ABSTRACT
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a global pandemic. It is urgent to find treatments to control the infection and improve symptoms. Homologous modeling and clinical analyses suggest that histamine receptor antagonists have broad prospects in the treatment of COVID-19. This article introduces the research progress of histamine H1 receptor antagonist combined with azithromycin, histamine H2 receptor antagonist famotidine alone or combined with aspirin, and histamine H1 and H2 receptor antagonists used in combination in the treatment of COVID-19. Finally, the possible mechanism of histamine receptor antagonists in the treatment of COVID-19 was introduced and the application prospect of histamine receptor antagonists in the treatment of COVID-19 was analyzed.Copyright © 2022, Second Military Medical University Press. All rights reserved.
ABSTRACT
Objectives: Potential cutaneous adverse drug reactions (cADRs) associated with COVID-19 vaccinations are well-known. However, comprehensive evaluation including detailed patient characteristics, vaccine types, signs and symptoms, treatments and outcomes from such cADRs are still lacking in Taiwan. Method(s): A cross-sectional study was conducted from December 2019 to October 2022 to analyze spontaneous ADR reporting data from Taiwan's largest multi-institutional healthcare system. Physicians and pharmacists initially ensured the data quality and completeness of the reported ADR records. Subsequently, we applied descriptive statistics to analyze the patient cohort based on demographic characteristics, administered COVID-19 vaccines, clinical manifestations, and patient management. Result(s): We identified 242 cADRs from 759 reported COVID-19 vaccine-related ADRs, 88.3% of which were judged as "possible" using the Naranjo Scale. The mean age of patients with cADRs was 48.1+/-17.5 years, with the majority (44.2%) of cADRs reported in the 40-64yr old age group. cADRs were more common in women (68.2%) and most of the patients had no history of allergy to vaccines (99.6%). Oxford/AstraZeneca (58.6%) accounted for the most reported brand of COVID-19 vaccines. Patients developed cADRs within 1 to 198 days (median = 5.5 days), and mostly after first-dose vaccination (77.8%). The most frequently reported cADR was rash/eruption (18.7%), followed by itchiness/pruritus (11.7%) and urticaria (9.2%), mainly affecting the lower limbs (23.8%) and upper limbs (22.6%). Medications were prescribed for 65.1% of the cADRs, and signs and symptoms were resolved within 1 to 167 days (median = 7 days) after treatment with oral antihistamines (23.0%), topical corticosteroids (14.6%) or oral corticosteroids (14.4%). Conclusion(s): Our findings provide comprehensive details regarding COVID-19 vaccine-related cADRs in Taiwan. Certain groups, especially women and the middle-aged, who reported a relatively higher rate of cADRs, may benefit from pre-vaccination counseling about the risks of cADRs and the use of appropriate medications.Copyright © 2023
ABSTRACT
Introduction: Mastocytosis encompasses a heterogeneous group of diseases characterized by an accumulation of clonal mast cells (MC) in the skin and/or internal organs, and symptoms of MC activation. This MC activation can be elucidated by several factors, including infections or vaccination. Objective(s): We present our experience with COVID infection and vaccination in a series of 133 patients with pediatric mastocytosis. Method(s): Between January 1998 and December 2022, 133 pediatric patients have been referred to our hospital owing to clinically suspected MC disorder, mainly with mastocytosis in the skin. The final diagnoses of mastocytosis were established by the presence of typical skin lesions together with an increase of MC numbers in a biopsy from lesional skin or activating KIT mutations in lesional skin tissue. Serum baseline tryptase and total immunoglobulin E levels were measured, and patients underwent a comprehensive allergy workup to confirm atopic status and history of anaphylaxis. Regarding vaccination, REMA's (Spanish Network on Mastocytosis) protocol was followed. Result(s): 13 patients with COVID infection were identified, of which 25 (56,8%) were female and 0% had symptoms of MC activation. All of them had an asymptomatic or mild course of COVID infection. None of the patients experimented MC activation symptoms during viral illness. Regarding COVID vaccination, all patients received premedication with antihistamine 60 minutes prior vaccination. No one experimented immediate reactions and only one patient (0,75%) referred worsening of MC activation symptoms (baseline pruritus, urtication and brain fog) only after the first doses, recovering without changes in his treatment (oral cromoglycate and antihistamine) in two months. Discussion(s): Although MC have been implicated in the pathogenesis of cytokine storm in COVID19, there is no clinical evidence of SARSCoV- 2-induced MC activation, perhaps related to the fact that bone marrow MC lack angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors.
