[Second-Generation Antihistamines for Preventing Hypersensitivity Reactions during Anticancer Therapy-A Retrospective Study].

Hypersensitivity reactions are an adverse effect of anticancer drug therapy. Prophylactic administration of antiallergic drugs and steroids is recommended when administering drugs associated with a high hypersensitivity reaction incidence. First-generation antihistamines are generally used in this setting. These medications, however, induce drowsiness and sedation due to their inhibitory effects on the central nervous system. They are contraindicated in patients with angle-closure glaucoma and prostatic hyperplasia. Second-generation antihistamines are used as alternative drugs for such cases in our hospital. This study investigated the use of second-generation antihistamines at our hospital and examined their efficacy and safety. A total of 7 second-generation antihistamines were used at our hospital. Approximately 90% of the target patients were shifted from first-generation antihistamines to bilastine or desloratadine. The most frequent reasons for changing to second- generation antihistamines were drowsiness(32.3%)and car driving(24.2%). No central inhibitory side effects were observed upon consumption of second-generation antihistamines. Only 2 patients(3.2%)developed hypersensitivity reactions after changing to second-generation antihistamines. Our findings suggest that second-generation antihistamines are effective in preventing hypersensitivity reactions. These medications may be used in patients who have concerns regarding the central inhibitory side effects of first-generation antihistamines or their potential to exacerbate comorbidities. Their use can help improve the safety of anticancer drug therapy.

Intradermal fractional dose vaccination as a method to vaccinate individuals with suspected allergy to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

Suspected allergic reactions after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination withheld multiple individuals from getting fully vaccinated during the pandemic. We vaccinated adults who had experienced possible allergic symptoms after their first intramuscular dose of a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine with a 1/5th fractional intradermal test dose of the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) COVID-19 vaccine. No anaphylactic reactions were observed after intradermal vaccination (n = 56). Serum anti-S1 IgG concentrations were measured using a bead-based multiplex assay four weeks after vaccinations. Antibody concentrations were compared with a previously collected nationwide cohort that had received two intramuscular doses of mRNA-1273. Antibody responses in all subjects tested (n = 47) were comparable to standard of care intramuscular dosing. Fractional intradermal dosing of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines may provide a pragmatic solution that is safe, time efficient compared to skin prick testing, dose sparing and immunogenic in individuals with suspected vaccine allergy.

Effect of Switching the Histamine-1 Receptor Antagonist Clemastine to Cetirizine in Paclitaxel Premedication Regimens: The H1-Switch Study.

PURPOSE: Premedication, including a histamine-1 receptor (H1) antagonist, is recommended to all patients treated with paclitaxel chemotherapy to reduce the incidence of hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs). However, the scientific basis for this premedication is not robust, which provides opportunities for optimization. Substitution of intravenously administered first-generation H1 antagonist for orally administered second-generation H1 antagonist could reduce side effects, and improve efficiency and sustainability. This study investigates the efficacy and safety of substituting intravenous clemastine for oral cetirizine as prophylaxis for paclitaxel-induced HSRs. METHODS: This single-center, prospective, noninferiority study compares a historic cohort receiving a premedication regimen with intravenous clemastine to a prospective cohort receiving oral cetirizine. Primary end point of the study is HSR grade ≥3. The difference in incidence was calculated together with the 90% CI. We determined that the two-sided 90% CI of HSR grade ≥3 incidence in the oral cetirizine cohort should not be more than 4% higher (ie, the noninferiority margin) compared with the intravenous clemastine cohort. RESULTS: Two hundred and twelve patients were included in the oral cetirizine cohort (June 2022 and May 2023) and 183 in the intravenous clemastine cohort. HSR grade ≥3 incidence was 1.6% (n = 3) in the intravenous clemastine cohort and 0.5% (n = 1) in the oral cetirizine cohort, resulting in a difference of -1.2% (90% CI, -3.4 to 1.1). CONCLUSION: Premedication containing oral cetirizine is as safe as premedication containing intravenous clemastine in preventing paclitaxel-induced HSR grade ≥3. These findings could contribute to optimization of care for patients and improve efficiency and sustainability.

