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.

Trends in the proportion of women speakers at North American Allergy and Immunology conferences, 2008 to 2020.

BACKGROUND: Women in medicine continue to be underrepresented at medical conferences. Previous studies have evaluated the proportion of invited female speakers across multiple specialties and evaluated factors that may have led to this disparity. The field of Allergy and Immunology has often been excluded and analyses have not illustrated how the trends have changed over the past decade. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the distribution of invited speakers by gender over time at the 3 largest North American Allergy and Immunology conferences. METHODS: This retrospective longitudinal analysis used conference programs from 2008 to 2020 from the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology (AAAAI), the American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology (ACAAI), and the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (CSACI). The gender (binary definition, man or woman, based on names, photos, pronouns, from conference programs and institutional profiles) of invited speakers was analyzed as the primary outcome, and planning committee members, and multispeaker sessions as secondary outcomes. These data were compared with publicly available data on the composition of the specialty by gender in the United States and Canada. RESULTS: Women speakers at AAAAI, ACAAI, and CSACI conferences have historically been lower than male speakers and underrepresented compared with specialty composition. However, there has been a significant increase in the proportion of women speakers over time for all 3 conferences individually (AAAAI: 23.7% in 2008, 41.1% by 2020; ACAAI: 16.7% in 2008, 37.3% by 2020; CSACI: 19.4% in 2008, 54.8% by 2020; P < .001 for each) and combined (21.3% in 2008, 40.7% by 2020, P < .001). This trend coincides with a significant increase in women on the planning committee (all conferences: 20% in 2008, 50.6% by 2020; P < .001). There is also a decreasing trend over time for men-only multispeaker sessions. CONCLUSION: This study sheds light on the trends of women speaker representation at Allergy and Immunology conferences and provides clarity on future needs to reach equal representation in this field.

Canadian multidisciplinary expert consensus on the use of biologics in upper airways: a Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP) often coexists with lower airway disease. With the overlap between upper and lower airway disease, optimal management of the upper airways is undertaken in conjunction with that of the lower airways. Biologic therapy with targeted activity within the Type 2 inflammatory pathway can improve the clinical signs and symptoms of both upper and lower airway diseases. Knowledge gaps nevertheless exist in how best to approach patient care as a whole. There have been sixteen randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trails performed for CRSwNP targeted components of the Type 2 inflammatory pathway, notably interleukin (IL)-4, IL-5 and IL-13, IL- 5R, IL-33, and immunoglobulin (Ig)E. This white paper considers the perspectives of experts in various disciplines such as rhinology, allergy, and respirology across Canada, all of whom have unique and valuable insights to contribute on how to best approach patients with upper airway disease from a multidisciplinary perspective. METHODS: A Delphi Method process was utilized involving three rounds of questionnaires in which the first two were completed individually online and the third was discussed on a virtual platform with all the panelists. A national multidisciplinary expert panel of 34 certified specialists was created, composed of 16 rhinologists, 7 allergists, and 11 respirologists who evaluated the 20 original statements on a scale of 1-9 and provided comments. All ratings were quantitively reviewed by mean, median, mode, range, standard deviation and inter-rater reliability. Consensus was defined by relative interrater reliability measures-kappa coefficient ([Formula: see text]) value > 0.61. RESULTS: After three rounds, a total of 22 statements achieved consensus. This white paper only contains the final agreed upon statements and clear rationale and support for the statements regarding the use of biologics in patients with upper airway disease. CONCLUSION: This white paper provides guidance to Canadian physicians on the use of biologic therapy for the management of upper airway disease from a multidisciplinary perspective, but the medical and surgical regimen should ultimately be individualized to the patient. As more biologics become available and additional trials are published we will provide updated versions of this white paper every few years.

Impact of cannabis knowledge and attitudes on real-world practice.

BACKGROUND: Increased cannabis consumption worldwide challenges allergists because of an upsurge in cannabis allergy and need to discuss cannabis with patients. OBJECTIVE: To determine the knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding cannabis among allergists and their approach to recognizing and diagnosing suspected cannabis allergy. METHODS: The International Allergist Canna Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Survey was completed by members from 3 International Allergy Societies. Survey questions included the following: 13 on cannabis attitudes, 7 on cannabis knowledge, and 4 on real-world allergy practices. Knowledge level was dichotomized and Statistical Package for the Social Sciences TwoStep Cluster Analysis grouped participants by attitudes. Multivariate analysis determined the relationship of knowledge and attitude to practice delivery. RESULTS: Of 570 eligible surveys started, 445 (78.1%) were completed. Participants were 49.7% of female sex, 65.9% aged 24 to 56 years, approximately 70% in practice for more than or equal to 10 years, and 29.2% practicing in an area where cannabis use is illegal. Of the respondents, 43.1% reported consulting on patients with suspected cannabis allergy and 54.7% had undertaken skin prick testing, in vitro cannabis testing, or both. Statistically significant differences were found between the 3 societies for most variables analyzed. Analysis of attitudes revealed 3 clusters named Traditional, Progressive, and Unsure. Those with more progressive attitudes toward cannabis and who had more knowledge were more comfortable speaking to patients about cannabis and more often asked patients on how often and how they used cannabis (all P < .001). CONCLUSION: Varying knowledge and attitudes toward cannabis affecting comfort communicating with patients about cannabis were found in members of 3 allergy societies supporting the need for more cannabis research and education.

