Penicillin-allergy delabelling resources for clinicians practicing in resource-limited settings: a full educational resource review of the grey literature.

Background: The clinical and financial consequences associated with a penicillin-allergy label are increasingly evident and have garnered support from international organizations to prioritize penicillin-allergy delabelling programmes. Most settings lack access to resources including drug allergy specialists and rely on general practitioners (GPs) and pharmacists. Objectives: The aim of this scoping review was to identify and describe freely available penicillin-allergy delabelling materials to guide clinicians practising in resource-limited settings with initiative application. Methods: This scoping review searched two grey literature databases, six targeted websites and consulted content experts to identify freely available materials in the English language that provided evidence-based and actionable penicillin-allergy delabelling strategies. Study investigators ranked and voted on which screened resources should be included in the final review. Characteristics of resources were evaluated and compared. Results: Out of 1191 total citations, 6 open-access resources were included. Penicillin-allergy toolkits featuring various delabelling strategies were identified in four resources. The toolkits supported a broad range of downloadable and adaptable materials, predominantly targeted towards GPs. Patient educational materials were also provided. Another resource highlighted a point-of-care penicillin-allergy risk assessment calculator via a free mobile app that quickly and accurately identified low-risk penicillin-allergic patients. The final resource, a supplemental instructional video, presented impactful and standardized delabelling strategies that clinicians can adopt into daily practices. Conclusions: Limited penicillin-allergy delabelling materials are available in the grey literature but existing resources provide broad and diverse opportunities. Additional support from health protection agencies is critical to augment ongoing delabelling efforts.

Urinary tract infection stewardship: A urinary antibiogram and electronic medical record alert nudging narrower-spectrum antibiotics for urinary tract infections.

An antimicrobial stewardship intervention consisting of a urinary antibiogram and an electronic health record best-practice advisory promoted narrower-spectrum antibiotics for uncomplicated urinary tract infections in hospitalized patients. Over 20 months, the intervention significantly reduced ceftriaxone orders by 48% (P < .001) and increased cefazolin use 19 times from baseline (P < .001).

Penicillin Allergy Delabeling: A Multidisciplinary Opportunity.

The penicillin allergy label has been consistently linked with deleterious effects that span the health care spectrum, including suboptimal clinical outcomes, the emergence of bacterial resistance, and increased health care expenditures. These risks have recently motivated professional organizations and public health institutes to advocate for the implementation of penicillin allergy delabeling initiatives; however, the burden of delabeling millions of patients is too expansive for any one discipline to bear alone. This review presents the unique perspectives and roles of various stakeholder groups involved in penicillin allergy diagnosis, assessment, and delabeling; we emphasize opportunities, barriers, and promising areas of innovation. We summarize penicillin allergy methods and tools that have proven successful in delabeling efforts. A multidisciplinary approach to delabeling patients with reported penicillin allergy, bolstered by evidence-based clinical practices, is recommended to reduce the risks that associate with the penicillin allergy label.

Inpatient Electronic Consultations (E-consults) in Allergy/Immunology.

BACKGROUND: Electronic consultations (e-consults) are asynchronous clinician-to-clinician exchanges within the electronic health record (EHR). OBJECTIVE: We sought to demonstrate the utility of e-consults in allergy/immunology (A/I) inpatient consultations. METHODS: Inpatients ≥18 years of age for whom an A/I consultation was requested were eligible for an e-consult. An e-consult was completed if considered appropriate by the A/I physician with recommendations made in the EHR. In-person consultation was performed for inpatients if deemed necessary. Likert scale satisfaction data were collected from requesting providers after the e-consultation. Cost was calculated using time-based billing codes plus the cost of penicillin allergy evaluation, if appropriate. RESULTS: Of the 109 inpatient consults, 78 (71.6%) were completed through an e-consult and 31 (28.4%) were completed by an in-person consult. The most common indication for an inpatient consult was evaluation of penicillin allergy in 73 (67%) patients. The most common reason to complete an in-person consult was the need to complete penicillin skin testing in 17 of the 31 (55%) patients. E-consults were completed in less time than in-person consults (15 minutes, interquartile range [IQR]: 10-15 vs 60 minutes, IQR: 45-60, P < .001) and had a shorter turnaround time (1 hour, IQR: 0.5-2 vs 7 hours, IQR: 3-19, P < .001). Management recommendations were followed at a similar rate regardless of type of consult (88% of e-consults vs 96% of in-person consults, P = .162). A total of 97% of requesting providers reported an "excellent" or "good" impression of e-consults. E-consults were less costly than in-person consults. CONCLUSIONS: E-consults have utility in providing inpatient A/I consultation and may have advantages over in-person evaluation, while adequately maintaining provider satisfaction.

