Adult penicillin allergy programmes in Australian hospitals: a practical guide from the National Antibiotic Allergy Network.

Penicillin allergy is a significant burden on patient, prescribing and hospital outcomes. There has been increasing interest in the incorporation of penicillin allergy testing (i.e. delabelling) into antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programmes to reduce the burden of penicillin allergy labels and improve prescribing. In particular, there has been a focus on point-of-care penicillin allergy assessment and direct oral challenge for low-risk phenotypes. The National Antibiotic Allergy Network has provided a guide to assist AMS clinicians with the incorporation of penicillin allergy programmes, in particular direct oral challenge, into Australian hospitals.

Utilising primary care electronic health records to deliver the ALABAMA randomised controlled trial of penicillin allergy assessment.

BACKGROUND: Use of electronic health records (EHR) to provide real-world data for research is established, but using EHR to deliver randomised controlled trials (RCTs) more efficiently is less developed. The Allergy AntiBiotics And Microbial resistAnce (ALABAMA) RCT evaluated a penicillin allergy assessment pathway versus usual clinical care in a UK primary care setting. The aim of this paper is to describe how EHRs were used to facilitate efficient delivery of a large-scale randomised trial of a complex intervention embracing efficient participant identification, supporting minimising GP workload, providing accurate post-intervention EHR updates of allergy status, and facilitating participant follow up and outcome data collection. The generalisability of the EHR approach and health economic implications of EHR in clinical trials will be reported in the main ALABAMA trial cost-effectiveness analysis. METHODS: A descriptive account of the adaptation of functionality within SystmOne used to deliver/facilitate multiple trial processes from participant identification to outcome data collection. RESULTS: An ALABAMA organisation group within SystmOne was established which allowed sharing of trial functions/materials developed centrally by the research team. The 'ALABAMA unit' within SystmOne was also created and provided a secure efficient environment to access participants' EHR data. Processes of referring consented participants, allocating them to a trial arm, and assigning specific functions to the intervention arm were developed by adapting tools such as templates, reports, and protocols which were already available in SystmOne as well as pathways to facilitate allergy de-labelling processes and data retrieval for trial outcome analysis. CONCLUSIONS: ALABAMA is one of the first RCTs to utilise SystmOne EHR functionality and data across the RCT delivery, demonstrating feasibility and applicability to other primary care RCTs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04108637, registered 05/03/2019. ISRCTN: ISRCTN20579216.

Reliability and validation of an electronic penicillin allergy risk-assessment tool in a pregnant population.

BACKGROUND: Penicillin allergy adversely impacts patient care, yet most cases do not have true allergies. Clinicians require efficient, reliable clinical tools to identify low risk patients who can be safely de-labeled. Our center implemented the FIRSTLINE electronic point-of-care decision support tool to help non-allergist practitioners risk stratify patients with penicillin allergy. We sought to explore the reliability and validity of this tool in relation to allergist assessment and actual patient outcomes. We additionally compared it with two other published stratification tools, JAMA and PENFAST, to assess ability to accurately identify low risk patients appropriate for direct oral challenge. METHODS: In this single-center, retrospective, observational study, 181 pregnant females with self-reported penicillin allergy between July 2019 to June 2021 at BC Women's Hospital, Vancouver, Canada were used to assess the reliability and validity of all three tools. Physician-guided history of penicillin use and symptoms were used for scoring. Results and recommendations were compared to actual patient outcomes after clinician decision for direct oral challenge or intradermal tests. We compared the performance of JAMA, PENFAST and FIRSTLINE. RESULTS: 181 patients were assessed. 176/181 (97.2%) patients were deemed not allergic. Each risk stratification tool labelled majority of patients as low risk with 88.4% of patients PENFAST 0-2, 60.2% of patients JAMA low risk, 86.7% of patients FIRSTLINE very low risk. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate that our point-of-care electronic algorithm is reliable in identifying low risk pregnant patients, as compared to an allergist assessment. To our knowledge, this is the first study to provide direct comparison between multiple decision support tools using the same population, minimizing participant bias. Providing clinical algorithms to risk stratify patients, can enable healthcare professionals to safely identify individuals who may be candidates for direct penicillin oral challenges versus needing referral to specialists. This increases the generalizability and efficiency of penicillin allergy de-labeling.

"What if the patient has a severe reaction, and it is my fault?" A qualitative study exploring factors for sustainable implementation of penicillin allergy delabelling.

