Search

Background: Long-term health outcomes in children and young people (CYP) after COVID-19 infection are not well understood and studies with control groups exposed to other infections are lacking. This study aimed to investigate the incidence of post-COVID-19 condition (PCC) and incomplete recovery in CYP after hospital discharge and compare outcomes between different SARS-CoV-2 variants and non-SARS-CoV-2 infections., Methods: A prospective exposure-stratified cohort study of individuals under 18 years old in Moscow, Russia. Exposed cohorts were paediatric patients admitted with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection between April 2 and December 11, 2020 (Wuhan variant cohort) and between January 12 and February 19, 2022 (Omicron variant cohort). CYP admitted with respiratory and intestinal infections, but negative lateral flow rapid diagnostic test and PCR-test results for SARS-CoV-2, between January 12 and February 19, 2022, served as unexposed reference cohort. Comparison between the 'exposed cohorts' and 'reference cohort' was conducted using 1:1 matching by age and sex. Follow-up data were collected via telephone interviews with parents, utilising the long COVID paediatric protocol and survey developed by the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC). The WHO case definition was used to categorise PCC., Results: Of 2595 CYP with confirmed COVID-19, 1707 (65.7%) participated in follow-up interviews, with 1183/1707 (69%) included in the final 'matched' analysis. The median follow-up time post-discharge was 6.7 months. The incidence of PCC was significantly higher in the Wuhan variant cohort (89.7 cases per 1000 person-months, 95% CI 64.3-120.3) compared to post-infection sequalae in the reference cohort (12.2 cases per 1000 person-months, 95% CI 4.9-21.9), whereas the difference with the Omicron variant cohort and reference cohort was not significant. The Wuhan cohort had higher incidence rates of dermatological, fatigue, gastrointestinal, sensory, and sleep manifestations, as well as behavioural and emotional problems than the reference cohort. The only significant difference between Omicron variant cohort and reference cohort was decreased school attendance. When comparing the Wuhan and Omicron variant cohorts, higher incidence of PCC and event rates of fatigue, decreased physical activity, and deterioration of relationships was observed. The rate of incomplete recovery was also significantly higher in the Wuhan variant cohort than in both the reference and the Omicron variant cohorts., Conclusions: Wuhan variant exhibited a propensity for inducing a broad spectrum of physical symptoms and emotional behavioural changes, suggesting a pronounced impact on long-term health outcomes. Conversely, the Omicron variant resulted in fewer post-infection effects no different from common seasonal viral illnesses. This may mean that the Omicron variant and subsequent variants might not lead to the same level of long-term health consequences as earlier variants., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

It has been 3 years since the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic was initially declared, and 2 years have passed since the first COVID-19 vaccines were introduced. Since then, 13.2 billion COVID-19 vaccine doses have been administered worldwide, largely with multiple doses of messenger RNA vaccines. Although mild local and systemic adverse effects after COVID-19 vaccination are common, serious adverse effects following immunization are rare, particularly when compared with the large number of vaccine doses administered. Immediate and delayed reactions are relatively common and present similarly to allergic and hypersensitivity reactions. Despite this, reactions generally do not commonly recur, cause sequelae, or contraindicate revaccination. In this Clinical Management Review, we provide an updated perspective of COVID-19 vaccine reactions, their spectrum and epidemiology, and recommended approaches to evaluation and management., (Copyright © 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This guidance updates 2021 GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) recommendations regarding immediate allergic reactions following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines and addresses revaccinating individuals with first-dose allergic reactions and allergy testing to determine revaccination outcomes. Recent meta-analyses assessed the incidence of severe allergic reactions to initial COVID-19 vaccination, risk of mRNA-COVID-19 revaccination after an initial reaction, and diagnostic accuracy of COVID-19 vaccine and vaccine excipient testing in predicting reactions. GRADE methods informed rating the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations. A modified Delphi panel consisting of experts in allergy, anaphylaxis, vaccinology, infectious diseases, emergency medicine, and primary care from Australia, Canada, Europe, Japan, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States formed the recommendations. We recommend vaccination for persons