Alpha-gal syndrome: when treatment of hypovolemic shock can lead to anaphylaxis.

Delayed anaphylaxis after ingestion of red meat because of galactose-alpha-1,3-galactose (alpha-gal) syndrome has increased in recent years. The mechanism involves an immunoglobulin E reaction to alpha-gal, a molecule found in mammalian meat, dairy products, medications and excipients containing mammalian-derived components, and tick salivary glycans. Sensitization occurs due to the bite of a lone star tick and the transmission of alpha-gal molecules into person's bloodstream. We describe a case of alpha-gal syndrome with severe food, drug, and perioperative allergy in which anaphylaxis with hypovolemic shock occurred immediately after an emergency surgical procedure, when a gelatin-containing drug was injected. This case study confirms that the clinical manifestations of alpha-gal syndrome could be different depending on the route of administration, with immediate reactions if an alpha-gal-containing drug is injected and delayed type allergic manifestations occurring several hours after oral intake. The purpose of this report is to highlight the importance of risk communication in case of exposure to medical products and surgical procedures of patients with alpha-gal syndrome and to encourage drug manufacturers to indicate clearly the origin of excipients in product literature.

A practical guide to address reactions to vaccines in children.

Currently available vaccines are safe, but, potentially, any vaccine can cause an allergic reaction and, albeit very rare, anaphylaxis can occur. Although its rarity, the precise diagnostic management of a suspected anaphylaxis postvaccination is of paramount importance due to the risk of a potentially serious reaction after re-exposure, while a misdiagnosis might lead to an increase in the number of children that interrupt vaccinations resulting in an unjustifiably individual and collective risk of loss of protection against immune preventable diseases. In the light that most cases of suspected allergy to a vaccine are not effectively confirmed in up to 85% of the cases referred for an allergy evaluation, patients can continue the vaccination schedule with the same formulation and tolerance of the booster doses. The patient assessment has to be done by an expert in the vaccine field, usually an allergist or an immunologist depending on the country, to select subjects at risk of allergic reactions and to perform the correct procedures for vaccine hypersensitivity diagnosis and management, in order to guarantee safe immunization practices. The aim of this review is to provide a practical guidance for the safe management of allergic children undergoing immunization procedures. The guide is referred both to the evaluation of children who have previously experienced a suspected allergic reaction to a specific vaccine and their management in case of further booster doses, and to children allergic to a component of the vaccine to be administered.

Postmarketing active surveillance of myocarditis and pericarditis following vaccination with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in persons aged 12 to 39 years in Italy: A multi-database, self-controlled case series study.

