Management of the patient with allergic and immunological disorders in the pandemic COVID-19 era

Biologicals decrease psychological distress, anxiety and depression in severe asthma, despite Covid-19 pandemic

Patients with respiratory diseases suffer more from problems of severe psychiatric comorbidity than the general population. Asthma might cause psychiatric disorders and affect patients' quality of life negatively. Previous studies reported that mental disorders prevail in asthmatic patients, causing anxiety, depression, and suicidal risk. The aim of this study is to evaluate in real life the prevalence of psychological comorbidities in asthmatics with severe asthma treated by biologicals (Benralizumab, Mepolizumab, Omalizumab). This study starts with the hypothesis that psychological distress, anxiety, depression and suicidal risk in severe asthma patients decreases if treated by biologicals. This study involves a sample of 90 patients (32 males, 58 females and aged 53.92 ± 15.92) suffering from severe asthma and treated with the biological drugs of Benralizumab, Mepolizumab, Omalizumab during Covid-19 pandemic. At the beginning of the treatment (T0) and after 16 weeks (T1), there have been reported results from both clinical disease control, assessed using the ACT, and psychological disorders, assessed with the PSS, HADS and C-SSRS. In the sample of these patients treated with biologicals for severe asthma, the study reported a significant change in all observed parameters, including asthma control (ACT), stress (PSS), anxiety (HADS-A) and depressive symptoms (HADS-D, despite Covid-19 pandemic. In addition, there was a significant improvement in disease management, perceived stress, anxiety and depressive symptoms after a 16 week treatment for severe asthma, independent from the type of biologic drugs used during the pandemic.

Allergic patients during the COVID-19 pandemic-Clinical practical considerations: An European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology survey

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected health care systems unexpectedly. However, data focusing on practical considerations experienced by health care professionals (HCPs) providing care to allergic patients is scarce.

METHODS

Under the framework of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), a panel of experts in the field of immunotherapy developed a 42-question online survey, to evaluate real-life consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic in allergy practice.

RESULTS

The respondents in the survey were 618. About 80% of HCPs indicated being significantly affected in their allergy practice. A face-to-face visit reduction was reported by 93% of HCPs and about a quarter completely interrupted diagnostic challenges. Patients with severe uncontrolled asthma (59%) and anaphylaxis (47%) were prioritized for in-person care. About 81% maintained an unaltered prescription of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in asthmatics. About 90% did not modify intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) in patients with allergic rhinitis. Nearly half of respondents kept biological prescriptions unmodified for asthma. About 50% of respondents kept their allergen immunotherapy (AIT) prescription patterns unchanged for respiratory allergies; 60% for insect venom allergies. Oral immunotherapy (OIT) for food allergies was initiated by 27%. About 20% kept carrying out up-dosing without modifications and 14% changed to more prolonged intervals. Telemedicine practice was increased.

CONCLUSIONS

HCPs providing care to allergic patients were affected during the pandemic in diagnostic, management, and therapeutic approaches, including AIT for respiratory, insect-venom, and food allergies. Most HCPs maintained controller treatments for both asthma, and allergic rhinitis consistent with international recommendations, as well as biological agents in asthma. Remote tools are valuable in delivering allergy care.

Potential prophylactic efficacy of mast cell stabilizers against COVID-19 vaccine-induced anaphylaxis

To fight against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the vaccination is currently the most effective approach. However, in addition to common systemic side effects, the vaccines can cause serious allergic reactions or anaphylaxis. In anaphylaxis, the exposure to the allergen causes a sudden release of chemical mediators from mast cells, for which adrenaline is the drug of first choice. In our previous basic studies, in addition to adrenaline, anti-allergic drugs (olopatadine, loratadine, tranilast and ketotifen), antibiotics (clarithromycin), corticosteroids (hydrocortisone and dexamethasone) and certain food constituents (caffeine and catechin) inhibited the process of exocytosis and showed their effectiveness as highly potent mast cell stabilizers. In these studies, since mast cells were pre-incubated with these drugs or the food constituents before exocytosis was induced, the findings strongly indicated their prophylactic efficacy in stabilizing mast cells. Considering such pharmacological properties of these commonly prescribed medications or the food constituents, their prophylactic use may potentially be beneficial in preventing anaphylaxis caused by COVID-19 vaccination.

Diagnostic issues faced by a rare disease healthcare network during Covid-19 outbreak: data from the Campania Rare Disease Registry

Background

The aims of this study were: to investigate the capacity of the rare disease healthcare network in Campania to diagnose patients with rare diseases during the outbreak of Covid-19; and to shed light on problematic diagnoses during this period.

Methods

To describe the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the diagnosis of patients with rare diseases, a retrospective analysis of the Campania Region Rare Disease Registry was performed. A tailored questionnaire was sent to rare disease experts to investigate major issues during the emergency period.

Results

Prevalence of new diagnoses of rare disease in March and April 2020 was significantly lower than in 2019 (117 versus 317, P < 0.001 and 37 versus 349, P < 0.001, respectively) and 2018 (117 versus 389, P < 0.001 and 37 versus 282, P < 0.001, respectively). Eighty-two among 98 rare disease experts completed the questionnaire. Diagnostic success (95%), access to diagnosis (80%) and follow-up (72%), lack of Personal Protective Equipment (60%), lack of Covid-19 guidelines (50%) and the need for home therapy (78%) were the most important issues raised during Covid-19 outbreak.

Conclusions

This study describes the effects of the Covid-19 outbreak on the diagnosis of rare disease in a single Italian region and investigates potential issues of diagnosis and management during this period.

A Survey Among Italian Physicians During COVID-19 Outbreak. Could Bacillus Calmette-Guérin Vaccine Be Effective Against SARS-CoV2?

Background: Epidemiological studies show that BCG-vaccinated population seems to be more likely protected from COVID-19 infection, but WHO gave a stark warning on use of BCG vaccine without confirmed COVID-19 trials. The aim of the study is to evaluate whether TB vaccination, performed several years earlier, could confer protection against COVID-19.

Methods: After the Ethical Committee authorization, professional orders were used to contact physicians with an online survey. Specialty, COVID-19 infection and previous BCG vaccination were recorded. Statistical data analysis was performed.

Results: 1906 physicians answered the questionnaire, (M = 1068; F = 838; mean age 50.7 ± 13.3 years; range 24–87), more than half (1062; 55.7%) experienced BCG vaccination. Professional activity was recorded, and only 49 subjects (2.6%) of them were infected by SARS-CoV2. Among the group of infected people, asymptomatic form occurred in 12 subjects (24.5%); a pauci-symptomatic form in 24 subjects (49.0%); and a severe form (pneumonia and/or respiratory distress) in 13 (26.5%). Considering only the clinically relevant form of COVID-19, period prevalence was 2.2% (23/1062) in the vaccinated group and 1.7% (14/844) in the unvaccinated group (OR: 1.31, 95% C.I.: 0.68–2.63, p = 0.427).

Conclusion: Our experience does not confirm the possible protective role of BCG vaccination, performed years earlier, against COVID-19. Although recent epidemiological studies point out in BCG-vaccinated population a lower prevalence of SARS-CoV2 infection, in our cohort of physicians no significant difference was found in terms of prevalence of COVID-19 infection. Our data underline the necessity to follow the WHO warning about the indiscriminate use of BCG vaccine, until clear evidence of protection by BCG vaccination against COVID-19 is fully demonstrated.