Utility and futility of skin testing to address concerns surrounding messenger RNA coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine reactions.

BACKGROUND: The mechanism of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hypersensitivity reactions is unknown. COVID-19 vaccine excipient skin testing has been used in evaluation of these reactions, but its utility in predicting subsequent COVID-19 vaccine tolerance is also unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the utility of COVID-19 vaccine and vaccine excipient skin testing in both patients with an allergic reaction to their first messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccine dose and patients with a history of polyethylene glycol allergy who have not yet received a COVID-19 vaccine dose. METHODS: In this multicenter, retrospective review, COVID-19 vaccine and vaccine excipient skin testing was performed in patients referred to 1 of 3 large tertiary academic institutions. Patient medical records were reviewed after skin testing to determine subsequent COVID-19 vaccine tolerance. RESULTS: A total of 129 patients underwent skin testing, in whom 12 patients (9.3%) had positive results. There were 101 patients who received a COVID-19 vaccine after the skin testing, which was tolerated in 90 patients (89.1%) with no allergic symptoms, including 5 of 6 patients with positive skin testing results who received a COVID-19 vaccine after the skin testing. The remaining 11 patients experienced minor allergic symptoms after COVID-19 vaccination, none of whom required treatment beyond antihistamines. CONCLUSION: The low positivity rate of COVID-19 vaccine excipient skin testing and high rate of subsequent COVID-19 vaccine tolerance suggest a low utility of this method in evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine hypersensitivity reactions. Focus should shift to the use of existing vaccine allergy practice parameters, with consideration of graded dosing when necessary. On the basis of these results, strict avoidance of subsequent COVID-19 vaccination should be discouraged.

Outcomes among patients with COVID-19 and asthma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: It remains unclear if asthma is a risk factor associated with worse outcomes among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: We performed a comprehensive database search for studies published from January 1, 2019, to October 2, 2020. We included studies that evaluated outcomes among patients with COVID-19 and underlying asthma. Outcomes of interest included the need for hospitalization, length of hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and death. The meta-analysis was conducted by using random-effects methodology. Results: A total of 389 studies were identified through data base searches. After abstract and full-text screening, 16 observational studies with 92,275 patients were included in the analysis. Of the 16 studies, 15 were retrospective and 1 was a prospective cohort study. The average age was 39.6 years, with 48% female patients. Six of the studies included pediatric patients, and one of these studies only evaluated pediatric patients. One study only evaluated pregnant patients. Among patients with COVID-19, the presence of asthma was not associated with any significant increase in risk of hospitalization (odds ratio [OR] 1.46 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.29-7.28]), length of hospitalization (1.59 days [-0.55 to 3.74]), ICU admission (OR 1.65 [95% CI, 0.56-4.17]), or death (OR 0.73 [95% CI, 0.38-1.40]). The overall risk of bias of the included studies was high. Conclusion: Among the patients with COVID-19, asthma did not seem to significantly increase the risk of hospitalization, length of hospitalization, ICU admission, or death.

Sex Differences in Tolerability to Anti-Programmed Cell Death Protein 1 Therapy in Patients with Metastatic Melanoma and Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Are We All Equal?

BACKGROUND: Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) have emerged as a serious clinical issue in the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Risk factors for irAEs remain controversial. Therefore, we studied sex differences in irAEs in patients treated with anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients with metastatic melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with anti-PD-1 therapy at Mayo Clinic Rochester and Florida from 2015 to 2018 were reviewed. Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test was used for time-to-event analysis. RESULTS: In 245 patients with metastatic melanoma, premenopausal women were more likely to experience irAEs (all grades) compared with postmenopausal women and men (67% vs. 60% vs. 46%), primarily because of an increase in endocrinopathies (33% vs. 12% vs. 10%, respectively). In patients with NSCLC (231 patients), women (all ages) were also more likely to develop irAEs of all grades (48% vs. 31%). Women with NSCLC were more likely to develop pneumonitis (11% vs. 4%) and endocrinopathies (14% vs. 5%). No differences in grade ≥3 toxicities were seen across sexes in both cohorts, but women were more likely to receive systemic steroids for the treatment of irAEs compared with men. Better progression-free-survival was observed in women with NSCLC and irAEs (10 months vs. 3.3 months) compared with women without irAEs. CONCLUSION: Women with metastatic melanoma and NSCLC are more likely to experience irAEs compared with men. We also observed differences between sexes in the frequency of certain irAEs. Larger studies are needed to investigate the mechanisms underlying these associations. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The results of this study suggest that women may be at a higher risk for immune-related adverse events (irAEs) compared with men when treated with anti-programmed cell death protein 1 therapy. In addition, women were more likely to develop certain irAEs, including endocrinopathies and pneumonitis. Close follow-up of women undergoing treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors will allow clinicians to diagnose these treatment-related complications early, potentially reducing their associated morbidity and mortality. In addition, a possible association between irAEs and response to therapy was observed.

Hypersensitivity reactions to biologics used in the treatment of allergic diseases: clinical features, diagnosis and management.

Several monoclonal antibodies have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat allergic disorders, including omalizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab, tralokinumab and tezepelumab, and their indications continue to expand. Although the risks associated with these agents are overall low, hypersensitivity reactions have been described and are reported more frequently with increased use. We provide a comprehensive review of clinical features, diagnosis and management of hypersensitivity reactions attributed to these agents. We aim to provide useful information for the clinician managing hypersensitivity reactions to these monoclonal antibodies, as well as highlight the need for future research to address specific gaps in knowledge.

Risks and safety of biologics: A practical guide for allergists.

Biologic agents are a rapidly expanding class of medications, and several options are now available for the management of allergic and immunologic disorders. The risks of biologic therapy need to be understood in order to adequately counsel patients and appropriately monitor for potential adverse events. We sought to provide a comprehensive review of the risks and adverse effects reported for the current FDA-approved biologics used in management of allergic and immunologic disorders, including omalizumab, benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, tezepelumab and tralokinumab. Our review focuses on the risk of hypersensitivity reactions, pregnancy-specific considerations, risk of infection and risk of malignancy. We also highlight drug-specific adverse events and unique safety issues identified in case reports.