Identifying the most at-risk age-group and longitudinal trends of drug allergy labeling amongst 7.3 million individuals in Hong Kong.

BACKGROUND: Incorrect drug 'allergy' labels remain a global public health concern. Identifying regional trends of drug allergy labeling can guide appropriate public health interventions, but longitudinal or population drug allergy studies remain scarce. We analysed the serial epidemiology of drug allergy labeling to identify specific subgroups at highest risk of drug allergy labeling for potential interventions. METHODS: Longitudinal, population-wide drug allergy labels and clinical data from over 7,337,778 individuals in Hong Kong between 2016 and 2021 were analysed. RESULTS: The absolute prevalence and incidence of documented drug allergy were 5.61% and 277/100,000 population, respectively. Annual incidence of new allergy labels was stable between 2016 and 2019, until a significant drop in 2020 (-16.3%) during the COVID19 pandemic. The most common allergy labels were anti-infectives (245,832 [44.5%]), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory (106,843 [19.3%]), and nervous system drugs (45,802 [8.3%]). The most common labeled culprits for the most severe immediate-type (anaphylaxis) and non-immediate-type (Stevens-Johnson syndrome) reactions were beta-lactams and nervous system drugs, respectively. For individuals at highest risk of labeling, there was significantly higher incidence of overall drug and beta-lactam allergy labeling amongst individuals aged > 40 years which contributed to the majority of newly labeled allergies (377,004, 68.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to traditional dogma, we identified disproportionately higher incidence of drug allergy labeling amongst older individuals, rather than the paediatric age group. We advocate for more population-wide drug allergy studies to investigate this phenomenon in other cohorts as well as future preventative and delabeling efforts focusing on the adult population.

Hong Kong-Macau Severe Hives and Angioedema Referral Pathway.

Background: Urticaria (defined as the presence of hives, angioedema, or both) can be caused by a variety of etiologies ranging from more common conditions such as chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) to rarer conditions such as hereditary angioedema (HAE). Specialist referral may be necessary in cases of severe urticaria or HAE, but access to specialist services remains limited in certain regions, such as the Greater Bay Area (GBA) of China. To address this, the Hong Kong-Macau Severe Hives and Angioedema Referral Pathway (SHARP) was initiated by the Hong Kong Institute of Allergy and Macau Society of Dermatology to promote multidisciplinary collaboration and regional exchange of expertise in the diagnosis and management of severe urticaria. Methods: A nominated task force of dermatologists and immunologists who manage patients with severe urticaria formulated the consensus statements (CS) using the Delphi method. The consensus was defined a priori as an agreement of ≥80%. Results: A total of 24 CS were formulated, including four statements on classifications and definitions, seven statements on diagnosis, and 13 statements on management and referral. The definitions for acute/chronic urticaria and severe CSU were stated. Unnecessary investigations and inappropriate medications were discouraged. The characteristics and recommended approach to suspected bradykinergic angioedema were specified. Stepwise treatment options using second-generation antihistamines, omalizumab, or cyclosporin for patients with CSU were addressed, and the importance of access to HAE-specific medications was emphasized. Furthermore, an integrated referral pathway for patients with severe hives and angioedema was constructed. Conclusion: The SHARP provides guidance for the management and specialist referral of patients with severe hives and angioedema in Hong Kong and Macau.

Long-term prophylaxis for hereditary angioedema: Initial experiences with garadacimab and lanadelumab.

Background: With no approved long-term prophylaxis (LTP) for the prevention of hereditary angioedema (HAE) attacks in Hong Kong, patients rely on compassionate use programs and drug trials. Moreover, studies regarding the use and efficacy of LTP in Asia are lacking. Objectives: Our aim was to assess 2 LTP medications for HAE in Hong Kong: lanadelumab and garadacimab. Methods: A prospective study was performed. Adult patients with a diagnosis of type I or type II HAE with 1 or more expert-confirmed attacks per month were consecutively recruited. The patients had been receiving treatment for at least 6 months. Clinical data were obtained, and questionnaires were administered before treatment periodically for at least 6 months following initiation of LTP. Results: Almost one-third of the patients with HAE experienced frequent attacks and began receiving LTP (8 of the 11 received garadacimab and 3 of the 11 received lanadelumab). At baseline, the time-normalized number of HAE attacks was 2.5 plus or minus 1.3 per month. At month 6, there was an overall reduction of time-normalized number of attacks per month of -2.4 attacks per month (95% CI = -3.3 to -1.5. [P < .01]). The time-normalized number of HAE attacks at month 6 was 0.1 plus or minus 0.1 per month. More than 70% of the patients (8 of 11) were completely attack-free during the 6-month period while receiving LTP, and no patients required hospitalization. LTP improved patients' scores of the Angioedema Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (P < .001) and reduced activity impairment due to health (P = .008). Patients experienced significant improvement across all dimensions of the Treatment Satisfaction for Medication Questionnaire (54.5%-76.8% [P = .002]), and no adverse events were reported. Conclusion: The patients receiving LTP with garadacimab and lanadelumab experienced a significant reduction in number of HAE attacks and improvement in quality of life, and they were satisfied with treatment.

