient oral amoxicillin challenge or outpatient community care allergy referral. Delabeling outcomes, subsequent penicillin-class prescriptions, and relabeling were tracked after successful allergy label removal. Results We screened 272 veterans of whom 154 were interviewed for this intervention. A total of 53 patients were delabeled—26 directly, 23 following oral amoxicillin challenge, and 4 following outpatient allergy referrals. Of the patients who were delabeled, 25 received subsequent penicillin-class prescriptions. No adverse reactions occurred following inpatient oral amoxicillin challenges. Patients with a low-risk penicillin allergy history were more likely to undergo a challenge if admitted with an infectious diseases-related condition. Only one inappropriate relabeling event occurred during the study period, which was subsequently corrected. Conclusions An Infectious Diseases provider–led initiative resulted in penicillin allergy label removal in over a third of inpatients evaluated using direct removal or oral amoxicillin challenge. Efforts focused on patients who had been admitted for infections were particularly successful.

immunology,infectious diseases,microbiology
Safe Penicillin Allergy Delabeling in Primary Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Florian Stul,Stefan Heytens,Didier Gaston Ebo,Vito Sabato,Veerle Piessens

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaip.2024.06.017

Abstract:Background: Ten percent of the population is labeled as allergic to penicillin(s), when in fact 90% of these labels are inappropriate. Recent studies have shown that inpatient delabeling by a direct drug challenge (dDC) is safe in low-risk patients. However, there is a need for outpatient and nonallergist delabeling. Objective: To assess the safety of delabeling low-risk adults by means of dDC in primary care. Methods: We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to March 15, 2022 (updated June 5, 2023) for studies performing dDC in adults in primary care or other outpatient settings. Two researchers independently screened studies for eligibility. The data extraction and critical appraisal were performed by 1 reviewer, and we pooled the results in a meta-analysis. Results: Of 2138 results, 12 studies (1070 participants) were eligible for inclusion. Three studies evaluated delabeling in primary care and 9 studies in an outpatient hospital setting. There were no critical adverse events during dDC. No reaction occurred in 97.13% of the 1070 patients, who previously labeled as penicillin-allergic, and were safely delabeled. Ten patients (<1%) developed an immediate reaction: 3 had self-limiting reactions and 7 needed antihistaminics, steroids, epinephrine, and/or salbutamol. Conclusions: No serious allergic reactions are observed during direct amoxicillin challenge in adults in an outpatient setting. However, with the exception of 1 recent report, these studies are of low to moderate quality. Nonspecialist delabeling is promising, but further research is required on correct risk stratification and safety assessment in large cohort studies evaluating dDC in primary care.
Promoting penicillin allergy de‐labeling for children attending a hematology clinic

Patricia Barker,Delia Charest Carias,Timothy Jacobs,Philip Carpiniello,Clifford Takemoto,Jay Lieberman,Elisabeth Adderson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pbc.31034

2024-04-30

Pediatric Blood & Cancer

Abstract:Background Up to 10% of children are reported to be allergic to penicillin, but many allergy labels are unverified and may require formal testing. Inaccurate drug allergy labels are associated with a range of adverse clinical outcomes. Patients with hematological disorders may experience frequent and severe infections; those who have been incorrectly labeled penicillin allergic may benefit from allergy de‐labeling (ADL) efforts to facilitate access to beta‐lactam antibiotics. We developed a multidisciplinary, pharmacist‐driven process that enabled non‐allergist trained providers to assess and de‐label penicillin allergies in a pediatric hematology center. Methods Volunteers, including physicians, advanced practice providers, nurses, and pharmacists, were trained in skin testing and oral challenge procedures. Patients were identified by review of electronic medical records for penicillin or penicillin‐derivative allergy. Patient and family interviews were conducted in cases where a true penicillin allergy was deemed uncertain based on chart review. If allergy could not be de‐labeled by chart review or interview alone, patients were offered skin and/or oral challenge testing. Results Fifty‐nine patients were initially labeled as penicillin allergic. Allergy labels of 11 (19%) were removed by chart review only, and 15 (25%) after conducting interviews. A total of two (3%) patients were ineligible due to contraindications, and five (9%) declined participation. Twenty‐six patients (44%) underwent allergy testing (50% skin testing, 50% oral challenge) of which 23 (88%) were negative. Conclusions ADL was possible in most patients previously identified as penicillin allergic. Testing was well tolerated with no serious adverse effects.

