When Reviewing the Allergy History of a Patient
Can J Hosp Pharm. 2021 Spring; 74(two): 104–109.
Published online 2021 Apr 1.
Language: English | French
Assessing Use of a Standardized Allergy History Questionnaire for Patients with Reported Allergy to Penicillin
Jessica Manning
Jessica Manning, BSc(Pharm), ACPR, is with the Academy Hospital of Northern British Columbia, Northern Wellness, Prince George, British Columbia
Robert T Pammett 
Robert T Pammett, BSc, BSP, MSc, BCGP, is with Northern Health, Prince George, British Columbia, and the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, The Academy of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia
Abu Obeida Hamour
Abu Obeida Hamour, MBBS, MSc, MRCP(United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland), DTM&H, CCST(U.k.), FRCP(Edin), FRCPC, is with the University Hospital of Northern British Columbia, Northern Wellness, Prince George, British Columbia, and the Department of Medicine, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia
Aleisha Enemark
Aleisha Enemark, BSc, BSc(Pharm), ACPR, is with the University Infirmary of Northern British Columbia, Northern Health, Prince George, British Columbia
Barret Barr
Barret Barr, BSc, PharmD, ACPR, is with the Academy Infirmary of Northern British Columbia, Northern Wellness, Prince George, British Columbia
Abstract
Background
Inappropriate allergy labelling is associated with significant clinical and pharmacoeconomic implications. Detailed antimicrobial allergy assessments represent a key component of antimicrobial stewardship and aid in identifying true type I (immediate hypersensitivity) reactions. The allergy history form currently used at the University Hospital of Northern British Columbia (UHNBC), in Prince George, relies on the assessor'south ability to enquire appropriate prompting questions to obtain a thorough history, simply information technology may not exist sufficient to accurately identify true allergies.
Objective
To compare a standardized allergy history questionnaire and the current allergy history form in terms of the quality and quantity of documentation gathered.
Methods
This prospective observational study involved patients who were admitted to medical and surgical services at UHNBC from Nov 2018 to January 2019 with a penicillin-class allergy reported on their electronic medical tape (EMR). A list of patients with EMR-reported allergies was generated past the hospital's health information software system, and these patients were interviewed using the standardized allergy history questionnaire.
Results
A total of 48 patients were assessed during the written report period. Xix (forty%) of the patients had an inappropriate allergy label on their EMR. But 36 (75%) had an allergic reaction described on their EMR. Furthermore, merely 36 (75%) of the 48 patients had the same allergy recorded on the EMR and on the allergy history form independent in their paper chart, of whom 22 had a documented reaction. The mean time to complete the standardized allergy history questionnaire was 2 minutes.
Conclusions
At the study institution, documentation of allergy histories was often incomplete. Detailed allergy assessments are the offset stride in identifying true immunoglobulin E–mediated hypersensitivity reactions. Utilization of a standardized allergy history questionnaire is feasible and may serve to better documentation and overall antimicrobial stewardship.
Keywords: allergy, label, standardized, documentation
RÉSUMÉ
Contexte
L'étiquetage inapproprié de fifty'allergie est associé à des conséquences cliniques et pharmacoéconomiques importantes. Les évaluations détaillées des allergies antimicrobiennes sont une composante-clé de la gestion antimicrobienne: elles contribuent à déterminer les réactions d'hypersensibilité véritables de type 1 (immédiates). Le formulaire des antécédents d'allergies actuellement utilisé à 50'University Infirmary of Northern British Columbia (UHNBC), à Prince George, s'appuie sur la capacité de l'évaluateur à poser les questions appropriées pour obtenir un historique détaillé, mais il ne suffit pas de déterminer précisément les véritables allergies.
Objectif
Comparer la qualité et la quantité des informations recueillies au moyen d'un questionnaire normalisé sur les antécédents d'allergies avec celles recueillies au moyen des formulaires.
Méthodes
Cette étude d'ascertainment prospective portait sur des patients admis dans les services médicaux et chirurgicaux à 50'UHNBC de novembre 2018 à janvier 2019, dont les dossiers médicaux électroniques (DME) indiquaient une allergie à des médicaments de la classe de la pénicilline. Le logiciel des informations sur la santé a généré une liste des patients présentant les allergies indiquées et ces patients ont été interrogés à l'aide d'un questionnaire normalisé des antécédents d'allergies.
