Patient Perceptions of Penicillin Allergy Testing in a Public Health System.

BACKGROUND: Documented penicillin allergies are associated with increased morbidity, increased hospital stay, and an increase in resistant infections. Penicillin allergy evaluations using direct oral challenge with or without skin testing has been recommended as a delabeling strategy for patients with penicillin reaction histories. Barriers for achieving equitable access, however, exist. Understanding patient perceptions regarding their penicillin allergy across diverse populations is crucial to mitigate potential obstacles to penicillin allergy testing (PAT) and the use of penicillin-like antibiotics after delabeling. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to gather perceptions of patients delabeled of their penicillin allergy after testing through a PAT program. METHODS: Patients who underwent PAT and had a subsequent allergy removal due to a negative result were interviewed using closed and open-ended questions. RESULTS: A total of 100 patient interviews were completed. Awareness of the risks associated with unnecessary penicillin avoidance and PAT was low. Initial concerns regarding PAT were common, however, were frequently alleviated with targeted education. Most patients undergoing testing reported a positive experience and would recommend PAT to others. A minority of patients continued to have discordant perceptions regarding their penicillin allergy label with mistrust in the negative result being a critical theme identified. CONCLUSION: Future interventions increasing the awareness of penicillin allergy labels and the risks and benefits of PAT in the general population are needed and must consider health literacy levels, languages, and cultural contexts. Measures to offer PAT within a clinical setting that has built high levels of patient trust will likely achieve the greatest long-term success.

Comparison of Patch Testing Results of White and Black Patients.

Patch testing is the standard diagnostic test used for patients presenting with symptoms of allergic contact dermatitis. The grading of patch test results classically varies from 1 to 3. The assessment of these results begins with a visual inspection of the presence of erythema, vesiculation, and induration. This leads to a subjectivity in visual evaluation of a patch test. Positive patch testing results can present differently in patients with darker skin tones. A greater variety of images of allergic contact dermatitis in patients with darker skin phototypes can better guide the diagnosis of this condition in skin of color. People with darker phototypes are historically underrepresented in dermatologic images and texts; thus, identifying erythema in darker phototypes may be more difficult for dermatologists, whether or not they were trained in areas of decreased phototype diversity. In this article, we present positive patch testing findings on several different phototypes, with the intention of contributing to images of phototypes underrepresented in dermatology literature.

Psychological Status as an Effect Modifier of the Association Between Allergy Symptoms and Allergy Testing.

OBJECTIVE: Patient-reported outcome measures, while valuable, may not correlate with diagnostic test results. To better understand this potential discrepancy, our objective was to determine whether psychological health is an effect modifier of the association between patient-reported allergy outcome scores and allergy test results. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective outcomes study. SETTING: Tertiary care hospital and community-based clinic. METHODS: This study included 600 patients at least 18 years of age who presented for symptoms related to allergic rhinitis and completed the related sinonasal outcome test (SNOT), which includes validated nasal, allergy, and psychological domains. Stratified analyses of odds ratios and Spearman correlation coefficients were utilized to assess for effect modification by psychological status. RESULTS: Worse patient-reported allergic rhinitis symptoms were significantly associated with positive allergy test results (odds ratio [OR] 1.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.22-2.34, P = .002) in patients with better psychological health. In contrast, there was no association in patients with worse psychological health (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.36-3.10, P = .92). These findings were corroborated by assessments of correlation: allergy domain scores were positively correlated with allergy testing scores (Spearman rho 0.18, 95% CI 0.10-0.25, P < .001) in patients with better psychological health, while there was no correlation in patients with worse psychological health (-0.02, 95% CI -0.16-0.12, P = .77). CONCLUSIONS: Psychological status was an effect modifier of the association between allergy domain and allergy testing data. When assessing the relationship between subjective measures, such as sinonasal validated instruments, and objective measures, such as allergy test results, accounting for effect modifiers such as psychological state can provide clinical and research-related insights.

