RationaleStudies support a public health imperative to de-label patients of penicillin allergy, however, “de-labeling” is only effective if acted upon. We hypothesized that persistence of a penicillin allergy label despite negative penicillin testing (PT) would be prevalent, impairing the utility and cost-effectiveness of PT.MethodsA retrospective EMR chart review of 100 patients who underwent PT from January 2010 (due to Pre-Pen availability) to May 2014 in a tertiary outpatient clinic was performed to assess the primary outcome of penicillin allergy labeling changes following PT. Covariates included antibiotic utilization before and after testing, reaction history, number of additional drug allergy labels and beta-lactam exposure following PT. Patients were contacted to complete a survey regarding their interpretation of PT results.ResultsFollowing negative PT, 26/69 patients (37.7%) remained labeled as penicillin allergic in the EMR. 26 patients tolerated subsequent exposure to penicillin either through oral challenge (n=7) or treatment course (n= 19). 19.2% of patients who tolerated penicillin didn’t have their label removed. Although 100% (n=40) of patients contacted could correctly identify the result of their PT, 39% (9/23) with negative PT have either kept their allergy label or continue to avoid penicillins.ConclusionsPT impacted future therapy in only 17.3% of patients with negative PT. The benefits of PT in clinical practice will only be realized if the results of negative testing are acknowledged and acted upon. This suggests approaches to standardize PT procedures and reporting must be addressed to close this efficacy-effectiveness gap. RationaleStudies support a public health imperative to de-label patients of penicillin allergy, however, “de-labeling” is only effective if acted upon. We hypothesized that persistence of a penicillin allergy label despite negative penicillin testing (PT) would be prevalent, impairing the utility and cost-effectiveness of PT. Studies support a public health imperative to de-label patients of penicillin allergy, however, “de-labeling” is only effective if acted upon. We hypothesized that persistence of a penicillin allergy label despite negative penicillin testing (PT) would be prevalent, impairing the utility and cost-effectiveness of PT. MethodsA retrospective EMR chart review of 100 patients who underwent PT from January 2010 (due to Pre-Pen availability) to May 2014 in a tertiary outpatient clinic was performed to assess the primary outcome of penicillin allergy labeling changes following PT. Covariates included antibiotic utilization before and after testing, reaction history, number of additional drug allergy labels and beta-lactam exposure following PT. Patients were contacted to complete a survey regarding their interpretation of PT results. A retrospective EMR chart review of 100 patients who underwent PT from January 2010 (due to Pre-Pen availability) to May 2014 in a tertiary outpatient clinic was performed to assess the primary outcome of penicillin allergy labeling changes following PT. Covariates included antibiotic utilization before and after testing, reaction history, number of additional drug allergy labels and beta-lactam exposure following PT. Patients were contacted to complete a survey regarding their interpretation of PT results. ResultsFollowing negative PT, 26/69 patients (37.7%) remained labeled as penicillin allergic in the EMR. 26 patients tolerated subsequent exposure to penicillin either through oral challenge (n=7) or treatment course (n= 19). 19.2% of patients who tolerated penicillin didn’t have their label removed. Although 100% (n=40) of patients contacted could correctly identify the result of their PT, 39% (9/23) with negative PT have either kept their allergy label or continue to avoid penicillins. Following negative PT, 26/69 patients (37.7%) remained labeled as penicillin allergic in the EMR. 26 patients tolerated subsequent exposure to penicillin either through oral challenge (n=7) or treatment course (n= 19). 19.2% of patients who tolerated penicillin didn’t have their label removed. Although 100% (n=40) of patients contacted could correctly identify the result of their PT, 39% (9/23) with negative PT have either kept their allergy label or continue to avoid penicillins. ConclusionsPT impacted future therapy in only 17.3% of patients with negative PT. The benefits of PT in clinical practice will only be realized if the results of negative testing are acknowledged and acted upon. This suggests approaches to standardize PT procedures and reporting must be addressed to close this efficacy-effectiveness gap. PT impacted future therapy in only 17.3% of patients with negative PT. The benefits of PT in clinical practice will only be realized if the results of negative testing are acknowledged and acted upon. This suggests approaches to standardize PT procedures and reporting must be addressed to close this efficacy-effectiveness gap.
Read full abstract