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.

Characterizing Antibiotic Allergy Labels in a Large UK Hospital Population to Inform Antimicrobial Stewardship and Delabeling Assessment Strategy.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic allergy labels are important barriers to treatment and antimicrobial stewardship, but their prevalence in UK hospitals is poorly described. OBJECTIVE: To ascertain the prevalence and characteristics of antibiotic allergy labels in a large UK hospital setting and estimate the proportion of penicillin allergy labels for which point-of-care (POC) delabeling assessment would be appropriate. METHODS: Electronic health records data were analyzed from all patients treated at Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in 2019. Validated POC delabeling risk stratification criteria were retrospectively applied to penicillin allergy labels. RESULTS: Recorded reactions to antibiotics were present in 11.8% of all patients (32,148 of 273,216), 16.3% of inpatients (13,874 of 85,230), and 9.7% of outpatients (18,274 of 187,986). Penicillins were the commonest reaction precipitant described (9.0% of patients; 24,646 of 273,216), followed by sulfonamides/trimethoprim (1.4%; 3869 of 273,216) and macrolides/lincosamides (1.3%; 3644 of 273,216). A total of 3.9% of inpatients had recorded reactions to >1 antibiotic class (3348 of 85,230). Cutaneous manifestations were the most commonly described reaction features (40.7% of labels; 15,821 of 38,902). Of 15,949 labels describing probable or possible penicillin "allergy" with sufficient detail to allow for the retrospective assessment of POC delabeling suitability, 1702 were deemed suitable for removal or downgrading of the label to "intolerance" without further investigation (10.7%), 11,887 were appropriate for POC assessment using an oral penicillin challenge (OPC) or OPC with prior bedside skin testing (74.5%), and 2360 were identified as unsuitable for any form of POC assessment (14.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic allergy labels are highly prevalent in a UK hospital setting. A large proportion of penicillin allergy labels may be suitable for POC delabeling assessment.

Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of testing pregnant women for penicillin allergy.

INTRODUCTION: True penicillin allergy is rare and is commonly incorrectly reported. In fact, less than five percent of patients who report a penicillin allergy will have a currently active clinically-significant IgE- or T-cell-mediated hypersensitivity when appropriately tested. Penicillin is the agent of choice for intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis to reduce the risk of group B streptococcus early-onset disease in the newborn. Inaccurate penicillin allergy status may lead to inappropriate antibiotic use, as most alternative drugs are more expensive and broader spectrum than penicillin. Penicillin allergy testing has been found to be safe in pregnancy and cost-effective in other patient populations. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of penicillin allergy testing and appropriate antibiotic treatment (test then treat strategy) compared to usual care among pregnant women. METHODS: We developed a decision tree to evaluate the cost of providing appropriate care via a test then treat strategy for pregnant women who report a penicillin allergy, compared to usual care. RESULTS: Using the test then treat strategy the additional cost to ensure appropriate care for all pregnant women who report a penicillin allergy, was $1122.38 per person. Adopting a test then treat strategy increased the number of appropriate antibiotic use from 7,843/10,000 to 10,000/10,000 simulations. CONCLUSION: Our results show that a test then treat strategy for pregnant women who report a penicillin allergy is a good-value intervention.

Penicillin Allergy Evaluation and Health Equity: A Call to Action.

Allergists have been at the forefront of addressing the burden of unverified penicillin allergy labels. Coordinated national efforts with infectious diseases, antimicrobial stewardship experts, and pharmacy societies to advocate for formal evaluation of patient-reported penicillin allergy have resulted in improvements in delabeling efforts. Given the poorer health outcomes associated with the penicillin allergy label and the potential health benefits that can be gained with delabeling, improving access to penicillin allergy evaluation is of the utmost importance. Health disparities are widely recognized to impact all aspects of health care, and multilevel interventions at the patient, clinician, and systems level are required to ensure equitable care delivery. Structural racism underpins many social determinants of health and is a key driver of racial and ethnic health disparities. In this Rostrum, we use a conceptual framework from the 2015 National Academy of Medicine report Improving Diagnosis in Health Care to explore how inequities are related to the evaluation of penicillin allergy. We use the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities Strategies to Advance Health Disparities to elucidate areas of important study. Building upon existing efforts to address disparities in Allergy/Immunology, we highlight the urgent importance of understanding and eliminating health disparities in penicillin allergy evaluation and delabeling.

