Exploiting the life cycle of Strongyloides ratii.

M. Viney

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-4758(99)01452-0

1999-06-01

Parasitology Today

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Revaccination outcomes among adolescents and adults with suspected hypersensitivity reactions following COVID-19 vaccination: A Canadian immunization research network study

Tiffany Fitzpatrick,Peter Yamoah,Gina Lacuesta,Manish Sadarangani,Victoria Cook,Persia Pourshahnazari,Chrystyna Kalicinsky,Julia E M Upton,Scott B Cameron,Karver Zaborniak,Amin Kanani,Godfrey Lam,Catherine Burton,Cora Constantinescu,Jeffrey M Pernica,Zainab Abdurrahman,Stephen Betschel,Jean-Philippe Drolet,Gaston De Serres,Caroline Quach,Anne Des Roches,Hugo Chapdelaine,Marina I Salvadori,Alex Carignan,Athena McConnell,Anne Pham-Huy,C Arianne Buchan,Juthaporn Cowan,Kyla Hildebrand,Karina A Top,Special Immunization Clinic Network investigators

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2024.06.045

IF: 4.169

2024-10-24

Vaccine

Abstract:Background: COVID-19 vaccination has been associated with anaphylaxis and hypersensitivity reactions. Infectious disease physicians and allergists in the Canadian Special Immunization Clinic (SIC) Network developed guidance for evaluating patients with adverse events following immunization (AEFI) including suspected hypersensitivity. This study evaluated management and adverse event recurrence following subsequent COVID-19 vaccinations. Methods: Individuals aged 12 years and older enrolled at participating SICs before February 28, 2023 who were referred for suspected or diagnosed hypersensitivity reaction following COVID-19 vaccination, or for prevaccination assessment of suspected allergy to a COVID-19 vaccine component were included. De-identified clinical assessments and revaccination data, captured in a centralized database, were analyzed. The Brighton Collaboration case definition (BCCD) for anaphylaxis (2023 version) was applied. Results: The analysis included 206 participants from 13 sites: 26 participants referred for pre-vaccination assessment and 180 participants referred for adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination (15/180 [8.3%] with BCCD confirmed anaphylaxis, 84 [46.7%] with immediate hypersensitivity symptoms not meeting BCCD, 33 [18.3%] with other diagnosed hypersensitivity reactions, and 48 [26.7%] participants with a final diagnosis of non-hypersensitivity AEFI). Among participants referred for AEFIs following COVID-19 vaccination, 166/180 (92.2%) were recommended for COVID-19 revaccination after risk assessment, of whom 158/166 (95.2%) were revaccinated (all with a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine). After revaccination, 1/15 (6.7%) participants with prior anaphylaxis, 1/77 (1.3%) with immediate hypersensitivity not meeting criteria for anaphylaxis and 1/24 (4.2%) with other physician diagnosed hypersensitivity developed recurrent AEFI symptoms that met the BCCD for anaphylaxis. All 26 participants referred pre-vaccination, including 9 (34.6%) with history of polyethylene glycol-asparaginase reactions, were vaccinated without occurrence of immediate hypersensitivity symptoms. Conclusions: Most individuals in this national cohort who experienced a hypersensitivity event following COVID-19 vaccination and were referred for specialist review were revaccinated without AEFI recurrence, suggesting that specialist evaluation can facilitate safe revaccination.
Allergic Reactions to COVID-19 Vaccines: Risk Factors, Frequency, Mechanisms and Management

Nicoletta Luxi,Alexia Giovanazzi,Alessandra Arcolaci,Patrizia Bonadonna,Maria Angiola Crivellaro,Paola Maria Cutroneo,Carmen Ferrajolo,Fabiana Furci,Lucia Guidolin,Ugo Moretti,Elisa Olivieri,Giuliana Petrelli,Giovanna Zanoni,Gianenrico Senna,Gianluca Trifirò

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40259-022-00536-8

IF: 7.744

BioDrugs

Abstract: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.
"A randomized double-blinded trial to assess recurrence of systemic allergic reactions following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination"

Muhammad B. Khalid,Ellen Zektser,Eric Chu,Min Li,Joanna Utoh,Patrick Ryan,Hanna S. Loving,Roa Harb,Robbie Kattappuram,Lindsay Chatman,Stella Hartono,Estefania Claudio-Etienne,Guangping Sun,Edward P. Feener,Zhongbo Li,Samuel K. Lai,Quang Le,Lawrence B. Schwartz,Jonathan J. Lyons,Hirsh Komarow,Zhao-Hua Zhou,Haniya Raza,Maryland Pao,Karen Laky,Steven M. Holland,Erica Brittain,Pamela A. Frischmeyer-Guerrerio

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2024.03.001

IF: 14.29

2024-03-09

Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology

Abstract:Background Systemic allergic reactions (sARs) following coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccines were initially reported at a higher rate than traditional vaccines. Objective We aimed to evaluate the safety of revaccination in these individuals and to interrogate mechanisms underlying these reactions. Methods In this randomized, double-blinded, phase 2 trial, individuals 16-69 years who previously reported a convincing sAR to their first dose of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine were randomly assigned to receive second dose of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech; Comirnaty®) vaccine and placebo on consecutive days in a blinded, 1:1 cross-over fashion at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Five months later, an open-label BNT162b2 booster was offered if the second dose did not result in severe sAR. None of the participants received the mRNA-1273 (Moderna; Spikevax®) vaccine during the study. The primary endpoint was recurrence of sAR following second dose and booster vaccination; exploratory endpoints included biomarker measurements. Results Of 111 screened individuals, 18 were randomized to receive study interventions. Eight received BNT162b2 second dose followed by placebo; eight received placebo followed by BNT162b2 second dose; two withdrew before receiving any study intervention. All 16 received the booster dose. Following second dose and booster vaccination, sARs recurred in two subjects (12.5%, 95% CI 1.6–38.3). No sAR occurred after placebo. An anaphylaxis mimic, immunization stress-related response (ISRR), occurred more commonly than sARs following both vaccine and placebo and was associated with higher pre-dose anxiety scores, paresthesias, and distinct vital sign and biomarker changes. Conclusion Our findings support revaccination of individuals who report sARs to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. Distinct clinical and laboratory features may distinguish sARs from ISRRs.