Randomized Multicenter Trial for the Validation of an Easy-to-Administer Algorithm to Define Penicillin Allergy Status in Sexually Transmitted Infection Clinic Outpatients.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 15% of patients in sexually transmitted infection (STI) clinics report penicillin allergies, complicating treatment for syphilis and gonorrhea. Nonetheless, >90% do not have a penicillin allergy when evaluated. We developed and validated an algorithm to define which patients reporting penicillin allergy can be safely treated at STI clinics with these drugs. METHODS: Randomized controlled trial to assess feasibility and safety of penicillin allergy evaluations in STI clinics. Participants with reported penicillin allergy answered an expert-developed questionnaire to stratify risk. Low-risk participants underwent penicillin skin testing (PST) followed by amoxicillin 250 mg challenge or a graded oral challenge (GOC)-amoxicillin 25 mg followed by 250 mg. Reactions were recorded, and participant/provider surveys were conducted. RESULTS: Of 284 participants, 72 (25.3%) were deemed high risk and were excluded. Of 206 low-risk participants, 102 (49.5%) underwent PST without reactions and 3 (3%) had mild reactions during the oral challenge. Of 104 (50.5%) participants in the GOC, 95 (91.3%) completed challenges without reaction, 4 (4.2%) had mild symptoms after 25 mg, and 4 (4.2%) after 250-mg doses. Overall, 195 participants (94.7%) successfully completed the study and 11 (5.3%) experienced mild symptoms. Of 14 providers, 12 (85.7%) completed surveys and 11 (93%) agreed on the safety/effectiveness of penicillin allergy assessment in STI clinics. CONCLUSIONS: An easy-to-administer risk-assessment questionnaire can safely identify patients for penicillin allergy evaluation in STI clinics by PST or GOC, with GOC showing operational feasibility. Using this approach, 67% of participants with reported penicillin allergy could safely receive first-line treatments for gonorrhea or syphilis. Clinical Trials Registration. Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04620746).

[Antibiotic allergies: targeted approach in suspected ß­lactam allergy]. / Antibiotikaallergien ­ gezieltes Vorgehen bei vermeintlicher ß­Laktam-Allergie.

Allergic reactions to antibiotics belong to hypersensitivity drug reactions and can trigger both immunoglobulin E-mediated symptoms and T cell-mediated symptoms. Skin manifestations are the most common symptoms. Although reporting a penicillin allergy results in considerable restrictions in the treatment of acute infections, which may be associated with poor treatment outcomes, in most cases the label 'penicillin allergy' is not called into question or critically reviewed. However, in 85-90% of patients, 'penicillin allergy' constitutes a mislabeling of a non-specific intolerance reaction that does not pose a risk to the patient when re-exposed to penicillins. Careful history taking, an evaluation of manifestations in the past, and easy-to-perform initial diagnostic steps are crucial in differentiating non-specific intolerance reactions from penicillin allergy sensu stricto. Thus, a penicillin de-labeling strategy allows for optimized antibiotic therapy in the event of a future infection. Although allergic cross-reactivity between different ß­lactam antibiotics can occur, the risk for a severe cross-reactivity is dependent on chemical properties of the specific ß­lactam. Published cross-reactivity tables can help in risk stratification and choice of alternative ß­lactam agents.

A survey of total IgE reference intervals reported by Scandinavian and British medical laboratories - a need for harmonisation.

OBJECTIVES: There appears to be marked discrepancies between total IgE reference intervals (RIs) in use by many laboratories and those recommended by published studies. The aim of this study was therefore to review total IgE RIs currently reported by Scandinavian and British laboratories and to compare these to published RIs identified by a literature review. METHODS: Relevant laboratories were identified by test directories provided by the national accreditation bodies in Norway, Sweden, Denmark and the UK. Total IgE RIs and their sources were acquired by accessing laboratory user handbooks or by an electronic survey. In addition a literature review of published total IgE RI studies was performed. RESULTS: From 172 accredited laboratories providing total IgE analysis, data was acquired from 122 laboratories. An adult upper reference limit between 81 to 150 kU/L was reported by 89% of these. Denmark and Sweden reported the most harmonised RIs whilst Norway and the UK exhibited the least degree of harmonisation. Published adult (n = 6) and paediatric (n = 6) RI studies reported markedly higher upper limits than those currently in use by the laboratories included in this study. There were also large variations in the number of age strata in use for paediatric RIs. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates large variations in currently utilised IgE RIs by Scandinavian and British accredited laboratories and most report markedly lower RIs than those recommended by recent RI publications. Many laboratories likely utilise outdated RIs and should consider critically reviewing and updating their RIs.

Promises and Remaining Challenges for Further Integration of Basophil Activation Test in Allergy-Related Research and Clinical Practice.

More than 20 years after having been initially proposed, the relevance and usefulness of basophil activation test (BAT) for the field of allergy research and testing were demonstrated on many occasions. Leveraging the fully open format of a flexible, whole blood-based functional assay, BAT has been shown to be equally important for fundamental research, clinical research, and diagnosis. Regardless of whether the focus of a study is on the characterization of the allergenic moiety, on the patient side, or on the study of the fundamental processes involved in the allergic disease or its treatment, BAT enables the gathering of very important insights. In spite of this, its full capabilities have yet to be leveraged. Various bottlenecks, including but not limited to assay logistics, robustness, flow cytometry access, and/or expertise, have indeed been limiting its development beyond experts and long-term users. Now, various initiatives, aiming at resolving these bottlenecks, have been launched. If successful, a broader use of BAT could then be contemplated. In such a situation, its more thorough integration in clinical practice has the potential to significantly change the allergic patient's journey.