The effectiveness of interventions that support penicillin allergy assessment and delabeling of adult and pediatric patients by nonallergy specialists: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Penicillin allergy records are often incorrect and may result in harm. We aimed to systematically review the effectiveness and safety of nonallergist health care worker delivery of penicillin allergy delabeling. METHODS: We searched EMBASE/MEDLINE/CINAHL (Ovid), PsycInfo, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception to January 21, 2022 and unpublished studies and gray literature. The proportion of patients allergic to penicillin delabeled and harmed was calculated using random-effects models. RESULTS: Overall, 5019 patients were delabeled. Using allergy history alone, 14% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9-21%) of 4350 assessed patients were delabeled without reported harm. Direct drug provocation testing resulted in delabeling in 27% (95% CI, 18-37%) of 4207 assessed patients. Of the 1373 patients tested, 98% were delabeled (95% CI, 97-99%), and nonserious harm was reported in 1% (95% CI, 0-2%). Using skin testing, followed by drug provocation testing, 41% (95% CI, 24-59%) of 2890 assessed patients were delabeled. Of the 1294 tested patients, 95.0% (95% CI, 90-99%) were delabeled, and the reported harm was low (0%; (95% CI 0-1%). CONCLUSION: Penicillin allergy delabeling by nonallergists is efficacious and safe. The proportion of assessed patients who can be delabeled increases with the complexity of testing method, but substantial numbers can be delabeled without skin testing.

Economic Viability of Penicillin Allergy Testing to Avoid Improper Clindamycin Surgical Prophylaxis.

OBJECTIVE: Patients mislabeled with a penicillin allergy are often unnecessarily given prophylactic clindamycin. Thus, otolaryngologists may cause harm due to clindamycin's associated risk of Clostridioides difficile infections (CDI) and surgical site infections (SSI). The objective of this study was to determine the economic feasibility of penicillin allergy testing in preventing unnecessary clindamycin use among patients with an unconfirmed penicillin allergy prior to otolaryngologic surgery. METHODS: A break-even analysis was performed using the average cost of penicillin allergy testing and a CDI/SSI to calculate the absolute risk reduction (ARR) in baseline CDI/SSI rate due to clindamycin required for penicillin testing to be economically sustainable. The binomial distribution was used to calculate the probability that current penicillin testing can achieve this study's ARR. RESULTS: Preoperative penicillin testing was found to be economically sustainable if it could decrease the baseline CDI rate by an ARR of 1.06% or decrease the baseline SSI rate by an ARR of 1.34%. The probability of penicillin testing achieving these ARRs depended on the baseline CDI and SSI rates. When the CDI rate was at least 5% or the SSI rate was at least 7%, penicillin allergy testing was guaranteed to achieve economic sustainability. CONCLUSION: In patients mislabeled with a penicillin allergy, preoperative penicillin allergy testing may be an economically sustainable option to prevent the unnecessary use of prophylactic clindamycin during otolaryngologic surgery. Current practice guidelines should be modified to recommend penicillin allergy testing in patients with an unconfirmed allergy prior to surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 133:1086-1091, 2023.

Penicillin Allergy Delabeling Program: an exploratory economic evaluation in the Australian context.