immunology,allergy
A comprehensive analysis of the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

Changjing Cai,Yinghui Peng,Edward Shen,Qiaoqiao Huang,Yihong Chen,Ping Liu,Cao Guo,Ziyang Feng,Le Gao,Xiangyang Zhang,Yan Gao,Yihan Liu,Ying Han,Shan Zeng,Hong Shen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymthe.2021.08.001

2021-01-01

Abstract:The numbers of cases and deaths from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are continuously increasing. Many people are concerned about the efficacy and safety of the COVID-19 vaccines. We performed a comprehensive analysis of the published trials of COVID-19 vaccines and the real-world data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. Globally, our research found that the efficacy of all vaccines exceeded 70%, and RNA-based vaccines had the highest efficacy of 94.29%; moreover, Black or African American people, young people, and males may experience greater vaccine efficacy. The spectrum of vaccine-related adverse drug reactions (ADRs) is extremely broad, and the most frequent ADRs are pain, fatigue, and headache. Most ADRs are tolerable and are mainly grade 1 or 2 in severity. Some severe ADRs have been identified (thromboembolic events, 21-75 cases per million doses; myocarditis/pericarditis, 2-3 cases per million doses). In summary, vaccines are a powerful tool that can be used to control the COVID-19 pandemic, with high efficacy and tolerable ADRs. In addition, the spectrum of ADRs associated with the vaccines is broad, and most of the reactions appear within a week, although some may be delayed. Therefore, ADRs after vaccination need to be identified and addressed in a timely manner.
Successful Desensitization to mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine in a Case Series of Patients With a History of Anaphylaxis to the First Vaccine Dose

Faisal AlMuhizi,Shaonie Ton-Leclerc,Michael Fein,Christos Tsoukas,Lene Heise Garvey,Derek Lee,Moshe Ben-Shoshan,Ghislaine A C Isabwe,Ana M Copaescu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/falgy.2022.825164

2022-02-02

Abstract:Background: Coronavirus disease 2109 (COVID-19) vaccines have recently been approved to curb the global pandemic. The risk of allergic reactions to the vaccine polyethylene glycol (PEG) component has raised significant public concern. Desensitization is suggested in cases of vaccine related hypersensitivity reactions. After comprehensive literature review on the topic, our aim was to establish a safe and effective desensitization protocol for patients with suspected or confirmed immediate type hypersensitivity reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine. Methods: Participants were referred to the McGill University Health Center (MUHC) Allergy-Immunology department for clinical evaluation following a reported reaction to their first dose of Moderna® mRNA-1273 or Pfizer-BioNTech® BNT162b2 vaccines. They underwent skin prick testing (SPT) with higher and lower molecular weight (MW) PEG and polysorbate 80, as per published protocols. Their second dose was administered following a desensitization protocol consisting of multiple dose-administration steps followed by a 60-min observation period. Results: Among a cohort of 142 patients with an increased risk for allergic reactions to the COVID-19 vaccines, six individuals were selected to undergo desensitization. All were female with allergic background including chronic spontaneous urticaria, anaphylaxis to medications, and/or vaccines. The main symptom after their first dose was difficulty swallowing with lightheadedness or immediate urticaria, angioedema, and/or dizziness. Two patients had positive skin testing. One patient was on chronic antihistamines which resulted in an inconclusive PEG skin test and the skin testing was negative for the three other patients. During the desensitization, two patients reported cutaneous symptoms of an immediate reaction and were managed with antihistamines. One of these patients also complained of ear pressure and had a drop in her systolic blood pressure, treated with intravenous fluids. Conclusion: This study suggests that some individuals with an immediate-type hypersensitivity reaction to their first dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine may safely receive their second dose using a desensitization protocol. The success of this desensitization protocol is a step forward in the fight against COVID-19, allowing more individuals to be immunized.
Elucidating allergic reaction mechanisms in response to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination in adults

Mihir M Shah,Janice A Layhadi,Dennis E Hourcade,William T Fulton,Tiak Ju Tan,Diane Dunham,Iris Chang,Monica S Vel,Andrea Fernandes,Alexandra S Lee,James Liu,Prabhu S Arunachalam,Stephen J Galli,Scott D Boyd,Bali Pulendran,Mark M Davis,Ruth O'Hara,Helen Park,Lynne M Mitchell,Antonina Akk,Alexander Patterson,Maya R Jerath,Jennifer M Monroy,Zhen Ren,Peggy L Kendall,Stephen R Durham,Aleksandra Fedina,Bernhard F Gibbs,Ioana Agache,Sharon Chinthrajah,Sayantani B Sindher,Anja Heider,Cezmi A Akdis,Mohamed H Shamji,Christine T N Pham,Kari C Nadeau