Perioperative Cefazolin for Total Joint Arthroplasty Patients Who Have a Penicillin Allergy: Is It Safe?

BACKGROUND: Cefazolin is the standard of care for perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in total joint arthroplasty (TJA) in the United States. The potential allergic cross-reactivity between cefazolin and penicillin causes uncertainty regarding optimal antibiotic choice in patients who have a reported penicillin allergy (rPCNA). The purpose of this study was to determine the safety of perioperative cefazolin in PCNA patients undergoing primary TJA. METHODS: We identified all patients (n = 49,842) undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (n = 25,659) or total knee arthroplasty (n = 24,183) from 2016 to 2022 who received perioperative intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis. Patients who had an rPCNA (n = 5,508) who received cefazolin (n = 4,938, 89.7%) were compared to rPCNA patients who did not (n = 570, 10.3%), and to patients who did not have an rPCNA (n = 43,359). The primary outcome was the rate of allergic reactions within 72 hours postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included the rates of superficial infections, deep infections, and Clostridioides difficile infections within 90 days. RESULTS: The rate of allergic reactions was 0.1% (n = 5) in rPCNA patients who received cefazolin, compared to 0.2% (n = 1) in rPCNA patients who did not (P = .48) and 0.02% (n = 11) in patients who have no rPCNA (P = .02). Allergic reactions were mild in all 5 rPCNA patients who received cefazolin and were characterized by cutaneous symptoms (n = 4) or dyspnea in the absence of respiratory distress (n = 1) that resolved promptly with antibiotic discontinuation and administration of antihistamines and/or corticosteroids. We observed no differences in the rates of superficial infections (0.1 versus 0.2%, P = .58), deep infections (0.3 versus 0.4%, P = .68), or C difficile infections (0.04% versus 0%, P = .99) within 90 days in rPCNA patients who received cefazolin versus alternative perioperative antibiotics. CONCLUSIONS: In this series of more than 5,500 patients who had an rPCNA undergoing primary TJA, perioperative prophylaxis with cefazolin resulted in a 0.1% incidence of allergic reactions that were clinically indolent. Cefazolin can be safely administered to most patients, independent of rPCNA severity. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Is a low dose of dexamethasone sufficient to prevent paclitaxel-related hypersensitivity reactions? A retrospective study in patients with gynecologic malignancy.

BACKGROUND: Paclitaxel hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) are prevalent, especially in females. The common paclitaxel pretreatment, dexamethasone, may inhibit chemotherapy efficacy and accelerate tumor progression. We aimed to balance paclitaxel HSRs and the lowest dexamethasone dose for gynecologic malignancies. METHODS: We retrospectively examined 1,074 cycles of 3-weekly paclitaxel-containing treatment for 231 gynecologic malignancies at Xiangya Hospital. HSR incidence with different dexamethasone regimens was the primary outcome. Risk factors were examined in all cycles using univariate and multivariate models with generalized estimating equations. A subgroup analysis of initial exposure to paclitaxel was also conducted. RESULTS: HSR occurred in 33 patients (14.29%) and 49 cycles (4.56%), including 69.39% in cycles 1-2. There were no severe HSRs (grade ≥3). Different premedication regimens, including dexamethasone dosage and route, ranitidine presence or absence, didn't affect HSR incidence in univariate and multivariate analyzes (p > 0.05). Premenopausal women exerted fewer HSRs (ORadj 0.22, 95%CI 0.08-0.58; p = 0.002). At the first exposure to paclitaxel, more than 10 mg of dexamethasone didn't diminish HSRs (OR 0.83, 95%CI 0.27-2.59; p = 0.753). CONCLUSIONS: In gynecologic malignancies, 10 mg dexamethasone along with 20 mg diphenhydramine may be adequate to prevent paclitaxel HSRs without ranitidine. It is necessary to reevaluate paclitaxel premedication regimens.

Rates of paclitaxel hypersensitivity reactions using a modified Markman's infusion protocol as primary prophylaxis.