BACKGROUND: Penicillin allergy delabelling (PAD), the process of evaluating penicillin allergy labels, is a key target in antibiotic stewardship, but uptake of the procedure outside clinical studies is limited. We aimed to explore factors that need to be addressed to sustainably implement a clinical pathway for PAD. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study based on semi-structured interviews with focus groups consisting of a purposive sample of twenty-five nurses and physicians working in four different hospitals in Western Norway. Systematic text condensation was applied for analysis. RESULTS: Psychological safety was reported as crucial for clinicians to perform PAD. A narrative of uncertainty and anticipated negative outcomes were negatively associated with PAD performance. Education, guidelines, and colleague- and leadership support could together create psychological safety and empower health personnel to perform PAD. Key factors for sustainable implementation of PAD were facilitating the informant's profound motivation for providing optimal health care and for reducing antimicrobial resistance. Informants were motivated by the prospect of a simplified PAD procedure. We identified three main needs for implementation of PAD: (1) creating psychological safety; (2) utilising clinicians' inherent motivation and (3) optimal organisational structures. CONCLUSION: A planned implementation of PAD must acknowledge clinicians' need for psychological safety and aid reassurance through training, leadership, and guidelines. To implement PAD as an everyday practice it must be minimally disruptive and provide a contextually adaptive logistic chain. Also, the clinician's motivation for providing the best possible healthcare should be utilised to aid implementation. The results of this study will aid sustainable implementation of PAD in Norway. ETHICS: The study was approved by the Western Norway Regional Committee for Medical Research Ethics (Study No:199210).

True Rate of Allergy among Pediatric Inpatients with Penicillin Allergy Labels (TRIAL).

Background: Penicillin allergy is a common drug allergy diagnosis in pediatric patients; however, upon appropriate allergy testing, many of these patients are found not to have a true allergy. For patients with a reported allergy, alternative antibiotics are prescribed, which are less effective, more toxic, or more expensive. There is a lack of data evaluating allergies in hospitalized children and comparing allergy assessments conducted by pediatric allergists and pharmacists. Objective: To estimate the percentage of pediatric patients admitted with reported penicillin allergy who did not have a true penicillin allergy. Methods: This single-centre prospective cohort study included inpatients between 6 months and 17 years of age, with a documented penicillin allergy, who were admitted to the general pediatric and oncology units of a tertiary care children's hospital between November 2019 and March 2023. The allergy history, evaluation, and risk categorization were performed by pharmacists. The history was reviewed with the allergist, and the patient was then referred, underwent skin testing, or received oral amoxicillin challenge with monitoring for 1 hour. Results: Thirty patients were included, of whom 29 (97%) had delabelling of their penicillin allergy. Four patients (13%) had delabelling on the basis of history alone, without risk assessment. Twenty-five (83%) of the patients were assessed as having low risk; 24 of these had delabelling following oral challenge, and 1 did not complete the oral challenge because of transfer to another hospital. One patient (3%) was assessed as having moderate risk, with delabelling on the basis of results of skin testing and oral challenge. The pharmacist's and allergist's risk assessments were in agreement in 29 (97%) of the 30 cases. Conclusions: Pediatric patients, including those with oncologic malignancies, are often mislabelled as having a penicillin allergy. Pharmacists are able to accurately determine true allergy risk and delabel penicillin allergies for pediatric patients in the hospital setting.

