Penicillin allergy delabeling has a significant impact on subsequent antibiotic use in primary care.

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.

Not a Benign (Mis)Label: Penicillin Allergy Education for the Nonallergist.

Introduction: Up to 20% of the US population carries a penicillin allergy label; however, over 95% of those patients can safely tolerate penicillin. This discrepancy has important personal and public health consequences. There is no published curriculum for medical trainees that covers penicillin allergy history taking, risk assessment, and antibiotic prescribing. Methods: We created a 60-minute, interactive curriculum that targeted medical students during their internal medicine rotation. We employed learning strategies including didactics, case-based learning, and role-playing. We compared self-efficacy and knowledge before and after the intervention using paired t tests. Results: A total of 28 medical students participated, with 25 completing both the pre- and postworkshop surveys. There was a statistically significant improvement in student-rated preparedness to prescribe antibiotics to patients with a penicillin allergy label (p < .001) and determine whether a patient has a history of an allergic reaction that was severe or life-threatening (p < .001). There was additionally a statistically significant increase in students' perception that penicillin allergy labels carry important health consequences (p = .005), as well as increase in their total knowledge scores (p = .006). Discussion: The workshop employs adult learning techniques to improve self-efficacy and knowledge regarding penicillin allergy in medical students. Further work is needed to refine the curriculum, seek external validity, and determine the impact of this workshop on clinical outcomes.

Comparing Skin and Serum Testing to Direct Challenge Outcomes in Children With ß-Lactam Allergies.

BACKGROUND: There is a scarcity of prospective studies investigating the relative roles of skin prick and intradermal testing, serum specific IgE, and extended oral challenges in diagnosing children with reported ß-lactam allergies. OBJECTIVE: To determine the sensitivity and specificity of skin testing and serum specific IgE in children with ß-lactam allergies, with immediate and nonimmediate historic reactions. METHODS: Four hundred children with parent-reported ß-lactam allergies were recruited into an open-label prospective study. Detailed allergy histories were collected. Those with medically observed and documented histories of anaphylaxis, requiring epinephrine, or severe cutaneous adverse reactions were excluded. In total, 380 children underwent all testing modalities and a direct provocation test. Each child was followed up for a minimum of 3 years. RESULTS: True allergy in children was uncommon; 8.3% reacted to the direct provocation challenge or the 5-day extended oral provocation challenge. Children reporting cephalosporin allergy or a reaction within 1 year were more likely to react to direct provocation testing. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of skin testing were 12.5%, 98.8%, and 20.0% for direct challenge outcomes, 4.76%, 99.0%, and 25.0% for extended challenge outcomes, and 6.9%, 99.0%, and 40.0% for both challenges combined, respectively. Follow-up investigations revealed that 5.7% of children had a mild repeat reaction and 2.7% continued to avoid the culprit despite successful delabeling. The relabeling rate for children readmitted to hospital was 15%, with the relabeing being unfounded. CONCLUSIONS: Genuine ß-lactam allergies were rare, with over 90% of children effectively delabeled. Skin and serum specific IgE testing did not aid the diagnosis of ß-lactam antibiotic allergy in children, regardless of medical history. Extended oral challenges proved valuable in confirming allergies and boosted parental confidence.

Efficacy of the PEN-FAST score in a French cohort of patients with reported allergy to penicillins.