Epidemiology, outcomes, and disproportionate burden of food-dependent exercise-induced anaphylaxis from the Hong Kong Multidisciplinary Anaphylaxis Management Initiative (HK-MAMI).

Background: Anaphylaxis is a life-threatening allergic reaction that poses a considerable burden on populations across all ethnicities and age groups. The Hong Kong Multidisciplinary Anaphylaxis Management Initiative (HK-MAMI) was established to streamline the assessment of patients with anaphylaxis via a multidisciplinary and protocol-driven approach. Objective: This prospective study aims to define the etiology, clinical manifestations, and treatment of patients with anaphylaxis in Hong Kong. Methods: Prospective clinical data from allergologic investigations from patients who completed evaluation by the HK-MAMI pathway between January 2017 and August 2022 were analyzed. Results: Of the 161 patients referred via the HK-MAMI, 131 (81.4%) met the diagnostic criteria for anaphylaxis. The median delay in diagnosis was 2 years (range 0-30 years). The majority of anaphylaxis cases were attributed to food-dependent exercise-induced anaphylaxis (FDEIA), especially wheat-dependent exercise-induced anaphylaxis. In acute management settings, paired tryptase samples were taken in only around one-third of anaphylaxis cases, with 82.5% of the samples demonstrating significant elevation. There was a general underprescription of adrenaline autoinjectors, especially for food-related anaphylaxis. Patients with FDEIA had later ages of onset and diagnosis, and they presented with more cardiovascular manifestations. Skin prick tests and specific IgE level tests were able to diagnose 95% of FDEIA cases. Conclusion: Our study highlights the significant burden of FDEIA, and especially WDEIA, in Hong Kong, its association with severe presentations, and difficulties encountered in emergency or primary care settings. We advocate appropriate adrenaline use during acute-care management and discharge plans, as well as taking serum mast cell tryptase samples during acute episodes. Interdisciplinary collaboration remains crucial to upholding proper and optimized care for patients with anaphylaxis in Hong Kong.

Ten-year outcomes of Perioperative Anaphylaxis Workup Study in Hong Kong (PAWS-HK): Performance of diagnostic modalities.

BACKGROUND: Studies on perioperative anaphylaxis (PA) in Asia are lacking. Furthermore, allergy workup for PA has largely been limited to the "silver standard" of skin tests (ST). Using in vitro tests as an adjunct to ST may improve and overcome these diagnostic challenges. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical characteristics and diagnostic tests of patients with suspected PA through the Perioperative Anaphylaxis Workup Study in Hong Kong cohort. METHODS: Patients with a diagnosis of PA over a 10-year period were recruited into the Perioperative Anaphylaxis Workup Study in Hong Kong. We reviewed the medical records, tryptase elevation, and diagnostic tests including ST, specific immunoglobulin E, and basophil activation tests (BAT). RESULTS: In 151 patients with PA, diagnosis was reached in three-fourths of the cases (113/151, 74.8%). The most common culprits identified were neuromuscular blocking agents (25.8%), ß lactams (17.2%) and chlorhexidine (13.9%). Severe anaphylaxis was associated with female sex, older age, elevated acute tryptase levels, and more cardiovascular manifestations during induction. Skin tests remained the most sensitive diagnostic modality overall (66.2%). BAT showed better performance for chlorhexidine and gelofusine anaphylaxis, with sensitivity of 80.0% and 79.6%, respectively. Specific Immunoglobulin E indicated even higher sensitivity (95.2%) than did ST (85.0%) and BAT (80.0%) for chlorhexidine anaphylaxis but performed poorly for other drugs. CONCLUSION: Neuromuscular blocking agents remain the most common culprit in PA. There was a higher prevalence of gelofusine anaphylaxis in our cohort than was seen in the literature. Skin tests remain the most sensitive testing modality. In vitro tests for chlorhexidine and gelofusine showed promising results, but more studies to further elucidate its use are warranted.

Comparative Effectiveness, Safety, and Real-World Outcomes of a Nurse-Led, Protocol-Driven Penicillin Allergy Evaluation From the Hong Kong Drug Allergy Delabelling Initiative (HK-DADI).

