Safety of Direct Drug Provocation for the Evaluation of Penicillin Allergy in Low-Risk Adults.

BACKGROUND: About 10% of patients have a penicillin allergy label, but less than 5% of them are actually allergic. Unnecessary penicillin avoidance is associated with serious medical consequences. Given the growing number of these labels, it is imperative that our diagnostic strategy for penicillin allergy be as efficient as possible. The validity of traditionally used skin tests (STs) has been questioned, whereas drug provocation testing (DPT), the criterion standard, without previous ST appears very safe in most cases. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety of direct DPT without consideration for ST results and the validity of ST in the diagnosis of penicillin allergy. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study without a control group, we recruited patients consulting an allergist for penicillin allergy. Patients underwent ST followed by DPT regardless of ST results. Patients with anaphylaxis to penicillin within the past 5 years or a severe delayed reaction were excluded, as were those with significant cardiorespiratory comorbidity. RESULTS: None of the 1002 recruited patients had a serious reaction to DPT. Ten (1.0%) had a mild immediate reaction, of whom only 1 (0.1%) was considered likely IgE-mediated. The positive and negative predictive values of ST for an immediate reaction were 3.6% and 99.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In a low-risk adult population reporting penicillin allergy, ST has very poor positive predictive value. Direct DPT without ST is safe and appears to be an ideal diagnostic strategy to remove penicillin allergy labels that could be implemented in first-line practice.

Use of oral penicillin challenge in low-risk penicillin allergy.

Overview of: Copaescu AM, Vogrin S, James F, et al. Efficacy of a clinical decision rule to enable direct oral challenge in patients with low-risk penicillin allergy: The PALACE randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med 2023;183:944-52.

The Syphilis Pandemic Prior to Penicillin: Origin, Health Issues, Cultural Representation and Ethical Challenges.

Syphilis is currently a treatable disease, with a low incidence in most developed countries, although the prevalence has increased recently, especially among men-who-have-sex-with-men. In many of the least developed countries, however, syphilis is still a major health problem, although the problem is not comparable to the desperate situation worldwide less than 80 years ago. At that time, and for many centuries previously, syphilis dramatically affected the lives and health of individuals and threatened the well-being of many societies. This review examines the aetiology, transmission, and many manifestations of syphilis from a historical perspective, emphasizing morbidity, treatment, psychosocial and cultural manifestations, as well as ethical issues uncovered in the clinical search for knowledge about the manifestations of the disease.

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.

Effectiveness, barriers and facilitating factors of strategies for active delabelling of patients with penicillin allergy labels: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Up to 15% of adult patients in the clinical setting report to be allergic to penicillin. However, in most cases, penicillin allergy is not confirmed. Due to the negative aspects associated with erroneous penicillin allergy, the implementation of active delabelling processes for penicillin allergy is an important part of antibiotic stewardship programmes. Depending on the clinical setting, different factors need to be considered during implementation. This review examines the effectiveness of different delabelling interventions and summarises components and structures that facilitate, support or constrain structured penicillin allergy delabelling. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This review will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. The databases MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched for studies reporting on any intervention to identify, assess or rule out uncertain penicillin allergy. To improve completeness, two further databases are also searched for grey literature. Study design, intervention type, professional groups involved, effectiveness, limitations, barriers, facilitating factors, clinical setting and associated regulatory factors will be extracted and analysed. In addition, exclusion criteria for participation in the delabelling intervention and criteria for not delabelling penicillin allergy will be summarised. In case of failed protocols, these are highlighted and quantitatively analysed if possible. Two independent reviewers will perform the screening process and data extraction. Discordant decisions will be resolved through review by a third reviewer. Bias assessment of the individual studies will be performed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Because individual patient-related data are not analysed, an ethical approval is not required. The review will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Examining cefazolin utilization and perioperative anaphylaxis in patients with and without a penicillin allergy label: A cross-sectional study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the occurrence of cefazolin perioperative anaphylaxis (POA) in patients with and without a penicillin allergy label (PAL) to determine whether the prevalence of cefazolin POA differs based on the presence of a PAL. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: A large U.S. healthcare system in the Baltimore-D.C. region, July 2017 to July 2020. PATIENTS: 112,817 surgical encounters across inpatient and outpatient settings in various specialties, involving 90,089 patients. Of these, 4876 (4.3%) encounters had a PAL. INTERVENTIONS: Perioperative cefazolin administration within 4 h before surgery to 4 h after the procedure began. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was cefazolin POA in patients with and without PALs. Potential POA cases were identified based on tryptase orders or diphenhydramine administrations within the initial cefazolin administration to 6 h postoperatively. Verification included two validation steps. The first checked for hypersensitivity reaction (HSR) documentation, and the second, led by Allergy specialists, identified POA and the probable culprit. The secondary outcome looked at cefazolin use trends in patients with a PAL, stratified by setting and specialty. MAIN RESULTS: Of 112,817 encounters, 1421 (1.3%) had possible cefazolin HSRs. Of these, 22 (1.5%) had POA, resulting in a 0.02% prevalence. Of these, 13 (59.1%) were linked to cefazolin and 9 (40.9%) attributed to other drugs. Only one cefazolin POA case had a PAL, indicating no significant difference in cefazolin POA prevalence between patients with and without PALs (p = 0.437). Perioperative cefazolin use in patients with PALs steadily increased from 2.6% to 6.0% between 2017 and 2020, specifically in academic settings. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of cefazolin POA does not exhibit significant differences between patients with and without PALs, and notably, the incidence remains remarkably low. Based on these findings, it is advisable to view cefazolin as an acceptable choice for prophylaxis in patients carrying a PAL.

