Experience with polyethylene glycol allergy-guided risk management for COVID-19 vaccine anaphylaxis

Allergy to PEG (polyethylene glycol) - sensitivity of basophil activation test with COVID-19 mRNA-vaccine BNT162B2

Basophil activation test (BAT) with COVID-19 mRNA vaccine seems particularly suitable for detecting sensitization to polyethylene glycol (PEG) in patients with PEG allergy. It was the aim of this study to determine the cutoffs for BAT using BNT162B2 (Comirnaty®) in a larger group of PEG allergic patients and controls. 10 PEG allergic patients and 10 controls were studied. BAT was performed using anti-CCR3 for basophil identification and anti-CD63 to assess basophil activation. Incubations with BNT162B2 at four different concentrations were performed. Basophil activation was significantly higher in PEG allergic patients compared to controls at the higher concentrations used. ROC curves showed best results with a sensitivity of 60% and specificity of 100% with a cutoff of 5% CD63+ basophils at a concentration of 4.5 µg/ml. Controls showed no positive results. In our group of PEG allergic patients, a concentration of 4.5 µg/ml BNT162B2 with a cutoff of 5% CD63+ basophils was the most suitable condition for identifying patients with a sensitization to PEG. Allergological work-up of PEG allergic patients including BAT with PEGylated lipid nanoparticles might play a role in the future when these substances will be used for other vaccines and cancer immunotherapies.

Revaccination outcomes among adolescents and adults with suspected hypersensitivity reactions following COVID-19 vaccination: A Canadian immunization research network study

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 vaccination has been associated with anaphylaxis and hypersensitivity reactions. Infectious disease physicians and allergists in the Canadian Special Immunization Clinic (SIC) Network developed guidance for evaluating patients with adverse events following immunization (AEFI) including suspected hypersensitivity. This study evaluated management and adverse event recurrence following subsequent COVID-19 vaccinations.

METHODS

Individuals aged 12 years and older enrolled at participating SICs before February 28, 2023 who were referred for suspected or diagnosed hypersensitivity reaction following COVID-19 vaccination, or for prevaccination assessment of suspected allergy to a COVID-19 vaccine component were included. De-identified clinical assessments and revaccination data, captured in a centralized database, were analyzed. The Brighton Collaboration case definition (BCCD) for anaphylaxis (2023 version) was applied.

RESULTS

The analysis included 206 participants from 13 sites: 26 participants referred for pre-vaccination assessment and 180 participants referred for adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination (15/180 [8.3%] with BCCD confirmed anaphylaxis, 84 [46.7%] with immediate hypersensitivity symptoms not meeting BCCD, 33 [18.3%] with other diagnosed hypersensitivity reactions, and 48 [26.7%] participants with a final diagnosis of non-hypersensitivity AEFI). Among participants referred for AEFIs following COVID-19 vaccination, 166/180 (92.2%) were recommended for COVID-19 revaccination after risk assessment, of whom 158/166 (95.2%) were revaccinated (all with a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine). After revaccination, 1/15 (6.7%) participants with prior anaphylaxis, 1/77 (1.3%) with immediate hypersensitivity not meeting criteria for anaphylaxis and 1/24 (4.2%) with other physician diagnosed hypersensitivity developed recurrent AEFI symptoms that met the BCCD for anaphylaxis. All 26 participants referred pre-vaccination, including 9 (34.6%) with history of polyethylene glycol-asparaginase reactions, were vaccinated without occurrence of immediate hypersensitivity symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Most individuals in this national cohort who experienced a hypersensitivity event following COVID-19 vaccination and were referred for specialist review were revaccinated without AEFI recurrence, suggesting that specialist evaluation can facilitate safe revaccination.