BACKGROUND: Myocarditis and pericarditis following the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccines administration have been reported, but their frequency is still uncertain in the younger population. This study investigated the association between Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) mRNA vaccines, BNT162b2, and mRNA-1273 and myocarditis/pericarditis in the population of vaccinated persons aged 12 to 39 years in Italy. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a self-controlled case series study (SCCS) using national data on COVID-19 vaccination linked to emergency care/hospital discharge databases. The outcome was the first diagnosis of myocarditis/pericarditis between 27 December 2020 and 30 September 2021. Exposure risk period (0 to 21 days from the vaccination day, subdivided in 3 equal intervals) for first and second dose was compared with baseline period. The SCCS model, adapted to event-dependent exposures, was fitted using unbiased estimating equations to estimate relative incidences (RIs) and excess of cases (EC) per 100,000 vaccinated by dose, age, sex, and vaccine product. Calendar period was included as time-varying confounder in the model. During the study period 2,861,809 persons aged 12 to 39 years received mRNA vaccines (2,405,759 BNT162b2; 456,050 mRNA-1273); 441 participants developed myocarditis/pericarditis (346 BNT162b2; 95 mRNA-1273). Within the 21-day risk interval, 114 myocarditis/pericarditis events occurred, the RI was 1.99 (1.30 to 3.05) after second dose of BNT162b2 and 2.22 (1.00 to 4.91) and 2.63 (1.21 to 5.71) after first and second dose of mRNA-1273. During the [0 to 7) days risk period, an increased risk of myocarditis/pericarditis was observed after first dose of mRNA-1273, with RI of 6.55 (2.73 to 15.72), and after second dose of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, with RIs of 3.39 (2.02 to 5.68) and 7.59 (3.26 to 17.65). The number of EC for second dose of mRNA-1273 was 5.5 per 100,000 vaccinated (3.0 to 7.9). The highest risk was observed in males, at [0 to 7) days after first and second dose of mRNA-1273 with RI of 12.28 (4.09 to 36.83) and RI of 11.91 (3.88 to 36.53); the number of EC after the second dose of mRNA-1273 was 8.8 (4.9 to 12.9). Among those aged 12 to 17 years, the RI was of 5.74 (1.52 to 21.72) after second dose of BNT162b2; for this age group, the number of events was insufficient for estimating RIs after mRNA-1273. Among those aged 18 to 29 years, the RIs were 7.58 (2.62 to 21.94) after first dose of mRNA-1273 and 4.02 (1.81 to 8.91) and 9.58 (3.32 to 27.58) after second dose of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273; the numbers of EC were 3.4 (1.1 to 6.0) and 8.6 (4.4 to 12.6) after first and second dose of mRNA-1273. The main study limitations were that the outcome was not validated through review of clinical records, and there was an absence of information on the length of hospitalization and, thus, the severity of the outcome. CONCLUSIONS: This population-based study of about 3 millions of residents in Italy suggested that mRNA vaccines were associated with myocarditis/pericarditis in the population younger than 40 years. According to our results, increased risk of myocarditis/pericarditis was associated with the second dose of BNT162b2 and both doses of mRNA-1273. The highest risks were observed in males of 12 to 39 years and in males and females 18 to 29 years vaccinated with mRNA-1273. The public health implication of these findings should be considered in the light of the proven mRNA vaccine effectiveness in preventing serious COVID-19 disease and death.

Allergies and COVID-19 vaccines: An ENDA/EAACI Position paper.

BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis, which is rare, has been reported after COVID-19 vaccination, but its management is not standardized. METHOD: Members of the European Network for Drug Allergy and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology interested in drug allergy participated in an online questionnaire on pre-vaccination screening and management of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines, and literature was analysed. RESULTS: No death due to anaphylaxis to COVID-19 vaccines has been confirmed in scientific literature. Potential allergens, polyethylene glycol (PEG), polysorbate and tromethamine are excipients. The authors propose allergy evaluation of persons with the following histories: 1-anaphylaxis to injectable drug or vaccine containing PEG or derivatives; 2-anaphylaxis to oral/topical PEG containing products; 3-recurrent anaphylaxis of unknown cause; 4-suspected or confirmed allergy to any mRNA vaccine; and 5-confirmed allergy to PEG or derivatives. We recommend a prick-to-prick skin test with the left-over solution in the suspected vaccine vial to avoid waste. Prick test panel should include PEG 4000 or 3500, PEG 2000 and polysorbate 80. The value of in vitro test is arguable. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations will lead to a better knowledge of the management and mechanisms involved in anaphylaxis to COVID-19 vaccines and enable more people with history of allergy to be vaccinated.

Glucose/Ribitol Dehydrogenase and 16.9 kDa Class I Heat Shock Protein 1 as Novel Wheat Allergens in Baker's Respiratory Allergy.