Cannabis-related allergies: An international overview and consensus recommendations.

Cannabis is the most widely used recreational drug in the world. Cannabis sativa and Cannabis indica have been selectively bred to develop their psychoactive properties. The increasing use in many countries has been accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Cannabis can provoke both type 1 and type 4 allergic reactions. Officially recognized allergens include a pathogenesis-related class 10 allergen, profilin, and a nonspecific lipid transfer protein. Other allergens may also be relevant, and recognition of allergens may vary between countries and continents. Cannabis also has the potential to provoke allergic cross-reactions to plant foods. Since cannabis is an illegal substance in many countries, research has been hampered, leading to challenges in diagnosis since no commercial extracts are available for testing. Even in countries such as Canada, where cannabis is legalized, diagnosis may rely solely on the purchase of cannabis for prick-to-prick skin tests. Management consists of avoidance, with legal issues hindering the development of other treatments such as immunotherapy. Education of healthcare professionals is similarly lacking. This review aimed to summarize the current status of cannabis allergy and proposes recommendations for the future management of this global issue.

Lessons learned in allergy and immunology training: a survey analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is currently little Canadian data to assess how well traditional time-based residency training programs have prepared residents for careers in Clinical Immunology and Allergy (CIA). This study aims to identify the perceived preparedness of residents in various areas of practice upon the completion of a Canadian CIA residency training program. METHODS: In the summer of 2020, an electronic survey was sent to 2018 and 2019 graduates of Canadian CIA training programs by the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (CSACI). RESULTS: Former residents felt well prepared in most Medical Expert areas. Residents felt less prepared for the intrinsic roles of Leader, Communicator, Collaborator, Health Advocate, Scholar, and Professional. The majority of the intrinsic competencies were learned through mentorship and on the job after finishing training. CONCLUSIONS: Upon completion of training, Canadian CIA residents felt well prepared for many competencies, particularly in Medical Expert areas. Training programs may wish to focus on various intrinsic competencies in order to better prepare residents for transition to practice. Academic half-day was not identified as a primary learning centre for intrinsic competencies, suggesting that new teaching strategies may be required.

Rupatadine to prevent local allergic reactions to sublingual allergy immunotherapy: a case series.

BACKGROUND: Sublingual immunotherapy tablets (SLIT-T) are an effective treatment for allergic rhinitis (AR), but some patients experience local allergic reactions (LAR) in the first few weeks of treatment that can lead to treatment discontinuation. Although oral antihistamines are recommended for the treatment and pretreatment of LAR associated with SLIT-T, there are no clinical trial data to support this recommendation. Rupatadine is an H1 antihistamine that also inhibits platelet activating factor activity. The objective of this case series is to describe real-world clinical situations in which rupatadine was used to treat or mitigate SLIT-T-related LAR. CASE PRESENTATIONS: Five cases are presented by the managing allergist and off-label use of rupatadine is their expert opinion only. Patients in all 5 cases were treated with a SLIT-T (e.g. ragweed, tree, grass, or house dust mites) for the management of allergic rhinitis and experienced bothersome LAR with the first SLIT-T administration. In 3 cases, rupatadine 10 mg was administered for the immediate treatment of LAR (either in-office with the first SLIT-T dose or for subsequent LAR experienced at home) and the symptoms resolved. In 3 cases, pretreatment with other second-generation H1 antihistamines was unable to prevent LAR and the patients discontinued the SLIT-T. In these 3 cases, switching to pretreatment with rupatadine allowed the patients to restart and tolerate SLIT-T treatment with minimal or no LAR. In these patients with an established history of LAR, proactive pretreatment with rupatadine in subsequent seasons or with initiation of a different SLIT-T mitigated the previously experienced LARs. CONCLUSIONS: In the cases presented, treatment with rupatadine resolved LAR associated with SLIT-T treatment and rupatadine pretreatment appeared to mitigate subsequent LAR. Rupatadine may be an option to treat or improve the tolerability of the SLIT-T, potentially improving early treatment persistence.

COVID-19 vaccine testing & administration guidance for allergists/immunologists from the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (CSACI).

