Oral challenge vs routine care to assess low-risk penicillin allergy in critically ill hospital patients (ORACLE): a pilot safety and feasibility randomised controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Critically ill patients are vulnerable to penicillin allergy labels that may be incorrect. The validity of skin testing in intensive care units (ICUs) is uncertain. Many penicillin allergy labels are low risk, and validated tools exist to identify those amenable to direct oral challenge. This pilot randomised controlled trial explored the feasibility, safety, and validity of direct enteral challenge for low-risk penicillin allergy labels in critical illness. METHODS: Consenting patients with a low-risk penicillin allergy label (PAL) (PEN-FAST risk assessment score < 3) in four ICUs (Melbourne, Australia) were randomised 1:1 to penicillin (250 mg amoxicillin or implicated penicillin) direct enteral challenge versus routine care (2-h post-randomisation observation for each arm). Repeat challenge was performed post -ICU in the intervention arm. Patients were reviewed at 24 h and 5 days after each challenge/observation. RESULTS: We screened 533 patients. 130 (24.4%) were eligible and 80/130 (61.5%) enrolled (age median 64.5 years (interquartile range, IQR 53.5, 74), PEN-FAST median 1 (IQR 0,1)), with 40 (50%) randomised to direct enteral challenge. A positive challenge rate of 2.5% was identified. No antibiotic-associated serious adverse events were identified. 32/40 (80%) received a repeat challenge (zero positive). Post-randomisation, 13 (32%) of the intervention arm and 4 (10%) of the control arm received penicillin (odds ratio, OR 4.33 [1.27, 14.78] p = 0.019). CONCLUSION: These findings support the safety, validity, and feasibility of direct enteral challenge for critically ill patients with PEN-FAST assessed low-risk penicillin allergy. The absence of false negative results was confirmed by subsequent negative repeat challenges. A relatively low recruitment to screened ratio suggests that more inclusive eligibility criteria and integration of allergy assessment into routine ICU processes are needed to optimise allergy delabelling in critical illness.

Development and codesign of flourish: A digital suicide prevention intervention for LGBTQ+ youth who have experienced online victimization.

Background: LGBTQ+ youth experience disproportionately high rates of online victimization (OV), referring to harmful remarks, images, or behaviors in online settings, which is associated with suicidal risk. Current services have gaps in supporting LGBTQ+ youth facing OV events. To address these gaps, this study aims to develop Flourish, a digital suicide prevention intervention for LGBTQ+ youth who have experienced OV. Methods: Qualitative interviews were conducted with 20 LGBTQ+ youth with past-year history of OV and lifetime history of suicidality, 11 of their parents, and 10 LGBTQ+-serving professionals. Subsequently, an iterative codesign process was conducted with 22 youth through individual and group design sessions, followed by usability testing. Data were recorded and transcribed. Qualitative interviews were analyzed using a qualitative description approach, and data from design sessions and usability testing were analyzed using rapid qualitative techniques. Results: Interviews with youth, parents, and professionals suggested preferences for Flourish to be a partially automated, text message intervention leveraging web-based content that is a safe space for LGBTQ+ youth to seek support for OV through education, coping skills, and help-seeking resources. School and mental health services professionals considered the potential for implementing Flourish within youth services settings. Usability testing, assessed through the System Usability Scale, yielded an average rating of 91, indicating excellent perceived usability. Conclusions: Flourish has potential to be an acceptable intervention to support LGBTQ+ youth following OV. Future steps will include testing the feasibility and efficacy of Flourish and further examining Flourish's potential for implementation within services for LGBTQ+ youth.