Wheat allergens are responsible for symptoms in 60-70% of bakers with work-related allergy, and knowledge, at the molecular level, of this disorder is progressively accumulating. The aim of the present study is to investigate the panel of wheat IgE positivity in allergic Italian bakers, evaluating a possible contribution of novel wheat allergens included in the water/salt soluble fraction. The water/salt-soluble wheat flour proteins from the Italian wheat cultivar Bolero were separated by using 1-DE and 2-DE gel electrophoresis. IgE-binding proteins were detected using the pooled sera of 26 wheat allergic bakers by immunoblotting and directly recognized in Coomassie stained gel. After a preparative electrophoretic step, two enriched fractions were furtherly separated in 2-DE allowing for detection, by Coomassie, of three different proteins in the range of 21-27 kDa that were recognized by the pooled baker's IgE. Recovered spots were analyzed by nanoHPLC Chip tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS). The immunodetected spots in 2D were subjected to mass spectrometry (MS) analysis identifying two new allergenic proteins: a glucose/ribitol dehydrogenase and a 16.9 kDa class I heat shock protein 1. Mass spectrometer testing of flour proteins of the wheat cultivars utilized by allergic bakers improves the identification of until now unknown occupational wheat allergens.

Vaccination and allergy: EAACI position paper, practical aspects.

Immunization is highly effective in preventing infectious diseases and therefore an indispensable public health measure. Allergic patients deserve access to the same publicly recommended immunizations as non-allergic patients unless risks associated with vaccination outweigh the gains. Whereas the number of reported possible allergic reactions to vaccines is high, confirmed vaccine-triggered allergic reactions are rare. Anaphylaxis following vaccination is rare, affecting <1/100 000, but can occur in any patient. Some patient groups, notably those with a previous allergic reaction to a vaccine or its components, are at heightened risk of allergic reaction and require special precautions. Allergic reactions, however, may occur in patients without known risk factors and cannot be predicted by currently available tools. Unwarranted fear and uncertainty can result in incomplete vaccination coverage for children and adults with or without allergy. In addition to concerns about an allergic reaction to the vaccine itself, there is fear that routine childhood immunization may promote the development of allergic sensitization and disease. Thus, although there is no evidence that routine childhood immunization increases the risk of allergy development, such risks need to be discussed.

Safety profile assessment of HPV4 and HPV9 vaccines through the passive surveillance system of the Veneto Region (Italy) between 2008 and 2022: A 15-year retrospective observational study.

In Veneto Region, HPV vaccine has been actively offered to 12 year-old females since 2008, and to 12 year-old males since 2015. The study aims to analyze the safety profile of HPV4v and HPV9v vaccines and perform a case-by-case review of conditions of interest. Spontaneous reports related to HPV uploaded to the database of the Regional Pharmacovigilance Center between 2008-2022 were included. HPV vaccine doses administered until April 2022 in the Veneto Region were considered to calculate the reporting rate (RR). Potential "safety concerns" examined as conditions of interest were included through Standardized MedDRA or preferred terms searching queries. The level of diagnostic certainty was evaluated as per the Brighton Collaboration case definition criteria. A total of 637 reports and 1316 Adverse Events Following Immunizations (AEFI) were retrieved: 469 for HPV4v (73.6 %) and 168 for HPV9v (26.4 %). Serious reports were 71 (11.1 %): 49 (10.4 %) for HPV4v and 22 (13.1 %) for HPV9v. The RR for serious events between 2008-2022 was 6.9/100,000 administered doses, with no differences by vaccine type. Females and adults showed higher overall RR compared to males and to children and adolescents (p < 0.001), this result was confirmed by stratifying analysis by vaccine type. One case of Guillain Barré syndrome, anaphylactic shock, thrombocytopenia, Henoch Schoenlein purpura and four generalized seizures were reviewed. Vaccinovigilance data from the Veneto Region reaffirm a good safety profile for HPV vaccination and found no vaccine-related unexpected events. Such a detailed analysis may assist healthcare providers to advocate properly for HPV vaccination.

Adverse events following Measles-Mumps-Rubella and varicella immunization: A safety profile analysis and comparison of different vaccination schedules based on the Italian Pharmacovigilance Network in the Veneto Region.