What Parents Need to Know About Penicillin Allergy Labels.

This JAMA Pediatrics Patient Page describes why it is important for children to see their pediatrician for any concern about a reaction to penicillin before a child is considered to have a penicillin allergy.

Hoigné's syndrome, an uncommon mimicker of anaphylaxis: Systematic literature review.

The term Hoigné's syndrome denotes a mimicker of anaphylaxis, which occurs immediately after the parenteral administration of a drug and is likely caused by non-thrombotic pulmonary and systemic drug micro-embolization. It has so far been documented uniquely in case reports and small case series. Because this condition has never been systematically evaluated, we performed a structured literature review (pre-registered as CRD42023392962). The search was carried out in Excerpta Medica, National Library of Medicine, and Google Scholar. Cases with features consistent with anaphylaxis, urticaria, angioedema, asthma, syncope, anxiety, or panic attack triggered by needle phobia, and local anesthetic systemic toxicity were excluded. For the final analysis, we retained reports published between 1951 and 2021, which presented 247 patients with Hoigné's syndrome: 37 children and 211 adults with a male: female ratio of 2.1 : 1.0. The patients presented within 1 min after parenteral administration of a drug (intramuscular penicillin in 90 % of the cases) with chest discomfort, shortness of breath, fear of death, psychomotor agitation, and auditory or visual hallucinations and impairment. Recovery occurred within 30 min. The diagnosis of Hoigné's syndrome was also established in five patients 66-91 years of age with pre-existing cardiovascular or pulmonary diseases, who suddenly died after the administration of penicillin despite not exhibiting the aforementioned symptoms. It was therefore speculated that pulmonary drug micro-embolization induced a lethal cardiovascular compromise in these individuals. Histologic investigations supporting this hypothesis were performed in only one case. The diagnosis of Hoigné's pulmonary drug micro-embolization was established also in five patients with pre-existing cardiovascular or pulmonary diseases, who suddenly died after the administration of penicillin despite not exhibiting the afore mentioned symptoms. Histologic investigations supporting this hypothesis were performed in only one case. In conclusion, Hoigné's syndrome is an uncommon non-immune-mediated reaction. This report seeks to promote broader awareness and knowledge regarding this alarming mimicker of anaphylaxis. Diagnosis relies solely on clinical evaluation.

[Translated article] The role of clinical pharmacists in patients with suspected allergy to ß-lactams: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the role played by the clinical pharmacist and its impact in antibiotic stewardship facing suspected allergy to beta-lactam antibiotics. METHOD: We performed 2 different independent bibliographic searches. A total of 35 articles were found, and the final number included in the study was 12. We analyzed the articles and collected variables of efficacy, safety, and applicability of evaluation tools applied to patients with suspected allergy to beta-lactams. Also, the variation in the consumption and prescription profile of alternative antibiotics was analyzed. RESULTS: The selected studies analyzed questionnaires, allergy delabeling, intradermal tests, and oral challenge tests performed by pharmacists. Significant differences in the efficacy endpoint were found in 4 studies in favor of pharmaceutical intervention. In the study of Kwiatkowski et al., cefazolin use increased in surgical patients after pharmacist intervention (65% vs 28%; P < .01). In a quasi-experimental study, the mean defined daily dose of aztreonam and the mean days of therapy per 1000 patients/day decreased (21.23 vs 9.05, P <.01) and (8.79-4.24, P = .016), pre- and post-intervention, respectively, increasing antibiotic de-escalations (P = < .01). In another quasi-experimental study, the prescription of restricted use antibiotics decreased (42.5% vs 17.9%, P < .01)and the use of pre-surgical prophylactic antibiotics alternative to cefazolin (81.9% vs 55.9%, P < .01)in another study. Other study showed that the mean time per interview was 5.2 min per patient. No adverse events were reported in any study. CONCLUSION: The pharmacist intervention in the evaluation of the patient with suspected allergy to beta-lactams is effective, safe, and feasible to implement on daily clinical practice. The standardization of protocols to clarify the history of allergies and development of evaluation tools represent simple screenings to perform delabeling or refer to the Immunoallergology service, improving penicilins use and reducing the need for second-line antibiotics. More studies are needed to standardize the desensitization tests made by pharmacists. However, despite these results, the involvement and leadership of the pharmacist in this area is limited and constitutes a future challenge for the profession.