Allergic Reactions Including Anaphylaxis After Receipt of the First Dose of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine - United States, December 14-23, 2020

Safety of an inactivated, whole-virion COVID-19 vaccine (CoronaVac) in people aged 60 years or older in Hong Kong: a modified self-controlled case series

Background

Because evidence on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in older adults is scarce, we aimed to evaluate the incidence and risk of adverse events after CoronaVac (Sinovac Biotech) vaccination in adults aged 60 years or older.

Methods

In this modified self-controlled case series, we enrolled adults aged 60 years or older who had received at least one dose of CoronaVac in Hong Kong between Feb 23, 2021, and Jan 31, 2022. We extracted population-based, electronic health record data from the clinical management system of the Hospital Authority on adverse events of special interest (from Jan 1, 2005, to Feb 23, 2022) and patients' demographic information (from Jan 1, 2018, to Jan 31, 2022), previous diagnoses (from Jan 1, 2018, to Jan 31, 2022), medication history (from Jan 1, 2018, to Jan 31, 2022), and laboratory tests, including those for SARS-CoV-2 infection (from Jan 1, 2018, to Jan 31, 2022). Details of vaccination status were provided by the Department of Health of the Hong Kong Government and were linked to data from the Hospital Authority with identity card numbers or passport numbers. Our outcomes were the overall incidence of any adverse event of special interest and the incidence rates of 30 adverse events of special interest, as suggested by the WHO Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety, in the inpatient setting within 21 days (2 days for anaphylaxis) of either the first, second, or third CoronaVac dose compared with a baseline period. Individuals who had a history of a particular event between Jan 1, 2005, and Feb 23, 2021, were excluded from the corresponding analysis. We evaluated the risk of an adverse event of special interest using conditional Poisson regression, adjusting for seasonal effects.

Findings

Of 1 253 497 individuals who received at least one dose of CoronaVac during the study period, 622 317 (49·6%) were aged at least 60 years and were included in the analysis. Our analysis sample received 1 229 423 doses of CoronaVac and had a mean age of 70·40 years (SD 8·10). 293 086 (47·1%) of 622 317 participants were men and 329 231 (52·9%) were women. The incidence of individual adverse events of interest ranged from 0·00 per 100 000 people to 57·49 per 100 000 people (thromboembolism). The first and third doses of CoronaVac were not associated with a significant excess risk of an adverse event of special interest within 21 days (or 2 days for anaphylaxis) of vaccination. After the second dose, the only significantly increased risk was for anaphylaxis (adjusted incidence rate ratio 2·61, 95% CI 1·08–6·31; risk difference per 100 000 people 0·61, 95% CI 0·03–1·81).

Interpretation

Because older age is associated with poor outcomes after SARS-CoV-2 infection, the benefits of CoronaVac vaccination in older adults outweigh the risks in regions where COVID-19 is prevalent. Ongoing monitoring of vaccine safety is warranted.

Funding

The Food and Health Bureau of the Government, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China and AIR@InnoHK, administered by the Innovation and Technology Commission.

Translation

For the Chinese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Anaphylaxie auf Zusatzstoffe in Impfstoffen

Anaphylaxien im zeitlichen Zusammenhang mit der Verabreichung von Impfstoffen treten nur sehr selten auf. Auslöser von IgE-vermittelten und nicht IgE-vermittelten Anaphylaxien können neben dem Wirkstoff selbst Hilfsstoffe sein, die aufgrund spezieller Eigenschaften im Impfstoff enthalten sind. Bei den Hilfsstoffen in Arzneimitteln handelt es sich teilweise um dieselben Verbindungen, die als Zusatzstoffe in Lebensmitteln eingesetzt werden. Weiterhin kommen in Impfstoffen Rückstände aus dem Herstellungsprozess (z. B. Hühnereiweiß, Kasein, Antibiotika, Formaldehyd) oder Kontaminationen (z. B. aus dem Primärpackmittel) als potenzielle Auslöser von Anaphylaxien in Frage. Der vorliegende Review gibt einen Überblick über Bestandteile in Impfstoffen, von denen ein allergenes Risikopotenzial ausgeht. Die Bestandteile der in Deutschland zugelassenen COVID-19-Impfstoffe als potenzielle Auslöser von Anaphylaxien und mögliche pathophysiologische Mechanismen werden diskutiert.

Zitierweise: Mahler V, Junker AC. Anaphylaxis to additives in vaccines. Allergo J Int 2022;31: 123-36

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40629-022-00215-8

Persistence of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Spike IgG Antibodies Following COVID-19 Vaccines

Purpose

This study was conducted to investigate antibody immune responses induced by BNT162b2 and AZD1222 human COVID-19 vaccines in Riyadh city, Saudi Arabia.

Patients and Methods

ELISA was used to evaluate antibodies, against the SARS-CoV-2 spike S1 protein, in serum samples from 432 vaccinated individuals at six time points: pre-vaccination (baseline), post-prime, post-boost, 6-months, and 1 year post-vaccination, and 3 weeks post a third dose. Virus microneutralization assay was used to confirm antibody responses in a subset of samples.

Results

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike IgG were detected in most subjects post-prime, reached a peak level post-boost, and remained at high level at the 6-month follow-up. At 1 year post-vaccine, the antibody levels were low but increased to a significant level higher than the peak following a third dose. The third dose was given at an average of 250 days after the second dose. The virus microneutralization assay confirmed the neutralization activity of the induced SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies. The vaccines induced higher IgG titres at post-prime (p=0.0001) and 6 months (p=0.006) in previously infected individuals. An increased interval between prime and boost, more than recommended time, appeared to enhance the IgG levels (p=0004). Moreover, the vaccines induced higher IgG levels in younger subjects (p=0.01).

Conclusion

These data provide insights and build on the current understanding of immune responses induced by these two vaccines; and support a third boosting dose for these COVID-19 vaccines.

Evaluation of Patients with Vaccine Allergies Prior to mRNA-Based COVID-19 Vaccination

During the initial rollout of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in Singapore, the Ministry of Health (MOH) issued a recommendation that patients with a history of any previous vaccine allergy be referred to an allergist for further review of their suitability to proceed with mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines. Patients fulfilling the above criterion were divided into three groups: immediate reaction (Group A), delayed reaction (Group B) and no/irrelevant reaction (Group C). They were subjected to either a skin prick test (SPT) and intradermal test (IDT) with polyethylene glycol (PEG) or polysorbate-containing products; direct injection with the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine in the allergy clinic; or injection at community vaccination centres, respectively. Groups A and B were also invited to complete a questionnaire survey on post-vaccination reactions, and blood sampling pre-vaccination and 1 h after the first dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine to measure immunoglobulin (Ig) G, IgM and IgE antibodies to the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine via ELISA assays immobilised with the BNT162b2 vaccine, as well as levels of allergic cytokines interleukin (IL)-4 and IL-33, complement C5a and the endothelial activation marker intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1). Groups A and B comprised 62 (20.5%) patients each. In Group A, two subjects (3.2%) with equivocal IDT results tolerated both doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine without major allergic reactions. The remaining 60 (96.8%) in Group A and 62 (100%) in Group B completed both doses of BNT162b2 vaccination without major adverse reactions. Among the 99 who completed the questionnaire survey, 13 (13%) patients reported mild allergic reactions after the first dose of the vaccine. Immunoglobulin (Ig) G and M antibodies, but not IgE antibodies to the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine were detected in 67 subjects prior to vaccination. The presence of anti-Pfizer BNT162b2 IgG and IgM prior to vaccination did not result in major allergic reactions nor increases in Th2-related cytokines (IL-4, IL-33), complement activation products (C5a) or endothelial activation (ICAM-1). The majority of those with suspected reactions to non-COVID-19 polysorbate-containing vaccines tolerated the BNT162b2 vaccine. Excipient skin tests for PEG and polysorbate prior to vaccination are unnecessary.

