Readiness for PENicillin allergy testing: Perception of Allergy Label (PEN-PAL) survey.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Coleman DT
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7554064 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:In a study of 121 hospitals from 38 US states, 44% had access to an allergist for inpatient consultations and 39% had access to inpatient penicillin skin testing, indicating that the majority of US hospitals lack sufficient resources to address inpatient penicillin allergies.
| S-EPMC7947974 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHaving a penicillin allergy label is associated with the use of less appropriate and more expensive antibiotics and increased healthcare utilization. Penicillin allergy testing results in delabeling most allergy claimants and may be cost-saving. This study aimed to project whether penicillin allergy testing in patients reporting a penicillin allergy is cost-saving.MethodsIn this economic evaluation study, we built decision models to project the economic impact of 2 strategies for a patient with a penicillin allergy label: (1) perform diagnostic testing (drug challenges, with or without skin tests); and (2) do not perform diagnostic testing. The health service perspective was adopted, considering costs with penicillin allergy tests, and with hospital bed-days/outpatient visits, antibiotic use, and diagnostic testing. Twenty-four base case decision models were built, accounting for differences in the diagnostic workup, setting (inpatient vs outpatient) and geographic region. Uncertainty was explored via probabilistic sensitivity analyses.ResultsPenicillin allergy testing was cost-saving in all decision models built. For models assessing the performance of both skin tests and drug challenges, allergy testing resulted in average savings (in United States [US] dollars) of $657 for inpatients (US: $1444; Europe: $489) and $2746 for outpatients (US: $256; Europe: $6045). 75% of simulations obtained through probabilistic sensitivity analysis identified testing as the less costly option.ConclusionsPenicillin allergy testing was projected to be cost-saving across different scenarios. These results are devised to inform guidelines, supporting the adoption of policies promoting widespread testing of patients with a penicillin allergy label.
| S-EPMC7958749 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPenicillin allergy labels are commonly acquired in childhood and lead to avoidance of first-line penicillin antibiotics. Understanding the health outcomes of penicillin allergy testing (PAT) can strengthen its place in antimicrobial stewardship efforts.ObjectivesTo identify and summarize the health outcomes of PAT in children.MethodsEmbase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, SCOPUS and CINAHL were searched from inception to 11 Oct 2021 (Embase and MEDLINE updated April 2022). Studies that utilized in vivo PAT in children (≤18 years old) and reported outcomes relevant to the study objectives were included.ResultsThirty-seven studies were included in the review, with a total of 8411 participants. The most commonly reported outcomes were delabelling, subsequent penicillin courses, and tolerability to penicillin courses. Ten studies had patient-reported tolerability to subsequent penicillin use, with a median 93.6% (IQR 90.3%-97.8%) of children tolerating a subsequent course of penicillins. In eight studies, a median 97.3% (IQR 96.4%-99.0%) of children were reported as 'delabelled' after a negative PAT without further definition. Three separate studies verified delabelling by checking electronic or primary care medical records, where 48.0%-68.3% children were delabelled. No studies reported on outcomes relating to disease burden such as antibiotic resistance, mortality, infection rates or cure rates.ConclusionsSafety and efficacy of PAT and subsequent penicillin use was the focus of existing literature. Further research is required to determine the long-term impact of delabelling penicillin allergies on disease burden.
| S-EPMC10068421 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Patients reporting penicillin allergy often receive unnecessary and costly broad-spectrum alternatives such as aztreonam with negative consequences. Penicillin allergy testing improves antimicrobial therapy but is not broadly used in hospitals due to insufficient testing resources and short-term expenses. We describe a clinical decision support (CDS) tool promoting pharmacist-administered penicillin allergy testing in patients receiving aztreonam and its benefits toward antimicrobial stewardship and costs.A CDS tool was incorporated into the electronic medical record, directing providers to order penicillin allergy testing for patients receiving aztreonam. An allergy-trained pharmacist reviewed orders placed through this new guideline and performed skin testing and oral challenges to determine whether these patients could safely take penicillin. Data on tests performed, antibiotic utilization, and cost-savings were compared with patients tested outside the new guideline as part of our institution's standard stewardship program.The guideline significantly increased penicillin allergy testing among patients receiving aztreonam from 24% to 85% (P < .001) while reducing the median delay between admission and testing completion from 3.31 to 1.05 days (P = 0.008). Patients tested under the guideline saw a 58% increase in penicillin exposure (P = .046). Institutional aztreonam administration declined from 2.54 to 1.47 administrations per 1000 patient-days (P = .016). Average antibiotic costs per patient tested before and after CDS decreased from $1265.81 to $592.08 USD, a 53% savings.Targeting penicillin allergy testing to patients on aztreonam yields therapeutic and economic benefits during a single admission. This provides a cost-effective model for inpatient testing.