BACKGROUND: Safe and effective vaccines provide the first hope for mitigating the devastating health and economic impacts resulting from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and related public health orders. Recent case reports of reactions to COVID-19 vaccines have raised questions about their safety for use in individuals with allergies and those who are immunocompromised. In this document, we aim to address these concerns and provide guidance for allergists/immunologists. METHODS: Scoping review of the literature regarding COVID-19 vaccination, adverse or allergic reactions, and immunocompromise from PubMed over the term of December 2020 to present date. We filtered our search with the terms "human" and "English" and limited the search to the relevant subject age range with the term "adult." Reports resulting from these searches and relevant references cited in those reports were reviewed and cited on the basis of their relevance. RESULTS: Assessment by an allergist is warranted in any individual with a suspected allergy to a COVID-19 vaccine or any of its components. Assessment by an allergist is NOT required for individuals with a history of unrelated allergies, including to allergies to foods, drugs, insect venom or environmental allergens. COVID-19 vaccines should be offered to immunocompromised patients if the benefit is deemed to outweigh any potential risks of vaccination. INTERPRETATION: This review provides the first Canadian guidance regarding assessment of an adolescent and adult with a suspected allergy to one of the COVID-19 vaccines currently available, or any of their known allergenic components, and for patients who are immunocompromised who require vaccination for COVID-19. As information is updated this guidance will be updated accordingly.

Practical guide for evaluation and management of beta-lactam allergy: position statement from the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.

The vast majority of individuals labelled as allergic are not deemed truly allergic upon appropriate assessment by an allergist. A label of beta-lactam allergy carries important risks for individual and public health. This article provides an overview of beta-lactam allergy, implications of erroneous beta-lactam allergy labels and the impact that can be provided by structured allergy assessment. We provide recommendations on how to stratify risk of beta-lactam allergy, beta lactam challenge protocols as well as management of patients at high risk of beta-lactam allergy.

Correction to: The International/Canadian Hereditary Angioedema Guideline.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s13223-019-0376-8.].

The International/Canadian Hereditary Angioedema Guideline.

This is an update to the 2014 Canadian Hereditary Angioedema Guideline with an expanded scope to include the management of hereditary angioedema (HAE) patients worldwide. It is a collaboration of Canadian and international HAE experts and patient groups led by the Canadian Hereditary Angioedema Network. The objective of this guideline is to provide evidence-based recommendations, using the GRADE system, for the management of patients with HAE. This includes the treatment of attacks, short-term prophylaxis, long-term prophylaxis, and recommendations for self-administration, individualized therapy, quality of life, and comprehensive care. New to the 2019 version of this guideline are sections covering the diagnosis and recommended therapies for acute treatment in HAE patients with normal C1-INH, as well as sections on pregnant and paediatric patients, patient associations and an HAE registry. Hereditary angioedema results in random and often unpredictable attacks of painful swelling typically affecting the extremities, bowel mucosa, genitals, face and upper airway. Attacks are associated with significant functional impairment, decreased health-related quality of life, and mortality in the case of laryngeal attacks. Caring for patients with HAE can be challenging due to the complexity of this disease. The care of patients with HAE in Canada, as in many countries, continues to be neither optimal nor uniform. It lags behind some other countries where there are more organized models for HAE management, and greater availability of additional licensed therapeutic options. It is anticipated that providing this guideline to caregivers, policy makers, patients, and advocates will not only optimize the management of HAE, but also promote the importance of individualized care. The primary target users of this guideline are healthcare providers who are managing patients with HAE. Other healthcare providers who may use this guideline are emergency and intensive care physicians, primary care physicians, gastroenterologists, dentists, otolaryngologists, paediatricians, and gynaecologists who will encounter patients with HAE and need to be aware of this condition. Hospital administrators, insurers and policy makers may also find this guideline helpful.

The role of video-assisted feedback sessions in resident teaching: A pre-post intervention.

This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. Purpose: Despite providing a large component of teaching to trainees, internal medicine residents receive little feedback on their teaching ability. Methods: This was a single-center, mixed methods study of 19 senior internal medicine residents in Canada. Classroom-based teaching sessions delivered by the participants were individually video recorded. The individual recording was then watched by the participant and by two feedback facilitators, who then met for face-to-face feedback. Participants completed a self-reflective exercise after this intervention. Audience members of the recorded session and a post-feedback teaching session completed an evaluation form. Scores from the evaluation forms from each phase were analyzed with the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test. Inductive coding was performed for qualitative data from the feedback sessions and reflective exercises. Results: 19 residents participated. There was no statistical difference in the evaluation form scores between the pre-intervention and post-intervention teaching sessions. Mean scores varied from 4.6 to 5.0 out of 5.0 on combined pre-and post-intervention evaluations. 89% of participants found viewing their recorded session useful. 94% of residents stated the intervention was worth continuing. Common themes of feedback and self-evaluation included "time-management," "organization," "communication," and "environment." Conclusion: Video-assisted feedback of teaching improved self-perception of a resident's teaching ability.

