Safety and side effect profile of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccination among healthcare workers: A tertiary hospital experience in Singapore

INTRODUCTION@#Vaccination remains a key strategy to living endemically with COVID-19. The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine was first granted interim authorisation for use in Singapore in December 2020. With overseas studies published about the safety and side effect profiles of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines focusing mainly on non-Asian populations, we described the side effects of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccination experienced by the healthcare workers (HCWs) in a tertiary hospital in Singapore.@*METHODS@#Data were obtained from the Occupational Health Clinic (OHC) at the National University Hospital in Singapore, which monitored staff for any adverse effects within 30 minutes post vaccination on-site and any adverse effects after that. A cross-sectional study among the vaccinated HCWs was conducted using an online survey, which established basic demographics, histories of allergies or atopic disorders, and adverse events encountered after dose 1 and dose 2 of vaccination.@*RESULTS@#No anaphylaxis was reported. Most common symptom was giddiness (32.7%) experienced by HCWs within 30 minutes. Adverse events attended post-vaccination by OHC were generally mild and self-limiting. From the survey, odds of experiencing an adverse event after dose 2 was significantly higher than after the first dose, especially for fever/chills (odds ratio [OR] 22.5). Fever/chills, injection site reactions, headache, aches and pains, and feeling unwell were significantly more common in HCWs below 60 years compared to those ≥60 years. An allergy to food (adjusted OR 2.7) and a history of eczema/sensitive skin (adjusted OR 2.6) were associated with a skin reaction not at injection site.@*CONCLUSION@#The side effects experienced after Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines are generally self-limiting and mild, with no anaphylaxis reported.

Atopic Patients Who Fulfilled Rome III Criteria for Irritable Bowel Syndrome Had Higher Animal Danders Sensitization

Background/Aims@#The relationship between animal exposure and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is debated. Epidemiological studies have shown that atopy is more prevalent in IBS patients and vice versa. We set out to examine the association between animal danders sensitization and IBS-like symptoms in atopic patients. @*Methods@#We recruited 69 consecutive atopic patients from the allergy clinic of a tertiary hospital. Subjects completed validated bowel questionnaires, underwent skin prick test, blood was collected for serum total immunoglobulin E, and ImmunoCAP immune solidphase allergen chip (ISAC) IgE multiplex assay. @*Results@#Twenty-eight (41.0%) atopic patients fulfilled the Rome III IBS criteria (atopy-IBS). There were no differences in gender, age, pet ownership, total serum IgE, or food allergen sensitization between atopy-IBS group and atopy-non-IBS group. We found that atopy- IBS group had significantly higher number of positive skin prick test for cat dander (64.3% vs 24.4%, P < 0.001), dog dander (64.3% vs 41.5%, P = 0.015) and weed pollens (32.1% vs 14.6%, P = 0.050) compared to atopy-non-IBS group. Out of 112 components from 51 allergen sources (both aeroallergen and food allergens), only Fel d1 (a major cat dander antigen) IgE is significantly higher in atopy-IBS group than atopy-non-IBS group (21.4% vs 2.4%, P = 0.029). Majority of atopy-IBS patients had mixed-type IBS. @*Conclusions@#We demonstrated an association between animal danders sensitization, in particular cat dander sensitization, and IBS-like symptoms in atopic patients. Future studies are needed to explore the relationship between aeroallergen and functional gastrointestinal disorders. Sensitization may be related to the pathophysiology of IBS or it could be that we are missing aeroallergen-induced gut allergy.

Recurrent intradialytic heparin induced anaphylaxis: workup and management

Heparin has been widely used for intradialytic anticoagulation since the 1940s. Heparin induced anaphylaxis can be life threatening, mandating early recognition and intervention. However, due to its relative rarity many physicians remain unaware. We report the case of a 70-year-old woman requiring dialysis, who developed recurrent anaphylaxis to intradialytic heparin. We describe a systematic approach to confirm the suspected heparin allergy, which must include an evaluation of predisposing factors, the dialysis equipment and concomitant medications. Further workup for safe alternatives employing skin prick and intradermal tests, as well as provocation tests are discussed.