Cost of Serum Versus Skin Allergy Testing Among Medicare Fee-for-Service Beneficiaries in the United States.

Background: Testing for allergic sensitization can be achieved similarly via skin or serum specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE) testing, although the costs of each method differ. Objective: This study compared cost and utilization of allergy testing utilizing skin vs sIgE testing and whether equal access (parity) to both testing methods affects overall allergy testing costs among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries in the United States. Methods: Allergy test utilization and payment data were analyzed using 100% 2019 Medicare fee-for-service claims data. Beneficiaries with any sIgE test, skin prick test, or intradermal skin test associated with ICD-10 codes of allergic rhinitis, asthma, and food allergy were included. Aggregate and per-beneficiary testing cost, number of allergens tested, and number of allergy-related specialist visits incurred were estimated by the testing patterns of sIgE only, skin prick only, intradermal only, skin prick and intradermal, and sIgE plus prick and/or intradermal. Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) with parity for all allergy tests and those which restricted sIgE testing were compared. Multivariate linear regression was performed on the association between testing patterns and each cost and utilization measure, controlling for parity, age, sex, race/ethnicity, and dual-eligible status. Results: We analyzed 270 831 patients and 327 263 allergy-related claims. Total payment for all allergy tests was $71 380 866, including $15 903 954 for sIgE tests, $42 223 930 for skin prick tests, and $13 252 982 for intradermal tests. Beneficiaries receiving sIgE tests had only 1.8 fewer allergist visits than those with skin prick tests only (0.8 vs 2.6). Cost of testing per beneficiary was also lower in sIgE testing only compared with skin prick tests only ($161 vs $247). Multivariable regression results showed per-beneficiary payments for allergy testing were on average $22 lower in MACs with parity compared with MACs without parity. Discussion: Serum specific IgE testing is associated with lower costs and fewer allergy specialist visits compared with skin testing. Insurance coverage with parity toward sIgE and skin testing is associated with lower overall costs of allergy testing. Conclusion: Among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries in the United States, sIgE testing may be more cost effective compared with skin testing in the management of allergic disease.

Anaphylaxis:: After the Emergency Department.

After treating the acute anaphylactic reaction, the clinician's next task is to prevent a recurrence. The patient should be observed in the ED. How long this observation period should last depends on their clinical course, risk factors, and social support. All patients should be discharged with a prescription for 2 epinephrine autoinjectors and counseled on appropriate use. The patient should also receive education on the signs and symptoms of anaphylaxis and avoiding triggers. The patient should follow-up with an allergy specialist who can confirm triggers and provide immunotherapy as indicated.

Facilitators and Barriers to Verifying Penicillin Allergies in a Veteran Nursing Home Population.

BACKGROUND: Unconfirmed penicillin allergies are common and may contribute to adverse outcomes, especially in frail older patients. Evidence-based clinical pathways for evaluating penicillin allergies have been effectively and safely applied in selected settings, but not in nursing home populations. OBJECTIVE: To identify potential facilitators and barriers to implementing a strategy to verify penicillin allergies in Veterans Health Administration nursing homes, known as Community Living Centers (CLCs). METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with staff, patients, and family members at 1 CLC to assess their understanding of penicillin allergies and receptiveness to verifying the allergy. We also asked staff about the proposed allergy assessment strategy, including willingness to delabel by history and feasibility of performing oral challenges or skin testing on their unit. RESULTS: From 24 interviews (11 front-line staff, 4 leadership, 3 patients, 6 family members), we identified several facilitators or barriers. Staff recognized the importance of allergy verification and were willing to support and assist in implementing verification strategies. The CLC residents were willing to have their allergy status verified. However, some family members expressed reluctance to verifying their relative's allergy status owing to safety concerns. Front-line staff also expressed concern over having the necessary resources, including time and expertise, to implement the strategy. Staff suggested involving clinical pharmacists and educating staff, patients, and family members as ways to overcome these barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Concerns about safety and staff resources are important potential barriers to implementing verification strategies. Involvement of pharmacists and education of both staff and patients and family members will be important components of any successful intervention.