PURPOSE: Markman's desensitisation protocol allows successful retreatment of patients who have had significant paclitaxel hypersensitivity reactions. We aimed to reduce the risk and severity of paclitaxel hypersensitivity reactions by introducing this protocol as primary prophylaxis. METHODS: We evaluated all patients with a gynaecological malignancy receiving paclitaxel before (December 2018 to September 2019) and after (October 2019 to July 2020) the implementation of a modified Markman's desensitisation protocol. The pre-implementation group received paclitaxel over a gradually up-titrated rate from 60 to 180 ml/h. The post-implementation group received paclitaxel via 3 fixed-dose infusion bags in the first 2 cycles. Rates and severity of paclitaxel hypersensitivity reactions were compared. RESULTS: A total of 426 paclitaxel infusions were administered to 78 patients. The median age was 64 years (range 34-81), and the most common diagnosis was ovarian, fallopian tube and primary peritoneal cancer (67%, n = 52/78). Paclitaxel hypersensitivity reaction rates were similar in the pre-implementation (8%, n = 16/195) and post-implementation groups (9%, n = 20/231; p = 0.87). Most paclitaxel hypersensitivity reactions occurred within 30 min (pre- vs. post-implementation, 88% [n = 14/16] vs. 75% [n = 15/20]; p = 0.45) and were grade 2 in severity (pre- vs. post-implementation, 81% [n = 13/16] vs. 75% [n = 15/20]; p = 0.37). There was one grade 3 paclitaxel hypersensitivity reaction in the pre-implementation group. All patients were successfully rechallenged in the post-implementation group compared to 81% (n = 13/16) in the pre-implementation group (p = 0.43). CONCLUSION: The modified Markman's desensitisation protocol as primary prophylaxis did not reduce the rate or severity of paclitaxel hypersensitivity reactions, although all patients could be successfully rechallenged.

A nurse-driven penicillin allergy risk score in the preoperative setting was associated with increased cefazolin use perioperatively.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To characterize and assess the effects of a preoperative, nurse-driven penicillin allergy risk stratification tool on rates of perioperative cefazolin and second-line antibiotic use. DESIGN: Quasi-experimental quality improvement study of penicillin-allergic surgical patients undergoing procedures for which cefazolin is indicated. SETTING: Outpatient Perioperative Care Clinic (PCC) for preoperative surgical patients at a tertiary care center. PATIENTS: 670 and 1371 adult penicillin-allergic PCC attendants and non-attendants, respectively. INTERVENTION: A paper penicillin allergy risk stratification questionnaire was administered during the PCC visit. Nurses were educated on its use. MEASUREMENTS: Antibiotic (cefazolin, clindamycin, vancomycin) use rates in the 24 months before and 17 months after intervention implementation in November 2020 (November 2018 - April 2022) were assessed in penicillin-allergic PCC attendants with statistical process control charts. Multivariable logistic regression assessed antibiotic use rates pre- and post-intervention adjusting for age, sex, surgical specialty and penicillin allergy history severity. Similar analyses were done in penicillin-allergic PCC non-attendants. MAIN RESULTS: Of 670 penicillin-allergic PCC attendants, 451 (median [IQR] age, 66 (Sousa-Pinto et al., 2021 [14])) were analyzed pre-intervention and 219 (median [IQR] age, 66 (Mine et al., 1970 [13])) post-intervention. One month after implementation, process measures demonstrated an upward shift in cefazolin use for PCC attendants versus no shift or other special cause variation for PCC non-attendants. There were increased odds of cefazolin use (aOR 1.67, 95% CI [1.09-2.57], P = 0.019), decreased odds of clindamycin use (aOR 0.61, 95% CI [0.42-0.89], P = 0.010) and decreased odds of vancomycin use (aOR 0.56, 95% CI [0.35-0.88], P = 0.013) in PCC attendants post-intervention. This effect did not occur in PCC non-attendants. There was no increase in perioperative anaphylaxis post-intervention. CONCLUSIONS: A simple penicillin allergy risk stratification tool implemented in the preoperative setting was associated with increased use of cefazolin and decreased rates of second-line agents post implementation.

