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.

Patient- and Provider-Level Factors Associated With Telehealth Utilization Across a Multisite, Multiregional Cancer Practice From 2019 to 2021.

PURPOSE: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many cancer practices rapidly adopted telehealth services. However, there is a paucity of data regarding ongoing telehealth visit utilization beyond this initial response. The purpose of this study was to assess changes in variables associated with telehealth visit utilization over time. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional, year-over-year, retrospective analysis of telehealth visits conducted across a multisite, multiregional cancer practice in the United States. Multivariable models examined the association of patient- and provider-level variables with telehealth utilization across outpatient visits conducted over three 8-week periods from July to August in 2019 (n = 32,537), 2020 (n = 33,399), and 2021 (n = 35,820). RESULTS: The rate of telehealth utilization increased from <0.01% (2019) to 11% (2020) to 14% (2021). The most significant patient-level factors associated with increased telehealth utilization included nonrural residence and age ≤65 years. Among patients residing in rural settings, video visit utilization rates were significantly lower and phone visit utilization rates were significantly higher compared with patients from nonrural residences. Regarding provider-level factors, widening differences in telehealth utilization were observed at tertiary versus community-based practice settings. Increased telehealth utilization was not associated with duplicative care as per-patient and per-physician visit volumes in 2021 remained consistent with prepandemic levels. CONCLUSION: We observed continuous expansion in telehealth visit utilization from 2020 to 2021. Our experiences suggest that telehealth can be integrated into cancer practices without evidence of duplicative care. Future work should examine sustainable reimbursement structures and policies to ensure accessibility of telehealth as a means to facilitate equitable, patient-centered cancer care.