Kimberly G Blumenthal1, Paige G Wickner2, Shelley Hurwitz3, Nicholas Pricco4, Alexandra E Nee5, Karl Laskowski3, Erica S Shenoy6, Rochelle P Walensky7. 1. Division of Rheumatology, Allergy, and Immunology, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass; Medical Practice Evaluation Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass; Edward P. Lawrence Center for Quality and Safety, Massachusetts General Hospital and the Massachusetts General Professional Organization, Boston, Mass; Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass. Electronic address: kblumenthal1@partners.org. 2. Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass; Division of Rheumatology, Allergy, and Immunology, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Mass. 3. Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass; Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Mass. 4. University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, Minn. 5. New York Medical College, Valhalla, NY. 6. Medical Practice Evaluation Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass; Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass; Division of Infectious Disease, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass; Infection Control Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass. 7. Medical Practice Evaluation Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass; Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass; Division of Infectious Disease, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reported penicillin allergy rarely reflects penicillin intolerance. Failure to address inpatient penicillin allergies results in more broad-spectrum antibiotic use, treatment failures, and adverse drug events. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the optimal approach to penicillin allergies among medical inpatients. METHODS: We evaluated internal medicine inpatients reporting penicillin allergy in 3 periods: (1) standard of care (SOC), (2) penicillin skin testing (ST), and (3) computerized guideline application with decision support (APP). The primary outcome was use of a penicillin or cephalosporin, comparing interventions to SOC using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: There were 625 patients: SOC, 148; ST, 278; and APP, 199. Of 278 ST patients, 179 (64%) were skin test eligible; 43 (24%) received testing and none were allergic. In the APP period, there were 292 unique Web site views; 112 users (38%) completed clinical decision support. Although ST period patients did not have increased odds of penicillin or cephalosporin use overall (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.3; 95% CI, 0.8-2.0), we observed significant increased odds of penicillin or cephalosporin use overall in the APP period (aOR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-2.9) and in a per-protocol analysis of the skin tested subset (aOR, 5.7; 95% CI, 2.6-12.5). CONCLUSIONS: Both APP and ST-when completed-increased the use of penicillin and cephalosporin antibiotics among inpatients reporting penicillin allergy. While the skin tested subset showed an almost 6-fold impact, the computerized guideline significantly increased penicillin or cephalosporin use overall nearly 2-fold and was readily implemented.
BACKGROUND: Reported penicillinallergy rarely reflects penicillin intolerance. Failure to address inpatient penicillinallergies results in more broad-spectrum antibiotic use, treatment failures, and adverse drug events. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the optimal approach to penicillinallergies among medical inpatients. METHODS: We evaluated internal medicine inpatients reporting penicillinallergy in 3 periods: (1) standard of care (SOC), (2) penicillin skin testing (ST), and (3) computerized guideline application with decision support (APP). The primary outcome was use of a penicillin or cephalosporin, comparing interventions to SOC using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: There were 625 patients: SOC, 148; ST, 278; and APP, 199. Of 278 ST patients, 179 (64%) were skin test eligible; 43 (24%) received testing and none were allergic. In the APP period, there were 292 unique Web site views; 112 users (38%) completed clinical decision support. Although ST period patients did not have increased odds of penicillin or cephalosporin use overall (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.3; 95% CI, 0.8-2.0), we observed significant increased odds of penicillin or cephalosporin use overall in the APP period (aOR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-2.9) and in a per-protocol analysis of the skin tested subset (aOR, 5.7; 95% CI, 2.6-12.5). CONCLUSIONS: Both APP and ST-when completed-increased the use of penicillin and cephalosporin antibiotics among inpatients reporting penicillinallergy. While the skin tested subset showed an almost 6-fold impact, the computerized guideline significantly increased penicillin or cephalosporin use overall nearly 2-fold and was readily implemented.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Jennifer S McDanel; Eli N Perencevich; Daniel J Diekema; Loreen A Herwaldt; Tara C Smith; Elizabeth A Chrischilles; Jeffrey D Dawson; Lan Jiang; Michihiko Goto; Marin L Schweizer Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2015-04-21 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Matthieu Picard; Philippe Bégin; Hugues Bouchard; Jonathan Cloutier; Jonathan Lacombe-Barrios; Jean Paradis; Anne Des Roches; Brian Laufer; Louis Paradis Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract Date: 2013-02-14
Authors: Tamar F Barlam; Sara E Cosgrove; Lilian M Abbo; Conan MacDougall; Audrey N Schuetz; Edward J Septimus; Arjun Srinivasan; Timothy H Dellit; Yngve T Falck-Ytter; Neil O Fishman; Cindy W Hamilton; Timothy C Jenkins; Pamela A Lipsett; Preeti N Malani; Larissa S May; Gregory J Moran; Melinda M Neuhauser; Jason G Newland; Christopher A Ohl; Matthew H Samore; Susan K Seo; Kavita K Trivedi Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2016-05-15 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Michael J Ward; Craig M Froehle; Kimberly W Hart; Sean P Collins; Christopher J Lindsell Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2013-09-14 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Ramzy H Rimawi; Paul P Cook; Michael Gooch; Badih Kabchi; Muhammad S Ashraf; Bassam H Rimawi; Mulugeta Gebregziabher; Dawd S Siraj Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2013-04-03 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Adam Wright; David Rubins; Erica S Shenoy; Paige G Wickner; Dustin McEvoy; Anna R Wolfson; Victoria A Carballo; Kimberly G Blumenthal Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract Date: 2019-05-25
Authors: Anca M Chiriac; Aleena Banerji; Rebecca S Gruchalla; Bernard Y H Thong; Paige Wickner; Paul-Michel Mertes; Ingrid Terreehorst; Kimberly G Blumenthal Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract Date: 2018-12-17
Authors: Christian M Mancini; Xiaoqing Fu; Yuqing Zhang; Kristi Kuper; Lucas T Schulz; Tanaya Bhowmick; Michael Postelnick; Francesca Lee; Rochelle P Walensky; Kimberly G Blumenthal Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2020-12-31 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Kimberly G Blumenthal; Erin E Ryan; Yu Li; Hang Lee; James L Kuhlen; Erica S Shenoy Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2018-01-18 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Kimberly G Blumenthal; Nicolas M Oreskovic; Xiaoqing Fu; Fatma M Shebl; Christian M Mancini; Jennifer M Maniates; Rochelle P Walensky Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Jason A Trubiano; Cosby A Stone; M Lindsay Grayson; Karen Urbancic; Monica A Slavin; Karin A Thursky; Elizabeth J Phillips Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract Date: 2017-08-23
Authors: Kimberly G Blumenthal; Erica S Shenoy; Anna R Wolfson; David N Berkowitz; Victoria A Carballo; Diana S Balekian; Kathleen A Marquis; Ramy Elshaboury; Ronak G Gandhi; Praveen Meka; David W Kubiak; Jennifer Catella; Barbara B Lambl; Joyce T Hsu; Monique M Freeley; Alana Gruszecki; Paige G Wickner Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract Date: 2017 May - Jun
Authors: Rashmeet Bhogal; Abid Hussain; Ariyur Balaji; William H Bermingham; John F Marriott; Mamidipudi T Krishna Journal: Int J Clin Pharm Date: 2021-01-13