Contexte: L'allergie à la pénicilline est un diagnostic d'allergie médicamenteuse courant chez les patients pédiatriques; cependant, après des tests d'allergie appropriés, bon nombre de ces patients ne présentent pas de véritable allergie. Pour ceux présentant une allergie signalée, des antibiotiques alternatifs sont prescrits, moins efficaces, plus toxiques ou plus coûteux. Peu de données permettent d'évaluer les allergies chez les enfants hospitalisés et de comparer les évaluations des allergies réalisées par les allergologues pédiatriques et les pharmaciens. Objectif: Estimer le pourcentage de patients pédiatriques admis avec une allergie à la pénicilline signalée, mais qui n'avaient pas de véritable allergie à la pénicilline. Méthodologie: Cette étude de cohorte prospective monocentrique comprenait des patients hospitalisés âgés de 6 mois à 17 ans, présentant une allergie documentée à la pénicilline, qui ont été admis dans les unités de pédiatrie générale et d'oncologie d'un hôpital pour enfants de soins tertiaires entre novembre 2019 et mars 2023. Les antécédents, l'évaluation et la catégorisation des risques de l'allergie ont été renseignés par les pharmaciens. L'anamnèse a été revue avec l'allergologue, et le patient a ensuite été référé, a subi un test cutané ou a reçu une provocation orale à l'amoxicilline avec surveillance pendant 1 heure. Résultats: Sur 30 patients inclus, 29 (97 %) ont vu un désétiquetage de leur allergie à la pénicilline. Quatre patients (13 %) ont bénéficié d'un désétiquetage sur la seule base de leurs antécédents, sans évaluation des risques. Vingt-cinq (83 %) patients ont été évalués comme présentant un faible risque; 24 d'entre eux ont bénéficié d'un désétiquetage à la suite d'une provocation orale, et 1 n'a pas terminé la provocation orale en raison d'un transfert vers un autre hôpital. Un patient (3 %) a été évalué comme présentant un risque modéré, avec un désétiquetage basé sur les résultats des tests cutanés et de la provocation orale. Les évaluations des risques par le pharmacien et l'allergologue concordaient dans 29 (97 %) des 30 cas. Conclusions: Les patients pédiatriques, y compris ceux atteints de cancers malins, sont souvent étiquetés à tort comme ayant une allergie à la pénicilline. Les pharmaciens sont en mesure de déterminer avec précision le risque réel d'allergie et de désétiqueter les allergies à la pénicilline chez les patients pédiatriques en milieu hospitalier.

Delabelling beta-lactam allergy.

Background: Hypersensitivity to beta-lactam (BL) antibiotics is one of the most frequent reported drug allergies. In our population, it is common to find labels of BL allergy in electronic medical records (EMRs) that have not been assessed. The objective of our study was to detect patients with beta-lactam allergy labels in their EMRs and to assess how many of them are false after a correct diagnostic evaluation. Methods: A multicentre prospective study was performed with patients labelled as allergic to BLs in their EMRs in the previous 5 years. Demographical and clinical data, as well as variables regarding the BL allergy label and the characteristics of the index reaction from clinical history and EMRs, were recorded. Then, diagnostic assessments including clinical history, skin tests (STs), and drug provocation tests (DPTs) were conducted in order to confirm or exclude the diagnosis of BL allergy. Results: A total of 249 patients completed the study, of which 160 (64.3%) were women with a median age of 57 years (interquartile range [IQR], 45-68). The most frequent BL allergy labels detected were for penicillin (124), amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (61), and amoxicillin (54). Of the 204 patients who underwent STs, 20.1% were positive. DPTs were performed in 224 patients, showing good tolerance in 87.1% of cases. After the allergy diagnosis work-up, 186 patients (74.7%) were diagnosed as non-allergic to BL antibiotics. Conclusion: In our study population, the number of patients labelled as allergic to BLs in their EMRs was similar to that in previously published studies, with proportions near to 75%-80% being falsely labelled as allergic to BLs.

[Penicillin allergy-Truth or duty?] / Penicillinallergie ­ Wahrheit oder Pflicht?

The beta-lactam antibiotics are some of the safest and best-tolerated antibiotic agents; however, many patients have reported allergies against penicillin. All beta-lactam antibiotics are only restrictively prescribed for these patients and alternative antibiotics are increasingly given, which carries the risk of negative clinical results and socioeconomic sequelae; however, over 95% of patients who reported an allergy to penicillin show a negative result in the allergy tests for penicillin and this antibiotic can safely be prescribed. The use of sensitive and specific instruments for identification of false penicillin allergies should be an important topic within the framework of antibiotic stewardship. Anesthesists can play a central role in the reduction of the enormous individual and public health burden associated with the classification of penicillin allergy by taking an appropriate medical history and a risk stratification for the identification of patients with a penicillin allergy. This overview article presents a possible delabelling algorithm within the framework of the clarification of a beta-lactam antibiotic allergy. The focus is on a structured allergy anamnesis using the penicillin allergy, five or fewer years ago, anaphylaxis/angioedema, severe cutaneous adverse reaction (SCAR) and treatment required for allergy episode (PEN-FAST) score.