BACKGROUND: There is a high prevalence of unconfirmed penicillin allergy, which is associated with a multitude of adverse clinical outcomes. With the overwhelming burden of currently incorrect labels and the lack of allergy specialist services, new delabeling strategies are urgently needed. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness, safety, and real-world outcomes of a nurse-led, protocol-driven evaluation of penicillin allergy, the Hong Kong Drug Allergy Delabelling Initiative (HK-DADI). METHODS: Adult patients with suspected penicillin allergy were recruited into HK-DADI. Allergy and postdelabeling outcomes were retrospectively compared between patients evaluated via HK-DADI or traditional allergist evaluation. RESULTS: A total of 312 completed penicillin allergy evaluation: 84 (27%) and 228 (73%) via HK-DADI and traditional pathways, respectively. Overall, 280 penicillin allergies were delabeled (90%). The delabeling rate between HK-DADI and traditional pathways was similar (90% vs 89%; P = .796). Among patients of the HK-DADI pathway, the delabeling rate was significantly higher among low-risk (LR) compared with non-LR patients (97% vs 77%; P = .010). Skin tests did not add diagnostic value among LR patients. No patients developed severe or systemic reactions during the evaluation. Upon 6- to 12-month follow-up (median, 10 months), 123 patients experienced infective episodes (44%) and 63 used penicillins again after delabeling (23%). This proportion was significantly higher in patients who were delabeled via HK-DADI compared with the traditional pathway (32% vs 19%; P = .026). CONCLUSIONS: The Hong Kong Drug Allergy Delabelling Initiative, a nurse-led, protocol-driven evaluation, was safe and effective in penicillin allergy delabeling. It led to an even higher rate of future penicillin use after delabeling and mitigated the need for unnecessary skin testing among LR patients.

Feasibility of a drug allergy registry-based excipient allergy database and call for universal mandatory drug ingredient disclosure: the case of PEG.

Background: Excipient allergy is a rare, but potentially lethal, form of drug allergy. Diagnosing excipient allergy remains difficult in regions without mandatory drug ingredient disclosure and is a significant barrier to drug safety. Objective: To investigate the feasibility of a drug allergy registry-based excipient database to identify potential excipient culprits in patients with history of drug allergy, using polyethylene glycol (PEG) as an example. Methods: An excipient registry was created by compiling the excipient lists pertaining to all available formulations of the top 50 most reported drug allergy culprits in Hong Kong. Availability of excipient information, and its relationship with total number of formulations of individual drugs were analysed. All formulations were checked for the presence or absence of PEG. Results: Complete excipient information was available for 36.5% (729/2,000) of all formulations of the top 50 reported drug allergy culprits in Hong Kong. The number of formulations for each drug was associated with proportion of available excipient information (ρ = 0.466, p = 0.001). Out of 729 formulations, 109 (15.0%) and 620 (85.0%) were confirmed to contain and not contain PEG, respectively. Excipient information was not available for the other 1,271 (63.6%) formulations. We were unable to confirm the presence or absence of PEG in any of the top 50 drug allergy culprits in Hong Kong. Conclusion: In countries without mandatory drug ingredient disclosure, excipient databases are unlikely able to identify potential excipient allergy in drug allergy patients. Legislations to enforce mandatory and universal ingredient disclosure are urgently needed.

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 Drug Allergy Delabelling Initiative (HK-DADI) consensus statements for penicillin allergy testing by nonallergists.

Introduction: Penicillin allergy testing has been traditionally performed by allergists, but there remains a huge deficit of specialists. A multidisciplinary effort with nonallergists would be invaluable to overcome the magnitude of penicillin allergy labels via the Hong Kong Drug Allergy Delabelling Initiative (HK-DADI). These consensus statements (CSs) offer recommendations and guidance to enable nonallergists to screen for low-risk (LR) patients and perform penicillin allergy testing. Methods: CSs were formulated by the HK-DADI Group using the Delphi method. An agreement was defined as greater than or equal to 80% consensus. Results: A total of 26 CSs reached consensus after multiple rounds of Delphi. CSs were categorized into risk assessment, skin testing, drug provocation testing (DPT), and post-testing management. For risk assessment, the essentials of allergy history and exclusion criteria were detailed. Patients with only LR features can proceed with testing by nonallergists. Skin tests should be performed prior to DPT. Details regarding the timing, preparation, and interpretation of skin tests were elaborated. DPT remains the gold standard to diagnose genuine allergy or tolerance and should be performed when there is a low pretest probability following negative skin testing. Details of DPT preparations, dosing protocols, and interpretation were elaborated. For post-testing management, inaccurate allergy labels should be delabeled following negative DPT with proper patient counseling. Conclusion: CSs support penicillin allergy testing by nonallergists in Hong Kong. LR cases can be managed by nonallergists at Spoke Clinics, with training and support of an allergist-led Hub.

Prospective Study on the Efficacy and Impact of Cascade Screening and Evaluation of Hereditary Angioedema (CaSE-HAE).