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/all.16231

IF: 12.4

Allergy

Abstract:Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, novel nanoparticle-based mRNA vaccines were developed. A small number of individuals developed allergic reactions to these vaccines although the mechanisms remain undefined. Methods: To understand COVID-19 vaccine-mediated allergic reactions, we enrolled 19 participants who developed allergic events within 2 h of vaccination and 13 controls, nonreactors. Using standard hemolysis assays, we demonstrated that sera from allergic participants induced stronger complement activation compared to nonallergic subjects following ex vivo vaccine exposure. Results: Vaccine-mediated complement activation correlated with anti-polyethelyne glycol (PEG) IgG (but not IgM) levels while anti-PEG IgE was undetectable in all subjects. Depletion of total IgG suppressed complement activation in select individuals. To investigate the effects of vaccine excipients on basophil function, we employed a validated indirect basophil activation test that stratified the allergic populations into high and low responders. Complement C3a and C5a receptor blockade in this system suppressed basophil response, providing strong evidence for complement involvement in vaccine-mediated basophil activation. Single-cell multiome analysis revealed differential expression of genes encoding the cytokine response and Toll-like receptor (TLR) pathways within the monocyte compartment. Differential chromatin accessibility for IL-13 and IL-1B genes was found in allergic and nonallergic participants, suggesting that in vivo, epigenetic modulation of mononuclear phagocyte immunophenotypes determines their subsequent functional responsiveness, contributing to the overall physiologic manifestation of vaccine reactions. Conclusion: These findings provide insights into the mechanisms underlying allergic reactions to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, which may be used for future vaccine strategies in individuals with prior history of allergies or reactions and reduce vaccine hesitancy.
Global prevalence and clinical manifestations of cutaneous adverse reactions following COVID‐19 vaccination: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

C. Washrawirul,J. Triwatcharikorn,J. Phannajit,M. Ullman,P. Susantitaphong,P. Rerknimitr

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.18294

2022-06-21

Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology

Abstract:Although vaccination is widely accepted as an effective method of preventing and controlling the COVID-19 pandemic, many people are concerned about possible cutaneous side-effects, which can delay or prevent them from being vaccinated. The objectives of this systematic review were to assess the global prevalence and clinical manifestations of cutaneous adverse reactions following COVID-19 vaccination. PubMed and Scopus databases were searched for articles published from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2021, and reference lists for each selected article were screened. Case reports, case series, observational studies and randomized controlled trials that provided information on cutaneous adverse reactions following COVID-19 vaccines were included. A total of 300 studies were included in a systematic review of which 32 studies with 946 366 participants were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of cutaneous manifestations following COVID-19 vaccination was 3.8% (95% CI, 2.7%-5.3%). COVID-19 vaccines based on the mRNA platform had a higher prevalence than other platforms at 6.9% (95% CI, 3.8%-12.3%). Various cutaneous manifestations have been reported from injection site reactions, which were the most common (72.16%) to uncommon adverse reactions such as delayed inflammatory reactions to tissue filler (0.07%) and flares of pre-existing dermatoses (0.07%). Severe cutaneous reactions such as anaphylaxis have also been reported, but in rare cases (0.05%). In conclusion, cutaneous adverse reactions are common, especially in those receiving mRNA vaccines. Most reactions are mild and are not contraindications to subsequent vaccination except for anaphylaxis, which rarely occurs. COVID-19 vaccination may also be associated with flares of pre-existing dermatoses and delayed inflammatory reactions to tissue filler. Patients with a history of allergies, pre-existing skin conditions or scheduled for filler injections should receive additional precounselling and monitoring. A better understanding of potential side-effects may strengthen public confidence in those wary of new vaccine technologies.

dermatology
The impact of COVID-19 vaccine reactions on secondary vaccine hesitancy

Esther E Freeman,Alexis G Strahan,Liam R Smith,Allen D Judd,Upeka Samarakoon,Geoffrey Chen,Andrew J King,Kimberly G Blumenthal,Esther E. Freeman,Alexis G. Strahan,Liam R. Smith,Allen D. Judd,Andrew J. King,Kimberly G. Blumenthal

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anai.2024.01.009

2024-01-01

Abstract:BACKGROUND: Primary and booster vaccinations are critical for mitigating COVID-19 transmission, morbidity, and mortality. Future booster vaccine campaigns rely on an increased understanding of vaccine hesitancy.OBJECTIVE: To evaluate self-reported allergic and skin vaccine reactions as factors potentially associated with vaccine hesitancy in a nationwide vaccine allergy registry.METHODS: Responses to survey questions concerning COVID-19 vaccine perceptions, coded from free text by 2 independent reviewers. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to determine the association between changed negative perception and respondent demographics, vaccination history, and reaction characteristics.RESULTS: A total of 993 individuals (median of 46 years [IQR, 36-59], 88% female, 82% White) self-reported reactions to COVID-19 vaccination. Reactions included the following: delayed large local skin reaction (40%), hives/urticaria (32%), immediate large local skin reaction (3%), swelling (3%), anaphylaxis (2%), and other or unspecified (20%). Most respondents were initially unconcerned about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines (56%). After reactions, 401 of 993 (40%) report negative change in perception of vaccination, with more than half of these respondents (n = 211, 53%) citing their reasoning as a negative experience with adverse effects. Of 102 individuals asked about future vaccination, 79 (77%) indicated that they were unlikely or very unlikely to receive future COVID-19 vaccinations. Increased negative perception after reaction was associated with younger age, later COVID-19 vaccination dose number, and reaction type.CONCLUSION: Our findings reveal that an individual's experience with allergic or cutaneous adverse effects after COVID-19 vaccination affects attitudes and decision-making regarding future vaccination, even in initially non-hesitant individuals. Further investigation of secondary vaccine hesitancy is necessary for adapting public health messaging to this important population.

immunology,allergy
Anaphylaxis post-COVID-19 vaccinations in Singapore

Li Fung Peck,Wang Woon Poh,Adena Theen Lim,Sally Bee Leng Soh,Mun Yee Tham,Belinda Pei Qin Foo,Amelia Jing Jing Ng,Patricia Suet Ling Ng,Pei San Ang,Cheng Leng Chan,Dorothy Su Lin Toh,Edmund Jon Deoon Lee,Amelia Santosa,Bernard Yu-Hor Thong,Hugo Van Bever,Haur Yueh Lee,Chee Fang Sum,Sreemanee Raaj Dorajoo,Desmond Chun Hwee Teo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/singaporemedj.SMJ-2023-258

