Polyethylene glycol hypersensitivity, patient outcomes in a seven year retrospective study. (preprint)

Background: Immediate IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reactions to polyethylene glycol (PEG) are rare. Our understanding of PEG hypersensitivity reactions is limited. We evaluate the clinical characteristics and investigation outcomes of the largest cohort of PEG allergic patients reported so far. Method: 44 patients investigated for suspected PEG allergy across four UK tertiary allergy centres between October 2013 and December 2020 were studied. Clinical characteristics, details of index reaction, and approaches to and outcomes of allergy investigations were analysed. Results: PEG hypersensitivity was confirmed in 42 of 44 cases. Macrogol laxatives were the most common index drugs reported (23%), followed by depo-medroxyprogesterone (19%), oral penicillin V (10%), and depo-methylprednisolone (10%). 61% experienced grade III anaphylaxis. Intradermal testing (IDT) increased the diagnostic sensitivity from 51% to 85%. Five patients experienced systemic reactions during IDT. Of the five patients, two were skin prick test (SPT)-positive to a high molecular weight (MW) PEG. Seven PEG-allergic patients reported tolerance to H1 antihistamines containing PEG. Administration of mRNA COVID-19 (n=5) or AZ COVID-19 vaccines (n=14) was tolerated in 16 patients. Conclusion: PEG hypersensitivity is an uncommon cause of drug-induced anaphylaxis. Four index drugs accounted for two-thirds of cases and reactions to these drugs should prompt PEG hypersensitivity investigations. PEG IDT increases diagnostic yield. The role of SPT with higher MW PEGs requires further attention. We observed no correlation in PEG dose and concentration between the implicated and tolerated PEG-containing drugs. Further studies are required to understand PEG thresholds and PEG equivalent doses of various administration routes. COVID-19 vaccines were tolerated by all exposed.

Risk of Adverse Events Following Monovalent Third or Booster Dose of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination in U.S. Adults Ages 18 Years and Older (preprint)

Background: The U.S. FDA authorized the monovalent third primary series or booster doses of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in August 2021 for persons 18 years and older. Monitoring of outcomes following updated authorizations is critical to evaluate vaccine safety and can provide early detection of rare adverse events (AEs) not identified in pre-licensure trials. Methods We evaluated the risk of 17 AEs following third doses of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines from August 2021 through early 2022 among adults aged 18-64 years in three commercial databases (Optum, Carelon Research, CVS Health) and adults aged >65 years in Medicare Fee-For-Service. We compared observed AE incidence rates to historical (expected) rates prior to the pandemic, estimated incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for the Medicare database and pooled IRR across the three commercial databases. Analyses were also stratified by prior history of COVID-19 diagnosis. Estimates exceeding a pre-defined threshold were considered statistical signals. Results Four AEs met the threshold for statistical signals for BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines including Bells Palsy and pulmonary embolism in Medicare, and anaphylaxis and myocarditis/pericarditis in commercial databases. Nine AEs and three AEs signaled among adults with and without prior COVID-19 diagnosis, respectively. Conclusions This early monitoring study identified statistical signals for AEs following third doses of COVID-19 mRNA vaccination. Since this method is intended for screening purposes and generates crude results, results do not establish a causal association between the vaccines and AEs. FDAs public health assessment remains consistent that the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination outweigh the risks of vaccination.

Allergic reactions to the Ad26.COV2.S Vaccine in South Africa (preprint)