ABSTRACT
Objectives: A 7-month-old boy presented with generalized urticaria since the first week of life, without any other clinical manifestation. Cow's milk allergy was ruled out. His development was normal for his age. Maternal history was significant for COVID-19 infection in the third trimester of pregnancy with mild symptoms. Family history was significant for dermatographism in a maternal uncle. Hives were migratory with no single lesion persisting more than 24 h. There were no recognizable triggers and only relieved for 1-2 days after each vaccination. Patient was treated with optimal doses of antihistamines without improvement. Method(s): Laboratory tests and further studies were performed Results: Laboratory tests were normal including complete blood testing, circulating autoantibodies and infectious studies. C-reactive protein level and erythrocyte sedimentation rate were elevated. Due to chronic urticaria of newborn onset unresponsive to antihistamines a monogenic autoinflammatory disease was suspected. A targeted gene panel covering causative genes revealed the unreported p.Gly307Ala variant in the NLRP3 gene with a variant allele frequency (VAF) of 3% compatible with gene mosaicism. NLRP3 variant was classified as "likely pathogenic" based on its location, where a different variant has been reported as causing a severe form of cryopyrin-associated periodic syndromes (CAPS), and bioinformatic analyses. As expected, the variant was absent in patient's parents supporting for its de novo nature. Vision and hearing exams were normal. Treatment with canakinumab will start soon. Discussion(s): CAPS are dominantly-inherited autoinflammatory diseases caused by gain-of-function NLRP3 variants. These variants are often germline, but in some reported cases the variants are postzygotic causing gene mosaicism as in the patient here described. We believe that the mild presentation in our patient, despite having a likely pathogenic variant, may be explained by the low VAF. The genetic diagnosis in our patient allowed early initiation of anti-IL-1 treatment, which probably will prevent the development of other CAPS manifestations.
ABSTRACT
[ ] The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a global pandemic. It is urgent to find treatments to control the infection and improve symptoms. Homologous modeling and clinical analyses suggest that histamine receptor antagonists have broad prospects in the treatment of COVID-19. This article introduces the research progress of histamine H1 receptor antagonist combined with azithromycin, histamine H2 receptor antagonist famotidine alone or combined with aspirin, and histamine H1 and H2 receptor antagonists used in combination in the treatment of COVID-19. Finally, the possible mechanism of histamine receptor antagonists in the treatment of COVID-19 was introduced and the application prospect of histamine receptor antagonists in the treatment of COVID-19 was analyzed.Copyright © 2022, Second Military Medical University Press. All rights reserved.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: The clinical outcomes of COVID-19 infection in children with cancer have been variable worldwide. Therefore, we aimed to collect data from all regions in India through a national collaborative study and identify factors that cause mortality directly related to COVID-19 infection. Method(s): Data was collected prospectively on children across India on cancer therapy and diagnosed with COVID-19 infections from 47 centers from April 2020 to October 2021. Information was recorded on the demographics, the number of children that required intervention, and the outcome of the infection. In addition, we analyzed the impact of the delta variant in 2021. Result(s): A total of 659 children were studied, of whom 64% were male and 36% were female. The data from the eastern region was sparse, and this was a collection bias. COVID-19 infection was predominantly seen in children less than five years. The delta variant had a higher impact in the southern region, and this was statistically significant. Of the 659 children, 30 children died (4.5%), however only 7 of the deaths were directly attributed to COVID-19 infection (1%). Conclusion(s): The study reports the largest nationally representative cohort of children with cancer and COVID-19 to date in India. We identified demographic and clinical factors associated with increased all-cause mortality in patients with cancer. Complete characterization of the cohort has provided further insights into the effects of COVID-19 on cancer outcomes. The low mortality allows us to recommend that specific cancer treatments be continued without delays in therapy.Copyright © 2022