Introduction: Various clinical decision-making tools for penicillin allergy have been developed to guide delabeling strategies. Objective: To evaluate the penicillin allergy PEN-FAST decision score in a retrospective cohort of patients, adults and children, with penicillin-reported allergy. Methods: This monocentric retrospective cohort included patients with penicillin-reported allergy. All patients underwent penicillin allergy testing using skin tests and/or drug challenge. The PEN-FAST score sensitivity, specificity, negative (NPV) and positive (PPV) predictive values, and the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) were calculated. Results: Two hundred and fourteen patients were included (64 children and 150 adults). Allergy was confirmed in 52 cases (24%). A PEN-FAST score <3 points showed a poor discrimination capacity for the whole population (AUC = 0.66; 95% CI: 0.58-0.75), while it demonstrated a better discrimination capacity in the adults group (AUC = 0.71; 95% CI: 0.63-0.80). The sensitivity to identify penicillin allergy using this cutoff of less than 3 points was 0.67 (95% CI: 0.52-0.80); specificity, 0.58 (95% CI: 0.48-0.68); PPV, 0.43 (95% CI: 0.32-0.55); and NPV, 0.78 (95% CI: 0.68-0.87). Conclusions: Although our data confirm a rather good discrimination value of a PEN-FAST score <3 points, its low negative predictive value (78%) did not advocate for its use as an accurate, simple and cost-effective clinical decision-making tool to effectively reduce the number of penicillin skin tests required before direct oral challenge. Further studies are required to improve the predictive capacity of the PEN-FAST score.

Rising to the Challenge: An ID Provider-Led Initiative to Address Penicillin Allergy Labels at a Large Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

Background: Given the negative consequences associated with a penicillin allergy label, broader penicillin allergy delabeling initiatives are highly desirable but hindered by the shortage of allergists in the United States. To address this problem at our facility, the infectious diseases section introduced a quality improvement initiative to evaluate and remove allergy labels among inpatient veterans. Methods: Between 15 November 2022 and 15 December 2023, we identified inpatients with a penicillin allergy label. We subsequently interviewed eligible candidates to stratify penicillin allergy risk and attempt to remove the allergy label directly via chart review, following inpatient oral amoxicillin challenge or outpatient community care allergy referral. Delabeling outcomes, subsequent penicillin-class prescriptions, and relabeling were tracked after successful allergy label removal. Results: We screened 272 veterans, of whom 154 were interviewed for this intervention. A total of 53 patients were delabeled: 26 directly, 23 following oral amoxicillin challenge, and 4 following outpatient allergy referrals. Of the patients who were delabeled, 25 received subsequent penicillin-class prescriptions. No adverse reactions occurred following inpatient oral amoxicillin challenges. Patients with a low-risk penicillin allergy history were more likely to undergo a challenge if admitted with an infectious diseases-related condition. Only 1 inappropriate relabeling event occurred during the study period, which was subsequently corrected. Conclusions: An infectious diseases provider-led initiative resulted in penicillin allergy label removal in more than one third of inpatients evaluated using direct removal or oral amoxicillin challenge. Efforts focused on patients who had been admitted for infections were particularly successful.

Safe Penicillin Allergy Delabeling in Primary Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Ten percent of the population is labeled as allergic to penicillin(s), when in fact 90% of these labels are inappropriate. Recent studies have shown that inpatient delabeling by a direct drug challenge (dDC) is safe in low-risk patients. However, there is a need for outpatient and nonallergist delabeling. OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety of delabeling low-risk adults by means of dDC in primary care. METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to March 15, 2022 (updated June 5, 2023) for studies performing dDC in adults in primary care or other outpatient settings. Two researchers independently screened studies for eligibility. The data extraction and critical appraisal were performed by 1 reviewer, and we pooled the results in a meta-analysis. RESULTS: Of 2138 results, 12 studies (1070 participants) were eligible for inclusion. Three studies evaluated delabeling in primary care and 9 studies in an outpatient hospital setting. There were no critical adverse events during dDC. No reaction occurred in 97.13% of the 1070 patients, who previously labeled as penicillin-allergic, and were safely delabeled. Ten patients (<1%) developed an immediate reaction: 3 had self-limiting reactions and 7 needed antihistaminics, steroids, epinephrine, and/or salbutamol. CONCLUSIONS: No serious allergic reactions are observed during direct amoxicillin challenge in adults in an outpatient setting. However, with the exception of 1 recent report, these studies are of low to moderate quality. Nonspecialist delabeling is promising, but further research is required on correct risk stratification and safety assessment in large cohort studies evaluating dDC in primary care.

Implementation and outcomes of beta-lactam allergy management protocol at a comprehensive cancer center.

