Safety and tolerability of Evusheld in patients with CVID: The Mayo Clinic experience.

Background: The past 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic brought with it many unknowns for patients with immunodeficiency. Because of the concern for severe infection in those with immunocompromise, patients have been eager for effective prevention, vaccination, and treatment strategies. Preexposure prophylaxis provides another means of prevention in those with immunocompromise. A combination of tixagevimab and cilgavimab (Evusheld [AstraZeneca Cambridge, United Kingdom]) was granted emergency use authorization for preexposure prophylaxis at the end of 2021, but questions remained regarding how this would be tolerated and the side effects associated with its use. Objectives: Our aim was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of Evusheld in patients with CVID from our tri-site institution. Methods: We performed an institutional review board-approved, retrospective chart review of patients with common variable immunodeficiency (CVID) who received Evusheld before March 26, 2022. Results: Of the 45 patients with CVID who received Evusheld, 41 (91%) received the recommended full dose of 600 mg. The majority of patients (39 of 45 [87%]) tolerated Evusheld without adverse events. The adverse events reported included immediate injection site pain, fatigue and cough, an episode of shingles, and chest pain. Conclusions: This is an initial report on the safety and tolerability of Evusheld injections in patients with CVID. The majority of patients tolerated the injections without adverse events. For patients with reported chest pain, the results of a subsequent cardiac workup were negative. The efficacy of Evusheld could not be evaluated owing to the short median follow-up of this study (19 days).

Delayed systemic urticarial reactions following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination.

Background: As the vaccination campaign in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues, concerns with regard to adverse reactions to the vaccine remain. Although immediate hypersensitivity reactions have received much attention, delayed systemic urticarial reactions after vaccination can occur. Objective: To describe the clinical presentation, vaccine excipient skin testing results, and outcomes of subsequent COVID-19 vaccination in patients who experienced delayed systemic urticarial reactions after messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccination. Methods: This was a retrospective case series of 12 patients referred to the Mayo Clinics in Rochester, Minnesota, and Jacksonville, Florida, between January 19, 2021, and April 30, 2021, for evaluation of delayed systemic urticarial reactions after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination. Demographics, medical and allergic history, reaction details, vaccine excipient skin testing results (when performed), and the outcome after subsequent vaccination were collected for each patient. Results: The mean age of the patients was 52 years, all were white, and 9 (75%) were women. Half of the patients had a history of drug allergy, and one had a history of chronic spontaneous urticaria. Seven patients reacted to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and five reacted to the Moderna vaccine. Seven patients developed symptoms between 8 and 24 hours after vaccination. Nine patients required antihistamines for treatment. The median time to symptom resolution was 4 days. Nine patients underwent allergist-directed COVID-19 vaccine excipient skin testing, all of which were negative. Ten patients chose to receive their next mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose, and four patients experienced recurrent delayed urticaria. Conclusion: Delayed systemic urticarial reactions after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination were not life-threatening, could be treated with antihistamines, and were not predicted with vaccine excipient skin testing. They were not a contraindication to subsequent vaccination, although patients should be counseled with regard to the possibility of recurrence.

Utility and futility of skin testing to address concerns surrounding messenger RNA coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine reactions.

