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.

Robust SARS-CoV-2 T cell responses with common TCRαß motifs toward COVID-19 vaccines in patients with hematological malignancy impacting B cells.

Immunocompromised hematology patients are vulnerable to severe COVID-19 and respond poorly to vaccination. Relative deficits in immunity are, however, unclear, especially after 3 vaccine doses. We evaluated immune responses in hematology patients across three COVID-19 vaccination doses. Seropositivity was low after a first dose of BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 (∼26%), increased to 59%-75% after a second dose, and increased to 85% after a third dose. While prototypical antibody-secreting cells (ASCs) and T follicular helper (Tfh) cell responses were elicited in healthy participants, hematology patients showed prolonged ASCs and skewed Tfh2/17 responses. Importantly, vaccine-induced expansions of spike-specific and peptide-HLA tetramer-specific CD4+/CD8+ T cells, together with their T cell receptor (TCR) repertoires, were robust in hematology patients, irrespective of B cell numbers, and comparable to healthy participants. Vaccinated patients with breakthrough infections developed higher antibody responses, while T cell responses were comparable to healthy groups. COVID-19 vaccination induces robust T cell immunity in hematology patients of varying diseases and treatments irrespective of B cell numbers and antibody response.

Practical ethical challenges and moral distress among staff in a hospital COVID-19 screening service.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to unprecedented disruptions to established models of healthcare and healthcare delivery, creating a host of new ethical challenges for healthcare institutions, their leadership and their staff. Hospitals and other large organisations have an obligation to understand and recognise the downstream effects that highly unusual situations and professionally demanding policy may have on workers tasked with its implementation, in order to institute risk-mitigation strategies and provide additional support where required. In our experience, targeted ethics-based forums that provide a non-confrontational platform to discuss and explore the ethical dilemmas that may have arisen have been well received, and can also serve as useful and immediate feedback mechanisms to managers and leadership. Using two case illustrations, this article examines some of the ethical challenges and dilemmas faced by these staff, based on discussions of shared experience during a clinical ethics forum for the Screening Clinic staff at Austin Health, Melbourne, Victoria.