Abstract ( n=254/250 words)   Background: The Janssen-Ad26.COV2.S vaccine is authorised for use in several countries with more than 30 million doses administered. Mild and severe allergic adverse events following immunisation(AEFI) have been reported. The aim of this report is to detail allergic reactions reported during the Sisonke phase 3B study in South Africa. Methods: : A single-dose of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine was administered to 477234 South African Healthcare Workers between 17 February and 17 May 2021. Monitoring of adverse events used a combination of passive reporting and active case finding. Telephonic contact was attempted for all adverse events reported as “allergy”. Anaphylaxis adjudication was performed using the Brighton Collaboration (BCC) and NIAID case definitions.  Results: : A large cohort of South African healthcare workers received the Ad26.COV2.S vaccination. Only 250(0.052%) patients reported any allergic-type reaction(less than 1 in 2000), with four cases of adjudicated anaphylaxis (BCC level 1, n=3)(prevalence of 8.4 per million doses). All anaphylaxis cases had a prior history of drug or vaccine-associated anaphylaxis. Cutaneous allergic reactions were the commonest non-anaphylatic reactions and included: self-limiting, transient/localised rashes requiring no healthcare contact(n=91); or isolated urticaria and/or angioedema[n=70 median  onset 48(IQR 11.5-120) hours post vaccination] that necessitated healthcare contact(81%), antihistamine(63%), and/or systemic/topical corticosteroid(16%). All immediate (including adjudicated anaphylaxis) and the majority of delayed AEFI(65/69) cases resolved completely.   Conclusions: : Allergic AEFI are rare following a single-dose of Ad26.COV with complete resolution in  all cases of anaphylaxis. Though rare, isolated, delayed onset urticaria and/or angioedema was the commonest allergic AEFI requiring treatment, with nearly half occurring in participants without known atopic disease.   Keywords: allergic reaction, anaphylaxis, COVID19 adenovirus vaccine; Janssen-Ad26.COV2.S vaccine, urticaria

An Apple a Day.

In this narrative medicine essay, an infectious diseases physician compares her past near bucolic experience in the emergency department when treated for anaphylaxis with the now perpetually chaotic and crowded scene ushered in by COVID-19.

COVID-19 mRNA vaccine allergy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: A known history of a severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) to any component of the vaccine is the only contraindication to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccination. It is important for pediatricians to understand the likelihood of an allergic reaction to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, including its excipients. RECENT FINDINGS: Episodes concerning for anaphylaxis were immediately reported following early administration of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines to adults. Although allergic type symptoms were reported equally in recipients of placebos and test vaccines in phase 3 clinical trials, post-authorization prospective studies state that 0.2-2% of vaccine recipients have experienced allergic reactions. Subsequent allergy testing of affected individuals has focused largely on evaluation of allergic sensitization to a novel vaccine excipient, polyethylene glycol (PEG). PEG is a polymer incorporated in numerous pharmaceutical products because of its favorable, inert properties. The results of allergy testing in adults to date indicate that IgE mediated anaphylaxis to PEG allergy is rarely identified after COVID-19 mRNA vaccine reactions. Numerous individuals with presumed anaphylaxis have tolerated a second vaccine after evaluation and testing by an allergist, suggesting either misdiagnosis or a novel immune mechanism. SUMMARY: Confirmed anaphylactic reactions to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are rare, likely due to a lack of preexisting IgE against the vaccine components, including PEG.

Oral side effects of COVID-19 vaccines in 32 European countries: Analysis of EudraVigilance reports.

The recent reports of oral side effects (SEs) following COVID-19 vaccination warrant further investigation into their prevalence, severity, and aetiology. This study was conducted to synthesize the first-ever population-level evidence about oral SEs of COVID-19 vaccines in Europe. The European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Pharmacovigilance (EudraVigilance) database was accessed in August 2022 to extract summary data of all potential oral SEs reported after COVID-19 vaccination. The data were reported descriptively and cross-tabulated to facilitate sub-group analysis per vaccine type, sex, and age group. Dysgeusia was the most commonly reported oral SE (0.381 case per each 100 received reports), followed by oral paraesthesia (0.315%), ageusia (0.296%), lip swelling (0.243%), dry mouth (0.215%), oral hypoaesthesia (0.210%), swollen tongue (0.207%), and taste disorder (0.173%). Females had significantly (Sig. < 0.001) a higher prevalence of all most common (top 20) oral SEs, except for salivary hypersecretion, which was equally prevalent among females and males. The present study revealed a low prevalence of oral SEs, with taste-related, other sensory and anaphylactic SEs being the most common SEs in Europe, similar to what was found earlier among the US population. Future studies should explore the potential risk factors of oral sensory and anaphylactic SEs to verify whether they are causally linked to COVID-19 vaccines.

Imprecision in adverse event reports following immunization against HPV in Japan and COVID-19 in the USA, UK, and Japan-and the effects of vaccine hesitancy and government policy.