2024-09-26

Abstract:Introduction: Anaphylaxis was the first serious adverse event (AE) of special interest surfaced in Singapore following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination. Individuals who developed physician-diagnosed severe allergic reactions to the mRNA vaccines would be medically ineligible for mRNA vaccines and offered non-mRNA alternatives. This paper describes anaphylaxis reports received by the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) and presents a review of individuals who received heterologous COVID-19 vaccination. Methods: Reports of anaphylaxis associated with the COVID-19 vaccines received till 31 July 2022 were reviewed and adjudicated using the Brighton Collaboration case definition criteria by an HSA-appointed expert panel. Additional review was conducted for cases with heterologous vaccination for any subsequent reactions until administration of third dose of COVID-19 vaccines. Results: Among 112 adjudicated anaphylaxis cases, majority occurred in females, adults and persons with allergy histories, which were consistent with global observations. Most cases (71%) occurred within 30 minutes of vaccination. The reporting incidence rates (IRs) of 0.67 and 0.55 per 100,000 administered doses for Comirnaty and Spikevax vaccines, respectively, were comparable with IRs reported overseas, whereas the IRs for non-mRNA vaccines (Sinovac-CoronaVac and Nuvaxovid) were much higher at 4.14 and 29.82 per 100,000 administered doses, respectively, likely due to selection bias. Review of the 20 cases following heterologous vaccination found varying reactions to subsequent vaccinations. Conclusion: Anaphylaxis is a rare but serious AE in which outcomes can be mitigated with timely medical intervention. The case review helped to guide vaccination strategies and added to the cumulative knowledge of safety with heterologous vaccination.
Analysis of Allergy and Hypersensitivity Reactions to COVID-19 Vaccines According to the EudraVigilance Database

Jan Romantowski,Wojciech Nazar,Kinga Bojahr,Iwona Popiołek,Marek Niedoszytko

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/life14060715

2024-05-31

Life

Abstract:Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic presented a new challenge in modern medicine: the development of vaccines was followed by massive population vaccinations. A few reports on post-vaccination allergic reactions have made patients and medical personnel uneasy as to COVID-19 vaccines' allergic potential. Most of the studies in this area to date have been small, and some that were based on global databases skipped most of the allergic diseases and concentrated only on anaphylaxis. We aimed to analyze the incidence of serious allergic reactions based on the EudraVigilance (EV) database, regardless of the reported symptoms and allergy mechanism. Methods: The total number of administrated vaccine doses was extracted on 5 October 2023 from Vaccine Tracker and included all administrations since vaccinations began in the European Economic Area (EEA). Data on serious allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines were extracted from the EudraVigilance database with the same time point. The code names of 147 allergic symptoms or diseases were used. Results: The frequency of serious allergic reactions per 100,000 administered vaccine doses was 1.53 for Comirnaty, 2.16 for Spikevax, 88.6 for Vaxzevria, 2.11 for Janssen, 7.9 for Novavax, 13.3 for VidPrevtyn Beta, and 3.1 for Valneva. The most prevalent reported reactions were edema (0.46) and anaphylaxis (0.40). Only 6% of these reactions were delayed hypersensitivity-oriented. Conclusions: The overall frequency of potential serious allergic reactions to COVID-19 is very rare. Therefore, COVID-19 vaccines seem to be safe for human use. The lowest frequency of allergic reaction was observed for Comirnaty and the highest for Vaxzevria.

biology
Ureterocystoplasty: the 'bladder' augmentation of choice.

R. Hitchcock,P. Duffy,P. Malone

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1464-410X.1994.TB07647.X

1994-05-01

British Journal of Urology

Abstract:OBJECTIVE To reduce the complications of enterocystoplasty by augmenting the bladder with a megaureter. PATIENTS AND METHODS Ureterocystoplasty was performed in eight children aged 20 months-15 years. Three had impaired renal function and three were in established chronic polyuric renal failure. RESULTS The seven older children were dry by day with clean intermittent catheterization and the youngest, at the age of 3 1/2 years, had a dry interval of 2 h after catheterization. The three children with polyuric renal failure required nocturnal catheterization or were wet at night. The post-operative urodynamics showed a significant improvement in all cases with abolition of detrusor instability in seven patients and a reduction in end filling pressure. Bladder volume increased from a mean of 100 ml (range 45-215) to 311 ml (range 150-450) (P = 0.01). There was no deterioration in renal function. CONCLUSION The early results of ureterocystoplasty compare favourably with those of enterocystoplasty without the risks of long-term metabolic and neoplastic complications.
Management of anaphylaxis due to COVID-19 vaccines in the elderly

