Harper Hanna M, Sanchez Michael
Health First Holmes Regional Medical Center, Melbourne, FL, USA.
Hosp Pharm. 2022 Aug;57(4):469-473. doi: 10.1177/00185787211046862. Epub 2021 Sep 16.
To describe the impact of pharmacy driven penicillin allergy assessments on de-labeling penicillin allergies and antibiotic streamlining opportunities for hospitalized patients. Multi-center, retrospective case-series study. A health system of 4 non-teaching hospitals. 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. 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. 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. 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.
描述由药学驱动的青霉素过敏评估对去除住院患者青霉素过敏标签及抗生素优化使用机会的影响。多中心回顾性病例系列研究。一个由4家非教学医院组成的医疗系统。年龄在18岁及以上且有医生医嘱进行药师青霉素过敏评估的患者。排除标准包括有过敏反应或II型青霉素过敏的患者、4周内有任何原因引起的过敏反应、拒绝青霉素过敏皮肤试验(PAST)、24小时内使用过抗组胺药、青霉素不耐受、免疫抑制或免疫抑制药物,或可能干扰PAST的皮肤状况。主要终点评估药师提供青霉素过敏评估后去除青霉素过敏标签的数量。次要终点评估抗生素降级为β-内酰胺类抗生素的患者百分比以及药师进行的显著干预的分类。有35名患者符合纳入标准。24名患者接受了青霉素过敏皮肤试验和口服(PO)阿莫西林激发试验。5名患者仅在药师询问后去除了过敏标签。4名患者仅接受了PO阿莫西林激发试验,2名患者仅接受了PAST。尽管PAST或PO阿莫西林激发试验中所有青霉素过敏检测均为阴性,但31名(89%)患者的青霉素过敏标签从电子健康记录(EHR)中被去除。4名患者在随后入院时过敏标签又被重新添加到病历中。没有患者在PAST、PO阿莫西林激发试验或随后的β-内酰胺类抗生素治疗中出现反应。28名(80%)患者因过敏评估而改变了抗生素治疗。17名患者降级使用β-内酰胺类抗生素,6名患者停用了氨曲南。本研究结果表明,药师通过PAST扩大其实践范围是一种安全有效的去除过敏标签工具。由药师驱动的青霉素过敏评估可以节省抗生素成本并避免使用氨曲南。该研究支持有必要向患者和护理人员强调过敏检测结果的教育,以避免在未来医院就诊时重新贴上过敏标签。