[Reasons for allergology consultations prior to COVID-19 vaccination and their outcomes : Two-year experience of an allergy center in North Rhine-Westphalia]. / Gründe für allergologische Diagnostik und deren Ergebnisse im Kontext von COVID-19-Vakzinierungen : 2-jährige Erfahrung eines Allergiezentrums in Nordrhein-Westfalen.

BACKGROUND: To counteract the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, several severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines have been licensed since December 2020. Shortly after the start of the vaccination campaigns, occasional allergic reactions related to vaccines were described, thus, leading to concerns in many patients with a history of allergies. The aim of this work was to evaluate which anamnestic events represented a reason for an allergology work-up before COVID-19 vaccination. Furthermore, the results of the allergology diagnostics are described. METHODS: We performed a retrospective data analysis of all patients who presented at the Center for Dermatology, Allergology and Dermatosurgery of the Helios University Hospital Wuppertal during the years 2021 and 2022 for allergology work-up prior to COVID-19 vaccination. Demographic data, allergological history, reason for the consultation in the clinic and results of allergology diagnostic tests including reactions after vaccination were included. RESULTS: A total of 93 patients presented for allergology work-up with COVID-19 vaccines. In about half of the cases, the reasons for the presentation to the clinic were doubts and concerns about allergic reactions and side effects. In all, 26.9% (25/93) of the presented patients had not previously received a COVID-19 vaccine yet and 23.7% (22/93) of patients developed non-allergic reactions after prior COVID-19 vaccine (e.g., headache, chills, fever, malaise). Of the patients, 46.2% (43/93) were successfully vaccinated in the clinic due to a complex allergological history, while the remaining 53.8% (50/93) were subjected to outpatient vaccination in the vaccination practice. Only one patient with known chronic spontaneous urticaria developed a mild angioedema of the lips a few hours after vaccination; however, we do not consider this episode an allergic reaction to the vaccine due to the time delay. CONCLUSION: Allergic reactions after COVID-19 vaccines are rare, but many patients with a positive medical history of allergies are concerned about allergic reactions after COVID-19 vaccination. Thus, public work by practicing allergologists is important during vaccination campaigns to meet the concerns and fears of the population, especially of patients with allergies in their medical history.

Inaccurate penicillin allergy labels: Consequences, solutions, and opportunities for rhinologists.

A patient-reported history of penicillin allergy is a common label with a prevalence of about 10%. However, as many as 95% of patients reporting a penicillin allergy do not have a true immunoglobin-E (IgE)-mediated allergic reaction. Unfortunately, penicillin allergy mislabeling is problematic, leading to inappropriate antibiotic use and negative consequences, such as adverse drug events, suboptimal outcomes, and increased costs. As physicians who treat patients of all ages for common sinonasal pathology in the clinic and operating room in addition to frequently providing testing and management of allergic diseases, rhinologists are well positioned to aid in delabeling patients with inaccurate penicillin allergies. This viewpoint highlights the consequences of inaccurate penicillin allergy designation in the clinic and perioperative period and explores misconceptions regarding cross-reactivity between penicillins and cephalosporins. Opportunities are explored for shared decision-making with colleagues in other specialties, such as anesthesiology, and practical recommendations are provided to aid rhinologists when faced with a patient who holds a questionable history of penicillin allergy. Rhinologists can play an active role in delabeling patients with inaccurate penicillin allergies with the goal of ensuring appropriate antibiotic use for future medical encounters.

[Antibiotic allergies: targeted approach in suspected ß­lactam allergy]. / Antibiotikaallergien ­ gezieltes Vorgehen bei vermeintlicher ß­Laktam-Allergie.

Allergic reactions to antibiotics belong to hypersensitivity drug reactions and can trigger both immunoglobulin E-mediated symptoms and T cell-mediated symptoms. Skin manifestations are the most common symptoms. Although reporting a penicillin allergy results in considerable restrictions in the treatment of acute infections, which may be associated with poor treatment outcomes, in most cases the label 'penicillin allergy' is not called into question or critically reviewed. However, in 85-90% of patients, 'penicillin allergy' constitutes a mislabeling of a non-specific intolerance reaction that does not pose a risk to the patient when re-exposed to penicillins. Careful history taking, an evaluation of manifestations in the past, and easy-to-perform initial diagnostic steps are crucial in differentiating non-specific intolerance reactions from penicillin allergy sensu stricto. Thus, a penicillin de-labeling strategy allows for optimized antibiotic therapy in the event of a future infection. Although allergic cross-reactivity between different ß­lactam antibiotics can occur, the risk for a severe cross-reactivity is dependent on chemical properties of the specific ß­lactam. Published cross-reactivity tables can help in risk stratification and choice of alternative ß­lactam agents.