Jean Bousquet,Ioana Agache,Hubert Blain,Marek Jutel,Maria Teresa Ventura,Margitta Worm,Stefano Del Giacco,Athanasios Benetos,Beatrice Maria Bilo,Wienczyslawa Czarlewski,Amir Hamzah Abdul Latiff,Mona Al-Ahmad,Elizabeth Angier,Isabella Annesi-Maesano,Marina Atanaskovic-Markovic,Claus Bachert,Annick Barbaud,Anna Bedbrook,Kazi S Bennoor,Elena Camelia Berghea,Carsten Bindslev-Jensen,Sergio Bonini,Sinthia Bosnic-Anticevich,Knut Brockow,Luisa Brussino,Paulo Camargos,G Walter Canonica,Victoria Cardona,Pedro Carreiro-Martins,Ana Carriazo,Thomas Casale,Jean-Christoph Caubet,Lorenzo Cecchi,Antonio Cherubini,George Christoff,Derek K Chu,Alvaro A Cruz,Dejan Dokic,Yehia El-Gamal,Motohiro Ebisawa,Bernadette Eberlein,John Farrell,Montserrat Fernandez-Rivas,Wytske J Fokkens,Joao A Fonseca,Yadong Gao,Gaëtan Gavazzi,Radoslaw Gawlik,Asli Gelincik,Bilun Gemicioğlu,Maia Gotua,Olivier Guérin,Tari Haahtela,Karin Hoffmann-Sommergruber,Hans Jürgen Hoffmann,Maja Hofmann,Martin Hrubisko,Maddalena Illario,Carla Irani,Zhanat Ispayeva,Juan Carlos Ivancevich,Kaja Julge,Igor Kaidashev,Musa Khaitov,Edward Knol,Helga Kraxner,Piotr Kuna,Violeta Kvedariene,Antti Lauerma,Lan T T Le,Vincent Le Moing,Michael Levin,Renaud Louis,Olga Lourenco,Vera Mahler,Finbarr C Martin,Andrea Matucci,Branislava Milenkovic,Stéphanie Miot,Emma Montella,Mario Morais-Almeida,Charlotte G Mortz,Joaquim Mullol,Leyla Namazova-Baranova,Hugo Neffen,Kristof Nekam,Marek Niedoszytko,Mikaëla Odemyr,Robyn E O'Hehir,Yoshitaka Okamoto,Markus Ollert,Oscar Palomares,Nikolaos G Papadopoulos,Petr Panzner,Giovanni Passalacqua,Vincenzo Patella,Mirko Petrovic,Oliver Pfaar,Nhân Pham-Thi,Davor Plavec,Todor A Popov,Marysia T Recto,Frederico S Regateiro,Jacques Reynes,Regina E Roller-Winsberger,Yves Rolland,Antonino Romano,Carmen Rondon,Menachem Rottem,Philip W Rouadi,Nathalie Salles,Boleslaw Samolinski,Alexandra F Santos,Faradiba S Sarquis,Joaquin Sastre,Jos M G A Schols,Nicola Scichilone,Anna Sediva,Mohamed H Shamji,Aziz Sheikh,Isabel Skypala,Sylwia Smolinska,Milena Sokolowska,Bernardo Sousa-Pinto,Milan Sova,Rafael Stelmach,Gunter Sturm,Charlotte Suppli Ulrik,Ana Maria Todo-Bom,Sanna Toppila-Salmi,Ioanna Tsiligianni,Maria Torres,Eva Untersmayr,Marilyn Urrutia Pereira,Arunas Valiulis,Joana Vitte,Alessandra Vultaggio,Dana Wallace,Jolanta Walusiak-Skorupa,De-Yun Wang,Susan Waserman,Arzu Yorgancioglu,Osman M Yusuf,Mario Zernotti,Mihaela Zidarn,Tomas Chivato,Cezmi A Akdis,Torsten Zuberbier,Ludger Klimek

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/all.14838

IF: 12.4

Allergy

Abstract:Older adults, especially men and/or those with diabetes, hypertension, and/or obesity, are prone to severe COVID-19. In some countries, older adults, particularly those residing in nursing homes, have been prioritized to receive COVID-19 vaccines due to high risk of death. In very rare instances, the COVID-19 vaccines can induce anaphylaxis, and the management of anaphylaxis in older people should be considered carefully. An ARIA-EAACI-EuGMS (Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma, European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, and European Geriatric Medicine Society) Working Group has proposed some recommendations for older adults receiving the COVID-19 vaccines. Anaphylaxis to COVID-19 vaccines is extremely rare (from 1 per 100,000 to 5 per million injections). Symptoms are similar in younger and older adults but they tend to be more severe in the older patients. Adrenaline is the mainstay treatment and should be readily available. A flowchart is proposed to manage anaphylaxis in the older patients.
Severe allergic reactions after COVID-19 vaccination with the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine in Great Britain and USA: Position statement of the German Allergy Societies: Medical Association of German Allergologists (AeDA), German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI) and Society for Pediatric Allergology and Environmental Medicine (GPA)

Ludger Klimek,Natalija Novak,Eckard Hamelmann,Thomas Werfel,Martin Wagenmann,Christian Taube,Andrea Bauer,Hans Merk,Uta Rabe,Kirsten Jung,Wolfgang Schlenter,Johannes Ring,Adam Chaker,Wolfgang Wehrmann,Sven Becker,Norbert Mülleneisen,Katja Nemat,Wolfgang Czech,Holger Wrede,Randolf Brehler,Thomas Fuchs,Thilo Jakob,Tobias Ankermann,Sebastian M Schmidt,Michael Gerstlauer,Christian Vogelberg,Thomas Zuberbier,Karin Hartmann,Margitta Worm

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40629-020-00160-4

Abstract:Two employees of the National Health Service (NHS) in England developed severe allergic reactions following administration of BNT162b2 vaccine against COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019). The British SmPC for the BNT162b2 vaccine already includes reference to a contraindication for use in individuals who have had an allergic reaction to the vaccine or any of its components. As a precautionary measure, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has issued interim guidance to the NHS not to vaccinate in principle in "patients with severe allergies". Allergic reactions to vaccines are very rare, but vaccine components are known to cause allergic reactions. BNT162b2 is a vaccine based on an mRNA embedded in lipid nanoparticles and blended with other substances to enable its transport into the cells. In the pivotal phase III clinical trial, the BNT162b2 vaccine was generally well tolerated, but this large clinical trial, used to support vaccine approval by the MHRA and US Food and Drug Administration, excluded individuals with a "history of a severe adverse reaction related to the vaccine and/or a severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) to a component of the study medication". Vaccines are recognized as one of the most effective public health interventions. This repeated administration of a foreign protein (antigen) necessitates a careful allergological history before each application and diagnostic clarification and a risk-benefit assessment before each injection. Severe allergic reactions to vaccines are rare but can be life-threatening, and it is prudent to raise awareness of this hazard among vaccination teams and to take adequate precautions while more experience is gained with this new vaccine.
Distinct Adverse Reactions to mRNA, Inactivated Virus, and Adenovirus Vector COVID-19 Vaccines: Insights from a Cohort Study on Atopic and Non-Atopic Subjects in Brazil

