Immunodeficient patient experience of emergency switch from intravenous to rapid push subcutaneous immunoglobulin replacement therapy during coronavirus disease 2019 shielding.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Welsh immunodeficient patients on immunoglobulin replacement therapy (IgRT) who were considered high risk for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were directed to shield. Consequently, patients receiving hospital-based intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) quickly transitioned to home-based self-administered subcutaneous immunoglobulin (SCIg). This evaluation aimed to assess patients' perceptions and experiences and laboratory outcomes of emergency IgRT transition during COVID-19. RECENT FINDINGS: A quick transition from in-hospital IVIg to home-based rapid push SCIg is achievable, however, patient IgRT administration preference remains key outside of emergency shielding measures. SUMMARY: Subjective self-reported experiences ( n  = 23) and objective immunoglobulin G (IgG) concentration ( n  = 28) assessments were prospectively collected from patients pre/post-IgRT switch. In total, 41/55 (75%) patients transitioned from IVIg to rapid push SCIg and all completed training to self-administer subcutaneously within 24 days. Twenty-two percent ( n  = 5) of patients preferred SCIg and 35% ( n  = 8) wanted to return to hospital-based IVIg at 6 weeks post-transition. Mean IgG levels were similar pre vs. post-SCIg switch (10.3 g/l vs. 10.6 g/l, respectively). Patients reported greater infection anxiety during COVID-19 and adapted behaviours to mitigate risk. Although a third of patients wished to return to IVIg following cessation of shielding, over time the percentage electing to remain on SCIg rose from 22% to 59%.

Development of a high-throughput SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing pathway using dried blood spot specimens.

BACKGROUND: Serological assays for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have roles in seroepidemiology, convalescent plasma-testing, antibody durability and vaccine studies. Currently, SARS-CoV-2 serology is performed using serum/plasma collected by venepuncture. Dried blood spot (DBS) testing offers significant advantages as it is minimally invasive, avoids venepuncture with specimens being mailed to the laboratory. METHODS: A pathway utilizing a newborn screening laboratory infrastructure was developed using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to detect IgG antibodies against the receptor-binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in DBS specimens. Paired plasma and DBS specimens from SARS-CoV-2 antibody-positive and -negative subjects and polymerase chain reaction positive subjects were tested. DBS specimen stability, effect of blood volume and punch location were also evaluated. RESULTS: DBS specimens from antibody-negative (n = 85) and -positive (n = 35) subjects and polymerase chain reaction positive subjects (n = 11) had a mean (SD; range) optical density (OD) of 0.14 (0.046; 0.03-0.27), 0.98 (0.41; 0.31-1.64) and 1.12 (0.37; 0.49-1.54), respectively. An action value OD >0.28 correctly assigned all cases. The weighted Deming regression for comparison of the DBS and the plasma assay yielded: y = 0.004041 + 1.005x, r = 0.991, Sy/x 0.171, n = 82. Extraction efficiency of antibodies from DBS specimens was >99%. DBS specimens were stable for at least 28 days at ambient room temperature and humidity. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 IgG receptor-binding domain antibodies can be reliably detected in DBS specimens. DBS serological testing offers lower costs than either point of care or serum/plasma assays that require patient travel, phlebotomy and hospital/clinic resources; the development of a DBS assay may be particularly important for resource poor settings.

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.