COVID-19 Vaccination in Patients with Inborn Errors of Immunity Reduces Hospitalization and Critical Care Needs Related to COVID-19: a USIDNET Report.

BACKGROUND: The CDC and ACIP recommend COVID-19 vaccination for patients with inborn errors of immunity (IEI). Not much is known about vaccine safety in IEI, and whether vaccination attenuates infection severity in IEI. OBJECTIVE: To estimate COVID-19 vaccination safety and examine effect on outcomes in patients with IEI. METHODS: We built a secure registry database in conjunction with the US Immunodeficiency Network to examine vaccination frequency and indicators of safety and effectiveness in IEI patients. The registry opened on January 1, 2022, and closed on August 19, 2022. RESULTS: Physicians entered data on 1245 patients from 24 countries. The most common diagnoses were antibody deficiencies (63.7%). At least one COVID-19 vaccine was administered to 806 patients (64.7%), and 216 patients received vaccination prior to the development of COVID-19. The most common vaccines administered were mRNA-based (84.0%). Seventeen patients were reported to seek outpatient clinic or emergency room care for a vaccine-related complication, and one patient was hospitalized for symptomatic anemia. Eight hundred twenty-three patients (66.1%) experienced COVID-19 infection. Of these, 156 patients required hospitalization (19.0%), 47 required ICU care (5.7%), and 28 died (3.4%). Rates of hospitalization (9.3% versus 24.4%, p < 0.001), ICU admission (2.8% versus 7.6%, p = 0.013), and death (2.3% versus 4.3%, p = 0.202) in patients who had COVID-19 were lower in patients who received vaccination prior to infection. In adjusted logistic regression analysis, not having at least one COVID-19 vaccine significantly increased the odds of hospitalization and ICU admission. CONCLUSION: Vaccination for COVID-19 in the IEI population appears safe and attenuates COVID-19 severity.

Implementing Food Oral Immunotherapy Into Clinical Practice: Quality and Safety Perspectives From a US Academic Center.

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is an accessible procedure for practicing allergy/immunology providers, yet rigorous safety standards are limited in the clinical setting. By exploring the transition from research to clinical practice OIT, we review relevant safety considerations necessary for the clinical provider. We offer a perspective on clinical benefits and considerations at the individual, collaboration, and policy levels from the vantage of a large academic OIT program, and we propose several practical start-up checklists and clerical considerations for practicing providers. Awareness of the local population and front-end planning is necessary to improve the accessibility of this procedure in clinical practice among racial and socioeconomic minority populations. Sharing and merging OIT protocols, procedural methods, and electronic medical record order sets may increase harmonization among OIT-providing institutions and further our abilities to pool safety and outcomes data, ultimately enhancing the safety and efficacy of clinical OIT.

Food Allergy Reaction Severity and Management in a Diverse Population.

BACKGROUND: Definitive treatment for food allergy reactions including anaphylaxis varies widely by reaction severity and socioeconomic status, but little data exist to characterize the relationship between severity, management, and race and ethnicity. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the differences in reaction severity, epinephrine use, and emergency room (ER) use by race and ethnicity in a large, diverse, food-allergic cohort. METHODS: We analyzed intake data from participants in the Food Allergy Outcomes Related to White and African-American Racial Differences cohort on the history of food allergy reactions, severity of the reactions, and management associated with each reaction. We used descriptive statistics as well as mixed-effects logistic and Poisson models to describe the differences in reaction severity, ER visits, and total lifetime epinephrine use by race and ethnicity. RESULTS: A total of 784 children were included in the analysis: 425 (54.2%) were non-Hispanic White, 282 (36.0%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 77 (9.8%) were Hispanic/Latino. Non-Hispanic Black children had increased odds of more severe reactions (odds ratio, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2-2.3) and higher odds of going to the ER (odds ratio, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.4-5.4). Both non-Hispanic Black (incidence rate ratio, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.3-0.5) and Hispanic/Latino (incidence rate ratio, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.2-0.5) children had lower rates of total lifetime epinephrine use. CONCLUSIONS: There are significant disparities in the severity and treatment of food allergy reactions by race and ethnicity, resulting in increased ER use and decreased total lifetime epinephrine use. Equipping parents with resources and tools on management of food allergy reactions may result in decreased disparity in access to definitive care.

World Allergy Organization (WAO) Diagnosis and Rationale for Action against Cow's Milk Allergy (DRACMA) guideline update - XII - Recommendations on milk formula supplements with and without probiotics for infants and toddlers with CMA.

Background: Cow's milk allergy (CMA) is the most common food allergy in infants. The replacement with specialized formulas is an established clinical approach to ensure adequate growth and minimize the risk of severe allergic reactions when breastfeeding is not possible. Still, given the availability of multiple options, such as extensively hydrolyzed cow's milk protein formula (eHF-CM), amino acid formula (AAF), hydrolyzed rice formula (HRF) and soy formulas (SF), there is some uncertainty as to the most suitable choice with respect to health outcomes. Furthermore, the addition of probiotics to a formula has been proposed as a potential approach to maximize benefit. Objective: These evidence-based guidelines from the World Allergy Organization (WAO) intend to support patients, clinicians, and others in decisions about the use of milk specialized formulas, with and without probiotics, for individuals with CMA. Methods: WAO formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to include the views of all stakeholders and to minimize potential biases from competing interests. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline-development process, including updating or performing systematic evidence reviews. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used, including GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, which were subject to review by stakeholders. Results: After reviewing the summarized evidence and thoroughly discussing the different management options, the WAO guideline panel suggests: a) using an extensively hydrolyzed (cow's milk) formula or a hydrolyzed rice formula as the first option for managing infants with immunoglobulin E (IgE) and non-IgE-mediated CMA who are not being breastfed. An amino-acid formula or a soy formula could be regarded as second and third options respectively; b) using either a formula without a probiotic or a casein-based extensively hydrolyzed formula containing Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus GG (LGG) for infants with either IgE or non-IgE-mediated CMA.The issued recommendations are labeled as "conditional" following the GRADE approach due to the very low certainty about the health effects based on the available evidence. Conclusions: If breastfeeding is not available, clinicians, patients, and their family members might want to discuss all the potential desirable and undesirable consequences of each formula in infants with CMA, integrating them with the patients' and caregivers' values and preferences, local availability, and cost, before deciding on a treatment option. We also suggest what research is needed to determine with greater certainty which formulas are likely to be the most beneficial, cost-effective, and equitable.

Oral food challenges.

Oral food challenge (OFC) is a procedure that is conducted most commonly by allergist/immunologists in their office or in food allergy centers to confirm a food allergy or to confirm tolerance to the food. The procedure as conducted in clinical practice is mostly open food challenge and, in research, a double-blind, placebo controlled food challenge. OFC has associated risks that can be minimized by having the challenges conducted by trained personnel who are prepared to treat allergic reactions and who have rescue medications available. However, OFCs have tremendous benefits to the patients and their families, including the potential to determine that a food is no longer an allergen and can be introduced into the diet. Even OFCs that result in clinical reactions have the benefit of confirming the food allergy and demonstrating the therapeutic effect of the rescue medications. The study of the outcomes of OFC has shed light on food allergy reactions and characteristics of the patients with food allergy as well as on the value of other diagnostic tests compared with OFC. OFCs have helped establish food allergy thresholds, confirm that subjects enrolled in research studies have the allergy, and demonstrate the response to the therapies tested in terms of ameliorating the allergic response or raising the reaction threshold. OFCs have also been used to promote the recent guidelines for the prevention of peanut allergy by identifying the infants at risk for peanut allergy but who are not allergic yet.