INTRODUCTION: Erroneous reports of adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) likely exacerbated the 2013 collapse of Japan's HPV immunization program. A similar phenomenon characterized the first months of COVID-19 immunization programs in the USA, UK, and Japan with high rates of reported anaphylaxis. These reports illustrate the susceptibility of supposedly objective medical judgments to public anxiety. PURPOSE AND METHODS: This study documents inaccuracies in reported AEFIs using three quantitative methods. RESULTS: One of these quantitative methods revealed that false-positive rates for anaphylaxis reports following HPV and later COVID-19 vaccination ranged from 74 to 91 percent. However, unlike HPV vaccinations in Japan, anaphylaxis reports following COVID-19 vaccines fell in Japan, the USA and the UK in the latter months of 2021. Nevertheless, false-positive rates for anaphylaxis reports remained high, suggesting a high degree of imprecision in serious AEFI reports from many countries for many vaccines. Japan's HPV immunization program indicates that media reports, patient hesitancy, healthcare providers' perspectives on vaccine safety, and consistency of government messaging, all influence report number and accuracy. A parallel publication analyzes in depth how such factors affect AEFI reports. CONCLUSION: Confidence in the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines may have been bolstered trough rapid monitoring of AEFI reports and communication of these findings. This may partly explain the different trajectories of serious AEFI following HPV immunizations in Japan and COVID-19 immunizations in the USA, UK, and Japan.

Evaluation of association of anti-PEG antibodies with anaphylaxis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination.

BACKGROUND: The mechanism for anaphylaxis following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination has been widely debated; understanding this serious adverse event is important for future vaccines of similar design. A mechanism proposed is type I hypersensitivity (i.e., IgE-mediated mast cell degranulation) to polyethylene glycol (PEG). Using an assay that, uniquely, had been previously assessed in patients with anaphylaxis to PEG, our objective was to compare anti-PEG IgE in serum from mRNA COVID-19 vaccine anaphylaxis case-patients and persons vaccinated without allergic reactions. Secondarily, we compared anti-PEG IgG and IgM to assess alternative mechanisms. METHODS: Selected anaphylaxis case-patients reported to U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System December 14, 2020-March 25, 2021 were invited to provide a serum sample. mRNA COVID-19 vaccine study participants with residual serum and no allergic reaction post-vaccination ("controls") were frequency matched to cases 3:1 on vaccine and dose number, sex and 10-year age category. Anti-PEG IgE was measured using a dual cytometric bead assay (DCBA). Anti-PEG IgG and IgM were measured using two different assays: DCBA and a PEGylated-polystyrene bead assay. Laboratorians were blinded to case/control status. RESULTS: All 20 case-patients were women; 17 had anaphylaxis after dose 1, 3 after dose 2. Thirteen (65 %) were hospitalized and 7 (35 %) were intubated. Time from vaccination to serum collection was longer for case-patients vs controls (post-dose 1: median 105 vs 21 days). Among Moderna recipients, anti-PEG IgE was detected in 1 of 10 (10 %) case-patients vs 8 of 30 (27 %) controls (p = 0.40); among Pfizer-BioNTech recipients, it was detected in 0 of 10 case-patients (0 %) vs 1 of 30 (3 %) controls (p >n 0.99). Anti-PEG IgE quantitative signals followed this same pattern. Neither anti-PEG IgG nor IgM was associated with case status with both assay formats. CONCLUSION: Our results support that anti-PEG IgE is not a predominant mechanism for anaphylaxis post-mRNA COVID-19 vaccination.

Evaluation of pediatric patients with suspected polyethylene glycol and polysorbate allergy before mRNA SARS-CoV2 vaccination.

mRNA vaccines, particularly, have been associated with an increased risk of allergic reactions and rarely anaphylaxis. Although rare, vaccine reactions can cause significant anxiety and fear in the population, leading to indecision and vaccine refusal. This study aimed to retrospectively evaluate the role of polyethylene glycol (PEG) sensitivity in vaccination decision-making in pediatric patients at high risk of allergy or with suspected allergic reactions to the first dose of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) vaccine. Seventeen enrolled patients were found to have decreased readiness to receive the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine after developing hypersensitivity to multiple and/or injectable drugs. Skin testing was performed. A basophil activation test with PEG-2000 and 4000 was performed on three patients who were ineligible for skin prick tests. Nine patients with negative tests received the vaccine without complications. One patient had urticarial angioedema despite negative tests. Three patients with positive tests did not agree to desensitization with the mRNA vaccine, and one of them was vaccinated with the inactivated COVID-19 vaccine. Four patients recurred despite negative tests. The general recommendation for patients describing severe reactions to drugs, foods, and allergens, such as toxins that do not contain the adjuvants of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, is to be routinely vaccinated with safety precautions. Excipients such as PEG and polysorbate-80 used in COVID-19 vaccines could be potential allergens, but this hypothesis is unclear. The predictive values of these adjuvants for skin testing and in vitro testing are controversial. Further research is needed on the hypersensitivity reactions of adjuvants, the predictive values of skin tests, and etiopathogenesis.