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

Adhora Mir,Derek Lanoue,Veronica Zanichelli,Carl van Walraven,Timothy Olynych,Caroline Nott,Derek MacFadden

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13223-024-00877-9

2024-03-06

Allergy Asthma & Clinical Immunology

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

immunology,allergy
[Mechanism of action of hypoglycemic sulfonylureas].

A. Pletscher,K. Gey,R. Strassle

Abstract:
Inpatient allergy delabeling of pediatric patients with low-risk penicillin allergy status through direct oral amoxicillin challenge

Peter Paul C. Lim,LeAnne N. Moore,Nori Mercuri Minich,Kathryn Ruda Wessell,Ankita P. Desai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2500/aap.2024.45.230069

2024-01-01

Allergy and Asthma Proceedings

Abstract:Background: Less than 5% of children who report penicillin allergy have clinically pertinent type 1 immunoglobulin E mediated hypersensitivity reaction by using direct oral amoxicillin challenge. Several pathways have been developed to delabel penicillin allergy by using direct oral amoxicillin challenge, mostly in the outpatient settings, but there is relative scarcity on published outcomes of these pathways, especially in the inpatient pediatric settings. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the performance of an institutionally derived inpatient penicillin allergy screening tool. Methods: Patients were stratified into three penicillin allergy risk categories by using an institutional screening questionnaire. Patients with a no-risk status were delabeled without challenge testing. Patients with low-risk status underwent direct graded oral amoxicillin challenge and delabeled based on their response. Patients with high-risk status were referred to allergy service. Results: Ninety-two patients were identified with penicillin allergy. Forty of the 92 patients (43%) were screened. Of the 40 patients screened, 6 (15%) were identified as no risk, 28 (70%) were identified as low risk, and 6 (15%) were identified as high risk. Twenty-four of the 28 patients at low risk (86%) were eligible for direct amoxicillin oral challenge. Seventeen of the 24 (71%) consented to oral challenge but only 12 (71%) underwent direct amoxicillin oral challenge. Eleven of the 12 who underwent oral challenge (92%) were successfully delabeled. Five of the six patients at no risk (83%) were successfully delabeled. Three of the six patients at high risk (50%) were referred for further allergy evaluation. Overall, 16 of the 40 patients screened (40%) were successfully delabeled. Conclusion: In this small pediatric inpatient study, our institutional risk stratification screening tool identified patients at low risk for penicillin allergy and direct graded oral amoxicillin challenge was safely administered to delabel penicillin allergy in these patients.Clinical trial NCT05020327, www.clinicaltrials.gov

allergy
Empowering Pediatricians With Direct Penicillin Challenges: A Promising Delabeling Strategy

Katherine Park,David J Schwartz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/milmed/usae347

2024-09-27

Abstract:Objective: Current literature supports a multidisciplinary approach to penicillin allergy delabeling. Our study aims to review the success rate of penicillin challenges performed at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center Allergy Clinic and assess the reaction rate associated with a direct oral challenge in low-risk patients. Materials and methods: We conducted a retrospective review of the outcomes of pediatric penicillin challenges at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center Allergy and Immunology clinic from June 2019 to May 2023. A total of 74 challenges were included in this study. Patients were initially screened to assess the date of reaction, nature of reaction, if the reaction was life-threatening, and if the patient was hospitalized or sought emergency medical care for the reported reaction. After completion of the screening questionnaire, a direct graded challenge was performed (without skin testing) if a patient's history was deemed low risk. Patients with a recent reaction or a history of multiple drug allergies were more likely to be directed to skin prick testing and intra-dermal testing with Pre-pen and Penicillin-G prior to challenge. Results: All patients passed all challenges. Thus, there was a 100% pass rate for both direct challenges and skin test with oral challenges. Conclusion: Given the low rate of adverse events in this study, expansion of penicillin delabeling in the primary care setting should be considered in patients deemed to be at low risk. It is important for allergists to empower and educate their peers and push forward a movement to create a multidisciplinary approach to penicillin delabeling.
Comparative Performance of 4 Penicillin-Allergy Prediction Strategies in a Large Cohort

Ileana-Maria Ghiordanescu,Iuliana Ciocănea-Teodorescu,Nicolas Molinari,Anais Jelen,Omar Al-Ali,Rik Schrijvers,Pascal Demoly,Anca Mirela Chiriac

