Updated Guidance Regarding The Risk ofAllergic Reactions to COVID-19 Vaccines and Recommended Evaluation and Management: A GRADE Assessment, and International Consensus Approach.

This guidance updates 2021 GRADE recomendations regarding immediate allergic reactions following COVID-19 vaccines and addresses re-vaccinating individuals with 1st dose allergic reactions and allergy testing to determine re-vaccination outcomes. Recent meta-analyses assessed the incidence of severe allergic reactions to initial COVID-19 vaccination, risk of mRNA-COVID-19 re-vaccination after an initial reaction, and diagnostic accuracy of COVID-19 vaccine and vaccine excipient testing in predicting reactions. GRADE methods informed rating the certainty of evidence and strength of recommenations. A modified Delphi panel consisting of experts in allergy, anaphylaxis, vaccinology, infectious diseases, emergency medicine, and primary care from Australia, Canada, Europe, Japan, South Africa, the UK, and the US formed the recommendations. We recommend vaccination for persons without COVID-19 vaccine excipient allergy, and re-vaccination after a prior immediate allergic reaction. We suggest against >15-minute post-vaccination observation. We recommend against mRNA vaccine or excipient skin testing to predict outcomes. We suggest re-vaccination of persons with an immediate allergic reaction to the mRNA vaccine or excipients be performed by a person with vaccine allergy expertise, in a properly equipped setting. We suggest against pre-medication, split-dosing, or special precautions because of a comorbid allergic history.

Diagnostic accuracy of vaccine and vaccine excipient testing in the setting of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

For persons with immediate allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, skin testing (ST) to the vaccine/excipients (polyethylene glycol[PEG] and polysorbate 80 [PS]) has been recommended, but has unknown accuracy. To assess vaccine/excipient ST accuracy in predicting all-severity immediate allergic reactions upon re-vaccination, systematic review was performed searching Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the WHO global coronavirus database (inception-Oct 4, 2021) for studies addressing immediate (≤4 h post-vaccination) all-severity allergic reactions to 2nd mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in persons with 1st dose immediate allergic reactions. Cases evaluating delayed reactions, change of vaccine platform, or revaccination without vaccine/excipient ST were excluded. Meta-analysis of diagnostic testing accuracy was performed using Bayesian methods. The GRADE approach evaluated certainty of the evidence, and QUADAS-2 assessed risk of bias. Among 20 studies of mRNA COVID-19 first dose vaccine reactions, 317 individuals underwent 578 ST to any one or combination of vaccine, PEG, or PS, and were re-vaccinated with the same vaccine. Test sensitivity for either mRNA vaccine was 0.2 (95%CrI 0.01-0.52) and specificity 0.97 (95%CrI 0.9-1). PEG test sensitivity was 0.02 (95%CrI 0.00-0.07) and specificity 0.99 (95%CrI 0.96-1). PS test sensitivity was 0.03 (95%CrI 0.00-0.0.11) and specificity 0.97 (95%CrI 0.91-1). Combined for use of any of the 3 testing agents, sensitivity was 0.03 (95%CrI 0.00-0.08) and specificity was 0.98 (95%CrI 0.95-1.00). Certainty of evidence was moderate. ST has low sensitivity but high specificity in predicting all-severity repeat immediate allergic reactions to the same agent, among persons with 1st dose immediate allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. mRNA COVID-19 vaccine or excipient ST has limited risk assessment utility.

Value-Based, Cost-Effective Care: The Role of the Allergist-Immunologist.

Asthma and allergic disease impact millions of patients and are associated with high costs. Up to 30% of all medical care involves wasted spending. Across the spectrum of care provided by the allergist-immunologist, there are opportunities to improve value and reduce medical waste. Several examples highlight this reality. Evidence suggests that most patients may receive cost-effective care in the management of chronic spontaneous urticaria without the need for laboratory testing. For patients with asthma, although a single maintenance and reliever therapy approach may be cost-effective, insurance-mandated therapy changes are not, and may harm patients. Biologics may be very effective in improving asthma control but are too expensive for this indication-as demonstrated by cost-effectiveness analyses and highlighted by the Institute of Clinical and Economic Review, which concluded that the value-based price for asthma biologics ranges between $6500 and 14,3000 per year. Early introduction may prevent food allergy, but screening before first introduction is neither necessary nor cost-effective, although early salvage food oral immunotherapy may result in improved quality of life and cost savings. Evidence does not support the presence of allergic disease as a risk factor for anaphylaxis to coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination, and risk-stratified vaccination approaches do not appear cost-effective. Allergen immunotherapy is a very cost-effective treatment option. The practice of allergy-immunology has continued to evolve in recent years and can provide a leading example of high-value practice.