Identifying and Managing Those at Risk for Vaccine-Related Allergy and Anaphylaxis.

Immediate hypersensitivity reactions to vaccines, the most severe of which is anaphylaxis, are uncommon events occurring in fewer than 1 in a million doses administered. These reactions are infrequently immunoglobulin E-mediated. Because they are unlikely to recur, a reaction to a single dose of a vaccine is rarely a contraindication to redosing. This narrative review article contextualizes the recent knowledge we have gained from the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic rollout of the new mRNA platform with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines within the much broader context of what is known about immediate reactions to other vaccinations of routine and global importance. We focus on what is known about evidence-based approaches to diagnosis and management and what is new in our understanding of mechanisms of immediate vaccine reactions. Specifically, we review the epidemiology of immediate hypersensitivity vaccine reactions, differential diagnosis for immune-mediated and nonimmune reaction clinical phenotypes, including how to recognize immunization stress-related responses. In addition, we highlight what is known about mechanisms and review the rare but important contribution of excipient allergies and specifically when to consider testing for them as well as other key features that contribute to safe evaluation and management.

The COVID-19 mRNA vaccine Comirnaty induces anaphylactic shock in an anti-PEG hyperimmune large animal model: Role of complement in cardiovascular, hematological, and inflammatory mediator changes (preprint)

Background: Comirnaty, Pfizer-BioNTech's polyethylene-glycol (PEG)-containing Covid-19 vaccine, can cause hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) in a small fraction of immunized people which can, very rarely, culminate in life-threatening anaphylaxis. A role of anti-PEG antibodies (Abs) has been proposed, but causality has not yet been proven in an animal model. This study aimed to provide such evidence using anti-PEG hyperimmune pigs (i.e., pigs displaying very high levels of anti-PEG Abs). We also sought to find evidence for the role of complement (C) activation and thromboxane A2 (TXA2) release in blood as contributing effects to anaphylaxis. Methods: Pigs (n=6) were immunized with 0.1 mg/kg PEGylated liposome (Doxebo) i.v. the rise of anti-PEG IgG and IgM was measured in serial blood samples with ELISA. After 2-3 weeks, during the height of seroconversion, the animals were injected i.v. with 1/3 human vaccine dose (HVD) of Comirnaty, and the hemodynamic (PAP, SAP), cardiopulmonary (HR, EtCO2,), hematological parameters (WBC, granulocyte, lymphocyte, and platelet counts) and blood immune mediators (anti-PEG IgM and IgG Abs, C3a and TXA2) were measured as endpoints of HSRs. Results: A week after immunization of 6 pigs with Doxebo, the level of anti-PEG IgM and IgG rose 5-10-thousands-fold in all animals, and they all developed anaphylactic shock to i.v. injection of 1/3 HVD of Comirnaty. The reaction, starting within 1 min, led to the abrupt decline of SAP along with maximal pulmonary hypertension, decreased pulse pressure amplitude, tachycardia, granulo- and thrombocytopenia, and paralleling rises of plasma C3a and TXB2 levels. These vaccine effects were not observed in non-immunized pigs. Conclusions: Consistent with previous studies with PEGylated nano-liposomes, these data show a causal role of anti-PEG Abs in the anaphylaxis to Comirnaty. The reaction involves C activation, and, hence, it represents C activation-related pseudo-allergy (CARPA). The setup provides the first large-animal model for mRNA-vaccine-induced anaphylaxis in humans.

