Resource utilization and cost assessment of a proactive penicillin allergy de-labeling program for low-risk inpatients

Derek Lanoue,Adhora Mir,Carl van Walraven,Timothy Olynych,Caroline Nott,Derek R. MacFadden

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13223-023-00864-6

2024-01-23

Allergy Asthma & Clinical Immunology

Abstract:Resource utilization and costs can impede proactive assessment and de-labeling of penicillin allergy among inpatients.

immunology,allergy

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

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
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.
Impacts of risk-stratified inpatient penicillin allergy label delabeling on subsequent antimicrobial spectrum index and costs

Milner Staub,George E Nelson,Kelly Byrge,Grace Koo,Whitney J Nesbitt,Joanna L Stollings,Minhua Zhang,Cosby A Stone Jr

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/ash.2024.421

2024-10-03

Abstract:Penicillin allergy delabeling may benefit antimicrobial stewardship (AS). Cost of initial penicillin treatments following risk-stratified inpatient delabeling were compared to two hypothetical treatment regimens if delabeling had not occurred: (1) AS-guided and (2) Common Treatment. Penicillin allergy delabeling improved antimicrobial spectrum index, was cost-neutral, and averted unnecessary penicillin desensitizations.
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
Effectiveness and feasibility of a penicillin allergy delabeling program in the postacute inpatient rehabilitation setting

Joseph Galipean,Jerry Jacob

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2024.138

2024-10-06

Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology

Abstract://static.cambridge.org/content/id/urn%3Acambridge.org%3Aid%3Aarticle%3AS0899823X24001387/resource/name/firstPage-pdf-S0899823X24001387a.jpg

infectious diseases,public, environmental & occupational health
Retrospective study on penicillin allergy delabeling and evaluation of an antibiotic allergy assessment tool

Ryoko Honda,Kazuhiro Ishikawa,Hiroki Ozawa,Emilie Louise Akiko Matsumoto-Takahashi,Nobuyoshi Mori

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiac.2024.09.015

2024-09-20

Abstract:Background: It has been reported that 95 % of patients labeled as penicillin-allergic may be mislabeled. However, the process of delabeling has not advanced due to a shortage of allergy specialists capable of conducting accurate assessments. To address this issue, The Antibiotics Allergy Assessment Tool (AAAT) has been proposed as a tool to evaluate patients who can be delabeled by non-specialists. Objective: This study aims to identify patients who can be delabeled and to evaluate patients who are likely to be delabeled using AAAT. Methods: Patients admitted to the hospital between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2021, with documented penicillin allergy labels were included in the study. Patients who demonstrated tolerance to labeled antibiotics or were labeled without explicit allergy declarations were defined as delabeling. Subsequently, patients who did not meet the criteria for delabeling were evaluated for their potential to be delabeled using the AAAT, retrospectively. Results: 530 patients were selected, of which 62 (11.7 %) were delabeled. The AAAT evaluation of the remaining patients indicated that at least an additional 137 (25.8 %) patients could potentially be delabeled. Conclusion: The use of AAAT demonstrated the potential to delabel approximately third as many patients without the need for specialist evaluation. To promote broader delabeling efforts in the future, prospective studies should investigate the safety and effectiveness of evaluation tools such as the AAAT.
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
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
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
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
The appropriateness of penicillin allergy de-labelling by non-allergist clinical ward teams

Neil Powell,Shuayb Elkhalifa,Daniel Hearsey,Michael Wilcock,Jonathan Sandoe

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinme.2024.100225

Abstract:Objectives: We aimed to assess the appropriateness of penicillin allergy (PenA) assessment conducted by clinical teams and to review the safety of subsequent exposure of these patients to penicillin. Methods: Opportunistic, prospective observational study of usual clinical care, between 16 May 2023 and 14 August 2023, of inpatients with a PenA and requiring antibiotics, in a 750-bed hospital in England. To assess the appropriateness of management, PenA patients prescribed penicillins were grouped into risk categories using a validated antibiotic allergy assessment tool: eligible for de-label on history alone (direct de-label; DDL), eligible for direct oral challenge (DOC), high risk or unable to obtain history. Results: Of the 123 patients admitted with a PenA (or sensitivity record) and exposed to a penicillin, data were collected for 50. Their PenA records were grouped follows: eligible for DDL 34 (68%), eligible for DOC 11 (22%), high risk 4 (8%) and unable to obtain history 1 (2%). In 14/50 (28%) patients there was no evidence of a current PenA assessment in the medical notes. Conclusions: Using the allergy risk tool, most patients with PenA records were exposed to penicillin appropriately. However, patients meeting high-risk criteria were also exposed to penicillin when the tool excluded them. PenA assessment needs to be carried out with appropriate training and governance structures in place.
Adult penicillin allergy programmes in Australian hospitals: a practical guide from the National Antibiotic Allergy Network

