Exacerbation of Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria Following Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccination in Omalizumab-Treated Patients.

BACKGROUND: The rapid development and rollout of vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has led to more than half of the world's population being vaccinated to date. Real-world data have reported various adverse cutaneous reactions, including delayed-onset urticaria, which was highly ranked as a common manifestation across studies. However, the impact of these novel mRNA or viral vector COVID-19 vaccines on preexisting chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) remains largely unknown. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of COVID-19 vaccination on the clinical status of patients with relatively stable CSU who are undergoing omalizumab treatment and to identify risk factors for exacerbation. METHODS: We conducted a questionnaire-based cross-sectional study in a tertiary hospital. Adult patients with relatively stable CSU under regular omalizumab treatments who had received at least one COVID-19 vaccination were included. RESULTS: There were 105 study subjects who received 230 COVID-19 vaccinations between March and December 2021. Fifteen patients (14.3%) experienced aggravation of urticaria at least once after COVID-19 vaccination. The demographics and clinical characteristics of the patients were comparable regardless of the exacerbation of CSU. However, case-level analysis revealed that the presence of urticaria (vs none) before vaccination (odds ratio [OR] = 4.99; 95% CI, 1.57-15.82) and the development of systemic reactogenicity (OR = 4.57; 95% CI, 1.62-12.90) were associated with a higher risk for exacerbation. CONCLUSIONS: The novel COVID-19 vaccination induced exacerbation in more than one-tenth of patients with well-controlled CSU. The establishment of a proper management strategy during COVID-19 vaccination is necessary for patients with CSU.

Clinical Characteristics of Post-COVID-19 Persistent Cough in the Omicron Era.

Cough is one of the most common symptoms of acute coronavirus disease 2019, but cough may persist for weeks or months. This study aimed to examine the clinical characteristics of patients with post-coronavirus disease (COVID) persistent cough in the Omicron era. We conducted a pooled analysis comparing 3 different groups: 1) a prospective cohort of post-COVID cough (> 3 weeks; n = 55), 2) a retrospective cohort of post-COVID cough (> 3 weeks; n = 66), and 3) a prospective cohort of non-COVID chronic cough (CC) (> 8 weeks; n = 100). Cough and health status was assessed using patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Outcomes, including PROs and systemic symptoms, were longitudinally evaluated in the prospective post-COVID cough registry participants receiving usual care. A total of 121 patients with post-COVID cough and 100 with non-COVID CC were studied. Baseline cough-specific PRO scores did not significantly differ between post-COVID cough and non-COVID CC groups. There were no significant differences in chest imaging abnormality or lung function between groups. However, the proportions of patients with fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) ≥ 25 ppb were 44.7% in those with post-COVID cough and 22.7% in those with non-COVID CC, which were significantly different. In longitudinal assessment of the post-COVID registry (n = 43), cough-specific PROs, such as cough severity or Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ) scores, significantly improved between visits 1 and 2 (visit interval: median 35 [interquartile range, IQR: 23-58] days). In the LCQ score, 83.3% of the patients showed improvement (change ≥ +1.3), but 7.1% had worsened (≤ -1.3). The number of systemic symptoms was median 4 (IQR: 2-7) at visit 1 but decreased to median 2 (IQR: 0-4) at visit 2. In summary, post-COVID persistent cough was similar in overall clinical characteristics to CC. Current cough guideline-based approaches may be effective in most patients with post-COVID cough. Measurement of FeNO levels may also be useful for cough management.

Clinical Characteristics of Post-COVID-19 Persistent Cough in the Omicron Era.

Cough is one of the most common symptoms of acute coronavirus disease 2019, but cough may persist for weeks or months. This study aimed to examine the clinical characteristics of patients with post-coronavirus disease (COVID) persistent cough in the Omicron era. We conducted a pooled analysis comparing 3 different groups: 1) a prospective cohort of post-COVID cough (> 3 weeks; n = 55), 2) a retrospective cohort of post-COVID cough (> 3 weeks; n = 66), and 3) a prospective cohort of non-COVID chronic cough (CC) (> 8 weeks; n = 100). Cough and health status was assessed using patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Outcomes, including PROs and systemic symptoms, were longitudinally evaluated in the prospective post-COVID cough registry participants receiving usual care. A total of 121 patients with post-COVID cough and 100 with non-COVID CC were studied. Baseline cough-specific PRO scores did not significantly differ between post-COVID cough and non-COVID CC groups. There were no significant differences in chest imaging abnormality or lung function between groups. However, the proportions of patients with fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) ≥ 25 ppb were 44.7% in those with post-COVID cough and 22.7% in those with non-COVID CC, which were significantly different. In longitudinal assessment of the post-COVID registry (n = 43), cough-specific PROs, such as cough severity or Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ) scores, significantly improved between visits 1 and 2 (visit interval: median 35 [interquartile range, IQR: 23-58] days). In the LCQ score, 83.3% of the patients showed improvement (change ≥ +1.3), but 7.1% had worsened (≤ -1.3). The number of systemic symptoms was median 4 (IQR: 2-7) at visit 1 but decreased to median 2 (IQR: 0-4) at visit 2. In summary, post-COVID persistent cough was similar in overall clinical characteristics to CC. Current cough guideline-based approaches may be effective in most patients with post-COVID cough. Measurement of FeNO levels may also be useful for cough management.

Impact of asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and asthma-COPD overlap on the prognosis of coronavirus disease 2019.