Efficacy of a Clinical Decision Rule to Enable Direct Oral Challenge in Patients With Low-Risk Penicillin Allergy: The PALACE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Fewer than 5% of patients labeled with a penicillin allergy are truly allergic. The standard of care to remove the penicillin allergy label in adults is specialized testing involving prick and intradermal skin testing followed by an oral challenge with penicillin. Skin testing is resource intensive, limits practice to specialist-trained physicians, and restricts the global population who could undergo penicillin allergy delabeling. Objective: To determine whether a direct oral penicillin challenge is noninferior to the standard of care of penicillin skin testing followed by an oral challenge in patients with a low-risk penicillin allergy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This parallel, 2-arm, noninferiority, open-label, multicenter, international randomized clinical trial occurred in 6 specialized centers, 3 in North America (US and Canada) and 3 in Australia, from June 18, 2021, to December 2, 2022. Eligible adults had a PEN-FAST score lower than 3. PEN-FAST is a prospectively derived and internationally validated clinical decision rule that enables point-of-care risk assessment for adults reporting penicillin allergies. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to either direct oral challenge with penicillin (intervention arm) or a standard-of-care arm of penicillin skin testing followed by oral challenge with penicillin (control arm). Main Outcome and Measure: The primary outcome was a physician-verified positive immune-mediated oral penicillin challenge within 1 hour postintervention in the intention-to-treat population. Noninferiority was achieved if a 1-sided 95% CI of the risk difference (RD) did not exceed 5 percentage points (pp). Results: A total of 382 adults were randomized, with 377 patients (median [IQR] age, 51 [35-65] years; 247 [65.5%] female) included in the analysis: 187 in the intervention group and 190 in the control group. Most patients had a PEN-FAST score of 0 or 1. The primary outcome occurred in 1 patient (0.5%) in the intervention group and 1 patient (0.5%) in the control group, with an RD of 0.0084 pp (90% CI, -1.22 to 1.24 pp). The 1-sided 95% CI was below the noninferiority margin of 5 pp. In the 5 days following the oral penicillin challenge, 9 immune-mediated adverse events were recorded in the intervention group and 10 in the control group (RD, -0.45 pp; 95% CI, -4.87 to 3.96 pp). No serious adverse events occurred. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, direct oral penicillin challenge in patients with a low-risk penicillin allergy was noninferior compared with standard-of-care skin testing followed by oral challenge. In patients with a low-risk history, direct oral penicillin challenge is a safe procedure to facilitate the removal of a penicillin allergy label. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04454229.

Oral challenge vs routine care to assess low-risk penicillin allergy in critically ill hospital patients (ORACLE): a pilot randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Self-reported penicillin allergies are highly prevalent in hospitalised patients and are associated with poor health and health service outcomes. Critically ill patients have historically been underrepresented in prospective delabelling studies in part due to concerns around clinical stability and reliability of penicillin skin testing. Allergy assessment tools exist to identify low-risk penicillin allergy phenotypes and facilitate direct oral challenge delabelling. PEN-FAST is a clinical decision rule that has been validated to predict true penicillin allergy in a cohort of non-critically ill patients. There is however limited evidence regarding the feasibility, safety and efficacy of direct oral challenges and the use of delabelling clinical decisions rules in the intensive care setting. METHODS: Critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) with low-risk penicillin allergy phenotypes (PEN-FAST score < 3) will be randomised 1:1 to direct oral penicillin challenge (single dose 250 mg oral amoxicillin or implicated penicillin) or routine care, followed by a 2-h observation period. Patients will receive a second oral challenge/observation prior to hospital discharge (with subsequent observation for 2 h). An assessment for antibiotic-associated adverse events will also be undertaken at 24 h and 5 days post each challenge/observation and again at 90 days post-randomisation. The primary outcome measures are feasibility (proportion of eligible patients recruited and protocol compliance) and safety (proportion of patients who experience an antibiotic-associated immune-mediated adverse event or serious adverse event). DISCUSSION: We will report the feasibility and safety of point-of-care penicillin direct oral challenge in this first randomised controlled trial of low-risk penicillin allergy in critically ill hospitalised patients. Upon completion of the project, important findings will inform the design of planned large prospective multi-centre clinical trials in Australian and international ICUs, further examining safety and efficacy and exploring antimicrobial prescribing-related outcomes following penicillin oral challenge. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry Registration Number: ACTRN12621000051842 Date registered: 20/01/2021 https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=379735&isReview=true.