COVID-19 and the importance of effective risk communication with children.

During the current COVID-19 pandemic, effective risk communication is essential to mitigate the mental health impact on children and their families. Effective risk communication involves being honest but yet reassuring, framing issues in an actionable way, and modeling realistically reassuring communication among adults. Health care providers may discuss with families principles of modeling good media consumption habits to mitigate misinformation on social media. In addition, health numeracy and health literacy need to be integrated into proper risk communication.

Risk of Second Allergic Reaction to SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

IMPORTANCE: Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 is a highly effective strategy to prevent infection and severe COVID-19 outcomes. The best strategy for a second dose of vaccine among persons who had an immediate allergic reaction to their first SARS CoV-2 vaccination is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To assess the risk of severe immediate allergic reactions (eg, anaphylaxis) to a second dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine among persons with immediate allergic reactions to their first vaccine dose. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and the World Health Organization Global Coronavirus database were searched from inception through October 4, 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Included studies addressed immediate allergic reactions of any severity to a second SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose in persons with a known or suspected immediate allergic reaction (<4 hours after vaccination) after their first SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose. Studies describing a second vaccine dose among persons reporting delayed reactions (>4 hours after vaccination) were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Paired reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects models were used for meta-analysis. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach evaluated certainty of the evidence. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Risk of severe immediate allergic reaction and repeated severe immediate allergic reactions with a second vaccine dose. Reaction severity was defined by the reporting investigator, using Brighton Collaboration Criteria, Ring and Messmer criteria, World Allergy Organization criteria, or National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases criteria. RESULTS: Among 22 studies of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines, 1366 individuals (87.8% women; mean age, 46.1 years) had immediate allergic reactions to their first vaccination. Analysis using the pooled random-effects model found that 6 patients developed severe immediate allergic reactions after their second vaccination (absolute risk, 0.16% [95% CI, 0.01%-2.94%]), 232 developed mild symptoms (13.65% [95% CI, 7.76%-22.9%]), and, conversely, 1360 tolerated the dose (99.84% [95% CI, 97.09%-99.99%]). Among 78 persons with severe immediate allergic reactions to their first SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination, 4 people (4.94% [95% CI, 0.93%-22.28%]) had a second severe immediate reaction, and 15 had nonsevere symptoms (9.54% [95% CI, 2.18%-33.34%]). There were no deaths. Graded vaccine dosing, skin testing, and premedication as risk-stratification strategies did not alter the findings. Certainty of evidence was moderate for those with any allergic reaction to the first dose and low for those with severe allergic reactions to the first dose. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this systematic review and meta-analysis of case studies and case reports, the risk of immediate allergic reactions and severe immediate reactions or anaphylaxis associated with a second dose of an SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine was low among persons who experienced an immediate allergic reaction to their first dose. These findings suggest that revaccination of individuals with an immediate allergic reaction to a first SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine dose in a supervised setting equipped to manage severe allergic reactions can be safe.

The Revenge of Unintended Consequences of Anaphylaxis-Risk Overdiagnosis: How Far We Have Come and How Far We Have to Go.

Overdiagnosis of anaphylaxis risk is an underappreciated aspect of anaphylaxis prevention. Whereas the benefits of anaphylaxis-risk prevention are well known, potential harms resulting from preemptive approaches to mitigate anaphylaxis-risk are not insignificant. Still, great progress has been made in recent years to avoid the unintended consequences of anaphylaxis-risk overdiagnosis. Reflection on recent advances in the use of diagnostic testing, as well as the application of diagnostic labels, provides an important perspective to understand how far the specialty of allergy and immunology has come in improving the lives of patients and families. Examples of recent paradigm shifts in anaphylaxis-risk management include approaches to peanut allergy prevention without screening, deferral of corticosteroids to prevent biphasic anaphylaxis reactions, reevaluation of reflex use of emergency medical services for resolved community anaphylaxis, and an approach to penicillin allergy delabeling with direct oral challenge. Routine medical practices to decrease anaphylaxis risk can have lifelong impacts for patients-beyond just preventing anaphylaxis. As our understanding of these trade-offs evolves, it becomes necessary to weigh both the benefits and the harms of past management approaches. Because medicine remains a science of uncertainty and an art of probability, a critical approach to risk mitigation remains necessary to find the often-elusive balance in anaphylaxis prevention.

