PEN-FAST-ED: Utilizing the PEN-FAST decision tool to guide antibiotic prescribing in the emergency department.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Kimberly Tran, Jeremy Lund, Chloe Sealy, David Langley, Jamie Kisgen
{"title":"PEN-FAST-ED: Utilizing the PEN-FAST decision tool to guide antibiotic prescribing in the emergency department.","authors":"Kimberly Tran, Jeremy Lund, Chloe Sealy, David Langley, Jamie Kisgen","doi":"10.1016/j.ajem.2025.01.039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patient-reported penicillin allergies are frequently encountered in the emergency department (ED), which often lead to non-beta-lactam antibiotic use despite beta-lactams' place as first-line therapy in most bacterial infections. The PEN-FAST clinical decision tool was developed and validated to identify patients with a low risk of true penicillin allergies that do not require formal skin testing for rechallenging. The tool consists of four questions that add up to a total score ranging from 0 to 5. Scores of 0-2 are associated with low risk of true penicillin allergy (<5% risk of true reaction); scores of 3 with moderate risk (<20% risk); and scores of 4-5 with high risk (50% risk). The purpose of our study was to determine the safety and efficacy of our facility's implementation of pharmacist utilization of the PEN-FAST screening tool to assess purported penicillin allergies and rechallenge low to moderate risk patients in the ED.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a single-center, prospective, observational cohort study conducted from October 2023 to March 2024. Adult ED patients with a documented penicillin allergy with an order for aztreonam, levofloxacin, clindamycin, or a consult for pharmacy to assist with antibiotic selection were included. Patients were excluded if the order or consult was placed by a non-ED physician, no penicillin allergy was documented, the patient had previously tolerated a penicillin or cephalosporin per chart review, was unable to participate in the interview, or the completion of the assessment would delay patient care. The primary outcome was the percent of patients with a PEN-FAST score of 0-2 who tolerated a beta-lactam antibiotic after pharmacist intervention. Secondary safety and logistical outcomes included the incidence of immune-mediated reactions within one hour of beta-lactam administration, timing of the assessment, and antibiotic selection in transitions of care.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 361 patients screened, 100 patients were included. There were 61% of patients who had a PEN-FAST score of 0-2, 30% had a score of 3, and 9% had a score of 4-5. For the primary outcome, all 52 (100%) patients with a PEN-FAST score of 0-2 who were rechallenged tolerated a beta-lactam antibiotic in the ED. For secondary outcomes, 6 patients with PEN-FAST score of 3 were rechallenged and tolerated a beta-lactam. There were 0 incidences of any immune-mediated reactions within one hour of beta-lactam administration. The median time from initial order placement to change in therapy and to antibiotic administration was 17 min and 41 min, respectively. Of those rechallenged, 13 of 14 discharged (93%) and 39 of 44 admitted patients (89%) were continued on beta-lactam antibiotics.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this prospective, observational study, administration of beta-lactam antibiotics to ED patients with previously reported penicillin allergies and a PEN-FAST score less than 3 did not result in any immune-mediated reactions. The PEN-FAST decision tool was able to safely identify and risk-stratify eligible patients for beta-lactam rechallenge in the ED.</p>","PeriodicalId":55536,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":"90 ","pages":"124-128"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2025.01.039","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Patient-reported penicillin allergies are frequently encountered in the emergency department (ED), which often lead to non-beta-lactam antibiotic use despite beta-lactams' place as first-line therapy in most bacterial infections. The PEN-FAST clinical decision tool was developed and validated to identify patients with a low risk of true penicillin allergies that do not require formal skin testing for rechallenging. The tool consists of four questions that add up to a total score ranging from 0 to 5. Scores of 0-2 are associated with low risk of true penicillin allergy (<5% risk of true reaction); scores of 3 with moderate risk (<20% risk); and scores of 4-5 with high risk (50% risk). The purpose of our study was to determine the safety and efficacy of our facility's implementation of pharmacist utilization of the PEN-FAST screening tool to assess purported penicillin allergies and rechallenge low to moderate risk patients in the ED.

Methods: This was a single-center, prospective, observational cohort study conducted from October 2023 to March 2024. Adult ED patients with a documented penicillin allergy with an order for aztreonam, levofloxacin, clindamycin, or a consult for pharmacy to assist with antibiotic selection were included. Patients were excluded if the order or consult was placed by a non-ED physician, no penicillin allergy was documented, the patient had previously tolerated a penicillin or cephalosporin per chart review, was unable to participate in the interview, or the completion of the assessment would delay patient care. The primary outcome was the percent of patients with a PEN-FAST score of 0-2 who tolerated a beta-lactam antibiotic after pharmacist intervention. Secondary safety and logistical outcomes included the incidence of immune-mediated reactions within one hour of beta-lactam administration, timing of the assessment, and antibiotic selection in transitions of care.

Results: Of the 361 patients screened, 100 patients were included. There were 61% of patients who had a PEN-FAST score of 0-2, 30% had a score of 3, and 9% had a score of 4-5. For the primary outcome, all 52 (100%) patients with a PEN-FAST score of 0-2 who were rechallenged tolerated a beta-lactam antibiotic in the ED. For secondary outcomes, 6 patients with PEN-FAST score of 3 were rechallenged and tolerated a beta-lactam. There were 0 incidences of any immune-mediated reactions within one hour of beta-lactam administration. The median time from initial order placement to change in therapy and to antibiotic administration was 17 min and 41 min, respectively. Of those rechallenged, 13 of 14 discharged (93%) and 39 of 44 admitted patients (89%) were continued on beta-lactam antibiotics.

Conclusion: In this prospective, observational study, administration of beta-lactam antibiotics to ED patients with previously reported penicillin allergies and a PEN-FAST score less than 3 did not result in any immune-mediated reactions. The PEN-FAST decision tool was able to safely identify and risk-stratify eligible patients for beta-lactam rechallenge in the ED.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
5.60%
发文量
730
审稿时长
42 days
期刊介绍: A distinctive blend of practicality and scholarliness makes the American Journal of Emergency Medicine a key source for information on emergency medical care. Covering all activities concerned with emergency medicine, it is the journal to turn to for information to help increase the ability to understand, recognize and treat emergency conditions. Issues contain clinical articles, case reports, review articles, editorials, international notes, book reviews and more.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信