Prolonged Anaphylaxis to Pfizer Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccine: A Case Report and Mechanism of Action

The usability of testing skin reaction applying skin prick tests with Comirnaty (Pfizer, USA) vaccine in detecting the risk of developing post-vaccination immediate hypersensitivity response (anaphylaxis) after administration of this vaccine

Introduction

COVID-19 vaccines became a relevant element of prevention during COVID-19 pandemic. It is worth highlighting the importance of severe allergic post-vaccination reactions.

Aim

To evaluate the usability of skin reaction tests using skin prick tests with Comirnaty (Pfizer, USA) vaccine in risk detection of the post-vaccine immediate hypersensitivity reaction (anaphylaxis) after administration of this vaccine [PvIHR(A)].

Material and methods

The analysis embraces 102 people, 85 women and 17 men with a history of immediate hypersensitivity (anaphylaxis) [IHR(A)]. Detailed medical history was collected and skin prick tests were made among participants. The positive and negative test results were illustrated in Figure 1.

Results

As it stands in Table 1, considering all participants of the study, a positive result of the skin prick tests was obtained only in 2 cases, a negative result in 99 and 1 result was questionable. The two positive results were found in participants from a group with a previous PvIHR(A) in their past medical history and they decided not to get vaccinated. The one questionable result was of a person that had PvIHR(A) after administration of the first dose of Comirnaty vaccine (Pfizer, USA). This person decided to get vaccinated again and there was no PvIHR(A) observed.

Conclusions

COVID-19 vaccination involves a low risk of anaphylaxis. Purposefulness of providing the skin prick tests using the mRNA vaccine is questionable, due to their low sensitivity and low specificity.

Occurrence of erythema multiforme following COVID-19 vaccination: a review

The fast development of vaccines against the novel coronavirus disease is among the most critical steps taken to control this potentially fatal viral disease. Like other vaccines, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines can also cause unwanted reactions. Erythema multiforme (EM) is among the oral mucocutaneous side effects of COVID-19 vaccines. This study aimed to comprehensively review the reported cases of EM since the global onset of COVID-19 vaccination. Data from 31 relevant studies regarding the type and dose of COVID-19 vaccines administered, time of initiation of symptoms, age, and gender of patients, site of involvement, patients' medical history, and treatment options were extracted. In total, 90 patients were identified with EM as a side effect of COVID-19 vaccination across studies. EM had the highest frequency after receiving the first dose of mRNA vaccines in older individuals. The first symptoms of EM appeared in less than 3 days in 45% and after 3 days in 55% of patients. EM is not a common side effect of COVID-19 vaccination, and fear of its occurrence should not impede vaccination.

Prolonged angioedema after Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine

This case reports a woman in her 40s with a history of allergic reaction to shellfish and iodine who presented with tongue angioedema, difficulty breathing and chest tightness after receiving the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) COVID-19 vaccine. Her angioedema remained for 10 days post-exposure to the vaccine, requiring 3 days of epinephrine infusion. She was discharged with advice to avoid further mRNA vaccines. This case highlights the increasing awareness needed of polyethylene glycol (PEG) allergy and the protracted nature of her reaction. A firm conclusion cannot be reached based on a single case report. More research is needed to understand whether there is a causal relationship between the BNT162b2 vaccine and PEG allergy. Awareness regarding PEG allergy and the complexities associated with it is important and needs to be raised due to its prevalent use in diverse industries.

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.

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.

Cutaneous and Allergic reactions due to COVID-19 vaccinations: A review

Introduction

The pandemic caused by the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) has had an unprecedented impact on the overall health and the global economy. Vaccination is currently the most dependable strategy to end the pandemic, despite the slower‐than‐hoped‐for rollout, particularly for low‐to‐middle‐income countries, and the uncertain duration of protection afforded by vaccination. The spike protein of the virus (immunodominant antigen of the virus) is the main target of the approved and candidate SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccines. This protein binds to the ACE2 receptor of the host cell, initiating the entry of the virus into the cell and the chain of subsequent events ending to Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. The safety profile of these vaccines needs is closely assessed.

Methods

This comprehensive review includes searching the PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases using the keywords “coronavirus”, “COVID‐19”, “vaccine”, “cutaneous reactions”, “allergic reactions”, and “SARS‐CoV‐2”. Manual searching of reference lists of included articles augmented the research. The research was updated in June 2021.

Results

In this narrative review, we tried to investigate and discuss the cutaneous and allergic reactions related to SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccines currently available in the literature. As a result, although COVID‐19 vaccines can be reported to develop allergic and anaphylactic reactions, especially after m‐RNA vaccines, they remain at a low rate, and it is observed that these reactions may develop more frequently, especially in patients with previous allergies and mast cell disorders. Fortunately, these reactions are generally transient, benign, self‐limited.

