Addressing the Challenges of Penicillin Allergy Delabeling With Electronic Health Records and Mobile Applications.

Allergy labels are common, often incorrect, and potentially harmful. There are many opportunities for clinical decision support (CDS) tools integrated in the electronic health record (EHR) and mobile apps to address the challenges with drug allergy management, including penicillin allergy delabeling (PADL). Effective delabeling solutions must consider multidisciplinary clinical workflow and multistep processes, including documentation, assessment, plan (eg, allergy testing and referral), record update, drug allergy alert management, and allergy reconciliation over time. Developing a systematic infrastructure to manage allergies across the EHR is critical to improve the accuracy and completeness of a patient's allergy and avoid inadvertently relabeling. Improving the appropriateness and relevancy of drug allergy alerts is important to reduce alert fatigue. Using alerts to guide clinicians on appropriate antibiotic use may reduce unnecessary ß-lactam avoidance. To date, EHR CDS tools have facilitated non-allergists to provide PADL at the point of care. A mobile app was shown to support PADL and provide specialist support and education. Future research is needed to standardize, integrate, and evaluate innovative CDS tools in the EHR to demonstrate patient safety and clinical utility and facilitate wider adoption.

Allergy Electronic Health Record Documentation: A 2022 Work Group Report of the AAAAI Adverse Reactions to Drugs, Biologicals, and Latex Committee.

The allergy section of the electronic health record (EHR) is ideally reviewed and updated by health care workers during routine outpatient visits, emergency room visits, inpatient hospitalizations, and surgical procedures. This EHR section has the potential to help proactively and comprehensively avoid exposures to drugs, contact irritants, foods, and other agents for which, based on an individual's medical history and/or genetics, there is increased risk for adverse outcomes with future exposures. Because clinical decisions are made and clinical decision support is triggered based on allergy details from the EHR, the allergy module needs to provide meaningful, accurate, timely, and comprehensive allergy information. Although the allergy section of the EHR must meet these requirements to guide appropriate clinical decisions and treatment plans, current EHR allergy modules have not achieved this standard. We urge EHR vendors to collaborate with allergists to optimize and modernize allergy documentation. A work group within the Adverse Reactions to Drugs, Biologicals, and Latex Committee of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology was formed to create recommendations for allergy documentation in the EHR. Whereas it is recognized that the term "allergy" is often used incorrectly because most adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are not true immune-mediated hypersensitivity reactions, "allergy" in this article includes allergies and hypersensitivities as well as side effects and intolerances. Our primary objective is to provide guidance for the current state of allergy documentation in the EHR. This guidance includes clarification of the definition of specific ADR types, reconciliation of confirmed ADRs, and removal of disproved or erroneous ADRs. This document includes a proposal for the creation, education, and implementation of a drug allergy labeling system that may allow for more accurate EHR documentation for improved patient safety.

Perioperative Allergic Reactions: Allergy Assessment and Subsequent Anesthesia.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based guidelines are needed in the United States to improve evaluation of perioperative allergic reactions including recommendations for subsequent anesthesia. OBJECTIVE: To identify causative agent(s) and evaluate patients' tolerability of subsequent anesthesia in patients evaluated by Allergy/Immunology (A/I) at Massachusetts General Hospital. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients referred to the outpatient A/I clinic for perioperative allergic reactions between October 2003 and May 2017. Patient demographics, atopic history, and prior adverse drug reactions were reviewed. Patients underwent a comprehensive evaluation with testing including skin testing (ST), drug challenges (when appropriate), tryptase level measurement, and specific IgE to latex measurement. Tolerance of subsequent procedures requiring anesthesia was assessed. RESULTS: Of 123 patients referred, 74 (60%) were female and the mean age was 46 (±18) years. At least 1 causative agent was identified in 28 patients (24%, n = 28 of 118). Seventeen of 28 (61%) patients were ST positive to an antibiotic, including 13 (46%) positive to cefazolin; 3 patients (11%) had a positive latex specific IgE. Of 85 patients who had subsequent anesthesia with a known outcome, 78 (91%) did not have another perioperative allergic reaction. Two of 5 patients with an elevated baseline tryptase level did not tolerate subsequent anesthesia. CONCLUSION: The majority of patients safely received subsequent anesthesia after comprehensive A/I evaluation for their perioperative allergic reactions; however, improved algorithmic care is needed in the United States. Among ST-positive patients (24%), antibiotics (especially cefazolin) were the most common culprits. An elevated baseline tryptase level was associated with an increased risk of recurrent perioperative allergic reactions.

Tackling the Patient with Multiple Drug "Allergies": Multiple Drug Intolerance Syndrome.