Cefazolin as the mainstay for antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with a penicillin allergy in obstetrics and gynecology.

Cefazolin is the most common antibiotic used for prophylaxis in obstetrics and gynecology. Among those with a penicillin allergy, alternative antibiotics are often chosen for prophylaxis, given fears of cross-reactivity between penicillin and cefazolin. Alternative antibiotics in this setting are associated with adverse sequelae, including surgical site infection, induction of bacterial resistance, higher costs to the healthcare system, and possible Clostridium difficile infection. Given the difference in R1 side chains between penicillin and cefazolin, cefazolin use is safe and should be recommended for patients with a penicillin allergy, including those who experience Immunoglobulin E-mediated reactions such as anaphylaxis. Cefazolin should only be avoided in those who experience a history of a severe, life-threatening delayed hypersensitivity reaction manifested as severe cutaneous adverse reactions (Steven-Johnson Syndrome), hepatitis, nephritis, serum sickness, and hemolytic anemia in response to penicillin administration. In addition, >90% of those with a documented penicillin allergy do not have true allergies on skin testing. Increased referral for penicillin allergy testing should be incorporated into routine obstetric care and preoperative assessment to reduce suboptimal antibiotic prophylaxis use. More education is needed among providers surrounding penicillin allergy assessment and cross-reactivity among penicillins and cephalosporins to optimize antibiotic prophylaxis in obstetrics and gynecology.

Prevention of allergic reactions during oxaliplatin desensitization through inhibition of Bruton tyrosine kinase.

BACKGROUND: Acute infusion reactions to oxaliplatin, a chemotherapeutic used to treat gastrointestinal cancers, are observed in about 20% of patients. Rapid drug desensitization (RDD) protocols often allow the continuation of oxaliplatin in patients with no alternative options. Breakthrough symptoms, including anaphylaxis, can still occur during RDD. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to evaluate whether pretreatment with acalabrutinib, a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, can prevent anaphylaxis during RDD in a patient sensitized to oxaliplatin. METHODS: A 52-year-old male with locally advanced gastric carcinoma developed anaphylaxis during his fifth cycle of oxaliplatin. As he required 6 additional cycles to complete his curative-intent treatment regimen, he underwent RDD to oxaliplatin but still developed severe acute reactions. The risks and benefits of adding acalabrutinib before and during RDD were reviewed, and the patient elected to proceed. RESULTS: With acalabrutinib taken before and during the RDD, the patient was able to tolerate oxaliplatin RDD without complication. Consistent with its mechanism of action, acalabrutinib completely blocked the patient's positive skin prick response to oxaliplatin. Acalabrutinib did not alter the percentage of circulating basophils (1.24% vs 0.98%) before the RDD but did protect against basopenia (0.74% vs 0.09%) after the RDD. Acalabrutinib was associated with a drastic reduction in the ability of basophils to upregulate CD63 in vitro following incubation with oxaliplatin (0.11% vs 2.38%) or polyclonal anti-human IgE antibody (0.08% vs 44.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Five doses of acalabrutinib, 100 mg, orally twice daily starting during the evening 2 days before and continuing through RDD allowed a sensitized patient to receive oxaliplatin successfully and safely.

Are changes in antibiotic prophylaxis recommendations responsible for an increased risk of cefazolin allergy?