A large-scale machine learning analysis of inorganic nanoparticles in preclinical cancer research

Owing to their distinct physical and chemical properties, inorganic nanoparticles (NPs) have shown promising results in preclinical cancer therapy, but designing and engineering them for effective therapeutic purposes remains a challenge. Although a comprehensive database of inorganic NP research is not currently available, it is crucial for developing effective cancer therapies. In this context, machine learning (ML) has emerged as a transformative tool, but its adaptation to nanomedicine is hindered by inexistent or small datasets. Here we assembled a large database of inorganic NPs, comprising experimental datasets from 745 preclinical studies in cancer nanomedicine. Using descriptive statistics and explainable ML models we mined this database to gain knowledge of inorganic NP design patterns and inform future NP research for cancer treatment. Our analyses suggest that NP shape and therapy type are prominent features in determining in vivo efficacy, measured as a percentage of tumour reduction. Moreover, our database provides a large-scale open-access resource for discriminative ML that the broader nanotechnology community can utilize. Our work blueprints data mining for translational cancer research and offers evidence for standardizing NP reporting to accelerate and de-risk inorganic NP-based drug delivery, which may help to improve patient outcomes in clinical settings.

Polyethylene glycol and immunology: aspects of allergic reactions and their mechanisms, as well as ways to prevent them in clinical practice

In modern medical practice, where polyethylene glycol is widely used as a component of various drugs, such as vaccines, chemotherapy drugs, and antibiotics, including vaccines, the issue of allergic reactions to this substance is becoming increasingly important. The purpose of this study is to review and systematise data on various aspects of allergic reactions to polyethylene glycol with the aim of better understanding their pathogenesis, clinical manifestations, diagnostic methods, and possible treatment approaches. The study analysed literature data in modern databases, such as MEDLINE, PubMed, and Scopus, on allergic reactions to polyethylene glycol, using the keywords: "PEG", "polyethylene glycol", "allergy", "side effect". The main aspects of allergy to this substance were highlighted, including mechanisms of development, diagnostic methods, and possible treatment strategies. The analysis found that allergic reactions to polyethylene glycol can manifest in a variety of ways, including anaphylaxis and systemic reactions. A possible role for the immune response has been identified, including the production of IgE and IgM antibodies, complement activation, and accelerated clearance in response to polyethylene glycol, in blood plasma. Data are also provided on how to diagnose an increased risk of an allergic reaction in patients who have previously received drugs with this type of drug transporter and in patients receiving high molecular weight types of polyethylene glycol. The results of this review contribute to a better understanding of allergic reactions to polyethylene glycol and provide information for the development of more effective diagnostic and treatment methods.

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.

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

Basophil activation test (BAT) can tackle multiple mechanisms underlying acute and delayed hypersensitivity to drugs and vaccines and might complement conventional allergy diagnostics but its role in anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine-related hypersensitivity is ill-defined. Therefore, 89 patients with possible hypersensitivity (56 % with delayed mucocutaneous manifestations) to anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were tested with BAT for Macrogol 3350, DMG-PEG 2000, PEG 20000, polysorbate-80 and trometamol and compared to 156 subjects undergoing pre-vaccine BAT. A positive BAT was associated with delayed reaction onset (p = 0.010) and resolution (p = 0.011). BAT was more frequently positive to DMG-PEG 2000 than to other excipients in both groups (p < 0.001). DMG-PEG 2000 reactivity was less frequent in vaccine-naïve (6 %) than vaccinated subjects (35 %, p < 0.001) and associated with mRNA-1273 vaccination. DMG-PEG 2000 BAT might therefore have a diagnostic role in subjects with delayed hypersensitivity reactions. Natural immunity might be a key player in basophil activation.

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.

Cutaneous reactions following COVID-19 vaccination assessed by dermatologists: a single-institutional study in Germany

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Cutaneous reactions following COVID-19 vaccination have been frequently described, whereas larger case series by dermatologists are lacking. This study assesses SARS-CoV-2 vaccination-associated skin reactions, severity, treatment, course, eliciting vaccines, allergy test results and tolerance to revaccination.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Single-institutional, non-interventional study of dermatologists assessing cutaneous manifestations in 83 patients in Germany.

RESULTS

93 reactions were presented. Manifestations clustered into immediate (n = 51, 54.8%) and delayed hypersensitivity reactions (n = 10, 10.8%), chronic inflammatory skin diseases (n = 13, 14.0%), reactivation of latent herpes virus infection (pityriasis rosea/herpes zoster; n = 9; 9.7%) and others (n = 10, 10.8%). Vaccination was associated with new (76.3%) - mostly hypersensitivity reactions - or exacerbation of known skin diseases (23.7%), in this case predominantly chronic inflammatory skin diseases. Reactions occurred primarily within the first week (72.8%) and after first vaccination (62.0%). Treatment was required in 83.9% and hospitalization in 19.4%. In 48.8% revaccination led to recurrence of the same reactions. Disease was ongoing at last consultation in 22.6%, primarily in chronic inflammatory skin diseases. Allergy tests were performed in 15 patients (18.1%) and resulted negative.