without COVID-19 vaccine excipient allergy and revaccination after a prior immediate allergic reaction. We suggest against >15-minute postvaccination observation. We recommend against mRNA vaccine or excipient skin testing to predict outcomes. We suggest revaccination of persons with an immediate allergic reaction to the mRNA vaccine or excipients be performed by a person with vaccine allergy expertise in a properly equipped setting. We suggest against premedication, split-dosing, or special precautions because of a comorbid allergic history., (Crown Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The Brighton Collaboration (BC) has formulated a number of case definitions which have primarily been applied to adverse events of special interest in the context of vaccine safety surveillance. This is a revision of the 2007 BC case definition for anaphylaxis. Recently, the BC definition has been widely used for evaluating reports of suspected anaphylaxis following COVID-19 vaccination. This has led to debate about the performance of the BC definition in comparison with those from the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease/Food Allergy Anaphylaxis Network (NIAID/FAAN) and the World Allergy Organization (WAO). BC convened an expert working group to revise the case definition based on their usual process of literature review and expert consensus. This manuscript presents the outcome of this process and proposes a revised case definition for anaphylaxis. Major and minor criteria have been re-evaluated with an emphasis on the reporting of observable clinical signs, rather than subjective symptoms, and a clearer approach to the ascertainment of levels of certainty is provided. The BC case definition has also been aligned with other contemporary and international case definitions for anaphylaxis., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

For persons with immediate allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, skin testing (ST) to the vaccine/excipients (polyethylene glycol[PEG] and polysorbate 80 [PS]) has been recommended, but has unknown accuracy. To assess vaccine/excipient ST accuracy in predicting all-severity immediate allergic reactions upon re-vaccination, systematic review was performed searching Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the WHO global coronavirus database (inception-Oct 4, 2021) for studies addressing immediate (≤4 h post-vaccination) all-severity allergic reactions to 2nd mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in persons with 1st dose immediate allergic reactions. Cases evaluating delayed reactions, change of vaccine platform, or revaccination without vaccine/excipient ST were excluded. Meta-analysis of diagnostic testing accuracy was performed using Bayesian methods. The GRADE approach evaluated certainty of the evidence, and QUADAS-2 assessed risk of bias. Among 20 studies of mRNA COVID-19 first dose vaccine reactions, 317 individuals underwent 578 ST to any one or combination of vaccine, PEG, or PS, and were re-vaccinated with the same vaccine. Test sensitivity for either mRNA vaccine was 0.2 (95%CrI 0.01-0.52) and specificity 0.97 (95%CrI 0.9-1). PEG test sensitivity was 0.02 (95%CrI 0.00-0.07) and specificity 0.99 (95%CrI 0.96-1). PS test sensitivity was 0.03 (95%CrI 0.00-0.0.11) and specificity 0.97 (95%CrI 0.91-1). Combined for use of any of the 3 testing agents, sensitivity was 0.03 (95%CrI 0.00-0.08) and specificity was 0.98 (95%CrI 0.95-1.00). Certainty of evidence was moderate. ST has low sensitivity but high specificity in predicting all-severity repeat immediate allergic reactions to the same agent, among persons with 1st dose immediate allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. mRNA COVID-19 vaccine or excipient ST has limited risk assessment utility., (© 2022 European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

By the April 12, 2022, the COVID-19 pandemic had resulted in over half a billion people being infected worldwide. There have been 6.1 million deaths directly due to the infection, but the pandemic has had many more short- and long-term pervasive effects on the physical and mental health of the population. Allergic diseases are among the most prevalent noncommunicable chronic diseases in the pediatric population, and health-care professionals and researchers were seeking answers since the beginning of pandemic. Children are at lower risk of developing severe COVID-19 or dying from infection. Allergic diseases are not associated with a higher COVID-19 severity and mortality, apart from severe/poorly controlled asthma. The pandemic disrupted routine health care, but many mitigation strategies, including but not limited to telemedicine, were successfully implemented to continue delivery of high-standard care. Although children faced a multitude of pandemic-related issues, allergic conditions were effectively treated remotely while reduction in air pollution and lack of contact with outdoor allergens resulted in improvement, particularly respiratory allergies. There is no evidence to recommend substantial