BACKGROUND: The first line of prevention of surgical site infection relies on the timely administration of antibiotic prophylaxis. First- and second-generation cephalosporins are the most recommended antibiotics in elective surgery. The incidence of cefazolin allergy has increased worldwide over the years. The sensitization mechanism of cefazolin is currently unknown, and data supporting cross-reactivity between penicillins and cephalosporins are lacking. Sensitization could occur through previous exposure either to cefazolin or to structurally related chemical agents. The objective of this study was to evaluate sensitization agents towards cefazolin. METHODS: The OpenBabel chemoinformatics toolbox was used to search for similarities between cefazolin and other molecules in an extensive drug database. Using the pholcodine-rocuronium similarity score as a threshold, we selected drugs with the most similar structure to that of cefazolin. Exposure to those drugs and cefazolin was assessed in a cohort of patients with skin test-proven cefazolin allergy at a specialized allergy centre via a self-administered anonymous questionnaire. RESULTS: Using the pholcodine-rocuronium similarity score as a threshold (score≥0.7), 42 molecules were found to be similar to cefazolin (all cephalosporins). Only 8 were marketed in France. None of the 14 cefazolin-allergic patients who answered the questionnaire (65% female, median age 56 years) reported exposure to any identified antibiotics. In contrast, 11 (78%) had at least one previous surgery requiring cefazolin before the index case. CONCLUSION: Direct previous cefazolin exposure was identified in 78% of cefazolin-allergic patients. Cefazolin started to take a central place in antibiotic prophylaxis after 2010, when cefamandole usage decreased drastically. Changes in antibiotic prophylaxis over the past 14 years in France could have been the turning point for the increased incidence of cefazolin allergy.

Premedication strategy in cetuximab rechallenge after Grade 2 hypersensitivity reactions.

INTRODUCTION: Cetuximab, an IgG1 monoclonal antibody, is utilized in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer and squamous cell head and neck cancers. Due to the risk of hypersensitivity reactions, standard premedication with a histamine-1 (H-1) antagonist is recommended prior to administration, however, there is less guidance for premedication strategies to assist with rechallenge after infusion reactions. Here, we describe two cases of successful cetuximab treatment after Grade 2 reactions, in addition to risk factors and proposed premedication strategies for successful rechallenge. CASE REPORT: Two patients who experienced Grade 2 hypersensitivity reactions were both successfully rechallenged with increased premedications 1-2 weeks after initial infusions. The first patient was a 56-year-old male diagnosed with metastatic colorectal cancer receiving cetuximab as part of a clinical trial. The second patient was a 73-year-old male diagnosed with head and neck cancer receiving cetuximab as part of standard of care concurrent with radiation. MANAGEMENT AND OUTCOME: Each patient was rechallenged with an increased premedication strategy including dexamethasone, famotidine, diphenhydramine, and acetaminophen in addition to reducing the infusion rate. Both patients either continued treatment or successfully completed therapy, without any additional infusion-related reactions. DISCUSSION: We aimed to review risk factors related to cetuximab infusion reactions and propose a premedication strategy for rechallenge postreaction. Known risk factors include male sex and the accumulation of cetuximab-specific IgE. These may be mitigated by the addition of increased premedication with dexamethasone and famotidine with concurrent reduced infusion rate.

A Process Improvement Project to Increase Compliance With Cephalosporin-based Surgical Antimicrobial Prophylaxis in Children With Non-severe Penicillin Allergies.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Cephalosporins are considered safe and first-line prophylaxis in children with non-severe penicillin allergies. However, use of second-line agents is common and is primarily driven by poor allergic response documentation and misunderstanding of cross-reactivity risk. The goal of this project was to improve compliance with cephalosporin prophylaxis through improved documentation and targeted educational efforts. METHODS: A multidisciplinary working group including representatives from allergy, surgery, infectious disease, and pharmacy developed staged interventions to facilitate compliance with cephalosporin prophylaxis. These included: (1) caregiver outreach to clarify incomplete allergy documentation, (2) a decision-support algorithm for prophylaxis use in penicillin-allergic patients, (3) standardized educational resources for surgical faculty and rotating trainees, (4) email reminders with prophylaxis recommendations sent out prior to scheduled cases, and (5) EMR-based decision support during antibiotic ordering. Rates of complete allergy documentation and cephalosporin utilization were compared for general surgery procedures between a 12-month pre-intervention and 14-month post-intervention period. RESULTS: 578 patients with penicillin allergies recorded in the EMR were included (301 pre-intervention and 277 post-intervention), 54.0% of which received prophylaxis. Compared to the pre-intervention period, complete documentation of allergic reactions increased from 57.1% to 84.2% (p < 0.001) following implementation of all interventions. Appropriate prophylaxis utilization increased from 34.5% to 88.5% following implementation of all interventions (p < 0.001), and evidence of a stepwise increase in appropriate utilization was evident with each intervention stage. Persistent compliance failures during the post-implementation period were most commonly associated with urgent and emergent add-on cases. No adverse events or allergic responses were reported before or after project implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Compliance with cephalosporin prophylaxis significantly improved following a multidisciplinary effort targeting education, allergy documentation, and clinical support at the point of care. Ongoing efforts include postoperative audits within 24 h for noncompliant cases in order to identify barriers and improve compliance for urgent and emergent add-on cases. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III. TYPE OF STUDY: Prospective.

