Risk-stratified Management to Remove Low-Risk Penicillin Allergy Labels in the ICU.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Stone CA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7301733 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7655694 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPenicillin allergy is the most common antibiotic allergy, yet most children labeled as allergic tolerate penicillin. The impact of inaccurate penicillin allergy labels (PALs) on pediatric outpatients is unknown. The objective of this study was to compare outcomes between children with and without a PAL after treatment for outpatient respiratory tract infections (RTI).MethodsA retrospective, longitudinal birth cohort study was performed in children who received care in 90 pediatric primary care practices in Philadelphia and Houston metropolitan areas. Prescribing and clinical outcomes of children with a PAL at the time of an RTI were compared to non-allergic children, adjusting for potential confounders.ResultsAntibiotics were prescribed for 663,473 non-recurrent RTIs among 200,977 children. Children with a PAL (5% of cohort) were more likely than non-allergic children to receive broad-spectrum antibiotics (adjusted relative risk (aRR) 3.24, 95% CI 3.22-3.26) and second-line antibiotics (aRR 4.87, 95% CI 4.83, 4.89). Compared to non-allergic children receiving first-line antibiotics, children with a PAL were more likely to return with adverse drug events (aRR 1.28, 95% CI 1.18-1.39). There was no difference in treatment failure between groups (aRR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90-1.00).ConclusionsPALs lead to higher rates of broad-spectrum and second-line antibiotic prescribing in children treated for RTIs in primary care and contribute to unnecessary healthcare utilization through increased adverse events. Given the frequency of PALs, efforts to prevent inappropriate penicillin allergy labeling and promote de-labeling of existing inaccurate allergy labels may improve care of children treated for common bacterial infections.
| S-EPMC9969332 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10873540 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSuspected penicillin allergy (Pen-A) is often not verified by diagnostic testing. In third line penicillin allergy labels were associated with prescription of broad spectrum antibiotics, hospital stay duration and readmission.ObjectiveAssess the impact of Pen-A labels on antibiotic and health care use in primary care.MethodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted in primary care in the Utrecht area, the Netherlands. All patients registered with a penicillin allergy on 31 December 2013 were selected from the General Practitioner Network database. Each patient with a Pen-A label was matched for age, gender, follow-up period with three patients without Pen-A label. Risk (OR) of receiving a reserve and second choice antibiotic, number and type of antibiotics prescribed during follow-up and number of GP contacts were compared between the two cohorts.ResultsOf 196,440 patients, 1254 patients (0.6%) with a Pen-A label were identified and matched with 3756 patients without Pen-A label. Pen-A labels resulted in higher risk of receiving ?1 antibiotic prescription per year (OR 2.56, 95% CI 2.05-3.20), ?1 s choice antibiotic prescription per year (OR 2.21 95% CI 1.11-4.40), and ?4 GP contacts per year (OR 1.71 95% CI 1.46-2.00). The chance of receiving tetracyclins (OR 2.24, 95% CI 1.29-3.89), macrolides/lincosamides/streptogamins (OR 8.69, 95% CI 4.26-17.73) and quinolones (OR 2.59, 95% CI 1.22-5.48) was higher in Pen-A patients.ConclusionsIn primary health care Pen-A labels are associated with increased antibiotic use, including second choice antibiotics, and more health care use.
| S-EPMC5461748 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9188986 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The purpose of this study was to compare the management of patients with a history of penicillin allergy between allergists and non-allergists in Thailand. A questionnaire was distributed to Thai physicians by online survey. The answers from 205 physicians were analyzed. The discrepancy of penicillin allergy management between allergists and non-allergists was clearly demonstrated in patients with a history of an immediate reaction in the presence of penicillin skin test (P < 0.01) and in patients with a history of Stevens-Johnson syndrome (P < 0.05) from penicillin. Allergists are more willing to confirm penicillin allergic status, more likely to carefully administer penicillin even after negative skin test, but less concerned for the potential cross-reactivity with 3rd and 4th generation cephalosporins, compared to non-allergists. The lack of penicillin skin test reagents, the reliability of penicillin allergy history, and medicolegal problem were the main reasons for prescribing alternate antibiotics without confirmation of penicillin allergic status. In summary, the different management of penicillin allergy between allergists and non-allergists was significantly demonstrated in patients with a history of severe non-immediate reaction and in patients with a history of an immediate reaction when a penicillin skin test is available.
