The third dose of BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine is efficacious and safe for systemic lupus erythematosus patients receiving belimumab.

INTRODUCTION: Over 95% of healthy subjects develop anti-COVID IgG antibodies after receiving two doses of BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine. In comparison, 20%-30% of SLE patients do not seroconvert following 1-2 doses of COVID vaccines, potentially due to immunosuppression. The aim of this study was to assess immunogenicity and safety of BNT vaccine in SLE patients treated with Belimumab and especially the yield of a booster third dose in this population. METHODS: SLE patients treated with Belimumab in the Sheba Medical Center, Israel, were included in this study. All were recommended to receive the BNT vaccine according to national guidelines; and were advised to perform serologic tests after receiving second and third doses. Clinical data included demographics, SLE treatments, adverse effects to vaccines and SLEDAI scores performed 2 weeks before vaccinations and 6-12 weeks after receiving the second or third dose of the vaccine. RESULTS: Our cohort included 17 patients, 14 (82.35%) females, median age 50 ± 14.2 years, and disease duration 12 ± 10.57 years. Belimumab therapy was given for a mean of 6 ± 2.5 years. Of them, 15/17 patients received 3-doses of BNT vaccine. Serologic assessment was performed for 10 patients, 7/10(70%) became seropositive following the second dose, while 2/3 patients seroconverted only after the third dose. Vaccinations were well tolerated with minimal adverse events and no disease flares. SLEDAI scores before and after vaccinations were 4 ± 3.8 and 4 ± 2.7 (p = 0.69), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Immunization with the BNT vaccine is efficacious and safe for SLE patients treated with Belimumab. Following the third dose of vaccine, immunogenicity among SLE patients mounted to 90%, thereby approximating the general healthy population. No SLE disease flares and/or significant adverse events were noted in our cohort. Assessment of seroconversion and consideration of subsequent boosters of COVID-vaccine should be considered in this group of patients.

Late Hypersensitivity Reactions to the BNT162b2 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Are Linked to Delayed Skin Sensitization and Prior Exposure to Hyaluronic Acid.

Background: Late hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to the BNT162b2-vaccine have raised concerns regarding its safety, particularly as further immunizations are required. The yield of skin testing with the BNT162b2v is unclear, as well as the risk factors and outcomes of re-immunization after late HSRs. Objective: We studied a series of patients with late HSRs to BNT162b2v. Methods: Patients referred to the Sheba medical center from December 2020 to May 2021 with late HSRs to the first dose of BNT162b2 were included. HSRs were defined as late if they appeared or lasted >24 h after inoculation. We compared late HSRs to immediate HSRs that appeared within minutes−2 h after vaccination. Intradermal testing with PEG-containing medication and BNT162b2v was performed. Results: A total of 17 patients that presented with late HSRs (study group) were compared to 34 patients with immediate HSRs (control group). Delayed sensitivity to intradermal testing of the BNT162b2v was observed in 9/17 (53%) of the study group compared to 4/34 (12%) in the control group (p = 0.01). Former exposure to a dermal filler with hyaluronic acid was documented among 7/17 (41%) vs. 2/34 (6%) in the study and control groups, respectively, (p = 0.0038). All patients who presented with late HSRs were advised to receive subsequent doses of the BNT162b2v vaccine with or without concomitant medication, and all were re-immunized successfully. Conclusions: Late HSRs to BNT162b2v were linked with positive responses to intradermal testing with the vaccine and prior exposure to derma fillers with hyaluronic acid. This may elude to an immune mechanism triggered by former exposures. Although further studies are needed, late HSRs to the BNT162b2-vaccine did not prevent patients from receiving subsequent doses of the vaccines.

Assessment of Immediate Allergic Reactions After Immunization With the Pfizer BNT162b2 Vaccine Using Intradermal Skin Testing With the COVID-19 Vaccines.

BACKGROUND: Allergic reactions to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines have raised concerns, particularly as repeated doses are required. Skin tests with the vaccines excipient were found to be of low value, whereas the utility of skin tests with the whole vaccine is yet to be determined. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a panel of skin tests and the outcomes of subsequent doses of immunization among subjects who suffered an immediate allergic reaction to the BioNTech (BNT162b2) COVID-19 vaccine. METHODS: Between March and December 2021, patients who experienced symptoms consistent with immediate allergic reactions to the BNT162b2 vaccine and were referred to the Sheba Medical Center underwent skin testing with polyethylene glyol (PEG)-containing medicines, Pfizer-BNT162b2, and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine (AZD1222). Further immunization was performed accordingly and under medical observation. RESULTS: A total of 51 patients underwent skin testing for suspected allergy to the COVID vaccines, of which 38 of 51 (74.5%) were nonreactive, 7 of 51(13.7%) had no skin sensitization but suffered a clinical reaction during skin testing (mainly cough), and 6 of 51 (11.7%) exhibited immediate skin sensitization. Both skin sensitization and cough during testing were related to a higher use of adrenaline following immunization (P = .08 and P = .024, respectively). Further immunization with the BNT162b2 vaccine was recommended unless sensitization or severe reaction to previous immunization was evident. The latter were referred to be tested/receive the alternative AZD1222 vaccine. Ten patients underwent skin testing with AZD1222: 2 of 10 (20%) demonstrated skin sensitization to both vaccines; thus, 8 of 10 were immunized with the AZD1222, of which 2 of 8 (25%) had allergic reactions. CONCLUSIONS: Immediate allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines are rare but can be severe and reoccur. Intradermal testing with the whole vaccine may discriminate sensitized subjects, detect cross-sensitization between vaccines, and enable estimation of patients at higher risk.

