One-year impact of COVID-19 pandemic on renal replacement therapy and kidney transplantation in a tertiary center in Southern Brazil.

INTRODUCTION: Patients on renal replacement therapy (RRT) and kidney transplant recipients (KTR) present multiple factors that may increase the risk of death from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study aimed to evaluate the incidence and impact of COVID-19 in RRT patients and KTRs. METHODS: Between March 2020 and February 2021, we monitored the RRT population of thirteen dialysis facilities that refer patients for transplantation to our center, a tertiary hospital in Southern Brazil. In the same period, we also monitor COVID-19 incidence and mortality in our KTR population. Demographical, clinical, and COVID-19-related information were analyzed. RESULTS: We evaluated 1545 patients in the dialysis centers, of which 267 (17.4%) were infected by COVID-19 and 53 (19.9%) died. Among 275 patients on the kidney transplant waiting list, 63 patients (22.9%) were infected and seven (11.1%) died. COVID-19 was the leading cause of death (29.2%) among patients on the waiting list. Within the population of 1360 KTR, 134 (9.85%) were diagnosed with COVID-19 and 20 (14.9%) died. The number of kidney transplants decreased by 56.7% compared with the same period in the previous twelve months. CONCLUSION: In the study period, patients on RRT and KTRs presented a high incidence of COVID-19 and high COVID-19-related lethality. The impact on the patients on the transplant waiting list was less pronounced. The lethality rate observed in both cohorts seems to be related to age, comorbidities, and disease severity.

Management of suspected and confirmed COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine hypersensitivity.

BACKGROUND: Systemic allergic reactions to vaccines are very rare. In this study we assessed the management and outcome of suspected SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hypersensitivity. METHODS: Totally, 334 individuals underwent an allergy work up regarding SARS-CoV-2 vaccination (group A: 115 individuals suspected to be at increased risk for vaccine-related reactions before vaccination and group B: 219 patients with reactions after COVID vaccination). The large majority of the SPT/IDT with the vaccines were negative; however, we identified in 14.1% (n = 47) a possible sensitization to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and/or its ingredients defined as one positive skin test. Of the 219 individuals (group B) who experienced symptoms suspicious for a hypersensitivity reaction after vaccination, 214 were reported after the first vaccination with a mRNA vaccine (157 mRNA (Comirnaty®, 38 Spikevax®) and 18 with a vector vaccine (Vaxzevria®), 5 cases were after the second vaccination. RESULTS: The symptom profile in group B was as follows: skin symptoms occurred in 115 cases (n = 59 angioedema, n = 50 generalized urticaria and n = 23 erythema/flush. Seventy individuals had cardiovascular, 53 respiratory and 17 gastrointestinal symptoms. Of the overall 334 individuals, 78 patients tolerated (re)-vaccination (out of skin test positive/negative 7/19 from group A and 17/35 from group B). CONCLUSION: Proven IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is extremely rare and not increased in comparison with reported hypersensitivity to other vaccines. The value of skin tests is unclear and nonspecific reactions, in particular when intradermal testing is applied, should be considered.

Sociodemographic Missed-care Predictors for Pediatric Orthopaedic Telemedicine During COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Increased telehealth services may not benefit communities already lacking access to care. Race, socioeconomic status, and insurance type are known to predict missed-care opportunities (MCO) in health care. We examined differences in pediatric orthopaedic telemedicine MCOs during the COVID-19 pandemic, compared with MCOs of in-person visits in a prepandemic time frame. We hypothesized that groups with known health disparities would experience higher rates of pediatric orthopedic telemedicine MCOs. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed pediatric orthopaedic telemedicine MCOs during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown (March-May 2020) and in-person pediatric orthopaedic visit MCOs during a nonpandemic timeframe (March-May 2019). We examined predictors of MCOs including race, ethnicity, language, insurance status, and other socioeconomic determinants of health. RESULTS: There were 1448 telemedicine appointments in the pandemic cohort and 8053 in-person appointments in the prepandemic cohort. Rates of telemedicine MCOs (12.5%; n=181) were significantly lower than in-person MCOs (19.5%; n=1566; P<0.001). Telemedicine appointments with public insurance or without insurance (P<0.001) and being Black or Hispanic/Latinx (P=0.003) were associated with MCOs. There were significant differences between in-person MCOs and telemedicine MCOs among all predictors studied, except for orthopaedic subspecialty team and patient's social vulnerability index. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with telemedicine appointments during the COVID-19 pandemic were less likely to experience MCOs than patients with in-person visits during the nonpandemic timeframe. However, when controlling for socioeconomic factors including race, ethnicity, and insurance type, disparities found for in-person visits persisted with the shift to telemedicine. Pediatric orthopaedists should be aware that the use of telemedicine does not necessarily improve access for our most vulnerable patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Selecting the Next Class: The "Virtual Orthopaedic Rotation".

