Safety of direct oral provocation test to delabel reported mild beta-lactam allergy in infants.

Background: Around 10% of people report a drug allergy and avoid some medications because of fear of allergic reactions. However, only after a proper diagnostic workup can some of these reactions be confirmed as allergic or nonallergic hypersensitivities. Beta-lactams (BLs) are the most common medication suspected of being involved in drug hypersensivity reactions (DHRs) in children. Recently, direct oral provocation tests (DPT) with BLs gained popularity within pediatric populations as a tool for delabeling children with suspected BL allergies. This study aimed to evaluate the safety of direct provocation tests in infants with mild cutaneous non-immediate reactions to BLs.
Methods: The authors retrospectively analyzed the data of 151 infants between 2015 and 2022, referred for evaluating a suspected allergy to BLs that occurred before age 24 months.
Results: The mean age of the children, including 55% male kids, at the suspected reaction was 15.9 months and the mean age at the time of the DPT was 39.6 months. In most cases, antibiotics were prescribed to treat common upper respiratory infections, such as acute otitis (54.3%) and acute tonsillitis (27.2%). Amoxicillin was considered the culprit drug in 62.9% of the cases, and the combination of amoxicillin-clavulanic acid in the case of 33.8% of children. The most frequent associated cutaneous clinical manifestations were maculopapular exanthema in 74.8% and delayed urticaria/angioedema in 25.2%. Of the 151 infants evaluated, parents of 149 infants agreed for a direct DPT, and only three had a positive test (2%). Symptoms resulting from the DPT were mild and easily treatable.
Conclusions: A direct DPT without prior tests is a safe and effective procedure to delabel BL allergy, even in infants. The authors wish to emphasize the importance of properly validating BL allergy suspicions by promoting appropriate diagnostic procedures in infants as, in most cases, DHRs can be excluded and there is no need for further therapeutic restrictions.
Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.