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

Gastrointestinal reflux contributes to laryngopharyngeal symptoms that mimic anaphylaxis: COVID-19 vaccination experience

Background

The sensation of throat closure after vaccination is concerning for anaphylaxis and leads to vaccine hesitancy.

Objectives

We characterized patients who developed laryngopharyngeal symptoms (LPhS) after coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination and assessed risk factors for these symptoms.

Methods

The study analyzed data from the COVID-19 vaccines adverse reactions registry (December 14, 2020, to June 13, 2022). Outcomes included the incidence of postvaccination LPhS and use of epinephrine. We identified and compared risk factors for COVID-19 postvaccination reactions between subjects with and without LPhS.

Results

A total of 158 subjects were enrolled onto the registry. LPhS were reported in 61 subjects (38.6%), of whom 52 (85.2%) received a subsequent dose. With initial vaccination, the use of epinephrine was higher in subjects with LPhS (20%) compared to those without (6%; P = .0094). Fifty-two subjects (85.2%) with LPhS received a subsequent COVID-19 vaccine dose with milder or no symptoms, and none needed treatment with epinephrine. Those with LPhS were more likely to have a history of drug allergies (P = .02), severe medication allergies (P = .03), gastroesophageal reflux disease (P = .018), and need for antireflux medications (P = .0085) compared to controls.

Conclusions

In our registry, postvaccination LPhS were common. LPhS can mimic anaphylaxis and lead to more frequent use of epinephrine. Gastroesophageal reflux disease was more frequent in these subjects. Patients with subjective throat closure sensation can safely receive subsequent vaccine doses with close observation and reassurance. LPhS are not unique to COVID-19 vaccines. Patient and provider education regarding the role of gastroesophageal reflux disease as a risk factor for LPhS with vaccination can improve vaccine uptake.

Updated guidance regarding the risk of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines and recommended evaluation and management: A GRADE assessment and international consensus approach

This guidance updates 2021 GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) recommendations regarding immediate allergic reactions following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines and addresses revaccinating individuals with first-dose allergic reactions and allergy testing to determine revaccination outcomes. Recent meta-analyses assessed the incidence of severe allergic reactions to initial COVID-19 vaccination, risk of mRNA-COVID-19 revaccination after an initial reaction, and diagnostic accuracy of COVID-19 vaccine and vaccine excipient testing in predicting reactions. GRADE methods informed rating the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations. A modified Delphi panel consisting of experts in allergy, anaphylaxis, vaccinology, infectious diseases, emergency medicine, and primary care from Australia, Canada, Europe, Japan, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States formed the recommendations. We recommend vaccination for persons without COVID-19 vaccine excipient allergy and revaccination after a prior immediate allergic reaction. We suggest against >15-minute postvaccination observation. We recommend against mRNA vaccine or excipient skin testing to predict outcomes. We suggest revaccination of persons with an immediate allergic reaction to the mRNA vaccine or excipients be performed by a person with vaccine allergy expertise in a properly equipped setting. We suggest against premedication, split-dosing, or special precautions because of a comorbid allergic history.

A practical guide to address reactions to vaccines in children

Currently available vaccines are safe, but, potentially, any vaccine can cause an allergic reaction and, albeit very rare, anaphylaxis can occur. Although its rarity, the precise diagnostic management of a suspected anaphylaxis postvaccination is of paramount importance due to the risk of a potentially serious reaction after re-exposure, while a misdiagnosis might lead to an increase in the number of children that interrupt vaccinations resulting in an unjustifiably individual and collective risk of loss of protection against immune preventable diseases. In the light that most cases of suspected allergy to a vaccine are not effectively confirmed in up to 85% of the cases referred for an allergy evaluation, patients can continue the vaccination schedule with the same formulation and tolerance of the booster doses. The patient assessment has to be done by an expert in the vaccine field, usually an allergist or an immunologist depending on the country, to select subjects at risk of allergic reactions and to perform the correct procedures for vaccine hypersensitivity diagnosis and management, in order to guarantee safe immunization practices. The aim of this review is to provide a practical guidance for the safe management of allergic children undergoing immunization procedures. The guide is referred both to the evaluation of children who have previously experienced a suspected allergic reaction to a specific vaccine and their management in case of further booster doses, and to children allergic to a component of the vaccine to be administered.