Non-IgE-mediated food hypersensitivity.

Non-immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated food hypersensitivity includes a spectrum of disorders that predominantly affect the gastrointestinal tract. This review will focus on the following more common non-IgE-mediated food hypersensitivity syndromes: food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome (FPIES), allergic proctocolitis (AP), food protein-induced enteropathy (FPE) and celiac disease. FPIES, AP and FPE typically present in infancy and are most commonly triggered by cow's milk protein or soy. The usual presenting features are profuse emesis and dehydration in FPIES; blood-streaked and mucousy stools in AP; and protracted diarrhea with malabsorption in FPE. Since there are no confirmatory noninvasive diagnostic tests for most of these disorders, the diagnosis is based on a convincing history and resolution of symptoms with food avoidance. The mainstay of management for FPIES, AP and FPE is avoidance of the suspected inciting food, with periodic oral food challenges to assess for resolution, which generally occurs in the first few years of life. Celiac disease is an immune-mediated injury caused by the ingestion of gluten that leads to villous atrophy in the small intestine in genetically susceptible individuals. Serologic tests and small intestinal biopsy are required to confirm the diagnosis of celiac disease, and management requires life-long adherence to a strict gluten-free diet.

New onset colitis in an adult patient with chronic granulomatous disease treated with hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a diagnostic dilemma.

BACKGROUND: Chronic granulomatous disease (CGD) is a rare primary immunodeficiency characterized by recurrent life-threatening bacterial and fungal infections, granuloma formation and intestinal disease. This disease is caused by defects in NADPH oxidase, which result in the inability of phagocytes (neutrophils, monocytes and macrophages) to destroy certain microbes. The only established curative therapy for CGD is hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. CASE PRESENTATION: A 23-year-old Caucasian male with X-linked chronic granulomatous disease underwent a reduced-intensity conditioning, matched unrelated donor peripheral blood stem cell transplant, after which he was started on tacrolimus and mycophenolate for graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis. Seven months later, he was admitted to hospital for nutritional support secondary to odynophagia and anorexia. Upper endoscopy revealed ulcers in his esophagus, and he was initially treated with acyclovir due to the risk of CMV infection until biopsies came back negative for viral colitis. Following a sigmoidoscopy that showed nonspecific colitis, he was started on mesalamine. Although pathology showed a pattern of widespread inflammatory changes initially suggestive of CGD colitis, a peripheral blood chimerism study showed 100% donor alleles suggesting CGD remission. Since this patient's colitis was refractory to other immunomodulators, and due to its severity, the patient underwent a partial colectomy 1 year after his HSCT and will likely require the removal of the remaining large bowel. CONCLUSIONS: This case demonstrates a unique presentation of colitis in a post-transplant CGD patient. Since CGD colitis could be excluded due to the patient's recent successful hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, a broad differential diagnosis is required for determining the etiology of this new-onset colitis in this patient with pre-existing chronic granulomatous disease. This case delineates the need for interdisciplinary care and describes a severe case of colitis after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

Food allergy management from the perspective of patients or caregivers, and allergists: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Research has shown that the long term management of food allergy is suboptimal. Our study aims to provide direction for improvement, by evaluating food allergy management from the perspective of, food allergic patients or their caregivers, and allergists in selected outpatient settings in Ontario. METHODS: This two-part study included an anonymous questionnaire completed by patients or their caregivers in allergy clinics, and a qualitative interview with allergists. In Part A, food allergic patients or their caregivers were surveyed about information they received on food allergy, their level of confidence with self-management, and their learning needs. In Part B, allergists were interviewed about teaching priorities and the challenges and strategies that currently exist in food allergy management. The questionnaire was developed and piloted at the Hamilton Health Sciences Corporation-McMaster University Medical Center Site. Using convenience sampling, participants were recruited from 6 allergy clinics in 5 Ontario cities. Patients of any age with food allergy who were evaluated by an allergist were considered for inclusion. Quantitative data was analyzed using descriptive statistics and frequency analysis. Audio recorded interviews with allergists were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using content analysis of grounded theory methodology. RESULTS: Ninety-two food allergic families in the care of 6 allergists in Toronto, Hamilton, London, Kitchener, and Kingston participated in the study. Key areas requiring improvement in food allergy management were identified: 33% of families were not shown how to use an epinephrine auto-injector with a trainer, only 57% were asked to demonstrate an auto-injector, despite being on average at their 5th visit, and only about 30% felt very confident about when and how to give an auto-injector. Fifty percent of families did not receive sufficient information on medical identification and 21% did not receive information about support groups. Interviews with allergists revealed limitations in time and nursing resources. CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights the educational gaps and overall experiences of food allergic families in Ontario, and the challenges faced by the allergists managing them.