Search

Background: Penicillin skin testing has been limited by the lack of commercially available penicilloate and penilloate reagents., Objective: This project was proposed to produce a stable, well-characterized supply of penicilloate and penilloate for intrastate use by our health maintenance organization and to document clinical safety and efficacy., Methods: An improved method of extraction for penicilloate and penilloate, which changed the solvents used during recrystallization, was developed. With these newly prepared reagents, penicillin skin testing was performed on 348 subjects. Skin testing was immediately followed by an oral challenge of 250 mg of amoxicillin in 215 of 288 (75%) subjects displaying a negative response to a battery of penicillin skin tests., Results: Nuclear magnetic resonance and mass spectrometry of the newly produced penicilloate and penilloate showed no evidence of organic contamination. Penicillin skin testing resulted in 17.2% (60 of 348) positive test results, with 20% of the subjects with positive results only responding to the newly produced minor determinants. The rate of mild adverse reactions to penicillin skin testing was 1.1% (4 of 348). The rate of mild acute adverse reactions was 5.1% (11 of 215), and the delayed reaction rate was 0.9% (2 of 215) with the amoxicillin challenge., Conclusions: This improved penicillin minor determinant extraction method allows for the reproducible production of very pure preparations of penicilloate and penilloate. Large-scale penicillin skin testing, followed by amoxicillin challenge if results are negative is feasible in a large group model health maintenance organization operating within a single state with the use of internally produced penicilloate and penilloate and commercially available penicillin, amoxicillin, and penicilloyl polylysine.

Skin testing for penicillin allergy with penicillin G (Pen G), penicilloic acid (PA), and penicilloyl poly-L-lysine (PPL) was performed on 740 subjects, and the results were assessed from epidemiologic and immunologic perspectives. Approximately 95% of these patients had histories of apparent allergic reactions to beta-lactam antibiotics, and 63% were skin-test positive. The prevalence of positive skin tests was related to the time that had elapsed between clinical reactions and skin testing. Ninety-three percent were skin-test positive 7 to 12 mo after reactions, and 22% were positive 10 yr or more after reactions. Patients under 30 yr of age had a prevalence of positive skin tests 1.7-fold higher than older patients. Testing with PPL, PA, and Pen G detected 76.3%, 55.3%, and 57.1% of the positive patients, respectively. Omission of PPL, PA, or Pen G would have led to a failure to detect 25.6%, 7.2%, and 6.2% of the positive patients, respectively. Subjects with skin tests positive to penicillin often reacted to skin tests with other beta-lactam antibiotics; 73% (41 of 56) reacted to ampicillin and 51% (38 of 74) reacted to cephalothin. No serious allergic reactions were provoked by testing. None of the 83 skin test--negative patients treated with beta-lactam antibiotics immediately after testing experienced acute allergic reactions. Two patients developed mild urticaria beginning 3 and 5 days into therapy. One skin test--negative patient experienced urticaria 3 hr after receiving oral penicillin 6 mo after skin testing. This patient's skin-test status immediately before therapy was unknown. These results support the position that testing with PPL, PA, and Pen G is a rapid, safe, and effective method for identifying patients at risk, or not at risk, for allergic reactions to penicillin.