Penicillin Allergy Delabeling: A Multidisciplinary Opportunity.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Staicu ML
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8019188 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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:BackgroundPenicillin allergies are associated with inferior patient and antimicrobial stewardship outcomes. We implemented a whole-of-hospital program to assess the efficacy of inpatient delabeling for low-risk penicillin allergies in hospitalized inpatients.MethodsPatients ≥ 18 years of age with a low-risk penicillin allergy were offered a single-dose oral penicillin challenge or direct label removal based on history (direct delabeling). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients delabeled. Key secondary endpoints were antibiotic utilization pre- (index admission) and post-delabeling (index admission and 90 days).ResultsBetween 21 January 2019 and 31 August 2019, we assessed 1791 patients reporting 2315 antibiotic allergies, 1225 with a penicillin allergy. Three hundred fifty-five patients were delabeled: 161 by direct delabeling and 194 via oral penicillin challenge. Ninety-seven percent (194/200) of patients were negative upon oral penicillin challenge. In the delabeled patients, we observed an increase in narrow-spectrum penicillin usage (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 10.51 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 5.39-20.48]), improved appropriate antibiotic prescribing (adjusted OR, 2.13 [95% CI, 1.45-3.13]), and a reduction in restricted antibiotic usage (adjusted OR, 0.38 [95% CI, .27-.54]). In the propensity score analysis, there was an increase in narrow-spectrum penicillins (OR, 10.89 [95% CI, 5.09-23.31]) and β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitors (OR, 6.68 [95% CI, 3.94-11.35]) and a reduction in restricted antibiotic use (OR, 0.52 [95% CI, .36-.74]) and inappropriate prescriptions (relative risk ratio, 0.43 [95% CI, .26-.72]) in the delabeled group compared with the group who retained their allergy label.ConclusionsThis health services program using a combination of direct delabeling and oral penicillin challenge resulted in significant impacts on the use of preferred antibiotics and appropriate prescribing.
| S-EPMC8326579 | 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: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: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-EPMC7554064 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7325068 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Antibiotic allergy testing (AAT) practices of Emerging Infections Network infectious disease physicians were surveyed. Although AAT was perceived to be necessary for removal of inappropriate or unnecessary allergy labels, there was limited access to any form of testing. In this study, we discuss current antibiotic allergy knowledge gaps and the development of AAT practices within antimicrobial stewardship programs, which will potentially improve antimicrobial prescribing.
| S-EPMC5084721 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportancePenicillin allergy is a significant public health issue for patients, antimicrobial stewardship programs, and health services. Validated clinical decision rules are urgently needed to identify low-risk penicillin allergies that potentially do not require penicillin skin testing by a specialist.ObjectiveTo develop and validate a penicillin allergy clinical decision rule that enables point-of-care risk assessment of patient-reported penicillin allergies.Design, setting, and participantsIn this diagnostic study, a multicenter prospective antibiotic allergy-tested cohort of 622 patients from 2 tertiary care sites in Melbourne, Australia (Austin Health and Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre) was used for derivation and internal validation of a penicillin allergy decision rule. Backward stepwise logistic regression was used to derive the model, including clinical variables predictive of a positive penicillin allergy test result. Internal validation of the final model used bootstrapped samples and the model scoring derived from the coefficients. External validation was performed in retrospective penicillin allergy-tested cohorts consisting of 945 patients from Sydney and Perth, Australia, and Nashville, Tennessee. Patients who reported a penicillin allergy underwent penicillin allergy testing using skin prick, intradermal, or patch testing and/or oral challenge (direct or after skin testing). Data were collected from June 26, 2008, to June 3, 2019, and analyzed from January 9 to 12, 2019.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome for the model was any positive result of penicillin allergy testing performed during outpatient or inpatient assessment.ResultsFrom an internal derivation and validation cohort of 622 patients (367 female [59.0%]; median age, 60 [interquartile range{IQR}, 48-71] years) and an external validation cohort of 945 patients (662 female [70.1%]; median age, 55 [IQR, 38-68] years), the 4 features associated with a positive penicillin allergy test result on multivariable analysis were summarized in the mnemonic PEN-FAST: penicillin allergy, five or fewer years ago, anaphylaxis/angioedema, severe cutaneous adverse reaction (SCAR), and treatment required for allergy episode. The major criteria included an allergy event occurring 5 or fewer years ago (2 points) and anaphylaxis/angioedema or SCAR (2 points); the minor criterion (1 point), treatment required for an allergy episode. Internal validation showed minimal mean optimism of 0.003 with internally validated area under the curve of 0.805. A cutoff of less than 3 points for PEN-FAST was chosen to classify a low risk of penicillin allergy, for which only 17 of 460 patients (3.7%) had positive results of allergy testing, with a negative predictive value of 96.3% (95% CI, 94.1%-97.8%). External validation resulted in similar findings.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, PEN-FAST was found to be a simple rule that accurately identified low-risk penicillin allergies that do not require formal allergy testing. The results suggest that a PEN-FAST score of less than 3, associated with a high negative predictive value, could be used by clinicians and antimicrobial stewardship programs to identify low-risk penicillin allergies at the point of care.
| S-EPMC7076536 | 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