Antibiotics are one of the most frequently prescribed drugs. Unfortunately, they also are the most common cause for self-reported drug allergy, limiting the use of effective therapies. However, evidence shows that more than 90% of patients labeled as allergic to antibiotics are not allergic. Importantly, the label of antibiotic allergy, whether real or not, constitutes a major public health problem as it directly impacts antimicrobial stewardship: it has been associated with broad-spectrum antibiotic use, often resulting in the emergence of bacterial resistance. Therefore, an accurate diagnosis is crucial for de-labeling patients who claim to be allergic but are not really allergic. This review presents allergy methods for achieving successful antibiotic allergy de-labeling. Patient clinical history is often inaccurately reported, thus not being able to de-label most patients. In vitro testing offers a complementary approach but it shows limitations. Immunoassay for quantifying specific IgE is the most used one, although it gives low sensitivity and is limited to few betalactams. Basophil activation test is not validated and not available in all centers. Therefore, true de-labeling still relies on in vivo tests including drug provocation and/or skin tests, which are not risk-exempt and require specialized healthcare professionals for results interpretation and patient management. Moreover, differences on the pattern of antibiotic consumption cause differences in the diagnostic approach among different countries. A multidisciplinary approach is recommended to reduce the risks associated with the reported penicillin allergy label.

Background:The diagnosis of allergic reactions to penicillins (AR-PEN) is very complex as there is a loss of sensitization over time, which leads to negative skin tests (STs) and specific IgE in serum, and even to tolerance to the drug involved. However, STs may become positive after subsequent exposure to the culprit drug (resensitization), with the risk of inducing potentially severe reactions. The exact rate of resensitization to penicillins is unknown, ranging from 0% to 27.9% in published studies. Objectives:To analyze the rate of resensitization in patients with suggestive AR-PEN by repeating STs (retest) after an initial evaluation (IE). Material and Methods:Patients with suspected AR-PEN were prospectively evaluated between 2017 and 2020. They underwent STs, and a randomized group also underwent a drug provocation test (DPT) with the culprit. Only patients with negative STs and/or DPT were included. All included cases were retested by STs at 2-8 weeks.Results: A total of 545 patients were included: 296 reporting immediate reactions (IRs) and 249 non-immediate reactions (NIRs). Eighty (14.7%) cases had positive results in retest (RT+): 63 (21.3%) IRs and 17 (6.8%) NIRs (p < 0.0001). The rate of RT+ was higher in anaphylaxis compared with all other reactions (45.8% vs 9.1%, p < 0.0001). The risk of RT+ was higher from the fifth week after IE (OR: 4.64, CI: 2.1-11.6; p < 0.001) and increased with the patient's age (OR: 1.02; CI: 1.01-1.04; p = 0.009). Conclusions:Due to the high rate of resensitization, retest should be included in the diagnostic algorithm of IRs to penicillins after an initial negative study, especially in anaphylaxis, to avoid potentially severe reactions after subsequent prescriptions of these drugs.

Atopy has been long used as the screening method for airway allergy. Nevertheless, aeroallergens can trigger respiratory symptoms not only in atopic patients (atopic respiratory allergy, ARA), but also in non‐atopic subjects (local respiratory allergy, LRA). Moreover, ARA and LRA can coexist in the same patient, and this clinical scenario has been called dual respiratory allergy (DRA). When the clinical history cannot determine the relevance of sensitizations in ARA patients, nasal, conjunctival or bronchial allergen challenges (NAC, CAC, and BAC, respectively) should be conducted. Moreover, these tests are required to identify patients with LRA and DRA. The clarification of the allergic triggers of airway diseases has a profound impact on the management strategies the patients can be offered. Importantly, allergen immunotherapy (AIT) remains as the only disease‐modifying intervention for ARA. Recent data indicate that AIT might have a similar effect on LRA patients. Nevertheless, AIT success relies largely on the correct phenotyping of allergic individuals, and NAC, CAC, and BAC are very helpful tools in this regard. In this review, we will summarize the main indications and methodology of CAC, NAC, and BAC. Importantly, the clinical implementation of these tests might translate into precision medicine approaches and better health outcomes for patients with airway allergy.