Laura Alves Ribeiro Oliveira,Alessandro Sousa Correa,Thiago Alves de Jesus,Miguel Junior Sordi Bortolini,Ernesto Akio Taketomi,Rafael de Oliveira Resende

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines12040408

2024-04-13

Vaccines

Abstract:The emergence of COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2 prompted an unprecedented global response to develop vaccines at an accelerated pace. Messenger RNA (mRNA) and adenovirus vector vaccines emerged as the frontrunners in global immunization efforts, significantly reducing hospitalization, severity, and mortality, supplemented by inactivated virus-based vaccines in developing countries. However, concerns regarding adverse effects, including allergic reactions, have been raised. This study aimed to investigate the adverse effects following COVID-19 vaccination, particularly in atopic and non-atopic individuals. A cohort of 305 volunteers receiving BNT162, ChAdOx1, or CoronaVac vaccines were assessed based on a Skin Prick Test (SPT), specific IgE levels, and clinical history of asthma and rhinitis. Adverse effects were self-reported and scored across the different vaccination shots. The results indicated a notable presence of mild adverse effects following the first and third doses, regardless of vaccine type. ChAdOx1 recipients experienced more adverse effects compared to those receiving BNT162 and CoronaVac, including headaches, muscle pain, fever, chills, nausea, and flu-like symptoms. Atopic individuals receiving ChAdOx1 reported more adverse effects, such as muscle pain, fever, and chills, compared to non-atopic individuals. Conversely, headaches were more frequently reported in non-atopic individuals receiving BNT162 compared to atopic individuals. No anaphylaxis or allergic reactions were reported, indicating valuable evidence supporting the safety of COVID-19 vaccination in individuals with respiratory allergies. This study highlights the importance of understanding vaccine-related adverse effects, particularly in vulnerable populations, to inform vaccination strategies and address safety concerns in global immunization campaigns.

immunology,medicine, research & experimental
A Clinical Practice Guideline for the Emergency Management of Anaphylaxis (2020)

Xiaotong Li,Qingbian Ma,Jia Yin,Ya’an Zheng,Rongchang Chen,Yuguo Chen,Tianzuo Li,Yuqin Wang,Kehu Yang,Hongjun Zhang,Yida Tang,Yaolong Chen,Hailong Dong,Qinglong Gu,Daihong Guo,Xuehui Hu,Lixin Xie,Baohua Li,Yuzhen Li,Tongyu Lin,Fang Liu,Zhiqiang Liu,Lanting Lyu,Quanxi Mei,Jie Shao,Huawen Xin,Fan Yang,Hui Yang,Wanhua Yang,Xu Yao,Chunshui Yu,Siyan Zhan,Guoqiang Zhang,Minggui Wang,Zhu Zhu,Baoguo Zhou,Jianqing Gu,Mo Xian,Yuan Lyu,Zhengqian Li,Hangci Zheng,Chang Cui,Shuhua Deng,Chao Huang,Lisha Li,Pengfei Liu,Peng Men,Chunli Shao,Sai Wang,Xiang Ma,Qiang Wang,Suodi Zhai,Qingbian Ma,Jia Yin,Ya’an Zheng,Rongchang Chen,Yuguo Chen,Tianzuo Li,Yuqin Wang,Hongjun Zhang,Hailong Dong,Baohua Li,Fang Liu,Jie Shao,Zhu Zhu,Jianqing Gu,Mo Xian,Yuan Lyu,Lisha Li,Suodi Zhai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2022.845689

IF: 5.6

2022-03-28

Frontiers in Pharmacology

Abstract:Background: For anaphylaxis, a life-threatening allergic reaction, the incidence rate was presented to have increased from the beginning of the 21st century. Underdiagnosis and undertreatment of anaphylaxis are public health concerns. Objective: This guideline aimed to provide high-quality and evidence-based recommendations for the emergency management of anaphylaxis. Method: The panel of health professionals from fifteen medical areas selected twenty-five clinical questions and formulated the recommendations with the supervision of four methodologists. We collected evidence by conducting systematic literature retrieval and using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results: This guideline made twenty-five recommendations that covered the diagnosis, preparation, emergency treatment, and post-emergency management of anaphylaxis. We recommended the use of a set of adapted diagnostic criteria from the American National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network (NIAID/FAAN), and developed a severity grading system that classified anaphylaxis into four grades. We recommended epinephrine as the first-line treatment, with specific doses and routes of administration for different severity of anaphylaxis or different conditions. Proper dosage is critical in the administration of epinephrine, and the monitor is important in the IV administration. Though there was only very low or low-quality evidence supported the use of glucocorticoids and H1 antagonists, we still weakly recommended them as second-line medications. We could not make a well-directed recommendation regarding premedication for preventing anaphylaxis since it is difficult to weigh the concerns and potential effects. Conclusion: For the emergency management of anaphylaxis we conclude that: • NIAID/FAAN diagnostic criteria and the four-tier grading system should be used for the diagnosis • Prompt and proper administration of epinephrine is critical.

pharmacology & pharmacy
Evaluation of the Safety Profile of COVID-19 Vaccines: a Rapid Review