As populations age, the prevalence of reported drug "allergy" increases, often leading to suboptimal care and increased morbidity because of unnecessary avoidance of safe and effective medications. Evaluation by a drug allergy specialist is often warranted when a patient has more than 2 unrelated drug "allergies" listed in the medical record. In this commentary, we clarify and propose standard terminology to use when evaluating patients with multiple drug allergy labels including and more specifically when diagnosing multiple drug intolerance syndrome and the much rarer multiple drug hypersensitivity syndrome. We review epidemiology and key features of multiple drug intolerance syndrome and multiple drug hypersensitivity syndrome. We summarize the methodologic and practical diagnostic workup and management of individuals with MDIS to assist with the accurate delabeling of drug "allergies" in the electronic health record.

Antibiotics Are the Most Commonly Identified Cause of Perioperative Hypersensitivity Reactions.

BACKGROUND: Hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) during the perioperative period are unpredictable and can be life threatening. Prospective studies for the evaluation of perioperative HSRs are lacking, and data on causative agents vary between different studies. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to prospectively determine the success of a comprehensive allergy evaluation plan for patients with HSRs during anesthesia, including identification of a causative agent and outcomes during subsequent anesthesia exposure. METHODS: All patients referred for a perioperative HSR between November 2013 and March 2015, from a Boston teaching hospital, were evaluated using a standardized protocol with skin testing (ST) within 6 months of HSR. Comprehensive allergy evaluation included collection of patient information, including characteristics of HSR during anesthesia. We reviewed the results of ST and/or test doses for all potential causative medications Event-related tryptase levels were reviewed when available. RESULTS: Over 17 months, 25 patients completed the comprehensive allergy evaluation. Fifty-two percent (13 of 25) were female with a median age of 52 (interquartile range 43-66) years. The most frequently observed HSR systems were cutaneous (68%), cardiovascular (64%), and pulmonary (24%). A culprit drug, defined as a positive ST, was identified in 36% (9 of 25) of patients. The most common agent identified was cefazolin (6 of 9). After our comprehensive evaluation and management plan, 7 (7 of 8, 88%) patients tolerated subsequent anesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: Cefazolin was the most commonly identified cause of a perioperative HSR in our study population. Skin testing patients within 6 months of a perioperative HSR may improve the odds of finding a positive result. Tolerance of subsequent anesthesia is generally achieved in patients undergoing our comprehensive evaluation.

Current characteristics associated with hereditary angioedema attacks and treatment: the home infusion based patient experience.

This article presents a current perspective on the characteristics of hereditary angioedema (HAE) attacks and treatment as captured by a home infusion service. Retrospective data on 158 HAE patients who were enrolled in this acute treatment program were analyzed for factors surrounding an attack. The majority of patients had a high level of disease severity at baseline (88%), with a higher than expected likelihood of having a positive family history (87.8%). The most likely times for patients to call for home treatment were just before and during working hours (6:00 A.M.-5:00 P.M.). Eighty-three percent had more than one alternate mode of medication. Factors associated with a severe attack included an overall severe rating of HAE attacks in the previous year, an abdominal attack alone or a combination of peripheral and abdominal attacks versus a peripheral attack alone, and the use of two doses rather than one for treatment of the current attack. Average time to relief onset was 43.5 minutes. One dose of ecallantide was sufficient to treat the majority of attacks, and a second dose was needed in 23.6% of patients experiencing a severe attack. However, patients who reported both a severe attack rating during the previous year and experiencing only a peripheral current attack were more likely to experience a severe current attack. Acute treatment paradigms for HAE remain diverse. Understanding factors driving these decisions could help alleviate the overall burden of this disease and help overcome some of the challenges faced by the patients and their caretakers and improve their quality of life. Enhanced capture and analysis of prodromal factors in future studies should help us further alleviate the burden of this disease.

Comprehensive allergy evaluation is useful in the subsequent care of patients with drug hypersensitivity reactions during anesthesia.

BACKGROUND: For patients with a history of drug hypersensitivity reaction (HSR) during anesthesia, strategies to minimize risk with subsequent anesthesia are unclear. Identification of the cause of HSR during anesthesia remains challenging. OBJECTIVE: To determine the success of a comprehensive allergy evaluation and management plan for patients with HSR during anesthesia, including identification of the causative agent and review of outcomes during subsequent anesthesia exposure. METHODS: We performed chart reviews of patients referred for the evaluation of HSR during anesthesia between 2003 and 2012. Data collection included patient characteristics, signs/symptoms of HSR during anesthesia, and subsequent outcomes. Patients underwent comprehensive allergy evaluation including skin testing for identifying potential culprit agents, and the results were used to provide recommendations for any subsequent anesthesia. RESULTS: Over the 10-year study period, 73 patients with HSR during anesthesia were referred for further evaluation. Thirteen patients (18%) had positive skin test results to a drug received during anesthesia. One patient with a positive skin test result was diagnosed with mastocytosis. The causative agents identified in these 13 patients included latex, ß-lactam antibiotics, neuromuscular blockers, tetracaine, odansetron, and fentanyl. On follow-up, 47 of the 73 patients (64%) subsequently underwent procedures requiring anesthesia. Using our recommendations from evaluation and testing, 45 of these 47 patients (96%) successfully tolerated subsequent anesthesia. The 2 patients who developed recurrent HSR during anesthesia were later diagnosed with mast cell disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Our comprehensive evaluation and management plan minimizes risk with subsequent anesthesia even when the cause of HSR could not be identified. Baseline tryptase levels may be helpful in this patient population to diagnose mast cell disorders.