Résultats
Un total de 48 patients a été évalué pendant la période de l'étude. Le DME de dix-neuf (40 %) patients portait une étiquette inappropriée. Seuls 36 DME des patients (75 %) décrivaient une réaction allergique. De plus, seulement 36 (75 %) des 48 patients avaient la même réaction allergique enregistrée à la fois au DME et dans le formulaire des antécédents d'allergies de leur dossier papier, et la réaction de 22 d'entre eux était documentée. Le temps de réponse moyen au questionnaire normalisé sur les antécédents d'allergies était de ii minutes.
Conclusion
Dans cette étude, la description des antécédents d'allergies était souvent incomplète. Les évaluations détaillées des allergies sont la première étape permettant de déterminer les réactions véritables d'hypersensibilité à 50'immunoglobuline Eastward. L'utilisation d'un questionnaire normalisé des antécédents d'allergies est faisable et pourrait servir à améliorer la documentation ainsi que la gestion globale des antimicrobiens.
Mots-clés: allergie, étiquette, normalisé, documentation
INTRODUCTION
Inappropriate antibiotic allergy labelling is a significant issue, contributing to increased antibiotic resistance, longer hospital stays, and increased health intendance costs.ane – three Penicillin-class allergies are among the well-nigh normally reported medication allergies, with a prevalence of approximately x% in the full general population and up to 15% in hospitalized patients.4 , v Numerous factors may contribute to the loftier prevalence of reported penicillin allergies, including vague allergy histories, inaccurate documentation, and attribution of non-allergic reactions (e.g., amoxicillin rash confounded by viral illness).6 , 7 It has been shown that up to 90% of patients with a reported allergy can safely tolerate penicillins, and true penicillin-induced anaphylaxis is rare, with a reported incidence of 0.02% to 0.04%.5 , 8 , 9 Additionally, immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies misemploy over time, and approximately lxxx% of patients with a previous truthful penicillin allergy no longer react to penicillin after ten years.ten
Penicillins and other β-lactam antibiotics are the drugs of choice for many infectious indications and come with a well-established safety contour and relatively depression price.ix Penicillin allergy labelling has significant clinical and pharmacoeconomic implications. For case, patients with presumed allergy to penicillin may alternatively receive suboptimal antibiotics with broader spectrums of activity and potentially poorer safety profiles (greater risk of toxicity).i , 11 These patients are at higher risk of colonization with resistant pathogens such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus, as well every bit greater take a chance of morbidity and complications such every bit Clostridioides difficile infection.eleven Additionally, it has been demonstrated that penicillin allergies are associated with increased cost of antibiotic handling in hospital (past up to 63%) relative to non-allergic patients.5 , 12
Pare testing for penicillin allergy is a well-validated confirmatory method that has been implemented by many antimicrobial stewardship programs.9 Skin testing is indicated for those with a history of type I (immediate hypersensitivity) reactions and is the gold standard for clinical "delabelling"; this type of testing has been shown to refute more than 80% of allergy labels.5 The negative predictive value of peel testing is below 100%, so those with a negative response to the initial skin test should keep to an oral dose challengeiv , half dozen A true blazon I reaction manifests every bit urticaria, angioedema, wheezing, dyspnea, and/or hypotension inside 72 hours of administration.13 Reactions that occur more than than 72 hours later on drug administration are termed late hypersensitivity reactions and are classified as type II, Iii, or Four. These are not IgE-mediated reactions, and therefore skin testing does not play a role in their evaluation.six , 13
The 2016 guideline of the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Guild for Healthcare Epidemiology of America recommends that antimicrobial stewardship programs acquit allergy assessments for patients with a history of β-lactam allergy, equally well as penicillin peel testing when appropriate.14 Detailed allergy assessment alone is a cardinal component of antimicrobial stewardship and should be implemented by institutions to accurately identify patients with a truthful immune-mediated response to penicillins.15 – 17 Previous studies take shown that standardized allergy history questionnaires support the conquering of clinically relevant information18 and can lead to interventions that are economically feasible.xix Our organisation currently uses a paper allergy history class, which relies on the assessor'south ability to ask advisable prompting questions to obtain a thorough history. The electric current form is formatted to document the substance to which the patient is allergic and the reaction experienced, merely does not collect key information such as when the reaction occurred, the temporal relationship of the reaction to the medication use, details of the reaction itself, and whether the patient has been re-exposed to the medication since the initial reaction. Reliance upon the interviewer to retrieve to inquire these key questions oftentimes results in incomplete documentation, as recognized by infirmary pharmacists within the organization.
