RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Misdiagnosed vaccine-related "allergies" lead to unnecessary vaccine deferrals and incomplete vaccinations, leaving patients unprotected against COVID-19. To overcome limitations and queues for Allergist assessment, the "VAS-Track" pathway was developed to evaluate patients via a multi-disciplinary triage model including nurses, non-specialists, and Allergists. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the effectiveness and safety of VAS-Track and evaluate its real-world impact in terms of vaccination rates and COVID-19 protection. METHODS: Patients referred to VAS-Track between September 2021 and March 2022 were recruited. Subgroup analysis was performed with prospective pre- and post-clinic antibody levels. RESULTS: Nurse-assisted screening identified 10,412 (76%) referrals as inappropriate. 369 patients were assessed by VAS-Track. Overall, 100% of patients were recommended to complete vaccination and 332 (90%) completed their primary series. No patients reported any significant allergic reactions following subsequent vaccination. Vaccination completion rates between patients seen by non-specialists and additional Allergist review were similar (90% vs. 89%, p = 0.617). Vaccination rates were higher among patients with prior history of immediate-type reactions (odds ratio: 2.43, p = 0.025). Subgroup analysis revealed that only 20% (56/284) of patients had seropositive COVID-19 neutralizing antibody levels (≥ 15 AU/mL) prior to VAS-Track, which increased to 92% after vaccine completion (pre-clinic antibody level 6.0 ± 13.5 AU/mL vs. post-clinic antibody level 778.8 ± 337.4 AU/mL, p > 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A multi-disciplinary allergy team was able to streamline our COVID-19 VAS services, enabling almost all patients to complete their primary series, significantly boosting antibody levels and real-world COVID-19 protection. We propose similar multidisciplinary models to be further utilized, especially in the settings with limited allergy services.
RESUMO
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.