CONCLUSIONS

It can be assumed that vaccination may trigger immune activation-related reactions especially in those patients predisposed to develop respective skin diseases.

Increasing the COVID-19 immunization rate through allergy testing

BACKGROUND

Vaccination of the population is required to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. Allergy testing could reduce anxiety towards COVID-19 vaccination and thereby may increase vaccination rate, however, its effectiveness remains unclear.

METHODS

One hundred and thirty prospective real-life patients in need of but not daring to get vaccinated asked for allergy workup for COVID-19 vaccine hypersensitivity in 2021/2022. Characterization of patients, identification of anxieties, decrease of patient's anxiety levels, overall vaccination rate and adverse reactions after vaccination were assessed.

RESULTS

Tested patients were characterized by being female (91.5%) and having a high rate of previous allergies (e.g. to food 55.4%, drugs 54.6%, or previous vaccinations 50%) and dermatological disease (29.2%) but not always had medical contraindications for COVID-19 vaccination. Sixty one patients (49.6%) were highly concerned (4-6, Likert scale 0-6) about vaccination and 47 (37.6%) expressed resolving thoughts about vaccinaion anaphylaxis (3-6, Likert scale 0-6). However only 35 patients (28.5%) were scared of getting COVID-19 within 2 months (4-6, Likert scale 0-6) and only 11 (9%) patients had high expectations of getting COVID-19 (4-6, Likert scale 0-6). Allergy testing significantly (p < 0.01 to p < 0.05 respectively) reduced the median anxiety of allergic symptoms following vaccination: dyspnoea (4.2-3.1), to faint (3.7-2.7), long-term consequences (3.6-2.2), pruritus (3.4-2.6), skin rash (3.3-2.6) and death (3.2-2.6). After allergy testing, most patients (108/122, 88.5%) let themselves be vaccinated within 60 days. Revaccinated patients with previous symptoms experienced a reduction of symptoms (p < 0.05) upon revaccination.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients not daring to get vaccinated have more anxiety towards vaccination than to acquire COVID-19. For those, allergy testing excludes vaccine allergy, and is a tool to increase vaccination willingness and thereby helps to combat vaccination hesitancy.

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.

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.

Evaluation of pediatric patients with suspected polyethylene glycol and polysorbate allergy before mRNA SARS-CoV2 vaccination

mRNA vaccines, particularly, have been associated with an increased risk of allergic reactions and rarely anaphylaxis. Although rare, vaccine reactions can cause significant anxiety and fear in the population, leading to indecision and vaccine refusal. This study aimed to retrospectively evaluate the role of polyethylene glycol (PEG) sensitivity in vaccination decision-making in pediatric patients at high risk of allergy or with suspected allergic reactions to the first dose of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) vaccine. Seventeen enrolled patients were found to have decreased readiness to receive the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine after developing hypersensitivity to multiple and/or injectable drugs. Skin testing was performed. A basophil activation test with PEG-2000 and 4000 was performed on three patients who were ineligible for skin prick tests. Nine patients with negative tests received the vaccine without complications. One patient had urticarial angioedema despite negative tests. Three patients with positive tests did not agree to desensitization with the mRNA vaccine, and one of them was vaccinated with the inactivated COVID-19 vaccine. Four patients recurred despite negative tests. The general recommendation for patients describing severe reactions to drugs, foods, and allergens, such as toxins that do not contain the adjuvants of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, is to be routinely vaccinated with safety precautions. Excipients such as PEG and polysorbate-80 used in COVID-19 vaccines could be potential allergens, but this hypothesis is unclear. The predictive values of these adjuvants for skin testing and in vitro testing are controversial. Further research is needed on the hypersensitivity reactions of adjuvants, the predictive values of skin tests, and etiopathogenesis.