Qianhui Wu,Matthew Z Dudley,Xinghui Chen,Xufang Bai,Kaige Dong,Tingyu Zhuang,Daniel Salmon,Hongjie Yu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-021-02059-5

IF: 9.3

2021-01-01

BMC Medicine

Abstract:BACKGROUND:The rapid process of research and development and lack of follow-up time post-vaccination aroused great public concern about the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccine candidates. To provide comprehensive overview of the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines by using meta-analysis technique. METHODS:English-language articles and results posted on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, PMC, official regulatory websites, and post-authorization safety surveillance data were searched through June 12, 2021. Publications disclosing safety data of COVID-19 candidate vaccines in humans were included. A meta-analysis of proportions was performed to estimate the pooled incidence and the pooled rate ratio (RR) of safety outcomes of COVID-19 vaccines using different platforms. RESULTS:A total of 87 publications with safety data from clinical trials and post-authorization studies of 19 COVID-19 vaccines on 6 different platforms were included. The pooled rates of local and systemic reactions were significantly lower among inactivated vaccines (23.7%, 21.0%), protein subunit vaccines (33.0%, 22.3%), and DNA vaccines (39.5%, 29.3%), compared to RNA vaccines (89.4%, 83.3%), non-replicating vector vaccines (55.9%, 66.3%), and virus-like particle vaccines (100.0%, 78.9%). Solicited injection-site pain was the most common local reactions, and fatigue and headache were the most common systemic reactions. The frequency of vaccine-related serious adverse events was low (< 0.1%) and balanced between treatment groups. Vaccine platforms and age groups of vaccine recipients accounted for much of the heterogeneity in safety profiles between COVID-19 vaccines. Reporting rates of adverse events from post-authorization observational studies were similar to results from clinical trials. Crude reporting rates of adverse events from post-authorization safety monitoring (passive surveillance) were lower than in clinical trials and varied between countries. CONCLUSIONS:Available evidence indicates that eligible COVID-19 vaccines have an acceptable short-term safety profile. Additional studies and long-term population-level surveillance are strongly encouraged to further define the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines.
Administration of the Second Dose of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine to a Woman With Immediate Reaction to the First Dose

Evaggelia Apostolidou,Konstantina Dimitriou,Anastasia Papadopoulou,Nikolaos Mikos,Evangelia Kompoti

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.36064

2023-03-13

Cureus

Abstract:Vaccines constitute the most effective public health intervention as they prevent the spread of infectious diseases and reduce disease severity and mortality. Allergic reactions can occur during vaccination. Systemic anaphylaxis is a severe, life-threatening allergic reaction which can rarely occur after vaccination. There is limited data suggesting that the majority of the patients with immediate and potentially allergic reactions after the first dose of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can receive the second dose. A 39-year-old woman was admitted to our department after presenting anaphylactic reaction following the first dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (BNT162b2). A few days later, she contacted our department and was admitted for an allergy work-up on mRNA COVID-19 vaccine and its compound polyethylene glycol (PEG). Thereafter, she completed the vaccination procedure having received pretreatment under our guidance. Confirmed allergic reactions to vaccines are customarily attributed to the inactive ingredients, or excipients like PEG and polysorbate. The latest are used to improve water-solubility in vaccines. PEG itself has not been previously used in a vaccine but polysorbate has been identified as a rare cause of allergic reactions to vaccines. It has been reported that the interaction of the immune system with lipidic nanoparticle therapeutics could result in hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs), referred to as complement activation related pseudoallergy (CARPA), which is classified as non-IgE-mediated pseudoallergy caused by the activation of the complement system.
Anaphylaxis and allergic reactions to COVID‐19 vaccines: A narrative review of characteristics and potential obstacles on achieving herd immunity

Sara Mahdiabadi,Nima Rezaei

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hsr2.787

2022-08-24

Health Science Reports

Abstract:Background and Aims: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a highly contagious infection, and new variants of its causative virus continue to emerge all around the world. Meanwhile, mass vaccination represents a highly effective measure to reduce the disease burden. Not only do vaccines immunize individuals, but they also protect the entire population through achieving herd immunity. They are composed of various ingredients, some of which may induce hypersensitivity reactions, namely anaphylaxis and cutaneous allergic reactions. This review aims to provide an explicit overview of the pathophysiology, suspected responsible components, and management of COVID-19 vaccine-induced allergic reactions, and their effect on acquiring herd immunity.Methods: To perform this narrative review, a comprehensive literature search based on our selected terms was conducted in online databases of PubMed/Medline and Google Scholar for finding the relevant studies published from 2019 to 2022.Results: COVID-19 vaccines introduce several advantages that outweigh their potential risks, such as allergic reactions. Allergic reactions are mainly attributed to polyethylene glycol and polysorbate excipients that can provoke IgE-mediated reactions and hypersensitivity reactions. These reactions should be managed properly to avoid having serious sequelae.Conclusion: It is of great importance to immediately recognize and manage vaccine hypersensitivity reactions, especially anaphylaxis, to avoid allergic patients being excluded from the vaccination program, and more importantly, to stop the spreading of unfounded vaccine hesitancy leading to delayed herd immunity.
A systematic review and expert Delphi Consensus recommendation on the use of vaccines in patients receiving dupilumab: A position paper of the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology

Jay A Lieberman,Derek K Chu,Tasnuva Ahmed,Timothy E Dribin,Elissa M Abrams,Aikaterini Anagnostou,Kimberly G Blumenthal,Mark Boguniewicz,Nicole M Chase,David B K Golden,Nicholas L Hartog,Jennifer R Heimall,Tina Ho,Monica G Lawrence,David A Khan,Timothy Dean Minniear,S Shahzad Mustafa,John J Oppenheimer,Elizabeth J Phillips,Allison Ramsey,Nicholas L Rider,Lynda Schneider,Marcus S Shaker,Jonathan M Spergel,Cosby A Stone Jr,David R Stukus,Julie Wang,Matthew J Greenhawt

