Penicillin Allergy Evaluation Access: A National Survey.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Mancini CM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7947974 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Penicillin Allergy Evaluation Access: A National Survey.
Mancini Christian M CM Fu Xiaoqing X Zhang Yuqing Y Kuper Kristi K Schulz Lucas T LT Bhowmick Tanaya T Postelnick Michael M Lee Francesca F Walensky Rochelle P RP Blumenthal Kimberly G KG
Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America 20201201 11
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. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
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: Not available
| S-EPMC7554064 | 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:ImportancePenicillin allergies are frequently mislabeled, which may contribute to use of less-preferred alternative antibiotics.ObjectiveTo evaluate a pharmacist-led allergy assessment program's association with antimicrobial use and clinical outcomes.Design, setting, and participantsA pharmacist-led allergy assessment program was launched in 2 phases (June 1, 2015, and November 2, 2016) at a single-center tertiary referral hospital. The longitudinal cross-sectional study included all study period adult admissions; hospitalwide outcomes were assessed by segmented regression. Individual outcomes were assessed within an embedded propensity score-matched case-control study of inpatients undergoing comprehensive allergy assessment following self-report of penicillin allergy. Analysis occurred from March 1, 2020, to February 29, 2020.ExposuresThe longitudinal study analyzed hospital-level outcomes over 3 periods: preintervention (15 months), phase 1 (structured allergy history alone, 16 months), and phase 2 (comprehensive assessment including penicillin skin testing, 52 months). The case-control study defined cases as individuals undergoing comprehensive allergy assessment.Main outcomes and measuresHospital-level outcomes included antibiotic days of therapy per 1000 patient-days and hospital-acquired Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) incidence per 10 000 patient-days. Individual outcomes included antibiotic selection, overall survival, and CDI-free survival.ResultsLongitudinal analysis spanned 2014-2020 (median admissions, 46 416 per year; interquartile range [IQR], 46 001-50 091 per year). Hospitalwide, allergy histories were temporally associated with decreased use of nonpenicillin alternative antibiotics (rate ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.79-0.97) and high-CDI-risk antibiotics (rate ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85-0.98). Penicillin skin testing was temporally associated with lower hospital-acquired CDI rates (rate ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.43-0.86). The embedded case-control study included 272 cases and 819 controls. Median age was 63 years (interquartile range, 51-73 years), 553 (50.7%) patients were women, and 229 (21.0%) patients were Black. Allergy-assessed patients were less likely to receive high-CDI-risk antibiotics at discharge (odds ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.44-0.98). Estimated reductions in mortality (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.55-1.07) and hospital-acquired CDI risk (hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.18-1.55) were not statistically significant.Conclusions and relevancePharmacist-led allergy assessments may be associated with reduced high-CDI-risk antibiotic use at both hospitalwide and individual levels. Although individual reductions in mortality and CDI risk did not achieve significance, divergence of survival curves suggest longer-term benefits of allergy delabeling warrant future study.
| S-EPMC8120333 | 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: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: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: Not available
| S-EPMC11327879 | 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
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7325068 | biostudies-literature