Development and Validation of a Sulfa Antibiotic Allergy Clinical Decision Rule.

This cohort study describes the adaptation of a widely used penicillin allergy clinical decision tool for evaluation of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole allergy.

The Who, What, When, and Where of Inpatient Direct Oral Penicillin Challenge-Implications for Health Services Implementation.

Inpatient direct oral challenge programs are increasingly deployed as part of antimicrobial stewardship initiatives to reduce the burden and impacts of penicillin allergy labels on antibiotic prescribing. Using data from a prospective, multicenter cohort inpatient penicillin allergy program, we identify the key targets for delabeling to aid health service implementation.

Use of a penicillin allergy clinical decision rule to enable direct oral penicillin provocation: an international multicentre randomised control trial in an adult population (PALACE): study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Penicillin allergies are highly prevalent in the healthcare setting and associated with the prescription of second-line inferior antibiotics. More than 85% of all penicillin allergy labels can be removed by skin testing and 96%-99% of low-risk penicillin allergy labels can be removed by direct oral challenge. An internally and externally validated clinical assessment tool for penicillin allergy, PEN-FAST, can identify a low-risk penicillin allergy without the need for skin testing; a score of less than 3 has a negative predictive value of 96.3% (95% CI, 94.1 to 97.8) for the presence of a penicillin allergy. It is hypothesised that PEN-FAST is a safe and effective tool for assessing penicillin allergy in an outpatient clinic setting. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is an international, multicentre randomised control trial using the PEN-FAST tool to risk-stratify penicillin allergy labels in adult outpatients. The study's primary objective is to evaluate the non-inferiority of using PEN-FAST score-guided management with direct oral challenge compared with standard care (defined as prick and intradermal skin testing followed by oral penicillin challenge). Participants will be randomised 1:1 to the intervention arm (direct oral penicillin challenge) or standard of care arm (skin testing followed by oral penicillin challenge, if skin testing is negative). The sample size of 380 randomised patients (190 per treatment arm) is required to demonstrate non-inferiority. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study will be performed according to the guidelines of the Helsinki Declaration and is approved by the Austin Health Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/62425/Austin-2020) in Melbourne Australia, Vanderbilt University Institutional Review Board (IRB #202174) in Tennessee, USA, Duke University Institutional Review Board (IRB #Pro00108461) in North Carolina, USA and McGill University Health Centre Research Ethics Board in Canada (PALACE/2022-7605). The results of this study will be published and presented in various scientific forums. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04454229.

COVID-Care - a safe and successful digital self-assessment tool for outpatients with proven and suspected coronavirus-2019.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and restrictions placed on movement to prevent its transmission have led to a surge in demand for remote medical care. We investigated whether COVID-Care, a patient-reported, telehealth, symptom monitoring system, was successful at delivering safe monitoring and care for these patients leading to decreased hospital presentations. METHODS: We performed a single centre, prospective, interventional cohort study with symptomatic outpatients who presented for COVID-19 screening at Austin Health, Australia. Participants were invited to take part in the COVID-Care programme, entering common COVID-19 symptoms on a purpose-built, online survey monitored by infectious diseases physicians, and matched with clinical data including date of symptom onset, hospital admission, and screening clinic presentations. RESULTS: 42,158 COVID-19 swabs were performed in 31,626 patients from March to October 2020, with 414 positive cases. 20,768 people used the COVID-Care survey at least once. COVID-Care users were significantly younger than non-users. Of the 414 positive cases, 254 (61.3%) used COVID-Care, with 160 (38.6%) non-users. Excluding presentations on the same day or prior to the COVID-19 swab, of the positive cases there were 56 hospital presentations. 4.3% (11) of COVID-Care users and 28.1% (45) non-users were admitted to hospital or the emergency department (p < 0.001), with 3.9% (10) versus 22.5% (36) requiring inpatient admission (p < 0.001). There were no deaths in COVID-Care users versus 2 deaths in non-users. CONCLUSION: COVID-Care, a digitally integrated, outpatient, symptom tracking and telemedical service for patients with COVID-19, was safe and successful at reducing hospital and emergency department admissions, suggesting a strong role for telemedicine for future healthcare delivery in this logistically challenging setting.

