Identifying and Managing Those at Risk for Vaccine-Related Allergy and Anaphylaxis.

Immediate hypersensitivity reactions to vaccines, the most severe of which is anaphylaxis, are uncommon events occurring in fewer than 1 in a million doses administered. These reactions are infrequently immunoglobulin E-mediated. Because they are unlikely to recur, a reaction to a single dose of a vaccine is rarely a contraindication to redosing. This narrative review article contextualizes the recent knowledge we have gained from the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic rollout of the new mRNA platform with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines within the much broader context of what is known about immediate reactions to other vaccinations of routine and global importance. We focus on what is known about evidence-based approaches to diagnosis and management and what is new in our understanding of mechanisms of immediate vaccine reactions. Specifically, we review the epidemiology of immediate hypersensitivity vaccine reactions, differential diagnosis for immune-mediated and nonimmune reaction clinical phenotypes, including how to recognize immunization stress-related responses. In addition, we highlight what is known about mechanisms and review the rare but important contribution of excipient allergies and specifically when to consider testing for them as well as other key features that contribute to safe evaluation and management.

Evaluation of association of anti-PEG antibodies with anaphylaxis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (preprint)

Background: The mechanism for anaphylaxis following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination has been widely debated; understanding this serious adverse event is important for future vaccines of similar design. A mechanism proposed is type I hypersensitivity (i.e., IgE-mediated mast cell degranulation) to excipient polyethylene glycol (PEG). Using an assay that, uniquely, had been previously assessed in patients with anaphylaxis to PEG, our objective was to compare anti-PEG IgE in serum from mRNA COVID-19 vaccine anaphylaxis case-patients and persons vaccinated without allergic reactions. Secondarily, we compared anti-PEG IgG and IgM to assess alternative mechanisms. Methods: Selected anaphylaxis case-patients reported to U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System December 14, 2020 - March 25, 2021 were invited to provide a serum sample. mRNA COVID-19 vaccine study participants with residual serum and no allergic reaction post-vaccination ("controls") were frequency matched to cases 3:1 on vaccine and dose number, sex and 10-year age category. Anti-PEG IgE was measured using a dual cytometric bead assay. Anti-PEG IgG and IgM were measured using two different assays. Laboratorians were blinded to case/control status. Results: All 20 case-patients were women; 17 had anaphylaxis after dose 1, 3 after dose 2. Thirteen (65%) were hospitalized and 7 (35%) were intubated. Time from vaccination to serum collection was longer for case-patients vs controls (post-dose 1: median 105 vs 21 days). Among Moderna recipients, anti-PEG IgE was detected in 1 of 10 (10%) case-patients vs 8 of 30 (27%) controls (p=0.40); among Pfizer-BioNTech recipients, it was detected in 0 of 10 case-patients (0%) vs 1 of 30 (3%) controls (p>0.99). Anti-PEG IgE quantitative signals followed this same pattern. Neither anti-PEG IgG nor IgM was associated with case status with both assay formats. Conclusion: Our results support that anti-PEG IgE is not a predominant mechanism for anaphylaxis post-mRNA COVID-19 vaccination.

Incidence and Risk Factors of Immediate Hypersensitivity Reactions and Immunization Stress-Related Responses With COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine.

BACKGROUND: With the implementation of mass vaccination campaigns against COVID-19, the safety of vaccine needs to be evaluated. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the incidence and risk factors for immediate hypersensitivity reactions (IHSR) and immunization stress-related responses (ISRR) with the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine. METHODS: This nested case-control study included recipients who received the Moderna vaccine at a mass vaccination center, Japan. Recipients with IHSR and ISRR were designated as cases 1 and 2, respectively. Controls 1 and 2 were selected from recipients without IHSR or ISRR and matched (1 case: 4 controls) with cases 1 and cases 2, respectively. Conditional logistic regression analysis was used to identify risk factors associated with IHSR and ISRR. RESULTS: Of the 614,151 vaccine recipients who received 1,201,688 vaccine doses, 306 recipients (cases 1) and 2478 recipients (cases 2) showed 318 events of IHSR and 2558 events of ISRR, respectively. The incidence rates per million doses were estimated as IHSR: 266 cases, ISRR: 2129 cases, anaphylaxis: 2 cases, and vasovagal syncope: 72 cases. Risk factors associated with IHSR included female, asthma, atopic dermatitis, thyroid diseases, and a history of allergy; for ISRR, the risk factors were younger age, female, asthma, thyroid diseases, mental disorders, and a history of allergy and vasovagal reflex. CONCLUSION: In the mass vaccination settings, the Moderna vaccine can be used safely owing to the low incidence rates of IHSR and anaphylaxis. However, providers should be aware of the occurrence of ISRR. Although recipients with risk factors are associated with slightly increased risks of IHSR and ISRR, this is not of sufficient magnitude to warrant special measures regarding their vaccination.