PURPOSE: Beta-lactam allergy (BLA) is associated with increased broad-spectrum antibiotic (Br-ABX) use and worse clinical outcomes. We evaluated our hospital-wide BLA protocol (BLA-P) that used following categories: intolerance, low-risk, and high-risk. METHODS: Hospitalized adult patients with listed BLA during 10/2021-12/2022 were eligible. Exclusions were critically ill, surgical, hospice or comfort care, or non-verbal patients. Assessment was counted each time a pharmacist evaluated BLA. Interventions were no further action (high-risk allergy, patient refusal, unstable clinical status), updated allergy label, or delabeled. Delabeling was done either based on antibiotic history (direct-delabeling), or via test-dose challenge for low-risk patients. Br-ABX usage was compared in the unique delabeled patients: the empiric antibiotic use 90 days post-delabeling versus pre-delabeling using McNemar test (SPSS). RESULTS: A total of 700 assessments in 631 patients were identified. 441 assessments in 377 patients (median 63 years-old, 41% male, 50% hematological cancer) met inclusion criteria. The assessments revealed 9% intolerance, 55% low-risk, 23% high-risk and 13% unknown reaction. Interventions resulted in no further action 7%, updated label 72%, and delabeling 21%. 65% of the delabeling was via direct-delabeling and 35% test-dose challenge. Among patients who received a test-dose challenge, 36/36(97%) had no documented allergic reactions, and 1/26(3%) developed a mild rash. The use of aztreonam (pre-delabeling 28% vs. post-delabeling 1.2%, p < 0.001) and meropenem (13% vs. 2.4%, p = 0.022) significantly decreased while cefepime (24% vs. 50%, p = 0.001) and piperacillin-tazobactam (3.7% vs. 22%, p < 0.001) increased after delabeling. CONCLUSION: BLA-P led to 21% delabeling, which resulted in increased preferred Br-ABX and decrease in aztreonam/meropenem use among delabeled patients.

[Penicillin allergy: A label that is not forever]. / Alergia a la penicilina: una etiqueta que no es para siempre.

Self-reported penicillin allergy is highly prevalent. Different studies estimate that 10% of the population is labeled as such. This label, confirmed or suspected, forces us to take precautions and replace the antibiotic treatment of choice (frequently beta-lactams) with other 2nd or 3rd choice alternatives with worse overall results: side effects, resistance, costs, etc. The penicillin allergy label, once placed, remains in the medical record. It is only confirmed in less than 5% of patients, either because it has been placed inappropriately or because over time the sensitivity decreases and may disappear. Penicillin Allergy Decision Rule -PEN-FAST- is a validated and simple clinical prediction rule that estimates the risk of presenting an allergic reaction. Its use, together with algorithms that involve primary care in the study and delabeling of low-risk patients, can change our clinical practice.

Penicillin or cephalosporin antibiotic allergy label: Influence on length of stay and hospital readmission.

Background: A penicillin or cephalosporin antibiotic (PCA) allergy label (PCAAL) has negative implications for both the patient and health care alike. Objective: A retrospective study was undertaken to evaluate the influence of a PCAAL on length of stay (LOS) and hospital readmissions. Methods: Over 4 weeks, inpatients with a PCAAL who were referred to the allergy service or opportunistically reviewed were grouped in the categories delabeled (group 1a) or advice not followed (ie, label carriage) (group 1b). Comparator groups without a PCAAL were identified, those either on a PCA (the PCA group [group 2]) or on a non-PCA (the non-PCA group [group 3]). Results: The study population comprised 77 patients as follows: group 1a (n = 19), group 1b (n = 6), group 2 (n = 36), and group 3 (n = 16). Those in group 1a were significantly older (median age 78 years) than those in group 1b (median age 53 years [P = .013]) or group 3 (median age 59 years [P = .013]).There was a trend toward lower LOS in group 1a (10 days) than in group 1b (11.5 days [P = not significant]). Group 2 had a significantly lower LOS (6 days) than either both group 1a (10 days [P = .043]) or group 3 (15 days [P = .002]). Group 3 had the highest rate of patients readmitted within 30 days (n = 5 [71.4%]). Conclusion: A PCAAL carries influence on both LOS and readmissions, thus identifying the prompt need for allergy review to provide specific recommendations: delabeling and transition to an appropriate antibiotic. The significantly older group of those with a PCAAL who received a PCA after delabeling (ie, a 20-year age difference) may also be a signal that more elderly and comorbid patients benefit from this intervention the most.