ABSTRACT
Background: Acute sinusitis is not an uncommon disease that manifests with inflammation of the mucosal lining of the paranasal sinuses. It has varied etiologies including viral, bacterial, fungal, and allergic. Anatomical variations, trauma, auto-immunity, diabetes mellitus, and dental procedures are predisposing factors. With the wide variation in the etiological factors, the management could be tricky. This study is quite relevant with the advent of the relentlessly persisting COVID-19 pandemic which affects the upper respiratory tract as well. Method(s): This is a descriptive hospital-based prospective study conducted at the Khartoum ENT Teaching Hospital, Ibnsina Teaching Hospital, Omdurman Military Hospital, and Omdurman Teaching Hospital in Khartoum State in the period from March 2020 to February 2021. The study included all patients 18 years and older diagnosed with acute sinusitis. The data was collected by a well-structured questionnaire designed to meet the objectives of the study and analyzed using SPSS 20. Any COVID-19 suspect is excluded from the study. Result(s): The total number of patients was 109;of them, 59 (54.1%) were females and 50 (45.9%) were males, and the female to male ratio was 1.18:1. One hundred seven (98.2%) patients received medical treatment and two patients (1.8%) did take the medications. Eighty-one patients (74.3%) were cured with medical treatment and only 28 patients (25.7%) needed surgical intervention. The age group from 25 to 40 years old was the most affected, accounting for 68 patients (62.4%), and the above 60 years old (3.7%) was the least affected group. Conclusion(s): Acute sinusitis is not an uncommon disease, if addressed properly and timely is medically treatable in most cases apart from complicated cases. This study shows that the active working ages (25-40) were the most affected. Few patients needed surgery (FESS). Negligence could result in complications. Diseases like COVID-19 affect the upper respiratory tract, and there is a similarity in symptoms, and in the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic nowadays, differentiation is of paramount importance.Copyright © 2022, The Author(s).
ABSTRACT
Background: Urticarial reactions following Covid-19 vaccine were rarely reported and have a short self-limited resolution. However only one case of chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) after mRNA vaccine was observed (1). Herein, we describe an original case series of patients who exhibited a CSU after Sars-Cov- 2 vaccination. Method(s): It was a retrospective case series of patients referred to the department of Clinical pharmacology of the University of Monastir for exploration of urticaria after Covid-19 vaccination., between January 2021 and January 2022. Result(s): Eight patients (8 F /5M) were included in this study. The median patient age was 36.5 years. None of them had a medical history of CSU. Urticaria was reported in 4 patients following mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2 and Moderna). Viral vector vaccine (Oxford/ AstraZeneca) was offended in 2 cases and inactivated virus vaccine (Sinovac, CoronaVac) was reported in 2 others cases. The mean time interval between vaccination and the onset of urticaria was 28.5 hours. The first shot of vaccine was the mostly offended dose (n = 6). Urticaria was associated with angioedema in 5 patients after Oxford/AstraZenecavaccine (n = 2) and following mRNA vaccine (n = 2). One case of urticaria was associated with angioedema and dyspnea after the CoronaVac administration. Blood tests showed polynuclear leucocytosis in 37% of patients. Positive anti-thyroperoxidase antibodies, and elevated polyclonal hypergammaglobulinemia were present in one patient 3 months after receiving BNT162b2 vaccine. Total serum IgE were high in 25% of patients following BNT162b2 and CoronaVac. All patients required antihistamines and 4 cases required intravenous betametasone. The median time to symptom resolution was 3 days but urticaria rapidly reccured throughout the entire body inspite the regular use of full dose of antihistamine. Intradermal test for the vaccine excipient as well as the offended Covid-19 vaccine was carried out in 5 patients, and were negative in all of them.Currently, all patients still has the pruritic rash daily. Conclusion(s): These cutaneous reactions seem to be particularly prolonged despite the use of symptomatic drugs, as compared with of drug induced-urticaria. Consequently, careful monitoring of urticaria over an extended period of time is needed.