Objective: The vaccines for measles, mumps, rubella and varicella (MMR and V) have been mandatory in Italy since 2017. Two different vaccination strategies are suggested for the first dose: trivalent MMR and a separate V vaccine or the tetravalent MMRV vaccine. Our aim is to compare the safety profile of MMRV and MMR-V vaccines through the passive adverse event reporting system in the Veneto region and to perform a case-by-case review of a few conditions of interest (febrile and afebrile seizures, ataxia, encephalitis, Guillain-Barré Syndrome, thrombocytopenia, neutropenia and Henoch-Schönlein Purpura). Age and sex differences were also explored. Methods: We identified all reports following MMRV or MMR-V vaccination in the Veneto Region and received into the National Pharmacovigilance Network between 2007 and April 30, 2022. Results: 9,510 reports were retrieved, of which 5,662 (59.5 %) were related to MMRV and 3,848 (40.5 %) to MMR-V. No safety signals were detected supporting the evidence that MMRV and MMR-V vaccinations have a good safety profile. The reporting rate (RR) for serious events between 2007 and 2022 resulted in 13.67 per 10,000 administered doses for MMRV and 10.90 for MMR-V. Conclusion: Passive surveillance data show a significantly higher rate of serious events for males 0-2 years old, both overall and stratified per vaccination strategy. Further studies are needed to confirm this observation. The analyses suggest that retrieved differences do not have a significant impact on the overall safety of both formulations.

Post-marketing active surveillance of Guillain Barré Syndrome following COVID-19 vaccination in persons aged ≥12 years in Italy: A multi-database self-controlled case series study.

BACKGROUND: Recently published studies have reported association of COVID-19 vaccine ChAdOx1-S (Vaxzevria) with Guillain Barré Syndrome (GBS). Less is known about the safety of other COVID-19 vaccines with respect to GBS outcome. This study investigated the association of COVID-19 vaccines with GBS in more than 15 million persons aged ≥12 years in Italy. METHODS: Study population was all individuals aged ≥12 years who received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccines, admitted to emergency care/hospital for GBS from 27 December 2020-30 September 2021 in Italy. Identification of GBS cases and receipt of at least one dose of mRNA-1273 (Elasomeran), BNT162b2 (Tozinameran), ChAdOx1-S (Vaxzevria) and Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen) through record linkage between regional health care and vaccination registries. Relative Incidence (RI) was estimated Self-controlled case series method adapted to event-dependent exposure using in the 42-day exposure risk period after each dose compared with other observation periods. RESULTS: Increased risk of GBS was found after first (RI = 6.83; 95% CI 2.14-21.85) and second dose (RI = 7.41; 2.35-23.38) of mRNA-1273 and first dose of ChAdOx1-S (RI = 6.52; 2.88-14.77). Analysis by age found an increased risk among those aged≥60 years after first (RI = 8.03; 2.08-31.03) and second dose (RI = 7.71; 2.38-24.97) of mRNA-1273. The first dose of ChAdOx1-S was associated with GBS in those aged 40-59 (RI = 4.50; 1.37-14.79) and in those aged ≥ 60 years (RI = 6.84; 2.56-18.28). CONCLUSIONS: mRNA-1273 and ChAdOx1-S vaccines were associated with an increased risk of GBS however this risk resulted in a small number of excess cases. Limitations were loss of GBS outpatient cases and imprecision of the estimates in the subgroup analysis due to a low number of events.

