RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Emerging literature has detailed the safe use of cefazolin in patients with immunoglobulin E-mediated penicillin allergy labeling (PAL) such as hives and anaphylaxis. The purpose of this article is to detail efforts led by an antimicrobial stewardship pharmacist working with an interdisciplinary team to optimize preoperative antimicrobials in patients with PAL. METHODS: A pharmacist-led, interdisciplinary collaborative practice agreement (CPA) was activated in January 2020 to permit pharmacists to independently optimize preoperative antibiotics to the preferred cefazolin in patients with PAL if nonsevere or severe reactions had been reported. A patient registry was established covering the timeframe between January 8, 2020, and January 6, 2022. Reaction during surgery was assessed via 2-provider documentation, which included surgeon and anesthesiology staff documentation of any complications during the procedure related to a suspected allergic safety event. Utilization of cefazolin, clindamycin, and vancomycin for preoperative prophylaxis was monitored before and after implementation of the CPA. RESULTS: During the stated timeframe, 10,182 procedures and/or surgeries were completed on 1,572 (15.4%) patients with PAL and 659 (41.9%) patients previously reporting at least one reaction categorized as a severe reaction, which was hives for 71.2% of these patients. Of the 659 patients with PAL reporting a severe reaction, 356 received a preoperative cephalosporin (cefazolin, 98.8%; ceftriaxone, 1.2%) and tolerated it without a reported safety event, including 52 patients with PAL previously reporting anaphylaxis. An increase in preferred preoperative antimicrobial prophylaxis utilization was noted (cefazolin: 86% to 96.3%, P < 0.001; 2019 to 2021) with reductions noted in the use of nonpreferred preoperative antibiotics (clindamycin: 2.1% to 0.2%, P < 0.001; vancomycin: 3.2% to 0.4%, P < 0.001; 2019 to 2021). CONCLUSION: A pharmacist-led, interdisciplinary CPA increased preferred preoperative antimicrobial use in patients with PAL reporting severe allergic reactions, including hives and anaphylaxis, without reported safety events.
Asunto(s)
Anafilaxia , Antiinfecciosos , Hipersensibilidad a las Drogas , Humanos , Antibacterianos/efectos adversos , Cefazolina/efectos adversos , Farmacéuticos , Vancomicina/uso terapéutico , Clindamicina , Anafilaxia/tratamiento farmacológico , Anafilaxia/inducido químicamente , Anafilaxia/complicaciones , Profilaxis Antibiótica/efectos adversos , Profilaxis Antibiótica/métodos , Penicilinas/efectos adversos , Hipersensibilidad a las Drogas/diagnóstico , Hipersensibilidad a las Drogas/prevención & control , Hipersensibilidad a las Drogas/tratamiento farmacológico , Antiinfecciosos/uso terapéuticoRESUMEN
The first documented case of COVID-19 in the United States occurred on January 30th, 2020. Soon after, a global pandemic was declared in March 2020 with each state issuing stay at home orders based on population, risk for community transmission and current number of positive cases. A priority for each region was to develop efficient systems for testing large patient volumes in a safe manner to reduce the risk of community transmission. A community based United States health care system in the upper mid-west implemented a drive through testing site in an attempt to divert suspected cases of COVID-19 away from larger patient areas while protecting staff and patients. This commentary outlines the planning, work flow and challenges of implementing this drive through testing site in a rural community setting.