ABSTRACT
Background: CoronaVac, the first coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine administered in our country, was found safe in clinical trials. Objective: We aimed to reveal the rate and features of CoronaVac vaccine-associated allergic reactions among vaccinated healthcare workers (HCWs) in real-life. Methods: This study was planned as a questionnaire-based study. Participants who reported a postvaccination allergic reaction were interviewed on phone and their medical records were also checked for confirmation. Results: A total of 2,488 HCWs took part in the study and 4,054 postvaccination complete questionnaire-responses were obtained. Twenty-one HCWs (female: male, 17:4) with a mean age of 40.95 ± 10.09 stated that they had an allergic reaction after a total of 23 vaccine injections. Accordingly, the reaction rate was 0.56% among all vaccine doses. The most common reactions were systemic skin reactions (2.7%) consisting of generalized pruritus, diffuse pruritic erythema, urticaria, and maculopapular rash. That was followed by local injection site reaction (0.12%). Anaphylaxis was reported in 4 cases (0.09%) with a mean onset time of 12 ± 6 minutes. One of them had a history of anaphylaxis with 2 drugs, another had venom and food allergy. Three of the subjects had level 2 diagnostic certainty according to the Brighton Collaboration criteria and one had level 3. All anaphylaxis cases were discharged within 24 hours and none of them required intensive care. Conclusion: Our study demonstrated that allergic reactions to CoronaVac were rare and mostly mild. Although anaphylaxis was also rare, the importance of early intervention with close follow-up was once again emphasized.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) is accepted as the only disease-modifying therapy for IgE-mediated allergic airway diseases and hymenoptera venom allergy. AIT requires repeated contact between patient and physician or nurse in the hospital. Because it is a long-term treatment, compliance is essential issue to obtain maximal efficacy. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic reshaped doctor-patient interaction and pattern of hospital admissions. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the possible changes in the administration of AIT and associated factors, in addition to the characteristics of patients diagnosed with COVID-19 infection. METHODS: Adult patients who underwent AIT for hymenoptera venom allergy, allergic rhinitis or allergic asthma between 11 March 2020 and 31 January 2021 were included in our retrospective study. Perennial and preseasonal AIT practices were evaluated. We identified patients with COVID-19 infection among the ones who received AIT. RESULTS: The mean age of 215 patients was 37.8±11.9 years and 52.1% of the patients were female. In our study, 35.4% of perennial AIT patients did not continue treatment after the COVID-19 pandemic, and the cause was patient-related in 66.7% of the cases. Compliance was 70.7% in patients receiving perennial AIT. The highest compliance rate for AIT was for venom allergy (86.5%). Thirty-four patients (15.8%) were diagnosed with COVID-19 infection. No mortality due to COVID-19 infection was observed in those who underwent AIT. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 pandemic has reduced compliance to AIT. Compliance was higher in venom immunotherapy than in aeroallergens. Severe COVID-19 infection and COVID-19 related death were not observed in patients receiving AIT.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis, which is rare, has been reported after COVID-19 vaccination, but its management is not standardized. METHOD: Members of the European Network for Drug Allergy and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology interested in drug allergy participated in an online questionnaire on pre-vaccination screening and management of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines, and literature was analysed. RESULTS: No death due to anaphylaxis to COVID-19 vaccines has been confirmed in scientific literature. Potential allergens, polyethylene glycol (PEG), polysorbate and tromethamine are excipients. The authors propose allergy evaluation of persons with the following histories: 1-anaphylaxis to injectable drug or vaccine containing PEG or derivatives; 2-anaphylaxis to oral/topical PEG containing products; 3-recurrent anaphylaxis of unknown cause; 4-suspected or confirmed allergy to any mRNA vaccine; and 5-confirmed allergy to PEG or derivatives. We recommend a prick-to-prick skin test with the left-over solution in the suspected vaccine vial to avoid waste. Prick test panel should include PEG 4000 or 3500, PEG 2000 and polysorbate 80. The value of in vitro test is arguable. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations will lead to a better knowledge of the management and mechanisms involved in anaphylaxis to COVID-19 vaccines and enable more people with history of allergy to be vaccinated.