Current Evidence in SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccines and Post-Vaccination Adverse Reports: Knowns and Unknowns

The novel mRNA vaccinations against COVID-19 are gaining worldwide attention for their potential efficacy, as well as for the diagnosis of some post-vaccination-reported adverse reactions. In this state-of-the-art review article, we present the current evidence regarding mainly the diagnosis of spontaneous allergic reactions, the skin occurrences, the vascular, blood, endocrine and heart events, the respiratory reports, the gastrointestinal, hepatic and kidney events, the reproductive and pregnancy issues and the muscle events, as well as the ear, eye, neurologic and psychiatric events following mRNA vaccination against COVID-19. We further present some evidence regarding the mRNA strategies, we provide important information for side effects associated with the spike protein based LNP-mRNA vaccine and its adjuvants, as well as evidence for all the possible dangerous roles of the spike protein, and we discuss our expert opinion on the knowns and the unknowns towards the topic.

Adverse Reactions to Anti-Infective Vaccines: an Emerging Problem in the COVID-19 Era

Purpose of review

Vaccines are an essential tool for preventing infectious diseases and reducing associated morbidity and mortality. Vaccination has a significant impact at both individual and community levels, and COVID‐19 vaccination programs are a new example of the great value of this public health strategy. However, adverse reactions, especially severe reactions such as anaphylaxis, prevent these programs from progressing properly, thus limiting vaccination uptake in the population.

Recent findings

The frequency of reactions and types of vaccine components, with special attention to COVID-19 vaccines studies, provides information on the magnitude and causes of adverse events. The understanding of mechanisms involved has made it possible to adequately guide diagnosis, especially to COVID-19 vaccine components, such as polyethylene glycol, trometamol, and polysorbate-80.

Summary

This review focuses on adverse reactions to vaccines, with emphasis on allergic reactions. A diagnostic pathway is suggested that, on the one hand, enables to take the necessary precautions in persons with a history of allergy to vaccine components or allergic reactions to vaccines and, on the other, supports administration of subsequent doses. The overall objective is to ensure that people with allergy can be vaccinated in the same way as the rest of the population, and that they are offered alternatives where necessary.

Understanding the Role and Impact of Poly (Ethylene Glycol) (PEG) on Nanoparticle Formulation: Implications for COVID-19 Vaccines

Poly (ethylene glycol) (PEG) is a widely used polymer in a variety of consumer products and in medicine. PEGylation refers to the conjugation of PEG to drugs or nanoparticles to increase circulation time and reduce unwanted host responses. PEG is viewed as being well-tolerated, but previous studies have identified anti-PEG antibodies and so-called pseudoallergic reactions in certain individuals. The increased use of nanoparticles as contrast agents or in drug delivery, along with the introduction of mRNA vaccines encapsulated in PEGylated lipid nanoparticles has brought this issue to the fore. Thus, while these vaccines have proven to be remarkably effective, rare cases of anaphylaxis have been reported, and this has been tentatively ascribed to the PEGylated carriers, which may trigger complement activation in susceptible individuals. Here, we provide a general overview of the use of PEGylated nanoparticles for pharmaceutical applications, and we discuss the activation of the complement cascade that might be caused by PEGylated nanomedicines for a better understanding of these immunological adverse reactions.

Acute Unilateral Central Serous Chorioretinopathy after Immunization with Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine: A Case Report and Literature Review

INTRODUCTION

A 43-year-old Caucasian male presented to our ophthalmology clinic with blurry vision and metamorphopsia in his right eye, 24 hours after receiving the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.

METHODS

Clinical examination and imaging tests were consistent with acute unilateral central serous chorioretinopathy (CSCR) that completely resolved after 2 months without any treatment. He had no significant ophthalmic or medical history. He also lacked the classical risk factors for CSCR such as recent psychosocial stressors, Type-A personality traits, history of exogenous steroid use, connective tissue disorders and obstructive sleep apnea.

RESULTS

This appears to be only the second reported case of CSCR, temporally associated with a recombinant COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. We also present a summary of published reports demonstrating intraocular complications associated with the novel recombinant COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.

CONCLUSION

Findings in this report should not deter COVID-19 vaccinations given the rarity of aforementioned ocular complications and the greater benefit of protection from COVID-19 infection. Medical practitioners, however, should remain mindful of potential ocular complications, given the greater likelihood of occurrence with increasing vaccination booster rates.

Safety of mRNA vaccines administered during the initial 6 months of the US COVID-19 vaccination programme: an observational study of reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and v-safe

BACKGROUND

In December, 2020, two mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines were authorised for use in the USA. We aimed to describe US surveillance data collected through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a passive system, and v-safe, a new active system, during the first 6 months of the US COVID-19 vaccination programme.

METHODS

In this observational study, we analysed data reported to VAERS and v-safe during Dec 14, 2020, to June 14, 2021. VAERS reports were categorised as non-serious, serious, or death. Reporting rates were calculated using numbers of COVID-19 doses administered as the denominator. We analysed v-safe survey reports from days 0-7 after vaccination for reactogenicity, severity (mild, moderate, or severe), and health impacts (ie, unable to perform normal daily activities, unable to work, or received care from a medical professional).

FINDINGS

During the study period, 298 792 852 doses of mRNA vaccines were administered in the USA. VAERS processed 340 522 reports: 313 499 (92·1%) were non-serious, 22 527 (6·6%) were serious (non-death), and 4496 (1·3%) were deaths. Over half of 7 914 583 v-safe participants self-reported local and systemic reactogenicity, more frequently after dose two (4 068 447 [71·7%] of 5 674 420 participants for local reactogenicity and 4 018 920 [70·8%] for systemic) than after dose one (4 644 989 [68·6%] of 6 775 515 participants for local reactogenicity and 3 573 429 [52·7%] for systemic). Injection-site pain (4 488 402 [66·2%] of 6 775 515 participants after dose one and 3 890 848 [68·6%] of 5 674 420 participants after dose two), fatigue (2 295 205 [33·9%] participants after dose one and 3 158 299 participants [55·7%] after dose two), and headache (1 831 471 [27·0%] participants after dose one and 2 623 721 [46·2%] participants after dose two) were commonly reported during days 0-7 following vaccination. Reactogenicity was reported most frequently the day after vaccination; most reactions were mild. More reports of being unable to work, do normal activities, or of seeking medical care occurred after dose two (1 821 421 [32·1%]) than after dose one (808 963 [11·9%]); less than 1% of participants reported seeking medical care after vaccination (56 647 [0·8%] after dose one and 53 077 [0·9%] after dose two).

INTERPRETATION

Safety data from more than 298 million doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine administered in the first 6 months of the US vaccination programme show that most reported adverse events were mild and short in duration.

FUNDING

US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Immediate Hypersensitivity Reactions Induced by COVID-19 Vaccines: Current Trends, Potential Mechanisms and Prevention Strategies

As the world deals with the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccination remains vital to successfully end this crisis. However, COVID-19-vaccine-induced immediate hypersensitivity reactions presenting with potentially life-threatening systemic anaphylactic reactions are one of the reasons for vaccine hesitancy. Recent studies have suggested that different mechanisms, including IgE-mediated and non-IgE-mediated mast cell activation, may be involved in immediate hypersensitivity. The main culprits triggering hypersensitivity reactions have been suggested to be the excipients of vaccines, including polyethylene glycol and polysorbate 80. Patients with a history of allergic reactions to drugs, foods, or other vaccines may have an increased risk of hypersensitivity reactions to COVID-19 vaccines. Various strategies have been suggested to prevent hypersensitivity reactions, including performing skin tests or in vitro tests before vaccination, administering different vaccines for the primary and following boosters, changing the fractionated doses, or pretreating the anti-IgE antibody. This review discusses the current trends, potential mechanisms, and prevention strategies for COVID-19-vaccine-induced immediate hypersensitivity reactions.

