5 Clinical Trials for Various Conditions
The study will identify pediatric patients 3-18 years old who have penicillin allergy label in the electronic medical record. Those who are identified will be stratified into no-risk, low-risk and high-risk category using a screening questionnaire. The following definitions will be followed: No-risk: Patients who are historically labeled with penicillin allergy in the EMR based on family history alone OR those who have tolerated penicillin after a concerning incident without any reaction OR with penicillin allergy label but deny any history of reaction to any form of penicillin on screening questionnaire Low-risk: Patients with previous reaction not suggestive of anaphylaxis (defined below) AND not requiring hospitalization for the reaction OR reaction considered non- immunologic (e.g. diarrhea, nausea, yeast vaginitis) OR exposure to penicillin- containing antibiotic after the date of reported reaction with no anaphylaxis and hospitalization AND no serious types of delayed reactions such as Steven- Johnson syndrome (SJS), toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), acute interstitial nephritis (AIN), drug-induced hepatitis or other documented organ injury, drug rash eosinophilia systemic symptoms (DRESS), hemolytic anemia, drug-induced cytopenia, and serum sickness. Patients who had delayed reaction (onset more than 24 hours) of isolated, non-progressive symptoms (such as rash/hives alone) also belong to this group. High-risk: Patients with penicillin allergy label on EMR with previous reaction suggestive of anaphylaxis (defined below) OR requiring hospitalization/epinephrine administration for the reaction OR reactions considered immunologic (angioedema, joint pains) OR involving serious types of reactions such as Steven-Johnson syndrome (SJS), toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), acute interstitial nephritis (AIN), drug-induced hepatitis or other documented organ injury, drug rash eosinophilia systemic symptoms (DRESS), hemolytic anemia, drug-induced cytopenia, and serum sickness. Patients who were previously diagnosed with penicillin allergy by an allergist also belong to the high-risk group. Patients in the no-risk group will be immediately delabeled. Patients in the high-risk group will be referred to allergy/immunology for further work up. The focus of this study is to identify the patients who belong to the low-risk group. This group of patients will be subjected to graded oral amoxicillin challenge testing. Those who will have reactions compatible with allergy will have their allergy status retained in the electronic medical record. Those that will not have reactions or those that will have reactions that are not compatible with allergy will be delabeled in the electronic medical record.
While reported adverse reactions to penicillins are common, most patients with a penicillin allergy label can safely tolerate penicillins, and elective evaluation for penicillin allergy has been recommended. For low-risk patients, direct oral challenge may be an optimal approach as a delabeling strategy. However, there is a vast disparity between the number of patients with a penicillin allergy label and practicing allergists in the United States, and implementing outpatient primary care-based delabeling strategies in low-risk patients may increase access to delabeling assessments. However, a recent survey of pediatricians identified perceived barriers to implementing penicillin allergy evaluations into their routine care. Significant gaps in knowledge exist regarding the feasibility of this approach involving risk stratification evaluation of reported penicillin adverse reactions and direct amoxicillin challenge procedures in low-risk patients in the pediatric primary care setting. With this, the primary aim of this study is to evaluate the number of patients for which risk-stratification and direct amoxicillin challenge are successfully completed in an outpatient pediatric primary care clinic.
There is evidence to suggest that lidocaine can help reduce the pain associated with intramuscular injections of benzathine penicillin G (BPG) or Bicillin, used to treat syphilis infections. A study published in the Journal of Family Practice in 2001 compared the pain experienced during bicillin injections with and without the use of lidocaine. The study found that patients who received lidocaine injections before receiving bicillin reported significantly less pain compared to those who received bicillin injections without lidocaine. Per the International Union against Sexually Transmitted Infections (IUSTI) European Guidelines for syphilis management, lidocaine has been used as a diluent for BPG since 1998. In the United States (US), BPG often comes prepackaged and lidocaine is unable to be used as a diluent with the same ease as it is in Europe. In light of this, the investigators propose a randomized controlled trial of benzathine penicillin G with and without lidocaine to quantify any site pain reduction with lidocaine in patients being treated for syphilis. This study is a randomized, double blinded, placebo controlled trial. During this study, patients needing BPG treatment for syphilis will be screened for any penicillin allergies and consented to their participation. Each participant will receive 2 injections of BPG, 1.2 million units each (2x1.2 million units = 2.4 million units, the standard dose for syphilis treatment), as intramuscular injections, one in each gluteal muscle, with one of the injections randomly having 0.5ml of 1% lidocaine added while the other has 0.5 ml normal saline solution. The side of each injection will be randomized by the medical assistant (MA)/nurse filling the vials and the injecting MA will be blinded, as well as the study participant, as to which vial contains lidocaine and which contains normal saline. The participants will then be asked to rate their pain from 0-10 on each site of injection at 10 minutes post injection, then again at 24 hours after injection via email electronic survey (via RedCap). The differences in pain from the two injections will be compared and analyzed to see if lidocaine reduces pain associated with BPG injections compared to the control of normal saline added to BPG.
A self- or parent-reported history of penicillin allergy excludes approximately 10% of the US population from receiving penicillin (Kerr 1994, Kagy, Blaiss 1998, Solensky et al. 2000, Neugut et al. 2001). Yet approximately 80% of patients labeled as allergic to the penicillins can safely take these antibiotics without fear of a life-threatening reaction (Gadde et al. 1993, Macy et al. 1997). The outcomes of this erroneous classification of patients include unnecessary denial of an effective and well-tolerated class of antibiotics, which are often the treatment of choice. The primary aim of skin testing with the Penicillin Skin Test Kit is to identify subjects at very low risk of developing acute IgE-dependent reactions when given a penicillin or cross-reacting drug. The negative predictive value (NPV) of skin testing is assessed by oral challenge with a penicillin.
Cephalosporin antibiotics are commonly used but can result in allergic reactions and anaphylaxis. There is no clear diagnostic approach for cephalosporin-allergic patients, and guidance for the use of other antibiotics in allergic patients is based on side chain chemical similarity and limited skin testing evidence. This project includes a clinical trial and mechanistic studies to optimize the approach to cephalosporin allergy and advance future diagnostics.