Correction to: Is diet partly responsible for differences in COVID-19 death rates between and within countries?

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s13601-020-00323-0.].

Commercialized kits to assess T-cell responses against SARS-CoV-2 S peptides. A pilot study in health care workers.

Background: It is crucial to assess the levels of protection generated by natural infection or SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, mainly in individuals professionally exposed and in vulnerable groups. Measuring T-cell responses may complement antibody tests currently in use as correlates of protection. Our aim was to assess the feasibility of a validated assay of T-cell responses. Methods: Twenty health-care-workers (HCW) were included. Antibody test to SARS-CoV-2 N and S-proteins in parallel with a commercially available whole-blood-interferon-gamma-release-assay (IGRA) to S-peptides and two detection methods, CLIA and ELISA were determined. Results: IGRA test detected T-cell responses in naturally exposed and vaccinated HCW already after first vaccination dose. The correlation by the two detection methods was very high (R > 0.8) and sensitivity and specificity ranged between 100 and 86% and 100-73% respectively. Even though there was a very high concordance between specific antibody levels and the IGRA assay in the ability to detect immune response to SARS-CoV-2, there was a relatively low quantitative correlation. In the small group primed by natural infection, one vaccine dose was sufficient to reach immune response plateau. IGRA was positive in one, with Ig(S) antibody negative vaccinated immunosuppressed HCW illustrating another advantage of the IGRA-test. Conclusion: Whole-blood-IGRA-tests amenable to automation and constitutes a promising additional tool for measuring the state of the immune response to SARS-CoV-2; they are applicable to large number of samples and may become a valuable correlate of protection to COVID-19, particularly for vulnerable groups at risk of being re-exposed to infection, as are health-care-workers.

Introducción: Es fundamental evaluar los niveles de protección inmune en infectados o tras la vacunación frente a SARS-CoV-2. La cuantificación de la respuesta inmune celular T puede complementar la determinación de anticuerpos. Evaluamos la viabilidad de un ensayo comercial validado de respuesta celular T específica frente a SARS-CoV-2. Métodos: Se incluyeron veinte trabajadores sanitarios (TS). Medimos anticuerpos contra las proteínas N y S de SARS-CoV-2 y realizamos el ensayo de liberación de interferón-gamma (IFNγ) en sangre completa (IGRA) frente a péptidos de la proteína S. IFNγ se determinó mediante dos métodos de detección: CLIA y ELISA. Resultados: IGRA detectó respuesta celular T en TS tanto infectados como vacunados. La correlación de los dos métodos de detección de IFNγ fue muy alta (R >0,8) y la sensibilidad y la especificidad variaron entre 100 y 86% y 100-73% respectivamente. Hubo una concordancia muy alta entre los niveles de anticuerpos específicos y el ensayo IGRA aunque la correlación cuantitativa fue relativamente baja. En el grupo de infectados, una dosis de vacuna fue suficiente para alcanzar el «plateau¼ de respuesta inmune. IGRA fue claramente positivo en un profesional vacunado inmunosuprimido que presentaba anticuerpos contra la proteína S negativos. Conclusiones: IGRA frente a péptidos de la proteína-S es susceptible de automatización y constituye una herramienta prometedora para medir la respuesta inmune celular frente a SARS-CoV-2; es aplicable a un gran número de muestras y puede servir para valorar la protección, particularmente en los grupos vulnerables en riesgo de volver a exponerse a la infección, como los TS.