Background: The effects of asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), or asthma-COPD overlap (ACO) on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remain unclear. Objective: We aimed to investigate the effects of chronic obstructive airway diseases such as asthma, COPD, and ACO on COVID-19. Methods: In total, 5625 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were divided into asthma, COPD, ACO, and control groups. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors affecting the COVID-19 mortality rate. To find out whether chronic obstructive airway diseases such as asthma, COPD, and ACO affect COVID-19 mortality, 1:4 matching was performed, except for the ACO group alone due to a small number of patients. Results: The mortality rates of asthma, COPD, and ACO groups were about 2.3, 4.8, and 5.5 times higher than that of the control group, respectively. Although not statistically significant, the survival probability tended to decrease (asthma, COPD, and combined groups of asthma and ACO, hazard ratio [HR]: 1.84, 1.31, and 1.89, respectively). The survival probability of the combined groups of COPD, ACO, and asthma and the combined groups of COPD and ACO was significantly lower than that of the matched control group (HR: 3.00 and 1.99, respectively). Conclusion: Compared to patients with COVID-19 without chronic obstructive airway disease, patients with these comorbidities are more likely to require oxygen and mechanical ventilators and have a higher mortality rate, which can be considered when classifying and monitoring patients in the era of COVID-19. Therefore, further studies are needed to evaluate the effect of chronic obstructive airway disease, especially ACO, on COVID-19 mortality.

Soluble ACE2 and TMPRSS2 Levels in the Serum of Asthmatic Patients.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and transmembrane protease serine subtype 2 (TMPRSS2) are key proteins mediating viral entry of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Although gene expressions of ACE2 and TMPRSS2 have been analyzed in various organs and diseases, their soluble forms have been less studied, particularly in asthma. Therefore, we aimed to measure circulating ACE2 and TMPRSS2 in the serum of asthmatics and examine their relationship with clinical characteristics. METHODS: Clinical data and serum samples of 400 participants were obtained from an asthma cohort. The soluble ACE2 (sACE2) and soluble TMPRSS2 (sTMPRSS2) level was measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, and the values underwent a natural log transformation. Associations between sACE2 and TMPRSS2 levels and various clinical variables were analyzed. RESULTS: The patients younger than 70 years old, those with eosinophilic asthma (eosinophils ≥ 200 cells/µL), and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) non-users were associated with higher levels of sACE2. Blood eosinophils and fractionated exhaled nitric oxide levels were positively correlated with serum ACE2. In contrast, lower levels of sTMPRSS2 were noted in patients below 70 years and those with eosinophilic asthma, while no association was noted between ICS use and sTMPRSS2. The level of sTMPRSS2 also differed according to sex, smoking history, coexisting hypertension, and forced expiratory volume in 1 second/forced vital capacity (FEV1/FVC) ratio. The proportion of sputum neutrophils was positively correlated with sTMPRSS2, while the FEV1/FVC ratio reported a negative correlation with sTMPRSS2. CONCLUSION: The levels of ACE2 and TMPRSS2 were differently expressed according to age, ICS use, and several inflammatory markers. These findings suggest variable susceptibility and prognosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection among asthmatic patients.

Adverse Reactions of the Second Dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine in Healthcare Workers in Korea.

We conducted a prospective, mobile-based survey on the self-reported adverse reactions in healthcare workers (HCWs) who received both doses of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. Of the 342 HCWs who completed the two-dose vaccination, 265 (77.5%) responded to the survey at least once. Overall, the rates of adverse reactions were higher after the second dose compared with the first dose (89.1% vs. 80.1%, P = 0.006). The most common systemic reactions were muscle ache (69.1%), fatigue (65.7%), headache (48.7%), chills (44.2%), and fever (32.1%), and were notably more common after the second dose vaccine as well. We also noted a sex difference in which the frequency of adverse reactions after the second dose of the vaccine was significantly higher in females, which was not observed after the first dose. The rates of adverse reactions were lower in older age groups, and the rates and severities of the adverse reactions decreased during the 3-day period following vaccination.

Adverse Reactions Following the First Dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 Vaccine and BNT162b2 Vaccine for Healthcare Workers in South Korea.

BACKGROUND: We performed a prospective survey on the adverse reactions following the first dose of two types of vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in healthcare workers (HCWs) in South Korea. METHODS: HCWs at a tertiary referral hospital in Seoul, South Korea, received a chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) or an mRNA-based vaccine (BNT162b2) between March 5 and March 26, 2021. The HCWs were asked to report adverse reactions through a mobile self-report questionnaire for three days after vaccination. RESULTS: A total of 7,625 HCWs received the first dose of ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2 vaccine during the study period. Of them, 5,866 (76.9%) HCWs (ChAdOx1, n = 5,589 [95.3%]; BNT162b2, n = 277 [4.7%]) participated at least once in the survey, of whom 77% were female and 86% were younger than 50 years. The overall adverse reaction rate was 93% in the ChAdOx1 group and 80% in the BNT162b2 group (P < 0.001). Both local and systemic reactions were more commonly reported in the ChAdOx1 group, and the difference was larger in systemic reactions such as fever and fatigue. In the ChAdOx1 group, the incidence of adverse reactions was significantly higher in females and those in the younger age groups, while the BNT162b2 group showed such difference according to age. CONCLUSION: In our prospective survey, vaccine-associated adverse reactions were more commonly reported in the ChAdOx1 group than in the BNT162b2 group. Females and younger age groups experienced vaccine-associated adverse reactions more frequently.