Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 9 de 9
Filter
2.
Front Immunol ; 13: 982155, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2089843

ABSTRACT

Our study (NCT04800133) aimed to determine the safety and immunogenicity in patients with IEIs receiving a 3-dose primary series of mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 (age 12+) or inactivated whole-virion vaccine CoronaVac (age 3+) in Hong Kong, including Omicron BA.1 neutralization, in a nonrandomized manner. Intradermal vaccination was also studied. Thirty-nine patients were vaccinated, including 16 with homologous intramuscular 0.3ml BNT162b2 and 17 with homologous intramuscular 0.5ml CoronaVac. Two patients received 3 doses of intradermal 0.5ml CoronaVac, and 4 patients received 2 doses of intramuscular BNT162b2 and the third dose with intradermal BNT162b2. No safety concerns were identified. Inadequate S-RBD IgG and surrogate virus neutralization responses were found after 2 doses in patients with humoral immunodeficiencies and especially so against BA.1. Dose 3 of either vaccine increased S-RBD IgG response. T cell responses against SARS-CoV-2 antigens were detected in vaccinated IEI patients by intracellular cytokine staining on flow cytometry. Intradermal third dose vaccine led to high antibody response in 4 patients. The primary vaccination series of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac in adults and children with IEIs should include 3 doses for optimal immunogenicity.


Subject(s)
BNT162 Vaccine , COVID-19 , Adult , Antibodies, Viral , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Child , Child, Preschool , Cytokines , Humans , Immunoglobulin G , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccines, Inactivated , Vaccines, Synthetic , mRNA Vaccines
3.
Frontiers in immunology ; 13, 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-2045986

ABSTRACT

Our study (NCT04800133) aimed to determine the safety and immunogenicity in patients with IEIs receiving a 3-dose primary series of mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 (age 12+) or inactivated whole-virion vaccine CoronaVac (age 3+) in Hong Kong, including Omicron BA.1 neutralization, in a nonrandomized manner. Intradermal vaccination was also studied. Thirty-nine patients were vaccinated, including 16 with homologous intramuscular 0.3ml BNT162b2 and 17 with homologous intramuscular 0.5ml CoronaVac. Two patients received 3 doses of intradermal 0.5ml CoronaVac, and 4 patients received 2 doses of intramuscular BNT162b2 and the third dose with intradermal BNT162b2. No safety concerns were identified. Inadequate S-RBD IgG and surrogate virus neutralization responses were found after 2 doses in patients with humoral immunodeficiencies and especially so against BA.1. Dose 3 of either vaccine increased S-RBD IgG response. T cell responses against SARS-CoV-2 antigens were detected in vaccinated IEI patients by intracellular cytokine staining on flow cytometry. Intradermal third dose vaccine led to high antibody response in 4 patients. The primary vaccination series of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac in adults and children with IEIs should include 3 doses for optimal immunogenicity. Graphical

4.
Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol ; 129(3): 308-312.e1, 2022 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1889189

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Hong Kong started its coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination program in February 2021. A territory-wide Vaccine Allergy Safety (VAS) clinic was set up to assess individuals deemed at "higher risk" of COVID-19 vaccine-associated allergies. A novel "hub-and-spoke" model was piloted to tackle the overwhelming demand of services by allowing nonallergists to conduct assessment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the outcomes of the VAS hub-and-spoke model for allergy assessment. METHODS: Records of patients attending the VAS hub-and-spoke Clinics between March and August 2021 were reviewed (n = 2725). We studied the overall results between the Hub (allergist led) and Spoke (nonallergist led) Clinics. The Hub and the Hong Kong West Cluster Spoke Clinic were selected for subgroup analysis as they saw the largest number of patients (n = 1411). RESULTS: A total of 2725 patients were assessed under the VAS hub-and-spoke model. Overall, 2324 patients (85.3%) were recommended to proceed with vaccination. Allergists recommended significantly more patients for vaccination than nonallergists (odds ratio = 21.58; P < .001). Subgroup analysis revealed that 881 of 1055 (83.5%) patients received their first dose of COVID-19 vaccination safely after assessment. Among those recommended vaccination, more patients assessed by allergists received their first dose of vaccination (odds ratio = 4.18; P < .001). CONCLUSION: The hub-and-spoke model has proven to be successful for the vaccination campaign. This study has illustrated the crucial role of allergists in countering vaccine hesitancy. Results from the study revealed considerable differences in outcomes between allergist-led and nonallergist-led clinics. Precise reasons for these differences warrant further evaluation. We are hopeful that the hub-and-spoke model can be similarly adapted for other allergist-integrative services in the future.