Prevalence of Allergic Reactions After Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccination Among Adults With High Allergy Risk.

Importance: Allergic reactions among some individuals who received the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) COVID-19 vaccine discourage patients with allergic conditions from receiving this vaccine and physicians from recommending the vaccine. Objective: To describe the assessment and immunization of highly allergic individuals with the BNT162b2 vaccine. Design, Setting, and Participants: In a prospective cohort study from December 27, 2020, to February 22, 2021, 8102 patients with allergies who applied to the COVID 19 vaccine referral center at the Sheba Medical Center underwent risk assessment using an algorithm that included a detailed questionnaire. High-risk patients (n = 429) were considered "highly allergic" and were immunized under medical supervision. Exposures: Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) COVID-19 vaccine. Main Outcomes and Measures: Allergic and anaphylactic reactions after the first and second doses of BNT162b2 vaccine among highly allergic patients. Results: Of the 429 individuals who applied to the COVID-19 referral center and were defined as highly allergic, 304 (70.9%) were women and the mean (SD) age was 52 (16) years. This highly allergic group was referred to receive immunization under medical supervision. After the first dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine, 420 patients (97.9%) had no immediate allergic event, 6 (1.4%) developed minor allergic responses, and 3 (0.7%) had anaphylactic reactions. During the study period, 218 highly allergic patients (50.8%) received the second BNT162b2 vaccine dose, of which 214 (98.2%) had no allergic reactions and 4 patients (1.8%) had minor allergic reactions. Other immediate and late reactions were comparable with those seen in the general population, except for delayed itch and skin eruption, which were more common among allergic patients. Conclusions and Relevance: The rate of allergic reactions to BNT162b2 vaccine, is higher among patients with allergies, particularly among a subgroup with a history of high-risk allergies. This study suggests that most patients with a history of allergic diseases and, particularly, highly allergic patients can be safely immunized by using an algorithm that can be implemented in different medical facilities and includes a referral center, a risk assessment questionnaire, and a setting for immunization under medical supervision of highly allergic patients. Further studies are required to define more specific risk factors for allergic reactions to the BNT162b2 vaccine.

How face masks influence the sinonasal quality of life during the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: To study different mask types' impact on a sinonasal quality of life. METHODS: For this observational cross-sectional study, a web-based survey was distributed via social media forums. We used the validated Hebrew version of the Sinonasal Outcome Test-22 followed by a questionnaire developed specifically for the present study, focusing on the time of the COVID-19 pandemic (Mask Sinonasal Outcome Test), and questions regarding general health issues. The participants' mask-wearing routine was also studied. RESULTS: Seventy percent of 351 participants had experienced a change in their breathing during the time of the pandemic. The median total Sinonasal Outcome Test-22 score was 13, and 10% of the participants reported a significantly impaired quality of life. According to multivariate analyses, the only subject-related variables significantly associated with the reduced sinonasal quality of life were female gender, younger age, a background of chronic rhinitis and sinusitis, and the mask-wearing average daily duration. The mask sinonasal outcome test convergent validity was confirmed. CONCLUSION: The majority of our survey's responders, predominantly female and younger participants, reported reduced sinonasal quality of life in the COVID-19 pandemic period. It can be attributed to mask-wearing, especially for a prolonged time, irrespective of the existing mask type. These findings should encourage medical companies to produce more "airway-minded" personal protection equipment.

Minor Clinical Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Patients With Primary Immunodeficiency in Israel.

In the last few months the world has witnessed a global pandemic due to severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection causing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Obviously, this pandemic affected individuals differently, with a significant impact on populations considered to be at high-risk. One such population, was assumed to be patients with primary genetic defect involving components or pathways of the immune system. While human immunity against COVID-19 is not fully understood, it is, so far, well documented, that both adaptive and innate cells have a critical role in protection against SARS-CoV-2. Here, we aimed to summarize the clinical and laboratory data on primary immunodeficiency (PID) patients in Israel, who were tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, in order to estimate the impact of COVID-19 on such patients. Data was collected from mid-February to end-September. During this time Israel experienced two "waves" of COVID-19 diseases; the first, from mid-February to mid-May and the second from mid-June and still ongoing at the end of data collection. A total of 20 PID patients, aged 4 months to 60 years, were tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, all but one, were detected during the second wave. Fourteen of the patients were on routine monthly IVIG replacement therapy at the time of virus detection. None of the patients displayed severe illness and none required hospitalization; moreover, 7/20 patients were completely asymptomatic. Possible explanations for the minimal clinical impact of COVID-19 pandemic observed in our PID patients include high level of awareness, extra-precautions, and even self-isolation. It is also possible that only specific immune pathways (e.g. type I interferon signaling), may increase the risk for a more severe course of disease and these are not affected in many of the PID patients. In some cases, lack of an immune response actually may be a protective measure against the development of COVID-19 sequelae.