Penicillin allergy labels drive perioperative prophylactic antibiotic selection in orthopedic procedures.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Coleman DT
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7655694 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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-EPMC7325068 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7301733 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPerioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in non-infected orthopedic surgery is evident, in contrast to prophylaxis during surgery for infection. Epidemiological data are lacking for this particular situation.Methods and findingsIt is a single-center cohort on iterative surgical site infections (SSIs) in infected orthopedic patients. We included 2480 first episodes of orthopedic infections (median age 56 years and 833 immune-suppressed): implant-related infections (n = 648), osteoarticular infections (1153), and 1327 soft tissue infections. The median number of debridement was 1 (range, 1-15 interventions). Overall, 1617 infections (65%) were debrided once compared to 862 cases that were operated multiple times (35%). Upon iterative intraoperative tissue sampling, we detected pathogens in 507 cases (507/862; 59%), of which 241 (242/507; 48%) corresponded to the initial species at the first debridement. We witnessed 265 new SSIs (11% of the cohort) that were resistant to current antibiotic therapy in 174 cases (7% of the cohort). In multivariate analysis, iterative surgical debridements that were performed under current antibiotic administration were associated with new SSIs (odds ratio 1.6, 95%CI 1.2-2.2); mostly occurring after the 2nd debridement. However, we failed to define an ideal hypothetic prophylaxis during antibiotic therapy to prevent further SSIs.ConclusionsSelection of new pathogens resistant to ongoing antibiotic therapy occurs frequently during iterative debridement in orthopedic infections, especially after the 2nd debridement. The new pathogens are however unpredictable. The prevention, if feasible, probably relies on surgical performance and wise indications for re-debridement instead of new maximal prophylactic antibiotic coverage in addition to current therapeutic regimens.
| S-EPMC6919616 | 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: Not available
| S-EPMC10712711 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Unverified penicillin allergy leads to adverse downstream clinical and economic sequelae. Penicillin allergy evaluation can be used to identify true, IgE-mediated allergy. OBJECTIVE:To estimate the cost of penicillin allergy evaluation using time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC). METHODS:We 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. RESULTS:The 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. CONCLUSIONS:Using 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: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:Antibiotics are the commonest cause of life-threatening immune-mediated drug reactions that are considered off-target, including anaphylaxis, and organ-specific and severe cutaneous adverse reactions. However, many antibiotic reactions documented as allergies were unknown or not remembered by the patient, cutaneous reactions unrelated to drug hypersensitivity, drug-infection interactions, or drug intolerances. Although such reactions pose negligible risk to patients, they currently represent a global threat to public health. Antibiotic allergy labels result in displacement of first-line therapies for antibiotic prophylaxis and treatment. A penicillin allergy label, in particular, is associated with increased use of broad-spectrum and non-β-lactam antibiotics, which results in increased adverse events and antibiotic resistance. Most patients labelled as allergic to penicillins are not allergic when appropriately stratified for risk, tested, and re-challenged. Given the public health importance of penicillin allergy, this Review provides a global update on antibiotic allergy epidemiology, classification, mechanisms, and management.
| S-EPMC6563335 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To investigate documentation of antimicrobial allergy and to determine prescribing adherence to local antibiotic guidelines for inpatients with and without reported penicillin allergy treated for infection in a National Health Service (NHS) context. SETTING:Data were collected at two English hospital NHS trusts over two time-periods: June 2016 and February 2017. DESIGN:Cohort study. Trust 1 data were sourced from prospective point prevalence surveys. Trust 2 data were extracted retrospectively from an electronic report. PARTICIPANTS:Inpatients treated for urinary tract infection (UTI), community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and skin and soft tissue infection (SSTI). Data on allergy were collected, and antibiotic selection assessed for adherence to trust guidelines with differences between groups presented as adjusted ORs. RESULTS:A total of 1497 patients were included, with 2645 antibiotics orders. Patients were treated for CAP (n=495; 33.1%), UTI (407; 27.2%), HAP (330; 22%) and SSTI (265; 17.7%). There were 240 (16%) patients with penicillin allergy. Penicillin allergy was recorded as allergy (n=52; 21.7%), side effect (27; 11.3%) and no documentation (161; 67.1%). Overall, 2184 (82.6%) antibiotic orders were guideline-adherent. Adherence was greatest for those labelled penicillin allergy (453 of 517; 87.6%) versus no allergy (1731 of 2128; 81.3%) (OR 0.52 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.73) p<0.001). Guideline-adherence for CAP was higher if penicillin allergy (151 of 163; 92.6%) versus no allergy (582 of 810; 71.9%) (OR 0.20 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.37) p<0.001). There was no difference in adherence between those with and without penicillin allergy for UTI, HAP or SSTI treatment. CONCLUSIONS:A relatively high proportion of patients had a penicillin allergy and two thirds of these had no description of their allergy, which has important implications for patient safety. Patients with penicillin allergy treated for CAP, received more guideline adherent antibiotics than those without allergy. Future studies investigating the clinical impact of penicillin allergy should include data on adherence to antibiotic guidelines.
| S-EPMC6398633 | biostudies-literature