scholarly journals 162. Assessment of Beta-lactam Allergies as Rationale for Receipt of Vancomycin for Surgical Prophylaxis

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S90-S90
Author(s):  
Kendall J Tucker ◽  
YoungYoon Ham ◽  
Haley K Holmer ◽  
Caitlin M McCracken ◽  
Ellie Sukerman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Antimicrobial Prophylaxis ◽  
Skin Testing ◽  
Cross Reactivity ◽  
Penicillin Allergy ◽  
Beta Lactam ◽  
First Line ◽  
Surgical Prophylaxis ◽  
Inappropriate Use ◽  
Oral Amoxicillin ◽  
Ige Mediated

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

scholarly journals 171. Effectiveness and Feasibility of Pharmacist-Driven Penicillin Allergy De-Labeling Pilot Program

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S93-S93
Author(s):  
Youchan Song ◽  
Zachary Nelson ◽  
Krista Gens
Keyword(s):  
Program Implementation ◽  
Skin Testing ◽  
Surgical Site Infections ◽  
Cross Reactivity ◽  
Adverse Outcomes ◽  
Penicillin Allergy ◽  
Beta Lactam ◽  
Patient Interview ◽  
Clostridioides Difficile ◽  
Increased Risk

Abstract Background Prevalence of true hypersensitivity to penicillins is low (0.5–2%). Documented penicillin allergies have been associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes, including methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections, Clostridioides difficile infections, and surgical site infections. “De-labeling” of inappropriately documented allergies can decrease the use of unnecessary broad-spectrum antibiotics and prevent negative outcomes, but labor-intensive skin testing and oral challenges can be a barrier to program implementation. The goal of this project is to assess the effectiveness and feasibility of a pharmacist-led penicillin allergy de-labeling process that does not involve skin testing or oral challenges. Methods Adult patients with penicillin allergies were identified using a report within the electronic health record during a 3-month pilot period. Patients identified were interviewed by an infectious diseases pharmacy resident, and an allergy history was assessed utilizing a standardized checklist. The patients’ answers determined the ability to de-label via pharmacist utilization of an evidence-based and standardized checklist developed for this project. All documentation included a detailed patient allergy history along with a beta-lactam cross-reactivity chart to help guide future antibiotic choices. Results 66 patients were interviewed during the pilot. 12 patients (18%) met criteria for de-labeling and consented to the removal of the allergy. 4 patients (6%) met criteria for de-labeling but declined the removal of the allergy. Average time spent during patient interview was 5.2 minutes per patient. 58.3% of patients (7/12) who were de-labeled were subsequently prescribed a beta-lactam, and 100% (7/7) were able to tolerate the agents. 1 out of 4 patients (25%) who declined de-labeling but had their allergy updated to reflect intolerance was prescribed beta-lactams and was able to tolerate the agents (1/1, 100%). Conclusion A pharmacist-led penicillin allergy de-labeling process utilizing a standardized checklist is an effective method for removing penicillin allergies in patients who do not have a true allergy to penicillins. This pharmacist-led process is a feasible method for sites unable to perform oral challenges or skin testing. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

scholarly journals The Basics of Penicillin Allergy: What A Clinician Should Know

Pharmacy ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louis Lteif ◽  
Lea S. Eiland
Keyword(s):  
Antimicrobial Agents ◽  
Adult Population ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cross Reactivity ◽  
Penicillin Allergy ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Beta Lactam ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
Medication Allergy ◽  
Specific Reactions

Antimicrobials in the penicillin class are first line treatments for several infectious diseases in the pediatric and adult population today. In the United States, patients commonly report having a penicillin allergy, with penicillin being the most frequent beta-lactam allergy. However, very few patients experience a clinically significant immune-mediated allergic reaction to penicillin. If a true penicillin allergy exists, cross-reactivity to other beta-lactam antimicrobials may occur. Mislabeling patients with penicillin allergy can lead to a higher utilization of second line antimicrobial agents, potentially increasing costs and resistance due to a larger spectrum of activity. Pharmacists play an essential role in inquiring about patient specific reactions to presumed medication allergies and developing a further assessment plan, if needed, to determine if the medication allergy is real.