changes to usual management modalities of allergic conditions in children, including allergen immunotherapy and use of biologicals. Allergic children are not at greater risk of multisystem inflammatory syndrome development, but some associations with Long COVID were reported, although the data are limited, and further research is needed. This statement of the EAACI Section on Pediatrics provides recommendations based on the lessons learnt from the pandemic, as available evidence., (© 2022 The Authors. Pediatric Allergy and Immunology published by European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Inconsistent and unequal access to medical care is an issue that predates the COVID19 pandemic, which only worsened the problem. Limited access to care from asthma specialists and other specialists treating comorbid diseases may adversely affect asthma., Objective: The purpose of this review is to identify health disparities associated with access to care for asthma, and cost-effectiveness of therapies and interventions addressing this health disparity., Methods: A narrative systematic review was undertaken using MeSH searches of English language articles published in CINAHL, Scopus, or PubMed., Results: A total of 725 articles were identified. Barriers recognized from the literature included access to diagnostic spirometry, access to specialists, medication formulary restrictions, and issues leading to medical nonadherence. Telemedicine, school-based health care interventions, digital applications, and non-office-based digital spirometry could be used to address these gaps in access to asthma care while potentially being cost-effective., Conclusion: With the widespread adoption of telemedicine because of the pandemic, and adoption of other mobile services, we now have potential tools that can increase access to asthma care, which can help address this health care inequity. Evidence is limited, but favorable, that some of these tools may be cost-effective., (Copyright © 2022 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Previous studies assessing the prevalence of COVID-19 sequelae in adults and children were performed in the absence of an agreed definition. We investigated prevalence of post-COVID-19 condition (PCC) (WHO definition), at 6- and 12-months follow-up, amongst previously hospitalised adults and children and assessed risk factors., Methods: Prospective cohort study of children and adults with confirmed COVID-19 in Moscow, hospitalised between April and August, 2020. Two follow-up telephone interviews, using the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium survey, were performed at 6 and 12 months after discharge., Results: One thousand thirteen of 2509 (40%) of adults and 360 of 849 (42%) of children discharged participated in both the 6- and 12-month follow-ups. PCC prevalence was 50% (95% CI 47-53) in adults and 20% (95% CI 16-24) in children at 6 months, with decline to 34% (95% CI 31-37) and 11% (95% CI 8-14), respectively, at 12 months. In adults, female sex was associated with PCC at 6- and 12-month follow-up (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.57 to 2.65) and (OR 2.04, 1.54 to 2.69), respectively. Pre-existing hypertension (OR 1.42, 1.04 to 1.94) was associated with post-COVID-19 condition at 12 months. In children, neurological comorbidities were associated with PCC both at 6 months (OR 4.38, 1.36 to 15.67) and 12 months (OR 8.96, 2.55 to 34.82) while allergic respiratory diseases were associated at 12 months (OR 2.66, 1.04 to 6.47)., Conclusions: Although prevalence of PCC declined one year after discharge, one in three adults and one in ten children experienced ongoing sequelae. In adults, females and persons with pre-existing hypertension, and in children, persons with neurological comorbidities or allergic respiratory diseases are at higher risk of PCC., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Importance: Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 is a highly effective strategy to prevent infection and severe COVID-19 outcomes. The best strategy for a second dose of vaccine among persons who had an immediate allergic reaction to their first SARS CoV-2 vaccination is unclear., Objective: To assess the risk of severe immediate allergic reactions (eg, anaphylaxis) to a second dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine among persons with immediate allergic reactions to their first vaccine dose., Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and the World Health Organization Global Coronavirus database were searched from inception through October 4, 2021., Study Selection: Included studies addressed immediate allergic reactions of any severity to a second SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose in persons with a known or suspected immediate allergic reaction (<4 hours after vaccination) after their first SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose. Studies describing a second vaccine dose among persons reporting delayed reactions (>4 hours after vaccination) were excluded., Data Extraction and Synthesis: Paired reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects models were used for meta-analysis. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach evaluated certainty of the evidence., Main Outcomes and Measures: Risk of severe immediate allergic reaction and repeated severe immediate allergic reactions with a second vaccine dose. Reaction severity was defined by the reporting investigator, using Brighton Collaboration Criteria, Ring and Messmer criteria, World Allergy Organization criteria, or National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases criteria., Results: Among 22 studies of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines, 1366 individuals (87.8% women; mean age, 46.1 years) had immediate allergic reactions to their first vaccination. Analysis using the pooled random-effects model found that 6 patients developed severe immediate allergic reactions after their second vaccination (absolute risk, 0.16% [95% CI, 0.01%-2.94%]), 232 developed mild symptoms (13.65% [95% CI, 7.76%-22.9%]), and, conversely, 1360 tolerated the dose (99.84% [95% CI, 97.09%-99.99%]). Among 78 persons with severe immediate allergic reactions to their first SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination, 4 people (4.94% [95% CI, 0.93%-22.28%]) had a second severe immediate reaction, and 15 had nonsevere symptoms (9.54% [95% CI, 2.18%-33.34%]). There were no deaths. Graded vaccine dosing, skin testing, and premedication as risk-stratification strategies did not alter the findings. Certainty of evidence was moderate for those with any allergic reaction to the first dose and low for those with severe allergic reactions to the first dose., Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis of case studies and case reports, the risk of immediate allergic reactions and severe immediate reactions or anaphylaxis associated with a second dose of an SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine was low among persons who experienced an immediate allergic reaction to their first dose. These findings suggest that revaccination of individuals with an immediate allergic reaction to a first SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine dose in a supervised setting equipped to manage severe allergic reactions can be safe.

Background: The long-term sequelae of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in children remain poorly characterised. This study aimed to assess long-term outcomes in children previously hospitalised with COVID-19 and associated risk factors., Methods: This is a prospective cohort study of children (≤18 years old) admitted to hospital with confirmed COVID-19. Children admitted between 2 April 2020 and 26 August 2020 were included. Telephone interviews used the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC) COVID-19 Health and Wellbeing Follow-up Survey for Children. Persistent symptoms (>5 months) were further categorised by system(s) involved., Results: 518 out of 853 (61%) eligible children were available for the follow-up assessment and included in the study. Median (interquartile range (IQR)) age was 10.4 (3-15.2) years and 270 (52.1%) were girls. Median (IQR) follow-up since hospital discharge was 256 (223-271) days. At the time of the follow-up interview 126 (24.3%) participants reported persistent symptoms, among which fatigue (53, 10.7%), sleep disturbance (36, 6.9%) and sensory problems (29, 5.6%) were the most common. Multiple symptoms were experienced by 44 (8.4%) participants. Risk factors for persistent symptoms were: older age "6-11 years" (OR 2.74, 95% CI 1.37-5.75) and "12-18 years" (OR 2.68, 95% CI 1.41-5.4), and a history of allergic diseases (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.04-2.67)., Conclusions: A quarter of children experienced persistent symptoms months after hospitalisation with acute COVID-19 infection, with almost one in 10 experiencing multisystem involvement. Older age and allergic diseases were associated with higher risk of persistent symptoms at follow-up., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: J. Genuneit reports working as a project manager of unrestricted research grants on the composition of breast milk to Ulm University and Leipzig University with funding from Danone Nutricia Research. M.G. Semple reports grants from the Dept of Health and Social Care National Institute of Health Research UK, grants from the Medical Research Council UK, grants from the Health Protection Research Unit in Emerging & Zoonotic Infections, University of Liverpool, outside the submitted work; he also reports a minority ownership at Integrum Scientific LLC (Greensboro, NC, USA), outside the submitted work. T. Vos reports personal fees for work on the Global Burden of Disease Study from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, outside the submitted work. C. Apfelbacher has received lecture fees from AstraZeneca, and is a member of a group developing a core outcome set for long COVID, outside the submitted work. All other authors report no relevant conflict of interests., (Copyright ©The authors 2022.)