Evaluation of patients labeled with a penicillin allergy to promote antimicrobial stewardship in dental practice.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 10% of the US population self-reports a penicillin allergy history or are labeled as penicillin allergic. However, from 90% through 99% of these patients are not allergic on formal evaluation. CASE DESCRIPTION: Patients labeled as penicillin allergic receive broader-spectrum and sometimes less-effective antibiotics, thereby contributing to increased treatment failures, antibiotic resistance, and adverse drug reactions. Self-reported penicillin allergy can be eliminated or classified as low-, medium-, or high-risk after a careful review of patient history. This allows these patients to be delabeled; that is, having any reference to their penicillin allergy history or of having an allergy to penicillin eliminated from their health records. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Oral health care professionals are ideally placed to partner in both antibiotic stewardship interventions by means of recognizing pervasive mislabeling and aiding in the process of delabeling.

ß-Lactam allergy delabeling is safe and saves costs in Primary Care.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the ß-lactam allergy delabeling was safe and cost-saving in Primary Care (PC) patients. DESIGN: We have conducted a retrospective chart review of PC patients with ß-lactam allergy label evaluated in our Allergy Unit between 2017 and 2022. SITE: Allergy Department. Hospital Virgen del Rocio (Sevilla). PARTICIPANTS: A total of 391 patients labeled for ß-lactam allergy in PC were studied. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: (a) Outcome evaluation of a ß-lactam allergy delabeling procedure. (b) A ratio between the total e-prescribed antibiotic cost and the number of treatment days (the experimental daily antibiotic cost or EDAC) before and after delabeling was analyzed in delabeled and truly allergic patients. RESULTS: The results of skin testing were positive in 9.2% of the reported cases (36 of 391 patients). The reactions to oral provocation challenge (OPC) occurred in 2.14% of the patients who underwent negative skin testing to offending ß-lactam (in 15 of 699 OPC). A total of 307 patients (78.5%) were delabeled; 70 (17.9%) had a ß-lactam selective response and 14 (3.59%) reacted to both penicillin and cephalosporin. The EDAC before and after the procedure in delabeled patients was significantly lower (0.88 € vs 0.62 €, p<10-3), than that observed in truly allergic group (0.87 € vs. 0.76 €, p=not significant). CONCLUSION: To delabel ß-lactam allergy in Primary Care patients is safe in most patients, cost-saving in antibioticotherapy, and allows identify the main clinical ß-lactam allergy phenotypes that benefit from this procedure.

Delabeling of allergy to beta-lactam antibiotics in hospitalized patients: a prospective study evaluating cost savings.

BACKGROUND: Patients with a penicillin allergy label are at risk of an associated increase in adverse antibiotic events and hospitalization costs. AIM: We aimed to study the economic savings derived from the correct diagnosis and delabeling inpatients with suspected beta-lactam allergy, considering the acquisition cost of antimicrobials prescribed during a patient's hospital stay. METHOD: We prospectively evaluated patients admitted to the University Hospital of Salamanca who had been labeled as allergic to beta-lactams and performed a delabeling study. Subsequently, cost differences between antibiotics administered before and after the allergy study and those derived from those patients who received alternative antibiotics during admission and those who switched to beta-lactams after the allergy study were calculated. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-seven inpatients labeled as allergic to beta-lactams underwent a delabeling study; 34 (19.2%) were confirmed to have allergy to beta-lactams. Of the total number of patients, 136 (76.8%) received antibiotics during their hospitalization, involving a mean (SD) cost of €203.07 (318.42) and a median (IQR) cost of €88.97 (48.86-233.56). After delabeling in 85 (62.5%) patients, the antibiotic treatment was changed to beta-lactams. In this group of patients, the mean cost (SD) decreased from €188.91 (351.09) before the change to 91.31 (136.07) afterward, and the median cost (IQR) decreased from €72.92 (45.82-211.99) to €19.24 (11.66-168). The reduction was significant compared to the median cost of patients whose treatment was not changed to beta-lactams (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Delabeling hospitalized patients represents a cost-saving measure for treating patients labeled as allergic to beta-lactams.