Active Safety Surveillance of Four Types of COVID-19 Vaccines: A National Study from Jordan.

BACKGROUND: Although the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2), Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19), Sinopharm (BBIBP-CorV), and Sputnik V coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines have been granted emergency approval in many nations, their safety has never been studied and compared in one community-based study. This study aimed to investigate and compare the incidence, nature, severity, and predictors of adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) with COVID-19 vaccines. METHOD: This was a prospective observational study conducted in Jordan between 1 January and 21 September 2021. A team of pharmacists and nurses (n = 407) collected the local and systemic AEFIs of four COVID-19 vaccines by prospectively contacting participants registered in the national vaccination program platform. A red-flag technology was inserted to classify and track rare and serious AEFIs. RESULTS: This study included 658,428 participants who were vaccinated with 1,032,430 doses; 610,591, 279,606, 140,843, and 1390 participants received the first and second doses of the BNT162b2, BBIBP-CorV, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, and Sputnik V vaccines, respectively. The overall incidence of AEFIs was 28.8%, and the overall rates of systemic, local, and immediate hypersensitivity AEFIs were 22.2%, 18.8%, and 0.5%, respectively. The highest proportions of immediate hypersensitivity AEFIs and systemic AEFIs were reported after administration of the Sputnik V vaccine and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 first dose, respectively. The most severe AEFIs were reported after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 first dose and BNT162b2 second dose. The hospitalization and mortality rates after vaccination were 20 in 10,000 and 1 in 10,000, respectively. Based on red-flag tracking, the top three outcome events were lymphadenopathy (157.9/100,000), anxiety disorders (136.6/100,000), and lower respiratory tract infection (100.9/100,000), with Guillain-Barré syndrome (1.8/100,000), vasculitis (3.0/100,000), and myopericarditis (4.8/100,000) being the least common. CONCLUSION: The incidence rates of local, systemic, and immediate hypersensitivity AEFIs of four COVID-19 vaccines occur frequently. High incidence rates of rare and serious AEFIs were reported in this study. Younger participants, females, those who had previously had COVID-19, and smokers were more likely to encounter AEFIs.

Assessment of Immediate Allergic Reactions After Immunization With the Pfizer BNT162b2 Vaccine Using Intradermal Skin Testing With the COVID-19 Vaccines.

BACKGROUND: Allergic reactions to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines have raised concerns, particularly as repeated doses are required. Skin tests with the vaccines excipient were found to be of low value, whereas the utility of skin tests with the whole vaccine is yet to be determined. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a panel of skin tests and the outcomes of subsequent doses of immunization among subjects who suffered an immediate allergic reaction to the BioNTech (BNT162b2) COVID-19 vaccine. METHODS: Between March and December 2021, patients who experienced symptoms consistent with immediate allergic reactions to the BNT162b2 vaccine and were referred to the Sheba Medical Center underwent skin testing with polyethylene glyol (PEG)-containing medicines, Pfizer-BNT162b2, and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine (AZD1222). Further immunization was performed accordingly and under medical observation. RESULTS: A total of 51 patients underwent skin testing for suspected allergy to the COVID vaccines, of which 38 of 51 (74.5%) were nonreactive, 7 of 51(13.7%) had no skin sensitization but suffered a clinical reaction during skin testing (mainly cough), and 6 of 51 (11.7%) exhibited immediate skin sensitization. Both skin sensitization and cough during testing were related to a higher use of adrenaline following immunization (P = .08 and P = .024, respectively). Further immunization with the BNT162b2 vaccine was recommended unless sensitization or severe reaction to previous immunization was evident. The latter were referred to be tested/receive the alternative AZD1222 vaccine. Ten patients underwent skin testing with AZD1222: 2 of 10 (20%) demonstrated skin sensitization to both vaccines; thus, 8 of 10 were immunized with the AZD1222, of which 2 of 8 (25%) had allergic reactions. CONCLUSIONS: Immediate allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines are rare but can be severe and reoccur. Intradermal testing with the whole vaccine may discriminate sensitized subjects, detect cross-sensitization between vaccines, and enable estimation of patients at higher risk.