| S-EPMC3953625 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:A reported penicillin allergy may compromise receipt of recommended antibiotic prophylaxis intended to prevent surgical site infections (SSIs). Most patients with a reported penicillin allergy are not allergic. We determined the impact of a reported penicillin allergy on the development of SSIs. Methods:In this retrospective cohort study of Massachusetts General Hospital hip arthroplasty, knee arthroplasty, hysterectomy, colon surgery, and coronary artery bypass grafting patients from 2010 to 2014, we compared patients with and without a reported penicillin allergy. The primary outcome was an SSI, as defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Healthcare Safety Network. The secondary outcome was perioperative antibiotic use. Results:Of 8385 patients who underwent 9004 procedures, 922 (11%) reported a penicillin allergy, and 241 (2.7%) had an SSI. In multivariable logistic regression, patients reporting a penicillin allergy had increased odds (adjusted odds ratio, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-2.22) of SSI. Penicillin allergy reporters were administered less cefazolin (12% vs 92%; P < .001) and more clindamycin (49% vs 3%; P < .001), vancomycin (35% vs 3%; P < .001), and gentamicin (24% vs 3%; P < .001) compared with those without a reported penicillin allergy. The increased SSI risk was entirely mediated by the patients' receipt of an alternative perioperative antibiotic; between 112 and 124 patients with reported penicillin allergy would need allergy evaluation to prevent 1 SSI. Conclusions:Patients with a reported penicillin allergy had a 50% increased odds of SSI, attributable to the receipt of second-line perioperative antibiotics. Clarification of penicillin allergies as part of routine preoperative care may decrease SSI risk.
| S-EPMC5850334 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGiven 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.MethodsBetween 15 November 2022 and 15 December 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.ResultsWe 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 1 inappropriate relabeling event occurred during the study period, which was subsequently corrected.ConclusionsAn infectious diseases provider-led initiative resulted in penicillin allergy label removal in more than one third of inpatients evaluated using direct removal or oral amoxicillin challenge. Efforts focused on patients who had been admitted for infections were particularly successful.
| S-EPMC11310584 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The penicillin allergy label has been consistently linked with deleterious effects that span the health care spectrum, including suboptimal clinical outcomes, the emergence of bacterial resistance, and increased health care expenditures. These risks have recently motivated professional organizations and public health institutes to advocate for the implementation of penicillin allergy delabeling initiatives; however, the burden of delabeling millions of patients is too expansive for any one discipline to bear alone. This review presents the unique perspectives and roles of various stakeholder groups involved in penicillin allergy diagnosis, assessment, and delabeling; we emphasize opportunities, barriers, and promising areas of innovation. We summarize penicillin allergy methods and tools that have proven successful in delabeling efforts. A multidisciplinary approach to delabeling patients with reported penicillin allergy, bolstered by evidence-based clinical practices, is recommended to reduce the risks that associate with the penicillin allergy label.
| S-EPMC8019188 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundUnverified penicillin allergy leads to adverse downstream clinical and economic sequelae. Penicillin allergy evaluation can be used to identify true, IgE-mediated allergy.ObjectiveTo estimate the cost of penicillin allergy evaluation using time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC).MethodsWe implemented TDABC throughout the care pathway for 30 outpatients presenting for penicillin allergy evaluation. The base-case evaluation included penicillin skin testing and a 1-step amoxicillin drug challenge, performed by an allergist. We varied assumptions about the provider type, clinical setting, procedure type, and personnel timing.ResultsThe base-case penicillin allergy evaluation costs $220 in 2016 US dollars: $98 for personnel, $119 for consumables, and $3 for space. In sensitivity analyses, lower cost estimates were achieved when only a drug challenge was performed (ie, no skin test, $84) and a nurse practitioner provider was used ($170). Adjusting for the probability of anaphylaxis did not result in a changed estimate ($220); although other analyses led to modest changes in the TDABC estimate ($214-$246), higher estimates were identified with changing to a low-demand practice setting ($268), a 50% increase in personnel times ($269), and including clinician documentation time ($288). In a least/most costly scenario analyses, the lowest TDABC estimate was $40 and the highest was $537.ConclusionsUsing TDABC, penicillin allergy evaluation costs $220; even with varied assumptions adjusting for operational challenges, clinical setting, and expanded testing, penicillin allergy evaluation still costs only about $540. This modest investment may be offset for patients treated with costly alternative antibiotics that also may result in adverse consequences.
| S-EPMC5862726 | biostudies-literature