Management of hypersensitivity reactions to Carboplatin and Paclitaxel in an outpatient oncology infusion center: a 5-year review.

BACKGROUND: A high incidence of hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) to carboplatin and Taxol is limiting the use of carboplatin and Taxol. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a 5-year study of all patients with HSR to carboplatin or Taxol to better understand the nature of infusion HSR and success or failure of management plans after the initial HSR. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of all safety reports from the Massachusetts General Hospital outpatient chemotherapy infusion center between January 2006 and February 2011. All the patients with HSRs to carboplatin or Taxol were identified and included in the final analysis. We reviewed patient characteristics, clinical symptoms, timing, and treatment of the initial HSR, and determined if the patient was rechallenged despite an initial HSR. RESULTS: We identified 152 patients with HSR to carboplatin (n = 45) or Taxol (n = 107). Carboplatin HSR was less severe than Taxol HSR. When comparing the 2 groups, the patients with carboplatin HSRs more commonly described itchy palms and feet, generalized itch, and general urticaria and/or erythema, whereas patients with Taxol HSR more commonly described facial flushing, back pain, and chest or throat tightness (all P < .05). Among 40 patients with mild-to-moderate carboplatin HSRs, only 7 were rechallenged, and 100% tolerated rechallenge without desensitization. None of the patients with severe carboplatin HSRs (n = 5) were rechallenged. Most patients (75%) with Taxol HSRs were rechallenged, and 91% tolerated rechallenge without desensitization; the patients with a severe HSR to Taxol were less likely to be rechallenged. CONCLUSION: The clinical symptoms and timing of carboplatin HSR are distinct from Taxol HSR. Most patients with carboplatin HSR were not rechallenged, whereas most patients with Taxol HSR were successfully rechallenged.

Evaluation and management of hypersensitivity to proton pump inhibitors.

OBJECTIVE: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are widely used for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease and peptic ulcer disease. PPIs are well tolerated, but they can cause hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs). Although simply avoiding a PPI after an HSR is appropriate for most patients, there are clinical scenarios that require treatment with a PPI. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive literature review was performed to propose an evidence-based approach to the evaluation and management of HSRs to PPIs. STUDY SELECTIONS: Articles from June 1986 through September 2012 on PPI hypersensitivity were reviewed. Thirty-nine studies that met the search criteria were included in the review. HSRs to PPIs and skin testing protocols used to evaluate HSRs were analyzed from the 39 identified publications. For each case, the culprit drug and dose, the age and sex of the patient, and the symptoms and timing of the HSR were recorded. HSRs were classified into immune- or nonimmune-mediated categories. RESULTS: A total of 118 cases of immune-mediated HSRs to 5 PPIs were identified, most of which were suspected IgE-mediated HSRs. Omeprazole was the culprit PPI most frequently associated with HSRs. The most common clinical manifestations of PPI HSRs were cutaneous reactions. Nonirritating concentrations for skin prick and intradermal testing were identified. Skin testing showed variable cross-reactivity patterns among the different PPIs. CONCLUSION: The HSRs to PPIs should be formally investigated, especially when reasonable alternative therapies do not exist. The reviewers propose an evidence-based algorithm for evaluating and managing patients with an HSR to a PPI.

Long-acting anticholinergics in the treatment of asthma.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The use of anticholinergic medications is well established as maintenance therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). There is a growing interest in the use of anticholinergic medications in the treatment of moderate to severe asthma. The purpose of this review is to summarize the scientific evidence for the use of anticholinergic therapy in the management of asthma. RECENT FINDINGS: Early case reports and small studies evaluated the use of the anticholinergic agent, tiotropium bromide, as maintenance therapy in asthma. Included in this review are several recent clinical trials which provide additional evidence for the use of tiotropium as add-on therapy for asthma. The use of tiotropium was demonstrated to be superior to doubling the dose of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and more effective than placebo based on change in morning peak expiratory flow (PEF). Two large multinational trials provide evidence for the use of tiotropium in a subset of asthmatic patients who have not achieved control using combination therapy with an ICS and a long-acting ß2 agonist (LABA). SUMMARY: The use of the long-acting anticholinergic agent, tiotropium, as maintenance of therapy in asthma, has been shown to be effective in some patients with moderate to severe asthma who are uncontrolled on combination therapy with ICS and LABA. Further studies are needed to better define which phenotypic subset of patients would benefit from the use of tiotropium.