Basophil Activation Test with Different Polyethylene Glycols in Patients with Suspected PEG Hypersensitivity Reactions

Allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccine components are rare but should be considered. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is responsible for anaphylaxis in mRNA vaccines. Skin tests have been used in the allergological work-up programs for COVID-19 vaccine evaluation. However, the reproducibility of the skin prick test is time-dependent and the reactivity declines over time. Therefore, we combined the administration of the skin tests with the basophil activation test (BAT) using PEG2000, PEG4000 and DMG-PEG2000, where the BAT was considered positive when the percentage of activated basophils was higher than 6%, 5% and 6.5%, for PEG 4000, PEG2000 and DMG-PEG2000, respectively. To this end, among the subjects that underwent allergy counseling at the Allergy Unit of our Institution during the 2020/2021 vaccination campaign, 13 patients had a suggested medical history of PEG/drug hypersensitivity and were enrolled together with 10 healthy donors. Among the enrolled patients 2 out of 13 tested patients were positive to the skin test. The BAT was negative in terms of the percentages of activated basophils in all analyzed samples, but the stimulation index (SI) was higher than 2.5 in 4 out of 13 patients. These data evidenced that, when the SI is higher than 2.5, even in the absence of positivity to BAT, the BAT to PEG may be a useful tool to be coupled to skin tests to evidence even low-grade reactions.

Clinical Effects of BNT162b2 Vaccine on the Short-Term Course of Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria Patients

Background

The clinical effects of Pfizer-BioNTech coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19; BNT162b2) vaccine on the clinical course of chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is unclear.

Aims and Objectives

To evaluate the clinical effects of BNT162b2 vaccine on the clinical course of CSU.

Methods

In this study, 90 CSU patients vaccinated with one or two repeated doses of BNT162b2 vaccine were included. Urticaria Activity Score over 28 days (UAS28), Urticaria Control Test (UCT), Chronic Urticaria Quality of Life Questionnaire (CU-Q2oL), and Medication Scores (MSs) were obtained before the vaccination, 28 days after the first and, if available, after the second dose of BNT162b2 vaccine. The demographic, clinical, and laboratory features were compared between the subjects with exacerbated (group A) and non-exacerbated (group B) disease activity.

Results

Among the 90 study participants, 14 (15.5%) experienced exacerbations in their urticarial activity after the first or repeated doses of BNT162b2 vaccinations. The demographic, clinical, and laboratory features were similar between the exacerbated and non-exacerbated CSU patients. However, the rate of adverse reactions within 48 hours, such as hives, injection site reactions and wheals lasting <1 hour, were significantly higher in group A than in group B (P = 0.004, P < 0.001, P = 0.001, P = 0.018).

Conclusions

BNT162b2 vaccination caused an exacerbation in 15.5% of CSU patients during the short-term follow-up. The long-term evaluation can be informative about the lasting effects of BNT162b2 vaccine on the clinical course of CSU patients.

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.

New insights into human immune memory from SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination

Since early 2020, the world has been embroiled in an ongoing viral pandemic with SARS-CoV-2 and emerging variants resulting in mass morbidity and an estimated 6 million deaths globally. The scientific community pivoted rapidly, providing unique and innovative means to identify infected individuals, technologies to evaluate immune responses to infection and vaccination, and new therapeutic strategies to treat infected individuals. Never before has immunology been so critically at the forefront of combatting a global pandemic. It has now become evident that not just antibody responses, but formation and durability of immune memory cells following vaccination are associated with protection against severe disease from SARS-CoV-2 infection. Furthermore, the emergence of variants of concern (VoC) highlight the need for immunological markers to quantify the protective capacity of Wuhan-based vaccines. Thus, harnessing and modulating the immune response is key to successful vaccination and treatment of disease. We here review the latest knowledge about immune memory generation and durability following natural infection and vaccination, and provide insights into the attributes of immune memory that may protect from emerging variants.

Successful mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination and Colonoscopy After Oral Desensitization in a Patient With Polyethylene Glycol Allergy

Anaphylaxis to polyethylene glycol (PEG) is rare and mainly occurs with the use of laxatives containing PEG. Recently, an increasing number of PEG allergies have been reported, particularly those related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, such as the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccines, contain PEG2000 as an excipient and are contraindicated when allergy to a vaccine component exist. We report a 55-year-old woman's history as a case of successful mRNA COVID-19 vaccination and colonoscopy after oral desensitization to PEG in a patient with PEG allergy who required both COVID-19 vaccination and colon evaluation. Allergy to PEG was diagnosed based on clinical history, skin test results, and basophil histamine release testing. Oral desensitization effectively suppressed histamine release from basophils in response to PEG stimulation, suggesting that oral desensitization using PEG-based laxatives may be an effective treatment option for patients with allergy to the substance.

