New considerations of health disparities within allergy and immunology.

The pandemic, political upheavals, and social justice efforts in our society have resulted in attention to persistent health disparities and the urgent need to address them. Using a scoping review, we describe published updates to address disparities and targets for interventions to improve gaps in care within allergy and immunology. These disparities-related studies provide a broad view of our current understanding of how social determinants of health threaten patient outcomes and our ability to advance health equity efforts in our field. We outline next steps to improve access to care and advance health equity for patients with allergic/immunologic diseases through actions taken at the individual, community, and policy levels, which could be applied outside of our field. Key among these are efforts to increase the diversity among our trainees, providers, and scientific teams and enhancing efforts to participate in advocacy work and public health interventions. Addressing health disparities requires advancing our understanding of the interplay between social and structural barriers to care and enacting the needed interventions in various key areas to effect change.

The Future of Telehealth for Allergic Disease.

The COVID-19 pandemic created an explosion in the use of telehealth. However, telehealth consists of much more than a video discussion between doctor and patient. Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, allergists have demonstrated a high level of synchronous telemedicine adoption with existing patients but have not taken full advantage of other virtual care modalities that have the potential to facilitate the efficient delivery of allergy care to the broader population. This is partially due to a lack of awareness about the various remote care services and how to implement and bill for them appropriately. This rostrum describes the spectrum of telehealth services, reviews existing literature on the use of telehealth in allergy, and provides suggestions about how allergists and immunologists can optimize the use of telehealth to optimize patient access and outcomes as well as receive appropriate compensation for specialty clinical services provided by themselves and their staff.

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.

Diversities of allergic pathologies and their modifiers: Report from the second DGAKI-JSA meeting.

In October 2021, researchers from the German Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI) and from the Japanese Society of Allergology (JSA) focused their attention on the pathological conditions and modifiers of various allergic diseases. Topics included 1) the pathophysiology of IgE/mast cell-mediated allergic diseases; 2) the diagnosis and prevention of IgE/mast cell-mediated diseases; 3) the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment of eosinophilic airway diseases; and 4) host-pathogen interaction and allergic diseases. This report summarizes the panel discussions, which highlighted the importance of recognizing the diversity of genetics, immunological mechanisms, and modifying factors underlying allergic diseases.

Telehealth and Allergy Services in Rural and Regional Locations That Lack Specialty Services.

Secondary to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, telehealth quickly peaked as the dominant health care modality and its use still remains high. Although allergists and health care systems adapted quickly to adopt telehealth, its increased use has both highlighted its benefits for patients and allergists and demonstrated known concerns with delivering allergy specialty care to rural and regional patient populations. With increased concentration of both patients and allergists in urban areas, the ability to provide allergy specialty care to the rural and remote population continues to remain a challenge despite the advantages leveraged through telehealth. Herein, we review aspects specific to the rural patient population, tele-allergy outcomes with these patient cohorts, and efforts, both past and present, taken at different levels within the allergy community to promote our specialty through specific telehealth modalities to address and engage the rural and regional patient.

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.

Digital health in the management of allergic diseases.

In recent years there has been an important implementation in the medical field of both Mobile Health, such as the use of mobile communication devices, and of other telemedicine tools in general, with the aim of supporting the supervision of diseases from the moment of the first diagnosis to the therapeutic follow-up. In fact, Digital Health can also have a very positive impact on the management of allergic patients, who are known to have the greatest need for regular monitoring, simplifying contact between doctor and patient, but there is still a need to improve implementation regulations, define certification programs and adequate reimbursement systems, as well as to guarantee a high level of attention to the protection of sensitive data. The hope is that one positive outcome of the Covid-19 pandemic will be an acceleration, by all stakeholders involved, of the process of the modernization of health care.

One hundred and ten years of Allergen Immunotherapy: A journey from empiric observation to evidence.

One hundred and ten years after Noon's first clinical report of the subcutaneous application of allergen extracts, allergen immunotherapy (AIT) has evolved as the most important pillar of the treatment of allergic patients. It is the only disease-modifying treatment option available and the evidence for its clinical efficacy and safety is broad and undisputed. Throughout recent decades, more insights into the underlying mechanisms, in particular the modulation of innate and adaptive immune responses, have been described. AIT is acknowledged by worldwide regulatory authorities, and following the regulatory guidelines for product development, AIT products are subject to a rigorous evaluation before obtaining market authorization. Knowledge and practice are anchored in international guidelines, such as the recently published series of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI). Innovative approaches continue to be further developed with the focus on clinical improvement by, for example, the usage of adjuvants, peptides, recombinants, modification of allergens, new routes of administration, and the concomitant use of biologicals. In addition, real-life data provide complementary and valuable information on the effectiveness and tolerability of this treatment option in the clinical routine. New mobile health technologies and big-data approaches will improve daily treatment convenience, adherence, and efficacy of AIT. However, the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has also had some implications for the feasibility and practicability of AIT. Taken together, AIT as the only disease-modifying therapy in allergic diseases has been broadly investigated over the past 110 years laying the path for innovations and further improvement.

The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the treatment of allergic eye diseases.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To analyze if recommendations given before and during the COVID-19 pandemic are still a valid option for patients suffering of ocular allergy (OA). RECENT FINDINGS: During the last year many doctors and patients requested suggestions for the treatment of OA patients in COVID-19 time. Most of them were given by phone calls and emails following the recommendations given by Scientific Societies. SUMMARY: Considering the current multiple problems related to the COVID-19 pandemic, OA has not been considered a priority, even though patients need treatments. Topical antiallergic drugs are still the first option to treat all kind of OA, with the addition of topical corticosteroids in the severe forms of vernal and atopic keratoconjunctivitis (VKC and AKC) even in patients at risk of COVID-19. Topical immunomodulation is still recommended in severe forms of VKC and AKC unless the patient is infected. The number of patients treated with these drugs in our Center was similar than previous years. The risk to have a VKC patient affected by COVID-19 is similar to the general pediatric population but with a lower OR. In 2021, still in COVID-time, the management of OA should follow the previous recommendations with an update due to the risk of infection.