The PHH-1V HIPRA vaccine: a new tool in the vaccination strategy against COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 is essential to mitigate the personal, social and global impact of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) as we move from a pandemic to an endemic phase. Vaccines are now required that offer broad, long-lasting immunological protection from infection in addition to protection from severe illness and hospitalisation. Here we present a review of the evidence base for a new COVID-19 vaccine, PHH-1V (Bimervax®; HIPRA HUMAN HEALTH S.L.U), and the results of an expert consensus. METHODS: The expert committee consisted of Spanish experts in medicine, family medicine, paediatrics, immunology, microbiology, nursing, and veterinary medicine. Consensus was achieved using a 4-phase process consisting of a face-to-face meeting during which the scientific evidence base was reviewed, an online questionnaire to elicit opinions on the value of PHH-1V, a second face-to-face update meeting to discuss the evolution of the epidemiological situation, vaccine programmes and the scientific evidence for PHH-1V and a final face-to-face meeting at which consensus was achieved. RESULTS: The experts agreed that PHH-1V constitutes a valuable novel vaccine for the development of vaccination programmes aimed towards protecting the population from SARS-CoV-2 infection and disease. Consensus was based on evidence of broad-spectrum efficacy against established and emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants, a potent immunological response, and a good safety profile. The physicochemical properties of the PHH-1V formulation facilitate handling and storage appropriate for global uptake. CONCLUSIONS: The physicochemical properties, formulation, immunogenicity and low reactogenic profile of PHH-1V confirm the appropriateness of this new COVID-19 vaccine.

Allergy to asticot maggots. Identification of allergens.

UNLABELLED: There are some written reports of allergic reactions after contact with Asticot larvae in anglers and occupationally exposed workers. Clinical and immunological studies were performed to confirm the allergens involved in the case of a 12-year-old male who developed respiratory symptoms shortly after contact with Asticot maggots used as fish bait. METHODS AND RESULTS: Aqueous extracts of Asticot maggots were taken for in vivo and in vitro tests. The protein concentration as determined by turbidimetric assay was 1.4 mg/ml. Skin prick test with Asticot extract was positive with an immediate response. Ten atopic and ten nonatopic control subjects did not react to the extract. Specific serum IgE antibodies against Asticot were found in the patient's serum (ELISA). Coomasie staining after SDS-PAGE separation of Asticot extract showed three protein bands of 30, 40 and 60 kDa. IgE immunoblot showed one antigenic band of 60 kDa specifically recognized by the patient's IgE. Specific nasal challenge test with Asticot extract using a Rhinospir 164 rhinomanometer showed immediate response (1/10 w/v), with a 200% increase in nasal resistances from baseline. CONCLUSIONS: One main allergen of MW 60 kDa was specifically recognized by our patient's IgE. There are no previous reports in the literature that characterize the allergens involved in Asticot hypersensitivity. Asticot maggots should be taken into account as a possible causative agent of respiratory symptoms due to a type I hypersensitivity mechanism in anglers who are exposed to emanations of these live fish baits.