ABSTRACT
Background: Anaphylaxis reports after Covid-19 vaccination caused concerns regarding adverse effects. Many allergic patients demanded assurances by their allergists. Online Medical Consultations (OMC) are a communication tool between Primary Care and Allergy Department in Navarre. We assessed the impact of allergists' advice regarding Covid-19 vaccination in allergic patients, defined by vaccination status after OMC, and compared reported allergy severity between vaccinated and non-vaccinated. Method(s): Retrospective review of Allergy OMC and vaccination records of patients attended between 2020th September and 2021th August. We screened Covid-19 related OMC and selected those related with possible contraindications/specific recommendations before vaccination (BV).We analysed demographics, vaccination status, allergic diseases (green: non-anaphylactic allergy;yellow: anaphylaxis/ severe drug allergy;red: severe allergy to Covid-19 vaccine or related drug/excipients;blue: non-immunologic symptoms) and OMC replies (contraindication or other recommendations) Results: We received 1438 OMC, 422 due to Covid-19 vaccine and analysed 302 (71.6%), concerning BV. Demographics: Age (median, P25-P75) 61 (46.7-72.25) years. Sex: Female 221 (73.2%);Male 81 (26.8%). Vaccination: 275 (91.1%) completed vaccination (CV) (2 doses), 11 (3.6%) received 1 (IC) and 16 patients (5.3%) none (NC). Specific preparations were contraindicated in 28 (9.4%) (Pfizer-Biontech : 17, Astra-Zeneca 3 and Moderna: 8 cases). Recommendations: 30-minute observation 18.2%;45-minute observation 14.6%;antihistamines 2.6%;time interval with other injectables 1%;alternative vaccine 2.3%;other modifications 1%;premedication and observation period (2.3%). Ten patients (3.3%) required another OMC after adverse events during vaccination. Allergy severity was different according to sex (Male: green 59.2%, yellow 38.2%, red 0%;blue 2.46%;Female: green: 60.2%, yellow 31.8%, red 9.9%, blue: 4.5% (p = 0.025)). Comparison of allergies between groups: CV (Green: 60.7%, yellow: 33.4%, red: 2.9%, blue: 1%);IC (Green: 27%;yellow: 63.6% red: 0%, blue: 9%);NC (Green: 68.75%, yellow: 12.5%, red: 0%, blue: 18.75% (p = 0.03)) Conclusion(s): Adherence to OMC recommendations has been excellent in these patients. Differences in the number of OMC according to sex appear related to previous allergy diagnosis. Observed differences in past allergic diseases according to vaccination status are not related to real contraindications.
ABSTRACT
Case report Background: Association of chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) with malignancies and worsening of urticaria during COVID-19 have been reported. The efficacy of treatment of CSU with omalizumab in the context of malignancies or COVID-19 is not well established. Method(s): Case report of a patient followed for 9 years with CSU. Data collected from Medical Records and interviews during consultations. Result(s): Female, 29 years-old, came to clinic in 2013 for investigation, diagnosed with CSU. She also presented mild asthma, allergic rhinitis and history of urticaria after taking amoxicillin. She had a positive autologous serum skin test, and positive skin tests to dust mite, cat, cockroach, peanut and milk. Her total IgE was 227IU/ mL. Anti-nuclear and anti-thyroid antibodies were negative;ERS 13mm, blood eosinophils 300/mm3, and stool exam negative for parasites. She showed no response to second generation antihistamines up to fourfold doses, with UCT < 6 and CU-QoL = 89. After 6 months, omalizumab was added at 300 mg subcutaneously, every 4 weeks. The patient showed immediate reactions after the two applications of omalizumab: first, diffuse pruritus and throat tightness;second, worsening of urticaria and pruritus, requiring iv medications. Treatment with omalizumab was stopped, she was kept on fourfold dose of bilastine with partial control of symptoms. In 2016, she presented worsening of urticaria (UCT = 1), weight loss of 6kg/2 months, daily fever and enlarged cervical lymph nodes, and was diagnosed with diffuse large B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Following chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone and rituximab, she presented complete resolution of urticaria. Two years after remission of the lymphoma, in 2019, she presented recurrence of urticaria, and treatment with fourfold dose of bilastine was reinitiated with control of symptoms (UCT = 16). Investigation ruled out recurrence of lymphoma. In May 2021, she was diagnosed with SARS-CoV- 2 infection. Symptoms of COVID-19 were runny nose and low grade fever, however urticaria got worse and no longer responsive to bilastine. Treatment with omalizumab was attempted, with no reactions and good efficacy after the first dose, with an UCT = 15, and urticaria remains controlled on treatment with omalizumab to present. Conclusion(s): In this report, we highlight the efficacy and safety of using omalizumab in a patient with refractory CSU associated with neoplasia and SARS-CoV- 2 infection.