Allergological study in patients vaccinated against COVID-19 with suspected allergic reactions

BACKGROUND

One of the main barriers to vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 is the fear of developing hypersensitivity reactions to any of its components. Although these reactions are very rare, it is necessary to establish an effective protocol to detect patients at risk of developing them. The aim of this study was to evaluate hypersensitivity reactions in vaccinated patients in order to allow or not to complete the vaccination protocol.

METHODS

Descriptive and cross-sectional study in which patients with suspected hypersensitivity to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were evaluated. All patients underwent skin prick test (SPT) and/or intradermal test (IDT) with the vaccines and their excipients. In patients with positive IDT with the vaccine, a histopathological and immunohistochemical study was performed by skin biopsy. A basophil activation test (BAT) and a lymphoblastic transformation test (LTT) were also performed.

RESULTS

Sixteen patients with suspected hypersensitivity to SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (12 received Comirnaty®, 3 received Vaxzevria®, and 1 received Spikevax®) were evaluated. Half had immediate hypersensitivity reactions and half had delayed reactions. All SPTs to excipients and vaccines were negative. IDTs with all excipients were negative. IDTs with vaccines were positive in 11 patients and negative in 5. The histological and immunohistochemical study of the two selected patients with positive IDT with vaccine showed T-lymphocyte involvement. BAT and LTT were negative in both cases. The vaccination protocol could be completed in 7 of 16 patients (44%) studied. The remaining 9 patients did not receive the second dose: 5 because vaccination was not required and 4 because they refused to be vaccinated.

CONCLUSIONS

Thanks to the allergological and immunohistochemical study, the vaccination protocol could be completed in about half of the patients who presented suspected hypersensitivity reactions to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. IDTs with vaccines could be a valuable method for assessing the immunogenicity of the vaccines.

Antibody response and seroprevalence in healthcare workers after the BNT162b2 vaccination in a University Hospital at Tokyo

In 2020, we reported a low seroprevalence of N-specific antibodies in 4147 health care workers (HCWs) at a frontline hospital in Tokyo, Japan. In Japan, a vaccine campaign was launched in early 2021. We re-evaluated seroprevalences of N- and S-specific antibodies in 2202 HCWs who took two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine. In 2021, N-specific seroprevalence remains as low as 1.59%. The seroprevalences were comparable among all HCWs regardless of exposure levels. Almost all of the HCWs elicited S-specific antibodies after vaccination. However, the HCWs who had COVID-19 elicited higher S-specific antibody titers than those who did not have COVID-19. In the HCWs without a history of COVID-19, 1.1% (23 out of 2185) were seropositive with N-specific antibodies, indicating the existence of asymptomatic infections. Also, S-specific antibody titers were higher in females and younger HCWs, and in those who had severe side effects. However, S-specific antibody titers were lower depending on the number of days after the second dose of vaccination specifically in elderly individuals. In conclusion, this study indicates N-specific seroprevalence remains low in HCWs at a frontline hospital in Tokyo. The mRNA vaccine elicited S-specific antibody in HCWs, however, the titers decreased as the days proceeded.

[Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome following adenovirus vector-based vaccines to prevent COVID-19: epidemiology and clinical presentation in Spain]

BACKGROUND

We describe the epidemiological and clinical characteristics of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) cases reported in Spain.

METHODS

We included all venous or arterial thrombosis with thrombocytopenia following adenovirus vector-based vaccines (AstraZeneca or Janssen) to prevent COVID-19 disease between February 1st and September 26th, 2021. We describe the crude rate and the standardized morbidity ratio. We assessed the predictors of mortality.

RESULTS

Sixty-one cases were reported and 45 fulfilled eligibility criteria, 82% women. The crude TTS rate was 4/1,000,000 doses and 14-15/1,000,000 doses between 30-49 years. The number of observed cases of cerebral venous thrombosis was 6-18 higher than the expected in patients younger than 49 years. Symptoms started 10 (interquartile range (IQR): 7-14) days after vaccination. Eighty percent (95% confidence interval (CI): 65-90%) had thrombocytopenia at the time of the emergency department visit, and 65% (95% CI: 49-78%) had D-dimer >2000 ng/mL. Patients had multiple location thrombosis in 36% and fatal outcome in 24% cases. A platelet nadir <50,000 /μL (odds ratio (OR): 7.4; CI 95%: 1.2-47.5) and intracranial hemorrhage (OR: 7.9; IC95%: 1.3-47.0) were associated with fatal outcome.

CONCLUSION

TTS must be suspected in patients with symptoms 10 days after vaccination and thrombocytopenia and/or D-dimer increase.

The Role of the Allergist in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccine Allergy Safety: A Pilot Study on a "Hub-and-Spoke" Model for Population-Wide Allergy Service

Background

Hong Kong started its coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination program in February 2021. A territory-wide Vaccine Allergy Safety (VAS) clinic was set up to assess individuals deemed at “higher risk” of COVID-19 vaccine-associated allergies. A novel “hub-and-spoke” model was piloted to tackle the overwhelming demand of services by allowing nonallergists to conduct assessment.

Objective

To evaluate the outcomes of the VAS hub-and-spoke model for allergy assessment.

Methods

Records of patients attending the VAS hub-and-spoke Clinics between March and August 2021 were reviewed (n = 2725). We studied the overall results between the Hub (allergist led) and Spoke (nonallergist led) Clinics. The Hub and the Hong Kong West Cluster Spoke Clinic were selected for subgroup analysis as they saw the largest number of patients (n = 1411).

Results

A total of 2725 patients were assessed under the VAS hub-and-spoke model. Overall, 2324 patients (85.3%) were recommended to proceed with vaccination. Allergists recommended significantly more patients for vaccination than nonallergists (odds ratio = 21.58; P < .001). Subgroup analysis revealed that 881 of 1055 (83.5%) patients received their first dose of COVID-19 vaccination safely after assessment. Among those recommended vaccination, more patients assessed by allergists received their first dose of vaccination (odds ratio = 4.18; P < .001).

Conclusion

The hub-and-spoke model has proven to be successful for the vaccination campaign. This study has illustrated the crucial role of allergists in countering vaccine hesitancy. Results from the study revealed considerable differences in outcomes between allergist-led and nonallergist-led clinics. Precise reasons for these differences warrant further evaluation. We are hopeful that the hub-and-spoke model can be similarly adapted for other allergist-integrative services in the future.

Allergic Reactions After the Administration of COVID-19 Vaccines

Background

Data on allergic reactions after the administration of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccines are limited. Our aim is to analyze reports of allergic reactions after COVID-19 vaccine administration.

Methods

The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System database was searched for reported allergic reactions after the administration of any of the COVID-19 vaccines from December 2020 to June 2021. After data mapping, the demographic and clinical characteristics of the reported cases were analyzed. Potential factors associated with anaphylaxis were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression models.

