BACKGROUND: There is a scarcity of prospective studies investigating the relative roles of skin prick and intradermal testing, serum-specific Immunoglobulin E, and extended oral challenges in diagnosing children with reported beta-lactam allergies.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the sensitivity and specificity of skin testing and serum-specific Immunoglobulin E in children with beta-lactam allergies, with immediate and non-immediate historic reactions.
METHODS: Four hundred children with parent-reported beta-lactam allergies were recruited into an open-label prospective study. Detailed allergy histories were collected. Those with medically observed and documented histories of anaphylaxis, requiring epinephrine, or SCARs were excluded. In total, 380 children underwent all testing modalities and a direct provocation test. Each child was followed up for a minimum of three years.
RESULTS: True allergy in children was uncommon, 8·3% reacted to the direct provocation challenge or the 5-day extended oral provocation challenge. Children reporting cephalosporin allergy or a reaction within one year were more likely to react to direct provocation testing. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of skin testing was 12·5%, 98·8% and 20·0% for direct challenge outcomes, 4·76%, 99·0% and 25·0% for extended challenge outcomes, and 6·9%, 99·0% and 40·0% for both challenges combined. Follow-up investigations revealed that 5·7% of children had a mild repeat reaction and 2·7% continued to avoid the culprit despite successful delabeling. The relabeling rate for children readmitted to hospital was 15% with the relabeing being unfounded.
CONCLUSIONS: Genuine beta-lactam allergies were rare, with over 90% of children effectively delabeled. Skin and serum-specific Immunoglobulin E testing did not aid the diagnosis of beta-lactam antibiotic allergy in children, regardless of medical history. Extended oral challenges proved valuable in confirming allergies and boosted parental confidence.

UNASSIGNED: Various clinical decision-making tools for penicillin allergy have been developed to guide delabeling strategies.
UNASSIGNED: To evaluate the penicillin allergy PEN-FAST decision score in a retrospective cohort of patients, adults and children, with penicillin-reported allergy.
UNASSIGNED: This monocentric retrospective cohort included patients with penicillin-reported allergy. All patients underwent penicillin allergy testing using skin tests and/or drug challenge. The PEN-FAST score sensitivity, specificity, negative (NPV) and positive (PPV) predictive values, and the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) were calculated.
UNASSIGNED: Two hundred and fourteen patients were included (64 children and 150 adults). Allergy was confirmed in 52 cases (24%). A PEN-FAST score <3 points showed a poor discrimination capacity for the whole population (AUC = 0.66; 95% CI: 0.58-0.75), while it demonstrated a better discrimination capacity in the adults group (AUC = 0.71; 95% CI: 0.63-0.80). The sensitivity to identify penicillin allergy using this cutoff of less than 3 points was 0.67 (95% CI: 0.52-0.80); specificity, 0.58 (95% CI: 0.48-0.68); PPV, 0.43 (95% CI: 0.32-0.55); and NPV, 0.78 (95% CI: 0.68-0.87).
UNASSIGNED: Although our data confirm a rather good discrimination value of a PEN-FAST score <3 points, its low negative predictive value (78%) did not advocate for its use as an accurate, simple and cost-effective clinical decision-making tool to effectively reduce the number of penicillin skin tests required before direct oral challenge. Further studies are required to improve the predictive capacity of the PEN-FAST score.

UNASSIGNED: Given the negative consequences associated with a penicillin allergy label, broader penicillin allergy delabeling initiatives are highly desirable but hindered by the shortage of allergists in the United States. To address this problem at our facility, the infectious diseases section introduced a quality improvement initiative to evaluate and remove allergy labels among inpatient veterans.
UNASSIGNED: Between 15 November 2022 and 15 December 2023, we identified inpatients with a penicillin allergy label. We subsequently interviewed eligible candidates to stratify penicillin allergy risk and attempt to remove the allergy label directly via chart review, following inpatient oral amoxicillin challenge or outpatient community care allergy referral. Delabeling outcomes, subsequent penicillin-class prescriptions, and relabeling were tracked after successful allergy label removal.
UNASSIGNED: We screened 272 veterans, of whom 154 were interviewed for this intervention. A total of 53 patients were delabeled: 26 directly, 23 following oral amoxicillin challenge, and 4 following outpatient allergy referrals. Of the patients who were delabeled, 25 received subsequent penicillin-class prescriptions. No adverse reactions occurred following inpatient oral amoxicillin challenges. Patients with a low-risk penicillin allergy history were more likely to undergo a challenge if admitted with an infectious diseases-related condition. Only 1 inappropriate relabeling event occurred during the study period, which was subsequently corrected.
UNASSIGNED: An infectious diseases provider-led initiative resulted in penicillin allergy label removal in more than one third of inpatients evaluated using direct removal or oral amoxicillin challenge. Efforts focused on patients who had been admitted for infections were particularly successful.