Serum polyethylene glycol-specific IgE and IgG in patients with hypersensitivity to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.

BACKGROUND: The mechanism of allergic reactions to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines has not been clarified. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is a potential antigen in the components of vaccines. However, there is little evidence that allergy after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination is related to PEG. Furthermore, the role of polysorbate (PS) as an antigen has also not been clarified. The objective of this study was to investigate whether PEG and PS allergies are reasonable causes of allergic symptoms after vaccination by detecting PEG-specific and PS-specific antibodies. METHODS: Fourteen patients who developed immediate allergic reactions to BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccines and nineteen healthy controls who did not present allergic symptoms were recruited. Serum PEG-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) and immunoglobulin G (IgG) and PS-specific IgE and IgG were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Skin tests using PEG-2000 and PS-80 were applied to five patients and three controls. RESULTS: Serum levels of PEG-specific IgE and IgG in patients with immediate allergic reactions to the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine were higher than those in the control group. Serum levels of PS-specific IgE in patients with allergy to the vaccine were higher than those in patients of the control group. Intradermal tests using PEG verified the results for PEG-specific IgE and IgG. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that PEG is one of the antigens in the allergy to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. Cross-reactivity between PEG and PS might be crucial for allergy to the vaccines. PEG-specific IgE and IgG may be useful in diagnosing allergy to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.

Ameliorating Atopy by Compensating Micronutritional Deficiencies in Immune Cells: A Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Functional iron deficiency facilitates allergy development and amplifies the symptom burden in people experiencing allergies. Previously we selectively delivered micronutrients to immune cells with ß-lactoglobulin as carrier (holoBLG), resulting in immune resilience and allergy prevention. OBJECTIVE: The clinical efficacy of a food for special medical purposes-lozenge containing ß-lactoglobulin with iron, polyphenols, retinoic acid, and zinc (holoBLG lozenge) was assessed in allergic women. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study, grass- and/or birch pollen-allergic women (n = 51) were given holoBLG or placebo lozenges over 6 months. Before and after dietary supplementation, participants were nasally challenged and the blood was analyzed for immune and iron parameters. Daily symptoms, medications, pollen concentrations, and well-being were recorded by an electronic health application. RESULTS: Total nasal symptom score after nasal provocations improved by 42% in the holoBLG group versus 13% in the placebo group. The combined symptom medication score during the birch peak and entire season as well as the entire grass pollen season improved in allergic subjects supplemented with the holoBLG lozenge by 45%, 31%, and 40%, respectively, compared with the placebo arm. Participants ingesting the holoBLG lozenge had improved iron status with increased hematocrit values, decreased red cell distribution width, and higher iron levels in circulating CD14+ cells compared with the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Targeted micronutrition with the holoBLG lozenge seemed to be effective in elevating the labile iron levels in immune cells and reducing the symptom burden in allergic women in this pilot study. The underlying allergen-independent mechanism provides evidence that dietary nutritional supplementation of the immune system is one of the ways to combat atopy.

