Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria in Hong Kong: Clinical Characteristics, Real-World Practice and Implications for COVID-19 Vaccination.

PURPOSE: The real-world management and clinical characteristics of chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) in Hong Kong and its implications for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination are unknown. We investigated the clinical characteristics of patients with CSU and the role of an immunologist-led Urticaria Clinic as well as the impact of CSU on COVID-19 vaccine uptake in Hong Kong. METHODS: Longitudinal clinical data of 257 CSU patients were collected and analyzed. Association analyses were performed to identify the relationships between variables and factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine uptake. RESULTS: After the immunologist review, the Weekly Urticaria Activity Score (UAS7) was significantly lower than baseline (median: 0.00 vs. 12.0, P < 0.001). Changes in UAS7 were significantly greater among patients with baseline UAS7 ≥ 16 compared to those with UAS7 < 16 (median: -24.0 vs. -2.00, P < 0.001). CSU patients had lower COVID-19 vaccination rates than the general population with only 176 (68.5%) and 165 (65.0%) receiving at least one dose and 2 doses of vaccination, respectively. The presence of concomitant suspected drug allergy was associated with lower COVID-19 vaccine uptake (odds ratio [OR], 0.47; P = 0.010), while regular pharmacological treatment was associated with higher COVID-19 vaccine uptake among CSU patients (OR, 3.79; P = 0.010). CONCLUSIONS: A dedicated immunologist-led Urticaria Clinic may effectively improve CSU management and outcomes in Hong Kong.

COVID-19 Vaccine Allergy Safety Track (VAS-Track) pathway: real-world outcomes on vaccination rates and antibody protection.

BACKGROUND: Misdiagnosed vaccine-related "allergies" lead to unnecessary vaccine deferrals and incomplete vaccinations, leaving patients unprotected against COVID-19. To overcome limitations and queues for Allergist assessment, the "VAS-Track" pathway was developed to evaluate patients via a multi-disciplinary triage model including nurses, non-specialists, and Allergists. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the effectiveness and safety of VAS-Track and evaluate its real-world impact in terms of vaccination rates and COVID-19 protection. METHODS: Patients referred to VAS-Track between September 2021 and March 2022 were recruited. Subgroup analysis was performed with prospective pre- and post-clinic antibody levels. RESULTS: Nurse-assisted screening identified 10,412 (76%) referrals as inappropriate. 369 patients were assessed by VAS-Track. Overall, 100% of patients were recommended to complete vaccination and 332 (90%) completed their primary series. No patients reported any significant allergic reactions following subsequent vaccination. Vaccination completion rates between patients seen by non-specialists and additional Allergist review were similar (90% vs. 89%, p = 0.617). Vaccination rates were higher among patients with prior history of immediate-type reactions (odds ratio: 2.43, p = 0.025). Subgroup analysis revealed that only 20% (56/284) of patients had seropositive COVID-19 neutralizing antibody levels (≥ 15 AU/mL) prior to VAS-Track, which increased to 92% after vaccine completion (pre-clinic antibody level 6.0 ± 13.5 AU/mL vs. post-clinic antibody level 778.8 ± 337.4 AU/mL, p > 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A multi-disciplinary allergy team was able to streamline our COVID-19 VAS services, enabling almost all patients to complete their primary series, significantly boosting antibody levels and real-world COVID-19 protection. We propose similar multidisciplinary models to be further utilized, especially in the settings with limited allergy services.

The Role of the Allergist in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccine Allergy Safety: A Pilot Study on a "Hub-and-Spoke" Model for Population-Wide Allergy Service.

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.

Consensus Statements on the Approach to COVID-19 Vaccine Allergy Safety in Hong Kong.

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.

Updated consensus statements on COVID-19 Vaccine Allergy Safety in Hong Kong.

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.

Experience of the first 1127 COVID-19 Vaccine Allergy Safety patients in Hong Kong - Clinical outcomes, barriers to vaccination, and urgency for reform.

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.