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaip.2024.07.012

Abstract: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.
The challenge of de‐labeling penicillin allergy

Cosby A. Stone,Jason Trubiano,David T. Coleman,Christine R. F. Rukasin,Elizabeth J. Phillips

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/all.13848

IF: 12.4

2019-05-26

Allergy

Abstract:Even though 8‐25% of most populations studied globally are labeled as penicillin allergic, most diagnoses of penicillin allergy are made in childhood and relate to events that are either not allergic in nature, are low‐risk for immediate hypersensitivity, or are a potential true allergy that has waned over time. Penicillin allergy labels directly impact antimicrobial stewardship by leading to use of less effective and broader spectrum antimicrobials and are associated with antimicrobial resistance. They may also delay appropriate antimicrobial therapy, and lead to increased risk of specific adverse healthcare outcomes. Operationalizing penicillin allergy de‐labeling into a new arm of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) has become an increasing global focus. We performed an evidence‐based narrative review of the literature of penicillin allergy label carriage, the adverse effects of penicillin allergy labels and current approaches and barriers to penicillin allergy de‐labeling. Over the period 1928‐2018 in Pubmed and Medline, search terms used included "penicillin allergy" or "penicillin hypersensitivity" alone or in combination with "adverse events", "testing", "evaluation", "effects", "label", "de‐labeling", "prick or epicutaneous" and "intradermal" skin testing, "oral challenge or provocation" "cross‐reactivity" and "antimicrobial stewardship."

immunology,allergy
A Multicentre Observational Study to Investigate Feasibility of a Direct Oral Penicillin Challenge in De-labelling 'Low Risk' Patients with Penicillin Allergy by Non-Allergy Healthcare Professionals (SPACE study) - implications for healthcare systems

Mamidipudi Thirumala Krishna,Rashmeet Bhogal,Bee Yean Ng,Kornelija Kildonaviciute,Yogini H Jani,Iestyn Williams,Jonathan A T Sandoe,Rachel Pollard,Nicola Jones,Louise Dunsmure,Neil Powell,Chidanand Hullur,Ariyur Balaji,Catherine Moriarty,Beverley Jackson,Amena Warner,Ron Daniels,Robert West,Caroline Thomas,Siraj A Misbah,Louise Savic

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2024.01.015

IF: 28.2

2024-02-08

Journal of Infection

Abstract:Objective The huge burden of inaccurate penicillin allergy labels (PALs) is an important driver of antimicrobial resistance. This is magnified by insufficient allergy specialists and lack of 'point-of-care' tests. We investigated the feasibility of non-allergy healthcare professionals (HCPs) delivering direct oral penicillin challenges (DPCs) for penicillin allergy de-labelling. Methods This prospective observational study was conducted in three hospitals in England across three settings (acute medical, pre-surgical and haematology-oncology). Patients with a PAL were screened and stratified as low risk/high risk. Low risk patients (non-immune mediated symptoms, benign rash, tolerated amoxicillin since and family history) underwent a DPC. Results N=2257 PALs were screened, 1054 were eligible; 643 were approached, 373 declined, 270 consented and 259 risk stratified (low risk=155; high risk=104). 126 low risk patients underwent DPC, 122 (96.8%) were de-labelled with no serious allergic reactions. Conversion rate from screening-to-consent was 12% [3.3% and 17.9% in acute and elective settings respectively; Odds ratios for consent were 3.42 (p<0.001) and 5.53 (p<0.001) in haematology-oncology and pre-surgical setting respectively. Common reasons for failure to progress in the study included difficulty in reaching patients, clinical instability/medical reasons, lacking capacity to consent and psychological factors. Interpretation DPCs can be delivered by non-allergy HCPs. A high proportion of patients with PALs did not progress in the study pathway. Strategies to deliver DPC at optimal points of the care pathway are needed to enhance uptake. Elective settings offer greater opportunities than acute settings for DPC. The safety and simplicity of DPCs lends itself to adoption by healthcare systems beyond the UK, including in resource-limited settings. Funding NIHR129069

infectious diseases
Antepartum vs postpartum amoxicillin oral challenge in pregnant patients with a reported penicillin allergy: A two-center prospective cohort study

