TY - JOUR
T1 - Opportunities for penicillin allergy evaluation in dental clinics
AU - Vivo, Amanda
AU - Durkin, Michael J.
AU - Kale, Ibuola
AU - Boyer, Taylor
AU - Fitzpatrick, Margaret A.
AU - Evans, Charlesnika T.
AU - Jurasic, M. Marianne
AU - Gibson, Gretchen
AU - Suda, Katie J.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s), 2022.
PY - 2022/4/11
Y1 - 2022/4/11
N2 - Objective: To evaluate opportunities for assessing penicillin allergies among patients presenting to dental clinics. Design: Retrospective cross-sectional study. Setting: VA dental clinics. Patients: Adult patients with a documented penicillin allergy who received an antibiotic from a dentist between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2018, were included. Methods: Chart reviews were completed on random samples of 100 patients who received a noncephalosporin antibiotic and 200 patients who received a cephalosporin. Each allergy was categorized by severity. These categories were used to determine patient eligibility for 3 testing groups based on peer-reviewed algorithms: (1) no testing, (2) skin testing, and (3) oral test-dose challenge. Descriptive and bivariate statistics were used to compare facility and patient demographics first between true penicillin allergy, pseudo penicillin allergy, and missing allergy documentation, and between those who received a cephalosporin and those who did not at the dental visit. Results: Overall, 19% lacked documentation of the nature of allergic reaction, 53% were eligible for skin testing, 27% were eligible for an oral test-dose challenge, and 1% were contraindicated from testing. Male patients and African American patients were less likely to receive a cephalosporin. Conclusions: Most penicillin-allergic patients in the VA receiving an antibiotic from a dentist are eligible for penicillin skin testing or an oral penicillin challenge. Further research is needed to understand the role of dentists and dental clinics in assessing penicillin allergies.
AB - Objective: To evaluate opportunities for assessing penicillin allergies among patients presenting to dental clinics. Design: Retrospective cross-sectional study. Setting: VA dental clinics. Patients: Adult patients with a documented penicillin allergy who received an antibiotic from a dentist between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2018, were included. Methods: Chart reviews were completed on random samples of 100 patients who received a noncephalosporin antibiotic and 200 patients who received a cephalosporin. Each allergy was categorized by severity. These categories were used to determine patient eligibility for 3 testing groups based on peer-reviewed algorithms: (1) no testing, (2) skin testing, and (3) oral test-dose challenge. Descriptive and bivariate statistics were used to compare facility and patient demographics first between true penicillin allergy, pseudo penicillin allergy, and missing allergy documentation, and between those who received a cephalosporin and those who did not at the dental visit. Results: Overall, 19% lacked documentation of the nature of allergic reaction, 53% were eligible for skin testing, 27% were eligible for an oral test-dose challenge, and 1% were contraindicated from testing. Male patients and African American patients were less likely to receive a cephalosporin. Conclusions: Most penicillin-allergic patients in the VA receiving an antibiotic from a dentist are eligible for penicillin skin testing or an oral penicillin challenge. Further research is needed to understand the role of dentists and dental clinics in assessing penicillin allergies.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85129895930&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1017/ash.2022.18
DO - 10.1017/ash.2022.18
M3 - Article
C2 - 36483385
AN - SCOPUS:85129895930
SN - 2732-494X
VL - 2
JO - Antimicrobial Stewardship and Healthcare Epidemiology
JF - Antimicrobial Stewardship and Healthcare Epidemiology
IS - 1
M1 - e58
ER -