Direct Challenges to Penicillin-Based Antibiotics in the Inpatient Setting.

BACKGROUND: Direct challenge (DC) is an emerging safe and effective alternative to penicillin skin testing (PST) in patients reporting a low-risk reaction history, but limited data exist for the inpatient setting. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the safety and efficacy of DC of penicillin-based antibiotics in the inpatient setting in patients with low-risk, cutaneous-only reaction histories more than 20 years ago. METHODS: Adult inpatients reporting penicillin allergy and receiving antibiotics were screened by an infectious disease PharmD for appropriateness for penicillin allergy delabeling. Patients with low-risk, cutaneous-only reaction histories (rash, hives, itching) more than 20 years ago were offered a 3-step DC. Patients with a cutaneous reaction history less than 20 years ago, a history of angioedema, or reactions involving multiple body systems underwent PST followed by a 1-time observed dose of amoxicillin. RESULTS: A total of 372 patients were screened during the study period, with 100 of these patients undergoing further evaluation, 52 with histories appropriate for PST and 48 with histories appropriate for DC. In the PST group, 44 of 52 (84.6%) patients were PST negative. In the DC group, 47 of 48 (97.9%) patients initially tolerated the DC, with 2 of 48 (4.2%) experiencing a delayed reaction. The sole patient with an immediate DC reaction was treated with an antihistamine alone. Beta-lactam antibiotics were subsequently used in 56 of the 100 total patients. Total direct antibiotic savings was $23,375.27. DC was less costly than PST, at $206.18/patient versus $419.63/patient. CONCLUSIONS: DC is a safe, effective, and less expensive method for penicillin delabeling in adult inpatients with a low-risk, cutaneous-only reaction history more than 20 years ago.

Is there a higher prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) or vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE) colonization in patients with antibiotic allergy labels?

BACKGROUND: A penicillin allergy label has been associated with significantly higher rates of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE) colonization, and correspondingly poorer clinical outcomes. However, there are limited data examining the association between any antibiotic label and colonization rates. We sought to evaluate if there is a relationship between patients with an antibiotic allergy label and prevalence of MRSA or VRE colonization. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all patients with an MRSA surveillance culture between December 15, 2014 and January 31, 2015, or a VRE surveillance culture between January 1, 2013 and January 31, 2015, at a tertiary community-based teaching hospital. Our primary objective was to evaluate the prevalence of MRSA or VRE colonization among patients with and without antibiotic allergies. Bivariate analyses included the χ² test and the Student t test to determine statistical significance for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. RESULTS: We included a total of 1,053 unique patients screened for MRSA, and 290 unique patients screened for VRE. The rate of MRSA and VRE colonization was 5.8% (62 of 1,053) and 32.4% (94 of 290), respectively, in our cohort. Antibiotic allergies were documented in approximately 1 out of 3 patients, 337 (32%) for the MRSA group and 94 (32%) for VRE group. There was a significant difference in MRSA colonization between patients with and without an antibiotic allergy, 28 of 337 (8.3%) versus 34 of 716 (4.7%) (P = .025), respectively. In contrast, there was no significant difference in antibiotic allergy rates with and without VRE colonization, 34 of 94 (36.2%) versus 92 of 196 (46.9%) (P = .10), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: An antibiotic allergy label was associated with significantly higher rates of MRSA colonization but no statistical difference with VRE colonization.