ABSTRACT
Background: Since the introduction of COVID-19 vaccines, many reports have focused on adverse reactions. However, there is no global agreement on how to manage those patients. We aim to assess the management of adverse reactions by an immunoallergology department and its outcomes. Method(s): Retrospective analysis of the patients sent to our centre from January to October 2021 for adverse reactions to a COVID-19 vaccine, and who were considered ineligible for a 2nd dose by general practitioners. We collected data on the reported reactions, allergological study and outcomes. Result(s): 123 patients with adverse reactions were included (77% women, n = 95), mean age 55 years-old (min 12;max 92). Pfizer/ BioNTech Vaccine was inoculated in 64 patients (52%);Moderna in 15 (12%);AstraZeneca in 44 (36%). 65 patients (53%) presented symptoms compatible with allergic reactions: 86% (n = 56) with mucocutaneous symptoms, mainly urticaria-like lesions and/or angioedema;17% (n = 11) with suspected anaphylaxis and 5% (n = 3) with Steven-Johnson Syndrome. 19 patients performed skin testing with: PEG2000 (n = 17);polysorbate 80 (n = 15);COVID-19 vaccines (n = 21). Four patients had at least one positive test. 58 patients (47%) presented with non-allergic reactions. They showed great variability of symptoms. Most mild: 47% reported non-specific symptoms (such as malaise, headache, myalgia, fever, or fatigue) and 26% reported local reactions on the inoculation site. Some severe: 6 with deep vein or pulmonary thrombosis, 4 with myocarditis, 2 with stroke or myocardial infarction, and 1 with VITT. Patients with positive skin tests or severe previous reactions (n = 36, 29%) were referred for an alternative vaccine. Those with suspected allergic reaction but negative skin tests were premedicated with antihistamines before the 2nd dose. Follow-up showed: of the 81 patients (66%) who received an additional dose, 25% (n = 20) reported an adverse reaction, which was mild, and no case of anaphylaxis was reported. 16 (13%) refused a 2nd dose, and for 26 (21%) the information could not be obtained. Conclusion(s): The intervention of an allergologist had a significant positive impact on vaccination rates, with 2/3 of patients being reclassified as eligible for a 2nd dose. Allergological study and intervention identified vaccine-allergic patients and guided the decision on vaccine change and premedication, which resulted in a considerably lower number of adverse reactions to the 2nd dose, or at least its severity.
ABSTRACT
Background: Following the use of COVID-19 vaccines worldwide, few cases of severe allergic reactions were reported. According to recent Portuguese guidelines, patients (pts) with suspected allergy to a COVID-19 vaccine component, history of anaphylaxis following vaccination, idiopathic anaphylaxis and mast cell disorders, should be referenced for Immunoallergology evaluation. Fear of a hypersensitivity reaction, especially among pts with allergic disease, is associated with lower vaccine adherence. This study aimed to evaluate BNT162b2 vaccination outcomes in pediatric pts with suspected severe allergic reactions prior to or after vaccination. Method(s): W e c onducted a p rospective s tudy i ncluding p ediatric pts with high risk of allergy to COVID-19 vaccine referred to Immunoallergology Department of a Tertiary Hospital. Demographic data, primary medical conditions and vaccination status were collected. After a detailed assessment by an allergologist, in selected cases, BNT162b2 vaccine administration in hospital facilities was performed, followed by a 1-hour observation period. Result(s): Twenty-two pts were included (18 males, 13.1+/-2.6years;min 7, max 17;13 atopic), referenced mainly from primary care (9) and other specialties (8). Most of the pts were referenced for the first dose of vaccine (18), due to mastocytosis/tryptasemia (5), previous allergic reaction to another vaccine (4), idiopathic anaphylaxis (3), complex comorbidities (2), drug anaphylaxis (1), parental reluctance (1), other (2). Four pts were evaluated for the second dose of COVID-19 vaccine, due to an acute urticaria after the first BNT162b2 vaccine dose. Three pts were eligible, after our evaluation, for primary care vaccination, that occurred without adverse reactions. Regarding the remaining 19 pts eligible for hospital vaccination, 13 were premedicated with oral antihistamines +/- montelukast. Eleven pts received BNT162b2 vaccine in hospital facilities [first dose (9);second dose (2)] with no reported adverse events. Vaccine administration was postponed in 3 pts due to SARS-CoV- 2 infection and 1 due to parental hesitancy. Conclusion(s): Our data support that allergic reactions to BNT162b2 vaccines are rare, even in the pediatric population with high risk of allergic reactions or with a history of previous severe allergic reactions. The favourable safety profile outcomes, along with the risk reduction of allergic reactions, increase vaccine confidence, broadening community protection.
