Breaking the Mold: Safely Delabeling Penicillin Allergies in Hospitalized Children.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Antoon JW
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8074113 | biostudies-literature | 2021 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Breaking the Mold: Safely Delabeling Penicillin Allergies in Hospitalized Children.
Antoon James W JW Grisso Alison G AG Stone Cosby A CA
Hospital pediatrics 20210413 5
Similar Datasets
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:BackgroundPenicillin allergy is self-reported by 3-10% of patients admitted to hospital. The label is wrong in 90% of the cases and has severe health implications. Penicillin-delabeling can reverse the negative effects of the label, and pathways adapted to local practice are needed. No tools are available in Norway for penicillin delabeling outside an allergy clinic.ObjectiveTo create and validate the first penicillin delabeling pathway applicable outside an allergy clinic in Norway.MethodsAn interdisciplinary taskforce created a penicillin allergy delabeling program (PAD) adapted to the Norwegian health care system. This was validated in a prospective, single-center study. Very low-risk and low-risk patients underwent a direct oral penicillin challenge and high-risk patients were referred for allergologic evaluation.ResultsOne-hundred forty-nine patients declaring penicillin allergy were included. Seventy-four (50%) were very-low- and low risk patients suitable for a direct oral penicillin challenge resulting in only 1 mild reaction. Sixty high-risk patients were eligible for an oral penicillin challenge after allergologic evaluation; 3 patients reacted non-severely.ConclusionWe have created and demonstrated feasibility of the first penicillin delabeling program (PAD) applicable in a hospital setting outside an allergy clinic in Norway. Our data suggest this is safe and beneficial, with 49% patients delabeled through a direct oral penicillin challenge, performed without any serious adverse events, and an overall 87% delabeling rate.
| S-EPMC10587752 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Delayed immune-mediated adverse drug reactions (IM-ADRs) are defined as reactions occurring more than 6 hours after dosing. They include heterogeneous clinical phenotypes that are typically T-cell-mediated reactions with distinct mechanisms across a wide spectrum of severity from benign exanthems through to life-threatening cutaneous or organ-specific diseases. For mild reactions such as benign exanthem, considerations for delabeling are similar to immediate reactions and may include a graded or single-dose drug challenge with or without preceding skin or patch testing. Evaluation of challenging cases such as the patient who is on multiple drugs at the time a severe delayed IM-ADR occurs should prioritize clinical ascertainment of the most likely phenotype and implicated drug(s). Although not widely available and validated, procedures such as patch testing, delayed intradermal skin testing, and laboratory-based functional drug assays or genetic (human leukocyte antigen) testing may provide valuable information to further help risk stratify patients and identify the likely implicated and/or cross-reactive drug(s). The decision to use a drug challenge as a diagnostic or delabeling tool in a patient with a severe delayed IM-ADR should weigh the risk-benefit ratio, balancing the severity and priority for the treatment of the underlying, and the availability of alternative efficacious and safe treatments.
| S-EPMC7548397 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPenicillin (PCN) allergy labels are widely recognized to be highly inaccurate. Little is known about parental perceptions of the PCN allergy evaluation and removal process, especially in the hospital setting.MethodsFocus groups were held with parents of children and adolescents with a PCN allergy label discharged from a large academic children's hospital between January 1, 2019, and April 15, 2020. The open-ended, semistructured moderator guide included questions about PCN allergy testing and evaluation, accuracy of the PCN allergy diagnosis, amoxicillin oral challenges, delabeling process, and preferred setting for PCN allergy delabeling evaluation (outpatient clinic, hospital, etc). Study investigators coded the transcripts and identified underlying themes using inductive and deductive thematic analysis.ResultsA total of 21 parents and 2 adolescents participated across 4 focus groups. We developed a theoretical framework depicting key elements of parents' and adolescents' experiences with PCN allergies, consisting of 4 major interconnected themes: (1) family context; (2) the invitation to delabel; (3) decision context; and (4) the PCN delabeling outcome. PCN allergies remained a concern for families even if their children passed an oral challenge. Some parents preferred testing to be performed in the hospital and felt this was a safer location for the procedure.ConclusionsParents are amenable to hospital based PCN allergy evaluation and delabeling. Further studies should incorporate parental and patient preferences to implement safe and effective PCN allergy delabeling processes in the hospital setting.
| S-EPMC10071421 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Penicillin allergy delabeling is an important component of antimicrobial stewardship and improves patient outcomes. We demonstrated the successful use of a nurse-initiated questionnaire to remove inappropriate penicillin allergy labels in inpatients. Nurses can play a key role in improving antibiotic allergy assessment and more broadly in interprofessional antimicrobial stewardship.