Jeffrey Man Hay Wong,Xiaoqing Liu,Raymond Mak,Stephanie C Erdle,Colin Barber,Julianne van Schalkwyk,Melissa Watt,Sudharsana Rao Ande,Dozie Ochulor,Chelsea Elwood,Vanessa Poliquin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.14964

Abstract:Introduction: While 10% of pregnant individuals report a penicillin allergy, there is no established best practice for penicillin allergy delabeling in pregnancy. To better understand options for penicillin delabeling, we aimed to evaluate two penicillin allergy delabeling protocols in pregnancy regarding efficacy, adverse events, and patient satisfaction. Material and methods: From July 2019 to December 2022, we completed a two-center prospective cohort study, where each site recruited pregnant patients over 24 weeks gestational age with a reported penicillin allergy. One center offered antepartum amoxicillin oral challenges, either directly or after negative skin testing (i.e., antepartum oral challenge site). Our other centers completed a two-step approach with antepartum penicillin skin testing only and deferred oral challenges to the postpartum period (i.e., postpartum oral challenge site). Our primary outcome was the rate of penicillin allergy delabeling, defined as tolerating an antibiotic challenge with penicillin or amoxicillin. Univariate analyses were completed using chi-squared, Fisher's exact, and Wilcoxon rank tests. Results: During the study period, 276 pregnant patients were assessed, with 207 in the antepartum oral challenge site and 69 in the postpartum oral challenge site. Among the 204 patients who completed antepartum oral challenges, 201 (98%) passed without reactions. Deferring oral challenges to the postpartum period led to a loss of follow-up for 37/53 (70%) of eligible individuals. Overall, 97% (201/207) of patients at the antepartum oral challenge site were delabeled from their penicillin allergy-compared to 38% (26/69) of patients referred to the postpartum oral challenge site (p < 0.0001). Three antepartum oral challenge reactions were noted, including two mild cutaneous reactions and a case of transient abdominal discomfort. Conclusions: Antepartum amoxicillin oral challenge is a more effective method to delabel pregnant patients from their penicillin allergy. Deferral of oral challenges to the postpartum period introduces a significant barrier for penicillin allergy delabeling.
Reliability and validation of an electronic penicillin allergy risk-assessment tool in a pregnant population

Joanne Wang,Chelsea Elwood,Vanessa Paquette,Natasha Kwan,Stephanie Erdle,Melissa Watt,Julie Van Schalkwyk,Jeffrey N Bone,Ashley Roberts,Raymond Mak,Tiffany Wong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13223-024-00918-3

2024-10-19

Abstract:Background: Penicillin allergy adversely impacts patient care, yet most cases do not have true allergies. Clinicians require efficient, reliable clinical tools to identify low risk patients who can be safely de-labeled. Our center implemented the FIRSTLINE electronic point-of-care decision support tool to help non-allergist practitioners risk stratify patients with penicillin allergy. We sought to explore the reliability and validity of this tool in relation to allergist assessment and actual patient outcomes. We additionally compared it with two other published stratification tools, JAMA and PENFAST, to assess ability to accurately identify low risk patients appropriate for direct oral challenge. Methods: In this single-center, retrospective, observational study, 181 pregnant females with self-reported penicillin allergy between July 2019 to June 2021 at BC Women's Hospital, Vancouver, Canada were used to assess the reliability and validity of all three tools. Physician-guided history of penicillin use and symptoms were used for scoring. Results and recommendations were compared to actual patient outcomes after clinician decision for direct oral challenge or intradermal tests. We compared the performance of JAMA, PENFAST and FIRSTLINE. Results: 181 patients were assessed. 176/181 (97.2%) patients were deemed not allergic. Each risk stratification tool labelled majority of patients as low risk with 88.4% of patients PENFAST 0-2, 60.2% of patients JAMA low risk, 86.7% of patients FIRSTLINE very low risk. Conclusion: We demonstrate that our point-of-care electronic algorithm is reliable in identifying low risk pregnant patients, as compared to an allergist assessment. To our knowledge, this is the first study to provide direct comparison between multiple decision support tools using the same population, minimizing participant bias. Providing clinical algorithms to risk stratify patients, can enable healthcare professionals to safely identify individuals who may be candidates for direct penicillin oral challenges versus needing referral to specialists. This increases the generalizability and efficiency of penicillin allergy de-labeling.
Patient care...yesterday, today & tomorrow.

