Cargando…

β‐Lactam allergy testing and delabeling—Experiences and lessons from Singapore

BACKGROUND: β‐Lactam allergy is over‐reported and this leads to greater healthcare costs. Allergy testing has inherent risks, yet patients who test negative may continue avoiding β‐lactams. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and diagnostic value of β‐lactams allergy testing locally and usage of antib...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Heng, Yee Kiat, Liew, Yasmin Chia Chia, Kong, Yan Ling, Lim, Yen Loo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7416033/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32506796
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/iid3.318
_version_ 1783569246947639296
author Heng, Yee Kiat
Liew, Yasmin Chia Chia
Kong, Yan Ling
Lim, Yen Loo
author_facet Heng, Yee Kiat
Liew, Yasmin Chia Chia
Kong, Yan Ling
Lim, Yen Loo
author_sort Heng, Yee Kiat
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: β‐Lactam allergy is over‐reported and this leads to greater healthcare costs. Allergy testing has inherent risks, yet patients who test negative may continue avoiding β‐lactams. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and diagnostic value of β‐lactams allergy testing locally and usage of antibiotics following negative testing. METHODS: We performed a retrospective medical record review and follow‐up survey of patients who underwent β‐lactam testing between 2010 and 2016 at the National Skin Centre, Singapore. RESULTS: We reviewed the records of 166 patients, with a total of 173 β‐lactam allergy labels. Eighty (46.2%) labels were to penicillin, 75 (43.1%) to amoxicillin/amoxicillin‐clavulanic acid, 11 (6.4%) to cephalexin, and 5 (2.9%) to others. Skin tests were performed in 142 patients and drug provocation tests (DPTs) in 141 patients. Eleven (6.6%) patients defaulted DPTs after skin testing. Out of 166 patients, 22 (13.3%) patients were proven allergic by either skin tests (16) or DPTs (6). Patients who tested positive had nonsevere reactions. Out of 155 patients who were conclusively evaluated, 133 (85.8%) were not allergic. Of these patients, 30 (22.6%) used the tested β‐lactam subsequently, with one reporting a mild reaction. Fifty‐one (38.3%) patients were uncontactable or uncertain if they consumed a β‐lactam since testing negative. Fifty‐two (39.1%) patients had no re‐exposure (35 had no indication, 17 were fearful of reactions). CONCLUSION: Drug allergy testing was safe and removed inappropriate labels. CLINICAL IMPLICATION: Allergy testing is efficacious, but fears of subsequent rechallenge should be addressed to maximize the effectiveness of allergy delabeling.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7416033
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74160332020-08-10 β‐Lactam allergy testing and delabeling—Experiences and lessons from Singapore Heng, Yee Kiat Liew, Yasmin Chia Chia Kong, Yan Ling Lim, Yen Loo Immun Inflamm Dis Original Research BACKGROUND: β‐Lactam allergy is over‐reported and this leads to greater healthcare costs. Allergy testing has inherent risks, yet patients who test negative may continue avoiding β‐lactams. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and diagnostic value of β‐lactams allergy testing locally and usage of antibiotics following negative testing. METHODS: We performed a retrospective medical record review and follow‐up survey of patients who underwent β‐lactam testing between 2010 and 2016 at the National Skin Centre, Singapore. RESULTS: We reviewed the records of 166 patients, with a total of 173 β‐lactam allergy labels. Eighty (46.2%) labels were to penicillin, 75 (43.1%) to amoxicillin/amoxicillin‐clavulanic acid, 11 (6.4%) to cephalexin, and 5 (2.9%) to others. Skin tests were performed in 142 patients and drug provocation tests (DPTs) in 141 patients. Eleven (6.6%) patients defaulted DPTs after skin testing. Out of 166 patients, 22 (13.3%) patients were proven allergic by either skin tests (16) or DPTs (6). Patients who tested positive had nonsevere reactions. Out of 155 patients who were conclusively evaluated, 133 (85.8%) were not allergic. Of these patients, 30 (22.6%) used the tested β‐lactam subsequently, with one reporting a mild reaction. Fifty‐one (38.3%) patients were uncontactable or uncertain if they consumed a β‐lactam since testing negative. Fifty‐two (39.1%) patients had no re‐exposure (35 had no indication, 17 were fearful of reactions). CONCLUSION: Drug allergy testing was safe and removed inappropriate labels. CLINICAL IMPLICATION: Allergy testing is efficacious, but fears of subsequent rechallenge should be addressed to maximize the effectiveness of allergy delabeling. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-06-07 /pmc/articles/PMC7416033/ /pubmed/32506796 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/iid3.318 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Immunity, Inflammation and Disease published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Research
Heng, Yee Kiat
Liew, Yasmin Chia Chia
Kong, Yan Ling
Lim, Yen Loo
β‐Lactam allergy testing and delabeling—Experiences and lessons from Singapore
title β‐Lactam allergy testing and delabeling—Experiences and lessons from Singapore
title_full β‐Lactam allergy testing and delabeling—Experiences and lessons from Singapore
title_fullStr β‐Lactam allergy testing and delabeling—Experiences and lessons from Singapore
title_full_unstemmed β‐Lactam allergy testing and delabeling—Experiences and lessons from Singapore
title_short β‐Lactam allergy testing and delabeling—Experiences and lessons from Singapore
title_sort β‐lactam allergy testing and delabeling—experiences and lessons from singapore
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7416033/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32506796
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/iid3.318
work_keys_str_mv AT hengyeekiat blactamallergytestinganddelabelingexperiencesandlessonsfromsingapore
AT liewyasminchiachia blactamallergytestinganddelabelingexperiencesandlessonsfromsingapore
AT kongyanling blactamallergytestinganddelabelingexperiencesandlessonsfromsingapore
AT limyenloo blactamallergytestinganddelabelingexperiencesandlessonsfromsingapore