Results

In total, 14,611 cases were reported. Most cases of allergic reactions comprised women (84.6%) and occurred after the first dose of the vaccine (63.6%). Patients who experienced anaphylaxis were younger (mean age 45.11 ± 5.6 vs. 47.01 ± 6.3 years, P < 0.001) and had a higher prevalence of a history of allergies, allergic rhinitis, asthma, and anaphylaxis than those who did not (P < 0.05). A history of allergies (odds ratio (OR) 1.632, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.467-1.816, P < 0.001), asthma (OR 1.908, 95%CI 1.677-2.172, P < 0.001), and anaphylaxis (OR 7.164, 95%CI 3.504-14.646, P < 0.001) were potential risk factors for anaphylaxis. Among the 8,232 patients with reported outcomes, 16 died.

Conclusions

Female predominance in allergic reaction cases after the receipt of COVID-19 vaccines was observed. Previous histories of allergies, asthma, or anaphylaxis were risk factors for anaphylaxis post-vaccination. People with these risk factors should be monitored more strictly after COVID-19 vaccination.

Management of BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in children aged 5-11 years with allergies, asthma, and immunodeficiency: consensus of the Italian Society of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology (SIAIP)

BNT162b2 vaccine, developed by BioNTech and Pfizer ha recently approved for use in children aged 5 to 11 years. Recent data show evidence of safety on the administration and serious adverse events have been rarely reported. However, allergic systemic reactions could occur. In some cases, a correct allergic evaluation allows identifying patients at risk of developing an anaphylactic reaction. Risk assessment of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines is useful to limit contraindications to vaccination and help to safely vaccinate people supposed to be at risk of allergic reactions.

Computational design of immunogenic peptide constructs comprising multiple HLA restricted Dengue virus envelope epitopes

Dengue virus (DENV) is endemic in 100 countries with ability to impact nearly 50% of world population. DENV envelope (E) protein is responsible for viral attachment to host cells and has been target of various countermeasure development efforts. The current study focuses on a consensus computational approach to identify cross-reactive, immunogenic DENV-2 E peptides displaying promiscuity with a wide array of HLA molecules. Four conserved peptides (FP-1, FP-2, FP-3 and FP-4) containing multiple CD8⁺ and CD4⁺ T cell epitopes were identified by employment of various immunoinformatics tools. FP-1, FP-2, FP-3 and FP-4 were estimated to bind with 227, 1787, 1008 and 834 HLA alleles respectively. RMSD values obtained by Molecular docking (CABS-Dock) with 20 HLA alleles (10 each of HLA class I and II) resulted into comparable RMSD values of identified epitopes with native peptides which represents the natural presentation of epitopes to HLA molecules. These peptides were also found to be part of previous experimentally validated immunogenic peptides. Further, a dengue immunogenic peptide construct was generated by linking the four peptides, an adjuvant and a 6x histidine tag. The construct showed strong binding and stability with Toll-like receptor (TLR4). Collectively, these results provide strong evidence in the support of the immunogenic potential of the dengue immunogenic peptide construct. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

COVID-19: vaccines, efficacy and effects on variants

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We reviewed three leading strategies of vaccine development against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID- 19): mRNA vaccines, adenoviral vector vaccines and recombinant nanoparticles. We also considered the emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants and their impact on the effectiveness of the most widely implemented vaccines.

RECENT FINDINGS

General properties, efficacy, safety and global uptake of Pfizer/BioNTech's Comirnaty (BNT162b2), Moderna's Spikevax (mRNA-1273), Oxford/AstraZeneca's ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, J&J/Janssen's Ad26.COV2.S and Novavax's NVX-CoV2373 vaccines at the end of the year 2021 were presented. We summarized the information on the effectiveness against COVID-19 infection, severe disease and death. We then focused on important missense mutations in the five variants of concern (VoC): Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta and Omicron. We explored the evidence for the effectiveness of the vaccines against those five VoC.

SUMMARY

It is difficult to predict the further development of the COVID-19 pandemic. The development of vaccines of an increasingly broad spectrum against coronaviruses, more easily deliverable and conferring more durable immune protection is likely. However, the very large number of infections may lead to new mutations with unpredictable impacts. Interventions that would control COVID-19 more effectively and enable a safer coexistence with the SARS-CoV-2 virus and its emerging variants are still needed in early 2022.

Phytocompounds as potential inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2 Mpro and PLpro through computational studies

The inhibition of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) main protease (Mpro) and papain-like protease (PLpro) prevents viral multiplications; these viral enzymes have been recognized as one of the most favorable targets for drug discovery against SARS-CoV-2. In the present study, we screened 225 phytocompounds present in 28 different Indian spices to identify compounds as potential inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2 Mpro and PLpro. Molecular docking, molecular dynamics simulation, molecular mechanics Poisson-Boltzmann surface area (MM-PBSA) binding free energy calculations, and absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion and toxicity (ADMET) studies were done. Based on binding affinity, dynamics behavior, and binding free energies, the present study identifies pentaoxahexacyclo-dotriacontanonaen-trihydroxybenzoate derivative (PDT), rutin, and dihyroxy-oxan-phenyl-chromen-4-one derivative (DOC), luteolin-7-glucoside-4'-neohesperidoside as promising inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2 Mpro and PLpro, respectively.

Protocol of safe vaccination against COVID-19 in patients with high risk of allergic reactions

Background

Sars-CoV-2 infections are hazardous, especially to the elderly and patients with comorbidities. With no efficient treatment available, newly developed vaccines are the only way to change the course of the pandemic. However, reports of allergic reactions resulted in some patients and practicing physicians being concerned about the safety of vaccine administration, particularly in people with severe anaphylactic reactions to multiple or unknown factors in their medical history.This study aimed to develop an allergic work-up protocol based on skin prick tests (SPT), intradermal testing (IDT) and intramuscular provocations, and desensitisation which may contribute to diagnosis and management of anti-COVID-19 vaccine allergy.

Methods

Two hundred and eighty-five patients were enrolled. Two hundred and five of them entered the study based on severe anaphylactic reaction to unknown or multiple factors in their medical history which disqualified them for standard treatment. Another 80 patients were enrolled after developing an allergic reaction to the first dose of one such vaccine. In all subjects, SPT and IDT were performed. Serum tryptase was assessed in 79 patients randomly chosen from the study group.

Results

Two hundred and seventy-seven patients with negative tests were given a vaccine without complications. Seven patients had positive skin tests. In two cases, tests confirmed Comirnaty allergy, while the other five confirmed solely skin sensitisation with no exposure prior to the study. Six patients with positive tests received titrated challenge using desensitisation protocol with a reasonable tolerance. One patient did not consent to desensitisation and one patient resigned despite negative tests. Overall, 283 (99%) patients were vaccinated using this newly developed protocol. Patients with adverse reactions to the first dose of the vaccine before the study had a significantly lower basal serum tryptase concentration (p = 0.001).

Conclusion

Skin tests with anti-COVID-19 vaccines are a useful tool in the vaccination protocol. This protocol enables safe immunisation of high-allergy-risk patients even in cases of positive skin tests.