Defective Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Immune Responses in an Immunocompromised Individual With Prolonged Viral Replication.

We describe severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific immune responses in a patient with lymphoma and recent programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibitor therapy with late onset of severe coronavirus disease 2019 disease and prolonged SARS-CoV-2 replication, in comparison to age-matched and immunocompromised controls. High levels of HLA-DR+/CD38+ activation, interleukin 6, and interleukin 18 in the absence of B cells and PD-1 expression was observed. SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody responses were absent and SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells were minimally detected. This case highlights challenges in managing immunocompromised hosts who may fail to mount effective virus-specific immune responses.

COVID-MATCH65-A prospectively derived clinical decision rule for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.

OBJECTIVES: We report on the key clinical predictors of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and present a clinical decision rule that can risk stratify patients for COVID-19. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: A prospective cohort of patients assessed for COVID-19 at a screening clinic in Melbourne, Australia. The primary outcome was a positive COVID-19 test from nasopharyngeal swab. A backwards stepwise logistic regression was used to derive a model of clinical variables predictive of a positive COVID-19 test. Internal validation of the final model was performed using bootstrapped samples and the model scoring derived from the coefficients, with modelling performed for increasing prevalence. RESULTS: Of 4226 patients with suspected COVID-19 who were assessed, 2976 patients underwent SARS-CoV-2 testing (n = 108 SARS-CoV-2 positive) and were used to determine factors associated with a positive COVID-19 test. The 7 features associated with a positive COVID-19 test on multivariable analysis were: COVID-19 patient exposure or international travel, Myalgia/malaise, Anosmia or ageusia, Temperature, Coryza/sore throat, Hypoxia-oxygen saturation < 97%, 65 years or older-summarized in the mnemonic COVID-MATCH65. Internal validation showed an AUC of 0.836. A cut-off of ≥ 1.5 points was associated with a 92.6% sensitivity and 99.5% negative predictive value (NPV) for COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: From the largest prospective outpatient cohort of suspected COVID-19 we define the clinical factors predictive of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. The subsequent clinical decision rule, COVID-MATCH65, has a high sensitivity and NPV for SARS-CoV-2 and can be employed in the pandemic, adjusted for disease prevalence, to aid COVID-19 risk-assessment and vital testing resource allocation.

The democratization of de-labeling: a review of direct oral challenge in adults with low-risk penicillin allergy.

INTRODUCTION: Penicillin antibiotic allergy labels (AALs) are common and lead to significant negative health and health system outcomes. Direct oral challenge offers a rapid and cost-effective way of removing inaccurate AALs and improving outcomes. AREAS COVERED: A narrative review (Medline, May 2020) of direct oral challenge in low-risk penicillin allergy in adults is described, and the evidence for the safety and efficacy of this approach in inpatients, outpatients, and special patient groups is presented. EXPERT OPINION: Whilst the current literature demonstrates the safety and efficacy of direct oral challenge in de-labeling low-risk penicillin allergy in adults, novel approaches are needed to improve access to antibiotic allergy assessment and address the growing global need.

Interferon-gamma release assay for the diagnosis of latent tuberculosis infection: A latent-class analysis.