S. Martin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/AJHP/24.4.171

1967-04-01

Abstract:
Endothelial KLF2 links local arterial shear stress levels to the expression of vascular tone-regulating genes.

R. Dekker,Johannes V. van Thienen,J. Rohlena,S. D. de Jager,Yvonne W. Elderkamp,J. Seppen,C. D. de Vries,E. Biessen,T. V. van Berkel,H. Pannekoek,A. Horrevoets

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9440(10)63002-7

IF: 5.77

2005-08-01

American Journal Of Pathology

Abstract:
Penicillin Allergy Testing and Delabeling for Patients Who Are Prescribed Penicillin: A Systematic Review for a World Health Organization Guideline

Rui Providencia,Ghazaleh Aali,Fang Zhu,Brian F Leas,Rachel Orrell,Mahmood Ahmad,Jonathan J H Bray,Ferruccio Pelone,Petra Nass,Eloi Marijon,Miryan Cassandra,David S Celermajer,Farhad Shokraneh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12016-024-08988-2

Abstract:Secondary prevention with penicillin aims to prevent further episodes of acute rheumatic fever and subsequent development of rheumatic heart disease (RHD). Penicillin allergy, self-reported by 10% of the population, can affect secondary prevention programs. We aimed to assess the role for (i) routine penicillin allergy testing and the (ii) safety of penicillin allergy delabeling approaches in this context. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, ISRCTN, and CPCI-S to identify the relevant reports. We found 2419 records, but no studies addressed our initial question. Following advice from the WHO-Guideline committee and experts, we identified 6 manuscripts on allergy testing focusing on other populations showing that the prevalence of allergy confirmed by testing was low and the incidence of life-threatening reactions to BPG was very low (< 1-3/1000 individuals treated). A subsequent search addressed penicillin allergy delabeling. This found 516 records, and 5 studies addressing the safety of direct oral drug challenge vs. skin testing followed by drug administration in patients with suspected penicillin allergy. Immediate allergic reactions of minor severity were observed for a minority of patients and occurred less frequently in the direct drug challenge group: 2.3% vs. 11.5%; RR = 0.25, 95%CI 0.15-0.45, P < 0.00001, I2 = 0%. No anaphylaxis or deaths were observed. Severe allergic reactions to penicillin are extremely rare and can be recognized and dealt by trained healthcare workers. Confirmation of penicillin allergy diagnosis or delabeling using direct oral drug challenge or penicillin skin testing seems to be safe and is associated with a low rate of adverse reactions.
Patient Perceptions of Penicillin Allergy Testing in a Public Health System

Angela Augustino,Kristin S Alvarez,Layla Kassem,Lonnie Roy,Cesar Termulo,Jillian Smartt,Madeline Sparks,Candice Mercadel,Timothy G Chow

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaip.2024.08.029

2024-08-23

Abstract:Background: Documented penicillin allergies are associated with increased morbidity, increased hospital stay, and an increase in resistant infections. Penicillin allergy evaluations using direct oral challenge with or without skin testing has been recommended as a delabeling strategy for patients with penicillin reaction histories. Barriers for achieving equitable access, however, exist. Understanding patient perceptions regarding their penicillin allergy across diverse populations is crucial to mitigate potential obstacles to penicillin allergy testing (PAT) and the use of penicillin-like antibiotics after delabeling. Objective: The objective of this study is to gather perceptions of patients delabeled of their penicillin allergy after testing through a PAT program. Methods: Patients who underwent PAT and had a subsequent allergy removal due to a negative result were interviewed using closed and open-ended questions. Results: A total of 100 patient interviews were completed. Awareness of the risks associated with unnecessary penicillin avoidance and PAT was low. Initial concerns regarding PAT were common, however, were frequently alleviated with targeted education. Most patients undergoing testing reported a positive experience and would recommend PAT to others. A minority of patients continued to have discordant perceptions regarding their penicillin allergy label with mistrust in the negative result being a critical theme identified. Conclusion: Future interventions increasing the awareness of penicillin allergy labels and the risks and benefits of PAT in the general population are needed and must consider health literacy levels, languages, and cultural contexts. Measures to offer PAT within a clinical setting that has built high levels of patient trust will likely achieve the greatest long-term success.
Proactive management of penicillin and other antibiotic allergies