Rory Hannah,Elise Mitri,Constance H. Katelaris,Jennifer O'Hern,Minyon Avent,Glenn Valoppi,Matthew Rawlins,Catherine Frith,Brendan McMullan,David Kong,Kyra Chua,Amy Legg,Rod James,Sonja Janson,Carolyn Hawkins,Katrina Randall,Courtney Ierano,Karin Thursky,Jason A. Trubiano

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/imj.16543

2024-10-25

Internal Medicine Journal

Abstract:Penicillin allergy is a significant burden on patient, prescribing and hospital outcomes. There has been increasing interest in the incorporation of penicillin allergy testing (i.e. delabelling) into antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programmes to reduce the burden of penicillin allergy labels and improve prescribing. In particular, there has been a focus on point‐of‐care penicillin allergy assessment and direct oral challenge for low‐risk phenotypes. The National Antibiotic Allergy Network has provided a guide to assist AMS clinicians with the incorporation of penicillin allergy programmes, in particular direct oral challenge, into Australian hospitals.

medicine, general & internal
Penicillin allergy delabeling has a significant impact on subsequent antibiotic use in primary care

Sara Fransson,Jonas B Boel,Holger F Mosbech,Lene H Garvey

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.waojou.2024.100958

2024-08-22

Abstract:Efforts to delabel penicillin allergic patients are important as the majority of suspected penicillin allergy can be ruled out by relevant allergy testing. The aim is to change the antibiotic pattern in delabeled patients to minimize use of unnecessary broad-spectrum antibiotics, reducing the risk of antimicrobial resistance and making treatment more cost effective. However, published information on subsequent antibiotic use is scarce. To evaluate the effect of delabeling on subsequent antibiotic use in primary care, a cohort of 2911 patients tested for penicillin allergy was compared to a matched control group of 14,522 individuals from the background population. In total 86.4% of the tested patients were delabeled. For delabeled patients, penicillin use increased from 0.07 prescriptions per patient year before allergy investigation, to 0.53 prescriptions per patient year post investigation (p < 0.001). The use of fluoroquinolones and macrolides was reduced and reached a level comparable to the background population. This study shows that penicillin allergy delabeling has significant positive impact on subsequent antibiotic use in primary care, and that penicillin use increases to levels similar to the background population. Penicillin allergy delabeling should be prioritized as an important and efficient element in antimicrobial stewardship initiatives.
Factors influencing implementation and adoption of direct oral penicillin challenge for allergy delabelling: a qualitative evaluation

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

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2024-002890

2024-09-07

Abstract:Background: Over 95% of penicillin allergy labels are inaccurate and may be addressed in low-risk patients using direct oral penicillin challenge (DPC). This study explored the behaviour, attitudes and acceptability of patients, healthcare professionals (HCPs) and managers of using DPC in low-risk patients. Methods: Mixed-method, investigation involving patient interviews and staff focus groups at three NHS acute hospitals. Transcripts were coded using inductive and deductive thematic analysis informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework. Findings: Analysis of 43 patient interviews and three focus groups (28 HCPs: clinicians and managers) highlighted themes of 'knowledge', 'beliefs about capabilities and consequences', 'environmental context', 'resources', 'social influences', 'professional role and identity', 'behavioural regulation and reinforcement' and a cross-cutting theme of digital systems. Overall, study participants supported the DPC intervention. Patients expressed reassurance about being in a monitored, hospital setting. HCPs acknowledged the need for robust governance structures for ensuring clarity of roles and responsibilities and confidence. Conclusion: There were high levels of acceptability among patients and HCPs. HCPs recognised the importance of DPC. Complexities of penicillin allergy (de)labelling were highlighted, and issues of knowledge, risk, governance and workforce were identified as key determinants. These should be considered in future planning and adoption strategies for DPC.
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.
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
"What if the patient has a severe reaction, and it is my fault?" A qualitative study exploring factors for sustainable implementation of penicillin allergy delabelling

Marie Bjørbak Alnæs,Brita Skodvin,Jan Anker Jahnsen,Grete Kalleklev Velure,Oddvar Oppegaard,Bård Reiakvam Kittang,Torgeir Storaas,Margrethe Aase Schaufel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13756-024-01456-8