Acute Appendicitis After COVID-19 Vaccines in Italy: A Self-Controlled Case Series Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Cases of appendicitis were identified in the pivotal randomized clinical trial on BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine and reported from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine pharmacovigilance systems. Three cohort studies and two self-controlled case series (SCCS) studies evaluating the association between mRNA vaccines and appendicitis reported discordant results. To address this uncertainty, the present study examines in a large population, with a SCCS design, the association between mRNA (BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273) and, for the first time, viral vector (ChAdOx1-S and Ad26.COV2-S) COVID-19 vaccines and acute appendicitis. METHODS: The SCCS study design was used to evaluate the association between COVID-19 vaccination and subsequent onset of acute appendicitis. The study was based on record linkage of health archives through TheShinISS application, a statistical tool that locally processes data from regional health care databases according to ad hoc, study-tailored and common data model. The study population included all vaccinated subjects ≥ 12 years old between 27 December 2020 and 30 September 2021. The acute appendicitis was identified through discharge diagnoses of hospital admissions or emergency department visits. Incident cases were defined as those who experienced a first event of acute appendicitis in the study period, excluding subjects with a diagnosis of appendicitis in the previous 5 years. Exposure was defined as the first or second dose of BNT162b2, mRNA-1273 and ChAdOx1-S and the single dose of Ad26.COV2-S. The risk interval was defined as 42 days from the first or second vaccination dose and divided into pre-specified risk subperiods; the reference period was the observation time outside the risk interval. Relative incidences (RI) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were estimated with the SCCS method 'modified for event-dependent exposures', through unbiased estimating equations. The seasonal component was considered as a time-dependent covariate. RESULTS: In the 42-day risk interval 1285 incident cases of acute appendicitis occurred: 727 cases after the first dose and 558 cases after the second dose. In the main analysis, no increased risks of acute appendicitis were observed in subjects vaccinated with BNT162b, mRNA-1273, ChAdOx1-S and Ad26.COV2-S. The subgroup analyses by sex showed an increased risk in the 14-27 day risk interval, in males after the first dose of mRNA-1273 (RI of 1.71; 95% CI 1.08-2.70, p = 0.02) and in females after the single dose of Ad26.COV2-S (RI of 4.40; 95% CI 1.29-15.01, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence of association of BNT162b, ChAdOx1-S, mRNA-1273 and Ad26.COV2-S with acute appendicitis in the general population. The results of the subgroup analyses by sex needs to be considered with caution. The multiplicity issue cannot be excluded being these hypotheses two of several hypotheses tested. In addition, relevant literature on the biological mechanism of the disease and evidence of similar effects with other vaccines or with the same vaccines are still lacking to provide strong support for a conclusion that there is an harmful effect in males and females with mRNA-1273 and Ad26.COV2-S.

Wheat IgE profiling and wheat IgE levels in bakers with allergic occupational phenotypes.

OBJECTIVES: To characterise occupational wheat allergic phenotypes (rhino-conjunctivitis, asthma and dermatitis) and immunoglobulin (IgE) sensitisation to particular wheat allergens in bakers. METHODS: We conducted clinical and immunological evaluations of 81 consecutive bakers reporting occupational symptoms using commercial tests (skin prick test (SPT), specific IgE, ISAC microarray) and six additional dot-blotted wheat allergens (Tri a 39, Tri a Trx, Tri a GST, Tri a 32, Tri a 12, Tri a DH). RESULTS: Wheat SPT resulted positive in 29 bakers and was associated with work-related asthma (p<0.01). Wheat IgE was detected in 51 workers and was associated with work-related asthma (p<0.01) and rhino-conjunctivitis (p<0.05). ISAC Tri a 30 was positive in three workers and was associated with work-related dermatitis (p<0.05). Wheat dot-blotted allergens were positive in 22 bakers. Tri a 32 and Tri a GST were positive in 13 and three bakers, respectively, and both were associated with work-related dermatitis (p<0.05). This association increased (p<0.01) when Tri a 32, Tri a GST and Tri a 30 were analysed together (p<0.01). Wheat IgE levels were associated with work-related dermatitis (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Wheat IgE levels and wheat microarrayed allergens may be associated with some occupational allergic phenotypes. The extension of the panel of wheat allergens may be promising for discriminating the clinical manifestations of baker's allergy.

