Myopericarditis following both BNT162b2 and NVX-CoV2373.

BACKGROUND: Myopericarditis is a well reported complication associated with SARS-Cov-2 (COVID-19) infection and vaccinations; particularly with mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273), and in the young male population. The risk-to-benefit ratio in sequential vaccination dosing in young males is further clouded in the era of the omicron variant with its reported enhanced immune escape. STUDY DESIGN: A case series of two cases of post vaccination myopericarditis following the NVX-CoV2373 after also developing myopericarditis with BNT162b2. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, we are the first to describe post vaccination myopericarditis following NVX-CoV2373 after also developing myopericarditis with BNT162b2. The similarities in presentation between the reactions of both platforms would suggest a similar pathogenesis, although the exact mechanism remains unknown. Further studies are necessary to identify these mechanisms, as well as to identify biomarkers that may identify vulnerable populations. On-going vigilance is necessary to identify those who may be at an increased risk of post-COVID vaccine myopericarditis.

Rapamycin and inulin for booster vaccine response stimulation (RIVASTIM)—rapamycin: study protocol for a randomised, controlled trial of immunosuppression modification with rapamycin to improve SARS-CoV-2 vaccine response in kidney transplant recipients

Kidney transplant recipients are at an increased risk of severe COVID-19-associated hospitalisation and death. Vaccination has been a key public health strategy to reduce disease severity and infectivity, but the effectiveness of COVID vaccines is markedly reduced in kidney transplant recipients. Urgent strategies to enhance vaccine efficacy are needed. Methods: RIVASTIM-rapamycin is a multicentre, randomised, controlled trial examining the effect of immunosuppression modification prior to a third dose of COVID-19 vaccine in kidney transplant recipients who have failed to develop protective immunity to a 2-dose COVID-19 vaccine schedule. Participants will be randomised 1:1 to either remain on standard of care immunosuppression with tacrolimus, mycophenolate, and prednisolone (control) or cease mycophenolate and commence sirolimus (intervention) for 4 weeks prior to and following vaccination. The primary outcome is the proportion of participants in each trial arm who develop protective serological neutralisation of live SARS-CoV-2 virus at 4–6 weeks following a third COVID-19 vaccination. Secondary outcomes include SARS-CoV-receptor binding domain IgG, vaccine-specific immune cell populations and responses, and the safety and tolerability of sirolimus switch. Discussion: Immunosuppression modification strategies may improve immunological vaccine response. We hypothesise that substituting the mTOR inhibitor sirolimus for mycophenolate in a triple drug regimen will enhance humoral and cell-mediated responses to COVID vaccination for kidney transplant recipients. Trial registration: Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12621001412820. Registered on 20 October 2021;https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=382891&isReview=true

COVID vaccination can be performed in patients with a history of allergic reactions to the vaccines or their components: experience from a specialist clinic in South Australia.

BACKGROUND: The development of vaccines against SARS-CoV2 has been a key public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, since their introduction, there have been reports of anaphylactic reactions to vaccines in individuals with history of allergic reactions to other vaccines, excipients or to COVID vaccines. AIM: A dedicated adult COVID vaccine allergy clinic with a standardised allergy testing protocol was set up to investigate safety and suitability of available COVID vaccines in Australia. METHODS: Patients referred to a state-wide COVID-19 vaccine allergy clinic between March and August 2021 with a history of allergy underwent skin-prick testing and intradermal testing to both available vaccine formulations (BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1-S), excipients (polyethylene glycol and polysorbate 80), excipient-containing medications and controls. Basophil activation testing was conducted in few subjects with convincing history of immediate type reactions. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients underwent testing for possible excipient allergy (n = 19), previous non-COVID vaccine reaction (n = 13) or previous reaction to dose 1 of COVID-19 vaccine (n = 21). Patients were predominantly female (n = 43, 81%), aged 18-83 (median 54) years. Forty-four patients tested negative and 42 of these received at least their first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. Nine patients tested positive to excipients or excipient-containing medication only (n = 3), or vaccines (n = 6). Five patients were positive to just BNT162b2, 3/5 have been vaccinated with ChAdOx1-S. One who was skin test positive to both vaccines, but negative BAT to ChAdOx1-S was successfully vaccinated with ChAdOx1-S. CONCLUSION: Even in a high-risk population, most patients can be vaccinated with available COVID-19 vaccines. This paper reports local experiences using a combined allergy testing protocol with skin testing and BAT during the pandemic.

AstraZeneca ChAdOx1-S COVID-19 vaccine can be safely administered in patients with EDTA allergy.