| S-EPMC9726580 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPenicillin allergy labels are often inaccurate in children and removing unnecessary labels results in improved outcomes and lower health care costs. Although the hospital setting is a frequent point of contact for children, strategies to evaluate penicillin allergies in the hospital are lacking.MethodsWe performed a prospective pilot study to determine the feasibility of a centralized, pharmacy-led approach to penicillin allergy evaluation. Children with a reported history of penicillin allergy admitted to our children's hospital were risk-stratified and those stratified as low-risk underwent a single-dose oral challenge by a central pharmacist, regardless of the need for antibiotics. After the completion of each patient's delabeling process, surveys were distributed to health care personnel involved in the patient's care to collect perceptions on the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of this intervention. Measures were scored by using a 5-point Likert scale.ResultsOf the 23 patients who screened as low-risk, 20 underwent a penicillin allergy evaluation and an oral challenge. Of these, the penicillin allergy label was removed in 19 (95%) patients (Fig 1). The median age was 7 years (range 11 months-18 years). Participants rated the risk stratification and delabeling favorably overall, with high ratings on all 3 implementation measures: acceptability (mean 4.55, ± standard deviation [STD] 0.65), appropriateness (mean 4.58, STD ± 0.6), and feasibility (mean 4.51, STD ± 0.73). Measures of acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility remained high when stratified by health care worker type and provider type.ConclusionsOur findings provide support for systemic implementation of penicillin allergy delabeling strategies in hospitalized children.
| S-EPMC9250588 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In a cross-sectional study of 20 Massachusetts long-term care (LTC) facilities, 19% (n = 449) of residents received antibiotics, with approximately one-third having a documented penicillin allergy. This documented allergy decreased the likelihood of prescribing beta-lactam antibiotics for infections. Improved penicillin allergy assessments and delabeling could optimize antibiotic prescribing in LTC settings.
| S-EPMC11488468 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundReported penicillin allergy rarely reflects penicillin intolerance. Failure to address inpatient penicillin allergies results in more broad-spectrum antibiotic use, treatment failures, and adverse drug events.ObjectiveWe aimed to determine the optimal approach to penicillin allergies among medical inpatients.MethodsWe evaluated internal medicine inpatients reporting penicillin allergy in 3 periods: (1) standard of care (SOC), (2) penicillin skin testing (ST), and (3) computerized guideline application with decision support (APP). The primary outcome was use of a penicillin or cephalosporin, comparing interventions to SOC using multivariable logistic regression.ResultsThere were 625 patients: SOC, 148; ST, 278; and APP, 199. Of 278 ST patients, 179 (64%) were skin test eligible; 43 (24%) received testing and none were allergic. In the APP period, there were 292 unique Web site views; 112 users (38%) completed clinical decision support. Although ST period patients did not have increased odds of penicillin or cephalosporin use overall (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.3; 95% CI, 0.8-2.0), we observed significant increased odds of penicillin or cephalosporin use overall in the APP period (aOR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-2.9) and in a per-protocol analysis of the skin tested subset (aOR, 5.7; 95% CI, 2.6-12.5).ConclusionsBoth APP and ST-when completed-increased the use of penicillin and cephalosporin antibiotics among inpatients reporting penicillin allergy. While the skin tested subset showed an almost 6-fold impact, the computerized guideline significantly increased penicillin or cephalosporin use overall nearly 2-fold and was readily implemented.
| S-EPMC5496780 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Secondary prevention with penicillin aims to prevent further episodes of acute rheumatic fever and subsequent development of rheumatic heart disease (RHD). Penicillin allergy, self-reported by 10% of the population, can affect secondary prevention programs. We aimed to assess the role for (i) routine penicillin allergy testing and the (ii) safety of penicillin allergy delabeling approaches in this context. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, ISRCTN, and CPCI-S to identify the relevant reports. We found 2419 records, but no studies addressed our initial question. Following advice from the WHO-Guideline committee and experts, we identified 6 manuscripts on allergy testing focusing on other populations showing that the prevalence of allergy confirmed by testing was low and the incidence of life-threatening reactions to BPG was very low (< 1-3/1000 individuals treated). A subsequent search addressed penicillin allergy delabeling. This found 516 records, and 5 studies addressing the safety of direct oral drug challenge vs. skin testing followed by drug administration in patients with suspected penicillin allergy. Immediate allergic reactions of minor severity were observed for a minority of patients and occurred less frequently in the direct drug challenge group: 2.3% vs. 11.5%; RR = 0.25, 95%CI 0.15-0.45, P < 0.00001, I2 = 0%. No anaphylaxis or deaths were observed. Severe allergic reactions to penicillin are extremely rare and can be recognized and dealt by trained healthcare workers. Confirmation of penicillin allergy diagnosis or delabeling using direct oral drug challenge or penicillin skin testing seems to be safe and is associated with a low rate of adverse reactions.
| S-EPMC11193836 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Efforts to delabel penicillin allergic patients are important as the majority of suspected penicillin allergy can be ruled out by relevant allergy testing. The aim is to change the antibiotic pattern in delabeled patients to minimize use of unnecessary broad-spectrum antibiotics, reducing the risk of antimicrobial resistance and making treatment more cost effective. However, published information on subsequent antibiotic use is scarce. To evaluate the effect of delabeling on subsequent antibiotic use in primary care, a cohort of 2911 patients tested for penicillin allergy was compared to a matched control group of 14,522 individuals from the background population. In total 86.4% of the tested patients were delabeled. For delabeled patients, penicillin use increased from 0.07 prescriptions per patient year before allergy investigation, to 0.53 prescriptions per patient year post investigation (p < 0.001). The use of fluoroquinolones and macrolides was reduced and reached a level comparable to the background population. This study shows that penicillin allergy delabeling has significant positive impact on subsequent antibiotic use in primary care, and that penicillin use increases to levels similar to the background population. Penicillin allergy delabeling should be prioritized as an important and efficient element in antimicrobial stewardship initiatives.
| S-EPMC11388693 | biostudies-literature