Objective: To describe the impact of social determinants on the experience of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic within the pediatric population, how this impact may influence the long-term health and security of children, and what measures can be taken to ameliorate this impact moving forward., Data Sources: Nonsystematic review of relevant literature and news sources., Study Selections: Relevant literature and news sources., Results: There have been increases in housing insecurity and food insecurity during the pandemic, including global increases in poverty. Public policies such as school closures have had a disproportionate impact on those facing adverse social determinants. There has been a dramatic increase in reports of abuse-related injuries and other injuries indicative of child abuse during the pandemic. In addition, there are disproportionate impacts of COVID-19 based on race and ethnicity within the United States. It is clear that children are facing more adverse determinants as a result of this pandemic and that there are both short-term and long-term implications associated. For those living in poverty or with other adverse social determinants of health, the pandemic has made a bad situation worse. Ongoing studies are required to measure the impact of COVID-19 on those with adverse social determinants, in particular among children., Conclusion: Social determinants of health must be part of pandemic research priorities, public health and vaccination goals, and economic policy implementation. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has further served to shed a light on the broad disparities that exist within our society and their direct and indirect impacts on health outcomes., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Concerns for anaphylaxis may hamper severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) immunization efforts. We convened a multidisciplinary group of international experts in anaphylaxis composed of allergy, infectious disease, emergency medicine, and front-line clinicians to systematically develop recommendations regarding SARS-CoV-2 vaccine immediate allergic reactions. Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, the World Health Organizstion (WHO) global coronavirus database, and the gray literature (inception, March 19, 2021) were systematically searched. Paired reviewers independently selected studies addressing anaphylaxis after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, polyethylene glycol (PEG) and polysorbate allergy, and accuracy of allergy testing for SARS-CoV-2 vaccine allergy. Random effects models synthesized the data to inform recommendations based on the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, agreed upon using a modified Delphi panel. The incidence of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine anaphylaxis is 7.91 cases per million (n = 41,000,000 vaccinations; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 4.02-15.59; 26 studies, moderate certainty), the incidence of 0.15 cases per million patient-years (95% CI 0.11-0.2), and the sensitivity for PEG skin testing is poor, although specificity is high (15 studies, very low certainty). We recommend vaccination over either no vaccination or performing SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/excipient screening allergy testing for individuals without history of a severe allergic reaction to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/excipient, and a shared decision-making paradigm in consultation with an allergy specialist for individuals with a history of a severe allergic reaction to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/excipient. We recommend further research to clarify SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/vaccine excipient testing utility in individuals potentially allergic to SARS-CoV2 vaccines or their excipients., (Copyright © 2021 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: EMA is an employee of the Public Health Agency of Canada, but the views expressed in this Comment are her own and not those of the Public Health Agency of Canada. MS is a member of the Joint Taskforce on Allergy Practice Parameters; has a family member who is the chief executive officer of Altrix Medical; and serves on the editorial boards of the Journal of Food Allergy and the Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. IS declares no competing interests. MG is an expert panel and coordinating committee member of Guidelines for Peanut Allergy Prevention sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; has served as a consultant for the Canadian Transportation Agency, Thermo Fisher, Intrommune, and Aimmune Therapeutics; is a member of physician or medical advisory boards for Aimmune Therapeutics, DBV Technologies, Sanofi/Genzyme, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, Nutricia, Pfizer, Novartis, Kaléo Pharmaceutical, Nestlé, US WorldMeds, Aquestive, Allergy Therapeutics, Allergenis, Aravax, Prota, and Monsanto; is a member of the scientific advisory council for the National Peanut Board; has received honorarium for lectures from Thermo Fisher, Aimmune Therapeutics, DBV Technologies, Before Brands, multiple state allergy societies, the American College of Allergy Asthma and Immunology, and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology; is an associate editor for the Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology; and is a member of the Joint Taskforce on Allergy Practice Parameters.

Vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) represents our greatest hope to combat the devastating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Amid ongoing global vaccination efforts, rare cases of severe allergic reactions to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines have received significant attention. Although the exact nature of these reactions may be heterogeneous, various approaches exist to engage with patients, communities, public health departments, primary care providers, and other clinicians in a multidisciplinary approach to advance population health. Whereas it is optimal for patients to receive COVID-19 vaccination as outlined in emergency use authorizations, second-dose deferral of mRNA vaccines may be a consideration within a shared decision-making paradigm of care in select circumstances characterized by high durable first-vaccine-dose protection and significant elevations of vaccine anaphylaxis risk. Still, the durability of protection afforded by a single dose of a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine is uncertain, and alternative approaches to complete vaccination, including precautionary use of a COVID-19 viral vector vaccine, also remain patient-preference-sensitive options. There is an urgent need to define correlates of COVID-19 immunity and the level of longer-term protection afforded by COVID-19 vaccination., (Copyright © 2021 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Vaccine-associated anaphylaxis is a rare event (1.34 events/million doses; 0.00017% occurrence over 26 years). Several reports of allergic reactions concerning for anaphylaxis have been reported early into the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine campaign in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom., Objective: To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis characterizing the risks of COVID-19 versus vaccine anaphylaxis, comparing universal COVID-19 vaccination versus risk-stratified vaccination approaches., Methods: Cohort analysis models were created to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of universal vaccination versus risk-stratified vaccination (eg, contraindicated in persons with a history of any previous episode of anaphylaxis) with a threshold for cost-effective care at $10,000,000 per death prevented. In the base case, risk of anaphylaxis was estimated at 0.1%, with case-fatality estimated at 0.3%., Results: On a population level (n = 300,000,000 simulated persons), universal vaccination was associated with a cost-savings of $503,596,316 and saved 7,607 lives, but the cost-savings was sensitive to increasing rates of vaccine-associated anaphylaxis. The universal strategy dominated at higher rates of COVID-19 infection and low rates of vaccine-associated anaphylaxis in both the health care and societal perspectives. When the risk of vaccine-associated anaphylaxis exceeded 0.8%, the risk-stratified approach to vaccination was the most cost-effective strategy. There was also an interaction between anaphylaxis risk and anaphylaxis fatality, with a risk-stratified approach becoming cost-effective as each risk increased concurrently. Stratified observation time by anaphylaxis history (15 minutes vs 30 minutes) was not cost-effective until a 1% anaphylaxis case-fatality was assumed and risk of vaccine anaphylaxis exceeded 6%., Conclusions: This study demonstrates that unless vaccine anaphylaxis rates exceed 0.8%, a universal vaccination approach dominates a risk-stratified approach where persons with any history of anaphylaxis would be contraindicated from vaccination, with lower cost and superior health outcomes., (Copyright © 2021 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In the face of tremendous uncertainty during the current pandemic, there is a need for clear and consistent recommendations and an understanding of the evidence in general, and for families of children with allergic conditions. A common concern of parents of children with asthma is the risk that in-person learning poses during the pandemic. This Rostrum examines the actual risk of in-person learning among children with asthma during novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the discrepancy between perceived and actual risk, the contributing factors to this discrepancy, and possible solutions to narrow this divide. Overall, the evidence does not support that children with asthma are at an increased risk of COVID-19 morbidity or mortality compared with children without asthma. Asthma medications do not appear to contribute to incidence or severity of COVID-19 disease. However, there is a high perceived risk of in-person learning that is partially related to how it is portrayed in the media. There is little guidance regarding transitioning asthmatic children back to school and how to properly counsel on mediation of risk. There are differences regionally and locally around school reopening, exemptions, and their implementation. To narrow the divide between perceived and actual risk, clear consistent and ongoing communication will be necessary., (Copyright © 2021 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The psychological effects from the COVID-19 pandemic and response are poorly understood., Objective: To understand the effects of the pandemic and response on anxiety and health utility in a nationally representative sample of US adults., Design: A de-identified, cross-sectional survey was administered