The COVID-19 pandemic: Adverse effects on the social determinants of health in children and families.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the impact of social determinants on the experience of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic within the pediatric population, how this impact may influence the long-term health and security of children, and what measures can be taken to ameliorate this impact moving forward. DATA SOURCES: Nonsystematic review of relevant literature and news sources. STUDY SELECTIONS: Relevant literature and news sources. RESULTS: There have been increases in housing insecurity and food insecurity during the pandemic, including global increases in poverty. Public policies such as school closures have had a disproportionate impact on those facing adverse social determinants. There has been a dramatic increase in reports of abuse-related injuries and other injuries indicative of child abuse during the pandemic. In addition, there are disproportionate impacts of COVID-19 based on race and ethnicity within the United States. It is clear that children are facing more adverse determinants as a result of this pandemic and that there are both short-term and long-term implications associated. For those living in poverty or with other adverse social determinants of health, the pandemic has made a bad situation worse. Ongoing studies are required to measure the impact of COVID-19 on those with adverse social determinants, in particular among children. CONCLUSION: Social determinants of health must be part of pandemic research priorities, public health and vaccination goals, and economic policy implementation. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has further served to shed a light on the broad disparities that exist within our society and their direct and indirect impacts on health outcomes.

The Risk of Allergic Reaction to SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines and Recommended Evaluation and Management: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, GRADE Assessment, and International Consensus Approach.

Concerns for anaphylaxis may hamper severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) immunization efforts. We convened a multidisciplinary group of international experts in anaphylaxis composed of allergy, infectious disease, emergency medicine, and front-line clinicians to systematically develop recommendations regarding SARS-CoV-2 vaccine immediate allergic reactions. Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, the World Health Organizstion (WHO) global coronavirus database, and the gray literature (inception, March 19, 2021) were systematically searched. Paired reviewers independently selected studies addressing anaphylaxis after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, polyethylene glycol (PEG) and polysorbate allergy, and accuracy of allergy testing for SARS-CoV-2 vaccine allergy. Random effects models synthesized the data to inform recommendations based on the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, agreed upon using a modified Delphi panel. The incidence of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine anaphylaxis is 7.91 cases per million (n = 41,000,000 vaccinations; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 4.02-15.59; 26 studies, moderate certainty), the incidence of 0.15 cases per million patient-years (95% CI 0.11-0.2), and the sensitivity for PEG skin testing is poor, although specificity is high (15 studies, very low certainty). We recommend vaccination over either no vaccination or performing SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/excipient screening allergy testing for individuals without history of a severe allergic reaction to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/excipient, and a shared decision-making paradigm in consultation with an allergy specialist for individuals with a history of a severe allergic reaction to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/excipient. We recommend further research to clarify SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/vaccine excipient testing utility in individuals potentially allergic to SARS-CoV2 vaccines or their excipients.

Primary care provider-reported prevalence of vaccine and polyethylene glycol allergy in Canada.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has highlighted the importance of accurate capture of vaccine, and vaccine component, allergy. There remains a gap in the prevalence literature from the perspective of direct primary care provider (PCP) reporting at a population level. OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of PCP-documented vaccine and polyethylene glycol (PEG) allergy using electronic medical record data from the Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study using the Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network repository. Machine learning algorithms were applied to evaluate for vaccine allergy documentation, and Anatomic Therapeutic Chemical codes were used for PEG allergy or allergy to common injectable medications containing PEG (CIMCP). RESULTS: The prevalence of PCP-documented vaccine allergy in Canada was 0.037% (395/1,055,677) and of PEG allergy was 0.0009% (10/1,055,677). In total, 0.01% of patients had a documented allergy to either PEG or CIMCP (135/1,055,677). None of the patients with PEG allergy had a documented allergy to a CIMCP. Patients with vaccine allergy and PEG allergy were significantly more likely to have other atopic comorbidities, including asthma (P < .001 for both), eczema (P < .001 and P = .001, respectively), rhinitis (P = .002 and P < .001, respectively), and food allergy (P < .001 for both). Significantly higher rates of depression (P < .001 and P < .001, respectively) and anxiety (P = .003 and P < .001, respectively) were found in those with vaccine allergy, or PEG allergy, than those without vaccine allergy or PEG allergy. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to estimate the prevalence of vaccine and PEG allergy in a national cohort that uses PCP documentation, revealing a low reported rate of vaccine allergy and PEG allergy.

