Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38739277›Full record

Trial reportIntensive care medicine2024

Oral challenge vs routine care to assess low-risk penicillin allergy in critically ill hospital patients (ORACLE): a pilot safety and feasibility randomised controlled trial.

Morgan T Rose, Natasha E Holmes, Glenn M Eastwood, Sara Vogrin, Fiona James, Joseph F De Luca, Rinaldo Bellomo, Stephen J Warrillow, Michelle Phung, Sara L Barnes and 7 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Intensive care medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Implementing PEN-FAST for penicillin allergy delabeling in a high-prevalence population.Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft = Journal of the German Society of Dermatology : JDDG · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors.

Morgan T RoseDepartment of Infectious Diseases and Immunology, Centre for Antibiotic Allergy and Research, Austin Health, Level 7, Harold Stokes Building, 145 Studley Road, Heidelberg, VIC, 3084, Australia. Morgan.rose2@austin.org.au.ORCID 0000-0001-8714-5998
Natasha E HolmesDepartment of Infectious Diseases and Immunology, Centre for Antibiotic Allergy and Research, Austin Health, Level 7, Harold Stokes Building, 145 Studley Road, Heidelberg, VIC, 3084, Australia.
Glenn M EastwoodDepartment of Intensive Care, Austin Hospital, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia.
Sara VogrinDepartment of Medicine (St Vincent's Hospital), University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Fiona JamesDepartment of Infectious Diseases and Immunology, Centre for Antibiotic Allergy and Research, Austin Health, Level 7, Harold Stokes Building, 145 Studley Road, Heidelberg, VIC, 3084, Australia.
Joseph F De LucaDepartment of Infectious Diseases and Immunology, Centre for Antibiotic Allergy and Research, Austin Health, Level 7, Harold Stokes Building, 145 Studley Road, Heidelberg, VIC, 3084, Australia.
Rinaldo BellomoDepartment of Intensive Care, Austin Hospital, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia.
Stephen J WarrillowDepartment of Intensive Care, Austin Hospital, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia.
Michelle PhungPharmacy Department, Monash Health, Clayton, VIC, Australia.
Sara L BarnesMonash Lung Sleep Allergy and Immunology, Monash Health, Clayton, VIC, Australia.
Brendan MurfinIntensive Care Unit, Monash Health, Clayton, VIC, Australia.
Ben RogersMonash Infectious Diseases, Monash Health, Clayton, VIC, Australia.
Belinda LambrosNational Centre for Infections in Cancer, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Brennan CollisDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Alfred Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Trisha N PeelDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Alfred Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Monica A SlavinNational Centre for Infections in Cancer, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Jason A TrubianoDepartment of Infectious Diseases and Immunology, Centre for Antibiotic Allergy and Research, Austin Health, Level 7, Harold Stokes Building, 145 Studley Road, Heidelberg, VIC, 3084, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeCritically ill patients are vulnerable to penicillin allergy labels that may be incorrect. The validity of skin testing in intensive care units (ICUs) is uncertain. Many penicillin allergy labels are low risk, and validated tools exist to identify those amenable to direct oral challenge. This pilot randomised controlled trial explored the feasibility, safety, and validity of direct enteral challenge for low-risk penicillin allergy labels in critical illness.

methodsConsenting patients with a low-risk penicillin allergy label (PAL) (PEN-FAST risk assessment score < 3) in four ICUs (Melbourne, Australia) were randomised 1:1 to penicillin (250 mg amoxicillin or implicated penicillin) direct enteral challenge versus routine care (2-h post-randomisation observation for each arm). Repeat challenge was performed post -ICU in the intervention arm. Patients were reviewed at 24 h and 5 days after each challenge/observation.

resultsWe screened 533 patients. 130 (24.4%) were eligible and 80/130 (61.5%) enrolled (age median 64.5 years (interquartile range, IQR 53.5, 74), PEN-FAST median 1 (IQR 0,1)), with 40 (50%) randomised to direct enteral challenge. A positive challenge rate of 2.5% was identified. No antibiotic-associated serious adverse events were identified. 32/40 (80%) received a repeat challenge (zero positive). Post-randomisation, 13 (32%) of the intervention arm and 4 (10%) of the control arm received penicillin (odds ratio, OR 4.33 [1.27, 14.78] p = 0.019).

conclusionThese findings support the safety, validity, and feasibility of direct enteral challenge for critically ill patients with PEN-FAST assessed low-risk penicillin allergy. The absence of false negative results was confirmed by subsequent negative repeat challenges. A relatively low recruitment to screened ratio suggests that more inclusive eligibility criteria and integration of allergy assessment into routine ICU processes are needed to optimise allergy delabelling in critical illness.

Indexed as

Critical IllnessDrug HypersensitivityFeasibility StudiesIntensive Care UnitsPenicillinsAdministration, OralAgedAnti-Bacterial AgentsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPilot ProjectsRisk AssessmentSkin TestsAnti-Bacterial AgentsPenicillinsAllergy and immunologyAntibioticsCritical careDirect oral challengeDrug hypersensitivityOral provocationPenicillins

Identifiers

PMID38739277
PMCPMC11164790

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.