Assessing the safety of increased outpatient cephalosporin use following the modification of penicillin allergy cross-reactivity alerts.

IF 3 4区 医学 Q2 INFECTIOUS DISEASES Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology Pub Date : 2025-03-13 DOI:10.1017/ice.2025.9
Bryan Schneider, Kelly M Percival, Anna M Rhinehart, Jared Frye, Deanna L McDanel, Kevin L Bebout, Lukasz D Weiner, Sarah A Auerbach, Amy M Dowden, Dilek Ince, Patrick Kinn
{"title":"Assessing the safety of increased outpatient cephalosporin use following the modification of penicillin allergy cross-reactivity alerts.","authors":"Bryan Schneider, Kelly M Percival, Anna M Rhinehart, Jared Frye, Deanna L McDanel, Kevin L Bebout, Lukasz D Weiner, Sarah A Auerbach, Amy M Dowden, Dilek Ince, Patrick Kinn","doi":"10.1017/ice.2025.9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Concerns about penicillin-cephalosporin cross-reactivity have historically led to conservative prescribing and avoidance of cephalosporins in patients with penicillin allergy labels, potentially causing suboptimal outcomes. Recent evidence suggests a lower risk of cross-reactivity, prompting a reassessment of alert systems.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the impact of limited penicillin cross-reactivity alerts on outpatient cephalosporin use and the incidence of adverse reactions in a healthcare setting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study compared cephalosporin prescribing and adverse reactions in patients labeled as penicillin-allergic before and after limiting penicillin cross-reactivity alerts in the electronic medical record at a large academic medical center.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 17,174 patients (8,131 pre- and 9,043 post-implementation), there was a statistically significant increase in outpatient cephalosporin prescribing by 8% (<i>P</i> < .001). The use of alternative antibiotic classes decreased. There was no statistically significant increase in adverse events pre- and post-implementation (0.036%-0.058%, <i>P</i> = .547), and no severe events were attributable to cross-reactivity. The alert modification reduced alerts by 92% (<i>P</i> < .001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The reduction of penicillin-cephalosporin cross-reactivity alerts was associated with increased cephalosporin use, without a significant increase in adverse reactions. This demonstrates that the practice is safe and decreases alert burden.</p>","PeriodicalId":13663,"journal":{"name":"Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology","volume":" ","pages":"1-6"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2025.9","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Concerns about penicillin-cephalosporin cross-reactivity have historically led to conservative prescribing and avoidance of cephalosporins in patients with penicillin allergy labels, potentially causing suboptimal outcomes. Recent evidence suggests a lower risk of cross-reactivity, prompting a reassessment of alert systems.

Objective: To assess the impact of limited penicillin cross-reactivity alerts on outpatient cephalosporin use and the incidence of adverse reactions in a healthcare setting.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study compared cephalosporin prescribing and adverse reactions in patients labeled as penicillin-allergic before and after limiting penicillin cross-reactivity alerts in the electronic medical record at a large academic medical center.

Results: Among 17,174 patients (8,131 pre- and 9,043 post-implementation), there was a statistically significant increase in outpatient cephalosporin prescribing by 8% (P < .001). The use of alternative antibiotic classes decreased. There was no statistically significant increase in adverse events pre- and post-implementation (0.036%-0.058%, P = .547), and no severe events were attributable to cross-reactivity. The alert modification reduced alerts by 92% (P < .001).

Conclusion: The reduction of penicillin-cephalosporin cross-reactivity alerts was associated with increased cephalosporin use, without a significant increase in adverse reactions. This demonstrates that the practice is safe and decreases alert burden.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
6.70%
发文量
289
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology provides original, peer-reviewed scientific articles for anyone involved with an infection control or epidemiology program in a hospital or healthcare facility. Written by infection control practitioners and epidemiologists and guided by an editorial board composed of the nation''s leaders in the field, ICHE provides a critical forum for this vital information.
期刊最新文献
Response to Mr. Babar's Letter to the Editor regarding "Healthcare worker attitudes on routine non-urological preoperative urine cultures: a qualitative assessment". Reducing catheter-associated urinary tract infection rates in surgical critical care units via an informal catheter exchange protocol. A mixed-methods study assessing the performance of a clinical decision support tool for Clostridioides difficile testing for patients receiving laxatives. Assessing the safety of increased outpatient cephalosporin use following the modification of penicillin allergy cross-reactivity alerts. Evaluation of Department of Defense hospital antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) using a novel Core Elements scoring approach and modeling Core Elements scores with metrics related to ASP outcomes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1