Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Practices of French and Francophones allergists in the management of allergic risks and complications of anti-SARS- COV- 2 vaccination
Allergy: European Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology ; 78(Supplement 111):704-705, 2023.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-2290820
ABSTRACT

Background:

The SARS-COV- 2 vaccination campaign has massively mobilized the allergists' community to screen patients deemed at risk for the SARS-COV- 2 vaccines. To describe data regarding the management of medical calls regarding the allergic risk for the SARS-COV- 2 vaccination, amongst French allergists. Method(s) A questionnaire-based survey was launched on the AdviceMedica platform (a platform of medical advice exchange between peers) between July and October 2021 (including two reminders). Result(s) Fifty-four allergists answered the survey. Three quarters of the responders were full-time allergists. Overall, 42% and 35% had an exclusive hospital or private practice, respectively. Allergists were mostly contacted by telephone (96.3%) and e-mail (79.6%), by general practitioners (92.6%) or physicians practicing in vaccination centers (88.8%) (median of vaccine related medical calls 10 per week (Q25-Q75 7-20, range (2-300). Allergists favored in-person visits rather than teleconsultations (85.2% vs. 61.1%). Allergy testing was prescribed for suspicions of allergy to polyethylene glycol (84.4%) or other vaccines and non-identified drugs (64.4%). Half of the responders (29, 53.7%) could perform vaccination and four (13.7%) declared reactions during vaccination. The responders used several tools in taking their clinical decision exchanges with peers from the AdviceMedica platform (40.4%), advice from tertiary university hospital allergy units (25%), recommendations of the French Society of Allergy (17.3%). The three most frequent drawbacks that the allergists encountered were having a hard time adding supplementary patient visits within optimal delays (three quarters of the responders), the reluctance expressed by the physicians requiring the advice and by the patients (two thirds) and the fact that the learnt society recommendations were deemed not to cover many on-field situations (one third). The major benefits from screening were estimated to be the lack of allergy contraindication to vaccination (88.7%) and the increased visibility of the allergist's role (69.8%). Conclusion(s) This survey put numbers on the management of screening patients deemed at risk for the SARS-COV- 2 vaccination amongst French allergists. Peer exchange was the most frequent tool in taking a clinical decision.
Keywords

Full text: Available Collection: Databases of international organizations Database: EMBASE Type of study: Prognostic study Topics: Vaccines Language: English Journal: Allergy: European Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Year: 2023 Document Type: Article

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: Databases of international organizations Database: EMBASE Type of study: Prognostic study Topics: Vaccines Language: English Journal: Allergy: European Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Year: 2023 Document Type: Article