Promoting ß-lactam utilization through suppression of electronic medical record cross-allergy alerts.

PURPOSE: Current literature surrounding management of patients with reported ß-lactam allergies focuses on allergy delabeling. Standard clinical decision support tools have not been optimized to be compatible with the currently accepted cross-reaction rate of 1% to 2%. This potentially promotes use of non-ß-lactam antibiotics, which are often not first-line therapy and may carry increased risks. The impact of electronic medical record (EMR) clinical decision support tool optimization on utilization of ß-lactam antibiotics in ß-lactam-allergic patients was evaluated. METHODS: A retrospective pre-post ß-lactam cross-allergy EMR alert suppression quality improvement intervention cohort study of ß-lactam-allergic adult inpatients prescribed antibiotics was conducted. Preintervention baseline data were collected for an initial cohort admitted during September 2018. The intervention, in which clinical decision support rules were updated to display ß-lactam cross-sensitivity allergy alerts only for ß-lactam-allergic patients with documentation of organization-defined high-severity reactions of anaphylaxis, hives, and shortness of breath, was implemented August 20, 2019. The postintervention cohort included patients admitted during September 2019. RESULTS: A 91% increase in the percentage of ß-lactam-allergic patients who received a ß-lactam agent at any time during their admission was noted after the intervention (26.6% vs 51%, P < 0.001). Statistically significant decreases in prescribing of alternative antibiotic classes were seen for fluoroquinolones (decrease from 45.3% to 26%, P < 0.001), aminoglycosides (decrease from 9.4% to 2.9%, P = 0.002), and aztreonam (decrease from 30% to 16.7%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: EMR ß-lactam cross-allergy alert optimization consistent with current literature significantly improved the utilization of alternative ß-lactam subclasses, mostly through ß-lactam prescribing as initial therapy in ß-lactam-allergic patients.

Vaccine allergy: evidence to consider for COVID-19 vaccines.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Whereas the COVID-19 pandemic has changed our lives worldwide, we hope that vaccination can combat the disease. We propose how to evaluate suspected severe allergic reactions to the vaccines so that as many as possible may be safely vaccinated. RECENT FINDINGS: Rare cases of severe allergic reactions after COVID-19 vaccination have been observed, seemingly at a higher frequency than for other vaccines. Few excipients are likely to have caused these reactions. IgE-mediated reactions to polyethylene glycol (PEG) and its derivatives are the most suspected, albeit hitherto unproven, causes. We suggest to make a diagnosis based on skin tests with PEG and PEG derivatives and that these be considered in relation to the decisions required before the first and the second vaccine dose. A vaccine without these excipients is available, but published data about its side effects are limited. SUMMARY: The underlying immunological mechanisms of the rare severe allergic reactions to the COVID-19 vaccines are poorly understood and need to be clarified. Identifying those who have an undiagnosed allergy to PEG and PEG derivatives is crucial before vaccination, and these substances are found in laxatives, cosmetics and in 30% of all our medications today.

Optimizing preoperative antibiotics in patients with ß-lactam allergies: A role for pharmacy.

PURPOSE: Patients with a reported ß-lactam allergy (BLA) are often given alternative perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis, increasing risk of surgical site infections (SSIs), acute kidney injury (AKI), and Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI). The purpose of this study was to implement and evaluate a pharmacist-led BLA clarification interview service in the preoperative setting. METHODS: A pharmacist performed BLA clarification telephone interviews before elective procedures from November 2018 to March 2019. On the basis of allergy history and a decision algorithm, first-line preoperative antibiotics, alternative antibiotics, or allergy testing referral was recommended. The pharmacist intervention (PI) group was compared to a standard of care (SOC) group who underwent surgery from November 2017 to March 2018. RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients were included, with 50 (57%) and 37 (43%) in the SOC and PI groups, respectively. The most common surgeries included orthopedic surgery in 41 patients (47%) and neurosurgery in 17 patients (20%). In the PI group, all BLA labels were updated after interview. Twenty-three patients were referred for allergy testing, 12 of the 23 (52%) completed BLA testing, and penicillin allergies were removed for 9 of the 12 patients. Overall, 28 of the 37 (76%) pharmacy antibiotic recommendations were accepted. Cefazolin use significantly increased from 28% to 65% after the intervention (P = 0.001). SSI occurred in 5 (10%) patients in the SOC group and no patients in the PI group (P = 0.051). All of these SSIs were associated with alternative antibiotics. Incidence of AKI and CDI was similar between the groups. No allergic reactions occurred in either group. CONCLUSION: Implementation of a pharmacy-driven BLA reconciliation significantly increased ß-lactam preoperative use without negative safety outcomes.

Allergy to COVID-19 vaccines: A current update.

Adverse allergic reactions due to the administration of the vaccines developed for the protection of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been reported since the initiation of the vaccination campaigns. Current analyses provided by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States have estimated the rates of anaphylactic reactions in 2.5 and 11.1 per million of mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 vaccines administered, respectively. Although rather low, such rates could have importance due to the uncommon fact that a large majority of the world population will be subjected to vaccination with the aforementioned vaccines in the following months and vaccination will most likely be necessary every season as for influenza vaccines. Health regulators have advised that any subject with a previous history of allergy to drugs or any component of the vaccines should not be vaccinated, however, certain misunderstanding exists since allergy to specific excipients in drugs and vaccines are in occasions misdiagnosed due to an absence of suspicion to specific excipients as allergenic triggers or due to inaccurate labeling or nomenclature. In this review, we provide an updated revision of the most current data regarding the anaphylactic reactions described for BNT162b2 vaccine, mRNA-1273 vaccine, and AZD1222 vaccine. We extensively describe the different excipients in the vaccines with the potential to elicit systemic allergic reactions such as polyethylene glycol (PEG), polysorbates, tromethamine/trometamol, and others and the possible immunological mechanisms involved.