at the end of April 2020. Probability weights were assigned using estimates from the 2018 American Community Survey and Integrated Public Use Microdata Series Estimates., Participants: US adults 18-85 years of age with landline, texting-enabled cellphone, or internet access., Intervention: Seven split-half survey blocks of 30 questions, assessing demographics, COVID-19-related health attitudes, and standardized measures of generalized self-efficacy, anxiety, depression, personality, and generic health utility., Main Measures: State/Trait anxiety scores, EQ-5D-3L Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score, and demographic predictors of these scores., Key Results: Among 4855 respondents, 56.7% checked COVID-19-related news several times daily, and 84.4% at least once daily. Only 65.7% desired SARS-CoV-2 vaccination for themselves, and 70.1% for their child. Mean state anxiety (S-anxiety) score was significantly higher than mean trait anxiety (T-anxiety) score (44.9, 95%CI 43.5-46.3 vs. 41.6, 95%CI 38.7-44.5; p = 0.03), with both scores significantly higher than previously published norms. In an adjusted regression model, less frequent news viewing was associated with significantly lower S-anxiety score. Mean EQ-5D-3L VAS score for the population was significantly lower vs. established US normative data (71.4 CI 67.4-75.5, std. error 2 vs. societal mean 80, std. error 0.1; p < 0.001). EQ-5D-3L VAS score was bimodal (highest with hourly and no viewing) and significantly reduced with less media viewership in an adjusted model., Conclusions: Among a nationally representative sample, there were higher S-anxiety and lower EQ-5D-3L VAS scores compared to non-pandemic normative data, indicative of a potential detrimental acute effect of the pandemic. More frequent daily media viewership was significantly associated with higher S-anxiety but also predictive of higher health utility, as measured by EQ-5D-3L VAS scores.

Purpose of Review: To summarize the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the practice of paediatric allergy., Recent Findings: Given significant overlap in symptoms, care must be taken to differentiate routine allergic conditions from COVID-19 infection but it appears that most allergic diseases are not risk factors for a severe COVID-19 course. The full impact of restricted allergy/immunology ambulatory services will take months to years to fully understand. One benefit of having to adapt practice style is greater awareness and acceptance of shared decision-making and recognition of preference-sensitive care options in food allergy, in particular for approaches towards allergy prevention, treatment, and anaphylaxis care. Social distancing and masks have helped reduce spread of common respiratory viruses, which may be helping to lower the incidence of viral-associated wheezing episodes, enhancing evidence of the effects of preventing exposure of young children to respiratory viruses on asthma pathogenesis, as well as on allergic rhinitis. There has been a revolution in the rise of telemedicine to increase access to high-quality allergy/immunology specialty care., Summary: Although the field has adapted to remain operational in the face of a significant challenge, it is important to apply lessons learned to evolve patient care and optimize treatment in the aftermath of the pandemic., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: This review provides ten tips for improving clinical practice during COVID-19 as pandemic fatigue begins to complicate personal and professional lives of clinicians., Recent Findings: COVID-19 has created unique and unexpected challenges to healthcare delivery, but has also provided opportunities for re-evaluation of practice patterns to optimize high-value practices. With ongoing uncertainty, key factors to appreciate for patient and population health include the continued touchstones of empathy and compassion, the use of effective risk communication with shared clinical decision-making when appropriate, attention to resource stewardship and vulnerable populations, importance of health literacy and need for critical assessment of media and medical literature to mitigate misinformation, and the hidden costs of the pandemic on children. Although there has been some international concern for allergic reactions to the recently approved Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, neither the United States Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna COVID-19 vaccine emergency use authorizations exclude patients without a specific allergy to a vaccine component from receiving vaccination., Summary: Practical adjustments to practice during COVID-19 are feasible and acceptable. Experience during COVID-19 reinforces the critical need for human connection while providing care and service in every encounter., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has forever changed how we view health care service delivery. Although there are undoubtedly some unintended consequences that will result from current health care service reallocation, it provides a unique opportunity to consider how to deliver quality care currently, and after the pandemic. In the context of lessons learned, moving forward some of what was previously routine could remain reserved for more exceptional circumstances. To determine what is "routine," what is "essential," and what is "exceptional," it is necessary to view medical decisions within the paradigm of high-quality