INTRODUCTION: When the COVID-19 pandemic forced the cancellation of visiting subinternships, we pivoted to create a virtual orthopaedic rotation (VOR). The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of the VOR on the residency selection process and determine the role of such a rotation in the future. METHODS: A committee was convened to create a VOR to replace visiting orthopaedic rotations for medical students who are interested in pursuing a career in orthopaedic surgery. The VOR was reviewed and sanctioned by our medical school, but no academic credit was granted. We conducted three 3-week VOR sessions. During each session, virtual rotators participated in regularly scheduled educational conferences and attended an invitation-only daily conference in the evenings that was designed for a medical student audience. In addition, students were paired with faculty and resident mentors in a structured mentorship program. Students' orthopaedic knowledge was assessed using prerotation and postrotation tests. RESULTS: From July to September 2020, 61 students from 37 distinct medical schools participated in the VOR. Notable improvements were observed in prerotation and postrotation orthopaedic knowledge test scores. In postrotation surveys, both students and faculty expressed high satisfaction with the curriculum but less certainty about how well they got to know each other. In the subsequent residency application cycle, 27.9% of the students who participated in the VOR were selected to interview, compared with 8.7% of the total application pool. DISCUSSION: The VOR was a valuable substitute for in-person clinical rotations during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although not likely to be a replacement for conventional away rotations, the VOR is a possible adjunct to in-person clinical rotations in the future.

White paper on peanut allergy - part 1: Epidemiology, burden of disease, health economic aspects.

Peanuts are Leguminosae, commonly known as the legume or pea family, and peanut allergy is among the most common food allergies and the most common cause of fatal food reactions and anaphylaxis. The prevalence of peanut allergy increased 3.5-fold over the past two decades reaching 1.4-2% in Europe and the United States. The reasons for this increase in prevalence are likely multifaceted. Sensitization via the skin appears to be associated with the development of peanut allergy and atopic eczema in infancy is associated with a high risk of developing peanut allergy. Until recently, the only possible management strategy for peanut allergy was strict allergen avoidance and emergency treatment including adrenaline auto-injector in cases of accidental exposure and reaction. This paper discusses the various factors that impact the risks of peanut allergy and the burden of self-management on peanut-allergic children and their caregivers.

Expert consensus on practical aspects in the treatment of chronic urticaria.

BACKGROUND: Chronic urticaria (CU) is a common disease which represents a considerable burden for many patients. The current urticaria guideline describes the evidence-based diagnosis and treatment of CU. In addition, however, questions often arise in everyday practice that are not addressed by the guideline. METHODS: In May 2020, a digital meeting with German urticaria experts was held, in which practical aspects of CU treatment were discussed and supporting aids for everyday clinical treatment formulated. The resulting advice in this document focus on practical questions and the available literature and experiences of the participants. RESULTS: The diagnosis of CU can be made in a short time by means of a thorough anamnesis, a physical examination, and a basic laboratory chemical diagnosis. For this purpose, practical recommendations for everyday practice are given in this paper. An extended diagnosis is only indicated in a few cases and should always be carried out in parallel with an effective therapy. In general, CU should always be treated in the same way, regardless of whether wheals, angioedema or both occur. Symptomatic therapy should be carried out according to the treatment steps recommended by the guidelines. This publication provides practical advice on issues in everyday practice, such as the procedure in the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the cardiac risk under higher dosed H1 antihistamines, the self-administration of omalizumab as well as vaccination under omalizumab therapy. In addition to treatment recommendations, topics such as documentation in the practice and family planning with urticaria will be discussed. DISCUSSION: These supporting treatment recommendations serve as an addendum to the current CU guideline and provide support in dealing with CU patients in everyday practice. The aim is to ensure that patients suffering from CU achieve complete freedom of symptoms with the help of an optimal therapy. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version of this article (10.1007/s40629-021-00162-w) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Severe allergic reactions after COVID-19 vaccination with the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine in Great Britain and USA: Position statement of the German Allergy Societies: Medical Association of German Allergologists (AeDA), German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI) and Society for Pediatric Allergology and Environmental Medicine (GPA).

