The Importance of a Timely Second Dose of the 2021 COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Depends on the Protection Afforded by a First Dose and Subsequent Risk of Anaphylaxis

Value-Based, Cost-Effective Care: The Role of the Allergist-Immunologist

Asthma and allergic disease impact millions of patients and are associated with high costs. Up to 30% of all medical care involves wasted spending. Across the spectrum of care provided by the allergist-immunologist, there are opportunities to improve value and reduce medical waste. Several examples highlight this reality. Evidence suggests that most patients may receive cost-effective care in the management of chronic spontaneous urticaria without the need for laboratory testing. For patients with asthma, although a single maintenance and reliever therapy approach may be cost-effective, insurance-mandated therapy changes are not, and may harm patients. Biologics may be very effective in improving asthma control but are too expensive for this indication-as demonstrated by cost-effectiveness analyses and highlighted by the Institute of Clinical and Economic Review, which concluded that the value-based price for asthma biologics ranges between $6500 and 14,3000 per year. Early introduction may prevent food allergy, but screening before first introduction is neither necessary nor cost-effective, although early salvage food oral immunotherapy may result in improved quality of life and cost savings. Evidence does not support the presence of allergic disease as a risk factor for anaphylaxis to coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination, and risk-stratified vaccination approaches do not appear cost-effective. Allergen immunotherapy is a very cost-effective treatment option. The practice of allergy-immunology has continued to evolve in recent years and can provide a leading example of high-value practice.

The Risk of Allergic Reaction to SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines and Recommended Evaluation and Management: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, GRADE Assessment, and International Consensus Approach

Concerns for anaphylaxis may hamper severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) immunization efforts. We convened a multidisciplinary group of international experts in anaphylaxis composed of allergy, infectious disease, emergency medicine, and front-line clinicians to systematically develop recommendations regarding SARS-CoV-2 vaccine immediate allergic reactions. Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, the World Health Organizstion (WHO) global coronavirus database, and the gray literature (inception, March 19, 2021) were systematically searched. Paired reviewers independently selected studies addressing anaphylaxis after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, polyethylene glycol (PEG) and polysorbate allergy, and accuracy of allergy testing for SARS-CoV-2 vaccine allergy. Random effects models synthesized the data to inform recommendations based on the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, agreed upon using a modified Delphi panel. The incidence of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine anaphylaxis is 7.91 cases per million (n = 41,000,000 vaccinations; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 4.02-15.59; 26 studies, moderate certainty), the incidence of 0.15 cases per million patient-years (95% CI 0.11-0.2), and the sensitivity for PEG skin testing is poor, although specificity is high (15 studies, very low certainty). We recommend vaccination over either no vaccination or performing SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/excipient screening allergy testing for individuals without history of a severe allergic reaction to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/excipient, and a shared decision-making paradigm in consultation with an allergy specialist for individuals with a history of a severe allergic reaction to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/excipient. We recommend further research to clarify SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/vaccine excipient testing utility in individuals potentially allergic to SARS-CoV2 vaccines or their excipients.

First-Dose mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine Allergic Reactions: Limited Role for Excipient Skin Testing

BACKGROUND

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention state that a severe or immediate allergic reaction to the first dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine is a contraindication for the second dose.

OBJECTIVE

To assess outcomes associated with excipient skin testing after a reported allergic reaction to the first dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

METHODS

We identified a consecutive sample of patients with reported allergic reactions after the first dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine who underwent allergy assessment with skin testing to polyethylene glycol (PEG) and, when appropriate, polysorbate 80. Skin testing results in conjunction with clinical phenotyping of the first-dose mRNA COVID-19 vaccine reaction guided second-dose vaccination recommendation. Second-dose mRNA COVID-19 vaccine reactions were assessed.

RESULTS

Eighty patients with reported first-dose mRNA COVID-19 vaccine allergic reactions (n = 65; 81% immediate onset) underwent excipient skin testing. Of those, 14 (18%) had positive skin tests to PEG (n = 5) and/or polysorbate 80 (n = 12). Skin testing result did not affect tolerance of the second dose in patients with immediate or delayed reactions. Of the 70 patients who received the second mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose (88%), 62 had either no reaction or a mild reaction managed with antihistamines (89%), but 2 patients required epinephrine treatment. Three patients with positive PEG-3350 intradermal (methylprednisolone) testing tolerated second-dose mRNA COVID-19 vaccination. Refresh Tears caused nonspecific skin irritation.

CONCLUSIONS

Most individuals with a reported allergic reaction to the first dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, regardless of skin test result, received the second dose safely. More data are needed on the value of skin prick testing to PEG (MiraLAX) in evaluating patients with mRNA COVID-19 vaccine anaphylaxis. Refresh Tears should not be used for skin testing.