A multicentre observational study to investigate feasibility of a direct oral penicillin challenge in de-labelling 'low risk' patients with penicillin allergy by non-allergy healthcare professionals (SPACE study): Implications for healthcare systems.

OBJECTIVE: The huge burden of inaccurate penicillin allergy labels (PALs) is an important driver of antimicrobial resistance. This is magnified by insufficient allergy specialists and lack of 'point-of-care' tests. We investigated the feasibility of non-allergy healthcare professionals (HCPs) delivering direct oral penicillin challenges (DPCs) for penicillin allergy de-labelling. METHODS: This prospective observational study was conducted in three hospitals in England across three settings (acute medical, pre-surgical and haematology-oncology). Patients with a PAL were screened and stratified as low risk/high risk. Low risk patients (non-immune mediated symptoms, benign rash, tolerated amoxicillin since and family history) underwent a DPC. RESULTS: N = 2257 PALs were screened, 1054 were eligible; 643 were approached, 373 declined, 270 consented and 259 risk stratified (low risk = 155; high risk = 104). One hundred and twenty-six low risk patients underwent DPC, 122 (96.8%) were de-labelled with no serious allergic reactions. Conversion rate from screening-to-consent was 12% [3.3% and 17.9% in acute and elective settings respectively; odds ratios for consent were 3.42 (p < 0.001) and 5.53 (p < 0.001) in haematology-oncology and pre-surgical setting respectively. Common reasons for failure to progress in the study included difficulty in reaching patients, clinical instability/medical reasons, lacking capacity to consent and psychological factors. INTERPRETATION: DPCs can be delivered by non-allergy HCPs. A high proportion of patients with PALs did not progress in the study pathway. Strategies to deliver DPC at optimal points of the care pathway are needed to enhance uptake. Elective settings offer greater opportunities than acute settings for DPC. The safety and simplicity of DPCs lends itself to adoption by healthcare systems beyond the UK, including in resource-limited settings.

Empty mast cell syndrome: fallacy or fact?

Post-anaphylaxis mast cell anergy (PAMA), commonly referred to as 'empty mast cell (MC) syndrome', is a state of temporary loss of cutaneous MC reactivity in the immediate aftermath of anaphylaxis. Data relating to this condition are sparse and the incidence rate is currently unknown. PAMA has been described only in a few published case reports in the context of hymenoptera venom allergy and perioperative anaphylaxis. Best practice guidelines regarding optimal timing for performing skin tests postanaphylaxis are largely based on expert opinion, and allergy work-up has been recommended after 4-6 weeks postanaphylaxis to avoid false-negative results.This article provides a review of clinical literature surrounding PAMA, critically evaluates intracellular events in MCs from in vitro data and hypothesises regarding plausible immune mechanisms. There are no published data to directly explain molecular mechanisms underlying this phenomenon. Although not evidence based, PAMA has been attributed to depletion of MC granules following anaphylaxis. It is also plausible that exposure to high allergen concentrations in anaphylaxis can induce a temporary shift in MCs towards dominance of inhibitory signalling pathways, thus contributing to a state of transient hyporesponsiveness observed in some patients. Other potential contributory factors for reduced MC reactivity include downregulation of FcεRI expression, cross-linking of FcεRI to the inhibitory, low-affinity IgG receptors and administration of pharmacotherapeutic agents for anaphylaxis treatment. It is likely that this interesting phenomenon can be explained by a combination of these proposed mechanisms in addition to other genetic/host factors that have not yet been identified.