Promoting penicillin allergy de-labeling for children attending a hematology clinic.

BACKGROUND: Up to 10% of children are reported to be allergic to penicillin, but many allergy labels are unverified and may require formal testing. Inaccurate drug allergy labels are associated with a range of adverse clinical outcomes. Patients with hematological disorders may experience frequent and severe infections; those who have been incorrectly labeled penicillin allergic may benefit from allergy de-labeling (ADL) efforts to facilitate access to beta-lactam antibiotics. We developed a multidisciplinary, pharmacist-driven process that enabled non-allergist trained providers to assess and de-label penicillin allergies in a pediatric hematology center. METHODS: Volunteers, including physicians, advanced practice providers, nurses, and pharmacists, were trained in skin testing and oral challenge procedures. Patients were identified by review of electronic medical records for penicillin or penicillin-derivative allergy. Patient and family interviews were conducted in cases where a true penicillin allergy was deemed uncertain based on chart review. If allergy could not be de-labeled by chart review or interview alone, patients were offered skin and/or oral challenge testing. RESULTS: Fifty-nine patients were initially labeled as penicillin allergic. Allergy labels of 11 (19%) were removed by chart review only, and 15 (25%) after conducting interviews. A total of two (3%) patients were ineligible due to contraindications, and five (9%) declined participation. Twenty-six patients (44%) underwent allergy testing (50% skin testing, 50% oral challenge) of which 23 (88%) were negative. CONCLUSIONS: ADL was possible in most patients previously identified as penicillin allergic. Testing was well tolerated with no serious adverse effects.

Prospective, Multicenter, Head-to-Head Comparison Between Allergists Versus Nonallergists in Low-Risk Penicillin Allergy Delabeling: Effectiveness, Safety, and Quality of Life (HK-DADI2).

BACKGROUND: Penicillin "allergy" labels are prevalent but frequently misdiagnosed. Mislabelled allergies are associated with adverse outcomes and increased antimicrobial resistance. With an urgent need to delabel the overwhelming number of mislabeled allergies, nonallergist evaluations have been advocated for low-risk individuals. Despite growing interest in non-allergist-led initiatives, evidence on their effectiveness, safety, and impact by direct comparisons is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To assess the comparative outcomes of penicillin allergy evaluations conducted by allergists versus nonallergists. METHODS: A prospective, multicenter, pragmatic study was conducted at 4 tertiary hospitals (1 allergist- vs 3 non-allergist-led) for low-risk penicillin allergy patients in Hong Kong-the Hong Kong Drug Allergy Delabelling Initiative 2 (HK-DADI2). RESULTS: Among 228 low-risk patients who underwent testing (32.9% by allergists, 67.1% by nonallergists), only 14 (6.1%) had positive penicillin allergy testing results. Delabeling rates (94.1% vs 93.3%; P = .777), positive skin test results (2.6% vs 2.7%; P > .99), and drug provocation test results (3.3% vs 2.7%; P = 1.000) were similar between allergists and nonallergists. There were no systemic reactions in either cohort. All patients had significant improvements in health-related quality of life (Drug Hypersensitivity Quality of Life Questionnaire scores -5.00 vs -8.33; P = .072). Nonallergist evaluations had shorter waiting times (0.57 vs 15.7 months; P < .001), whereas allergists required fewer consultations with higher rate of completing evaluations within a single visit (odds ratio, 0.04; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: With training and support, nonallergists can independently evaluate low-risk penicillin allergies. Compared with allergists, evaluation of low-risk penicillin allergy by nonallergists can be comparably effective, safe, and impactful on quality of life. More multidisciplinary partnerships to empower nonallergists to conduct allergy evaluations should be encouraged.