ABSTRACT
Background: The overall risk for anaphylaxis in mastocytosis is increased compared to the general population and has been reported in up to 49% in some cohorts. Concerns about vaccine safety have necessitated updates to the recommendations, especially in terms of allergic diseases. Method(s): The hospital records of the 7 patients (57% female) who had been diagnosed of either cutaneous or systemic mastocytosis and being followed up in our tertiary center have been reviewed retrospectively. Result(s): Six patients had been vaccinated with Biontech and Sinovac vaccines. One (14%) patient had cutaneous, four (57%) had indolent systemic, and two (29%) had aggressive systemic mastocytosis. Two patients had been premedicated with antihistamine and corticosteroid. While one has had mild reactions after both doses of Sinovac, the other had no reaction after Biontech vaccine. A total of 15 vaccinations were administered to 6 patients, and one (43%) patient with cutaneous mastocytosis has experienced a non-life- threatening reaction after Sinovac vaccine. Conclusion(s): Our results point out that the COVID-19 vaccines in our patients with mastocytosis seem to be safe and they should be encouraged to get vaccinated, and the role of premedication in preventing vaccine reactions is unclear. (Figure Presented).
ABSTRACT
Background: Vaccination plays an essential role in controlling SARS-CoV- 2 pandemics. Due to initial concerns about hypersensitivity reactions (HR) to these new vaccines, our department, in articulation with Primary Healthcare Services (PHS) has developed several strategies to support COVID-19 vaccination. This work aims to describe those strategies and report the results. Method(s): The strategies developed for COVID-19 vaccination, from March to December 2021, included: 1) telephone support for health professionals (TS for HP) from the Vaccination Centres (VC), 2) priority appointments (PA) of patients classified as a higher risk for HR, 3) hospital vaccination of high-risk patients as defined by the national health authority. A retrospective and descriptive analysis of the support activity developed and from the data of patients vaccinated at the hospital in the same period were performed. Result(s): During the considered period, our department screened 1618 patients: 420 (26%) through telephone support for HP (TS for HP) from VC and 1198 (74%) at priority appointments (PA). After TS for HP, community vaccination (CV) was recommended in 87% (n = 364) of cases and a PA was advised in 13% (n = 56). Of the patients evaluated in PA, 80% were recommended CV, with restriction of the vaccine to administer in 28% of them. We always found an option to vaccine all. At the hospital were vaccinated 178 patients, 83% (n = 147) women, median age (P25-75) 61 (46-76) years. Hospital vaccination criteria were: past history of multiple drug HR (n = 93;52%), HR to vaccines (n = 46;26%), HR to the 1st dose of anti-SARS- CoV- 2 vaccine (n = 30;17%), idiopathic anaphylaxis (n = 10;6%) and systemic mastocytosis (n = 2;1%). 15% of patients (n = 26) performed skin tests with vaccines, which were negative in 25 and inconclusive in 1 case. 145 (82%) were first shots, 32 (18%) second shots, and one booster shot. Only one patient had a mild immediate reaction (2nd booster vaccination), promptly treated with antihistamine and corticosteroid. Conclusion(s): The collaboration strategies adopted by our department allowed the vaccination of 1618 patients and avoided vaccination delays in most of the VC contacts. In our sample, hospital vaccination of patients at higher risk for HR was safe.