AstraZeneca ChAdOx1-S COVID-19 Vaccine Can Be Safely Administered in Patients with EDTA Allergy (preprint)

Background: Immediate hypersensitivity reactions to COVID-19 vaccines have been postulated to be linked to their excipients, such as polyethylene glycol (PEG) in Pfizer Comirnaty, or polysorbate 80 and ethylenediaminetetracetic acid (EDTA) in AstraZeneca ChAdOx1-S [recombinant] (Vaxzevria). These excipients are potentially found in a range of other products, including injectable and oral medications as well as intravenous radiocontrast media (RCM) and various cosmetic products.Currently patients with proven excipient allergy may be advised to avoid a COVID-19 vaccine containing that excipient and/or potentially cross-reactive excipients. We present two cases of previously confirmed EDTA anaphylaxis, who had negative Vaxzevria vaccine in- vivo testing and subsequently tolerated the vaccine. Case 1: A patient with history of anaphylaxis to RCM and local anaesthetics (LA) had positive intradermal test (IDT) to EDTA nine years earlier. Skin testing to Vaxzeria vaccine (up to 1:10 IDT), Comirnaty vaccine (up to 1:10 IDT) and EDTA 0.3mg/mL IDT were negative. However, following EDTA 3mg/ml IDT, he developed immediate generalised urticaria without anaphylaxis. Basophil activation testing was negative to disodium EDTA, Vaxzevria and Cominarty vaccines. Given the negative in- vitro and in- vivo testing to Vaxzevria vaccine, he proceeded to Vaxzevria immunisation and tolerated both doses. Case 2 A patient with history of anaphylaxis to RCM had positive skin testing to EDTA and RCM containing EDTA six years earlier. Following referral to COVID19 vaccine clinic, Vaxzevria vaccine (1:10 IDT) and Cominarty vaccine (1:10 IDT) were negative whilst EDTA was positive at 0.3mg/mL IDT. He subsequently tolerated both Vaxzevria vaccinations. Conclusion: Excipient allergy does not necessarily preclude a patient from receiving a vaccine containing that excipient. Allergy testing can help identify excipient-allergic patients who may still tolerate vaccination, which is important in situations where COVID-19 vaccination options are limited.

Nucleic acid vaccines and CpG oligodeoxynucleotides for allergen immunotherapy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Molecular forms of allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) are continuously emerging to improve the efficacy of the treatment, to shorten the duration of protocols and to prevent any side effects. The present review covers the recent progress in the development of AIT based on nucleic acid encoding allergens or CpG oligodeoxynucleotides (CpG-ODN). RECENT FINDINGS: Therapeutic vaccinations with plasmid deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) encoding major shrimp Met e 1 or insect For t 2 allergen were effective for the treatment of food or insect bite allergy in respective animal models. DNA expressing hypoallergenic shrimp tropomyosin activated Foxp3+ T regulatory (Treg) cells whereas DNA encoding For t 2 down-regulated the expression of pruritus-inducing IL-31. Co-administrations of major cat allergen Fel d 1 with high doses of CpG-ODN reduced Th2 airway inflammation through tolerance induction mediated by GATA3+ Foxp3hi Treg cells as well as early anti-inflammatory TNF/TNFR2 signaling cascade. Non-canonical CpG-ODN derived from Cryptococcus neoformans as well as methylated CpG sites present in the genomic DNA from Bifidobacterium infantis mediated Th1 or Treg cell differentiation respectively. SUMMARY: Recent studies on plasmid DNA encoding allergens evidenced their therapeutic potential for the treatment of food allergy and atopic dermatitis. Unmethylated or methylated CpG-ODNs were shown to activate dose-dependent Treg/Th1 responses. Large clinical trials need to be conducted to confirm these promising preclinical data. Moreover, tremendous success of messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 must encourage as well the re-exploration of mRNA vaccine platform for innovative AIT.

Type I Hypersensitivity in Ferrets Following Exposure to SARS-CoV-2 Inoculum: Lessons Learned.