Is PEGylation of Drugs Associated with Hypersensitivity Reactions? An Analysis of the Italian National Spontaneous Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting System.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Evidence highlights the allergenic potential of PEGylated drugs because of the production of anti-polyethylene glycol immunoglobulins. We investigated the risk of hypersensitivity reactions of PEGylated drugs using the Italian spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting system database. METHODS: We selected adverse drug reaction reports attributed to medicinal products containing PEGylated active substances and/or PEGylated liposomes from the Italian Spontaneous Reporting System in the period between its inception and March 2021. As comparators, we extracted adverse drug reaction reports of medicinal products containing the same non-PEGylated active substances and/or non-PEGylated liposomes (or compounds belonging to the same mechanistic class). A descriptive analysis of reports of hypersensitivity reactions was performed. Reporting rates and time to onset of hypersensitivity reactions were also calculated in the period between January 2009 and March 2021. As a measure of disproportionality, we calculated the reporting odds ratio. RESULTS: Overall, 3865 adverse drug reaction reports were related to PEGylated medicinal products and 11,961 to their non-PEGylated comparators. Around two-thirds of patients were female and reports mostly concerned patients aged between 46 and 64 years. The frequency of hypersensitivity reactions reporting was higher among PEGylated versus non-PEGylated medicinal products (11.7% vs 9.4%, p < 0.0001). The hypersensitivity reaction reporting rates were higher for PEGylated medicinal products versus non-PEGylated medicinal products, with reporting rate ratios that ranged from 1.4 (95% confidence interval 0.8-2.5) for pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim to 20.0 (95% confidence interval 2.8-143.5) for peginterferon alpha-2a versus interferon alpha-2a. The median time to onset of hypersensitivity reactions was 10 days (interquartile range: 0-61) for PEGylated medicinal products, and 36 days (interquartile range: 3-216) for non-PEGylated comparators. Statistically significant reporting odds ratios were observed when comparing the reporting of hypersensitivity reactions for PEGylated versus non-PEGylated medicinal products (reporting odds ratio: 1.3; 95% confidence interval 1.1-1.4). However, when using all other drugs as comparators, the disproportionality analysis showed no association with hypersensitivity reactions for PEGylated nor non-PEGylated medicinal products, thus suggesting that many other triggers of drug-induced hypersensitivity reactions play a major role. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this analysis of the Italian spontaneous adverse drug reaction database suggest a potential involvement for PEGylation in triggering drug-related hypersensitivity reactions, especially clinically relevant reactions. However, when comparing both PEGylated and non-PEGylated drugs under study to all other drugs no disproportionate reporting of hypersensitivity reactions was observed, probably due to a masking effect owing to the presence in the same database of other medicinal products increasing the threshold required to highlight a safety signal when the entire database is used as a reference.

Interleukin-6: A New Marker of Advanced-Sarcopenic HCC Cirrhotic Patients.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the major cause of liver-related death worldwide. Interleukin 6 (IL-6) promotes the growth of the HCC microenvironment. The correlation between Child-Pugh (CP) and HCC stage and between HCC stage and sarcopenia is still not clear. Our aim was to investigate whether IL-6 is correlated with HCC stage and could represent a diagnostic marker for sarcopenia. Ninety-three HCC cirrhotic patients in different stages, according to BCLC-2022 (stages A, B, and C), were enrolled. Anthropometric and biochemical parameters, comprehensive of IL-6, were collected. The skeletal muscle index (SMI) was measured using dedicated software on computer tomography (CT) images. IL-6 level was higher in advanced (BCLC C) compared to the early-intermediate (BCLC A-B) stages (21.4 vs. 7.7 pg/mL, p < 0.005). On multivariate analysis, IL-6 levels were statistically dependent on the degree of liver disease severity (CP score) and HCC stages (p = 0.001 and p = 0.044, respectively). Sarcopenic patients presented lower BMI (24.7 ± 5.3 vs. 28.5 ± 7.0), higher PMN/lymphocyte ratio (2.9 ± 2.4 vs. 2.3 ± 1.2) and increased values of log (IL-6) (1.3 ± 0.6 vs. 1.1 ± 0.3). Univariate logistic regression between sarcopenia and log (IL-6) showed a significant odds ratio (OR 14.88, p = 0.044) with an AUC of 0.72. IL-6 appears to be an effective biomarker for the diagnosis of advanced cirrhotic HCC. In addition, IL-6 could be considered a marker of cirrhotic HCC-related sarcopenia, suggesting further investigation with BIA- or CT-dedicated software.