The principal aim of this study was to compare a standardized allergy history questionnaire and the current allergy history form in terms of the quantity and quality of documentation gathered. The secondary aims were to determine the number of potential candidates for clinical delabelling (via penicillin skin test or oral penicillin challenge) and to measure the time required to complete a thorough allergy history using the standardized questionnaire.
METHODS
This prospective observational report involved patients admitted to medical and surgical services at the Academy Hospital of Northern British Columbia (UHNBC) from November 18, 2018, to January 11, 2019. UHNBC is a teaching hospital with 219 astute intendance beds located in Prince George, the "hub" of northern British Columbia. Ethics approval was sought from and provided past the University of British Columbia's Clinical Inquiry Ethics Lath and the organization's Research Review Commission.
Patients who reported an allergy to a penicillin (penicillin, amoxicillin, amoxicillin-clavulanate, ampicillin, ticarcillin, piperacillin, and cloxacillin) at the time of admission were identified twice weekly by means of reports generated from the organization's wellness data software system. These allergy reports were obtained as role of the standard admission process, whereby a health intendance provider completes a basic allergy history form (on paper), which is then scanned and sent to the pharmacy department for entry into the patient's electronic medical record (EMR). The weekly software reports were generated by access date and included all reported allergies, to capture different penicillins as well every bit uncoded (free-texted) medication allergies. The patients identified in this way were invited to participate in the study and were given a minimum of 24 hours to reflect on their participation and provide consent. Patients were excluded if they were nether 19 years of age, had been admitted to a service other than those divers in the inclusion criteria, or had been discharged before enrolment.
Consenting patients were interviewed using the standardized allergy history questionnaire (Figure 1), which was adapted from the penicillin allergy questionnaire used by Providence Health Care in British Columbia. I writer (J.M.), a postgraduate year ane pharmacy practice resident, conducted all of the patient interviews and collected all of the data. The time to bear each questionnaire was documented, as were any current antibiotic orders for the participant at the time of the interview. For all participants, allergy histories (both on paper forms and within the EMR) were updated, and pharmaceutical care was provided on the basis of this information as appropriate. The information were analyzed by descriptive statistics.
Allergy history questionnaire, adapted from the Providence Health Care penicillin allergy questionnaire.
Participants with allergies determined to have the potential for clinical delabelling were and so classified as having low, medium, or high chance for negative consequences during delabelling; run into Table 1 for farther details of the risk levels. Risk stratification provides support for clinicians when they are because whether penicillin skin testing or drug challenges are appropriate. Nosotros are not enlightened of a validated tool bachelor to health care professionals for stratification of patients co-ordinate to allergy history; therefore, we adopted the allergy classification criteria from an early draft of the delabelling toolkit currently being prepared for British Columbia health authorities past the Provincial Antimicrobial Experts (PACE) group and used these criteria to categorize patients with potential for delabelling. This toolkit determines risk using a risk stratification process similar to that described by Shenoy and others.20
Table 1
Classification of Allergies for Purpose of Delabellinga
| Run a risk Levelb | Allergy Classification | No. of Patients (n = 29) |
|---|---|---|
| Depression | Unknown reaction or side effectc | five |
| Poorly described non-anaphylactic symptoms | 1 | |
| Delayed (> 72 h) nonspecific rash without IgE featuresd | 1 | |
| | ||
| Medium | Urticaria/pruritus, angioedema, laryngeal edema > 10 years agone without anaphylaxis | thirteen |
| Urticaria/pruritus, angioedema, laryngeal edema ≤ 10 years agone without anaphylaxis | 5 | |
| | ||
| High | Anaphylaxise | three |
| Systemic reaction with delayed onset (> 72 h)f | one | |
RESULTS
A total of 136 patients with reported allergy to penicillins were identified during the data collection catamenia. Of these, 55 were discharged earlier consenting to participate, and 33 were excluded from data collection for the following reasons: unable to consent (n = ix), consented to participate just was discharged earlier participation (north = 7), was transferred to a site exterior the data drove area (north = 5), readmission of a person who had already participated in this study (n = 5), refused consent (north = 3), was receiving care from the interviewer (a potential conflict of interest; n = three), or died earlier consenting to participate (due north = 1).
