Assessment of the Frequency of Dual Allergy to Penicillins and Cefazolin: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Abstract

Importance: Cefazolin is the preoperative antibiotic of choice because it is safer and more efficacious than second-line alternatives. Surgical patients labeled as having penicillin allergy are less likely to prophylactically receive cefazolin and more likely to receive clindamycin or vancomycin, which results in higher rates of surgical site infections.

Objective: To examine the incidence of dual allergy to cefazolin and natural penicillins.

Data sources: MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were searched without language restrictions for relevant articles published from database inception until July 31, 2020.

Study selection: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, a search of MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase was performed for articles published from database inception to July 31, 2020, for studies that included patients who had index allergies to a natural penicillin and were tested for tolerability to cefazolin or that included patients who had index allergies to cefazolin and were tested for tolerability to a natural penicillin. A total of 3228 studies were identified and 2911 were screened for inclusion.

Data extraction and synthesis: Data were independently extracted by 2 authors. Bayesian meta-analysis was used to estimate the frequency of allergic reactions.

Main outcomes and measures: Dual allergy to cefazolin and a natural penicillin.

Results: Seventy-seven unique studies met the eligibility criteria, yielding 6147 patients. Cefazolin allergy was identified in 44 participants with a history of penicillin allergy, resulting in a dual allergy meta-analytical frequency of 0.7% (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.1%-1.7%; I2 = 74.9%). Such frequency was lower for participants with unconfirmed (0.6%; 95% CrI, 0.1%-1.3%; I2 = 54.3%) than for those with confirmed penicillin allergy (3.0%; 95% CrI, 0.01%-17.0%; I2 = 88.2%). Thirteen studies exclusively assessed surgical patients (n = 3884), among whom 0.7% (95% CrI, 0%-3.3%; I2 = 85.5%) had confirmed allergy to cefazolin. Low heterogeneity was observed for studies of patients with unconfirmed penicillin allergy who had been exposed to perioperative cefazolin (0.1%; 95% CrI, 0.1%-0.3%; I2 = 13.1%). Penicillin allergy was confirmed in 16 participants with a history of cefazolin allergy, resulting in a meta-analytical frequency of 3.7% (95% CrI, 0.03%-13.3%; I2 = 64.4%). The frequency of penicillin allergy was 4.4% (95% CrI, 0%-23.0%; I2 = 75%) for the 8 studies that exclusively assessed surgical patients allergic to cefazolin.

Conclusions and relevance: These findings suggest that most patients with a penicillin allergy history may safely receive cefazolin. The exception is patients with confirmed penicillin allergy in whom additional care is warranted.

Figure 1.. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Flow Diagram for Study Selection

Two studies assessed both patients with index allergy to penicillins tested for cefazolin and patients with index allergy to cefazolin tested for penicillins.

Figure 2.. Forest Plots on the Frequency of Dual Allergy to Penicillins and Cefazolin

CrI indicates credible interval; ED, emergency department. The width of the diamonds corresponds to the length of the 95% CrI for the meta-analytical pooled result. Thin lines indicate the length of the 95% CrI for each primary study. Thick lines indicate the length of the 68% CrI for each primary study.

Figure 3.. Risk of Bias for Included Primary Studies