Penicillin Allergy Assessment and Skin Testing in the Outpatient Setting

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

Real-world, Multicenter Experience With Meropenem-Vaborbactam for Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections Including Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas Aeruginosa

Background: We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients treated with meropenem-vaborbactam (MEV) for a variety of gram-negative infections (GNIs), primarily including carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE). Methods: This is a real-world, multicenter, retrospective cohort within the United States between 2017 and 2020. Adult patients who received MEV for ≥72 hours were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Classification and regression tree analysis (CART) was used to identify the time breakpoint (BP) that delineated the risk of negative clinical outcomes (NCOs) and was examined by multivariable logistic regression analysis (MLR). Results: Overall, 126 patients were evaluated from 13 medical centers in 10 states. The most common infection sources were respiratory tract (38.1%) and intra-abdominal (19.0%) origin, while the most common isolated pathogens were CRE (78.6%). Thirty-day mortality and recurrence occurred in 18.3% and 11.9%, respectively. Adverse events occurred in 4 patients: nephrotoxicity (n = 2), hepatoxicity (n = 1), and rash (n = 1). CART-BP between early and delayed treatment was 48 hours (P = .04). MEV initiation within 48 hours was independently associated with reduced NCO following analysis by MLR (adusted odds ratio, 0.277; 95% CI, 0.081-0.941). Conclusions: Our results support current evidence establishing positive clinical and safety outcomes of MEV in GNIs, including CRE. We suggest that delaying appropriate therapy for CRE significantly increases the risk of NCOs

Penicillin Allergy Skin Testing in the Inpatient Setting

The consequences of a documented penicillin allergy in the medical record are especially troublesome in acutely ill, hospitalized patients. A penicillin allergy label may lead to alternative or second line therapies resulting in adverse drug events, negative clinical outcomes and increased costs. Reconciling penicillin allergies is a necessity to facilitate early, optimal therapy and is a shared responsibility among the healthcare team. Penicillin skin testing (PST) has been utilized successfully in hospitalized patients to de-label erroneous penicillin allergies and optimize antibiotic therapy. This targeted review aims to discuss the practical development and implementation of PST in the inpatient setting. This includes a needs assessment checklist with common considerations allowing for customization to one’s institution based on available personnel, time, and technological resources

Penicillin Allergy Assessment and Skin Testing in the Outpatient Setting

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

Penicillin Allergy Skin Testing in the Inpatient Setting

The consequences of a documented penicillin allergy in the medical record are especially troublesome in acutely ill, hospitalized patients. A penicillin allergy label may lead to alternative or second line therapies resulting in adverse drug events, negative clinical outcomes and increased costs. Reconciling penicillin allergies is a necessity to facilitate early, optimal therapy and is a shared responsibility among the healthcare team. Penicillin skin testing (PST) has been utilized successfully in hospitalized patients to de-label erroneous penicillin allergies and optimize antibiotic therapy. This targeted review aims to discuss the practical development and implementation of PST in the inpatient setting. This includes a needs assessment checklist with common considerations allowing for customization to one’s institution based on available personnel, time, and technological resources

Penicillin Allergy Assessment and Skin Testing in the Outpatient Setting

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

Cefiderocol for treatment of an empyema due to extensively drug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Clinical observations and susceptibility testing considerations

Cefiderocol is a novel siderophore cephalosporin antibacterial with activity against carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria including Pseudomonas aeruginosa. We report a medically complex patient treated with compassionate use cefiderocol for an empyema caused by extensively drug-resistant P. aeruginosa as well as clinical considerations for cefiderocol use based on our findings. We observed a potential discordance in cefiderocol susceptibility testing results depending if disk diffusion or iron-depleted cation-adjusted Mueller Hinton Broth dilution is used. Furthermore, interpretative criteria differ between the Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute and United States Food and Drug Administration for P. aeruginosa, which makes cefiderocol interpretation potentially challenging for clinicians. We may have also observed selective pressure from prior cefiderocol exposure given the respective increases and decreases in MIC values and zone diameters for P. aeruginosa isolates following cefiderocol treatment. Additional data are needed to further describe cefiderocol use, susceptibility testing, and resistance development as real-world clinical use expands