Takotsubo cardiomyopathy after vaccination for coronavirus disease 2019 in a patient on maintenance hemodialysis

Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) has affected more than 220 million individuals since the global pandemic began. There is an urgent need for safe and effective vaccines, and vaccinations, such as mRNA vaccines, have been initiated worldwide. However, the adverse effects of these vaccines remain unclear. We herein present a case of an 80-year-old female on maintenance hemodialysis who developed takotsubo cardiomyopathy 4 days after receiving the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. There was no obvious trigger for the onset of takotsubo cardiomyopathy other than the COVID-19 vaccination, which was the most significant event preceding her presentation. Echocardiograms obtained during her admission allowed us to monitor and show the recovery of left ventricular wall motion. We confirmed the diagnosis of takotsubo cardiomyopathy based on the findings, including transient left ventricular dysfunction, electrocardiographic abnormalities, an elevated troponin level, and the absence of occlusive coronary artery disease. In the present case, the vaccination may have triggered emotional or physical stress. Although difficulties are associated with proving the causal relationship in the present case, the temporal relationship between the vaccination and the onset of takotsubo cardiomyopathy is highly suggestive. The adverse effects associated with the vaccine are typical of COVID-19 vaccines administered to date, most of which are acceptable. Therefore, despite our experience of the present case, we still recommend the vaccination for COVID-19 because takotsubo cardiomyopathy induced by the COVID-19 vaccine is extremely rare and the prognosis of the patient was good. We herein present the first case of a patient on hemodialysis who developed takotsubo cardiomyopathy after receiving COVID-19 vaccination.

Relationship between blood clots and COVID-19 vaccines: A literature review

SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is one of the most critical pandemics during human civilization. Several therapeutic strategies for COVID-19 management have been offered; nonetheless, none of them seems to be sufficiently beneficial. In effect, vaccines have been proffered as a viable option. The critical issue now is to concentrate on protecting individuals against illness through immunization. One of the causes for concern among the researchers, physicians, and generally the whole community from the onset of vaccination has been the adverse effects (specifically blood clots) that may be observed after the injection of the COVID-19 vaccine. In some countries, such concerns have even resulted in the temporary or permanent discontinuation or abandonment of the application of some vaccines (especially AstraZeneca and Janssen). By evaluating rigorous studies published on this subject, the present article is aimed at identifying the association between blood clot incidence and COVID-19 vaccination. Various methods for producing the COVID-19 vaccines are analyzed, along with their possible pros and cons as well as common and rare side effects, especially VITT and blood clots. Finally, the differences of various vaccines on thrombotic events, WHO recommendations for VITT treatment, and blood clots statics are discussed.

Safety of Global SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines, a Meta-Analysis

(1) Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines were developed in only a short amount of time and were widely distributed. We conducted this meta-analysis to understand the safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. (2) Methods: We searched the corresponding literature published from 1 January 2020 to 20 October 2021. Information of adverse events (AEs) of each selected work was collected. The quality and bias of studies was evaluated, and meta-analysis was carried out by using Stata 17.0. (3) Results: Totally, 11,451 articles were retrieved, and 53 of them were included for analysis. The incidence rate of AEs was 20.05–94.48%. The incidence rate of vascular events increased after viral vector vaccination, while the incidence rate of vascular events decreased after mRNA vaccination. Viral vector vaccine had a higher AE rate compared to mRNA vaccines and inactivated vaccines. In most circumstances, the incidence of AEs was higher in older people, female and after the second dose. The sensitivity of meta-analysis was acceptable; however, the literature was subject to a certain publication bias. (4) Conclusions: The safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines was acceptable. The incidence of allergic symptoms and cardiovascular and cerebrovascular symptoms was low. Viral vector vaccine had a higher risk of leading to thrombosis events. The understanding of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine AEs should be enhanced, so as to promote the vaccination.

Evaluating Pharmacists’ Pharmacological Knowledge and Views Regarding Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine in Saudi Arabia

Background

The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine has been widely used and approved for the prevention of 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) for individuals aged 16 years and older in Saudi Arabia. The emergency use authorization of this vaccine is crucial to managing the pandemic in the Kingdom. This vaccination strategy requires proper usage, knowledge, and management by pharmacists and other health professionals.

Methods

This cross-sectional study was conducted using several previously validated questionnaires. Pharmacists working in different health sectors in Saudi Arabia in March–July 2021 participated via an online questionnaire. Comparative and descriptive analyses were used to analyze the data, and a P-value < 0.05 was considered significant.

Results

A total of 145 pharmacists with a mean age of 35.2 years (SD ± 5.59) were included. The study sample showed adequate general knowledge of COVID-19 and its causative virus signs. Overall, the results showed good knowledge of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and its pharmacological application among pharmacists in Saudi Arabia with significant chi square values (p< 0.0001).

Conclusion

Pharmacists have good knowledge and understanding of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine; interestingly, the majority expressed a high level of awareness and agreed that Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine is a valuable vaccine for COVID-19 management.

The Immune Response, Safety, and Efficacy of Emergency Use Authorization-Granted COVID-19 Vaccines: A Review

COVID-19 has affected millions of people, causing a burden on healthcare systems as well as economies throughout the world. Antiviral drugs do not work well enough for everyone. The mortality rate in the world is still significant. Developing safe, effective, affordable, and fast-acting vaccines for COVID-19 is critical for reducing new viral strains in this pandemic and re-establishing normality in the future. Therefore, several pharmaceutical companies are racing to develop effective vaccines for COVID-19. Scientists have developed different kinds of candidate vaccines with various platforms. By March 2021, thirteen vaccines were approved for emergency use in several countries across the world, whilst over 90 vaccine candidates were under clinical trials. There are also several vaccine candidates in Phase 3 trials awaiting results and approval for their use. These candidate vaccines revealed positive results in the previous phase trials, whereby they can induce an immune response with less adverse reaction in the participants. This review focuses on the development of COVID-19 vaccines and highlights the efficacy and adverse reactions of vaccines authorized for emergency use.

Time-Dependent Changes in Death Reports and the Sex Ratio in the Safety Surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination in Japan, the United States, and European Countries

The national safety surveillance of vaccines is a fundamental measure to ensure vaccination safety and maintain transparency and public trust. Our previous study revealed an early increase in death reports after the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination in Japanese surveillance despite our hypothesis that no time-dependent variations in the number of death reports would be seen if the vaccination is not related to serious adverse events. This study is an extensive investigation to determine whether the number of death reports varied consistently over time after vaccination in the older population in Japan, the US, and European countries. We collected the death reports after BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination in individuals aged 65 years or older using the open databases in Japan, the US (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, VAERS), and European countries (EudraVigilance). We observed an early increase of death reports on Day 2 after the vaccination in all three databases. The female-to-male ratio was also assessed and showed a certain degree of time-dependence (R² of linear regression 0.54, p =0.01) in Japan but not in the US and European countries. The findings suggest the existence of unknown predictors of the adverse events of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, especially for the older Japanese population. The continuous and careful monitoring safety aspects of the vaccines are warranted.

The environmental impact of mass coronavirus vaccinations: A point of view on huge COVID-19 vaccine waste across the globe during ongoing vaccine campaigns

The vaccine innovation is a ubiquitous preventive measure to the transmission of highly infectious SARS-COV-2. The ongoing mass coronavirus vaccination programmes have inadvertently become the bulk producers of biomedical and plastic waste triggering severe impact on the environment. The sustainable management of bio hazardous vaccine waste in particular; syringes, needles, used/un-used vials and single-use plastic equipment is of utmost importance. This perspective presents a critical point of view in terms of the generated vaccine waste and the subsequent knock-on effect on all aspects of ecosystem. The discussion includes dire consequences due to the release of huge amount of plastic-based personal protective equipment into marine environment. The pivotal crisis of CO₂ emission during the manufacture and storage of different vaccines has contributed to global warming. The unavoidable generation of microfibers upon incineration, autoclaving, pyrolysis and open dumping of vaccine waste has further jeopardized the environment. In this vein, exploration of biodegradable materials for vaccine inoculation and development of green technologies for sound waste management is suggested to mitigate the environment pollution.