Commercialized kits to assess T-cell responses against SARS-CoV-2 S peptides. A pilot study in health care workers Kits comercializados para evaluar la respuesta celular T frente a péptidos S del SARS-CoV-2. Un estudio piloto en trabajadores sanitarios

Background It is crucial to assess the levels of protection generated by natural infection or SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, mainly in individuals professionally exposed and in vulnerable groups. Measuring T-cell responses may complement antibody tests currently in use as correlates of protection. Our aim was to assess the feasibility of a validated assay of T-cell responses. Methods Twenty health-care-workers (HCW) were included. Antibody test to SARS-CoV-2 N and S-proteins in parallel with a commercially available whole-blood-interferon-gamma-release-assay (IGRA) to S-peptides and two detection methods, CLIA and ELISA were determined. Results IGRA test detected T-cell responses in naturally exposed and vaccinated HCW already after first vaccination dose. The correlation by the two detection methods was very high (R > 0.8) and sensitivity and specificity ranged between 100 and 86% and 100-73% respectively. Even though there was a very high concordance between specific antibody levels and the IGRA assay in the ability to detect immune response to SARS-CoV-2, there was a relatively low quantitative correlation. In the small group primed by natural infection, one vaccine dose was sufficient to reach immune response plateau. IGRA was positive in one, with Ig(S) antibody negative vaccinated immunosuppressed HCW illustrating another advantage of the IGRA-test. Conclusion Whole-blood-IGRA-tests amenable to automation and constitutes a promising additional tool for measuring the state of the immune response to SARS-CoV-2;they are applicable to large number of samples and may become a valuable correlate of protection to COVID-19, particularly for vulnerable groups at risk of being re-exposed to infection, as are health-care-workers.

Commercialized kits to assess T-cell responses against SARS-CoV-2 S peptides. A pilot study in health care workers.

BACKGROUND: It is crucial to assess the levels of protection generated by natural infection or SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, mainly in individuals professionally exposed and in vulnerable groups. Measuring T-cell responses may complement antibody tests currently in use as correlates of protection. Our aim was to assess the feasibility of a validated assay of T-cell responses. METHODS: Twenty health-care-workers (HCW) were included. Antibody test to SARS-CoV-2 N and S-proteins in parallel with a commercially available whole-blood-interferon-gamma-release-assay (IGRA) to S-peptides and two detection methods, CLIA and ELISA were determined. RESULTS: IGRA test detected T-cell responses in naturally exposed and vaccinated HCW already after first vaccination dose. The correlation by the two detection methods was very high (R>0.8) and sensitivity and specificity ranged between 100 and 86% and 100-73% respectively. Even though there was a very high concordance between specific antibody levels and the IGRA assay in the ability to detect immune response to SARS-CoV-2, there was a relatively low quantitative correlation. In the small group primed by natural infection, one vaccine dose was sufficient to reach immune response plateau. IGRA was positive in one, with Ig(S) antibody negative vaccinated immunosuppressed HCW illustrating another advantage of the IGRA-test. CONCLUSION: Whole-blood-IGRA-tests amenable to automation and constitutes a promising additional tool for measuring the state of the immune response to SARS-CoV-2; they are applicable to large number of samples and may become a valuable correlate of protection to COVID-19, particularly for vulnerable groups at risk of being re-exposed to infection, as are health-care-workers.

Differentiation of COVID-19 signs and symptoms from allergic rhinitis and common cold: An ARIA-EAACI-GA2 LEN consensus.

BACKGROUND: Although there are many asymptomatic patients, one of the problems of COVID-19 is early recognition of the disease. COVID-19 symptoms are polymorphic and may include upper respiratory symptoms. However, COVID-19 symptoms may be mistaken with the common cold or allergic rhinitis. An ARIA-EAACI study group attempted to differentiate upper respiratory symptoms between the three diseases. METHODS: A modified Delphi process was used. The ARIA members who were seeing COVID-19 patients were asked to fill in a questionnaire on the upper airway symptoms of COVID-19, common cold and allergic rhinitis. RESULTS: Among the 192 ARIA members who were invited to respond to the questionnaire, 89 responded and 87 questionnaires were analysed. The consensus was then reported. A two-way ANOVA revealed significant differences in the symptom intensity between the three diseases (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: This modified Delphi approach enabled the differentiation of upper respiratory symptoms between COVID-19, the common cold and allergic rhinitis. An electronic algorithm will be devised using the questionnaire.

Management of anaphylaxis due to COVID-19 vaccines in the elderly.