David A Khan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2500/aap.2020.41.190024

2020-03-01

Abstract:Background: Antibiotic allergies, especially penicillin, are the most frequent drug allergy listed in the medical record. Proactive evaluations of antibiotic allergies, particularly penicillin allergies, have been recommended by various specialty societies. Objective: To review the history of the discovery of penicillin, implications of the penicillin allergy label, various delabeling strategies as well as a brief overview of the approach to cephalosporin, fluoroquinolone, and macrolide allergy. Methods: Recent studies on penicillin allergy delabeling and on cephalosporin and fluoroquinolone allergies were reviewed. Results: Although Alexander Fleming is often solely credited with the discovery of penicillin, other scientists were critical to the development of penicillin as a life-saving antibiotic. The vast majority of patients with a penicillin allergy label are not allergic; however, this label results in increased morbidities and mortality. A variety of penicillin delabeling strategies can be used in both the outpatient and the inpatient settings. The role of direct penicillin challenge in patients at low risk is emerging and is the method of choice for children. Patients with an unconfirmed penicillin allergy have a low risk of reacting to cephalosporins. The R1 side chain largely dictates cephalosporin allergy and cross-reactivity. Drug challenge is the preferred method for evaluation of both fluoroquinolone and macrolide allergy. Conclusion: Multiple effective methods are available to delabel patients of common antibiotic allergies. Delabeling patients in a proactive manner can reduce patient morbidity.
Effectiveness, barriers and facilitating factors of strategies for active delabelling of patients with penicillin allergy labels: a systematic review protocol

Hannah Nürnberg,Elham Khatamzas,Claudia Denkinger,Tabea Krause,Lars Oetken,Sophie Rauer,Amelie Rapp,Torsten Hoppe-Tichy,Benedict Morath,Nürnberg,H.,Khatamzas,E.,Denkinger,C.,Krause,T.,Oetken,L.,Rauer,S.,Rapp,A.,Hoppe-Tichy,T.,Morath,B.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-077927

IF: 3.006

2024-02-27

BMJ Open

Abstract: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.

medicine, general & internal
Reaction Risk to Direct Penicillin Challenges: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Kimberly G Blumenthal,Liam R Smith,Jushin Teg S Mann,Ingrid Salciccioli,John J O Accarino,Ruchi J Shah,Fatima I Alvi,António Cardoso-Fernandes,Renato Ferreira-da-Silva,Holger J Schunemann,Bernardo Sousa-Pinto

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2024.4606

2024-11-01

Abstract:Importance: While direct penicillin challenges might support the expansion of penicillin allergy delabeling efforts, the perceived risk of reactions remains a key barrier. Objective: To evaluate the frequency of reactions to direct penicillin challenges in individuals with penicillin allergy labels and to identify factors associated with such reactions. Data sources: Three electronic databases were searched (MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Scopus) from inception to July 19, 2023, for primary studies assessing patients undergoing direct penicillin challenges. Articles were included regardless of publication year, language, status, or definition of allergy risk. Study selection: Two reviewers independently selected original studies reporting the frequency of immunologically mediated reactions following a direct penicillin challenge in patients reporting a penicillin allergy. Data extraction and synthesis: Two reviewers independently extracted data and independently assessed the quality of each primary study using a risk-of-bias tool for prevalence studies. Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was the frequency of reactions to direct penicillin challenges as calculated using random-effects bayesian meta-analysis of proportions. Secondary outcomes included risk factors for reactions and the frequency of severe reactions. Results: A total of 56 primary studies involving 9225 participants were included. Among participants, 438 experienced reactions to direct penicillin challenges without prior testing, corresponding to an overall meta-analytic frequency of 3.5% (95% credible interval [CrI], 2.5%-4.6%). Meta-regression analyses revealed that studies performed in North America had lower rates of reaction to direct challenges (odds ratio [OR], 0.36; 95% CrI, 0.20-0.61), while studies performed in children (OR, 3.37; 95% CrI, 1.98-5.98), in outpatients (OR, 2.19; 95% CrI, 1.08-4.75), and with a graded (OR, 3.24; 95% CrI, 1.50-7.06) or prolonged (OR, 5.45; 95% CrI, 2.38-13.28) challenge had higher rates of reaction. Only 5 severe reactions (3 anaphylaxis, 1 fever with rash, and 1 acute kidney injury) were reported, none of which were fatal. Conclusions and relevance: This systematic review and meta-analysis found that reactions to direct penicillin challenges are infrequent, with rates comparable to indirect challenges after allergy testing. These findings suggest that direct challenges are safe for incorporation into penicillin allergy evaluation efforts across age groups and clinical settings.
Penicillin allergy reassessment for treatment improvement: A dental office tool to support appropriate penicillin allergy labeling