Cutaneous Complications of mRNA and AZD1222 COVID-19 Vaccines: A Worldwide Review

Because of the increasing emergence of cutaneous reactions from COVID-19 vaccines worldwide, we investigated the published reports of these complications. We searched the PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus databases and the preprint server bioRxiv for articles on cutaneous complications linked to mRNA-1273 (Moderna), BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNTech), and AZD1222 (AstraZeneca–Oxford University) vaccines published until 30 September 2021. Eighty studies describing a total of 1415 reactions were included. Cutaneous reactions were more prevalent in females (81.6%). Delayed large local reactions were the most common complication (40.4%), followed by local injection site reactions (16.5%), zoster (9.5%), and urticarial eruptions (9.0%). Injection site and delayed large local reactions were predominantly caused by the mRNA-1273 vaccine (79.5% and 72.0%, respectively). BNT162b2 vaccination was more closely linked to distant reactions (50.1%) than mRNA-1273 (30.0%). Zoster was the most common distant reaction. Of reactions with adequate information for both vaccine doses, 58.3% occurred after the first dose only, 26.9% after the second dose only, and 14.8% after both doses. Overall, a large spectrum of cutaneous reaction patterns occurred following the COVID-19 vaccination. Most were mild and without long-term health implications. Therefore, the occurrence of such dermatologic complications does not contraindicate subsequent vaccination.

AstraZeneca ChAdOx1-S COVID-19 vaccine can be safely administered in patients with EDTA allergy

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 found in a range of other products, including injectable and oral medications as well as intravenous radiocontrast media (RCM) and various cosmetic products. Patients with proven excipient allergy may be advised to avoid a COVID-19 vaccine containing that excipient and/or potentially cross-reactive excipients. This may result in individual patients not receiving vaccines, especially if an alternate option is not available, and on a broader level contribute to vaccine hesitancy. We present two cases of previously confirmed EDTA anaphylaxis with positive intradermal testing, 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 0.3 mg/mL IDT were negative. However, following EDTA 3 mg/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 0.3 mg/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.

Population-Based Incidence, Severity, and Risk Factors Associated with Treated Acute-Onset COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination-Associated Hypersensitivity Reactions

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 mRNA vaccination-associated acute-onset hypersensitivity reactions have caused anxiety and may be contributing to vaccine hesitancy.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the incidence, severity, and risk factors for treated acute-onset COVID-19 mRNA vaccination-associated hypersensitivity reactions in a well-characterized population.

METHODS

All Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC) members who received COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations between December 15, 2020, and March 11, 2021, at a KPSC facility were identified and characterized, along with all treated acute-onset vaccination-associated hypersensitivity events.

RESULTS

We identified 391,123 unique vaccine recipients (59.18% female, age 64.19 ± 17.86 years); 215,156 received 2 doses (53.54% Moderna), 157,615 only a first dose (50.13% Moderna) (1961 [1.46%] >2 weeks late getting a second dose), and 18,352 (74.43% Moderna) only a second dose. Only 104 (0.028%) (85.58% female, age 53.18 ± 15.96 years) had treated first dose events, 68 (0.030%) Moderna. Only 32 (0.014%) (93.75% female, age 57.28 ± 17.09 years) had treated second dose events, 21 (0.016%) Moderna. Only 2 (0.00033%) vaccinations resulted in anaphylaxis. Only 27 (20.77%) of those with treated first dose reactions failed to get a second dose. Only 6 of 77 (7.8%) with first dose reactions also had second dose reactions. Individuals with treated events were more likely to be female (P < .0001), younger (P < .0001), and had more pre-existing drug "allergies" (2.11 ± 2.12 vs 1.02 ± 1.41 [P < .0001] for average recipients).

CONCLUSIONS

Treated acute-onset hypersensitivity events were mostly benign, more common with first COVID-19 mRNA vaccine doses, more likely to occur in younger females with typical risk factors associated with multiple drug intolerance syndrome, and very unlikely to be primarily immunologically mediated.

Post COVID-19 vaccine deaths - Singapore's early experience

Singapore has been using mRNA vaccines developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna as part of the nation's COVID vaccination program since 30 December 2020. From 1 February 2021-30 June 2021, a total of 34 deaths that occurred within 72 h of the deceased receiving their COVID-19 vaccination were referred to the Forensic Medicine Division of the Health Sciences Authority of Singapore. Autopsies, histological sampling and ancillary investigations consisting of total tryptase level, Immunoglobulin E (IgE), and C-reactive Protein (CRP), were performed on 29 of these cases. Our study has shown no definite causative relationship between the mRNA vaccination and deaths of individuals who died within 72 h after receiving the vaccination, in particular with regards to anaphylactic reactions, myocarditis and pericarditis, and thrombotic complications. Further studies may consider increasing the incident time frame from 72 h to seven days post-vaccination or longer to include any potential delayed presentation of adverse effects.

Are COVID-19 mRNA vaccine side effects severe enough to cause missed work? Cross-sectional study of health care-associated workers

ABSTRACT

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2, has claimed 5,587,549 lives worldwide as of January 20, 2022. Fortunately, large-scale vaccination can mitigate the impact of COVID-19 by making the disease milder and less common. Although 75.2% of the United States population has received at least 1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccines thus far, concerns regarding vaccine side effects have contributed to vaccine hesitancy. Furthermore, nearly 50% of adults in the United States are concerned not only about side effects, but about their downstream impact, including missed work.The goal of this cross-sectional study was to investigate the effect of messenger RNA vaccine adverse effects on the propensity to miss work among employees associated with a single, large academic health center.Using Qualtrics, all employees, including faculty, staff, and trainees, of 5 large departments were surveyed to determine whether they received the COVID-19 vaccine and which type, and any symptoms they experienced after receipt of either vaccine dose. We hypothesized that vaccine recipients would be more likely to miss work or feel sick enough to miss work following the second dose.Thirty-seven percent of respondents experienced events severe enough that they needed to miss work from either of the doses, with the majority (27.8%) related to the second dose. These findings are consistent with and expand on the results from the phase 3 trials for Pfizer-BionTech and Moderna, which showed that vaccine side effects were more common after the second dose than after the first dose. Our statistically significant finding was more common among Asians, women, trainees/house staff, and nonphysician clinical employees.With an increasing number of individuals taking the vaccine, employers will need to account for the impact of adverse effects on their employees' ability to work. These findings will further help organizations better plan for staffing as vaccinations increase to mitigate the spread of COVID-19.

The lived experiences of a COVID-19 immunization programme: vaccine hesitancy and vaccine refusal

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a global health emergency and lock-down measures to curb the uncontrolled transmission chain. Vaccination is an effective measure against COVID-19 infections. In Malaysia amidst the national immunisation programme (NIP) which started in February 2021, there were rising concerns regarding the prevalence of vaccine hesitancy and refusal, and therefore, vaccine uptake among Malaysians. Although there are many quantitative studies on COVID-19 vaccination, the subjective experience of individuals was understudied. This study aims to explore the lived experiences of Malaysians regarding vaccine hesitancy and refusal, and facilitating factors that could enhance vaccine acceptance and uptake.

Methods

This qualitative study employed the hermeneutic phenomenological study design. Purposive sampling strategies were used to recruit Malaysians that had direct experiences with friends, family members and their community who were hesitating or refusing to accept the COVID-19 vaccines. A semi-structured interview guide was developed based on the expert knowledge of the investigators and existing literature on the topic. A series of focus group interviews (FGIs) was conducted online facilitated by a multidisciplinary team of experts. The group interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed.