Safety of BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine in children with chronic kidney disease: a national population study of South Korea (preprint)

Background In South Korea, COVID-19 vaccination has been recommended to children since October 2021, targeting all teenagers aged 12–15 years, with emphasis on high-risk group including chronic kidney disease (CKD) pediatric patients. In this study, we aimed to assess the rate of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination in children with CKD in South Korea, using national cohort data.Methods We retrieved the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency-COVID19-National Health Insurance Service (K-COV-N) cohort data linked to the National Health Insurance System (NHIS) data, to calculate rate of purpura and other hemorrhagic conditions, Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), myocarditis and/or pericarditis, and anaphylaxis incidence in children with CKD, after BNT162b2 vaccination.Results Among the 2,078 children with CKD, 69.2% (n = 1,437) had received BNT-162b2 vaccine. Guillain-Barré syndrome and anaphylaxis or anaphylactic shock did not occur during observed period. Purpura and hemorrhagic conditions were more frequent in the unvaccinated group (5/641 vs 1/1,437) while myocarditis/pericarditis was observed only in vaccinated group (0/641 vs 3/1437). The difference in the risk of any of these two events between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups was insignificant.Conclusions In this national cohort study of children with CKD in Korea, we found no evidence of increased risk of adverse events following BNT162b2 vaccination. Our results provide the safety profiles of COVID-19 vaccine for patients with CKD.

Allergic reactions to the coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine (ARCOV) study: The McGill University Health Centre experience.

BACKGROUND: Messenger RNA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines have been associated with allergic reactions. A history of anaphylaxis has been suggested as a risk factor for such reactions. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) has been proposed as a possible culprit allergen. OBJECTIVE: To investigate possible PEG or polysorbate allergy among patients reporting prior reactions to COVID-19 vaccines or PEG and to report their subsequent tolerance of COVID-19 vaccines. METHODS: From January 1, 2021, to October 31, 2021, adult patients referred to the McGill University Health Centre allergy clinics who were considered at risk of anaphylaxis were prospectively recruited. The entry criteria were any documented history of reaction to a COVID-19 vaccine or reported allergy to PEG or polysorbate. Evaluated patients underwent skin prick testing (SPT) with PEG and polysorbate. After SPT, placebo-controlled vaccine challenges were carried out. RESULTS: Of the 44 patients recruited, 40 (90.1%) had reacted to the first vaccine dose, with 18 (45%) of them had anaphylactic reaction. All patients underwent SPT and 5 (11.3%) had a positive test result. A total of 39 patients (88.6%) underwent COVID-19 vaccine challenge at the allergy clinic. Most tolerated the vaccine, with 18 (40.1%) received a single full dose, 20 (45.4%) 2 split doses, and 6 (13.6%) a graded dosing protocol. Of the 40 patients who reacted to the first dose, 2 had immediate nonsevere allergic reactions to the second dose. CONCLUSION: In this cohort of patients with a history of anaphylaxis and increased risk of allergic reactions to the COVID-19 vaccines, after allergist evaluation, including negative PEG skin testing result, the vaccine was safely administered without any serious adverse events.

[Allergy to Pfizer-BioNTech® vaccine demonstrated by skin testing]. / Alergia a la vacuna Pfizer-BioNTech® demostrada mediante pruebas cutáneas.

BACKGROUND: The Pfizer-BioNTech® BNT162b2 vaccine, provides 95% effectiveness from the second dose onwards. The reported rate of anaphylaxis to COVID-19 vaccines is 4.7 cases/million doses administered. CASE REPORT: 30-year-old female, health professional, history of allergic rhinitis, asthma, reaction to eye cosmetics and adhesive tape: erythema, edema, and local pruritus. Immediately after application of the first dose of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, she presented grade III anaphylaxis. The patient was stratified, phenotyped and skin tests with PEG 3350 were positive. A recommendation was issued not to reapply vaccine containing polyethylene glycol and alternatives were offered. CONCLUSIONS: An adequate risk stratification should be performed before applying mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines for the first time in at-risk groups. In case of anaphylaxis at the first dose, phenotyping and further study with PEG skin tests should be performed and vaccination alternatives should be offered.