This case report discusses Type I hypersensitivity in ferrets following exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) inoculum, observed during a study investigating the efficacy of candidate COVID-19 vaccines. Following a comprehensive internal root-cause investigation, it was hypothesized that prior prime-boost immunization of ferrets with a commercial canine C3 vaccine to protect against the canine distemper virus had resulted in primary immune response to fetal bovine serum (FBS) in the C3 preparation. Upon intranasal exposure to SARS-CoV-2 virus cultured in medium containing FBS, an allergic airway response occurred in 6 out of 56 of the ferrets. The 6 impacted ferrets were randomly dispersed across study groups, including different COVID-19 vaccine candidates, routes of vaccine candidate administration, and controls (placebo). The root-cause investigation and subsequent analysis determined that the allergic reaction was unrelated to the COVID-19 vaccine candidates under evaluation. Histological assessment suggested that the allergic response was characterized by eosinophilic airway disease; increased serum immunoglobulin levels reactive to FBS further suggested this response was caused by immune priming to FBS present in the C3 vaccine. This was further supported by in vivo studies demonstrating ferrets administered diluted FBS also presented clinical signs consistent with a hyperallergic response, while clinical signs were absent in ferrets that received a serum-free SARS-CoV-2 inoculum. It is therefore recommended that vaccine studies in higher order animals should consider the impact of welfare vaccination and use serum-free inoculum whenever possible.

Primary care provider-reported prevalence of vaccine and polyethylene glycol allergy in Canada.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has highlighted the importance of accurate capture of vaccine, and vaccine component, allergy. There remains a gap in the prevalence literature from the perspective of direct primary care provider (PCP) reporting at a population level. OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of PCP-documented vaccine and polyethylene glycol (PEG) allergy using electronic medical record data from the Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study using the Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network repository. Machine learning algorithms were applied to evaluate for vaccine allergy documentation, and Anatomic Therapeutic Chemical codes were used for PEG allergy or allergy to common injectable medications containing PEG (CIMCP). RESULTS: The prevalence of PCP-documented vaccine allergy in Canada was 0.037% (395/1,055,677) and of PEG allergy was 0.0009% (10/1,055,677). In total, 0.01% of patients had a documented allergy to either PEG or CIMCP (135/1,055,677). None of the patients with PEG allergy had a documented allergy to a CIMCP. Patients with vaccine allergy and PEG allergy were significantly more likely to have other atopic comorbidities, including asthma (P < .001 for both), eczema (P < .001 and P = .001, respectively), rhinitis (P = .002 and P < .001, respectively), and food allergy (P < .001 for both). Significantly higher rates of depression (P < .001 and P < .001, respectively) and anxiety (P = .003 and P < .001, respectively) were found in those with vaccine allergy, or PEG allergy, than those without vaccine allergy or PEG allergy. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to estimate the prevalence of vaccine and PEG allergy in a national cohort that uses PCP documentation, revealing a low reported rate of vaccine allergy and PEG allergy.

Subcutaneous Allergen Immunotherapy in Children: Real Life Compliance and Effect of COVID-19 Pandemic on Compliance.

BACKGROUND: Subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy (SCIT) is an effective treatment for allergic rhinitis, asthma, and venom allergy. Compliance is essential for SCIT to obtain maximal benefit as it is a long-term treatment. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the level of real-life SCIT compliance in pediatric patients and the associated factors. Additional aims were to determine how SCIT compliance was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and why some patients dropped out SCIT. METHOD: Pediatric patients diagnosed with allergic rhinitis, allergic asthma, or venom allergy that received SCIT between September 2012 and July 2020 were analyzed. RESULTS: The study included 201 children (66.7% male) with a median (interquartile range) age of 12.8 years (9.4-15.2) at the time of the first SCIT injection. The overall compliance rate before COVID-19 pandemic was 86.1%. Short SCIT follow-up time and venom anaphylaxis were found to be risk factors for drop out. The leading causes of drop outs were moving to another city/country (32.1%), symptom improvement (17.8%), treatment ineffectiveness (14.2%), and adverse reactions (14.2%). Among the 108 patients that were still receiving SCIT during the COVID-19 pandemic, 31 (28.7%) dropped out the therapy. The most frequent reasons for drop-out were fear of being infected with COVID-19 (35.4%) and thinking that the AIT practise stopped due to COVID-19 pandemic (29%). Male gender and older age were found to be the independent risk factors for drop-out of SCIT. CONCLUSIONS: Real life compliance in children was found 13.9% and it was higher than adults. Nearly one-third of children dropped out during the CO-VID-19 pandemic. Male gender and older age are associated with SCIT drop-out during the COVID-19 pandemic.