Steroid-induced secondary immune deficiency.

Despite their widespread clinical use, oral corticosteroids (OCSs) are well known to be associated with a myriad of adverse effects, including immunosuppression. By inhibiting transcription factors and affecting leukocyte function, prolonged OCS use leads to significant CD4 lymphopenia and often a decrease in serum immunoglobulin (Ig)G. Conversely, OCS use has minimal impact on circulating B cell, serum IgM, or serum IgA levels. Although there is a paucity of literature, individuals treated with prolonged OCS seem to typically maintain humoral response to various vaccinations despite hypogammaglobinemia, but this area warrants additional research, especially in the setting of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Individuals treated with prolonged OCS use are most at risk for opportunistic infections, especially those with underlying malignancy and history of bone marrow transplant. Risk mitigation strategies to decrease infectious complication with OCS use include limiting the dose and duration of therapy, appropriately completing a full vaccination series, consideration for passive immunization, and prophylaxis against opportunistic infections.

Real-World Experience of Tixagevimab and Cilgavimab (Evusheld) in Rheumatologic Patients on Rituximab.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Although vaccination is the primary strategy against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), rheumatologic patients on B-cell depleting agent rituximab may have a suboptimal response. Tixagevimab and cilgavimab (Evusheld) could be administered under Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization as pre-exposure prophylaxis. METHODS: A cohort study of rheumatologic patients on rituximab therapy who received Evusheld was followed longitudinally. Adverse events were monitored. RESULTS: Forty-three patients received Evusheld, with diagnoses including rheumatoid arthritis, ANCA vasculitis, immune-mediated myositis, Sjögren disease, and systemic lupus erythematosus. Average time to follow-up was 100 ± 33 days. One patient experienced symptomatic infection with SARS-CoV-2 confirmed by home antigen test twice. A total of 97.8% of patients during follow-up did not contract acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. At the same time, 32,074 new local cases were reported with a local cumulative SARS-CoV-2 incidence rate of 4.32%. Adverse events included myalgia, flu-like symptoms, fevers, injection site pain, or headache. No serious adverse events, anaphylaxis, or cardiac events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Evusheld demonstrated effectiveness in preventing symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in a real-world cohort of rheumatologic patients on rituximab therapy. Administration of Evusheld may be considered as part of a multilayered approach to risk mitigation in this high-risk population as pre-exposure prophylaxis.

Real-World Effectiveness of Tixagevimab and Cilgavimab (Evusheld) in Patients With Hematological Malignancies.

Background: Immunocompromised individuals with hematological malignancy have increased risk for poor outcomes and death from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). This special population may mount a suboptimal response to vaccination. We assessed the effectiveness of tixagevimab and cilgavimab (Evusheld), a monoclonal antibody combination against SARS-CoV-2, in conjunction with standard preventative measures, at preventing symptomatic incident infection. Methods: Patients aged 18 years and older with hematological malignancy consented to receive Evusheld. Patients were followed longitudinally for development of symptomatic incident SARS-CoV-2 infections. Adverse events were monitored. Results: Two hundred and three patients (94 female) with hematological malignancies and mean age 72 ± 10 years were included. Of the patients, 99.5% had received at least one mRNA vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. Average time of follow-up was 151 ± 50 days. Nineteen patients (9.3%) developed incident symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, with only one (0.5%) requiring hospitalization. During the same follow-up period, local incident rate of infection was 84,123 cases (11.3% of population). Of those, 3,386 cases (4%) of SARS-CoV-2 required hospital admission. The incidence rate ratio was 0.79. No serious adverse events occurred following administration of Evusheld. Conclusion: Patients with hematological malignancy who received Evusheld infrequently developed symptomatic infections or require hospitalization. The high-risk cohort incidence was at least as comparable to the average risk general population. Evusheld appears effective and is well tolerated, and may be administered in conjunction with vaccination and standard prevention measures, at decreasing incident SARS-Co-V2 cases in this high-risk population.

Patient and Clinician Attitudes Toward Telemedicine for Allergy and Immunology.

The use of telemedicine has increased in allergy/immunology, with rapid uptake of its use during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Existing data indicate an overall positive view of telemedicine by patients, particularly during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. However, patients and clinicians prefer in-person visits for specific types of allergy/immunology encounters, such as those requiring a physical examination or diagnostic testing. The most data for telemedicine exist with asthma, and provide a model for treatment technique, therapeutic monitoring, and education in other allergic and immunologic conditions. Clinician satisfaction is also necessary for telemedicine to be an enduring option for patient/clinician interactions, and this is influenced by a multitude of factors, including technology quality, reimbursement, and maintenance of patient/clinician relationships. Areas of future research should include the need for more outcome data in additional disease states, which will likely help facilitate improved logistical policies around telemedicine that would facilitate its adoption.

