Safety and immunogenicity of 3 doses of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac in children and adults with inborn errors of immunity.

Our study (NCT04800133) aimed to determine the safety and immunogenicity in patients with IEIs receiving a 3-dose primary series of mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 (age 12+) or inactivated whole-virion vaccine CoronaVac (age 3+) in Hong Kong, including Omicron BA.1 neutralization, in a nonrandomized manner. Intradermal vaccination was also studied. Thirty-nine patients were vaccinated, including 16 with homologous intramuscular 0.3ml BNT162b2 and 17 with homologous intramuscular 0.5ml CoronaVac. Two patients received 3 doses of intradermal 0.5ml CoronaVac, and 4 patients received 2 doses of intramuscular BNT162b2 and the third dose with intradermal BNT162b2. No safety concerns were identified. Inadequate S-RBD IgG and surrogate virus neutralization responses were found after 2 doses in patients with humoral immunodeficiencies and especially so against BA.1. Dose 3 of either vaccine increased S-RBD IgG response. T cell responses against SARS-CoV-2 antigens were detected in vaccinated IEI patients by intracellular cytokine staining on flow cytometry. Intradermal third dose vaccine led to high antibody response in 4 patients. The primary vaccination series of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac in adults and children with IEIs should include 3 doses for optimal immunogenicity.

Hong Kong Anaphylaxis Consortium Consensus Statements on prescription of adrenaline autoinjectors in the acute care setting.

BACKGROUND: Adrenaline autoinjectors (AAInj) facilitates early administration of adrenaline and remains the first-line treatment for anaphylaxis. However, only a minority of anaphylaxis survivors in Hong Kong are prescribed AAInj and formal guidance do not exist. International anaphylaxis guidelines have been largely based on Western studies, which may not be as relevant for non-Western populations. OBJECTIVE: To formulate a set of consensus statements on the prescription of AAInj in Hong Kong. METHODS: Consensus statements were formulated by the Hong Kong Anaphylaxis Consortium by the Delphi method. Agreement was defined as greater than or equal to 80% consensus. Subgroup analysis was performed to investigate differences between allergy and emergency medicine physicians. RESULTS: A total of 7 statements met criteria for consensus with good overall agreement between allergy and emergency medicine physicians. AAInj should be used as first-line treatment and prescribed for all patients at risk of anaphylaxis. This should be prescribed prior to discharge from the Accident and Emergency Department together with an immediate referral to an allergy center. The decision for prescribing AAInj should be based on the severity of previous reactions; including objective signs of respiratory involvement, objective signs of cardiovascular involvement and multiorgan involvement (regardless of severity). Patient demographics and comorbidities, specifically history of asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, should also be considered. Patients deemed eligible for AAInj should be offered avoidance advice and prescribed one AAInj while awaiting review by allergists. AAInj technique should be demonstrated by a healthcare professional or instruction video, and a return demonstration by the patient is required. The patient should also be counseled that the decision on the continued need of AAInj prescription in the long-term should be reviewed by an allergist. CONCLUSION: Consensus statements support the prescription of AAInj by front-line physicians with subsequent allergist review when treating patients at risk of anaphylaxis in Hong Kong.