2024-09-02

Abstract:Background: Penicillin allergy delabelling (PAD), the process of evaluating penicillin allergy labels, is a key target in antibiotic stewardship, but uptake of the procedure outside clinical studies is limited. We aimed to explore factors that need to be addressed to sustainably implement a clinical pathway for PAD. Methods: We conducted a qualitative study based on semi-structured interviews with focus groups consisting of a purposive sample of twenty-five nurses and physicians working in four different hospitals in Western Norway. Systematic text condensation was applied for analysis. Results: Psychological safety was reported as crucial for clinicians to perform PAD. A narrative of uncertainty and anticipated negative outcomes were negatively associated with PAD performance. Education, guidelines, and colleague- and leadership support could together create psychological safety and empower health personnel to perform PAD. Key factors for sustainable implementation of PAD were facilitating the informant's profound motivation for providing optimal health care and for reducing antimicrobial resistance. Informants were motivated by the prospect of a simplified PAD procedure. We identified three main needs for implementation of PAD: (1) creating psychological safety; (2) utilising clinicians' inherent motivation and (3) optimal organisational structures. Conclusion: A planned implementation of PAD must acknowledge clinicians' need for psychological safety and aid reassurance through training, leadership, and guidelines. To implement PAD as an everyday practice it must be minimally disruptive and provide a contextually adaptive logistic chain. Also, the clinician's motivation for providing the best possible healthcare should be utilised to aid implementation. The results of this study will aid sustainable implementation of PAD in Norway. Ethics: The study was approved by the Western Norway Regional Committee for Medical Research Ethics (Study No:199210).
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.
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.
Safe Medication Use Based on Knowledge of Information about Contraindications Concerning Cross Allergy and Comprehensive Clinical Intervention

Wei Li,Ling-Ling Zhu,Quan Zhou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/tcrm.s42013

2013-01-01

Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management

Abstract:Background: An investigation of safety issues regarding information on contraindications related to cross allergy was conducted to promote clinical awareness and prevent medical errors in a 2200-bed tertiary care teaching hospital.Methods: Prescribing information on contraindications concerning cross allergy was collected from an information system and package inserts. Data mining and descriptive analysis were performed. A risk register was used for project management and risk assessment. A Plan, Do, Check, Act cycle was used as part of continuous quality improvement. Records of drug counseling and medical errors were collected from an online reporting system. A pharmacist-led multidisciplinary team initiated an intervention program on cross allergy in August 2008.Results: Four years of risk management at our hospital achieved successful outcomes, ie, the number of medical errors related to cross allergies decreased by 97% (10 cases monthly before August 2008 versus three cases yearly in 2012) and risk rating decreased significantly [initial risk rating: 25(high-risk) before August 2008 versus final risk rating: 6 (medium-risk) in December 2012].Conclusion: We conclude that comprehensive clinical interventions are very effective through team cooperation. Medication use has potential for safety risks if sufficient attention is not paid to contraindications concerning cross allergy. The potential for cross allergy involving drugs which belong to completely different pharmacological classes is easily overlooked and can be dangerous. Pharmacists can play an important role in reducing the risk of cross allergy as well as recommending therapeutic alternatives.

Resource utilization and cost assessment of a proactive penicillin allergy de-labeling program for low-risk inpatients

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

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

Impacts of risk-stratified inpatient penicillin allergy label delabeling on subsequent antimicrobial spectrum index and costs

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

Effectiveness and feasibility of a penicillin allergy delabeling program in the postacute inpatient rehabilitation setting

Retrospective study on penicillin allergy delabeling and evaluation of an antibiotic allergy assessment tool

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

The challenge of de‐labeling penicillin allergy

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

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

The appropriateness of penicillin allergy de-labelling by non-allergist clinical ward teams

Adult penicillin allergy programmes in Australian hospitals: a practical guide from the National Antibiotic Allergy Network

Penicillin allergy delabeling has a significant impact on subsequent antibiotic use in primary care

Factors influencing implementation and adoption of direct oral penicillin challenge for allergy delabelling: a qualitative evaluation

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

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

"What if the patient has a severe reaction, and it is my fault?" A qualitative study exploring factors for sustainable implementation of penicillin allergy delabelling

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

Patient Perceptions of Penicillin Allergy Testing in a Public Health System

Safe Medication Use Based on Knowledge of Information about Contraindications Concerning Cross Allergy and Comprehensive Clinical Intervention