care. The Institute for Healthcare Improvement definition of the dimensions of quality is based on whether the care is safe, effective, patient-centered, timely, efficient, and equitable. This type of stewardship has been applied to many interventions already deemed unnecessary by organizations such as the Choosing Wisely initiative, but the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic provides a lens from which to consider other aspects of care. The following will provide examples from Allergy/Immunology that outline how we can reconsider what quality means in the post-coronavirus disease health care system., (Copyright © 2020 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The psychological effects from the COVID-19 pandemic and response are poorly understood.Objective: To understand the effects of the pandemic and response on anxiety and health utility in a nationally representative sample of US adults.Design: A de-identified, cross-sectional survey was administered at the end of April 2020. Probability weights were assigned using estimates from the 2018 American Community Survey and Integrated Public Use Microdata Series Estimates.Participants: US adults 18-85 years of age with landline, texting-enabled cellphone, or internet access.Intervention: Seven split-half survey blocks of 30 questions, assessing demographics, COVID-19-related health attitudes, and standardized measures of generalized self-efficacy, anxiety, depression, personality, and generic health utility.Main Measures: State/Trait anxiety scores, EQ-5D-3L Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score, and demographic predictors of these scores.Key Results: Among 4855 respondents, 56.7% checked COVID-19-related news several times daily, and 84.4% at least once daily. Only 65.7% desired SARS-CoV-2 vaccination for themselves, and 70.1% for their child. Mean state anxiety (S-anxiety) score was significantly higher than mean trait anxiety (T-anxiety) score (44.9, 95%CI 43.5-46.3 vs. 41.6, 95%CI 38.7-44.5; p = 0.03), with both scores significantly higher than previously published norms. In an adjusted regression model, less frequent news viewing was associated with significantly lower S-anxiety score. Mean EQ-5D-3L VAS score for the population was significantly lower vs. established US normative data (71.4 CI 67.4-75.5, std. error 2 vs. societal mean 80, std. error 0.1; p < 0.001). EQ-5D-3L VAS score was bimodal (highest with hourly and no viewing) and significantly reduced with less media viewership in an adjusted model.Conclusions: Among a nationally representative sample, there were higher S-anxiety and lower EQ-5D-3L VAS scores compared to non-pandemic normative data, indicative of a potential detrimental acute effect of the pandemic. More frequent daily media viewership was significantly associated with higher S-anxiety but also predictive of higher health utility, as measured by EQ-5D-3L VAS scores. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has potentially had a negative impact on the mental health and well-being of individuals and families. Anxiety levels and risk factors within particular populations are poorly described.Objective: This study aims to evaluate confidence, understanding, trust, concerns, and levels of anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic in the general population and assess risk factors for increased anxiety.Methods: We launched a cross-sectional online survey of a large Russian population between April 6 and 15, 2020, using multiple social media platforms. A set of questions targeted confidence, understanding, trust, and concerns in respondents. The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory was used to measure anxiety. Multiple linear regressions were used to model predictors of COVID-19-related anxiety.Results: The survey was completed by 23,756 out of 53,966 (44.0% response rate) unique visitors; of which, 21,364 were residing in 62 areas of Russia. State Anxiety Scale (S-Anxiety) scores were higher than Trait Anxiety Scale scores across all regions of Russia (median S-Anxiety score 52, IQR 44-60), exceeding published norms. Time spent following news on COVID-19 was strongly associated with an increased S-Anxiety adjusted for baseline anxiety level. One to two hours spent reading COVID-19 news was associated with a 5.46 (95% CI 5.03-5.90) point difference, 2-3 hours with a 7.06 (95% CI 6.37-7.74) point difference, and more than three hours with an 8.65 (95% CI 7.82-9.47) point difference, all compared to less than 30 minutes per day. Job loss during the pandemic was another important factor associated with higher S-Anxiety scores (3.95, 95% CI 3.31-4.58). Despite survey respondents reporting high confidence in information regarding COVID-19 as well as an understanding of health care guidance, they reported low overall trust in state and local authorities, and perception of country readiness.Conclusions: Among Russian respondents from multiple social media platforms, there was evidence of higher levels of state anxiety associated with recent job loss and increased news consumption, as well as lower than expected trust in government agencies. These findings can help inform the development of key public health messages to help reduce anxiety and raise perceived trust in governmental response to this current national emergency. Using a similar methodology, comparative surveys are ongoing in other national populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]