The appropriateness of penicillin allergy de-labelling by non-allergist clinical ward teams.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the appropriateness of penicillin allergy (PenA) assessment conducted by clinical teams and to review the safety of subsequent exposure of these patients to penicillin. METHODS: Opportunistic, prospective observational study of usual clinical care, between 16 May 2023 and 14 August 2023, of inpatients with a PenA and requiring antibiotics, in a 750-bed hospital in England. To assess the appropriateness of management, PenA patients prescribed penicillins were grouped into risk categories using a validated antibiotic allergy assessment tool: eligible for de-label on history alone (direct de-label; DDL), eligible for direct oral challenge (DOC), high risk or unable to obtain history. RESULTS: Of the 123 patients admitted with a PenA (or sensitivity record) and exposed to a penicillin, data were collected for 50. Their PenA records were grouped follows: eligible for DDL 34 (68%), eligible for DOC 11 (22%), high risk 4 (8%) and unable to obtain history 1 (2%). In 14/50 (28%) patients there was no evidence of a current PenA assessment in the medical notes. CONCLUSIONS: Using the allergy risk tool, most patients with PenA records were exposed to penicillin appropriately. However, patients meeting high-risk criteria were also exposed to penicillin when the tool excluded them. PenA assessment needs to be carried out with appropriate training and governance structures in place.

Improving the performance of machine learning penicillin adverse drug reaction classification with synthetic data and transfer learning.

BACKGROUND: Machine learning may assist with the identification of potentially inappropriate penicillin allergy labels. Strategies to improve the performance of existing models for this task include the use of additional training data, synthetic data and transfer learning. AIMS: The aims of this study were to investigate the use of additional training data and novel machine learning strategies, namely synthetic data and transfer learning, to improve the performance of penicillin adverse drug reaction (ADR) machine learning classification. METHODS: Machine learning natural language processing was applied to free-text penicillin ADR data extracted from a public health system electronic health record (EHR). The models were developed by training on various labelled data sets. ADR entries were split into training and testing data sets and used to develop and test a variety of machine learning models. The effect of training on additional data and synthetic data versus the use of transfer learning was analysed. RESULTS: Following the application of these techniques, the area under the receiver operator curve of best-performing models for the classification of penicillin allergy (vs intolerance) and high-risk allergy (vs low-risk allergy) improved to 0.984 (using the artificial neural network model) and 0.995 (with the transfer learning approach) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Machine learning models demonstrate high levels of accuracy in the classification and risk stratification of penicillin ADR labels using the reaction documented in the EHR. The model can be further optimised by incorporating additional training data and using transfer learning. Practical applications include automating case detection for penicillin allergy delabelling programmes.

Barriers to and Facilitators of Delabelling of Antimicrobial Allergies: A Qualitative Meta-synthesis.

Background: Patients who report penicillin allergies may receive alternative antibiotics. Such substitution contributes to antimicrobial resistance, lower treatment efficacy, increased frequency of adverse events, and increased costs. Approximately 90% of individuals who report a penicillin allergy can tolerate a penicillin. Objective: To identify the barriers to and facilitators of removal by health care workers of inaccurate antimicrobial allergies from patient records, known as delabelling. Data Sources: The MEDLINE database was searched from inception to December 29, 2020. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Qualitative studies evaluating health care professionals' perceptions of barriers to and/or facilitators of the act of delabelling a patient's antimicrobial allergies were included in the meta-synthesis. Data Synthesis: The Theoretical Domains Framework was used to code and group individual utterances from the included studies, which were mapped to the Behaviour Change Wheel and corresponding intervention function and policy categories. Results: Four studies met the inclusion criteria. Eight themes were identified as representing barriers to delabelling: delabelling skills, patient education skills, knowledge, electronic health records (EHRs), communication frameworks, time, fear about allergic reactions, and professional roles. Behaviour change interventions that may overcome these barriers include education, training, algorithms and toolkits, changes to EHRs, use of dedicated personnel, policies, incentivization of correct labelling, and an audit system. Conclusions: Eight themes were identified as barriers to delabelling of antimicrobial allergies. Future behaviour change interventions to address these barriers were proposed. Confidence in the findings of this study was judged to be moderate, according to the GRADE CERQual approach.