A total of 48 individuals participated in the study and were interviewed using the standardized allergy history questionnaire. The mean historic period of participants was lx.four years (standard difference 19.iii years), and 28 (58%) were female. The drug to which an allergy was listed in the EMR was penicillin for 40 participants, amoxicillin for 10 patients, and piperacillin for 3 patients, with some patients having more than 1 drug listed as an allergen.
For 36 (75%) of the participants, a description of the reaction was documented on the EMR (e.m., "rash"). In add-on, 36 (75%) of the participants had the same allergy recorded on both their EMR and the allergy grade in their paper chart; for the other participants, reporting in the EMR and the paper chart was inconsistent.
For xix participants (xl%), the allergy label in the EMR was deemed inappropriate, for the post-obit reasons: re- exposure to penicillin without incident (n = 8); signs or symptoms of penicillin intolerance, not allergy (n = 6); denial of penicillin allergy by the participant during the interview (n = 3); and "other" (due north = 2) (Figure 2).
Reasons for inappropriate allergy labels on patients' electronic medical records (n = 48).
Twenty-nine (60%) of the participants were identified every bit candidates for clinical delabelling in accordance with the typhoon delabelling toolkit. Of those participants, 7 (24%) were classified as having low take a chance of adverse events during assistants of the clinical delabelling protocol, 18 (62%) every bit having medium hazard, and four (14%) as having high risk; see Table 1 for more details about the risk levels.
From a feasibility perspective, the hateful time to behave the standardized allergy history questionnaire was 2 minutes (range one–iv minutes).
Give-and-take
The results of this study demonstrate the importance of a comprehensive, standardized allergy assessment and highlight the difference between information recorded in this style and the current standard of practice at the study institution. A substantial proportion of the patients interviewed (forty%) had an inappropriate penicillin allergy label on their EMR. Inappropriate labelling is specially troublesome for allergies to antibiotics, specifically penicillins, because these allergy labels are pervasive and are associated with important clinical and pharmacoeconomic implications.1 , ii These results also showed that patients often reported non-allergic reactions as allergies; as such, formal allergy histories represent an opportunity for patient education about the differences between allergies and intolerances. After administering a standardized allergy history questionnaire, secondary sources of information, such as community pharmacy records, prescription dispensing databases, hospital records, and records of the primary care physician, may be consulted to gather more data about a patient's allergy status; this information may back up clinical delabelling without the need for penicillin skin testing or oral challenges. Although skin testing is the aureate standard for penicillin delabelling, it is not attainable in all centres, further exemplifying the importance of detailed allergy histories. Only when complete allergy-related information is gathered can informed decision-making occur regarding the apply of penicillins.
In add-on to serving as a tool for asking advisable allergy-related questions, a standardized allergy history questionnaire can ameliorate overall documentation. As demonstrated in this study, documentation of allergy histories at UHNBC was frequently incomplete or incongruent with the various health records beingness used to provide intendance. These problems indicate that wellness care professionals were obtaining suboptimal allergy histories for patients admitted to infirmary, which could afterward impact the quality of care that individuals receive. Anecdotally, allergy history data is sometimes copied from admission forms, ambulance records, medication administration records, or other sources onto the current allergy history form, without verification of the data with a primary source, such as the patient or caregiver. Use of a standardized tool may reduce these practices.
The preferred method of verifying penicillin allergies in patients with features of IgE-mediated reactions is skin testing, which is not currently available inside the written report organisation. Supported by the typhoon Footstep toolkit, graded amoxicillin challenge may be offered to patients with depression-risk histories and may be carefully considered for those classified as having medium risk with remote history of a reaction (i.e., more ten years before). This method would apply to 25 (86%) of the 29 participants in this study who were identified as candidates for delabelling. Compared with an oral challenge protocol, penicillin skin testing requires more than resources, both material and human.21 If routinely adopted, graded oral amoxicillin challenge provides the potential for delabelling countless penicillin allergies. During data drove past ways of the standardized interview, information technology was common for participants to request further information well-nigh oral claiming, equally many wished to know their electric current allergy status; as such, this is a service for which there might exist loftier demand.