Conclusion

Although there is still no definitive evidence, as dermatologists, we must be aware of the possibility of cutaneous reactions, newly diagnosed dermatoses, or exacerbation of existing dermatoses that may develop after the COVID‐19 vaccinations.

Anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Currently there is no systematic review and meta-analysis of the global incidence rates of anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in the general adult population.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the incidence rates of anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions after COVID-19 vaccines and describe the demographic and clinical characteristics, triggers, presenting signs and symptoms, treatment and clinical course of confirmed cases.

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses [PRISMA] statement was followed.

METHODS

Electronic databases (Proquest, Medline, Embase, Pubmed, CINAHL, Wiley online library, and Nature) were searched from 1 December 2020 to 31 May 2021 in the English language using the following keywords alone or in combination: anaphylaxis, non-anaphylaxis, anaphylactic reaction, nonanaphylactic reaction, anaphylactic/anaphylactoid shock, hypersensitivity, allergy reaction, allergic reaction, immunology reaction, immunologic reaction, angioedema, loss of consciousness, generalized erythema, urticaria, urticarial rash, cyanosis, grunting, stridor, tachypnoea, wheezing, tachycardia, abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting and tryptase. We included studies in adults of all ages in all healthcare settings. Effect sizes of prevalence were pooled with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). To minimize heterogeneity, we performed sub-group analyses.

RESULTS

Of the 1,734 papers that were identified, 26 articles were included in the systematic review (8 case report, 5 cohort, 4 case series, 2 randomized controlled trial and 1 randomized cross-sectional studies) and 14 articles (1 cohort, 2 case series, 1 randomized controlled trial and 1 randomized cross-sectional studies) were included in meta-analysis. Studies involving 26,337,421 vaccine recipients [Pfizer-BioNTech (n = 14,505,399) and Moderna (n = 11,831,488)] were analyzed. The overall pooled prevalence estimate of anaphylaxis to both vaccines was 5.0 (95% CI 2.9 to 7.2, I2 = 81%, p =  < 0.0001), while the overall pooled prevalence estimate of nonanaphylactic reactions to both vaccines was 53.9 (95% CI 0.0 to 116.1, I2 = 99%, p =  < 0.0001). Vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech resulted in higher anaphylactic reactions compared to Moderna (8.0, 95% CI 0.0 to 11.3, I2 = 85% versus 2.8, 95% CI 0.0 to 5.7, I2 = 59%). However, lower incidence of nonanaphylactic reactions was associated with Pfizer-BioNTech compared to Moderna (43.9, 95% CI 0.0 to 131.9, I2 = 99% versus 63.8, 95% CI 0.0 to 151.8, I2 = 98%). The funnel plots for possible publication bias for the pooled effect sizes to determine the incidence of anaphylaxis and nonanaphylactic reactions associated with mRNA COVID-19 immunization based on mRNA vaccine type appeared asymmetrical on visual inspection, and Egger's tests confirmed asymmetry by producing p values < 0.05. Across the included studies, the most commonly identified risk factors for anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were female sex and personal history of atopy. The key triggers to anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions identified in these studies included foods, medications, stinging insects or jellyfish, contrast media, cosmetics and detergents, household products, and latex. Previous history of anaphylaxis; and comorbidities such as asthma, allergic rhinitis, atopic and contact eczema/dermatitis and psoriasis and cholinergic urticaria were also found to be important.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine-associated anaphylaxis is very low; and nonanaphylactic reactions occur at higher rate, however, cutaneous reactions are largely self-limited. Both anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions should not discourage vaccination.

Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in an adult following the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (MIS-V)

SARS-CoV-2 vaccine roll-out has been successful in the UK and other parts of the world; however, there are increasing concerns about adverse events. A 44-year-old woman presented to a UK hospital with left upper arm pain at the vaccine site a couple of days after receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine, which progressed to fever, diarrhoea and abdominal pain over the next few days. She had an erythematous rash on the chest with subcutaneous oedema. Her C reactive protein was 539 mg/L, white cell count of 17×10⁹/L (1.8–7.5), troponin-T of 1013 ng/L and creatine kinase of 572 u/L. She developed an unprovoked pulmonary embolism with acute kidney injury. After administration of intravenous methylprednisolone, the muscle oedema, skin rashes and acute kidney injury resolved. Although multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS) is described in children (MIS-C) and adults (MIS-A) following SARS-CoV-2 infection, we highlight the first reported MIS-V case after the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.