Contexte: Les patients qui signalent des allergies à la pénicilline peuvent recevoir d'autres antibiotiques. Une telle substitution contribue à la résistance aux antimicrobiens, à une moindre efficacité du traitement, à une fréquence accrue des événements indésirables et à une augmentation des coûts. Environ 90 % des personnes qui déclarent une allergie à la pénicilline peuvent la tolérer. Objectif: Identifier les obstacles à l'élimination par les travailleurs de la santé des allergies antimicrobiennes inexactes des dossiers des patients, ce que l'on appelle « le désétiquetage ¼, et les facteurs qui le favorisent. Sources des données: La base de données MEDLINE a été consultée depuis sa création jusqu'au 29 décembre 2020. Sélection de l'étude et extraction des données: Des études qualitatives évaluant les perceptions des professionnels de la santé quant aux obstacles à l'acte de désétiquetage des allergies aux antimicrobiens d'un patient et les facilitateurs de celui-ci ont été incluses dans la métasynthèse. Synthèse des données: Le cadre théorique des domaines a été utilisé pour coder et regrouper les énoncés individuels, qui ont ensuite été associés à la roue du changement de comportement ainsi qu'aux catégories de fonctions et de politiques d'intervention correspondantes. Résultats: Quatre études répondaient aux critères d'inclusion. Huit thèmes ont été identifiés comme représentant des obstacles au désétiquetage: les compétences en la matière, les compétences en matière d'éducation des patients, les connaissances, les dossiers de santé électroniques (DSE), les cadres de communication, le temps, la peur des réactions allergiques et les rôles professionnels. Les interventions visant le changement de comportement qui peuvent surmonter ces obstacles comprennent l'éducation, la formation, les algorithmes et les boîtes à outils de désétiquetage, la modification des DSE, le recours à du personnel dédié, des politiques, l'incitation à un étiquetage correct et un système d'audit. Conclusions: Huit thèmes ont été identifiés comme étant des obstacles au désétiquetage des allergies aux antimicrobiens. De futures interventions ciblant le changement de comportement pour les surmonter ont été proposées. La confiance dans les résultats de cette étude a été jugée modérée, selon l'approche GRADE CERQual.

[ANTIMICROBIAL ALLERGY ASSESSMENT DURING PREGNANCY FOR APPROPRIATE ANTIMICROBIAL USE AT DELIVERY].

BACKGROUND: Avoidance of suspect drugs based solely on a history of drug allergy is detrimental to disease outcomes. Many antimicrobial allergy labels are not usually true allergy. Some studies have demonstrated that antimicrobial allergy assessments can be safely performed on pregnant women. The purpose of this study was to examine the usefulness of antibiotic allergy assessment during pregnancy in Japan. METHODS: We reviewed pregnant women who reported antimicrobial allergies and were referred to the allergy center. Allergists conducted an interview and skin test and selected antibiotics that could be used at delivery. RESULTS: Twenty-four pregnant women were referred to as having antimicrobial allergies. Most of the suspected antimicrobials were cephalosporin (13 cases, 52%) and penicillin (9 cases, 36%). Five women were ruled out only by our interviews. Of the remaining 20 cases, 10 were immediate type, 6 were non-immediate type, and 4 were unknown. All 21 pregnant women who needed antimicrobials were able to use the first-line drugs (ß-lactam antimicrobials) at the time of delivery. No surgical site infections or allergic reactions were observed. CONCLUSION: Pregnant women with antimicrobial allergy labels could be evaluated by antimicrobial allergy assessment during pregnancy, and first-line antimicrobials were safely and properly used at delivery.

Patient Adherence to Written Instructions following Complete Allergological Evaluation for Suspected Beta-Lactam Allergy: A Tertiary Hospital Study in Greece.