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anai.2024.05.014

Abstract:Background: Dupilumab is a monoclonal antibody that targets the interleukin (IL)-4 receptor alpha subunit, thus blocking the effects of IL-4 and IL-13, and has shown efficacy in treating various conditions including asthma, atopic dermatitis, eosinophilic esophagitis, and others. Because of its immune modulatory effects, clinical trials that studied dupilumab did not allow patients to receive live vaccines during the clinical trials because of an abundance of caution, and thus package inserts recommend that patients who are being treated with dupilumab should avoid live vaccines. Because dupilumab is now approved for use in patients from 6 months of age for the treatment of atopic dermatitis, this reported contraindication is now posing a clinical dilemma for patients and clinicians. Objective: To perform a systematic review of literature on the safety and efficacy of vaccinations in patients who are receiving dupilumab and to provide expert guidance on the use of vaccines in patients who are receiving dupilumab. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed, and an expert Delphi Panel was assembled. Results: The available literature on patients who received vaccinations while using dupilumab overall suggests that live vaccines are safe and that the vaccine efficacy, in general, is not affected by dupilumab. The expert Delphi panel agreed that the use of vaccines in patients receiving dupilumab was likely safe and effective. Conclusion: Vaccines (including live vaccines) can be administered to patients receiving dupilumab in a shared decision-making capacity.
Factors influencing adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination

Paola Villanueva,Ellie McDonald,Julio Croda,Mariana Garcia Croda,Margareth Dalcolmo,Glauce dos Santos,Bruno Jardim,Marcus Lacerda,David J. Lynn,Helen Marshall,Roberto D. Oliveira,Jorge Rocha,Alice Sawka,Fernando Val,Laure F. Pittet,Nicole L. Messina,Nigel Curtis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2024.2323853

2024-03-08

Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics

Abstract:Various novel platform technologies have been used for the development of COVID-19 vaccines. In this nested cohort study among healthcare workers in Australia and Brazil who received three different COVID-19-specific vaccines, we (a) evaluated the incidence of adverse events following immunization (AEFI); (b) compared AEFI by vaccine type, dose and country; (c) identified factors influencing the incidence of AEFI; and (d) assessed the association between reactogenicity and vaccine anti-spike IgG antibody responses. Of 1302 participants who received homologous 2-dose regimens of ChAdOx1-S (Oxford-AstraZeneca), BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) or CoronaVac (Sinovac), 1219 (94%) completed vaccine reaction questionnaires. Following the first vaccine dose, the incidence of any systemic reaction was higher in ChAdOx1-S recipients (374/806, 46%) compared with BNT162b2 (55/151, 36%; p = 0.02) or CoronaVac (26/262, 10%; p < 0.001) recipients. After the second vaccine dose, the incidence of any systemic reaction was higher in BNT162b2 recipients (66/151, 44%) compared with ChAdOx1-S (164/806, 20%; p < 0.001) or CoronaVac (23/262, 9%; p < 0.001) recipients. AEFI risk was higher in younger participants, females, participants in Australia, and varied by vaccine type and dose. Prior COVID-19 did not impact the risk of AEFI. Participants in Australia compared with Brazil reported a higher incidence of any local reaction (170/231, 74% vs 222/726, 31%, p < 0.001) and any systemic reaction (171/231, 74% vs 328/726, 45%, p < 0.001), regardless of vaccine type. Following a primary course of ChAdOx1-S or CoronaVac vaccination, participants who did not report AEFI seroconverted at a similar rate to those who reported local or systemic reactions. In conclusion, we found that the incidence of AEFI was influenced by participant age and COVID-19 vaccine type, and differed between participants in Australia and Brazil.

immunology,biotechnology & applied microbiology

Exploiting the life cycle of Strongyloides ratii.

Revaccination outcomes among adolescents and adults with suspected hypersensitivity reactions following COVID-19 vaccination: A Canadian immunization research network study

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

"A randomized double-blinded trial to assess recurrence of systemic allergic reactions following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination"

A comprehensive analysis of the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

Successful Desensitization to mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine in a Case Series of Patients With a History of Anaphylaxis to the First Vaccine Dose

Elucidating allergic reaction mechanisms in response to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination in adults

Global prevalence and clinical manifestations of cutaneous adverse reactions following COVID‐19 vaccination: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

The impact of COVID-19 vaccine reactions on secondary vaccine hesitancy

Anaphylaxis post-COVID-19 vaccinations in Singapore

Analysis of Allergy and Hypersensitivity Reactions to COVID-19 Vaccines According to the EudraVigilance Database

Ureterocystoplasty: the 'bladder' augmentation of choice.

Management of anaphylaxis due to COVID-19 vaccines in the elderly

Distinct Adverse Reactions to mRNA, Inactivated Virus, and Adenovirus Vector COVID-19 Vaccines: Insights from a Cohort Study on Atopic and Non-Atopic Subjects in Brazil

A Clinical Practice Guideline for the Emergency Management of Anaphylaxis (2020)

Evaluation of the Safety Profile of COVID-19 Vaccines: a Rapid Review

Administration of the Second Dose of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine to a Woman With Immediate Reaction to the First Dose

Anaphylaxis and allergic reactions to COVID‐19 vaccines: A narrative review of characteristics and potential obstacles on achieving herd immunity

A systematic review and expert Delphi Consensus recommendation on the use of vaccines in patients receiving dupilumab: A position paper of the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology

Factors influencing adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination