The long COVID syndrome: A conundrum for the allergist/immunologist.

Background: The long coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) syndrome includes a group of patients who, after infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) exhibit lingering mild-to-moderate symptoms and develop medical complications that can have lasting health problems. Objective: The purpose of this report was to examine the current body of evidence that deals with the relationship of COVID-19 infection with the long COVID syndrome to define the possible immunologic mechanisms involved in the pathogenesis of long COVID and to describe potential strategies for the diagnosis and clinical management of the condition. Methods: Extensive research was conducted in medical literature data bases by applying terms such as long COVID, post-COVID-19 condition, pathogenesis of long COVID, management of the long COVID syndrome. Results: The post-COVID conditions, a more recent and less anxiety-inducing term for the patient than long COVID or "long haul," is an umbrella term for a wide range of physical and mental health symptoms similar to those seen in patients with the myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), experienced by some patients and are present ≥ 4 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 infection. Although the precise reason why long COVID develops is unknown, one of the major causes is thought to be related to chronic inflammation with overproduction of inflammatory cytokines responsible for the symptoms of the disorder. Conclusion: Long COVID is a growing burden for millions of patients, health-care providers, and global health-care systems, and is a particular challenge for the allergist/immunologist. Many survivors of COVID-19 struggle with multiple symptoms, increased disability, reduced function, and poor quality of life. The allergist/immunologist can assist the total health-care team's efforts in providing a comprehensive and coordinated approach to the management of these patients by promoting comprehensive vaccination and rehabilitation and social services that focus on improving physical, mental, and social well-being, and by establishing partnerships with specialists and other health-care professionals who can provide behavioral, lifestyle, and integrative approaches that may have much to offer in helping patients cope with their symptoms.

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.

COVID-19 vaccines and vaccine hesitancy: Role of the allergist/immunologist in promotion of vaccine acceptance.

Background: Vaccine hesitancy has been defined as a delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccines, despite the availability of vaccine services. In the past, despite an impressive record of vaccine effectiveness in the United States, several factors have contributed to a decreased acceptance of vaccines that has resulted in outbreaks of infectious diseases, e.g., measles. More recently, vaccine hesitancy has spread to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. There are many causes of vaccine hesitancy, such as misinformation, fallacies, and myths, that have contributed to vaccine hesitancy. Objective: The purpose of the present report is to address the many causes of vaccine hesitancy and to suggest ways that the allergist/immunologist can be involved in the promotion of vaccine acceptance. Methods: The current COVID-19 vaccines were reviewed, together with their mechanisms(s) of action and adverse reactions to them. Results: The many causes of vaccine hesitancy include many doubts and concerns related to COVID-19 vaccines as well as a diminished level of confidence and trust by segments of the public in the nation's leaders in government, medical, and business communities, that those groups once enjoyed. Conclusion: Vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines is the only way that COVID-19 will be eliminated or at least controlled today, and vaccine hesitancy is the potential nemesis. The present report describes how the allergist/immunologist not only plays a major role in the delivery of specialized therapy of COVID-19 but also in educating the public with regard to the importance of COVID-19 vaccines, in dispelling misinformation, and in promoting trust for vaccine acceptance but must be informed with the most accurate and current information to do so.

Mass food challenges in a vacant COVID-19 stepdown facility: Exceptional opportunity provides a model for the future.

BACKGROUND: Internationally, the COVID-19 pandemic severely curtailed access to hospital facilities for those awaiting elective/semi-elective procedures. For allergic children in Ireland, already waiting up to 4 years for an elective oral food challenge (OFC), the restrictions signified indefinite delay. At the time of the initiative, there were approx 900 children on the Children's Health Ireland (CHI) waiting list. In July 2020, a project was facilitated by short-term (6 weeks) access to an empty COVID stepdown facility built, in a hotel conference centre, commandeered by the Health Service Executive (HSE), Ireland. The aim of this study was to achieve the rapid roll-out of an offsite OFC service, delivering high throughput of long waiting patients, while aligning with existing hospital policies and quality standards, international allergy guidelines and national social distancing standards. METHODS: The working group engaged key stakeholders to rapidly develop an offsite OFC facility. Consultant paediatric allergists, consultant paediatricians, trainees and allergy clinical nurse specialists were seconded from other duties. The facility was already equipped with hospital beds, bedside monitors (BP, pulse and oxygen saturation) and bedside oxygen. All medication and supplies had to be brought from the base hospital. Daily onsite consultant anaesthetic cover was resourced and a resuscitation room equipped. Standardized food challenge protocols were created. Access to the onsite hotel chef facilitated food preparation. A risk register was established. RESULTS: After 6 weeks of planning, the remote centre became operational on 7/9/2020, with the capacity of 27 OFC/day. 474 challenges were commenced: 465 (98%) were completed and 9 (2%) were inconclusive. 135 (29%) OFCs were positive, with 25 (5%) causing anaphylaxis. No child required advanced airway intervention. 8 children were transferred to the base hospital. The CHI allergy waiting list was reduced by almost 60% in only 24 days. CONCLUSIONS: Oral food challenges remain a vital tool in the care of allergic children, with their cost saving and quality-of-life benefits negatively affected by a delay in their delivery. This project has shown it is possible to have huge impacts on a waiting list efficiently, effectively and safely with good planning and staff buy-in-even in a pandemic. Adoption of new, flexible and efficient models of service delivery will be important for healthcare delivery in the post-COVID-19 era.