BACKGROUND: Beta-lactam (BL) antibiotics are among the most prescribed groups of drugs worldwide and have been implicated in a variety of allergic reactions. There is a paucity of literature regarding patient adherence to prescribed instructions following comprehensive allergy assessments. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to follow up the clinical course of BL allergy in patients who underwent thorough allergological investigation for suspected BL allergy at a tertiary hospital and ascertain patients' compliance with the provided written instructions. MATERIALS: An observational study in patients referred for suspected BL allergy who underwent a comprehensive allergy workup (in vivo ± in vitro tests, DPT in culprit and/or alternative BL) and who subsequently received written instructions was conducted. Data on the nature of the reported drug hypersensitivity reaction, the culprit BL drug, the allergological workup, and the detailed instructions provided in a written drug allergy report were collected retrospectively. Patients' compliance with the instructions was recorded by a telephone survey using a pre-defined questionnaire. RESULTS: Among the 212 patients meeting the inclusion criteria, 87 patients (72.4% women; mean age 50.1 years; age range 6-84 years) responded to the telephone survey and were included in this study. Surprisingly, 45 out of 87 (51.7%) patients did not adhere to the written instructions. The primary factor contributing to non-compliance was the fear of re-occurrence of a drug-induced allergic reaction (personal and/or triggered by their treating physician reluctance), accounting for 77.7% of cases. The analysis demonstrated that the initial reaction's severity and type, as well as the outcomes of skin testing, did not correlate with compliance to instructions (p > 0.05). Surprisingly enough, a drug provocation test (DPT), irrespectively of the result, emerged as a negative predictor for adherence, with only 40.6% of DPT patients complying compared to 77.8% of those who did not undergo DPT (p = 0.005; odds ratio = 0.195; 95% confidence interval: 0.058-0.655). Variables such as performing DPT with alternative or incriminated drugs or the result of the DPT (positive-negative) were not associated with patient compliance. Conversely, the type of instructions provided exhibited a noteworthy correlation with compliance. Patients who were explicitly instructed to entirely avoid all BL antibiotics demonstrated markedly higher adherence rates (83.3%) compared to those who were advised to have a partial or complete release of BLs (31.8% and 58.1%, respectively; p < 0.05). Notably, among compliant patients who received either the original culprit drug or the alternative (32 out of 87, 36.7%), no allergic reactions were reported. In contrast, among the 12 patients with written avoidance of all BLs, subsequent BL intake led to immediate reactions (Grade I and IV) in 2 patients (16.6%). CONCLUSIONS: A notable disparity in patient adherence to written instructions prohibiting or releasing beta-lactams was demonstrated. Less than half of the patients ultimately complied with the provided instructions, underscoring the need for tailored patients' education and strategies to improve adherence in the management of suspected BL allergy.

Assessing delayed penicillin hypersensitivity using the PENFAST+ score.

Introduction: Approximately 10% of individuals report a suspected allergy to penicillin, but according to allergy work-ups, only 10%-15% of them are truly allergic. A clinical decision score, the PEN-FAST, was developed and validated to identify adults with low-risk penicillin allergy. Objectives: The objective of this study was to improve the performance of the PEN-FAST score, particularly for those with delayed hypersensitivity (HS), by improving the negative predictive value. Methods: STEP 1: Retrospective evaluation of the PEN-FAST score in patients with proven immediate and delayed penicillin allergy. STEP 2: Identification of additional criteria among Step 1 patients misclassified by PEN-FAST score. Development of the PEN-FAST+ score using multivariable logistic regression in a prospective cohort of patients with a suspicion of HS to penicillin. STEP 3: Comparison of diagnostic performances of PEN-FAST and PEN-FAST+ scores. Results: The PEN-FAST score showed limitations in predicting the relapse of immediate skin HS or delayed maculopapular exanthema, with 28.6% and 38.4% of patients misclassified, respectively. We identified two potential additional criteria: skin rash lasting more than 7 days and immediate reaction occurring in less than 1 h (generalized or localized on palmoplantar area or scalp itching/heat feeling). A total of 32/252 (12.7%) patients were confirmed to be allergic to penicillin. With PEN-FAST, 37% of patients (n = 10) with delayed allergic penicillin HS were misclassified. With PEN-FAST+, 3 patients with delayed HS confirmed by a ST (11.1%) were misclassified. The AUC was significantly higher for PEN-FAST+ than PEN-FAST (85% vs. 72%, p = 0.03).

Prevalence of Trimethoprim-Sulfamethoxazole Adverse Reaction Mislabelling in Australia.

INTRODUCTION: Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) is an important antibiotic, with the most compelling indications for Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia prophylaxis and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus treatment. Previous adverse reactions (AR) to TMP-SMX may limit the usability of TMP-SMX. Electronic medical record (EMR) of AR for other antibiotics has previously been shown to be inaccurate; however, the extent to which this occurs for TMP-SMX is unknown. METHODS: A multi-centre retrospective observational study was conducted for consecutive inpatient admissions over a 2.5-year period commencing 2020. Adverse reactions to TMP-SMX recorded in the EMR were collected and reviewed by two independent medical officers using pre-defined expert criteria for the classification of allergies and intolerances. RESULTS: TMP-SMX AR were present in the EMR of 759 individuals (prevalence 0.6%). The majority were labelled as allergy (725, 95.5%) rather than intolerance (34, 4.5%). Most common AR were rash, vomiting, and swelling. When classified against the gold-standard expert criteria, there were 437 allergies (57.6%) and 159 intolerances (21.0%). Overall, the number of incorrect EMR AR labels was 133/759 (17.5%). Both medical and surgical specialties had significant numbers of patients with TMP-SMX AR labels and incorrectly classified EMR AR labels. CONCLUSION: TMP-SMX AR labels affect inpatients admitted under multiple specialty units. The user-entered categorization as allergy or intolerance labels in EMRs are frequently used incorrectly. These incorrect labels may inappropriately contraindicate the use of TMP-SMX, and formal evaluation of TMP-SMX ARs with immunological assessment and relabelling where appropriate may increase the use of this agent.

Use of a beta-lactam graded challenge process for inpatients with self-reported penicillin allergies at an academic medical center.

Background: The Antimicrobial Stewardship Program (ASP) at Nebraska Medicine collaborated with a board-certified allergist to develop a penicillin allergy guidance document for treating inpatients with self-reported allergy. This guidance contains an algorithm for evaluating and safely challenging penicillin-allergic patients with beta-lactams without inpatient allergy consults being available. Methods: Following multi-disciplinary review, an order set for beta-lactam graded challenges (GC) was implemented in 2018. This contains recommended monitoring and detailed medication orders to challenge patients with various beta-lactam agents. Inpatient orders for GC from 3/2018-6/2022 were retrospectively reviewed to evaluate ordering characteristics, outcomes of the challenge, and whether documentation of the allergy history was updated. All beta-lactam challenges administered to inpatients were included, and descriptive statistics were performed. Results: Overall, 157 GC were administered; 13 with oral amoxicillin and 144 with intravenous (IV) beta-lactams. Ceftriaxone accounted for the most challenges (43%). All oral challenges were recommended by an Infectious Diseases consult service, as were a majority of IV challenges (60%). Less than one in five were administered in an ICU (19%). Almost all (n = 150, 96%) were tolerated without any adverse event. There was one reaction (1%) of hives and six (4%) involving a rash, none of which had persistent effects. Allergy information was updated in the electronic health record after 92% of the challenges. Conclusion: Both intravenous and oral beta-lactam graded challenges were implemented successfully in a hospital without a regular inpatient allergy consult service. They were well-tolerated, administered primarily in non-ICU settings, and were often ordered by non-specialist services. In patients with a self-reported penicillin allergy, these results demonstrate the utility and safety of a broadly adopted beta-lactam GC process.

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.

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.

Removal of incorrect penicillin allergy labels in a UK hospital.

OBJECTIVES: Penicillin allergy records are common, often incorrect and are associated with broad spectrum antibiotic use. We piloted a pharmacist-led multidisciplinary penicillin allergy de-labelling daily ward round to determine the opportunity for penicillin allergy de-labelling in a UK hospital. METHODS: A daily ward round, delivered by antibiotic pharmacists or junior doctors, identified adult medical and surgical patients between 7 November 2022 and 31 January 2023 with a penicillin allergy record that was preventing first-line penicillin use. An allergy history was taken before risk stratifying likelihood of future harm from penicillin re-exposure and an allergy testing method was determined (direct de-label on history alone or after direct drug provocation testing). After successful allergy de-label, the antibiotic was switched to a penicillin antibiotic. RESULTS: Of 7214 inpatients during the study period, 1133 (15.7%) had a penicillin allergy record. Of 285 allergy histories taken, 105 (36.8%) met high-risk criteria, 45 (15.8%) met low-risk criteria eligible for direct de-label and 73 (25.6%) met criteria eligible for direct drug provocation testing. We were unable to obtain a history for 61 (21.4%) patients. Of 45 low-risk patients eligible for direct de-label, 40 (88.9%) were de-labelled of whom 24 (53.3%) were switched to a penicillin antibiotic. Of 73 patients with a low-risk allergy history eligible for direct drug provocation testing, 16 (21.9%) received direct drug provocation testing, of whom 9 were switched to a penicillin antibiotic. Two direct de-label patients experienced harm (thrush within 5 days and delayed skin reaction after day 5); none of the direct drug provocation testing patients had a reaction by day 5. The switches resulted in reduced alternative antibiotic use by 173 Daily Defined Doses (DDDs). DISCUSSION: Penicillin allergy de-labelling patient pathway delivered by pharmacists and junior doctors was safe and effective and well accepted by patients and the wider clinical teams.