Self-reported penicillin allergy is highly prevalent. Different studies estimate that 10% of the population is labeled as such. This label, confirmed or suspected, forces us to take precautions and replace the antibiotic treatment of choice (frequently beta-lactams) with other 2nd or 3rd choice alternatives with worse overall results: side effects, resistance, costs, etc. The penicillin allergy label, once placed, remains in the medical record. It is only confirmed in less than 5% of patients, either because it has been placed inappropriately or because over time the sensitivity decreases and may disappear. Penicillin Allergy Decision Rule -PEN-FAST- is a validated and simple clinical prediction rule that estimates the risk of presenting an allergic reaction. Its use, together with algorithms that involve primary care in the study and delabeling of low-risk patients, can change our clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE: Beta-lactam allergy (BLA) is associated with increased broad-spectrum antibiotic (Br-ABX) use and worse clinical outcomes. We evaluated our hospital-wide BLA protocol (BLA-P) that used following categories: intolerance, low-risk, and high-risk.
METHODS: Hospitalized adult patients with listed BLA during 10/2021-12/2022 were eligible. Exclusions were critically ill, surgical, hospice or comfort care, or non-verbal patients. Assessment was counted each time a pharmacist evaluated BLA. Interventions were no further action (high-risk allergy, patient refusal, unstable clinical status), updated allergy label, or delabeled. Delabeling was done either based on antibiotic history (direct-delabeling), or via test-dose challenge for low-risk patients. Br-ABX usage was compared in the unique delabeled patients: the empiric antibiotic use 90 days post-delabeling versus pre-delabeling using McNemar test (SPSS).
RESULTS: A total of 700 assessments in 631 patients were identified. 441 assessments in 377 patients (median 63 years-old, 41% male, 50% hematological cancer) met inclusion criteria. The assessments revealed 9% intolerance, 55% low-risk, 23% high-risk and 13% unknown reaction. Interventions resulted in no further action 7%, updated label 72%, and delabeling 21%. 65% of the delabeling was via direct-delabeling and 35% test-dose challenge. Among patients who received a test-dose challenge, 36/36(97%) had no documented allergic reactions, and 1/26(3%) developed a mild rash. The use of aztreonam (pre-delabeling 28% vs. post-delabeling 1.2%, p < 0.001) and meropenem (13% vs. 2.4%, p = 0.022) significantly decreased while cefepime (24% vs. 50%, p = 0.001) and piperacillin-tazobactam (3.7% vs. 22%, p < 0.001) increased after delabeling.
CONCLUSIONS: BLA-P led to 21% delabeling, which resulted in increased preferred Br-ABX and decrease in aztreonam/meropenem use among delabeled patients.

BACKGROUND: Ten percent of the population is labeled as allergic to penicillin(s), when in fact 90% of these labels are inappropriate. Recent studies have shown that inpatient delabeling by a direct drug challenge (dDC) is safe in low-risk patients. However, there is a need for outpatient and nonallergist delabeling.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety of delabeling low-risk adults by means of dDC in primary care.
METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to March 15, 2022 (updated June 5, 2023) for studies performing dDC in adults in primary care or other outpatient settings. Two researchers independently screened studies for eligibility. The data extraction and critical appraisal were performed by 1 reviewer, and we pooled the results in a meta-analysis.
RESULTS: Of 2138 results, 12 studies (1070 participants) were eligible for inclusion. Three studies evaluated delabeling in primary care and 9 studies in an outpatient hospital setting. There were no critical adverse events during dDC. No reaction occurred in 97.13% of the 1070 patients, who previously labeled as penicillin-allergic, and were safely delabeled. Ten patients (<1%) developed an immediate reaction: 3 had self-limiting reactions and 7 needed antihistaminics, steroids, epinephrine, and/or salbutamol.
CONCLUSIONS: No serious allergic reactions are observed during direct amoxicillin challenge in adults in an outpatient setting. However, with the exception of 1 recent report, these studies are of low to moderate quality. Nonspecialist delabeling is promising, but further research is required on correct risk stratification and safety assessment in large cohort studies evaluating dDC in primary care.