Ashlan J Kunz Coyne,Dana Holger,Erinne Kennedy,Mackenzie Connell,Juliann Binienda,Christopher Giuliano,Elaine M Bailey

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adaj.2023.12.007

Abstract:Background: Dental appointments offer an opportunity to evaluate a documented penicillin (PCN) allergy and determine whether the patient might be a candidate for medical reassessment of their allergy. The authors gathered feedback on the Penicillin Allergy Reassessment for Treatment Improvement (PARTI) tool, designed to enhance dentist-patient communications regarding PCN allergies. Methods: From January 2022 through May 2023, the authors conducted a mixed-methods study, collecting focus group data from patients with PCN allergies and surveying health care workers (HCWs) regarding the PARTI tool. Feedback focused on reassessment procedures, patient-centered allergy information, and medical records updates. Thematic analysis was used for focus group data. Results: The study included 15 patients in focus groups and 50 HCW survey respondents representing diverse US regions. Patient demographic characteristics included varied races, the mean age was 52 years, and most of the patients were female (53.3%). Most patients had health care interactions within the preceding year, at which 86.6% of patients were asked about drug allergies. HCW respondents primarily consisted of pharmacists (30%) and dentists, dental hygienists, and dental assistants (28%). Feedback on the PARTI tool was constructive, with both patients and HCWs recognizing its potential benefits and providing insights for improvement. Many HCWs (68%) highlighted the importance of step 3 of the PARTI tool, that is, the section on PCN allergy testing. Feedback from participants was incorporated into the final PARTI tool. Conclusions: Patient and HCW feedback on the PARTI tool was used to finalize a tool for the dental office to provide to patients who are candidates for PCN allergy reassessment. The feedback will also be used to inform an upcoming pilot study in US dental offices, focused on the process for PCN allergy reassessment and health record documentation. Practical implications: Deploying the PARTI tool in dental offices is pivotal, as mislabeling patients with PCN allergies could have severe consequences, such as hindering the prescription of lifesaving antibiotics for conditions like endocarditis, in the future. This implementation not only enhances communication between dentists and patients, but it is also crucial for ensuring improved patient safety and maintaining accurate medical records among health care settings.

ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF DRUGS--BY PHARMACISTS.

Rising to the Challenge: An ID Provider–Led Initiative to Address Penicillin Allergy Labels at a Large Veterans Affairs Medical Center

Safe Penicillin Allergy Delabeling in Primary Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Promoting penicillin allergy de‐labeling for children attending a hematology clinic

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

[Mechanism of action of hypoglycemic sulfonylureas].

Inpatient allergy delabeling of pediatric patients with low-risk penicillin allergy status through direct oral amoxicillin challenge

Empowering Pediatricians With Direct Penicillin Challenges: A Promising Delabeling Strategy

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

The challenge of de‐labeling penicillin allergy

A Multicentre Observational Study to Investigate Feasibility of a Direct Oral Penicillin Challenge in De-labelling 'Low Risk' Patients with Penicillin Allergy by Non-Allergy Healthcare Professionals (SPACE study) - implications for healthcare systems

Antepartum vs postpartum amoxicillin oral challenge in pregnant patients with a reported penicillin allergy: A two-center prospective cohort study

Reliability and validation of an electronic penicillin allergy risk-assessment tool in a pregnant population

Patient care...yesterday, today & tomorrow.

Endothelial KLF2 links local arterial shear stress levels to the expression of vascular tone-regulating genes.

Penicillin Allergy Testing and Delabeling for Patients Who Are Prescribed Penicillin: A Systematic Review for a World Health Organization Guideline

Patient Perceptions of Penicillin Allergy Testing in a Public Health System

Proactive management of penicillin and other antibiotic allergies

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

Reaction Risk to Direct Penicillin Challenges: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Penicillin allergy reassessment for treatment improvement: A dental office tool to support appropriate penicillin allergy labeling