Allergic Reactions to COVID-19 Vaccines: Risk Factors, Frequency, Mechanisms and Management.

Conventional vaccines have been widely studied, along with their risk of causing allergic reactions. These generally consist of mild local reactions and only rarely severe anaphylaxis. Although all the current COVID-19 vaccines marketed in Europe have been shown to be safe overall in the general population, early post-marketing evidence has shown that mRNA-based vaccines using novel platforms (i.e., lipid nanoparticles) were associated with an increased risk of severe allergic reactions as compared to conventional vaccines. In this paper we performed an updated literature review on frequency, risk factors, and underlying mechanisms of COVID-19 vaccine-related allergies by searching MEDLINE and Google Scholar databases. We also conducted a qualitative search on VigiBase and EudraVigilance databases to identify reports of "Hypersensitivity" and "Anaphylactic reaction" potentially related to COVID-19 vaccines (Comirnaty, Spikevax, Vaxzevria and COVID-19 Janssen Vaccine), and in EudraVigilance to estimate the reporting rates of "Anaphylactic reaction" and "Anaphylactic shock" after COVID-19 vaccination in the European population. We also summarized the scientific societies' and regulatory agencies' recommendations for prevention and management of COVID-19 vaccine-related allergic reactions, especially in those with a history of allergy.

Consultancy and surveillance of post-immunisation adverse events in the Veneto region of Italy for 1992-2008.

Prevention and control of adverse events following immunization (AEFI) are fundamental activities of successful immunisation programs. AEFI reporting, investigation and analysis, integrated by consultancy for subjects needing a specialized evaluation, represent an ideal model for vaccine safety surveillance. In the Veneto Region of Italy the Green Channel Centre has been created by the local Public Health authority, to offer a consultancy activity for vaccinations at risk of adverse events and to ensure an efficient AEFI surveillance system with regular feedback data for vaccine personnel. This report updates the overall activity provided by the Green Channel between 1992 and 2008, concerning consultations for previous AEFI and contraindications to vaccinations and analysis of AEFI reports. After 1280 consultancy cases, 998 (78%) subjects were found eligible for vaccination, with personalized precautions suggested in 42% of cases. Of a total of 724 patients actually vaccinated as per the Green Channel instructions, only 55 subjects (7.6%) reported mild symptoms and one (0.3%) a moderate allergic reaction. Since 1993, a total of 5,006 AEFI reports have been collected and evaluated by the Green Channel against more than 20 millions of vaccine doses administered with an estimate mean AEFI rate of 2.3 x 10.000 doses per year. The majority of them (94%) were found in causal relationship with vaccines; of these, 267 reports (5,6% - 0.1/10,000 doses) were serious and 9 of these subjects, affected by a neurological event, were not recovered or were still on therapy at follow up. This regional activity has proven efficacious in evaluating and managing individual cases at potential risk of AEFI and integrating the national passive surveillance system.

Vaccinations and Autoimmune Diseases.

Vaccines represent one of the most effective measures of public health medicine, saving countless lives and preventing lifelong disabilities. Vaccines are extremely safe, however, no vaccine is completely free from risks and adverse events can occur following vaccination. An adverse event following immunization (AEFI) may be a true adverse reaction caused by the vaccine or an event that temporally occurred after immunization but is not caused by it. Among the adverse reactions to vaccines, one of the most feared is the triggering of autoimmune diseases, which are a heterogeneous group of disorders characterized by dysregulation of the immune system. Currently, no mechanisms have been demonstrated that could explain the correlation between vaccination and the development of autoimmune diseases. Furthermore, epidemiological studies do not support the hypothesis that vaccines cause systemic autoimmune diseases. The only confirmed associations, although very rare, are those between the flu vaccine and Guillain-Barré syndrome, especially with old vaccine preparations, and measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine and thrombocytopenia. Due to the SARS-CoV2 pandemic, new types of vaccines have been developed and are now available. Close vaccine safety-surveillance is currently underway for these new vaccines.