ABSTRACT
Case report: Chronic urticaria is defined as the presence of urticaria for a period exceeding six weeks. Infections are known as possible triggers for urticaria manifestations, and, as such, SARS-CoV- 2 infection can be recognized as causative. An 8-year- old boy, with a previous history of idiopathic chronic urticaria, came to the Emergency Department for the appearance of generalized urticaria and lips angioedema associated with vomit and shortening of breath normal vital signs by age. Thus, due to the significant reaction, intravenous corticosteroids and antihistamines were promptly administered, with a rapid improvement of symptoms. Since the systemic reaction, the tryptase dosage was performed with the identification of an elevation at the time of the arrival and a complete normalization after the twelfth hour from the beginning of the reaction. Figure 1 shows the kinetic of the tryptase over time. SARS-CoV2 swab was performed before hospitalization and a positive test was identified. To investigate the etiopathogenesis of reaction, the patient was submitted to the extensive clinical, laboratory, and instrumental investigations that revealed only a positive in vitro basophil activation test (BAT) as evidence of functional serum histamine-releasing autoantibodies that are directed against IgE or high-affinity IgE receptors. The viral infection did not need any medication, and the urticaria was resolute in a couple of days. Daily treatment with oral antihistamines was then prescribed, and no further urticarious episodes occurred. A negative SARS-CoV- 2 swab was detected within 12 days of beginning symptoms. Approximately 40% of patients with idiopathic chronic urticaria have circulating antibodies versus IgE epitopes or the IgE receptor, but as it occurs in many autoimmune conditions, the presence of autoantibodies does not necessarily result in a disease phenotype. It is demonstrated that infections can elicit an autoimmune condition, and as our report shows, SARS-CoV2 could explain the reaction observed in our patient. The autoimmune precondition could have been the primer of the systemic reaction, pre-activating the mastocyte degranulation, as the tryptase elevation demonstrated. On the other hand, the SARS-CoV2 virus reducing the ACE2 expression, due to virus endocytosis, could create an imbalance in the RAS system, increasing the bradykinin levels. Bystander activation of pre-activated mastocytes caused by an inflammatory environment could explain the systemic reaction described above.
ABSTRACT
Background: Mastocytosis is a disorder characterized by an accumulation of mast cells in one or more organ systems and increased risk for severe anaphylaxis. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with a relatively high rate of severe lung disease and mortality. During 2020, vaccines against COVID-19 were developed. The reported frequency of severe side effects appears to be low even in patients with severe allergies and mastocytosis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of vaccines against COVID-19 in patients with mastocytosis. Method(s): Retrospective analysis of patients with a diagnosis of mastocytosis who have been vaccinated against COVID-19 in our department, from January to December 2021. Demographic data, history of anaphylactic reactions, COVID-19 vaccines used, premedication with antihistamines and hypersensitivity reactions were reviewed. Result(s): This study included 14 patients (64% (n = 9) were female, median age 51 +/- 18 years). Twelve (86%) patients had indolent systemic mastocytosis and two (14%) had cutaneous mastocytosis. Four (29%) patients had a history of idiopathic anaphylaxis, three (21%) reported anaphylaxis to hymenoptera venoms and one (7%) anaphylaxis to NSAID. The median basal serum tryptase level was 38.9 ng/ml, with a range from 12.7 to 91 ng/ml. Thirteen (93%) patients received an mRNA vaccine, and one adenoviral vector vaccine (7%), 2 doses each (28 administrations in total). None of the patients received premedication with antihistamines before the vaccination. None of the patients presented hypersensitivity reactions after the vaccine against COVID-19. Conclusion(s): As reported in recent studies, vaccination against COVID-19 in adult patients with mastocytosis is safe. Some authors recommend premedication in patients with mastocytosis at high risk for anaphylaxis. In our study, none of the patients received premedication and no hypersensitivity reactions were observed. More studies are needed, but in our sample, as observed for other vaccines, the vaccine against COVID-19 in patients with mastocytosis was safe.