scholarly journals Skin Testing to Identify Safe Drugs for Patients with Rocuronium-Induced Anaphylaxis

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Manzo Suzuki ◽  
Hajime Kawase ◽  
Azusa Ogita ◽  
Hiroyasu Bito
Keyword(s):  
General Anesthesia ◽  
Skin Testing ◽  
Blocking Agent ◽  
Cross Reactivity ◽  
Neuromuscular Blocking ◽  
Intradermal Test ◽  
Skin Tests ◽  
Prick Test ◽  
Causative Drug ◽  
Ige Mediated

Among patients who develop anaphylaxis during anesthesia, anaphylaxis caused by a neuromuscular blocking agent has the highest incidence. In patients who developed IgE-mediated anaphylaxis, and cross-reactivity among NMBAs is a concern in subsequent anesthetic procedures. We present a patient who developed rocuronium-induced anaphylaxis in whom the skin prick test (SPT) and intradermal test (IDT) could identify a safe drug to use in the subsequent anesthetic procedure. A 32-year-old female developed anaphylactic shock at the induction of general anesthesia. She recovered by administration of hydrocortisone and epinephrine. Skin tests including the SPT followed by the IDT revealed rocuronium as the drug that caused anaphylaxis and vecuronium as a safe drug to use for the subsequent general anesthesia. She safely underwent surgery with general anesthesia using vecuronium one month after the skin testing. There are not many reports on the effectiveness of the SPT followed by IDT in identifying the causative drug as well as a safe drug to use in the subsequent anesthetic procedure following anaphylaxis during anesthesia. The usefulness of the SPT should be re-evaluated.

scholarly journals First pediatric electronic algorithm to stratify risk of penicillin allergy

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hannah Roberts ◽  
Lianne Soller ◽  
Karen Ng ◽  
Edmond S. Chan ◽  
Ashley Roberts ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Pediatric Population ◽  
Skin Testing ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Penicillin Allergy ◽  
Oral Drug ◽  
Beta Lactam ◽  
Paper Version ◽  
Pediatric Study ◽  
Risk Patients

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.

Pharmacist-driven penicillin skin testing service for adults prescribed nonpreferred antibiotics in a community hospital

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ethan Englert ◽  
Andrea Weeks
Keyword(s):  
Health System ◽  
Community Hospital ◽  
Immunoglobulin E ◽  
Skin Testing ◽  
Hospital Setting ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Type I ◽  
Beta Lactam ◽  
Lactam Antibiotic ◽  
Ige Mediated

Abstract Purpose Results of a study evaluating the implementation and impact of a pharmacist-driven penicillin skin testing (PST) service for patients prescribed alternative antibiotics in the community hospital setting are reported. Methods A prospective pilot service in which patients with a documented penicillin allergy (type I, immunoglobulin E [IgE]–mediated) and were prescribed alternative antibiotics received PST by a trained pharmacist was implemented; if test results were negative, the allergy was de-labeled from their electronic medical record. The primary objective was the percentage of patients switched to first-line antibiotics. Secondary objectives included length of stay (LOS) and inpatient antimicrobial costs to the health system. Results Twenty-two patients were proactively identified and received PST by a pharmacist. Of those tested, all were negative, with no type I (IgE-mediated) hypersensitivity reactions to the test itself or to the beta-lactam antibiotic administered thereafter; 68.2% (15/22) were successfully transitioned to a beta-lactam after PST. As a result, a decrease in the use of fluoroquinolones and vancomycin and an increase in use of narrow penicillin-based antibiotics and first- and second-generation cephalosporins were observed. The mean ± S.D. LOS per patient was 7.41 ± 6.1 days, and the total cost of inpatient antimicrobial therapy to the health system was $1,698.88. Conclusion A pharmacist-driven PST service was successfully implemented in a community hospital setting.