Impact of institutional interventions on the rate of paclitaxel hypersensitivity reactions.

PURPOSE: Paclitaxel is associated with hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs). Intravenous premedication regimens have been devised to decrease the incidence and severity of HSRs. At our institution oral histamine 1 receptor antagonists (H1RA) and histamine 2 receptor antagonists (H2RA) were adopted as standard. Standardizations were implemented for consistent premedication use in all disease states. The purpose of this retrospective study was to compare the incidence and severity of HSRs before and after standardization. METHODS: Patients who received paclitaxel from 20 April 2018 to 8 December 2020 having an HSR were included in analysis. An infusion was flagged for review if a rescue medication was administered after the start of the paclitaxel infusion. The incidences of all HSR prior to and post-standardization were compared. A subgroup analysis of patients receiving paclitaxel for the first and second time was performed. RESULTS: There were 3499infusions in the pre-standardization group and 1159infusions in the post-standardization group. After review, 100 HSRs pre-standardization and 38 HSRs post-standardization were confirmed reactions. The rate of overall HSRs was 2.9% in the pre-standardization group and 3.3% in the post-standardization group (p = 0.48). HSRs, during the first and second doses of paclitaxel, occurred in 10.2% of the pre-standardization and 8.5% of the post-standardization group (p = 0.55). CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective interventional study demonstrated that same-day intravenous dexamethasone, oral H1RA, and oral H2RA are safe premedication regimens for paclitaxel. No change in the severity of reactions was seen. Overall, better adherence to premedication administration was seen post-standardization.

Low-risk penicillin allergy delabeling: a scoping review of direct oral challenge practice, implementation, and multi-disciplinary approaches.

INTRODUCTION: Penicillin allergy is common, and there is increased clinician interest in direct oral challenge (DOC) as a testing strategy for low-risk penicillin allergy. To aid wider implementation of DOC, consensus definitions of low-risk penicillin allergy phenotypes, and standardized approaches to assessment, DOC procedures, and evaluation, are required. AREAS COVERED: This review systematically reviews studies that have utilized penicillin DOC in healthcare settings to identify heterogeneity in implementation approaches and synthesize low-risk definitions, procedures, and evaluation. EXPERT OPINION: Opportunity exists to standardize penicillin DOC procedures in patients with a low-risk penicillin allergy to optimize antimicrobial prescribing and reduce the burden of penicillin allergy. Standardizing the definitions of 'low-risk' and 'positive challenge,' and improving the evaluation of patient safety, alongside the development of a unified approach to the structure of undertaking an oral challenge, is likely to increase uptake and confidence among non-allergist clinicians.

Beyond the override: Using evidence of previous drug tolerance to suppress drug allergy alerts; a retrospective study of opioid alerts.