ABSTRACT
Background: Vaccination has proven to be the best viable tool for preventing the spread of SarsCov2 infection. The fear of adverse events represents one of the limits of this vaccination campaign. As Allergists, we had a fundamental role evaluating the allergological risks and performing specific tests. The only absolute contraindication to SARS-CoV- 2 vaccination is hypersensitivity to its components. When an individual is allergic to an indispensable medication, it is possible to resort to desensitization. Given the lack of a standardized scheme, the aim of our study is to propose a desensitization protocol for anti-SARS- CoV- 2 vaccines. Method(s): The desensitization protocol we developed consists in the fractioned administration of the entire vaccine dose into 5 separate injections of increasing quantity, through a 2-hour period. Premedication with antihistamines and chromones was administrated. Between January 2021 and January 2022, 23 patients referred to our Unit were deemed with a high risk of hypersensitivity reactions to the vaccines and underwent the desensitization protocol. We here describe 23 consecutive cases of patients who underwent desensitization to anti-SARS- CoV- 2 vaccine. Result(s): 4/23 had positive allergy skin test to Polysorbate and underwent desensitization for their entire vaccination cycle. 19/23 had a previous hypersensitivity reaction to an anti-SARS- CoV- 2 vaccine (18 after the first dose and 1 after the second one). Among 4 patients with sensitization to Polysorbate none developed hypersensitivity reactions after fractionated administration of BNT162b2 vaccine. Among 19 patients that underwent desensitization because of hypersensitivity reactions after I or II dose of vaccine, 15 experienced a reaction following vaccination with BNT162b2, 4 with mRNA-1273 and 4 with ChAdOx1-S recombinant. Furthermore, we categorized their reactions according to WAO score per systemic reactions: 15/19 (79%) grade1, 2/19 (10.5%) grade2, 2/19 (10.5%) grade3. No severe late hypersensitivity reactions were observed. All but one of this 19 patients had no hypersensitivity reactions after vaccination through the desensitization protocol. 1 patient experienced anaphylaxis during desensitization with BNT162b2 vaccine (WAO grade4). No late hypersensitivity reactions were observed. Overall, 22/23 (95.6%) patients that underwent anti-SARS- CoV- 2 vaccination through the desensitization protocol did not experience hypersensitivity reactions. Conclusion(s): Our results suggest that desensitization can be implemented to extend the vaccination to currently ineligible individuals. Larger studies are needed to prove the safety and efficacy of this approach.
ABSTRACT
Importance: Women with interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome (ICBPS) face isolation and treatment challenges. Group medical visits using Centering models have successfully treated other conditions but have not been explored in ICBPS. Objective(s): This study aimed to describe ICBPS pain and symptom control comparing standard treatment alone versus standard treatment augmented with Centering visits. Study Design: This prospective cohort study recruited women with ICBPS receiving standard care (control) or standard care augmented with group Centering. We administered validated questionnaires at baseline and monthly for 12 months. The primary outcome was change in the pain numerical rating scale, with Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Pain Interference Scale and Bladder Pain/Interstitial Cystitis Symptom Score change as secondary measures. Result(s): We enrolled 45 women (20 Centering, 25 controls). Centering had significantly better numerical rating scale pain scores at 1 month (mean difference [diff], -3.45) and 2 months (mean diff, -3.58), better Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Pain Interference Scale scores at 1 month (mean diff, -10.62) and 2 months (mean diff, -9.63), and better Bladder Pain/Interstitial Cystitis Symptom Score scores at 2 months (mean diff, -13.19), and 3 months (mean diff, -12.3) compared with controls. In modeling, treatment group (Centering or control) and educational levels were both associated with all the outcomes of interest. Beyond 6 months, there were too few participants for meaningful analyses. Conclusion(s): Women with ICBPS participating in a Centering group have, in the short term, less pain, pain interference, and ICBPS-specific symptoms than patients with usual care alone. Larger studies with more follow-up are needed to determine if this treatment effect extends over time.Copyright © 2022 American Urogynecologic Society. All rights reserved.