Sigona and others7 found that 25 (75%) of inpatients receiving antimicrobial therapy who were interviewed by pharmacists were candidates for β-lactam therapy, and 65.6% were successfully switched from a non-penicillin antibiotic to a cephalosporin, carbapenem, or penicillin. In our study, 22 (46%) of interviewed patients who were receiving antimicrobial therapy were receiving non-β-lactam antibiotics; yet, nosotros did not assess whether these drugs were being administered as alternatives to first-line therapy, and no clinical intervention was undertaken, as doing so would have been outside the telescopic of this study. Given the high proportion of patients identified as having an inappropriate allergy label, information technology is likely that many of these patients would have been candidates for β-lactam therapy, depending on the infection.
Our results provide some show that the fourth dimension required to conduct a standardized allergy history questionnaire is minimal, and that information technology may be viable for other health intendance providers to administer the questionnaire. Yet, this would need to be validated through future inquiry.
The results of this study have informed the revision of an allergy/sensitivity history form that is intended to be deployed across all of the institution's sites in the hereafter.
We acknowledge that this study had a number of limitations. Although obtaining allergy histories is a standard of care performed past pharmacists daily, consent was required from each patient before the interviews, with a minimum 24-hour waiting catamenia earlier the allergy assessment was conducted. This waiting period, which was requested by the Clinical Research Ideals Board, significantly affected our sample size, because many patients were discharged during the waiting catamenia, earlier the interview could exist conducted. Participants' reports of subsequent exposure (Figure ane, Question 7) were not verified with secondary sources (east.g., master care clinics, community pharmacies, or dispensing databases), which limits the level of confidence in information nigh re-exposure. Verification of the history using secondary sources would accept been valuable for those who did not recall their allergic reaction; even so, this was beyond the scope of the current study. We also admit that the time required for our assessor to complete the standardized allergy history questionnaire may not have been representative of all users, given that the time reported here was based on one person'due south experience with the tool. All the same, the team believes that the tool itself is simple and intuitive for health intendance professionals to use, and should not pose an undue burden on those using it to obtain an accurate allergy history. We believe that implementation of a standardized allergy history questionnaire by wellness care professionals in this practise setting would improve appropriate antibiotic utilize, with do good for clinical and pharmacoeconomic outcomes; however, further research is required to confirm this hypothesis.
CONCLUSION
In this study, documentation of allergy histories was oft incomplete, inconsistent, and unreliable across records in the written report institution. A detailed allergy assessment is the showtime step in identifying true IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reactions and is essential for consummate and accurate documentation. Implementation of a standardized allergy history questionnaire may improve documentation of penicillin allergies, antimicrobial stewardship, and ultimately patient care.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to admit Alicia Rahier for her assistance with writing the terminal draft and for project support in her role as Antimicrobial Stewardship Plan Coordinator inside Northern Health.
Footnotes
Competing interests: None declared.
Funding: None received.