Older adults, especially men and/or those with diabetes, hypertension, and/or obesity, are prone to severe COVID-19. In some countries, older adults, particularly those residing in nursing homes, have been prioritized to receive COVID-19 vaccines due to high risk of death. In very rare instances, the COVID-19 vaccines can induce anaphylaxis, and the management of anaphylaxis in older people should be considered carefully. An ARIA-EAACI-EuGMS (Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma, European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, and European Geriatric Medicine Society) Working Group has proposed some recommendations for older adults receiving the COVID-19 vaccines. Anaphylaxis to COVID-19 vaccines is extremely rare (from 1 per 100,000 to 5 per million injections). Symptoms are similar in younger and older adults but they tend to be more severe in the older patients. Adrenaline is the mainstay treatment and should be readily available. A flowchart is proposed to manage anaphylaxis in the older patients.

COVID-19 vaccine-associated anaphylaxis: A statement of the World Allergy Organization Anaphylaxis Committee.

Vaccines against COVID-19 (and its emerging variants) are an essential global intervention to control the current pandemic situation. Vaccines often cause adverse events; however, the vast majority of adverse events following immunization (AEFI) are a consequence of the vaccine stimulating a protective immune response, and not allergic in etiology. Anaphylaxis as an AEFI is uncommon, occurring at a rate of less than 1 per million doses for most vaccines. However, within the first days of initiating mass vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine BNT162b2, there were reports of anaphylaxis from the United Kingdom and United States. More recent data imply an incidence of anaphylaxis closer to 1:200,000 doses with respect to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. In this position paper, we discuss the background to reactions to the current COVID-19 vaccines and relevant steps to mitigate against the risk of anaphylaxis as an AEFI. We propose a global surveillance strategy led by allergists in order to understand the potential risk and generate data to inform evidence-based guidance, and thus provide reassurance to public health bodies and members of the public.

COVID-19 pandemic: Practical considerations on the organization of an allergy clinic-An EAACI/ARIA Position Paper.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has evolved into a pandemic infectious disease transmitted by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2). Allergists and other healthcare providers (HCPs) in the field of allergies and associated airway diseases are on the front line, taking care of patients potentially infected with SARS-CoV-2. Hence, strategies and practices to minimize risks of infection for both HCPs and treated patients have to be developed and followed by allergy clinics. METHOD: The scientific information on COVID-19 was analysed by a literature search in MEDLINE, PubMed, the National and International Guidelines from the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), the Cochrane Library, and the internet. RESULTS: Based on the diagnostic and treatment standards developed by EAACI, on international information regarding COVID-19, on guidelines of the World Health Organization (WHO) and other international organizations, and on previous experience, a panel of experts including clinicians, psychologists, IT experts, and basic scientists along with EAACI and the "Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA)" initiative have developed recommendations for the optimal management of allergy clinics during the current COVID-19 pandemic. These recommendations are grouped into nine sections on different relevant aspects for the care of patients with allergies. CONCLUSIONS: This international Position Paper provides recommendations on operational plans and procedures to maintain high standards in the daily clinical care of allergic patients while ensuring the necessary safety measures in the current COVID-19 pandemic.

Is diet partly responsible for differences in COVID-19 death rates between and within countries?

Reported COVID-19 deaths in Germany are relatively low as compared to many European countries. Among the several explanations proposed, an early and large testing of the population was put forward. Most current debates on COVID-19 focus on the differences among countries, but little attention has been given to regional differences and diet. The low-death rate European countries (e.g. Austria, Baltic States, Czech Republic, Finland, Norway, Poland, Slovakia) have used different quarantine and/or confinement times and methods and none have performed as many early tests as Germany. Among other factors that may be significant are the dietary habits. It seems that some foods largely used in these countries may reduce angiotensin-converting enzyme activity or are anti-oxidants. Among the many possible areas of research, it might be important to understand diet and angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 (ACE2) levels in populations with different COVID-19 death rates since dietary interventions may be of great benefit.