Results

Fifty-nine participants took part in seven FGIs. We found that “incongruence” was the overall thematic meaning that connected all the 3 main themes. These themes comprise firstly, the incongruence between the aims and implementation of the National Immunization Program which highlighted the gap between realities and needs on the ground. Secondly, the incongruence between Trust and Mistrust revealed a trust deficit in the government, COVID-19 news, and younger people’s preference to follow the examples of local vaccination “heroes”. Thirdly, the incongruence in communication showed the populace’s mixed views regarding official media and local social media.

Conclusions

This study provided rich details on the complex picture of the COVID-19 immunization program in Malaysia and its impact on vaccine hesitancy and refusal. The inter-related and incongruent factors explained the operational difficulty and complexity of the NIP and the design of an effective health communication campaign. Identified gaps such as logistical implementation and communication strategies should be noted by policymakers in implementing mitigation plans.

Development of Venous Thromboembolism After COVID-19 mRNA-1273 Vaccine Inoculation

A 79-year-old man suddenly developed right lower extremity (RLE) pain and swelling a few days after receiving his 1st dose of the mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine. Despite this, he proceeded to receive the 2nd dose of his mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine. Investigations confirmed extensive acute deep venous thrombosis and a concurrent acute pulmonary embolism. Therapeutic anticoagulation was initiated and he was eventually discharged home on supplemental oxygen. The overall benefits of the vaccine in curbing severe disease overwhelmingly outweigh the handful of cases of reported adverse events. To our knowledge, this is one of the first few cases of provoked venous thrombosis after receiving the mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine during the pharmacovigilance period.

Propensity-Score-Matched Evaluation of Adverse Events Affecting Recovery after COVID-19 Vaccination: On Adenovirus and mRNA Vaccines

This study aimed to observe adverse events following immunisation (AEFIs) that affected recovery within two weeks after COVID-19 vaccination and investigate their risks in propensity-score-matched populations. Data were collected from 447,346 reports from the VAERS between 1 January 2021 and 31 July 2021. Propensity-score-matched populations were constructed by adjusting for demographic characteristics and 11 underlying diseases in eligible subjects who received 1 of 3 COVID-19 vaccines: 19,462 Ad26.COV2.S, 120,580 mRNA-1273, and 100,752 BNT162b2. We observed that 88 suspected AEFIs (22 in Ad26.COV2.S, 62 in mRNA-1273, and 54 in BNT162b2) were associated with an increased risk of delayed recovery within 2 weeks after COVID-19 vaccinations. Nervous system, musculoskeletal and connective tissue, gastrointestinal, skin, and subcutaneous tissue disorders were the most common AEFIs after COVID-19 vaccination. Interestingly, four local and systemic reactions affected recovery in different vaccine recipients during our study period: asthenic conditions and febrile disorders in Ad26.COV2.S and mRNA-1273; general signs and symptoms in mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2; injection site reactions in Ad26.COV2.S and BNT162b2. Although it is necessary to confirm a causal relationship with COVID-19 vaccinations, some symptoms, including paralysis, allergic disorders, breathing abnormalities, and visual impairment, may hinder the recovery of these recipients.

Vaccine Hesitancy and Fear of COVID-19 Among Italian Medical Students: A Cross-Sectional Study

Medical students are in close contact with patients and should adhere to the same recommendations as healthcare workers. The study aimed to explore medical students' hesitancy towards COVID-19 vaccine and evaluate fear of COVID-19 and its relationship with hesitancy. A cross-sectional survey was conducted amongst a sample of medical students attending clinical years (November 2020–February 2021, Italy). Multivariable regressions were performed (p < 0.05 as significant). A total of 929 students participated (58.6% of eligible students). Hesitancy was reported by 6.7%; extreme fear of COVID-19 by 42.0%. Among hesitancy predictors, there were the survey completion before COVID-19 vaccine authorisation (adjOR = 6.43), adverse reactions after a vaccination (adjOR = 3.30), and receiving advice against COVID-19 vaccination from a relative (adjOR = 2.40). Students who received the recommended paediatric vaccinations (adjOR = 0.10), students with higher adherence to preventive measures (adjOR = 0.98), and students with fear of contracting COVID-19 with regard to the health of loved ones (adjOR = 0.17) were less likely to be hesitant. Females (adjOR = 1.85), students with poor health (adjOR = 1.64), students who had a loved one severely affected by COVID-19 (adjOR = 1.68), and students with fear of contracting flu (adjOR = 3.06) had a higher likelihood of reporting extreme fear. Hesitancy was remarkably lower than in similar studies. However, there is room for improvement in university activities that could deepen the competence in vaccines. Our focus on fear should not be overlooked, since the extent of extreme fear that we found might represent a substantial burden, considering the associations between fear and other health outcomes.

Evaluation of the Autoimmunity and Preexisting Risky Conditions for Hypersensitivity Reactions to COVID-19 Vaccines

INTRODUCTION

The role of autoimmunity and other preexisting risky conditions in hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to COVID-19 vaccines seems unclear. The aim of the study was to investigate the autoimmunity and preexisting risky conditions in HSRs to COVID-19 vaccines.

METHODS

The patients aged ≥18 years with a history of HSR to CoronaVac or Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines within 24 h in 2 tertiary centers were assessed. The patients were divided according to the type of vaccine which they showed immediate-type (<4 h) HSR to (group A1 for CoronaVac and group B1 for Pfizer-BioNTech). Equal number of subjects who did not show HSR to two doses of either CoronaVac or Pfizer-BioNTech was recruited into the study as control groups (group A2 for CoronaVac and group B2 for Pfizer-BioNTech). The autologous serum skin test (ASST) was performed on patient and control groups. Later, the demographic, clinical, and laboratory features were compared between groups.

RESULTS

A total number of 27 patients were included in the study. Subjects with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) were more frequent in group B1 than in group B2 (p:0.041). In addition to CSU, the presence of HSRs to drugs was higher in group A1 than in A2 (both p:0.007). The presence of autoimmunity and autoimmune diseases, positivity of antithyroid peroxidase antibody, and ASST were less in group A2 than in A1 (p:0.015, p:0.048, p:0.048, and p:0.037). Additionally, COVID-19 infection history was less in group A2 than in A1 (p:0.037).

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

Type IIb autoimmunity seems to play a role in immediate type HSRs to the CoronaVac vaccine as previously shown in autoimmune CSU and multidrug hypersensitivity.

SARS-CoV-2-Specific Vaccine Candidates; the Contribution of Structural Vaccinology

SARS-CoV-2 vaccine production has taken us by storm. We aim to fill in the history of concepts and the work of pioneers and provide a framework of strategies employing structural vaccinology. Cryo-electron microscopy became crucial in providing three-dimensional (3D) structures and creating candidates eliciting T and B cell-mediated immunity. It also determined structural changes in the emerging mutants in order to design new constructs that can be easily, quickly and safely added to the vaccines. The full-length spike (S) protein, the S1 subunit and its receptor binding domain (RBD) of the virus are the best candidates. The vaccine development to cease this COVID-19 pandemic sets a milestone for the pan-coronavirus vaccine's designing and manufacturing. By employing structural vaccinology, we propose that the mRNA and the protein sequences of the currently approved vaccines should be modified rapidly to keep up with the more infectious new variants.

Incidence, Pattern and Severity of Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFIs) Associated With Chadox1 nCOV-19 Corona Virus Vaccine (Recombinant) Among the Healthcare Workers of a Tertiary Care Institute of Eastern Uttar Pradesh, India

Background

In January 2020, the Government of India based on the recommendation of the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) and National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization (NTAGI) started the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine in the country. Two vaccines, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 coronavirus vaccine (recombinant), i.e., COVISHIELD produced by Serum Institute of India and COVAXIN developed indigenously by Bharat Biotech, were given emergency use authorisation (EUA) by the DCGI.

Methods

In this cohort study, we assessed the incidence, pattern and severity of adverse events following immunization (AEFI) observed among the healthcare workers of a large tertiary care institute in eastern U.P., India vaccinated with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 Coronavirus vaccine (recombinant) within 30 minutes of vaccination by direct observation.

Results

Out of the total 836 healthcare workers who were vaccinated with the first dose of the vaccine, around 10% experienced any AEFI within the directly observed period. The most common AEFI was pain/tenderness at the injection site experienced by 59.3% of those who experienced any AEFI followed by headache/dizziness (35.3%), itching/rashes at the injection site (8.1%), nausea/vomiting (5.8%) and fever/chills (4.7%). The majority (95.3%) of the AEFIs observed were of minor severity with no serious AEFIs observed as per the WHO severity classification.

Conclusion

ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 Coronavirus vaccine (recombinant) is proven to be safe based on our findings as the majority of AEFIs observed were of minor grade only. However, the vaccine beneficiaries should be strictly observed for a minimum of 30 minutes at the vaccination site to look for any serious AEFI with arrangements to manage the same.

Allergic reactions to coronavirus disease 2019 vaccines and addressing vaccine hesitancy: Northwell Health experience

BACKGROUND

Allergic and nonallergic adverse reactions have been reported with global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination. It was previously hypothesized that polyethylene glycol (PEG) may be responsible for anaphylactic reactions to messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccines.

OBJECTIVE

To report the workflow established at our institution, types, and frequency of adverse reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in patients presenting for allergy evaluation.

METHODS

A COVID-19 vaccine adverse reaction registry was established. We used PEG prick skin testing, followed by PEG challenges in selected cases, to ensure PEG tolerance and encourage completion of COVID-19 vaccination series.

RESULTS

A total of 113 patients were included. Most vaccine reactions (86.7%) occurred in women. Anaphylaxis occurred only in women, all of which had a history of allergic disease and two-thirds had asthma. Anaphylaxis rate was 40.6 cases per million. None of the anaphylactic cases developed hypotension, required intubation, or required hospital admission. Systemic allergic symptoms, not fulfilling anaphylaxis criteria, were significantly more common in Pfizer-BioNTech than Moderna-vaccinated patients (P = .02). We observed a higher incidence of dermatologic nonurticarial reactions in men (P = .004). Among first-dose reactors, 86.7% received and tolerated the second dose. We observed a high rate of false-positive intradermal skin test results and frequent subjective symptoms with oral PEG challenge.

CONCLUSION

Intradermal PEG testing has limited utility in evaluating anaphylaxis to mRNA vaccines. Most severe postvaccination allergic symptoms are not caused by hypersensitivity to PEG. Most people with reaction to the initial mRNA vaccine can be safely revaccinated. Patients with anaphylaxis to COVID-19 vaccines benefit from physician-observed vaccination.

The risk of anaphylaxis behind authorized COVID-19 vaccines: a meta-analysis

Background

A serious allergic reaction that may occur in response to medical products is anaphylaxis, which potentially can lead to anaphylactic shock. In the light of recent COVID-19 pandemic, much public attention had been paid to the severe allergic reactions occurring after COVID-19 vaccination. Therefore, in our study we would like to investigate the risk of authorized COVID-19 vaccines to induce anaphylactic reaction, anaphylactoid reaction, anaphylactic shock and anaphylactoid shock.

Methods

We searched databases, such as PubMed, Web of Science and Embase and found eight articles about the incidence of anaphylactic and anaphylactoid reactions. Also, we used data from four databases from Canada, the U.S., the European Union and the United Kingdom. To calculate effect sizes, we used random effects model with inverse variance method. The risk ratio with 95% confidence interval were used for dichotomous outcomes. Statistical analysis was prepared in R. Results were considered statistically significant at p < 0.05.

Results

The most cases of anaphylactic reaction, anaphylactoid reaction, anaphylactic shock and anaphylactoid shock were reported in female aged 18–85 years after BNT162b2 vaccine according to data from the EU. Analyzed COVID-19 vaccines can cause the anaphylaxis/anaphylactic reaction with risk of 106.99 (95% CI [39.95; 286.57], p < 0.0001, I² = 59%), whereas the anaphylactoid reaction, anaphylactic and anaphylactoid shocks with risk of 113.3 (95% CI [28.11; 456.53], p < 0.0001), 344.2 (95% CI [85.77; 1381.39], p < 0.0001), 14.9, 95% CI [1.96; 112.79], p = 0.009), respectively.

Conclusions

Our meta-analysis shows that the risk of anaphylactic reaction, anaphylactoid reaction, anaphylactic shock and anaphylactoid shock do not occur only after mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Therefore, vaccination centers should be prepared to render assistance in the event of a reaction in all cases.

The Evaluation of Oxidative Stress in the Young Adults with COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines Induced Acute Pericarditis- Myopericarditis

Background

During COVID-19 pandemic, several vaccines have been developed such as mRNA vaccines. However, acute pericarditis and myocarditis/myopericarditis cases have been described after mRNA vaccination. The mechanism for the development of cardiac involvement is unknown. Potential mechanism for oxidative stress associated with vaccine-induced heart involvement is unidentified. This study aimed to examine the role of oxidative stress and the heart involvement in young adults vaccinated with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.

Methods

In this cross-sectional study, a total of 23 participants were included and 10 of these participants were asymptomatic patients (control group). Comparison of the cardiac involvement and control group was made by using troponin I, C-reactive protein (hsCRP), D-dimer levels, and oxidative stress tests including nitric oxide, and imaging techniques (ECG, echocardiography, cardiovascular magnetic resonance).

Results

The median age of acute pericarditis group (10 patients) was 22 years (Q1-Q3: 18.5–31), and the mean age was 24.4±7.5 years. The median age of myopericarditis group (3 patients) was 22 years (Q1–Q3 18.0–25.0), and the mean age was 21.6 ±3.5 years. All the myopericarditis cases were male. The patients with myopericarditis had higher troponin I level, hsCRP, and D-dimer levels (troponin I level; 1600.00 ng/mL; D-dimer; 1.20 μg/mL, hsCRP; 3.0 mg/L, respectively; p < 0.05). Serum nitric oxide levels and OSI (total oxidant status, H₂O₂/total antioxidant status) were lower in myopericarditis group than the control and acute pericarditis group (p < 0.05). This shows inflammatory and procoagulant state.

Conclusion

Vaccine-induced myopericarditis cases are associated with oxidative stress test abnormality (abnormal NO, OSI levels). However, there is no relationship between NO levels and other oxidative stress tests difference in vaccine-induced acute pericarditis. It is thought that vaccine-induced pericarditis and myopericarditis could have different pathogenesis. This could make it necessary to reassess the second dose of vaccination for vaccine-induced cardiac involvement cases.

Proposed Pathogenesis, Characteristics, and Management of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine-Related Myopericarditis

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the novel coronavirus causing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has affected human lives across the globe. On 11 December 2020, the US FDA granted an emergency use authorization for the first COVID-19 vaccine, and vaccines are now widely available. Undoubtedly, the emergence of these vaccines has led to substantial relief, helping alleviate the fear and anxiety around the COVID-19 illness for both the general public and clinicians. However, recent cases of vaccine complications, including myopericarditis, have been reported after administration of COVID-19 vaccines. This article discusses the cases, possible pathogenesis of myopericarditis, and treatment of the condition. Most cases were mild and should not yet change vaccine policies, although prospective studies are needed to better assess the risk-benefit ratios in different groups.