BACKGROUND: Internationally, clinical and economic advantages of low-risk penicillin delabelling have been explored, supporting changes to healthcare delivery systems where penicillin delabelling is embedded into inpatient usual care. AIMS: To determine if economic advantages of low-risk inpatient penicillin delabelling, described in the international literature, are realised in the Australian context. METHODS: This explorative economic evaluation had prospective patient data collection between January and August 2019, across two Australian health services. Part 1: determine the cost per effectively delabelled patient for Penicillin Allergy Delabeling Program inpatients (PADP cohort) compared with Outpatient Antibiotic Allergy Testing Service outpatients (OAATS cohort). Part 2: a cost analysis to compare hospital costs for inpatients with low-risk penicillin allergy who did (PADP cohort) and did not (usual care cohort) undergo PADP delabelling. RESULTS: Part 1: the PADP (n = 350) and OAATS (n = 27 patients, n = 36 individual visits) cohorts were comparable. In PADP, costs/proportion delabelled was $20.10/0.98, equating to $20.51 per effectively delabelled patient; in OAATS, it was $181.24/0.50, equating to $362. Compared with OAATS, PADP was associated with savings of $341.97 per effectively delabelled patient, indicating the outpatient testing was the dominated strategy, being more costly and less effective. Part 2: the PADP (n = 218) and usual care (n = 32) cohorts were comparable. Significantly favouring the delabelled PADP cohort, the mean difference per patient was -4.41 days (95% confidence interval: -7.64, -1.18) and -$9467.72 (95% confidence interval: -$15 419.98, -$3515.46). CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with international literature, delabelling low-risk penicillin allergies in the inpatient setting had economic advantages in the Australian context. Fully powered economic evaluations are urgently required to consolidate these findings.

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.

A systematic review of the effect of therapeutic drug monitoring on patient health outcomes during treatment with penicillins.

BACKGROUND: Dosing regimens guided by therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) may be able to improve penicillin exposure in patients, which could result in improved patient health outcomes. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aims to describe the impact penicillin TDM has on health outcomes, including antimicrobial resistance (AMR). METHODS: Studies measuring penicillins in patient samples that adjusted regimens according to the result, and reported health outcomes were selected. Study bias was assessed according to study type. Included study characteristics were tabulated and described by narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 16 cohort studies, and 9 case studies were included. No RCTs showed statistically significant improvements in health outcomes. Five cohort studies showed improvement in at least one health outcome associated with target attainment. However, there was a high risk of bias in all studies for health outcomes. One study assessed the impact of penicillin TDM on AMR and found that improved target attainment was associated with suppression of resistance. No studies found a detrimental effect of penicillin TDM. CONCLUSIONS: There is little evidence to suggest that TDM improves health outcomes, however neither health outcomes nor impact on AMR were adequately addressed. Variations in TDM implementation meant that a meta-analysis was not suitable. Penicillin TDM needs standardization, however there is currently no clear evidence of optimal conditions. Suitably powered studies are required to resolve the ambiguity surrounding the impact of TDM on clinical outcomes, including AMR. Further, standardized protocols and concentration targets need to be identified for TDM to be implemented successfully.

Effectiveness of interventions that support penicillin allergy assessment and de-labeling of patients by non-allergy specialists: a systematic review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: This review will systematically examine and synthesize the evidence evaluating the effectiveness and safety of interventions that enable non-allergy specialist health care workers to assess allergy risk in patients with reported penicillin allergies and subsequently remove erroneous allergy records. INTRODUCTION: The potential benefits of removing erroneous penicillin allergy labels (de-labeling) are wide-ranging. Penicillin allergy assessment and de-labeling is an antibiotic stewardship priority. Delivery of such assessment and de-labeling by non-allergy specialists has been reported in several studies, but the effectiveness and safety have not been formally synthesized. This is a necessary step in the upscaling of penicillin allergy assessment services. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will consider quantitative studies using appropriate designs. The studies will include adults and pediatric patients who have undergone penicillin allergy assessment and de-labeling by non-allergy specialists in any health care setting. METHODS: A range of databases will be searched to identify studies published in English, with no date limit applied. Unpublished studies and gray literature will also be searched. Title and abstract screening, and assessment of selected full texts against the inclusion criteria will be conducted by at least two independent reviewers. Identified studies will be assessed for methodological quality using standardized critical appraisal instruments. Data will be extracted and categorized using the EPOC taxonomy, and the effectiveness and safety of the intervention will be determined. Where possible, data will be pooled to facilitate meta-analysis. Data from heterogeneous studies will be reported narratively. The GRADE approach for grading the certainty of evidence will be followed. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42020219044.

Instruction and Simulation to Improve Pharmacy Students' Knowledge and Confidence Regarding Assessment of Penicillin Allergies.

Objective. To evaluate pharmacy students' knowledge of and confidence regarding penicillin allergy assessment and skin testing (PAAST) before and after a focused didactic instruction and simulation (FDIS).Methods. A multicenter, quasi-experimental, cross-sectional survey study was performed among pharmacy students before and after FDIS on PAAST at two schools of pharmacy. The FDIS on PAAST consisted of an infectious disease faculty-led seminar, student-led penicillin allergy counseling interviews, penicillin skin testing simulation, and case studies to assess penicillin allergy scenarios and management. An anonymous, voluntary, electronic survey was distributed to students (n=159) before and after the FDIS. The pre- and post-intervention survey contained 10 PAAST knowledge-based questions and multi-step, five-point Likert scale statements related to students' confidence in PAAST. The post-intervention survey also evaluated students' perceptions of the FDIS on PAAST. Descriptive statistics were performed, and the Student t test was used to compare pre- and post-intervention responses.Results. One hundred forty-three surveys were completed, resulting in a survey response rate of 90%. Students' PAAST knowledge scores (mean±SD) increased overall following the FDIS on PAAST (6.67±1.51 vs 7.81±1.39). Knowledge scores increased considerably for questions related to penicillin allergy consequences, cross-reactivity, and correct steps of PAAST. Pharmacy students' PAAST confidence scores (mean±SD) also improved following the interactive instruction and simulation (2.30±0.7 vs 3.22±0.67) with considerable confidence increases in penicillin skin testing. Pharmacy students' perceptions of the FDIS on PAAST were also positive overall.Conclusion. Pharmacy students' knowledge and confidence of PAAST improved following FDIS. This may be an effective strategy to implement PAAST education during pharmacy school.

Economic Burden of Patient-Reported Penicillin Allergy on Total Hip and Total Knee Arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: Self-reported penicillin allergies in patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty often results in the use of second-line prophylactic antibiotics. A higher risk of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is associated with suboptimal antibiotics vs first generation cephalosporins, which have historically been grouped with other beta-lactam antibiotics such as penicillin for potential allergic reactions. This study evaluates the economic burden of self-reported penicillin allergies in total joint arthroplasty (TJA). METHODS: Data from studies reporting true incidence of IgE-mediated penicillin allergies, infection-free survivorship of TJA, and cost of PJI attributed to use of second-line antibiotics were obtained. Projected cost of preoperative penicillin allergy testing and potentially avoidable PJI associated with second-line antibiotic usage were calculated. This was compared with projected cost of PJI in the current state to estimate cost savings. RESULTS: Implementation of preoperative penicillin allergy testing leads to a potential savings of nearly $37 million to payors in the first year based on 1-year survivorship. This savings increases to $411.6 million over a 10-year span and $1.18 billion over a 20-year span. CONCLUSION: Preoperative penicillin allergy testing or risk stratification via thorough history should be implemented as standard of care for patients with self-reported penicillin allergies before TJA and would result in decreased cost of PJI.

Evaluation of a Pharmacist-Led Penicillin Allergy Assessment Program and Allergy Delabeling in a Tertiary Care Hospital.

Importance: Penicillin allergies are frequently mislabeled, which may contribute to use of less-preferred alternative antibiotics. Objective: To evaluate a pharmacist-led allergy assessment program's association with antimicrobial use and clinical outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: A pharmacist-led allergy assessment program was launched in 2 phases (June 1, 2015, and November 2, 2016) at a single-center tertiary referral hospital. The longitudinal cross-sectional study included all study period adult admissions; hospitalwide outcomes were assessed by segmented regression. Individual outcomes were assessed within an embedded propensity score-matched case-control study of inpatients undergoing comprehensive allergy assessment following self-report of penicillin allergy. Analysis occurred from March 1, 2020, to February 29, 2020. Exposures: The longitudinal study analyzed hospital-level outcomes over 3 periods: preintervention (15 months), phase 1 (structured allergy history alone, 16 months), and phase 2 (comprehensive assessment including penicillin skin testing, 52 months). The case-control study defined cases as individuals undergoing comprehensive allergy assessment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Hospital-level outcomes included antibiotic days of therapy per 1000 patient-days and hospital-acquired Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) incidence per 10 000 patient-days. Individual outcomes included antibiotic selection, overall survival, and CDI-free survival. Results: Longitudinal analysis spanned 2014-2020 (median admissions, 46 416 per year; interquartile range [IQR], 46 001-50 091 per year). Hospitalwide, allergy histories were temporally associated with decreased use of nonpenicillin alternative antibiotics (rate ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.79-0.97) and high-CDI-risk antibiotics (rate ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85-0.98). Penicillin skin testing was temporally associated with lower hospital-acquired CDI rates (rate ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.43-0.86). The embedded case-control study included 272 cases and 819 controls. Median age was 63 years (interquartile range, 51-73 years), 553 (50.7%) patients were women, and 229 (21.0%) patients were Black. Allergy-assessed patients were less likely to receive high-CDI-risk antibiotics at discharge (odds ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.44-0.98). Estimated reductions in mortality (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.55-1.07) and hospital-acquired CDI risk (hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.18-1.55) were not statistically significant. Conclusions and Relevance: Pharmacist-led allergy assessments may be associated with reduced high-CDI-risk antibiotic use at both hospitalwide and individual levels. Although individual reductions in mortality and CDI risk did not achieve significance, divergence of survival curves suggest longer-term benefits of allergy delabeling warrant future study.

Resources Assessment for Penicillin Allergy Testing Performed by Pharmacists at the Patient's Bedside.

BACKGROUND: False penicillin allergies lead to increased antimicrobial resistance, adverse effects, and health care costs by promoting the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics. The Infectious Diseases Society of America recommends the implementation of allergy testing. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this research was to estimate the number of pharmacist full-time equivalents (FTEs) required for an intervention aimed at determining penicillin allergy in hospitalized patients. Acceptance of pharmacists' suggestions on antibiotic therapy are described. METHODS: A quasi-experimental study was conducted in a 712-bed university hospital involving hospitalized patients with a suspected penicillin allergy and an infection treatable with penicillin. The time required for the intervention, which included a questionnaire, penicillin allergy testing (skin-prick test, intradermal injection, and oral provocation test), and recommendations on antibiotic therapy were measured to calculate the number of pharmacist FTEs. RESULTS: A total of 55 patients were included. Scarification allergy testing was performed on 37, intradermal allergy test on 33, and oral provocation test on 26 patients. The intervention ruled out penicillin allergy in 26 patients, with no serious adverse effects. The intervention was associated with a median weekly pharmacist FTE of 0.15 (interquartile range = 0.12-0.25). The acceptance of pharmacists' suggestions was high and led to 9 patients being switched to an antibiotic with a narrower spectrum of activity. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study describes penicillin allergy testing and the number of median weekly hospital pharmacist FTEs required, which was approximately 0.15. These data may aid in the implementation of this safe intervention that promotes narrower-spectrum antibiotherapy.