Review of Pharmacist Driven Penicillin Allergy Assessments and Skin Testing: A Multi-Center Case-Series

2021 ◽  
pp. 001857872110468
Author(s):  
Hanna M. Harper ◽  
Michael Sanchez
Keyword(s):  
Skin Testing ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Penicillin Allergy ◽  
Teaching Hospitals ◽  
Beta Lactam ◽  
Retrospective Case ◽  
Beta Lactam Antibiotics ◽  
Case Series Study ◽  
The Impact

Objective: To describe the impact of pharmacy driven penicillin allergy assessments on de-labeling penicillin allergies and antibiotic streamlining opportunities for hospitalized patients. Design: Multi-center, retrospective case-series study. Setting: A health system of 4 non-teaching hospitals. Participants: Patients aged 18 years and older with a physician order for a pharmacist penicillin allergy assessment. Exclusion criteria consisted of patients with anaphylaxis or a type II penicillin allergy, anaphylaxis of any cause within 4 weeks, refusal of penicillin allergy skin test (PAST), antihistamine use within 24 hours, penicillin intolerance, immunosuppression or immunosuppressive medications, or skin conditions that could interfere with PAST. Interventions: The primary endpoint evaluated the number of de-labeled penicillin allergies after pharmacists provided penicillin allergy assessments. Secondary endpoints evaluated the percent of patients with antibiotics deescalated to beta-lactam antibiotics and classification of notable interventions made by pharmacists. Measurements and Main Results: There were 35 patients who met inclusion criteria. Twenty-four patients underwent both penicillin allergy skin testing and oral (PO) amoxicillin challenge. Five patients had allergies de-labeled only after a pharmacist interview. Four patients received only the PO amoxicillin challenge and 2 patients received only PAST. Penicillin allergies were de-labeled from the electronic health record (EHR) in 31 (89%) patients despite all testing negative for a penicillin allergy from PAST or a PO amoxicillin challenge. Four patients had the allergy re-added to the chart on subsequent admissions. No patients experienced a reaction from PAST, PO amoxicillin challenge, or subsequent beta-lactam antibiotics. Twenty-eight (80%) patients had their antibiotic therapy changed as a result of the allergy assessment. Seventeen patients were de-escalated onto beta-lactam antibiotics and aztreonam was stopped in 6 patients. Conclusion: Results from this study suggests that pharmacists expanding their scope of practice with PAST is a safe and effective allergy de-labeling tool. Pharmacist-driven penicillin allergy assessments could provide antibiotic cost savings and avoid aztreonam use. The study supports the need to emphasize education for patients and caretakers regarding allergy testing results to avoid relabeling in future hospital visits.

Experience with a new commercial skin testing kit to identify IgE-mediated penicillin allergy

2008 ◽  
Vol 38 (5) ◽  
pp. 357-361 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. C. Nolan ◽  
R. Puy ◽  
K. Deckert ◽  
R. E. O’Hehir ◽  
J. A. Douglass
Keyword(s):  
Skin Testing ◽  
Penicillin Allergy ◽  
Ige Mediated

scholarly journals Penicillin Allergy Assessment and Skin Testing in the Outpatient Setting

Pharmacy ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wesley D. Kufel ◽  
Julie Ann Justo ◽  
P. Brandon Bookstaver ◽  
Lisa M. Avery
Keyword(s):  
Skin Testing ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Treatment Decisions ◽  
Outpatient Setting ◽  
Penicillin Allergy ◽  
Inpatient Setting ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Beta Lactam ◽  
Beta Lactam Antibiotics ◽  
Antibiotic Management

Penicillin allergies are among of the most commonly reported allergies, yet only 10% of these patients are truly allergic. This leads to potential inadvertent negative consequences for patients and makes treatment decisions challenging for clinicians. Thus, allergy assessment and penicillin skin testing (PST) are important management strategies to reconcile and clarify labeled penicillin allergies. While PST is more common in the inpatient setting where the results will immediately impact antibiotic management, this process is becoming of increasing importance in the outpatient setting. PST in the outpatient setting allows clinicians to proactively de-label and educate patients accordingly so beta-lactam antibiotics may be appropriately prescribed when necessary for future infections. While allergists have primarily been responsible for PST in the outpatient setting, there is an increasing role for pharmacist involvement in the process. This review highlights the importance of penicillin allergy assessments, considerations for PST in the outpatient setting, education and advocacy for patients and clinicians, and the pharmacist’s role in outpatient PST.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document