BACKGROUND: The mechanism of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hypersensitivity reactions is unknown. COVID-19 vaccine excipient skin testing has been used in evaluation of these reactions, but its utility in predicting subsequent COVID-19 vaccine tolerance is also unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the utility of COVID-19 vaccine and vaccine excipient skin testing in both patients with an allergic reaction to their first messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccine dose and patients with a history of polyethylene glycol allergy who have not yet received a COVID-19 vaccine dose. METHODS: In this multicenter, retrospective review, COVID-19 vaccine and vaccine excipient skin testing was performed in patients referred to 1 of 3 large tertiary academic institutions. Patient medical records were reviewed after skin testing to determine subsequent COVID-19 vaccine tolerance. RESULTS: A total of 129 patients underwent skin testing, in whom 12 patients (9.3%) had positive results. There were 101 patients who received a COVID-19 vaccine after the skin testing, which was tolerated in 90 patients (89.1%) with no allergic symptoms, including 5 of 6 patients with positive skin testing results who received a COVID-19 vaccine after the skin testing. The remaining 11 patients experienced minor allergic symptoms after COVID-19 vaccination, none of whom required treatment beyond antihistamines. CONCLUSION: The low positivity rate of COVID-19 vaccine excipient skin testing and high rate of subsequent COVID-19 vaccine tolerance suggest a low utility of this method in evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine hypersensitivity reactions. Focus should shift to the use of existing vaccine allergy practice parameters, with consideration of graded dosing when necessary. On the basis of these results, strict avoidance of subsequent COVID-19 vaccination should be discouraged.

Outcomes among patients with COVID-19 and asthma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: It remains unclear if asthma is a risk factor associated with worse outcomes among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: We performed a comprehensive database search for studies published from January 1, 2019, to October 2, 2020. We included studies that evaluated outcomes among patients with COVID-19 and underlying asthma. Outcomes of interest included the need for hospitalization, length of hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and death. The meta-analysis was conducted by using random-effects methodology. Results: A total of 389 studies were identified through data base searches. After abstract and full-text screening, 16 observational studies with 92,275 patients were included in the analysis. Of the 16 studies, 15 were retrospective and 1 was a prospective cohort study. The average age was 39.6 years, with 48% female patients. Six of the studies included pediatric patients, and one of these studies only evaluated pediatric patients. One study only evaluated pregnant patients. Among patients with COVID-19, the presence of asthma was not associated with any significant increase in risk of hospitalization (odds ratio [OR] 1.46 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.29-7.28]), length of hospitalization (1.59 days [-0.55 to 3.74]), ICU admission (OR 1.65 [95% CI, 0.56-4.17]), or death (OR 0.73 [95% CI, 0.38-1.40]). The overall risk of bias of the included studies was high. Conclusion: Among the patients with COVID-19, asthma did not seem to significantly increase the risk of hospitalization, length of hospitalization, ICU admission, or death.

EVALI: A Mimicker of COVID-19.

E-cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury (EVALI) is a respiratory illness that has significant overlap with the symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In the current pandemic, diagnosis of EVALI may be delayed because of anchoring bias when patients present with symptoms consistent with COVID-19. We present 3 cases of patients who were hospitalized with a presumed diagnosis of COVID-19 but were later diagnosed with EVALI.

Considerations for asthma management and viral transmission in the era of COVID-19.

Background: As the global COVID-19 pandemic has unfolded, there has been much debate surrounding the optimal management of patients with asthma who are at risk of or contract COVID-19, whether asthma and steroids are risk factors for severe COVID-19, and how transmissible the virus is among children. Objective: The objective of this study is to provide allergists and other clinicians with pearls pertaining to the management of patients with asthma in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic and to provide some information regarding the risk of transmission among the pediatric population. Methods: Utilizing the case of one of our own patients with asthma who developed COVID-19 as context, we review the recent literature discussing the risk of COVID-19 in patients with asthma, the management of asthma medications in the time of the pandemic, and the risk of viral transmission. Results: Despite initial reports that asthma was a risk factor for developing severe COVID-19, subsequent investigation has shown that this is likely not true. Additionally, the use of systemic or inhaled glucocorticoids does not appear to increase the risk of severe COVID-19, but there is no evidence guiding the use of biologic therapy. There is conflicting evidence regarding the ability of children to transmit the virus. Conclusion: We provide pearls that asthma does not appear to be associated with an increased risk of COVID-19 and continued use of inhaled corticosteroids appears to be safe. While there is no evidence guiding the use of biologic therapies, a recent position paper suggests that they should be continued unless a patient contracts COVID-19, at which point they should be held until clinical recovery occurs.