The Importance of a Timely Second Dose of the 2021 COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Depends on the Protection Afforded by a First Dose and Subsequent Risk of Anaphylaxis.

Vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) represents our greatest hope to combat the devastating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Amid ongoing global vaccination efforts, rare cases of severe allergic reactions to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines have received significant attention. Although the exact nature of these reactions may be heterogeneous, various approaches exist to engage with patients, communities, public health departments, primary care providers, and other clinicians in a multidisciplinary approach to advance population health. Whereas it is optimal for patients to receive COVID-19 vaccination as outlined in emergency use authorizations, second-dose deferral of mRNA vaccines may be a consideration within a shared decision-making paradigm of care in select circumstances characterized by high durable first-vaccine-dose protection and significant elevations of vaccine anaphylaxis risk. Still, the durability of protection afforded by a single dose of a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine is uncertain, and alternative approaches to complete vaccination, including precautionary use of a COVID-19 viral vector vaccine, also remain patient-preference-sensitive options. There is an urgent need to define correlates of COVID-19 immunity and the level of longer-term protection afforded by COVID-19 vaccination.

School Attendance, Asthma Risk, and COVID-19 in Children.

In the face of tremendous uncertainty during the current pandemic, there is a need for clear and consistent recommendations and an understanding of the evidence in general, and for families of children with allergic conditions. A common concern of parents of children with asthma is the risk that in-person learning poses during the pandemic. This Rostrum examines the actual risk of in-person learning among children with asthma during novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the discrepancy between perceived and actual risk, the contributing factors to this discrepancy, and possible solutions to narrow this divide. Overall, the evidence does not support that children with asthma are at an increased risk of COVID-19 morbidity or mortality compared with children without asthma. Asthma medications do not appear to contribute to incidence or severity of COVID-19 disease. However, there is a high perceived risk of in-person learning that is partially related to how it is portrayed in the media. There is little guidance regarding transitioning asthmatic children back to school and how to properly counsel on mediation of risk. There are differences regionally and locally around school reopening, exemptions, and their implementation. To narrow the divide between perceived and actual risk, clear consistent and ongoing communication will be necessary.

A Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation of Hospitalizations, Fatalities, and Economic Outcomes Associated with Universal Versus Anaphylaxis Risk-Stratified COVID-19 Vaccination Strategies.

BACKGROUND: Vaccine-associated anaphylaxis is a rare event (1.34 events/million doses; 0.00017% occurrence over 26 years). Several reports of allergic reactions concerning for anaphylaxis have been reported early into the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine campaign in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. OBJECTIVE: To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis characterizing the risks of COVID-19 versus vaccine anaphylaxis, comparing universal COVID-19 vaccination versus risk-stratified vaccination approaches. METHODS: Cohort analysis models were created to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of universal vaccination versus risk-stratified vaccination (eg, contraindicated in persons with a history of any previous episode of anaphylaxis) with a threshold for cost-effective care at $10,000,000 per death prevented. In the base case, risk of anaphylaxis was estimated at 0.1%, with case-fatality estimated at 0.3%. RESULTS: On a population level (n = 300,000,000 simulated persons), universal vaccination was associated with a cost-savings of $503,596,316 and saved 7,607 lives, but the cost-savings was sensitive to increasing rates of vaccine-associated anaphylaxis. The universal strategy dominated at higher rates of COVID-19 infection and low rates of vaccine-associated anaphylaxis in both the health care and societal perspectives. When the risk of vaccine-associated anaphylaxis exceeded 0.8%, the risk-stratified approach to vaccination was the most cost-effective strategy. There was also an interaction between anaphylaxis risk and anaphylaxis fatality, with a risk-stratified approach becoming cost-effective as each risk increased concurrently. Stratified observation time by anaphylaxis history (15 minutes vs 30 minutes) was not cost-effective until a 1% anaphylaxis case-fatality was assumed and risk of vaccine anaphylaxis exceeded 6%. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that unless vaccine anaphylaxis rates exceed 0.8%, a universal vaccination approach dominates a risk-stratified approach where persons with any history of anaphylaxis would be contraindicated from vaccination, with lower cost and superior health outcomes.