BACKGROUND: Accurate diagnosis and subsequent treatment of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) is essential for TB elimination. However, the absence of a gold standard test for diagnosing LTBI makes assessment of the true prevalence of LTBI and the accuracy of diagnostic tests challenging. Bayesian latent class models can be used to make inferences about disease prevalence and the sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic tests using data on the concordance between tests. We performed the largest meta-analysis to date aiming to evaluate the performance of tuberculin skin test (TST) and interferon-gamma release assays (IGRAs) for LTBI diagnosis in various patient populations using Bayesian latent class modelling. METHODS: Systematic search of PubMeb, Embase and African Index Medicus was conducted without date and language restrictions on September 11, 2017 to identify studies that compared the performance of TST and IGRAs for LTBI diagnosis. Two IGRA methods were considered: QuantiFERON-TB Gold In Tube (QFT-GIT) and T-SPOT.TB. Studies were included if they reported 2x2 agreement data between TST and QFT-GIT or T-SPOT.TB. A Bayesian latent class model was developed to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of TST and IGRAs in various populations, including immune-competent adults, immune-compromised adults and children. A TST cut-off value of 10 mm was used for immune-competent subjects and 5 mm for immune-compromised individuals. FINDINGS: A total of 157 studies were included in the analysis. In immune-competent adults, the sensitivity of TST and QFT-GIT were estimated to be 84% (95% credible interval [CrI] 82-85%) and 52% (50-53%), respectively. The specificity of QFT-GIT was 97% (96-97%) in non-BCG-vaccinated and 93% (92-94%) in BCG-vaccinated immune-competent adults. The estimated figures for TST were 100% (99-100%) and 79% (76-82%), respectively. T-SPOT.TB has comparable specificity (97% for both tests) and better sensitivity (68% versus 52%) than QFT-GIT in immune-competent adults. In immune-compromised adults, both TST and QFT-GIT display low sensitivity but high specificity. QFT-GIT and TST are equally specific (98% for both tests) in non-BCG-vaccinated children; however, QFT-GIT is more specific than TST (98% versus 82%) in BCG-vaccinated group. TST is more sensitive than QFT-GIT (82% versus 73%) in children. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to assess the utility of TST and IGRAs for LTBI diagnosis in different population groups using all available data with Bayesian latent class modelling. Our results challenge the current beliefs about the performance of LTBI screening tests, and have important implications for LTBI screening policy and practice. We estimated that the performance of IGRAs is not as reliable as previously measured in the general population. However, IGRAs are not or minimally affected by BCG and should be the preferred tests in this setting. Adoption of IGRAs in settings where BCG is widely administered will allow for a more accurate identification and treatment of LTBI.

Systematic Endobronchial Ultrasound-guided Mediastinal Staging Versus Positron Emission Tomography for Comprehensive Mediastinal Staging in NSCLC Before Radical Radiotherapy of Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: A Pilot Study.

Despite known limitations of positron emission tomography (PET) for mediastinal staging of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), radiation treatment fields are generally based on PET-identified disease extent. However, no studies have examined the accuracy of FDG-PET/CT on a per-node basis in patients being considered for curative-intent radiotherapy in NSCLC.In a prospective trial, patients with NSCLC being considered for definitive thoracic radiotherapy (± systemic chemotherapy) underwent minimally invasive systematic mediastinal evaluation with endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) following noninvasive staging with integrated PET-CT.Thirty patients underwent EBUS-TBNA, with TBNA performed from a mean 2.5 lymph node (LN) stations per patient (median 3, range 1-5). Discordant findings between PET-CT and EBUS-TBNA were observed in 10 patients (33%, 95% CI 19%-51%). PET-occult LN metastases were demonstrated by EBUS in 4 patients, whereas a lesser extent of mediastinal involvement, compared with FDG-PET, was demonstrated by EBUS in 6 patients, including 2 patients downstaged from cN3 to pN2. LNs upstaged by EBUS were significantly smaller than nodes downstaged by EBUS, 7.5 mm (range 7-9) versus 12 mm (range 6-21), P = 0.005.A significant proportion of patients considered for definitive radiotherapy (+/-chemotherapy) undergoing systematic mediastinal evaluation with EBUS-TBNA in this study have an extent of mediastinal NSCLC involvement discordant with that indicated by PET-CT. Systematic EBUS-TBNA may aid in defining the extent of mediastinal involvement in NSCLC patients undergoing radiotherapy. Systematic EBUS-TBNA has the potential to contribute significantly to radiotherapy planning and delivery, by either identifying occult nodal metastases, or demonstrating FDG-avid LNs to be disease-free.