BACKGROUND: Recommendations regarding family screening for hereditary angioedema (HAE) remain variable and mostly based on expert opinion. Studies evaluating its implementation and efficacy are lacking. OBJECTIVES: A novel HAE screening program was established to evaluate the efficacy and impact of cascade family screening (CFS) for at-risk relatives. METHODS: Potential HAE relatives were screened through the CFS approach. Prospective data on clinical, psychological, and HAE-related outcomes were collected at baseline and 1-year follow-up. Longitudinal outcomes were analyzed and compared between index patients and those given a diagnosis through CFS. RESULTS: Of 179 relatives, 53% were contactable, 67% of whom consented to screening. Twenty-nine patients (46%) were newly given the diagnosis of HAE; half were symptomatic at baseline (52%). There was a stronger trend toward higher diagnostic yield among first-degree families, although this did not meet statistical significance (57.6% vs 33.3%; P = .077). Among symptomatic patients, there was a higher proportion with complete annual HAE remission (15% vs 46%; P = .021) and a reduction in annual HAE-related hospital admissions (1 vs 0; P = .016) and length of stay (3 vs 2 days; P = .001) after 1 year. Among all patients, there were reduced Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-anxiety (14.35 ± 6.32 vs 6.47 ± 4.14; P = .001) and improved Angioedema Quality of Life scores (55% vs 35%; P < .001). By extrapolation, CFS led to a reduction of at least HK $1,200 (US $153) in HAE-related costs per patient per year. Screening using a greater than suggested C4 cutoff of 22.9 mg/dL yielded superior sensitivity (100%) and specificity (77%). CONCLUSION: Cascade family screening is an effective approach to family screening in HAE, improving clinical and psychological outcomes, and reducing disease-related costs.

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.

Updated consensus statements on COVID-19 Vaccine Allergy Safety in Hong Kong.

Due to global concerns over coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine-associated allergic reactions; the Hong Kong Institute of Allergy (HKIA) formulated an initial set of consensus statements (CS) on COVID-19 Vaccine Allergy Safety (VAS) in early 2021. Following accumulation of both local and international experience on and COVID-19 VAS, the HKIA task force reformed to update the Hong Kong consensus on COVID-19 VAS. A nominated task force of experts managing patients with drug and vaccine allergies in Hong Kong formulated the updated CS by unanimous decision. A total of 9 new statements were established. Individuals with history of food allergies and anaphylaxis unrelated to the components of COVID-19 vaccines do not require allergist review prior to vaccination. Individuals with history suspicious of an excipient allergy may now be vaccinated with a non-PEG containing vaccine without prior allergist assessment. Individuals with suspected mild allergic reactions following prior COVID-19 vaccination can proceed with the next dose. Only individuals who present with immediate-type allergic reaction with systemic symptoms or more severe nonimmediate type reactions should defer their next dose until allergist review. The remaining statements regarding adequate safety during vaccination and advocation for legislative changes regarding excipient disclosure in Hong Kong remained unchanged from the prior CS. The updated CS are updated in accordance with local and international experience thus far and serve as guidance for local frontline healthcare providers to further promote safe COVID-19 vaccine uptake in Hong Kong.

Experience of the first 1127 COVID-19 Vaccine Allergy Safety patients in Hong Kong - Clinical outcomes, barriers to vaccination, and urgency for reform.

INTRODUCTION: Hong Kong has had a low incidence of COVID-19 vaccine related anaphylaxis, partly due to its Vaccine Allergy Safety (VAS) guidelines for screening those at higher risk of COVID-19 vaccine-associated allergic reactions. We characterize the initial experience of the VAS clinics, as well as the impact of unnecessary referrals to the vaccination program. METHODS: All patients attending the VAS Clinics of the public and private health services between February and June 2021 were reviewed. RESULTS: Out of 1127 patients assessed at VAS clinics, 1102 (97.8%) patients were recommended for vaccination. Out of those contacted, more than 80% (450/558) received vaccination successfully; the remaining had not yet booked their vaccinations. The majority (87.5%) of patients not recommended was due to potential excipient allergies. Males were significantly more likely to be recommended (OR = 5.822, 95% CI = 1.361-24.903, p = 0.007), but no other features were associated with recommendation for vaccination. Almost half (45.1%) of public service referrals were rejected due to insufficient information or incorrect indications for referral. The majority of cases (56.2%) of patients referred for suspected "anaphylaxis" did not fulfil diagnostic criteria. DISCUSSION: COVID-19 vaccination is very safe and 98% of high-risk patients were recommended for vaccination. Barriers to VAS include a high proportion of inappropriate referrals, inaccurate diagnoses of anaphylaxis and inability to diagnose excipient allergies. Our data validates that a prior history of COVID-vaccine unrelated anaphylaxis should be removed as a precaution for vaccination. Closer collaborations between primary care and allergy specialists and changes in pharmaceutical legislation should be made a priority to promote vaccination uptake.