Beta-Lactam Allergy De-labeling in a Pediatric Hospital.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the ability to de-label pediatric patients of their beta-lactam allergy by using a newly implemented institutional protocol and to identify potential barriers to the de-labeling process. METHODS: All patients with reported allergies to prespecified beta-lactam antibiotics were eligible for a -beta-lactam allergy interview. Following the interview, patients were grouped into 4 risk categories-no risk, low risk, moderate risk, and high risk-and assessed for intervention eligibility. Potential interventions included de-labeling based on the interview alone or proceeding to an oral amoxicillin challenge with or without penicillin allergy skin testing. RESULTS: Of the 62 patients eligible for beta-lactam allergy interviews, 40% (n = 25) were de-labeled. Among de-labeled patients, 60% (n = 15) were de-labeled on the basis of the interview alone. Additionally, no failures were documented in patients who underwent an oral amoxicillin challenge or penicillin skin testing. Barriers to performing oral amoxicillin challenges or penicillin skin testing included concomitant systemic steroid or antihistamine use, refusal of intervention, and insufficient resources to perform penicillin skin testing. CONCLUSIONS: There was a high frequency of patients de-labeled of their beta-lactam allergies in this study. Increased education to patients, parents, and providers on the de-labeling process, as well as increased personnel available to coordinate and perform de-labeling interventions, may result in more beta-lactam allergy de-labeling.

Management of Penicillin Allergy in the Perioperative Setting.

The selection of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis is challenging in patients with a history of penicillin allergy; as such, we present a literature review exploring current best practices and the associated supporting evidence, as well as areas for future research. Guidelines recommend the use of alternative agents in patients with an IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reaction, but those alternative agents are associated with worse outcomes, including an increased risk of surgical site infection, and higher cost. More recent data suggest that the risk of cross-reactivity between penicillins and cephalosporins, particularly cefazolin, is extremely low, and that cefazolin can be used safely in most penicillin-allergic patients. Studies have therefore explored how best to implement first-line cefazolin use in patients with a penicillin allergy label. A variety of interventions, including preoperative allergy de-labeling with incorporation of penicillin skin testing, use of patient risk-stratification questionnaires, and utilization of clinician algorithms to guide antibiotic selection intraoperatively, have all been shown to significantly increase cefazolin utilization without a corresponding increase in adverse events. Further studies are needed to clarify the most effective interventions and implementation strategies, as well as to evaluate whether patients with severe delayed hypersensitivity reactions to penicillin should continue to be excluded from receipt of other beta-lactams.

Is a Prolonged Drug Provocation Test Better Than a Single-Day Drug Provocation Test? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is currently no standardized duration of drug provocation test (DPT) for confirming/delabeling beta-lactam hypersensitivity reaction (BL-HSR). OBJECTIVES: This meta-analysis and systematic review aimed to investigate the added diagnostic value of extended-day over single-day DPT for confirming/delabeling BL-HSR in adults and children. METHODS: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and CINAHL online databases were searched from inception to March 15, 2023, for studies that performed extended-day DPT to confirm/delabel BL-HSR. Risk difference and risk ratio were used to compare the proportions of patients with confirmed BL-HSR by single-day or extended-day DPT. RESULTS: A total of 10,371 DPTs from 42 studies were included. Extended-day DPTs ranged from 2 to 7 days, or as long as index reactions were reported (maximum 10 days). The overall prevalence of confirmed BL-HSR was 6.96% (3.31% during the first-day DPT, and 3.65% during extended-day DPT). Approximately half of the positive reactions during extended-day DPT occurred during the second/third day. The increased detected pool prevalence of confirmed BL-HSR yielded by extended-day DPT was 0.03 (95% CI, 0.02%-0.04%; I2 = 57.69%; P < .001), and the risk ratio of positive reactions between extended-day and single-day DPT was 1.94 (95% CI, 1.62-2.33; I2 = 36.26%; P < .001). The risk difference increased per 1% increase in prevalence of BL-HSR by 0.6% (95% CI, 0.4%-0.7%; P < .001). Twenty-three severe reactions occurred during DPT, and only 2 severe reactions (0.02%) occurred during extended-day DPT. An additional 28 extended-day DPTs were needed to identify 1 mild reaction. CONCLUSIONS: The increased prevalence of confirmed BL-HSR observed during extended-day DPT could be attributed to the first-day DPT. As a result, our findings do not conclusively support the use of extended-day DPT over single-day DPT. Further studies, incorporating a washout period, are required to comprehensively compare these 2 approaches.