The Risk of Allergic Reaction to SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines and Recommended Evaluation and Management: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, GRADE Assessment, and International Consensus Approach.

Concerns for anaphylaxis may hamper severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) immunization efforts. We convened a multidisciplinary group of international experts in anaphylaxis composed of allergy, infectious disease, emergency medicine, and front-line clinicians to systematically develop recommendations regarding SARS-CoV-2 vaccine immediate allergic reactions. Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, the World Health Organizstion (WHO) global coronavirus database, and the gray literature (inception, March 19, 2021) were systematically searched. Paired reviewers independently selected studies addressing anaphylaxis after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, polyethylene glycol (PEG) and polysorbate allergy, and accuracy of allergy testing for SARS-CoV-2 vaccine allergy. Random effects models synthesized the data to inform recommendations based on the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, agreed upon using a modified Delphi panel. The incidence of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine anaphylaxis is 7.91 cases per million (n = 41,000,000 vaccinations; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 4.02-15.59; 26 studies, moderate certainty), the incidence of 0.15 cases per million patient-years (95% CI 0.11-0.2), and the sensitivity for PEG skin testing is poor, although specificity is high (15 studies, very low certainty). We recommend vaccination over either no vaccination or performing SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/excipient screening allergy testing for individuals without history of a severe allergic reaction to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/excipient, and a shared decision-making paradigm in consultation with an allergy specialist for individuals with a history of a severe allergic reaction to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/excipient. We recommend further research to clarify SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/vaccine excipient testing utility in individuals potentially allergic to SARS-CoV2 vaccines or their excipients.

Patient Satisfaction with In-Person, Video, and Telephone Allergy/Immunology Evaluations During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The SarsCoV2, novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic necessitated a rapid transition from in-person evaluations to remote delivery of care, including both video and telephone visits, in allergy/immunology practices. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patient satisfaction, patient and physician impression of encounter completeness, and reimbursement between in-person, video, and telephone encounters. This study also assessed factors influencing patient satisfaction, perception of completeness, and choice of future evaluation type. METHODS: This was a prospective study of all encounters at a health care-system owned practice. Encounter type, encounter modality, patient demographics, primary diagnoses, reimbursement data, and physician assessment of encounter completeness were tracked. Patient satisfaction was assessed via standardized questions. RESULTS: There were 447 encounters, with 303 in-person (67.8%), 98 video (21.9%), and 46 telephone (10.3%). Patient satisfaction data was obtained from 251 patients. There was similar patient satisfaction among all encounter modalities. Both patients and physicians were more likely to deem an in-person encounter as complete. Physicians were more likely to report an in-person encounter to be complete for food allergy (P < .001) and chronic rhinitis (P = .001) compared with video or telephone, whereas patients reported in-person encounters for food allergy to be complete compared with other modalities (P = .002). Patients reported that future encounter types should depend on the clinical situation. CONCLUSIONS: There was similar patient satisfaction with in-person, video, and telephone encounters in an allergy/immunology practice during the COVID-19 pandemic. Chronic rhinitis and food allergy are more likely to call for an in-person evaluation. New patient visits are likely to be the highest yield to focus on for in-person evaluations.

Paediatric allergy practice in the era of coronavirus disease 2019.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To summarize the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the practice of paediatric allergy. RECENT FINDINGS: Given significant overlap in symptoms, care must be taken to differentiate routine allergic conditions from COVID-19 infection but it appears that most allergic diseases are not risk factors for a severe COVID-19 course. The full impact of restricted allergy/immunology ambulatory services will take months to years to fully understand. One benefit of having to adapt practice style is greater awareness and acceptance of shared decision-making and recognition of preference-sensitive care options in food allergy, in particular for approaches towards allergy prevention, treatment, and anaphylaxis care. Social distancing and masks have helped reduce spread of common respiratory viruses, which may be helping to lower the incidence of viral-associated wheezing episodes, enhancing evidence of the effects of preventing exposure of young children to respiratory viruses on asthma pathogenesis, as well as on allergic rhinitis. There has been a revolution in the rise of telemedicine to increase access to high-quality allergy/immunology specialty care. SUMMARY: Although the field has adapted to remain operational in the face of a significant challenge, it is important to apply lessons learned to evolve patient care and optimize treatment in the aftermath of the pandemic.