A Comprehensive Survey of Infectious Diseases Curriculum Among US Pharmacy Schools

Objective. To describe what and how infectious diseases (ID) topics are taught in US schools of pharmacy and summarize pharmacy faculty members' and students' perceived successes and challenges in teaching and learning about ID. Methods. A 23-item survey instrument was distributed electronically to ID faculty members at 137 US pharmacy schools. Data collected included curricular hours and format, topics covered, active-learning strategies, and curricular successes and concerns. Results. Surveys were collected from 106 schools (77% response rate). Infectious diseases curricula were allotted a median of 60 (IQR=40) hours of classroom time. Respondents dedicated 33% of curriculum hours to ID fundamentals and 66% to disease states. Greater than 94% of schools taught all tier one ID topics from the 2016 American College of Clinical Pharmacy Pharmacotherapy Didactic Curriculum Toolkit. Curricula were primarily delivered through traditional lectures rather than active learning (75% vs 25% of classroom time, respectively). The median number of active-learning strategies used was four (IQR=3). The most common active-learning modalities used either consistently or frequently were patient case application (98%) and audience response systems (76%). The most common successes cited by faculty members were implementation of active learning, the "real-world" applicability of the ID topics, and the breadth of topics and topic exposure covered in the curriculum. The most common concerns were a lack of time to cover material and the amount of material covered. Conclusion. Increased communication and collaboration between ID educators is warranted to increase consistency of ID education and distribution of educational innovations

Comparative Outcomes Among Patients Receiving Varying Daptomycin Dosing Regimens in Hemodialysis

BACKGROUND: Daptomycin (DAP) has become an appealing treatment option for gram-positive infections, which are common in patients receiving hemodialysis (HD), due to frequent access and manipulation. The approved DAP dosing of 4 to 6 mg/kg every 48 hours (q48h) quickly becomes desynchronized from the patient’s HD schedule and requires the burden of additional IV access. Previous pharmacokinetic studies have suggested that DAP can be dosed three-times weekly following HD, but no studies have evaluated clinical outcomes of this regimen. METHODS: This was a multi-center, retrospective cohort study across 6 hospitals in the United States. Adult, nonpregnant patients who received HD and DAP between 2015 and 2020 were screened for inclusion. Electronic medical records were reviewed for relevant study data. The primary outcome was clinical and microbiological outcomes among patients who received DAP thrice weekly versus q48h dosing. Microbiological Failure was defined as positive cultures after 7 days and further study definitions are included under Table 3. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics are summarized in Table 1. Length of stay was similar between both groups at a median of 25 days and patients had a median QPitt score of 0 on admission. The average DAP dose used was 7 mg/kg and 7mg-7mg-9mg on HD days in the q48h dosing and thrice weekly dosing regimens, respectively. The majority of patients had bacteremia and the most commonly isolated bacteria was methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. No differences in clinical outcomes were observed (p=0.87). Microbiological failure was higher among patients who received DAP thrice weekly compared to q48h dosing (69.2% vs 34.8%, p=0.047). [Image: see text] [Image: see text] CONCLUSION: DAP dosed thrice weekly on HD days offers similar clinical resolution compared to q48h dosing. While the thrice weekly dosing regimen did have a significantly higher rate of microbiological failure, the analysis was limited by a small sample size. As this is a retrospective analysis not accounting for confounding variables, additional prospective studies are warranted to confirm these findings. [Image: see text] DISCLOSURES: Wesley D. Kufel, PharmD, Melinta (Research Grant or Support)Merck (Research Grant or Support)Theratechnologies, Inc. (Advisor or Review Panel member) P. Brandon Bookstaver, Pharm D, ALK Abello, Inc. (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member)Biomerieux (Speaker's Bureau)Kedrion Biopharma (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member