COVID-19 Incidence and Disease Course Among Patients at an Allergy Department

Background

Since the coronavirus pandemic in 2020, there is not much reported about the disease course of COVID-19 in patients with allergic diseases.

Objectives

The aim of this study was to investigate the cumulative incidence and severity of COVID-19 among patients from the allergy department compared with the general Dutch population and people from their household.

Design

We conducted a comparative longitudinal cohort study.

Methods

In this study patients of the allergy department were included with their household members as a control group. Data from the beginning of the pandemic were systematically obtained through questionnaires by telephonic interviews and retrieved from electronic patient files between October 15, 2020 and January 29, 2021. Main outcomes were confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, disease duration, hospitalization, intensive care admission, and mortality. Questions regarding applied social distancing measures were inventoried as well.

Results

Three hundred and eighty nine patients (median age 39.1 (18.7-84.7) years, 69.9% female) and 441 household members (median age 42.0 (18.0-91.5), 44.1% female) were included. The cumulative COVID-19 incidence in patients was higher compared with the general population (10.5% vs 5.6%, P < .001). In total, 41 (10.5%) patients attending the allergy clinic compared to 38 (8.6%) household members were infected with SARS-CoV-2 (P = .407). Median disease duration was 11.0 (0.0-61.0) days in patients compared to 10.5(1.0-232.0) days in household members (P = .996).

Conclusion

The cumulative COVID-19 incidence in patients from the allergy cohort was higher compared with the general Dutch population, but similar compared with household members. There was no difference in symptoms, disease duration, or hospitalization rate between the allergy cohort and their household members.

Homemade Food Allergen Extracts for Use in Skin Prick Tests in the Diagnosis of IgE-Mediated Food Allergy: A Good Alternative in the Absence of Commercially Available Extracts?

Introduction: The skin prick test (SPT) is the first step in the diagnosis of an immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated food allergy. The availability of commercial food allergen extracts is very limited, resulting in a need for alternative extraction methods of food allergens. The objective of this study was to compare the SPT results of homemade food allergen extracts with commercially available extracts. Methods: Adult patients with a suspected food allergy were included. Food allergen-specific symptoms were scored using a questionnaire. SPTs were performed with homemade and commercially available extracts (ALK-Abelló, Kopenhagen, Denmark) from almond, apple, hazelnut, peach, peanut, and walnut. Serum-specific IgE was measured with ISAC or ImmunoCAP™. Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) between the SPT results of both extract methods were calculated. The proportion of agreement with food allergen-specific symptoms was analyzed. Results: Fifty-four patients (mean age 36; range 19–69 years; female/male: 42/12) were included. The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) between the SPT results of both extract methods were strong for hazelnut 0.79 (n = 44) and walnut 0.78 (n = 31), moderate for apple 0.74 (n = 21) and peanut 0.66 (n = 28), and weak for almond 0.36 (n = 27) and peach 0.17 (n = 23). The proportion of agreement between SPT results and food allergen-specific symptoms was comparable for homemade and commercially available extracts, except for peach; 0.77 versus 0.36, respectively. Conclusion: In the diagnostic procedures to identify an IgE-mediated food allergy, homemade extracts from hazelnut and walnut appear to be a good alternative in the absence of commercially available food allergen extracts.

Assessment of immediate and non-immediate hypersensitivity contrast reactions by skin tests and provocation tests: A review

INTRODUCTION

Allergic and nonallergic hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media (ICM) and gadolinium-based contrast media are classified as immediate or non-immediate hypersensitivity reactions (IHR and NIHR), respectively. Skin tests and provocation tests are recommended for the evaluation of hypersensitivity reactions to contrast agents; however provocations are not common in clinical practice.