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.

EAACI/ENDA position paper on drug provocation testing.

In drug hypersensitivity, drug provocation testing (DPT), also called drug challenge, is the gold standard for investigation. In recent years, risk stratification has become an important tool for adjusting the diagnostic strategy to the perceived risk, whilst still maintaining a high level of safety for the patient. Skin tests are recommended before DPT but may be omitted in low-risk patients. The task force suggests a strict definition of such low-risk patients in children and adults. Based on experience and evidence from studies of allergy to beta-lactam antibiotics, an algorithm on how to adjust DPT to the risk, and when to omit skin tests before DPT, is presented. For other antibiotics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and other drugs, skin tests are poorly validated and DPT is frequently necessary. We recommend performing DPT with chemotherapeutics and biologicals to avoid unnecessary desensitization procedures and DPT with skin tests negative contrast media. We suggest DPT with anesthetics only in highly specialized centers. Specifics of DPT to proton pump inhibitors, anticonvulsants and corticosteroids are discussed. This position paper provides general recommendations and guidance on optimizing use of DPT, whilst balancing benefits with patient safety and optimizing the use of the limited available resources.

APAAACI clinical pathway on direct provocation testing for penicillin allergy delabeling.

Background: Allergy to penicillin is commonly reported in many countries and is an overwhelming global public health concern. Penicillin allergy labels can lead to the use of less effective antibiotics and can be associated with antimicrobial resistance. Appropriate assessment of suspected penicillin allergy (often including skin testing, followed by drug provocation testing [DPT] performed by allergists) can prevent the unnecessary restriction of penicillin or delabelling. Many countries in the Asia Pacific (AP) have very limited access to allergy services, and there are significant disparities in the methods of evaluating penicillin allergy. Therefore, a clinical pathway for the management of penicillin allergy is essential. Objectives: To develop a risk-stratified clinical pathway for delabeling penicillin allergy, taking into account the distinct epidemiology, patient/sensitization profiles, and disparities of allergy services or facilities within the AP. Methods: A risk-stratified penicillin allergy delabeling clinical pathway was formulated by the Drug Allergy Committee of the Asia Pacific Association of Allergy, Asthma and Clinical Immunology. and members of the Penicillin Allergy Disparities survey in AP each representing one country/region of the AP. The clinical pathway was tested based on a database of anonymized patients who were sequentially referred for and completed penicillin allergy evaluation in Hong Kong. Results: The clinical pathway was piloted employing a "hub-and-spoke" approach to foster multidisciplinary collaboration between allergists and nonallergists. A simulation run of the algorithm on a retrospective Hong Kong cohort of 439 patients was performed. Overall, 367 (84%) of patients were suitable for direct DPT and reduced the need for skin testing or specialist's care for 357 (97%) skin test-negative individuals. Out of the skin test-negative patients, 345 (94%) patients had a negative DPT. Conclusions: This risk-stratification strategy for direct oral DPT can reduce the need for unnecessary skin testing in patients with low-risk penicillin allergy histories. The hub and spoke model of care may be considered for further piloting and validation in other AP populations that lack adequately trained allergists.