| S-EPMC6016425 | biostudies-other
Project description:Allergy assessments and penicillin skin testing are associated with reductions in high-Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI)-risk antibiotic use and lower hospital-acquired CDI rates; however, these activities require substantial personnel and resource allocation. Recently, many antimicrobial stewardship programs' (ASPs) focus shifted towards supporting the COVID-19 pandemic response. We evaluated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on a pharmacist-led allergy assessment and penicillin skin testing program. Patients undergoing allergy assessment and/or penicillin skin testing (PST) from 1 January 2017 through 30 April 2021 were included for review. Monthly PST and allergy assessment rates were calculated and defined as the number of PSTs or allergy assessments per 1000 unique patient encounters for each month, respectively. The study used interrupted time series regression to assess potential level and slope changes in allergy assessments and PSTs during the pandemic. 200 058 total inpatient encounters by 188 867 unique patients occurred during the study period. ASP performed 918 allergy assessments and 204 PSTs. The local onset of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic during March 2020 was associated with significant level reductions in allergy assessments and PSTs. Additional responsibilities added to the ASP team during the COVID-19 pandemic limited the ability to perform core antimicrobial stewardship activities with proven patient care benefits.
| S-EPMC9347724 | biostudies-literature
Project description:About 10% of U.K. patients believe that they are allergic to penicillin and have a "penicillin allergy label" in their primary care health record. However, around 90% of these patients may be mislabelled. Removing incorrect penicillin allergy labels can help to reduce unnecessary broad-spectrum antibiotic use. A rapid review was undertaken of papers exploring patient and/or clinician views and experiences of penicillin allergy testing (PAT) services and the influences on antibiotic prescribing behaviour in the context of penicillin allergy. We reviewed English-language publications published up to November 2017. Limited evidence on patients' experiences of PAT highlighted advantages to testing as well as a number of concerns. Clinicians reported uncertainty about referral criteria for PAT. Following PAT and a negative result, a number of clinicians and patients remained reluctant to prescribe and consume penicillins. This appeared to reflect a lack of confidence in the test result and fear of subsequent reactions to penicillins. The findings suggest lack of awareness and knowledge of PAT services by both clinicians and patients. In order to ensure correct penicillin allergy diagnosis, clinicians and patients need to be supported to use PAT services and equipped with the skills to use penicillins appropriately following a negative allergy test result.
| S-EPMC6164736 | 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
Project description:BackgroundAllergy documentation is frequently inconsistent and incomplete. The impact of this variability on subsequent treatment is not well described.ObjectiveTo determine how allergy documentation affects subsequent antibiotic choice.DesignRetrospective, cohort study.Participants232,616 adult patients seen by 199 primary care providers (PCPs) between January 1, 2009 and January 1, 2014 at an academic medical system.Main measuresInter-physician variation in beta-lactam allergy documentation; antibiotic treatment following beta-lactam allergy documentation.Key results15.6% of patients had a reported beta-lactam allergy. Of those patients, 39.8% had a specific allergen identified and 22.7% had allergic reaction characteristics documented. Variation between PCPs was greater than would be expected by chance (all p<0.001) in the percentage of their patients with a documented beta-lactam allergy (7.9% to 24.8%), identification of a specific allergen (e.g. amoxicillin as opposed to "penicillins") (24.0% to 58.2%) and documentation of the reaction characteristics (5.4% to 51.9%). After beta-lactam allergy documentation, patients were less likely to receive penicillins (Relative Risk [RR] 0.16 [95% Confidence Interval: 0.15-0.17]) and cephalosporins (RR 0.28 [95% CI 0.27-0.30]) and more likely to receive fluoroquinolones (RR 1.5 [95% CI 1.5-1.6]), clindamycin (RR 3.8 [95% CI 3.6-4.0]) and vancomycin (RR 5.0 [95% CI 4.3-5.8]). Among patients with beta-lactam allergy, rechallenge was more likely when a specific allergen was identified (RR 1.6 [95% CI 1.5-1.8]) and when reaction characteristics were documented (RR 2.0 [95% CI 1.8-2.2]).ConclusionsProvider documentation of beta-lactam allergy is highly variable, and details of the allergy are infrequently documented. Classification of a patient as beta-lactam allergic and incomplete documentation regarding the details of the allergy lead to beta-lactam avoidance and use of other antimicrobial agents, behaviors that may adversely impact care quality and cost.
| S-EPMC4794183 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Documented penicillin allergies have been associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes. The goal of this project was to assess the effectiveness and feasibility of a pharmacist-led penicillin allergy "de-labeling" process that does not involve labor-intensive skin testing or direct oral challenges. Adult patients with penicillin allergies were identified and interviewed by an infectious diseases pharmacy resident during a 3-month pilot period. Using an evidence-based standardized checklist, the pharmacist determined if an allergy qualified for de-labeling. In total, 66 patients were interviewed during the pilot period. The average time spent was 5.2 min per patient interviewed. Twelve patients (18%) met the criteria for de-labeling and consented to the removal of the allergy. Four patients (6%) met the criteria but declined removal of the allergy. In brief, 58.3% of patients (7/12) who were de-labeled and 50% of patients (2/4) who declined de-labeling but had their allergy updated to reflect intolerance were subsequently prescribed beta-lactam antibiotics and all (9/9, 100%) were able to tolerate these agents. A pharmacist-led penicillin allergy de-labeling process utilizing a standardized checklist is an effective and feasible method for removing penicillin allergies in patients without a true allergy.
| S-EPMC8293328 | biostudies-literature