METHODS

A MEDLINE search was conducted to investigate studies comprising both skin tests and provocation tests that evaluated hypersensitivity reactions to ICM.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies were identified that reported on skin tests, followed by provocations. In the case of IHR to ICM, 65/69 (94%) patients with a positive skin test for the culprit media tolerated a challenge with a skin-test-negative alternative ICM. In IHR to ICM with a negative skin test for the culprit media, provocations were positive in 3.2%-9.1% patients. In the case of a NIHR to ICM with a positive skin test, provocation with a skin-test-negative agent was tolerated in 75/105 (71%) of cases. In NIHR with a negative skin test for the culprit agent, re-exposure to the culprit or an alternative was positive in 0%-34.6% patients. Provocations with the same ICM in skin test positive patients with IHR or NIHR were positive for a majority of the patients, although such provocation tests were rarely performed. Data on hypersensitivity reactions, skin tests and provocations with gadolinium-based contrast media were limited; however, they exhibited a pattern similar to that observed in ICM.

CONCLUSION

In both ICM and gadolinium-based contrast media, the risk of an immediate repeat reaction is low when skin tests are negative. In contrast, a provocation with a skin-test-positive contrast medium showed a high risk of an immediate repeat hypersensitivity reaction. Therefore, a thorough medical history is necessary, followed by skin tests. A provocation is recommended, for diagnostic work-up, when the diagnosis is uncertain.

Characteristics of COVID-19 infection and antibody formation in patients known at a tertiary immunology department

Background

Knowledge about COVID-19 infections is expanding, although knowledge about the disease course and antibody formation in patients with an auto-immune disease or immunodeficiency is not fully unraveled yet. It could be hypothesized that immunodeficient patients, due to immunosuppressive drugs or their disease, have a more severe disease course due to their immunocompromised state. However, it could also be hypothesized that some of the immunosuppressive drugs protect against a hyperinflammatory state.

Methods

We collected data on the incidence of COVID-19, disease course and SARS-CoV-2 antibody formation in COVID-19 positive patients in a cohort of patients (n ​= ​4497) known at the Clinical Immunology outpatient clinic in a tertiary care hospital in the Netherlands.

Results

In the first six months of the pandemic, 16 patients were identified with COVID-19, 14 by nasal swab PCR, and 2 patients by SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Eight patients were admitted to the hospital. SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were measured in 8 patients and were detectable in all, including one patient on B-cell ablative therapy and one patient with Common Variable Immunodeficiency Disorder.

Conclusion

This study indicates that the disease course differs among immunocompromised patients, independently of (dis)continuation of immunosuppressive drugs. Antibody production for SARS-CoV-2 in immunocompromised patients was shown. More research needs to be conducted to confirm these observations and guidelines regarding (dis)continuation of immunosuppressive drugs in COVID-19 positive immunocompromised patients should be developed.

•

The disease course of COVID-19 largely differs among immunocompromised individuals.

•

Antibody production against SARS-CoV-2 is noticed in immunocompromised patients.

•

Further recommendations on (dis)continuation on immunosuppressive drugs during a COVID-19 infection are needed.

Small percentage of anaphylactic reactions treated with epinephrine during food challenges in Dutch children

BACKGROUND

Severe allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, occur during oral food challenges (OFCs) and the first-line treatment of anaphylaxis is epinephrine.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the percentage of anaphylactic reactions treated with epinephrine during OFCs and to identify associated factors for the administration of epinephrine.

METHODS

Children who underwent an OFC with peanut, hazelnut, cow's milk, hen's egg, or cashew nut from 2005 through 2015 in the Netherlands were evaluated. Children with reactions meeting the criteria for anaphylaxis according to the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology guidelines for food allergy and anaphylaxis were included. Children with an anaphylactic reaction treated with vs without epinephrine were compared. Possible factors associated with the administration of epinephrine, such as age, sex, symptoms consistent with asthma, history of an allergic reaction to the tested allergen, and symptom types during the anaphylactic reaction, were evaluated using logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Eighty-three children in clinical and research settings (43% boys; median age, 7 years; range, 1-17) who met the criteria for anaphylaxis were included in this study. Thirty-two of 83 children (39%) with anaphylaxis were treated with epinephrine. Respiratory symptoms during the OFC were treated significantly more often with epinephrine than gastrointestinal symptoms (P = .01).

CONCLUSION

Only 39% of children with anaphylaxis, according to the guideline criteria, were treated with epinephrine during the OFC and most of these children had respiratory symptoms. There is need for an easy-to-use international guideline for the treatment of allergic symptoms during OFCs.