References
1. Macy E. Elective penicillin skin testing and amoxicillin claiming: effect on outpatient antibiotic apply, cost, and clinical outcomes. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1998;102(2):281–five. doi: 10.1016/S0091-6749(98)70097-one. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
2. Torda A, Chan Five. Antibody allergy labels—the impact of taking a clinical history. Int J Clin Pract. 2018;72(3):e13058. doi: x.1111/ijcp.13058. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
3. van Dijk SM, Gardarsdottir H, Wassenberg MWM, Oosterheert JJ, de Groot MCH, Rockmann H. The high impact of penicillin allergy registration in hospitalized patients. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2016;4(5):926–31. doi: ten.1016/j.jaip.2016.03.009. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
iv. Blumenthal KG, Shenoy ES, Varughese CA, Hurwitz S, Hooper DC, Banerji A. Impact of a clinical guideline for prescribing antibiotics to inpatients reporting penicillin or cephalosporin allergy. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2015;115(4):294–300.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.anai.2015.05.011. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
five. Soria A, Autegarden E, Amsler E, Gaouar H, Vial A, Francès C, et al. A clinical decision-making algorithm for penicillin allergy. Ann Med. 2017;49(viii):710–7. doi: 10.1080/07853890.2017.1370125. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
half dozen. Salkind AR, Cuddy PG, Foxworth JW. The rational clinical examination. Is this patient allergic to penicillin? An evidence-based analysis of the likelihood of penicillin allergy. JAMA. 2001;285(19):2498–505. doi: ten.1001/jama.285.xix.2498. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
7. Sigona NS, Steele JM, Miller CD. Impact of a pharmacist-driven beta-lactam allergy interview on inpatient antimicrobial therapy: a pilot project. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2016;56(half-dozen):665–9. doi: 10.1016/j.japh.2016.05.005. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
9. Chen JR, Tarver SA, Alvarez KS, Tran T, Khan DA. A proactive approach to penicillin allergy testing in hospitalized patients. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2017;5(3):686–93. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2016.09.045. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
10. Blanca M, Torres MJ, García JJ, Romano A, Mayorga C, de Ramon E, et al. Natural evolution of skin exam sensitivity in patients allergic to beta-lactam antibiotics. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1999;103(5 Pt 1):918–24. doi: ten.1016/S0091-6749(99)70439-2. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
11. Jeffres MN, Narayanan PP, Shuster JE, Schramm GE. Consequences of avoiding β-lactams in patients with β-lactam allergies. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2016;137(4):1148–53. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2015.10.026. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
12. Sade Yard, Holtzer I, Levo Y, Kivity Due south. The economic burden of antibiotic handling of penicillin-allergic patients in internal medicine wards of a general tertiary care hospital. Clin Exp Allergy. 2003;33(4):501–6. doi: ten.1046/j.1365-2222.2003.01638.10. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
13. Gell P, Coombs R. Clinical aspects of immunology. Blackwell Scientific Publications; 1975. Classification of allergic reactions responsible for clnical hypersensitivity and disease; pp. 761–81. [Google Scholar]
xiv. Barlam TF, Cosgrove SE, Abbo LM, MacDougall C, Schuetz AN, Septimus EJ, et al. Implementing an antibiotic stewardship program: guidelines past the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Social club for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;62(10):e51–77. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciw118. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
15. Hippern LD, Halapy H. Assessing penicillin allergies with a structured assessment form. Tin J Hosp Pharm. 2000;53(three):184–92. [Google Scholar]
16. Inglis JM, Caughey GE, Smith W, Shakib Southward. Documentation of penicillin agin drug reactions in electronic health records: inconsistent utilize of allergy and intolerance labels. Intern Med J. 2017;47(11):1292–7. doi: 10.1111/imj.13558. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
17. Shah NS, Ridgway JP, Pettit N, Fahrenbach J, Robicsek A. Documenting penicillin allergy: the impact of inconsistency. PloS I. 2016;11(3):e0150514. doi: x.1371/journal.pone.0150514. [PMC complimentary article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
xviii. Harig A, Rybarczyk A, Benedetti A, Zimmerman J. Clarification of drug allergy information using a standardized drug allergy questionnaire and interview. Pharm Ther. 2018;43(8):480–504. [PMC costless commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
xix. Clark KE, Briand ME, Kapoor O, Pirasteh A. Impact of a standardized beta-lactam allergy questionnaire on aztreonam use. J Pharm Pract. 2019;32(4):399–403. doi: 10.1177/0897190018758557. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
twenty. Shenoy ES, Macy E, Rowe T, Blumenthal KG. Evaluation and management of penicillin allergy: a review. JAMA. 2019;321(two):188–99. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.19283. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
21. Blumenthal KG, Li Y, Banerji A, Yun BJ, Long AA, Walensky RP. The cost of penicillin allergy evaluation. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2018;6(3):1019–1027.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2017.08.006. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Articles from The Canadian Journal of Infirmary Pharmacy are provided here courtesy of Canadian Order Of Hospital Pharmacists
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8042189/
0 Response to "When Reviewing the Allergy History of a Patient"
Post a Comment