Assessment of the Frequency of Dual Allergy to Penicillins and Cefazolin: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Cefazolin is the preoperative antibiotic of choice because it is safer and more efficacious than second-line alternatives. Surgical patients labeled as having penicillin allergy are less likely to prophylactically receive cefazolin and more likely to receive clindamycin or vancomycin, which results in higher rates of surgical site infections. Objective: To examine the incidence of dual allergy to cefazolin and natural penicillins. Data Sources: MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were searched without language restrictions for relevant articles published from database inception until July 31, 2020. Study Selection: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, a search of MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase was performed for articles published from database inception to July 31, 2020, for studies that included patients who had index allergies to a natural penicillin and were tested for tolerability to cefazolin or that included patients who had index allergies to cefazolin and were tested for tolerability to a natural penicillin. A total of 3228 studies were identified and 2911 were screened for inclusion. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data were independently extracted by 2 authors. Bayesian meta-analysis was used to estimate the frequency of allergic reactions. Main Outcomes and Measures: Dual allergy to cefazolin and a natural penicillin. Results: Seventy-seven unique studies met the eligibility criteria, yielding 6147 patients. Cefazolin allergy was identified in 44 participants with a history of penicillin allergy, resulting in a dual allergy meta-analytical frequency of 0.7% (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.1%-1.7%; I2 = 74.9%). Such frequency was lower for participants with unconfirmed (0.6%; 95% CrI, 0.1%-1.3%; I2 = 54.3%) than for those with confirmed penicillin allergy (3.0%; 95% CrI, 0.01%-17.0%; I2 = 88.2%). Thirteen studies exclusively assessed surgical patients (n = 3884), among whom 0.7% (95% CrI, 0%-3.3%; I2 = 85.5%) had confirmed allergy to cefazolin. Low heterogeneity was observed for studies of patients with unconfirmed penicillin allergy who had been exposed to perioperative cefazolin (0.1%; 95% CrI, 0.1%-0.3%; I2 = 13.1%). Penicillin allergy was confirmed in 16 participants with a history of cefazolin allergy, resulting in a meta-analytical frequency of 3.7% (95% CrI, 0.03%-13.3%; I2 = 64.4%). The frequency of penicillin allergy was 4.4% (95% CrI, 0%-23.0%; I2 = 75%) for the 8 studies that exclusively assessed surgical patients allergic to cefazolin. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that most patients with a penicillin allergy history may safely receive cefazolin. The exception is patients with confirmed penicillin allergy in whom additional care is warranted.

Penicillin Allergy Testing Is Cost-Saving: An Economic Evaluation Study.

BACKGROUND: Having a penicillin allergy label is associated with the use of less appropriate and more expensive antibiotics and increased healthcare utilization. Penicillin allergy testing results in delabeling most allergy claimants and may be cost-saving. This study aimed to project whether penicillin allergy testing in patients reporting a penicillin allergy is cost-saving. METHODS: In this economic evaluation study, we built decision models to project the economic impact of 2 strategies for a patient with a penicillin allergy label: (1) perform diagnostic testing (drug challenges, with or without skin tests); and (2) do not perform diagnostic testing. The health service perspective was adopted, considering costs with penicillin allergy tests, and with hospital bed-days/outpatient visits, antibiotic use, and diagnostic testing. Twenty-four base case decision models were built, accounting for differences in the diagnostic workup, setting (inpatient vs outpatient) and geographic region. Uncertainty was explored via probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Penicillin allergy testing was cost-saving in all decision models built. For models assessing the performance of both skin tests and drug challenges, allergy testing resulted in average savings (in United States [US] dollars) of $657 for inpatients (US: $1444; Europe: $489) and $2746 for outpatients (US: $256; Europe: $6045). 75% of simulations obtained through probabilistic sensitivity analysis identified testing as the less costly option. CONCLUSIONS: Penicillin allergy testing was projected to be cost-saving across different scenarios. These results are devised to inform guidelines, supporting the adoption of policies promoting widespread testing of patients with a penicillin allergy label.