Managing ocular allergy in the time of COVID-19.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Leonardi A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7273086 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Managing ocular allergy in the time of COVID-19.
Leonardi Andrea A Fauquert Jean L JL Doan Serge S Delgado Luis L Andant Nicolas N Klimek Ludger L Bozkurt Banu B
Allergy 20200525 9
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has affected the supply, cost, and demand for certain foods, but it is not clear how these changes have affected food-allergic households.ObjectiveTo describe the changes in food-related costs that have followed COVID-19, as reported by higher- and lower-income households with a food-allergic member.MethodsBetween May 1-June 30, 2020, Canadian households, with at least one food-allergic member, completed an online survey on food shopping and preparation habits before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. The sample was divided into binary groups, either higher or lower than the sample median income. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and multiple regression.ResultsThe sample was comprised of 102 participants (i.e., 51/ income group). The three most common food allergies amongst both groups were peanuts, tree nuts and milk. Since the start of the pandemic, both groups reported greater monthly direct grocery costs, although costs amongst the higher-income group were twice as high as the lower-income group ($212.86 vs. $98.89, respectively). Indirect food preparation costs were similarly elevated. Higher-income households with food procurement difficulties reported increased indirect shopping costs following the outbreak of COVID-19, whereas those without such difficulties reported decreased costs. Lower-income households with allergies to milk, wheat, or eggs (i.e., staple allergy) experienced a larger change in indirect food preparation costs following the outbreak of COVID-19 relative to those with other food allergies ($244.58 vs. -$20.28, respectively; p = 0.03).ConclusionBoth higher and lower income households with food allergy reported greater direct food costs and indirect food preparation costs following the COVID-19. Households with staple allergy and those with difficulties finding their typical food items were particularly affected.
| S-EPMC9334569 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The main objective of this study is to offer and evaluate an interim triage approach for patients waiting for surveillance colonoscopies. This will reduce the waiting period and the psychological stressors for our patients and from a scientific point of view allow us to compare the yield of findings for each approach.
| 2383510 | ecrin-mdr-crc
Project description:A known history of a severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) to any component of the vaccine is the only contraindication to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccination. It is important for pediatricians to understand the likelihood of an allergic reaction to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, including its excipients. Episodes concerning for anaphylaxis were immediately reported following early administration of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines to adults. Although allergic type symptoms were reported equally in recipients of placebos and test vaccines in phase 3 clinical trials, post-authorization prospective studies state that 0.2-2% of vaccine recipients have experienced allergic reactions. Subsequent allergy testing of affected individuals has focused largely on evaluation of allergic sensitization to a novel vaccine excipient, polyethylene glycol (PEG). PEG is a polymer incorporated in numerous pharmaceutical products because of its favorable, inert properties. The results of allergy testing in adults to date indicate that IgE mediated anaphylaxis to PEG allergy is rarely identified after COVID-19 mRNA vaccine reactions. Numerous individuals with presumed anaphylaxis have tolerated a second vaccine after evaluation and testing by an allergist, suggesting either misdiagnosis or a novel immune mechanism. Confirmed anaphylactic reactions to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are rare, likely due to a lack of preexisting IgE against the vaccine components, including PEG.
| S-EPMC8577302 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Rheumatology practice, during Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, has faced multifaceted challenges. Rheumatologists routinely prescribe immunosuppressant medications to their patients with multisystem autoimmune rheumatic diseases who are concerned about the increased risk of acquiring COVID-19 infection and are anxious to know if they should continue or hold these medications. Rheumatologists are often inundated by calls from their patients and physician colleagues caring for COVID-19 patients in hospitals, about how to manage the immunosuppression. Physicians face the challenging task of keeping up with the most up-to-date information on COVID-19. There are uncertainties about the mode of spread, clinical features, management options as well as long-term complications of COVID-19. Data are rapidly evolving and different studies on treatment options are showing contradictory results. It is known that viral illnesses can trigger a flare-up of underlying rheumatic disease that was previously in remission. To further complicate the scenario, some of the immunosuppressants have shown to have antiviral properties. This has created dilemma in the light of current COVID-19 crisis, as whether to continue or stop the immunosuppressive agents which could be essential to prevent complications of the rheumatic diseases including organ failure but also there is concern about acquiring COVID-19 or developing serious infection. Until we get an effective vaccine, immunosuppressant management for rheumatic diseases as well as other autoimmune diseases and transplants will pose difficult questions. This article is an attempt to review and understand COVID-19 and its impact on the immune system with special emphasis on managing medications used for autoimmune rheumatic diseases. We have provided general guidance about decision making, in regards to the immunosuppressive agents used in rheumatology practice with an understanding that this may change in near future.
