Teleallergy: Where Have We Been and Where Are We Going?

Telemedicine uptake in allergy/immunology was slow before the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, but has accelerated since. This review examines where telemedicine has been in allergy/immunology and where it is headed in the future. Focus is placed on patient, physician, and health care professional satisfaction with telemedicine, capacity to expand access to allergy/immunology care, cost considerations, the regulatory environment, and future applications of telemedicine including adherence monitoring, wearable biosensors, artificial intelligence, and machine learning addressed.

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.

Telemedicine in Drug Hypersensitivity.

This review focuses on the current applications of telemedicine for drug hypersensitivity reactions. Telemedicine holds promise as a tool to risk-stratify patients with drug hypersensitivity, for both evaluation of penicillin allergies and severe cutaneous adverse reactions. Although telemedicine may not fully replace in-person assessment owing to the need for testing, challenges, and in-person physical examination or skin biopsy, it may allow for risk stratification whereby some in-person visits may not be necessary. Electronic consults have also emerged along with telemedicine as a tool for drug allergy evaluations.

Graded Administration of Second Dose of Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines in Patients With Hypersensitivity to First Dose.

Two mRNA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech, require 2 doses for maximum efficacy. This case series reports the safety and immunogenicity of a graded administration of the second dose of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines in patients with immediate hypersensitivity reactions to the first dose.

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.

Rheumatology Patient Satisfaction With Telemedicine During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States.

The spread of COVID-19 in the United States has led to the use of virtual visits in lieu of in-person care for the high-risk population of patients in rheumatology. We asked patients to score their satisfaction with these visits and if they would have preferred in-person care instead. Of 679 patients seen in May 2020, 512 (75.4%) were virtual (267 [52.1%] by telephone and 245 [47.9%] by video), and 359 (70%) responded to the survey. The majority of patients (74%) were satisfied with their virtual visit, but they were more likely to be satisfied if their visit was over video rather than phone. They preferred an in-person visit if they were meeting a doctor for the first time, and patients who required a language interpreter were significantly less satisfied with virtual care. There was no correlation of age, sex, diagnosis, or testing ordered with satisfaction. The main concern against virtual care was the inability to have a physical exam, while the main reasons in favor of it were avoidance of potential infection and convenience.

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.