Author
Listed:
- Viengneesee Thao
- Emily E Sharpe
- Ruchita Dholakia
- Hannah H Ahn
- James P Moriarty
- Bijan J Borah
- Margaret C Gill
- Regan N Theiler
Abstract
Introduction: True penicillin allergy is rare and is commonly incorrectly reported. In fact, less than five percent of patients who report a penicillin allergy will have a currently active clinically-significant IgE- or T-cell-mediated hypersensitivity when appropriately tested. Penicillin is the agent of choice for intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis to reduce the risk of group B streptococcus early-onset disease in the newborn. Inaccurate penicillin allergy status may lead to inappropriate antibiotic use, as most alternative drugs are more expensive and broader spectrum than penicillin. Penicillin allergy testing has been found to be safe in pregnancy and cost-effective in other patient populations. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of penicillin allergy testing and appropriate antibiotic treatment (test then treat strategy) compared to usual care among pregnant women. Methods: We developed a decision tree to evaluate the cost of providing appropriate care via a test then treat strategy for pregnant women who report a penicillin allergy, compared to usual care. Results: Using the test then treat strategy the additional cost to ensure appropriate care for all pregnant women who report a penicillin allergy, was $1122.38 per person. Adopting a test then treat strategy increased the number of appropriate antibiotic use from 7,843/10,000 to 10,000/10,000 simulations. Conclusion: Our results show that a test then treat strategy for pregnant women who report a penicillin allergy is a good-value intervention.
Suggested Citation
Viengneesee Thao & Emily E Sharpe & Ruchita Dholakia & Hannah H Ahn & James P Moriarty & Bijan J Borah & Margaret C Gill & Regan N Theiler, 2023.
"Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of testing pregnant women for penicillin allergy,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(1), pages 1-11, January.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0280151
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280151
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0280151. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.