Characteristics of immune response profile in patients with immediate allergic and autoimmune urticarial reactions induced by SARS-CoV-2 vaccines

Severe allergic reactions following SARS-COV-2 vaccination are generally rare, but the reactions are increasingly reported. Some patients may develop prolonged urticarial reactions following SARS-COV-2 vaccination. Herein, we investigated the risk factors and immune mechanisms for patients with SARS-COV-2 vaccines-induced immediate allergy and chronic urticaria (CU). We prospectively recruited and analyzed 129 patients with SARS-COV-2 vaccine-induced immediate allergic and urticarial reactions as well as 115 SARS-COV-2 vaccines-tolerant individuals from multiple medical centers during 2021-2022. The clinical manifestations included acute urticaria, anaphylaxis, and delayed to chronic urticaria developed after SARS-COV-2 vaccinations. The serum levels of histamine, IL-2, IL-4, IL-6, IL-8, IL-17 A, TARC, and PARC were significantly elevated in allergic patients comparing to tolerant subjects (P-values = 4.5 × 10^-5-0.039). Ex vivo basophil revealed that basophils from allergic patients could be significantly activated by SARS-COV-2 vaccine excipients (polyethylene glycol 2000 and polysorbate 80) or spike protein (P-values from 3.5 × 10^-4 to 0.043). Further BAT study stimulated by patients' autoserum showed positive in 81.3% of patients with CU induced by SARS-COV-2 vaccination (P = 4.2 × 10^-13), and the reactions could be attenuated by anti-IgE antibody. Autoantibodies screening also identified the significantly increased of IgE-anti-IL-24, IgG-anti-FcεRI, IgG-anti-thyroid peroxidase (TPO), and IgG-anti-thyroid-related proteins in SARS-COV-2 vaccines-induced CU patients comparing to SARS-COV-2 vaccines-tolerant controls (P-values = 4.6 × 10^-10-0.048). Some patients with SARS-COV-2 vaccines-induced recalcitrant CU patients could be successfully treated with anti-IgE therapy. In conclusion, our results revealed that multiple vaccine components, inflammatory cytokines, and autoreactive IgG/IgE antibodies contribute to SARS-COV-2 vaccine-induced immediate allergic and autoimmune urticarial reactions.

Vaccine confidence among those living with allergy during the COVID pandemic (ACCORD): A scoping review

Background

Reports of allergic reactions to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, coupled with an "infodemic" of misinformation, carry the potential to undermine confidence in the COVID-19 vaccines. However, no attempts have been made to comprehensively synthesize the literature on how allergic disease and fear of allergic reactions to the vaccines contribute to hesitancy.

Objectives

Our aim was to review the academic and gray literature on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and allergic reactions.

Methods

We searched 4 databases (CINAHL, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and Embase) using a search strategy developed by content and methodologic experts. No restrictions were applied regarding COVID-19 vaccine type, country of study, or patient age. Eligible articles were restricted to 10 languages.

Results

Of the 1385 unique records retrieved from our search, 60 articles (4.3%) were included. Allergic reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine were rare but slightly more common in individuals with a history of allergic disease. A fifth of the studies (13 of 60 [22%]) discussed vaccine hesitancy due to possibility of an allergic reaction. Additionally, the present review identified research on details of vaccine-related anaphylaxis (eg, a mean and median [excluding clinical trial data] of 12.4 and 5 cases per million doses, respectively) and allergic reactions (eg, a mean and median [excluding clinical trial data] of 489 and 528 cases per million doses, respectively).

Conclusion

COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among individuals living with allergy and among those with no history of allergic disease may be affected by fear of an allergic reaction. Despite the low incidence of allergic reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine, fear of such reactions is one of the most commonly cited concerns reported in the literature.

Is SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination of Subjects with a Prior History of Allergies Dangerous? Experiences in the Veneto Region of Italy

Adverse events after SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations have caused alarm to some individuals with previously diagnosed allergies. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the risk of adverse reactions was actually higher in this subgroup. To this end, we carried out an observational descriptive analysis of vaccines administered in a “protected setting” in the Veneto region of Italy between December 2020 and December 2022. Reactions were classified using systemic organic classification (SOC), and their severity was assessed using the criteria of the Italian Drug Agency (AIFA). A total of 421 subjects were vaccinated with 1050 doses, 95.0% of which were administered without adverse events. In all, 53 subjects reported 87 SOC reactions (1.6 reactions/person), and 18.3% of these reactions were severe. One person was hospitalized, but all subjects enjoyed complete remission. Reporting rates were 9.0%, 3.1%, and 1.2% for first, second, and third doses, respectively. The most frequent reactions involved the respiratory system (2.3%), the cutaneous and subcutaneous systems (2.1%), and the nervous system (1.7%). Multivariate analyses (adjOR (95% CI)) revealed that the probability of experiencing at least one reaction significantly declined with increases in age [0.95 (0.94–0.97)] and in the number of doses received, i.e., 75% [0.25 (0.13–0.49)] for second doses and 88% [0.12 (0.04–0.39)] for third doses. These results indicated that vaccinations could be safely administered; few reactions were reported, and there were no permanent adverse outcomes.

The conundrum of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine-induced anaphylaxis

Novel messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines have proven to be effective tools against coronavirus disease 2019, and they have changed the course of the pandemic. However, early reports of mRNA vaccine-induced anaphylaxis resulted in public alarm, contributing toward vaccine hesitancy. Although initial reports were concerning for an unusually high rate of anaphylaxis to the mRNA vaccines, the true incidence is likely comparable with other vaccines. These reactions occurred predominantly in young to middle-aged females, and many had a history of allergies. Although initially thought to be triggered by polyethylene glycol (PEG), lack of reproducibility of these reactions with subsequent dosing and absent PEG sensitization point away from an IgE-mediated PEG allergy in most. PEG skin testing has poor posttest probability and should be reserved for evaluating non-vaccine-related PEG allergy without influencing decisions for subsequent mRNA vaccination. Immunization stress-related response can closely mimic vaccine-induced anaphylaxis and warrants consideration as a potential etiology. Current evidence suggests that many individuals who developed anaphylaxis to the first dose of an mRNA vaccine can likely receive a subsequent dose after careful evaluation. The need to understand these reactions mechanistically remains critical because the mRNA platform is rapidly finding its way into other vaccinations and therapeutics.

Clinical Phenotypes of Immediate First-Dose Reactions to mRNA COVID-19: A Multicenter Latent Class Analysis

BACKGROUND

Although immediate potentially allergic reactions have been reported after dose 1 of mRNA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, comprehensively defined subtypes have not been clearly distinguished.

OBJECTIVE

To define distinct clinical phenotypes of immediate reactions after dose 1 of mRNA COVID-19 vaccination, and to assess the relation of clinical phenotype to mRNA COVID-19 vaccine second dose tolerance.

METHODS

This retrospective study included patients with 1 or more potentially allergic symptoms or signs within 4 hours of receiving dose 1 of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine and assessed by allergy/immunology specialists from 5 U.S. academic medical centers (January-June 2021). We used latent class analysis-an unbiased, machine-learning modeling method-to define novel clinical phenotypes. We assessed demographic, clinical, and reaction characteristics associated with phenotype membership. Using log-binomial regression, we assessed the relation between phenotype membership and second dose tolerance, defined as either no symptoms or mild, self-limited symptoms resolving with antihistamines alone. A sensitivity analysis considered second dose tolerance as objective signs only.

RESULTS

We identified 265 patients with dose-1 immediate reactions with 3 phenotype clusters: (1) Limited or Predominantly Cutaneous, (2) Sensory, and (3) Systemic. A total of 223 patients (84%) received a second dose and 200 (90%) tolerated their second dose. Sensory cluster (all patients had the symptom of numbness or tingling) was associated with a higher likelihood of second dose intolerance, but this finding did not persist when accounting for objective signs.

CONCLUSIONS

Three novel clinical phenotypes of immediate-onset reactions after dose 1 of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were identified using latent class analysis: (1) Limited or Predominantly Cutaneous, (2) Sensory, and (3) Systemic. Whereas these clinical phenotypes may indicate differential mechanistic etiologies or associations with subsequent dose tolerance, most individuals proceeding to their second dose tolerated it.

