Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Add filters

Document Type
Year range
Allergy: European Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology ; 76(SUPPL 110):484-485, 2021.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1570404


Background: COVID-19 vaccines are being administered all over the world, but information is lacking about the frequency and type of allergic reactions associated to these new vaccines. Method: Retrospective study of health care professionals (HCP) from our hospital who received COVID 19 vaccine Comirnaty, between 29/12/2020 and 20/2/2021. We reviewed clinical data, particularly the immediate reactions after the administration (<6h), skin tests (ST) and graded vaccine administration. Following national guidelines, all HCP with previous history of food, drug or hymenoptera venom allergy or idiopathic anaphylaxis (IA) were first evaluated by an allergist. Vaccination was postponed if HCP had previous history of IA and/or recurrent anaphylaxis (RA), severe allergic reactions to vaccines and mast cell activation syndromes. ST to the vaccine (prick and intradermal) were performed in HCP with IA and/ or RA, severe allergic reactions to vaccines and HCP with immediate reactions to the 1st dose. Graded administration of the vaccine (0.1+0.2cc after 30') was performed in the postponed HCP and the ones with immediate reactions to the 1st dose. Results: From 3073 HCP who received the vaccine, 74.2% were female, mean age 40.2 years-old ± 13.4, 316 (10.3%) were evaluated by an allergist and 4 (1.3%) postponed the administration and performed allergy investigation. 2955 HCP (97%) were able to receive the 2 doses of the vaccine. 118 employees received only one dose: 98 had COVID-19 meanwhile, 7 got pregnant, 13 due to other conditions. Adverse reactions to the vaccine with possible hypersensitivity mechanisms, occurred in 17 (0.6%) HCP, 12 on the 1st dose and 5 on the 2nd dose. Observed reactions were 6 (0.2%) urticaria, 5 (0.16%) pruritus with or without flushing, 2 (0.07%) anaphylaxis (mild), 2 (0.07%) flushing and hoarseness, 1 (0.03%) flushing and nausea and 1 (0.03%) asthma exacerbation. ST with the vaccine were performed in 4 HCP, all negative in the immediate reading and 1 positive in non-immediate reading. 7 HCP undertook the graded administration with the vaccine: 6 tolerated, but one reproduced the immediate urticaria with 0.1cc of the vaccine (0.03% vaccine allergy). Conclusion: In the evaluated sample, suspicious allergic reactions to COVID19 vaccine Commirnaty were rare and allergy was only confirmed in one HCP. The allergist initial evaluation was essential for a safe risk stratification and permitted the non-exclusion of a considerable number of HCP from the vaccination program.

Allergy: European Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology ; 76(SUPPL 110):465-466, 2021.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1570398


Background: Dupilumab has been recently approved for treatment in patients with severe AD in Portugal-until now there is no published data regarding Portuguese experience in Allergy centers. Method: Cross sectional clinical and laboratory assessment of 33 patients (pts) with moderate to severe AD treated with dupilumab (dupi) for at least 16 weeks (W): prospective evaluation of severity scores (SCORAD-Scoring Atopic Dermatitis, EASI-Eczema Area and Severity Index, P-VAS-Pruritus Visual Analogic Scale), report of adverse events up to 52 weeks of treatment. SCORAD and EASI were assessed in 23 pts at W52, P-VAS in 21 pts at W52. Results: Of the 33 pts, 18 were female (55%) with a mean age (SD, range) of 35.3 years (13.2, 15-60). In 16 pts the age of onset was before 2 years old, mean (SD) disease duration 28.1 years (12);94% patients had a diffuse pattern of skin lesions;97% of pts had allergic rhinitis, 82% asthma, 52% conjunctivitis and 30% food allergy. Median total IgE at baseline was of 6313 U/ml (P25-P75: 2842-12491) with a 76% reduction at W52 in 16 pts. Median eosinophil count at baseline was 520 eosinophils/mm3 (P25-P75: 270-740). Before starting dupi 29 pts had been treated with cyclosporine. At the beginning, 15 pts were under oral corticosteroids, 14 under oral systemic immunosuppressive drugs (all pts but two stopped both until W12 of dupi) and 5 switched from omalizumab. At baseline, median SCORAD and EASI were 69.3 and 24.2 points. At W16, W36 and W52, median SCORAD was 27.4, 22.3 and 21.5, and median EASI 5.3, 4.1 and 2.1. At W16, the EASI-50, EASI-75 and EASI-90 were achieved by 91%, 61% and 18% pts, and at W52, by 87%, 70% and 52% pts. The mean percentage of SCORAD reduction at W16 and W52 was 55% and 73%;and of EASI was 76% and 82%. At W16 and W52, an improvement of ≥4 points in P-VAS was achieved by 77% and 95% pts. There was a mean reduction of P-VAS at W2, W4, W16 and W52 of 2.6;3.6;4.7 and 6.3 points, respectively. Conjunctivitis was reported in 10 (30%) pts, two of them with keratoconjunctivitis and blepharitis, without needing to interrupt treatment;two pts also had facial erythema. One patient had COVID, and dupilumab scheme treatment was maintained. Conclusion: The majority of AD patients had a significant and consistent improvement in all the severity scores, after one year of treatment with dupilumab. No relevant adverse events were reported.