Allergic Reactions to COVID-19 Vaccines: Risk Factors, Frequency, Mechanisms and Management

Conventional vaccines have been widely studied, along with their risk of causing allergic reactions. These generally consist of mild local reactions and only rarely severe anaphylaxis. Although all the current COVID-19 vaccines marketed in Europe have been shown to be safe overall in the general population, early post-marketing evidence has shown that mRNA-based vaccines using novel platforms (i.e., lipid nanoparticles) were associated with an increased risk of severe allergic reactions as compared to conventional vaccines. In this paper we performed an updated literature review on frequency, risk factors, and underlying mechanisms of COVID-19 vaccine-related allergies by searching MEDLINE and Google Scholar databases. We also conducted a qualitative search on VigiBase and EudraVigilance databases to identify reports of “Hypersensitivity” and “Anaphylactic reaction” potentially related to COVID-19 vaccines (Comirnaty, Spikevax, Vaxzevria and COVID-19 Janssen Vaccine), and in EudraVigilance to estimate the reporting rates of “Anaphylactic reaction” and “Anaphylactic shock” after COVID-19 vaccination in the European population. We also summarized the scientific societies’ and regulatory agencies’ recommendations for prevention and management of COVID-19 vaccine-related allergic reactions, especially in those with a history of allergy.

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.

Do basophil activation tests help elucidate allergic reactions to the ingredients in COVID-19 vaccines?

The worldwide use of COVID-19 vaccines has shown that immediate allergic reactions to the ingredients are rare but should be clarified by means of an allergological work-up. This review aims to highlight the current state of knowledge and possible pathogenesis based on the literature published to date. In addition to recording a detailed history and performing skin tests, cellular tests (basophil activation or basophil histamine release test) by using the vaccines or modified compounds containing polyethylene glycol (PEG), rather than unmodified PEGs, have proven to be particularly helpful. Negative results with vaccines seem to indicate tolerance. Details of the performance of these cellular tests with different vaccines, PEGs of different molecular weights, other ingredients of the vaccines, as well as other PEGylated drugs, and the results in the context of COVID-19 vaccination of various working groups worldwide are summarized.

Immunotoxicity of nanomaterials in health and disease: Current challenges and emerging approaches for identifying immune modifiers in susceptible populations

Nanosafety assessment has experienced an intense era of research during the past decades driven by a vivid interest of regulators, industry, and society. Toxicological assays based on in vitro cellular models have undergone an evolution from experimentation using nanoparticulate systems on singular epithelial cell models to employing advanced complex models more realistically mimicking the respective body barriers for analyzing their capacity to alter the immune state of exposed individuals. During this phase, a number of lessons were learned. We have thus arrived at a state where the next chapters have to be opened, pursuing the following objectives: (1) to elucidate underlying mechanisms, (2) to address effects on vulnerable groups, (3) to test material mixtures, and (4) to use realistic doses on (5) sophisticated models. Moreover, data reproducibility has become a significant demand. In this context, we studied the emerging concept of adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) from the perspective of immune activation and modulation resulting in pro-inflammatory versus tolerogenic responses. When considering the interaction of nanomaterials with biological systems, protein corona formation represents the relevant molecular initiating event (e.g., by potential alterations of nanomaterial-adsorbed proteins). Using this as an example, we illustrate how integrated experimental-computational workflows combining in vitro assays with in silico models aid in data enrichment and upon comprehensive ontology-annotated (meta)data upload to online repositories assure FAIRness (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, Reusability). Such digital twinning may, in future, assist in early-stage decision-making during therapeutic development, and hence, promote safe-by-design innovation in nanomedicine. Moreover, it may, in combination with in silico-based exposure-relevant dose-finding, serve for risk monitoring in particularly loaded areas, for example, workplaces, taking into account pre-existing health conditions. This article is categorized under: Toxicology and Regulatory Issues in Nanomedicine > Toxicology of Nanomaterials.