Diagnostic accuracy of vaccine and vaccine excipient testing in the setting of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines: A systematic review and meta-analysis

For persons with immediate allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, skin testing (ST) to the vaccine/excipients (polyethylene glycol[PEG] and polysorbate 80 [PS]) has been recommended, but has unknown accuracy. To assess vaccine/excipient ST accuracy in predicting all-severity immediate allergic reactions upon re-vaccination, systematic review was performed searching Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the WHO global coronavirus database (inception-Oct 4, 2021) for studies addressing immediate (≤4 h post-vaccination) all-severity allergic reactions to 2nd mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in persons with 1st dose immediate allergic reactions. Cases evaluating delayed reactions, change of vaccine platform, or revaccination without vaccine/excipient ST were excluded. Meta-analysis of diagnostic testing accuracy was performed using Bayesian methods. The GRADE approach evaluated certainty of the evidence, and QUADAS-2 assessed risk of bias. Among 20 studies of mRNA COVID-19 first dose vaccine reactions, 317 individuals underwent 578 ST to any one or combination of vaccine, PEG, or PS, and were re-vaccinated with the same vaccine. Test sensitivity for either mRNA vaccine was 0.2 (95%CrI 0.01-0.52) and specificity 0.97 (95%CrI 0.9-1). PEG test sensitivity was 0.02 (95%CrI 0.00-0.07) and specificity 0.99 (95%CrI 0.96-1). PS test sensitivity was 0.03 (95%CrI 0.00-0.0.11) and specificity 0.97 (95%CrI 0.91-1). Combined for use of any of the 3 testing agents, sensitivity was 0.03 (95%CrI 0.00-0.08) and specificity was 0.98 (95%CrI 0.95-1.00). Certainty of evidence was moderate. ST has low sensitivity but high specificity in predicting all-severity repeat immediate allergic reactions to the same agent, among persons with 1st dose immediate allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. mRNA COVID-19 vaccine or excipient ST has limited risk assessment utility.

SARS-CoV-2 Specific Humoral Immune Responses after BNT162b2 Vaccination in Hospital Healthcare Workers

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 pandemic has led to a loss of human life in millions and devastating socio-economic consequences worldwide. So far, vaccination is the most effective long-term strategy to control and prevent severe COVID-19 disease. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the humoral immune responses raised against the BNT162b2 vaccine in hospital healthcare workers.

METHODS

Total number of 173 healthcare workers enrolled in the study. Their blood samples were collected in three different time intervals after the second SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and evaluated by the ELISA method to detect anti-spike protein IgM and IgG antibodies. The baseline characteristics of all participants were collected using questionnaires and were evaluated for finding any significant data.

RESULTS

Our results demonstrated that the levels of antibodies were higher in the young group (21-30 years old) and also among male participants. Moreover, the highest levels of antibodies were detected from the group that received the third shot vaccination.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that age, gender and third-dose vaccination can affect the levels of humoral immune responses against the BNT162b2 vaccine in healthcare workers.

PEG allergy - A COVID-19 pandemic-made problem? A German perspective

Background

Polyethylene glycol (PEG) has been used for decades, but only caused allergic reactions exceptionally. Introduction of PEG-containing COVID-19 vaccines might have fostered public interest beyond medical reasoning.

Objectives

To investigate the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on the public interest in PEG allergy in Germany and the published PEG allergy cases worldwide.

Methods

A retrospective longitudinal study was conducted to measure public interest in PEG allergy analyzing Google search volume in Germany from February 2018 to January 2022. Medically confirmed “PEG allergy” cases were analyzed by looking at the numbers of PubMed case reports and case series from 1977 until January 2022.

Results

Web results in Germany before COVID-19 show search volumes related to “PEG allergy/testing” was negligible, with 10 search queries per month. The pandemic led to a >200-fold increase from 250 queries 2 years before to 55 720 queries 2 years thereafter, reflecting tremendous public interest. Additionally, the maximum monthly search volume from before to during the pandemic increased immensely for “vaccination” (57-fold), “vaccination and adverse effects” (85-fold), “vaccination and allergy” (71-fold). In contrast, the increase of publication numbers for the search term “PEG allergy” was small from 2019 to 2021 (2.5-fold). Only a very low number of 211 cases with “PEG allergy” worldwide since 1977 could be identified.

Conclusion

PEG allergy became a topic of major public interest because of COVID-19 vaccination. Scientific publications have increased to a lesser extent, probably promoted by public awareness. Conversely, the overall number of cases published with PEG allergy remain very low. The current high demand for COVID-19 vaccination allergy testing is triggered by public interest instead of medical reasoning.