UNASSIGNED: A penicillin or cephalosporin antibiotic (PCA) allergy label (PCAAL) has negative implications for both the patient and health care alike.
UNASSIGNED: A retrospective study was undertaken to evaluate the influence of a PCAAL on length of stay (LOS) and hospital readmissions.
UNASSIGNED: Over 4 weeks, inpatients with a PCAAL who were referred to the allergy service or opportunistically reviewed were grouped in the categories delabeled (group 1a) or advice not followed (ie, label carriage) (group 1b). Comparator groups without a PCAAL were identified, those either on a PCA (the PCA group [group 2]) or on a non-PCA (the non-PCA group [group 3]).
UNASSIGNED: The study population comprised 77 patients as follows: group 1a (n = 19), group 1b (n = 6), group 2 (n = 36), and group 3 (n = 16). Those in group 1a were significantly older (median age 78 years) than those in group 1b (median age 53 years [P = .013]) or group 3 (median age 59 years [P = .013]).There was a trend toward lower LOS in group 1a (10 days) than in group 1b (11.5 days [P = not significant]). Group 2 had a significantly lower LOS (6 days) than either both group 1a (10 days [P = .043]) or group 3 (15 days [P = .002]). Group 3 had the highest rate of patients readmitted within 30 days (n = 5 [71.4%]).
UNASSIGNED: A PCAAL carries influence on both LOS and readmissions, thus identifying the prompt need for allergy review to provide specific recommendations: delabeling and transition to an appropriate antibiotic. The significantly older group of those with a PCAAL who received a PCA after delabeling (ie, a 20-year age difference) may also be a signal that more elderly and comorbid patients benefit from this intervention the most.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the β-lactam allergy delabeling was safe and cost-saving in Primary Care (PC) patients.
METHODS: We have conducted a retrospective chart review of PC patients with β-lactam allergy label evaluated in our Allergy Unit between 2017 and 2022. SITE: Allergy Department. Hospital Virgen del Rocio (Sevilla).
METHODS: A total of 391 patients labeled for β-lactam allergy in PC were studied.
METHODS: (a) Outcome evaluation of a β-lactam allergy delabeling procedure. (b) A ratio between the total e-prescribed antibiotic cost and the number of treatment days (the experimental daily antibiotic cost or EDAC) before and after delabeling was analyzed in delabeled and truly allergic patients.
RESULTS: The results of skin testing were positive in 9.2% of the reported cases (36 of 391 patients). The reactions to oral provocation challenge (OPC) occurred in 2.14% of the patients who underwent negative skin testing to offending β-lactam (in 15 of 699 OPC). A total of 307 patients (78.5%) were delabeled; 70 (17.9%) had a β-lactam selective response and 14 (3.59%) reacted to both penicillin and cephalosporin. The EDAC before and after the procedure in delabeled patients was significantly lower (0.88 € vs 0.62 €, p<10-3), than that observed in truly allergic group (0.87 € vs. 0.76 €, p=not significant).
CONCLUSIONS: To delabel β-lactam allergy in Primary Care patients is safe in most patients, cost-saving in antibioticotherapy, and allows identify the main clinical β-lactam allergy phenotypes that benefit from this procedure.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 10% of the US population self-reports a penicillin allergy history or are labeled as penicillin allergic. However, from 90% through 99% of these patients are not allergic on formal evaluation.
METHODS: Patients labeled as penicillin allergic receive broader-spectrum and sometimes less-effective antibiotics, thereby contributing to increased treatment failures, antibiotic resistance, and adverse drug reactions. Self-reported penicillin allergy can be eliminated or classified as low-, medium-, or high-risk after a careful review of patient history. This allows these patients to be delabeled; that is, having any reference to their penicillin allergy history or of having an allergy to penicillin eliminated from their health records.
CONCLUSIONS: Oral health care professionals are ideally placed to partner in both antibiotic stewardship interventions by means of recognizing pervasive mislabeling and aiding in the process of delabeling.

暂无摘要。