Abstract
Background Direct drug provocation testing (DPT) in patients with low-risk penicillin allergy labels would allow population-level ‘de-labelling’. We sought to determine the incidence and nature of penicillin allergy labels in a large UK surgical cohort and to define patient and anaesthetist attitudes towards penicillin allergy testing.
Methods A prospective cross-sectional study was performed in 213 UK hospitals. ‘Penicillin allergic’ patients were interviewed and risk-stratified. Knowledge and attitudes around penicillin allergy were defined in patients and anaesthetists, determining potential barriers to widespread testing.
Findings Of 21,281 patients 12% self-reported penicillin allergy and 67% of these were potentially suitable for direct DPT (stratified low or intermediate risk). Irrespective of risk category 62% wanted allergy testing. Of 4,978 anaesthetists 40% claimed to routinely administer penicillin when they judge the label to be low-risk; 64% would then tell the patient they had received penicillin. Only 47% of all anaesthetists would be happy to administer penicillin to a patient previously de-labelled by an allergy specialist using direct DPT; the commonest reason not to administer penicillin was perceived lack of support from their hospital. On the study days, 13% of low-risk patients requiring penicillin received it, and 6 patients with high-risk labels received it. There were no adverse events in any of this group. However, 1 patient who received an alternative antibiotic suffered suspected anaphylaxis to this.
Interpretation The majority of patients with a penicillin allergy label may be suitable for direct DPT and demand for testing is high among patients. Anaesthetists demonstrate inconsistent, potentially unsafe prescribing in patients labelled as penicillin allergic. More than half of anaesthetists are not reassured by a negative DPT undertaken by a specialist. Significant knowledge gaps may prevent widespread de-labelling being effectively implemented in surgical patients.
Funding The National Institute of Academic Anaesthesia.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The National Institute of Academic Anaesthesia.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Favourable ethics opinion provided by the London - Hampstead Research Ethics Committee (REC reference 17/LO/2106) on 5/1/2018. Health Research Authority approval granted on 30/1/2018.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵* Research and Audit Federation of Trainees (RAFT) committee members
Data Availability
Supplementary materials will be available online on request