A systemic review and recommendation for an autopsy approach to death followed the COVID 19 vaccination

The outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) started in December 2019. An immediate prevention approach for the outbreak is the development of a vaccination program. Despite a growing number of publications showing the effectiveness of vaccination in preventing SARS-CoV-2 outbreak and reducing the mortality rate, substantial fatal adverse effects were reported after vaccination. Confirmation of the causal relationship of death is required to reimburse under the national vaccination program and could provide a reference for the selection of vaccination. However, a lack of guidelines in the laboratory study and autopsy approach hampered the investigation of post-vaccination death. In this paper, we performed a systematic electronic search on scientific articles related to severe Covid-19 vaccination adverse effects and approaches in identifying the severe side effects using PubMed and Cochrane libraries. A summary on the onset, biochemistry changes and histopathological analyzes of major lethally side effects post-vaccination were discussed. Ultimately, a checklist is suggested to improve the quality of investigation.

Cutaneous adverse reactions following COVID-19 vaccinations: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 vaccines are currently the most effective interventions in controlling and preventing severe disease progression. Dermatologic reactions to COVID-19 vaccinations may be rare among clinical trial participants. However, since global mass vaccination became a reality, these adverse effects may become more widespread, and different skin reactions would arise.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the cutaneous adverse reactions in cases subject to vaccines for COVID-19.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Embase databases, identifying the relevant records and including the eligible observational ones. After assessing the methodological quality of the included studies, we qualitatively and quantitatively synthesized the data regarding the cutaneous side effects experienced by those in the studies' population.

RESULTS

Overall, 36 studies were included in our systematic review, with the majority being cross-sectional. We found that pain, erythema, and swelling were the most common local side effects, while different types of rashes, urticaria, and angioedema were the most non-local. Few cases also reported experiencing flare-ups of their underlying diseases or developing newly-onset diseases of various etiologies. Our meta-analyses also found that while viral vector-based vaccines are, though insignificantly, safer in injection site complaints, individuals who received mRNA vaccines developed significantly fewer non-local cutaneous adverse events.

DISCUSSION

Cutaneous reactions to the COVID-19 vaccines are similar to common cutaneous drug eruptions and COVID-19 cutaneous manifestations. However, we believe that further high-quality research is needed to assess better how and why cutaneous reactions occur in different vaccines.

Anaphylaxis and Related Events Post-COVID-19 Vaccination: A Systematic Review

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), induced by the SARS CoV-2 virus, is responsible for a global pandemic following widespread transmission and death. Several vaccines have been developed to counter this public health crisis using both novel and conventional methods. Following approval based on promising efficacy and safety data, the AstraZeneca, Janssen, Moderna, Pfizer/BioNTech, and SinoVac vaccines have been administered globally among different populations with various reported side effects. Reports of life-threatening anaphylaxis following administration were of particular concern for both healthcare providers and the public. A systematic literature search using PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Science Direct, MedRxiv, and Lens.org databases identified relevant studies reporting anaphylaxis following vaccine administration. This systematic review includes 41 studies reporting anaphylaxis out of 19908 studies that were retrieved for screening. A total of 7942 cases, including 43 deaths, were reported across 14 countries. Most cases occurred following the administration of the first dose. Importantly, the benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks of anaphylaxis. Subsequently, as populations continue to get vaccinated, it is important for healthcare providers to be able to recognize individuals at risk of developing anaphylaxis. Furthermore, they must be familiar with both the clinical hallmarks and treatment of anaphylactic reactions to minimize long term sequalae and prevent death in vaccinated individuals. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Recent advances in nanotechnology-based COVID-19 vaccines and therapeutic antibodies

COVID-19 has caused a global pandemic and millions of deaths. It is imperative to develop effective countermeasures against the causative viral agent, SARS-CoV-2 and its many variants. Vaccines and therapeutic antibodies are the most effective approaches for preventing and treating COVID-19, respectively. SARS-CoV-2 enters host cells through the activities of the virus-surface spike (S) protein. Accordingly, the S protein is a prime target for vaccines and therapeutic antibodies. Dealing with particles with dimensions on the scale of nanometers, nanotechnology has emerged as a critical tool for rapidly designing and developing safe, effective, and urgently needed vaccines and therapeutics to control the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, nanotechnology was key to the fast-track approval of two mRNA vaccines for their wide use in human populations. In this review article, we first explore the roles of nanotechnology in battling COVID-19, including protein nanoparticles (for presentation of protein vaccines), lipid nanoparticles (for formulation with mRNAs), and nanobodies (as unique therapeutic antibodies). We then summarize the currently available COVID-19 vaccines and therapeutics based on nanotechnology.