Laboratory Strategies to Improve Allergy First-Line Screening in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: There are nonestablished protocols in use for first-line allergy screening based on IgE testing. These protocols attempt to address an unmet need for sustainability of clinical laboratories, at a time when demand is increasing. OBJECTIVE: To present a novel protocol for first-line allergy screening and to evaluate the implementation benefits for patients, the health care system, and payers. METHODS: We carried out an observational retrospective study analyzing 4359 interventions on primary care testing requests. Interventions included overriding redundant serum IgE (sIgE) testing for allergen mixes, extracts included in mixes, low-prevalence extracts, and milk and egg molecular components without previous positive results when exposed to extracts. We also added prevalent allergen testing. RESULTS: The strategy saved 683 tests from being performed unnecessarily. Test volume decline was primarily driven by the cancelation of 2186 egg and milk components tests; 561 tests were added for mixes, together with 942 allergen extracts tests. DISCUSSION: The results of this study show how the allergy laboratory plays a key role in actively managing demand for sIgE testing, leading to optimized diagnosis.

Updated total IgE reference intervals in Norwegian adults.

BACKGROUND: It is important and expected of laboratories to provide updated reference intervals to the clinician. As no recent publications report adult total IgE reference intervals on a Scandinavian population, the aim of our study was therefore to provide an estimate on healthy Norweigian adults. METHODS: A reference interval study was conducted in accordance to CLSI guidelines. Samples were collected from n = 252 presumably healthy adult participants enrolled through the regional blood donation program. Total IgE measurements were performed on the ImmunoCAPTM platform (Thermo Fisher Diagnostics) traceable to the WHO-reference standard (75/502) for total IgE measurements. RESULTS: An upper 95% total IgE reference limit was estimated to 302 kU/L (90% CI 177-388 kU/L), and the 97.5% percentile was estimated to 391 kU/L (90% CI 344-560 kU/L). No significant differences were found between participants who self-reported having an allergic disease and participants who did not self-report having an allergic disease. CONCLUSION: Our results and other recent publications find markedly higher values than adult reference intervals established four decades ago which still remain widely used by clinical laboratories. We therefore recommend total IgE reference intervals should be critically reviewed and updated.

Preoperative allergy testing for patients reporting penicillin and cephalosporin allergies is economically justified in preventing infection after total shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The use of alternative antibiotics to cefazolin has been associated with increased risk of infection after shoulder arthroplasty. Routine preoperative allergy testing in patients reporting penicillin and cephalosporin allergies increases the number able to receive cefazolin and may reduce the occurrence of infection after shoulder arthroplasty, but the financial viability of this practice is unclear. We used break-even modeling to determine the economic viability of routine preoperative allergy testing for infection prevention in total shoulder arthroplasty patients reporting penicillin and cephalosporin allergies. METHODS: Allergy testing cost ($248.24), infection rates after shoulder arthroplasty following use of noncefazolin antibiotics (3.09%), and infection-related care costs ($55,243) were derived from the literature. A break-even equation using these variables was developed to determine the absolute risk reduction (ARR) in the infection rate that would economically justify the routine implementation of preoperative allergy testing. The number needed to treat was calculated from the ARR. RESULTS: Preoperative allergy testing is considered economically justified if it prevents at least 1 infection out of 223 shoulder arthroplasties (ARR = 0.45%). These protocols remained economically viable at varying allergy testing costs, initial infection rates, and infection-related care costs. CONCLUSIONS: Routine preoperative penicillin allergy testing is an economically justified infection prevention strategy among patients reporting penicillin and cephalosporin allergies in the setting of elective shoulder arthroplasty. Widespread implementation of this practice may considerably reduce the economic and societal burden associated with prosthetic infections.

Atopic dermatitis and food allergy: To Test or not to test.

One of the most challenging clinical scenarios in the field of allergy and immunology is the patient with uncontrolled atopic dermatitis (AD) and potential food allergy. These two diagnoses often coexist, but false-positive testing to foods is also prevalent. Physicians and other health care professionals may be concerned that not testing enough foods could lead to worsened AD severity or future systemic food reactions. However, testing too many foods can cause unnecessary food avoidance with varied subsequent consequences. Adding to this dilemma, patients and families with AD often request food allergy testing or present with test results in need of interpretation. The best path forward for these patients is nuanced, but evidenced-based medicine indicates that "less is more" when it comes to food allergy testing in patients with AD. This review explores when food testing is indicated based on the latest research and guidelines in food allergy and AD.