A practical guide for pharmacists to successfully implement penicillin allergy skin testing.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to offer practical guidance for pharmacists to successfully implement penicillin allergy skin testing (PAST). SUMMARY: Less than 10% of patients labeled as having a penicillin allergy are confirmed as present upon skin testing. This labeling results in use of alternative antibiotics and thus unwanted adverse consequences including potentiated antimicrobial resistance, increased costs, and worse clinical outcomes. Stewardship guidelines recommend PAST to enhance use of first-line agents; however, this was a weak recommendation with low-quality evidence. Recent efforts and subsequent research since publication of guidelines have demonstrated beneficial effects from increasing use of PAST among stewardship programs to improve outcomes. A number of different models exist demonstrating successful implementation of PAST at various healthcare facilities. There are important logistical factors to consider during implementation of PAST such as target population, optimal preparation, leadership structure, resource availability, and state regulations. Pharmacists as leaders of antimicrobial stewardship teams and experts in drug allergies are a natural fit to help implement PAST in healthcare settings to improve overall outcomes. This article offers guidance to institutions considering implementation of PAST. CONCLUSION: PAST is rapidly becoming an effective, long-term antimicrobial stewardship tool to optimize antimicrobial prescribing in both the inpatient and outpatient settings. Pharmacists have demonstrated significant benefit as providers of PAST services in a variety of healthcare settings with a number of different healthcare professionals.

The Use of Telemedicine for Penicillin Allergy Skin Testing.

BACKGROUND: Penicillin skin testing (PST) is increasingly used as a tool to evaluate penicillin allergy in patients with a reported history. The limited availability of allergists, however, may be an impeding factor. OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess the clinical utility of telemedicine to facilitate PST. METHODS: Penicillin-allergic inpatients receiving systemic antibiotics were prospectively identified between April and August 2017. Qualifying patients underwent PST performed by a trained allergy/immunology physician assistant (PA). On completion of PST, a telemedicine consultation, through the use of real-time interactive video conferencing (Microsoft Lync 2013, Redmond, Wash), was performed remotely by an allergist. Patients were surveyed regarding their satisfaction with the telemedicine experience. RESULTS: Fifty patients consented to PST through a telemedicine consultation. The average total time to complete a consultation was 128 minutes (standard deviation [SD] ± 33). Of this, the average PA travel time was 46 minutes (36%) with the remaining time spent on clinical services (82 minutes, 64%). The average physician telemedicine time per patient was 5 minutes (SD ± 2). Patients rated their experience as an average of 4.5 on a scale of 1 (highly unsatisfied) to 5 (highly satisfied). Of the 46 PST-negative patients, 33 were transitioned to a ß-lactam antibiotic that reduced the use of vancomycin, metronidazole, aztreonam, aminoglycosides, and clindamycin (P < .05). More than $30,000 was saved throughout the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine is an effective and novel approach to facilitate PST in the inpatient setting and carries a high degree of patient satisfaction. This method has the potential to optimize and improve access to allergy/immunology resources.

Use of a Penicillin Allergy Screening Algorithm and Penicillin Skin Testing for Transitioning Hospitalized Patients to First-Line Antibiotic Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Penicillin allergy is the most commonly reported antibiotic allergy. Avoidance of ß-lactam antibiotics in hospitalized patients leads to the use of second-line therapies. OBJECTIVE: The utility of a penicillin allergy history algorithm (PAHA) and subsequent penicillin skin testing (PST) in transitioning hospitalized patients from second- to first-line antibiotic therapy is described. METHODS: Through an electronic medical record report, pharmacists identified adult inpatients with penicillin allergy receiving moxifloxacin, intravenous vancomycin, aztreonam, daptomycin, or linezolid, in which a ß-lactam antibiotic was preferred. The PAHA was administered to identify patients for PST. Skin-test negative patients were transitioned to first-line ß-lactam antibiotic therapy. RESULTS: Fifty patients consented to the study. Historical reactions included hives (16 patients, 32%), angioedema (15, 30%), anaphylaxis (6, 12%), unknown (6, 12%), rash (6, 12%), and dyspnea (1, 2%). Pre-PST antibiotic regimens included vancomycin (82%), aztreonam (22%), moxifloxacin (6%), daptomycin (4%), and/or linezolid (2%). Forty-seven patients (94%) were skin-test negative and were subsequently transitioned to a ß-lactam antibiotic. Two patients were skin-test positive and one was histamine nonreactive. No patients experienced an immediate adverse reaction when challenged with a penicillin-based antibiotic. A total of 982 days of second-line antibiotic therapy and at least 23 hospital days to administer the antibiotic were avoided. CONCLUSIONS: The use of the PAHA and subsequent PST is a safe, effective multidisciplinary intervention that facilitates the transition to ß-lactam antibiotics. Our approach is unique in that it prioritizes patients based on the use of second-line antibiotics, and then applies an algorithm to determine eligibility for PST.