Subject(s)
Anaphylaxis , COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Drug Hypersensitivity , Vaccines , Anaphylaxis/diagnosis , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Drug Hypersensitivity/diagnosis , Drug Hypersensitivity/etiology , Drug Hypersensitivity/therapy , Humans , Vaccines, Synthetic , mRNA VaccinesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: This year, pollen season coincided with the first wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Strict preventive measures have been implemented during April and May and then a normalization phase started in our country in June. Our aim is to evaluate the effect of preventive measures during the pandemic process on allergic airway disease symptoms. METHODS: A prospective questionnaire-based study was planned and a questionnaire form was sent to the cell-phones of the subjects with pollen allergy followed in our clinic. Number of airborne grass pollens was determined by Burkard volumetric 7-day spore trap. RESULTS: A total of 222 pollen allergic patients were included in the study. At the beginning of the pandemic, majority of the subjects were spending time mostly indoors. The rate of home-office workers gradually decreased and the rate of office workers and the number of days at work increased from April to June, significantly. Nasal and ocular symptoms of the patients, also increased in June compared to April and May and, approximately one-third of the patients had less symptoms when compared to the same period of the previous year. The rates of using a face mask and taking a shower on return home were high among the subjects during all season. CONCLUSION: Our study showed that spending less time outside during the pollen season and wearing a mask outdoors reduces exposure to pollens and causes a reduction in symptoms. Thus, strict application of measures that cannot be applied in daily practice can make a significant contribution to the management of seasonal allergic rhinitis.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: International guidelines in asthma and allergy has been updated for COVID-19 pandemic and pandemic has caused dramatic changes in allergy and immunology services. However, it is not known whether specialty-specific recommendations for COVID-19 are followed by allergists. OBJECTIVES: By conducting this study, we aimed to determine the attitudes and experiences of adult/pediatric allergists on allergy management during COVID-19. METHOD: We used a 20-question survey to elicit data from allergists (residents and pediatric and adult allergists registered to the Turkish National Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology) across Turkey via e-mail. We analyzed the data statistically for frequency distributions and descriptive analysis. RESULTS: A total of 183 allergists participated in the survey. Telemedicine was used for management of asthma (73%), allergic rhinitis (53%), atopic dermatitis (51%), chronic urticaria/angioedema (59%), drug hypersensitivity (45%), food allergy (48%), venom allergy (30%), anaphylaxis (22%), and hereditary angioedema (28%). Thirty-one percent of the respondents discontinued subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Thirty-four percent of the physicians reported interruption of systemic steroid use in asthma patients, and 25% of the respondents discontinued biological therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Allergists in Turkey have been using telemedicine at a high rate during the COVID-19 pandemic for asthma and rhinitis. The continuation rate of SCIT was low while the discontinuation rate of biologicals and systemic steroid use in asthma was high in Turkey.Our study results and learning from the experiences of other countries and specialties may help to optimize allergy practice and compatibility with international guidelines.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hypersensitivity/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , Adult , Allergists , Allergy and Immunology , Attitude of Health Personnel , Biological Products/therapeutic use , COVID-19/epidemiology , Desensitization, Immunologic , Humans , Pandemics , Primary Immunodeficiency Diseases/drug therapy , Specialization , Surveys and Questionnaires , Telemedicine , Turkey/epidemiologyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the treatment of patients with allergic and atopy-associated diseases has faced major challenges. Recommendations for "social distancing" and the fear of patients becoming infected during a visit to a medical facility have led to a drastic decrease in personal doctor-patient contacts. This affects both acute care and treatment of the chronically ill. The immune response after SARS-CoV-2 infection is so far only insufficiently understood and could be altered in a favorable or unfavorable way by therapy with monoclonal antibodies. There is currently no evidence for an increased risk of a severe COVID-19 course in allergic patients. Many patients are under ongoing therapy with biologicals that inhibit type 2 immune responses via various mechanisms. There is uncertainty about possible immunological interactions and potential risks of these biologicals in the case of an infection with SARS-CoV-2. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A selective literature search was carried out in PubMed, Livivo, and the internet to cover the past 10 years (May 2010 - April 2020). Additionally, the current German-language publications were analyzed. Based on these data, the present position paper provides recommendations for the biological treatment of patients with allergic and atopy-associated diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: In order to maintain in-office consultation services, a safe treatment environment must be created that is adapted to the pandemic situation. To date, there is a lack of reliable study data on the care for patients with complex respiratory, atopic, and allergic diseases in times of an imminent infection risk from SARS-CoV-2. Type-2-dominant immune reactions, as they are frequently seen in allergic patients, could influence various phases of COVID-19, e.g., by slowing down the immune reactions. Theoretically, this could have an unfavorable effect in the early phase of a SARS-Cov-2 infection, but also a positive effect during a cytokine storm in the later phase of severe courses. However, since there is currently no evidence for this, all data from patients treated with a biological directed against type 2 immune reactions who develop COVID-19 should be collected in registries, and their disease courses documented in order to be able to provide experience-based instructions in the future. CONCLUSION: The use of biologicals for the treatment of bronchial asthma, atopic dermatitis, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, and spontaneous urticaria should be continued as usual in patients without suspected infection or proven SARS-CoV-2 infection. If available, it is recommended to prefer a formulation for self-application and to offer telemedical monitoring. Treatment should aim at the best possible control of difficult-to-control allergic and atopic diseases using adequate rescue and add-on therapy and should avoid the need for systemic glucocorticosteroids. If SARS-CoV-2 infection is proven or reasonably suspected, the therapy should be determined by weighing the benefits and risks individually for the patient in question, and the patient should be involved in the decision-making. It should be kept in mind that the potential effects of biologicals on the immune response in COVID-19 are currently not known. Telemedical offers are particularly desirable for the acute consultation needs of suitable patients.
ABSTRACT
The outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2-induced coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic re-shaped doctor-patient interaction and challenged capacities of healthcare systems. It created many issues around the optimal and safest way to treat complex patients with severe allergic disease. A significant number of the patients are on treatment with biologicals, and clinicians face the challenge to provide optimal care during the pandemic. Uncertainty of the potential risks for these patients is related to the fact that the exact sequence of immunological events during SARS-CoV-2 is not known. Severe COVID-19 patients may experience a "cytokine storm" and associated organ damage characterized by an exaggerated release of pro-inflammatory type 1 and type 3 cytokines. These inflammatory responses are potentially counteracted by anti-inflammatory cytokines and type 2 responses. This expert-based EAACI statement aims to provide guidance on the application of biologicals targeting type 2 inflammation in patients with allergic disease. Currently, there is very little evidence for an enhanced risk of patients with allergic diseases to develop severe COVID-19. Studies focusing on severe allergic phenotypes are lacking. At present, noninfected patients on biologicals for the treatment of asthma, atopic dermatitis, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, or chronic spontaneous urticaria should continue their biologicals targeting type 2 inflammation via self-application. In case of an active SARS-CoV-2 infection, biological treatment needs to be stopped until clinical recovery and SARS-CoV-2 negativity is established and treatment with biologicals should be re-initiated. Maintenance of add-on therapy and a constant assessment of disease control, apart from acute management, are demanded.