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: Not available
| S-EPMC11327879 | 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:BackgroundThe diagnosis of allergic reactions to penicillins (AR-PEN) is very complex as there is a loss of sensitization over time, which leads to negative skin tests (STs) and specific IgE in serum, and even to tolerance to the drug involved. However, STs may become positive after subsequent exposure to the culprit drug (resensitization), with the risk of inducing potentially severe reactions. The exact rate of resensitization to penicillins is unknown, ranging from 0% to 27.9% in published studies.ObjectivesTo analyze the rate of resensitization in patients with suggestive AR-PEN by repeating STs (retest) after an initial evaluation (IE).Material and methodsPatients with suspected AR-PEN were prospectively evaluated between 2017 and 2020. They underwent STs, and a randomized group also underwent a drug provocation test (DPT) with the culprit. Only patients with negative STs and/or DPT were included. All included cases were retested by STs at 2-8 weeks.ResultsA total of 545 patients were included: 296 reporting immediate reactions (IRs) and 249 non-immediate reactions (NIRs). Eighty (14.7%) cases had positive results in retest (RT+): 63 (21.3%) IRs and 17 (6.8%) NIRs (p < 0.0001). The rate of RT+ was higher in anaphylaxis compared with all other reactions (45.8% vs 9.1%, p < 0.0001). The risk of RT+ was higher from the fifth week after IE (OR: 4.64, CI: 2.1-11.6; p < 0.001) and increased with the patient's age (OR: 1.02; CI: 1.01-1.04; p = 0.009).ConclusionsDue to the high rate of resensitization, retest should be included in the diagnostic algorithm of IRs to penicillins after an initial negative study, especially in anaphylaxis, to avoid potentially severe reactions after subsequent prescriptions of these drugs.
| S-EPMC10087608 | 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:BackgroundPenicillin allergy labels frequently impede guideline-directed treatment with a penicillin or other β-lactam antibiotics. Despite presumed allergy, targeted questioning may indicate a low probability of sensitization and permit reasonably safe administration of the antibiotic in question. In this study, we evaluated a standardized algorithm aiming to differentiate non-allergic patients from those with true allergic β-lactam hypersensitivity.MethodsWe retrospectively applied a de-labelling algorithm in 800 consecutive patients with suspected β-lactam hypersensitivity. All had undergone complete allergy work-up permitting to definitely exclude or diagnose β-lactam allergy between 2009 and 2019.ResultsIn 595 (74.4%) out of 800 cases evaluated, β-lactam allergy could be excluded by negative challenge testing. IgE-mediated anaphylaxis was diagnosed in 70 (8.7%) patients, delayed-type hypersensitivity in 135 (16.9%). In 62 (88.6%) anaphylaxis cases, the algorithm correctly advised to use an alternative antibiotic. Accuracy was higher in patients with moderate to severe anaphylaxis (97.7%) compared to those with a history of mild reactions (73.1%). The algorithm correctly identified 122 (90.4%) patients with proven delayed-type hypersensitivity. It permitted de-labelling in 330 (55.5%) out of 595 patients with diagnostic exclusion of penicillin hypersensitivity, but failed to identify the remaining 265 (44.5%) as low-risk cases.ConclusionsThe algorithm detected 89.8% of cases with penicillin (β-lactam) allergy, sensitivity was optimal for moderate to severe anaphylaxis. Study data justify the implementation of a standardized de-labelling algorithm under close supervision in order to permit guideline-directed treatment and reduce the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics as part of an antibiotic stewardship program.
| S-EPMC8941741 | 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