Skin testing for penicillin allergy

1981 ◽  
Vol 68 (3) ◽  
pp. 169-170 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard G. Van Dellen
2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. S266-S267 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Kovacs ◽  
Vasilios Athans ◽  
David Lang ◽  
Ronald Sobecks ◽  
Lisa Rybicki ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S90-S90
Author(s):  
Kendall J Tucker ◽  
YoungYoon Ham ◽  
Haley K Holmer ◽  
Caitlin M McCracken ◽  
Ellie Sukerman ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Beta-lactam (BL) antibiotics are first-line agents for most patients receiving antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgical procedures. Despite evidence showing low cross-reactivity between classes of BLs, patients with allergies commonly receive vancomycin as an alternative to avoid allergic reaction. The objective of this study was to identify potentially inappropriate use of vancomycin surgical prophylaxis among patients with reported BL allergies. Methods Adult patients (≥18 years) receiving vancomycin for surgical prophylaxis with a reported penicillin and/or cephalosporin allergy at our institution between August 2017 to July 2018 were retrospectively evaluated for potential eligibility for penicillin allergy testing and/or receipt of standard prophylaxis. Surgery type and allergy history were extracted from the electronic medical record. Per our institution’s penicillin-testing protocol, patients with IgE-mediated reactions < 10 years ago were eligible for penicillin skin testing (PST), mild reactions or IgE-mediated reaction > 10 years ago were eligible for direct oral amoxicillin challenge, and severe non-IgE mediated allergies were ineligible for penicillin allergy evaluation or BL prophylaxis. Results Among 830 patients who received vancomycin for surgical prophylaxis, 196 reported BL allergy and were included in the analysis (155 with penicillin allergy alone; 21 with cephalosporin allergy; 20 with both cephalosporin and penicillin allergy). Approximately 40% of surgeries were orthopedic. Six patients were ineligible for BL prophylaxis. Per institutional protocol, 73 of 155 patients (48%) may have qualified for PST; 81 of 155 (52%) patients may have received a direct oral amoxicillin challenge. Only 3 of 22 patients with history of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus appropriately received additional prophylaxis with vancomycin and a BL. Conclusion Patients with BL allergies often qualify for receipt of a first-line BL antibiotic. An opportunity exists for improved BL allergy assessment as an antimicrobial stewardship intervention. Future studies should evaluate outcomes associated with BL allergy evaluation and delabeling in patients receiving surgical prophylaxis. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures


2007 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 542-545 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeremy A Schafer ◽  
Noe Mateo ◽  
Garry L Parlier ◽  
John C Rotschafer

2017 ◽  
Vol 119 (3) ◽  
pp. 258-261 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bob Geng ◽  
Jacqueline J. Eastman ◽  
Karen Mori ◽  
Melinda Braskett ◽  
Marc A. Riedl

1986 ◽  
Vol 151 (7) ◽  
pp. 395-399
Author(s):  
Dean T. Noritake ◽  
Michael A. Sue ◽  
William B. Klaustermeyer

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hannah Roberts ◽  
Lianne Soller ◽  
Karen Ng ◽  
Edmond S. Chan ◽  
Ashley Roberts ◽  
...  

AbstractBeta-lactam allergy is reported in 5–10% of children in North America, but up to 94–97% of patients are deemed not allergic after allergist assessment. The utility of standardized skin testing for penicillin allergy in the pediatric population has been recently questioned. Oral drug challenges when appropriate, are preferred over skin testing, and can definitively rule out immediate, IgE-mediated drug allergy. To our knowledge, this is the only pediatric study to assess the reliability of a penicillin allergy stratification tool using a paper and electronic clinical algorithm. By using an electronic algorithm, we identified 61 patients (of 95 deemed not allergic by gold standard allergist decision) as low risk for penicillin allergy, with no false negatives and without the need for allergist assessment or skin testing. In this study, we demonstrate that an electronic algorithm can be used by various pediatric clinicians when evaluating possible penicillin allergy to reliably identify low risk patients. We identified the electronic algorithm was superior to the paper version, capturing an even higher percentage of low risk patients than the paper version. By developing an electronic algorithm to accurately assess penicillin allergy risk based on appropriate history, without the need for diagnostic testing or allergist assessment, we can empower non-allergist health care professionals to safely de-label low risk pediatric patients and assist in alleviating subspecialty wait times for penicillin allergy assessment.


2017 ◽  
Vol 51 (6) ◽  
pp. 504-510 ◽  
Author(s):  
Prasanna P. Narayanan ◽  
Meghan N. Jeffres

Objective: To critically examine the feasibility, benefits, and limitations of an inpatient penicillin skin testing service and how pharmacists can be utilized. Data Sources: A PubMed search was performed from July 2016 through September 2016 using the following search terms: penicillin skin testing, penicillin allergy, β-lactam allergy. Additional references were identified from a review of literature citations. Study Selection and Data Extraction: All English-language studies assessing the use of penicillin skin testing as well as management and clinical outcomes of patients with a β-lactam allergy were evaluated. Data Synthesis: The prevalence of people self-identifying as penicillin allergic ranges from 10% to 20% in the United States. Being improperly labeled as penicillin allergic is associated with higher health care costs, worse clinical outcomes, and an increased prevalence of multidrug-resistant infections. Penicillin skin testing can be a tool used to clarify penicillin allergies and has been demonstrated to be a successful addition to antimicrobial stewardship programs in multiple health care settings. Prior to implementing a penicillin skin testing service, institutions will need to perform a feasibility analysis of who will supply labor and accept the financial burden as well as identify if the positive benefits of a penicillin skin testing service overcome the limitations of this diagnostic test. Conclusion: We conclude that institutions with high percentages of patients receiving non–β-lactams because of penicillin allergy labels would likely benefit the most from a penicillin skin testing service.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document