Two employees of the National Health Service (NHS) in England developed severe allergic reactions following administration of BNT162b2 vaccine against COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019). The British SmPC for the BNT162b2 vaccine already includes reference to a contraindication for use in individuals who have had an allergic reaction to the vaccine or any of its components. As a precautionary measure, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has issued interim guidance to the NHS not to vaccinate in principle in "patients with severe allergies". Allergic reactions to vaccines are very rare, but vaccine components are known to cause allergic reactions. BNT162b2 is a vaccine based on an mRNA embedded in lipid nanoparticles and blended with other substances to enable its transport into the cells. In the pivotal phase III clinical trial, the BNT162b2 vaccine was generally well tolerated, but this large clinical trial, used to support vaccine approval by the MHRA and US Food and Drug Administration, excluded individuals with a "history of a severe adverse reaction related to the vaccine and/or a severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) to a component of the study medication". Vaccines are recognized as one of the most effective public health interventions. This repeated administration of a foreign protein (antigen) necessitates a careful allergological history before each application and diagnostic clarification and a risk-benefit assessment before each injection. Severe allergic reactions to vaccines are rare but can be life-threatening, and it is prudent to raise awareness of this hazard among vaccination teams and to take adequate precautions while more experience is gained with this new vaccine.

Practical recommendations for the allergological risk assessment of the COVID-19 vaccination - a harmonized statement of allergy centers in Germany.

Severe allergic reactions to vaccines are very rare. Single severe reactions have occurred worldwide after vaccination with the new mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines. PEG2000 is discussed as a possible trigger. We provide guidance on risk assessment regarding COVID-19 vaccination in patients with allergic diseases and suggest a standardized, resource-oriented diagnostic and therapeutic procedure. Reports of severe allergic reactions in the context of COVID-19 vaccination can be made via www.anaphylaxie.net using an online questionnaire.

The global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the management and course of chronic urticaria.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic dramatically disrupts health care around the globe. The impact of the pandemic on chronic urticaria (CU) and its management are largely unknown. AIM: To understand how CU patients are affected by the COVID-19 pandemic; how specialists alter CU patient management; and the course of CU in patients with COVID-19. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our cross-sectional, international, questionnaire-based, multicenter UCARE COVID-CU study assessed the impact of the pandemic on patient consultations, remote treatment, changes in medications, and clinical consequences. RESULTS: The COVID-19 pandemic severely impairs CU patient care, with less than 50% of the weekly numbers of patients treated as compared to before the pandemic. Reduced patient referrals and clinic hours were the major reasons. Almost half of responding UCARE physicians were involved in COVID-19 patient care, which negatively impacted on the care of urticaria patients. The rate of face-to-face consultations decreased by 62%, from 90% to less than half, whereas the rate of remote consultations increased by more than 600%, from one in 10 to more than two thirds. Cyclosporine and systemic corticosteroids, but not antihistamines or omalizumab, are used less during the pandemic. CU does not affect the course of COVID-19, but COVID-19 results in CU exacerbation in one of three patients, with higher rates in patients with severe COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic brings major changes and challenges for CU patients and their physicians. The long-term consequences of these changes, especially the increased use of remote consultations, require careful evaluation.