Hypersensitivity reactions to anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: Basophil reactivity to excipients

Chronic urticaria: not only after COVID-19 vaccination

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To resume the current literature about vaccination and the onset of chronic urticaria.

RECENT FINDINGS

The recent large-scale vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 targeting elderly, adult and children, has highlighted how vaccines can trigger onset or exacerbation of chronic urticaria.

SUMMARY

COVID-19 vaccines may act as triggers in the development of chronic spontaneous urticaria. More data regarding the other vaccines are necessary to evaluate a similar potential role. Proper education of patients with vaccine-induced chronic urticaria is essential to avoid vaccination hesitancy.

Right Biceps Pseudo-Tumor from COVID-19 Vaccination

Delayed hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) have been reported in association with COVID-19 vaccines, particularly those that are mRNA-based. Classic DHRs result in induration, erythema, tenderness, and urticaria. However, soft tissue mass is an uncommon complication of a COVID-19 vaccination-associated DHR and is rarely reported in the literature. We present a case of a 49-year-old male who recognized a mildly painful, firm soft tissue mass within the biceps mimicking neoplasm six months after receiving the booster dose of the Moderna vaccine. Non-operative conservative treatment modalities, including heating pads, ice packs, acetaminophen, and ibuprofen, failed to improve the patient's mass. The mass, which proved histologically to be an inflammatory pseudo-tumor, did not recur after complete excision. While there have been many reported cases of DHRs following COVID-19 vaccinations, we present this case to raise awareness of the development of pseudo-tumors as a possible, yet rare, clinical manifestation of DHRs following vaccination.

Real-Life Utility of Basophil Activation Test in the Diagnosis of Immediate Hypersensitivity Drug Reactions

INTRODUCTION

The basophil activation test (BAT) is a flow cytometry laboratory technique that assesses the level of activation indicators expressed on the surface of basophils. We conducted a real-life study in a prospective cohort of patients with reported drug hypersensitivity reactions to determine the true relevance of BAT as a diagnostic tool for assessing immediate hypersensitivity reactions to medicines.

METHODS

We prospectively assessed individuals with clinical suspicion of immediate hypersensitivity reactions to drugs over a 2-year period. The allergological evaluation was carried out in accordance with European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) guidance. All patients underwent BAT using the activation marker CD63.

RESULTS

In total 13 patients with 54 reported immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions to medications were included in this study. Twelve were female (92.3%) and one was male (7.70%). The mean ± SD age of the patients was 47.31 ± 19.94 years. Antibiotics were tested in 35.2% (19/54) of patients, corticosteroids in 24.1% (13/54), iodinated contrast medium in 14.8% (8/54), and NSAIDs in 5.6% (3/54). There was no correlation between the BAT results and the age of patients, gender, type of medication, or time interval between the allergic reaction and BAT procedure. The sensitivity of BAT 5% CD63+ basophils to drugs was 97.6%, specificity was 96% for drug allergies, positive predictive value (PPV) was 94.3%, and negative predictive value (NPV) was 95.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

The sensitivity of BAT for drug allergies is limited, but it can nevertheless be very helpful before contemplating provocation testing in cases of life-threatening drug allergies where patients cannot be rechallenged or in cases of medications for which no other tests are available or their results are ambiguous.