Immunization practices and risk of anaphylaxis: a current update, comprehensive of COVID-19 vaccination data.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review aims to provide an updated report in regards to the correlation between vaccines and anaphylaxis and the related risk in the population. RECENT FINDINGS: Initial reports showed higher incidence of anaphylaxis following messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccines compared with 'routine' vaccinations, likely influenced by the great attention paid to these 'new' vaccines. However, anaphylaxis has still to be considered quite rare and its incidence will be systematically reconsidered in the light of additional data collected. SUMMARY: Adverse reactions to vaccines are commonly reported but most of them are nonspecific mild events, whereas vaccine-related anaphylaxis is considered a rare event, with an incidence rate equal to 1.3 cases per million vaccine doses administered. As anaphylaxis reports usually start to be reported to passive pharmacovigilance during postmarketing surveillance, the first data are used to be influenced by under- and over-reporting and lack of denominators and following studies are needed to confirm the causal relationship. This might create an initial overcautiously approach to new immunization practices but, being anaphylaxis a potential life-threatening event, every suspected contraindication has to be deepened to maximize effectiveness and safety profile and constantly redefined not to exclude an overestimated population group who could receive the vaccine uneventfully.

Prevalence of Pol d 1 Sensitization in Polistes dominula Allergy and Its Diagnostic Role in Vespid Double-Positivity.

BACKGROUND: Stings by Polistes species frequently cause allergic reactions. However, standard allergy diagnostics are often unable to differentiate between primary sensitization and cross-reactivity in case of Vespula/Polistes double-sensitization because antigen 5 is the only Polistes venom molecule currently available in diagnostics (Pol d 5). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the frequency of phospholipase A1 in Polistes venom allergy (Pol d 1) and its diagnostic role in vespid allergy. METHODS: We performed component-resolved diagnostics in patients with vespid allergic reactions who were positive to Polistes venom. A prevalence analysis was performed and the diagnostic accuracy of Pol d 1 was evaluated to detect primary Polistes sensitization in double-sensitized patients. RESULTS: Blood samples were collected from 132 patients. Pol d 1 was present in 97% to 100% of 128 Polistes-positive patients. It was frequently involved in case of positivity to a single Polistes molecule (48% in double- and 80% in mono-sensitized patients). Furthermore, Pol d 1 was positive in 95% of Pol d 5-negative subjects. The diagnostic accuracy of Pol d 1 was good (folded type: area under the curve = 87%; 82% sensitivity and 77% specificity at the best cutoff of 5.773), and even better when used combined with the whole extract ratio (area under the curve = 99%; 91% sensitivity and 100% specificity). CONCLUSIONS: The study shows that Pol d 1 is the most frequent Polistes allergen in Italian patients. It can distinguish Polistes primary sensitizations with good diagnostic accuracy, which supports its use in clinical practice.

COVID-19 Vaccination in Pregnancy, Paediatrics, Immunocompromised Patients, and Persons with History of Allergy or Prior SARS-CoV-2 Infection: Overview of Current Recommendations and Pre- and Post-Marketing Evidence for Vaccine Efficacy and Safety.

To date, four vaccines have been authorised for emergency use and under conditional approval by the European Medicines Agency to prevent COVID-19: Comirnaty, COVID-19 Vaccine Janssen, Spikevax (previously COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna) and Vaxzevria (previously COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca). Although the benefit-risk profile of these vaccines was proven to be largely favourable in the general population, evidence in special cohorts initially excluded from the pivotal trials, such as pregnant and breastfeeding women, children/adolescents, immunocompromised people and persons with a history of allergy or previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, is still limited. In this narrative review, we critically overview pre- and post-marketing evidence on the potential benefits and risks of marketed COVID-19 vaccines in the above-mentioned special cohorts. In addition, we summarise the recommendations of the scientific societies and regulatory agencies about COVID-19 primary prevention in the same vaccinee categories.