OBJECTIVE: Despite the extensive literature exploring alert fatigue, most studies have focused on describing the phenomenon, but not on fixing it. The authors aimed to identify data useful to avert clinically irrelevant alerts to inform future research on clinical decision support (CDS) design. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational study of opioid drug allergy alert (DAA) overrides for the calendar year of 2019 at a large academic medical center, to identify data elements useful to find irrelevant alerts to be averted. RESULTS: Overall, 227,815 DAAs were fired in 2019, with an override rate of 91 % (n = 208196). Opioids represented nearly two-thirds of these overrides (n = 129063; 62 %) and were the drug class with the highest override rate (96 %). On average, 29 opioid DAAs were overridden per patient. While most opioid alerts (97.1 %) are fired for a possible match (the drug class of the allergen matches the drug class of the prescribed drug), they are overridden significantly less frequently for definite match (exact match between allergen and prescribed drug) (88 % vs. 95.9 %, p < 0.001). When comparing the triggering drug with previously administered drugs, override rates were equally high for both definite match (95.9 %), no match (95.5 %), and possible match (95.1 %). Likewise, when comparing to home medications, overrides were excessively high for possible match (96.3 %), no match (96 %), and definite match (94.4 %). CONCLUSION: We estimate that 74.5% of opioid DAAs (46.4% of all DAAs) at our institution could be relatively safely averted, since they either have a definite match for previous inpatient administrations suggesting drug tolerance or are fired as possible match with low risk of cross-sensitivity. Future research should focus on identifying other relevant data elements ideally with automated methods and use of emerging standards to empower CDS systems to suppress false-positive alerts while avoiding safety hazards.

Is ranitidine necessary as premedication for regimens containing paclitaxel? A non-inferiority study.

BACKGROUND: Histamine type-2-receptor antagonist drugs (H2-antagonists) have been used as standard treatment to prevent hypersensitivity reactions (HRs) in paclitaxel-containing regimens, however, their use has been strongly questioned. Ranitidine has been the most widely used H2-antagonist. Therefore, especially after its withdrawal from the market, the objective of this study is to determine the impact of its elimination from premedication on HR incidence. METHODS: A cohort, multicenter, observational, prospective, and non-inferiority study, including paclitaxel-naïve cancer patients, designed to determine the incidence of HRs of any grade associated with paclitaxel administration and analyze non-inferiority against the incidence estimated in the literature (20%), with 5% as the maximum difference (Δ). Patients with a solid neoplasm of any type/stage, who initiated treatment with paclitaxel without H2-antagonists in the premedication regimen were enrolled. RESULTS: A total of 441 patients were included, of whom 50 presented 54 HRs of any grade. The cumulative incidence was 11.3% (95%CI 8.5-14.7), thus fulfilling the hypothesis of non-inferiority. Of the overall HRs detected, 15 were grade ≥ 3 with a cumulative incidence of 3.4% (95%CI 1.9-5.5). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that the elimination of ranitidine from paclitaxel premedication schedules is non-inferior in the development of HRs of any grade compared to the administration of H2-antagonists.

A pharmacist-led penicillin allergy de-labelling project within a preoperative assessment clinic: the low-hanging fruit is within reach.

BACKGROUND: Having a false penicillin-allergy label is linked to longer hospital stays and to an increased risk of Clostridioides difficile and meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection. AIM: To assess a penicillin-allergy de-labelling tool designed for use by the non-allergist. METHODS: Patients attending the surgical preoperative assessment clinic (POAC) at a large UK teaching hospital, who reported a penicillin allergy, were directly de-labelled by nursing or pharmacy staff, where appropriate. A penicillin-allergy de-labelling tool designed for use by the non-allergist was adapted and applied; nursing staff were provided with supporting information and education to enable removal of spurious labels. Antimicrobial pharmacists (AMPs) provided follow-up, cross-checked prophylactic antibiotics administered, interrogated clinical notes, and telephoned patients following their surgery, for details of any adverse reactions suffered. FINDINGS: A total of 163 patients reporting a penicillin allergy were identified for intervention. Twenty-nine (17.8%) patients reported a penicillin-allergy history appropriate for direct de-labelling, of whom eight (27.6%) declined to consent. The remaining 21 patients (12.8%) were directly de-labelled, with 12 (7.4%) patients consenting during their POAC appointment; the remaining nine (5.5%) patients were consented and de-labelled after their surgery by an AMP. CONCLUSION: The POAC was identified as an appropriate location and time-point in the patient pathway to enable the direct removal of spurious penicillin-allergy labels prior to surgery. Results suggest that this could be undertaken by nursing staff, although support from AMPs enabled a greater number of patients to be de-labelled.