A survey of inpatient practitioner knowledge of penicillin allergy at 2 community teaching hospitals.

BACKGROUND: The negative effect of the penicillin allergy label on antibiotic use and patient outcomes has brought to light the need for thorough penicillin allergy assessments and heightened practitioner education. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate practitioner knowledge of penicillin allergy and the clinical approach to the patients with penicillin allergy. METHODS: An electronic survey was distributed to attending physicians, residents, pharmacists, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants practicing adult inpatient medicine at 2 community-based teaching hospitals from February to April 2016. RESULTS: A total of 276 (39%) of 716 practitioners completed surveys were analyzed. Most respondents were attending physicians (45%) with more than 10 years of experience (53%). Approximately half of the respondents indicated that they were unfamiliar with the rate of cross-reactivity between penicillin and cephalosporin (46%), carbapenem (42%), and monobactam (48%) antibiotics. When evaluating the role of penicillin skin testing and temporary induction of drug tolerance in the case vignettes, only 41% and 19% of respondents appropriately considered these options as the leading antibiotic management plan, respectively. Despite acknowledging the need for allergy/immunology consultation in clinical scenarios, 86% of respondents indicated that they never consult an allergist or immunologist or do so only once per year. Overall, pharmacists had a better understanding of the natural history of penicillin allergy and antibiotic cross-reactivity (P < .05). CONCLUSION: There is an overall limited understanding of the management of patients with a history of penicillin allergy in the hospital setting, where collaborative efforts between allergy and nonallergy health care practitioners are sparse. The expansion of a multidisciplinary approach may optimize antimicrobial prescribing in this subset of patients.

Implementation of a penicillin allergy screening tool to optimize aztreonam use.

PURPOSE: The implementation of a penicillin allergy screening tool to optimize the use of aztreonam is described. METHODS: This study was conducted at a 528-bed tertiary referral community teaching facility and compared the use of aztreonam in patients before and after the implementation of a multipronged intervention consisting of a penicillin allergy screening tool (PAST), education, order set decision support, and prospective review of aztreonam orders by the antimicrobial stewardship team and clinical pharmacists. Patients for whom aztreonam was prescribed at any time during their presentation to the hospital January 1-June 30, 2013 (preintervention period), and September 1, 2013-February 28, 2014 (postintervention period) were eligible for inclusion. Primary outcomes included total and inappropriate aztreonam usage. Secondary outcomes included cost avoidance and safety. RESULTS: A total of 496 aztreonam orders were reviewed. The total number of days of therapy (DOT) with aztreonam significantly decreased from 9.5 per 1,000 patient-days in the preintervention group to 4.4 per 1,000 patient-days in the postintervention group (p < 0.0001). The number of inappropriate aztreonam DOT decreased from 4.0 per 1,000 patient days to 0.8 per 1,000 patient-days (p < 0.0001). The median number of inappropriate aztreonam doses decreased significantly in the postintervention period, as did inappropriate aztreonam DOT (p < 0.0001 for both comparisons). An estimated cost avoidance of $60,000-$100,000 was realized, depending on the alternative antibiotic selected. CONCLUSION: Implementation of the PAST and provider and pharmacist education reduced the use of aztreonam by promoting the first-line use of ß-lactam alternatives.