| S-EPMC7476772 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/aimThe COVID-19 pandemic is a unique challenge to the care of patients with hematological malignancies. We aim to provide supportive guidance to clinicians making individual patients decisions during the COVID-19 pandemic, in particular during periods that access to healthcare resources may be limited.ConclusionThis review also provides recommendations, which are convenient in evaluating indications for therapy, reducing therapy-associated immunosuppression, and reducing healthcare utilization in patients with specific hematological malignancies in the COVID-19 era. Specific decisions regarding treatment of hematological malignancies will need to be individualized, based on disease risk, risk of immunosuppression, rates of community transmission of SARS-CoV-2, and available local healthcare resources.
| S-EPMC10734871 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected almost every country in the world and has changed the way we access healthcare. People with pre-existing conditions, such as diabetes, are at high risk of a severe disease course and it is essential that, as well as good hygiene and social distancing measures, blood glucose is carefully monitored, as chronic hyperglycaemia can lead to immune dysfunction. People with diabetes should be encouraged to continue medication prescribed for hypertension, diabetes or dyslipidaemia. Furthermore, patients with diabetes and COVID-19 infection should follow their usual antidiabetic treatment with the exception of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. As the current pandemic situation has rendered some patients unable to access routine healthcare, telehealth may help those with travel restrictions.
| S-EPMC7572158 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundImmunologic and inflammatory adverse effects following vaccination against COVID-19 are being reported. While some reactions may develop denovo others concern its immunogenic effect in patients with pre-existing inflammatory conditions.MethodsRetrospective consecutive patients diagnosed with ocular inflammatory manifestations within 8 weeks of receiving COVID-19 vaccination who presented to a tertiary eye care centre in South India.ResultsNinety-eight eyes of 67 patients presenting with ocular inflammatory manifestations within 8 weeks following COVID-19 vaccination were studied. The mean age was 43 years (+/- 14.82; range 19-80 years). The most common presentations were anterior uveitis (n = 31, 31.7%), followed by panuveitis (n = 24, 24.5%). The mean time to onset of symptoms was 25 days (+/- 15.48; range 2-55 days) following a dose of vaccine. Among all patients, 39 (58.2%) had a previous history of ocular inflammation. Mean presenting visual acuity was 0.4 (0-4) logMAR units and mean final visual acuity was 0.2 (0-4) logMAR units. The causes for reduced vision included of cystoid macular edema (n=2, 2%), chorioretinal atrophy (n=2.2%), optic atrophy (n=1.1%), retinal vascular occlusion (n=1.1%) and acute retinal necrosis (n=1.1%).ConclusionInfective and immunogenic adverse events should be watched out for after COVID-19 vaccination. It is difficult to establish causality for such manifestations, nevertheless, most of them were mild and had good final visual outcomes.
| S-EPMC10516807 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Distributing scarce resources such as COVID-19 vaccines is often a highly time-sensitive and mission-critical operation. Our research was prompted by a significant obstacle that the United States and other nations encountered during the early months of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign: Most COVID-19 vaccines require two doses given 3 or 4 weeks apart. Given the severely limited supply and mounting pressure on many countries to reduce hospitalizations and mortality, how to effectively roll out two-dose vaccines was a critical policy decision. In this paper, we first model and analyze inventory dynamics of the rollout process under three rollout strategies: (1) holding back second doses, (2) releasing second doses, and (3) stretching the lead time between doses. Then we develop an SEIR (susceptible, exposed, infectious, recovered) model that incorporates COVID-19 asymptomatic and symptomatic infections to evaluate these strategies in terms of infections, hospitalizations, and mortality. Among our findings, we show releasing second doses reduces infections but creates uneven vaccination patterns. In addition, to ensure second doses are given on time without holding back inventory, strictly less than half of the supply can be allocated to first-dose appointments. Stretching the between-dose lead time flattens the infection curve and reduces both hospitalizations and mortality compared with the strategy of releasing second doses. We also consider an alternative single-dose vaccine with lower efficacy and show that the vaccine can be more effective than its two-dose counterparts in reducing infections and mortality. We conduct extensive sensitivity analyses related to age composition, risk-based prioritization, supply disruptions, and disease transmissibility. Our paper provides important implications for policymakers to develop effective vaccine rollout strategies in developed and developing countries alike. More broadly, our paper sheds light on how to develop effective operations strategies for distributing time-sensitive resources in times of crisis.
| S-EPMC9538244 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-BSST563 | biostudies-other
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7906734 | biostudies-literature