Subject(s)
Allergists , COVID-19 Vaccines , Health Services , Hypersensitivity , Patient Safety , Physician's Role , Vaccination , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Humans , Hypersensitivity/prevention & control , Hypersensitivity/therapy , Immunization Programs , Odds Ratio , Pilot Projects , Risk Assessment , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data , Vaccination Hesitancy
5.
Front Allergy ; 2: 690837, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1779929

ABSTRACT

Background: Mass coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination to achieve herd immunity is an effective means to mitigate the current COVID-19 pandemic. Reports of COVID-19 vaccine-associated allergic reactions and lack of clear local guidance are contributing factors leading to a low vaccine acceptance rate in the community. A task force of experts from the Hong Kong Institute of Allergy (HKIA) has been formed to address current needs. Objective: To formulate a set of consensus statements (CS) on COVID-19 vaccine allergy safety (VAS) in Hong Kong. Methods: A nominated task force of experts managing patients with drug and vaccine allergies in Hong Kong formulated the CS by the Delphi method. An agreement was a priori defined as ≥80% consensus. Results: A total of 11 statements met the criteria for consensus with good overall agreement among task force members, including seven statements on pre-vaccination recommendations and four statements on vaccination and post-vaccination guidance. Individuals with a history of suspected allergic reaction to prior COVID-19 vaccination should not receive further COVID-19 vaccination, and other groups at risk of COVID-19 vaccine-associated allergic reactions have been identified. The importance of pre-vaccination and post-vaccination assessment by frontline healthcare workers and evaluation by allergists are highlighted. Conclusion: The CS provides pragmatic and timely guidance for local frontline healthcare providers on decisions regarding COVID-19 VAS.

6.
Asia Pac Allergy ; 12(1): e8, 2022 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1667550

ABSTRACT

Due to global concerns over coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine-associated allergic reactions; the Hong Kong Institute of Allergy (HKIA) formulated an initial set of consensus statements (CS) on COVID-19 Vaccine Allergy Safety (VAS) in early 2021. Following accumulation of both local and international experience on and COVID-19 VAS, the HKIA task force reformed to update the Hong Kong consensus on COVID-19 VAS. A nominated task force of experts managing patients with drug and vaccine allergies in Hong Kong formulated the updated CS by unanimous decision. A total of 9 new statements were established. Individuals with history of food allergies and anaphylaxis unrelated to the components of COVID-19 vaccines do not require allergist review prior to vaccination. Individuals with history suspicious of an excipient allergy may now be vaccinated with a non-PEG containing vaccine without prior allergist assessment. Individuals with suspected mild allergic reactions following prior COVID-19 vaccination can proceed with the next dose. Only individuals who present with immediate-type allergic reaction with systemic symptoms or more severe nonimmediate type reactions should defer their next dose until allergist review. The remaining statements regarding adequate safety during vaccination and advocation for legislative changes regarding excipient disclosure in Hong Kong remained unchanged from the prior CS. The updated CS are updated in accordance with local and international experience thus far and serve as guidance for local frontline healthcare providers to further promote safe COVID-19 vaccine uptake in Hong Kong.

7.
World Allergy Organ J ; 15(1): 100622, 2022 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1586263

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Hong Kong has had a low incidence of COVID-19 vaccine related anaphylaxis, partly due to its Vaccine Allergy Safety (VAS) guidelines for screening those at higher risk of COVID-19 vaccine-associated allergic reactions. We characterize the initial experience of the VAS clinics, as well as the impact of unnecessary referrals to the vaccination program. METHODS: All patients attending the VAS Clinics of the public and private health services between February and June 2021 were reviewed. RESULTS: Out of 1127 patients assessed at VAS clinics, 1102 (97.8%) patients were recommended for vaccination. Out of those contacted, more than 80% (450/558) received vaccination successfully; the remaining had not yet booked their vaccinations. The majority (87.5%) of patients not recommended was due to potential excipient allergies. Males were significantly more likely to be recommended (OR = 5.822, 95% CI = 1.361-24.903, p = 0.007), but no other features were associated with recommendation for vaccination. Almost half (45.1%) of public service referrals were rejected due to insufficient information or incorrect indications for referral. The majority of cases (56.2%) of patients referred for suspected "anaphylaxis" did not fulfil diagnostic criteria. DISCUSSION: COVID-19 vaccination is very safe and 98% of high-risk patients were recommended for vaccination. Barriers to VAS include a high proportion of inappropriate referrals, inaccurate diagnoses of anaphylaxis and inability to diagnose excipient allergies. Our data validates that a prior history of COVID-vaccine unrelated anaphylaxis should be removed as a precaution for vaccination. Closer collaborations between primary care and allergy specialists and changes in pharmaceutical legislation should be made a priority to promote vaccination uptake.

8.
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL