ArticleInfection2026
Penicillin allergy delabeling in a German University Hospital-implementation in inpatient settings: the PenGuin Pilot Study.
Article in Infection, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPenicillin allergy (PenA) is reported in up to 15% of hospitalized patients, although true IgE-mediated hypersensitivity is rare. PenA delabeling is an important antimicrobial stewardship intervention, as mislabeling is associated with adverse clinical outcomes. While structured delabeling interventions are safe and effective, their translation into routine care across different healthcare settings remains unclear.
methodsThis prospective implementation study was conducted on four wards of a 2600-bed German tertiary care center. All adult inpatients with reported PenA underwent structured allergy assessment and risk stratification by clinical pharmacists. Low risk patients were delabeled directly, while moderate-risk patients were evaluated for direct oral challenge (DOC). Outcomes included delabeling rate at discharge, ward-specific differences, and implementation barriers and facilitators assessed by staff questionnaires. Sustainability was evaluated by primary care follow-up 32 weeks after discharge.
resultsAmong 2890 screened patients, 179 (6.2%) reported a PenA. Of 162 eligible patients, 54 (33.3%) were successfully delabeled. DOC was well tolerated, with only one mild skin reaction observed. Ward-specific environments influenced the use of different delabeling strategies. Key barriers included staffing shortages, short hospital stays, and patient-related factors, whereas facilitators included easy integration into pharmacist workflows and interprofessional collaboration. Follow-up showed limited transfer of delabeling outcomes to primary care, reducing long-term sustainability.
conclusionPharmacist-led PenA delabeling can be safely integrated and is feasible within existing clinical workflows. However, real-world implementation barriers and incomplete transfer to primary care limited its full potential. Improve standardized documentation and cross-sector communication are important for sustainable and widespread implementation of delabeling strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42579069What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.