BACKGROUND: Immediate hypersensitivity reactions to COVID-19 vaccines have been postulated to be linked to their excipients, such as polyethylene glycol (PEG) in Pfizer Comirnaty, or polysorbate 80 and ethylenediaminetetracetic acid (EDTA) in AstraZeneca ChAdOx1-S [recombinant] (Vaxzevria). These excipients are found in a range of other products, including injectable and oral medications as well as intravenous radiocontrast media (RCM) and various cosmetic products. Patients with proven excipient allergy may be advised to avoid a COVID-19 vaccine containing that excipient and/or potentially cross-reactive excipients. This may result in individual patients not receiving vaccines, especially if an alternate option is not available, and on a broader level contribute to vaccine hesitancy. We present two cases of previously confirmed EDTA anaphylaxis with positive intradermal testing, who had negative Vaxzevria vaccine in-vivo testing and subsequently tolerated the vaccine. CASE 1: A patient with history of anaphylaxis to RCM and local anaesthetics (LA) had positive intradermal test (IDT) to EDTA nine years earlier. Skin testing to Vaxzeria vaccine (up to 1:10 IDT), Comirnaty vaccine (up to 1:10 IDT) and EDTA 0.3 mg/mL IDT were negative. However, following EDTA 3 mg/ml IDT, he developed immediate generalised urticaria without anaphylaxis. Basophil activation testing was negative to disodium EDTA, Vaxzevria and Cominarty vaccines. Given the negative in-vitro and in-vivo testing to Vaxzevria vaccine, he proceeded to Vaxzevria immunisation and tolerated both doses. CASE 2: A patient with history of anaphylaxis to RCM had positive skin testing to EDTA and RCM containing EDTA six years earlier. Following referral to COVID19 vaccine clinic, Vaxzevria vaccine (1:10 IDT) and Cominarty vaccine (1:10 IDT) were negative whilst EDTA was positive at 0.3 mg/mL IDT. He subsequently tolerated both Vaxzevria vaccinations. CONCLUSION: Excipient allergy does not necessarily preclude a patient from receiving a vaccine containing that excipient. Allergy testing can help identify excipient-allergic patients who may still tolerate vaccination, which is important in situations where COVID-19 vaccination options are limited.

Basophil reactivity to BNT162b2 is mediated by PEGylated lipid nanoparticles in patients with PEG allergy.

BACKGROUND: The mechanisms underpinning allergic reactions to the BNT162b2 (Pfizer) COVID-19 vaccine remain unknown, with polyethylene glycol (PEG) contained in the lipid nanoparticle suspected as being the cause. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to evaluate the performance of skin testing and basophil activation testing to PEG, polysorbate 80, and the BNT162b2 (Pfizer) and AZD1222 (AstraZeneca) COVID-19 vaccines in patients with a history of PEG allergy. METHODS: Three known individuals with PEG allergy and 3 healthy controls were recruited and evaluated for hypersensitivity to the BNT162b2 and AZD1222 vaccines, and to related compounds by skin testing and basophil activation, as measured by CD63 upregulation using flow cytometry. RESULTS: We found that the BNT162b2 vaccine induced positive skin test results in patients with PEG allergy, whereas the result of traditional PEG skin testing was negative in 2 of 3 patients. One patient was found to be cosensitized to both the BNT162b2 and AZD1222 vaccines because of cross-reactive PEG and polysorbate allergy. The BNT162b2 vaccine, but not PEG alone, induced dose-dependent activation of all patients' basophils ex vivo. Similar basophil activation could be induced by PEGylated liposomal doxorubicin, suggesting that PEGylated lipids within nanoparticles, but not PEG in its native state, are able to efficiently induce degranulation. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings implicate PEG, as covalently modified and arranged on the vaccine lipid nanoparticle, as a potential trigger of anaphylaxis in response to BNT162b2, and highlight shortcomings of current skin testing protocols for allergy to PEGylated liposomal drugs.

COVID-19: can we treat the mother without harming her baby?

Medical care is predicated on 'do no harm', yet the urgency to find drugs and vaccines to treat or prevent COVID-19 has led to an extraordinary effort to develop and test new therapies. Whilst this is an essential cornerstone of a united global response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the absolute requirements for meticulous efficacy and safety data remain. This is especially pertinent to the needs of pregnant women; a group traditionally poorly represented in drug trials, yet a group at heightened risk of unintended adverse materno-fetal consequences due to the unique physiology of pregnancy and the life course implications of fetal or neonatal drug exposure. However, due to the complexities of drug trial participation when pregnant (be they vaccines or therapeutics for acute disease), many clinical drug trials will exclude them. Clinicians must determine the best course of drug treatment with a dearth of evidence from either clinical or preclinical studies, where at least in the short term they may be more focused on the outcome of the mother than of her offspring.