A potential cost savings analysis of a penicillin de-labeling program

IntroductionOver 95% of patients documented as penicillin allergic can tolerate a penicillin without a reaction. Inaccurate documentation of penicillin allergy leads to more expensive alternative antibiotic prescriptions and an increased incidence of resistant infections.ObjectiveTo understand the potential drug cost savings of a penicillin de-labeling program to a healthcare system.MethodsWe evaluated patient visits with documented penicillin allergy who presented to the pediatric Emergency Department (PED) and 22 associated primary care clinics. Patients were included if they were discharged home with a non-penicillin antibiotic when the first-line treatment for the diagnosis would have been a penicillin. The potential cost savings were the sum of all visit-level cost differences between the non-penicillin prescription(s) and a counterfactual penicillin prescription. To factor in a 95% successful patient de-labeling rate, we repeatedly sampled 95% from the patients with the eligible visits 10,000 times to produce an estimate of the potential cost savings.ResultsOver the 8-year period, 2,034 visits by 1,537 patients to the PED and 12,349 visits by 6,073 patients to primary care clinics satisfied eligibility criteria. If 95% of the patients could have been successfully de-labeled, it would have generated a cost saving of $618,653 (95$618,617—$618,689) for all the corresponding payers in the system.ConclusionsImplementing a penicillin de-labeling program across a healthcare system PED and its associated primary care clinics would bring significant cost savings. Healthcare systems should rigorously evaluate optimal methods to de-label patients with reported penicillin allergy

Penicillin Allergy Delabeling: A Multidisciplinary Opportunity

The penicillin allergy label has been consistently linked with deleterious effects that span the health care spectrum, including suboptimal clinical outcomes, the emergence of bacterial resistance, and increased health care expenditures. These risks have recently motivated professional organizations and public health institutes to advocate for the implementation of penicillin allergy delabeling initiatives; however, the burden of delabeling millions of patients is too expansive for any one discipline to bear alone. This review presents the unique perspectives and roles of various stakeholder groups involved in penicillin allergy diagnosis, assessment, and delabeling; we emphasize opportunities, barriers, and promising areas of innovation. We summarize penicillin allergy methods and tools that have proven successful in delabeling efforts. A multidisciplinary approach to delabeling patients with reported penicillin allergy, bolstered by evidence-based clinical practices, is recommended to reduce the risks that associate with the penicillin allergy label

Severity grading system for acute allergic reactions: A multidisciplinary Delphi study

Background: There is no widely adopted severity grading system for acute allergic reactions, including anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions, thus limiting the ability to optimize and standardize management practices and advance research. Objective: The aim of this study was to develop a severity grading system for acute allergic reactions for use in clinical care and research. Methods: From May to September 2020, we convened a 21-member multidisciplinary panel of allergy and emergency care experts; 9 members formed a writing group to critically appraise and assess the strengths and limitations of prior severity grading systems and develop the structure and content for an optimal severity grading system. The entire study panel then revised the grading system and sought consensus by utilizing Delphi methodology. Results: The writing group recommended that an optimal grading system encompass the severity of acute allergic reactions on a continuum from mild allergic reactions to anaphylactic shock. Additionally, the severity grading system must be able to discriminate between clinically important differences in reaction severity to be relevant in research while also being intuitive and straightforward to apply in clinical care. Consensus was reached for all elements of the proposed severity grading system. Conclusion: We developed a consensus severity grading system for acute allergic reactions, including anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions. Successful international validation, refinement, dissemination, and application of the grading system will improve communication among providers and patients about the severity of allergic reactions and will help advance future research

Anaphylaxis knowledge gaps and future research priorities: A consensus report

BACKGROUND: Despite a better understanding of the epidemiology, pathogenesis, and management of patients with anaphylaxis, there remain knowledge gaps. Enumerating and prioritizing these gaps would allow limited scientific resources to be directed more effectively. OBJECTIVE: We sought to systematically describe and appraise anaphylaxis knowledge gaps and future research priorities based on their potential impact and feasibility. METHODS: We convened a 25-member multidisciplinary panel of anaphylaxis experts. Panelists formulated knowledge gaps/research priority statements in an anonymous electronic survey. Four anaphylaxis themed writing groups were formed to refine statements: (1) Population Science, (2) Basic and Translational Sciences, (3) Emergency Department Care/Acute Management, and (4) Long-Term Management Strategies and Prevention. Revised statements were incorporated into an anonymous electronic survey, and panelists were asked to rate the impact and feasibility of addressing statements on a continuous 0 to 100 scale. RESULTS: The panel generated 98 statements across the 4 anaphylaxis themes: Population Science (29), Basic and Translational Sciences (27), Emergency Department Care/Acute Management (24), and Long-Term Management Strategies and Prevention (18). Median scores for impact and feasibility ranged from 50.0 to 95.0 and from 40.0 to 90.0, respectively. Key statements based on median rating for impact/feasibility included the need to refine anaphylaxis diagnostic criteria, identify reliable diagnostic, predictive, and prognostic anaphylaxis bioassays, develop clinical prediction models to standardize postanaphylaxis observation periods and hospitalization criteria, and determine immunotherapy best practices. CONCLUSIONS: We identified and systematically appraised anaphylaxis knowledge gaps and future research priorities. This study reinforces the need to harmonize scientific pursuits to optimize the outcomes of patients with and at risk of anaphylaxis