INTRODUCCIÓN: La vacuna Pfizer-BioNTech® BNT162b2 proporciona efectividad del 95% a partir de la segunda dosis. La tasa de anafilaxia reportada de vacunas para COVID-19 es de 4.7 casos por millón de dosis administradas. REPORTE DEL CASO: Paciente femenina de 30 años, profesional de la salud, con antecedentes de rinitis alérgica, asma, reacción a productos cosméticos en los párpados y al pegamento de la cinta adhesiva (eritema, edema y prurito local). Posterior a la aplicación de la primera dosis de la vacuna Pfizer-BioNTechÒ tuvo un evento de anafilaxia grado III. Se estratificó, fenotipificó y efectuaron pruebas cutáneas con PEG-3350, que resultaron positivas. Se sugirió no aplicar la aplicar vacuna de refuerzo que contuviera polietilenglicol y se ofrecieron alternativas de tratamiento. CONCLUSIONES: Es importante efectuar la adecuada estratificación de riesgo antes de aplicar las vacunas para COVID-19 basadas en ARNm por primera vez. En caso de anafilaxia es necesario fenotipificar y ampliar el estudio con pruebas cutáneas con PEG, además de otorgar alternativas de vacunación.

[Anaphylaxis caused by vaccines]. / Anafilaxia causada por vacunas.

Even though the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic represents a historical challenge, science has had an exponential development, and the current vaccination campaigns are proof of this. Unfortunately, along came misinformation and myths regarding their production and their adverse effects. For this reason, we have considered of utter importance to review anaphylaxis, one of the most feared vaccine adverse events.Anaphylaxis can be defined as a life-threatening acute and systemic allergic reaction, with a wide clinical spectrum, which can be explained by many immunological mechanisms, and whose diagnostic complexity demands the fulfillment of strict criteria. Though infrequent, any vaccine has the potential to trigger anaphylaxis. In the United States, for the new SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, rates from 1:200 000 (Pfizer-BioNTech) to 1:360 000 doses (Moderna) have been estimated. Vaccine adverse events can be mediated by hypersensitivity reactions, either allergic or not. Unlike a typical drug allergy, rarely is the active ingredient responsible for the reaction. Therefore, excipients must be considered during the approach to this problem. Vaccine associated anaphylaxis has to be referred to an allergist so as to guarantee the maximum benefit for the patient and improve the vaccines' security profile.

A pesar de la difícil situación que se enfrenta con la actual pandemia de COVID-19, la ciencia ha tenido un desarrollo exponencial. Si bien la inmunización contra esa enfermedad ha sido posible gracias a ello, desafortunadamente se ha acompañado de desinformación y mitos en torno a su fabricación y reacciones adversas. Por tal razón, es importante revisar una de las reacciones adversas a vacunas más temidas para el personal de salud y la población general, la anafilaxia. La anafilaxia se define como una reacción alérgica aguda y sistémica que puede poner en riesgo la vida; se asocia con distintos mecanismos inmunológicos, factores desencadenantes y manifestaciones clínicas. Su diagnóstico puede ser confuso, por lo que se han establecido diferentes criterios. Todas las inmunizaciones tienen el potencial de desencadenar anafilaxia, aunque este evento es poco frecuente. Respecto de las vacunas contra el coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, en Estados Unidos se ha reportado una tasa de anafilaxia de 1:200 000 para la vacuna Pfizer-BioNTech, y de 1:360 000 para la vacuna de Moderna. Al igual que un fármaco, las vacunas pueden presentar efectos adversos mediados por mecanismos de hipersensibilidad, pero a diferencia de lo que sucede con los medicamentos, el principio activo rara vez es el responsable; es más frecuente que las reacciones indeseadas se deban a los excipientes. La sospecha de una anafilaxia secundaria a su aplicación obliga a una oportuna referencia y a un correcto diagnóstico, tanto para el beneficio del paciente como para mejorar el perfil de seguridad de la vacuna.

Monoclonal antibody infusion reaction with bamlanivimab and etesevimab in a 5-year-old male with coronavirus disease 2019: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Bamlanivimab and etesevimab had been granted emergency use authorization in children under 12 years who are at risk of progression from mild/moderate coronavirus disease 2019 to severe disease and hospitalization. CASE REPORT: We report on a 5-year-old white male with preexisting conditions, predisposing him to severe disease, who developed hypoxia and flushing 3 minutes into his infusion, thus meeting the criteria for anaphylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: We believe this patient developed either an immunoglobulin E-mediated anaphylactic or a non-immunoglobulin E-mediated anaphylactoid reaction to bamlanivimab and etesevimab, which is an important possibility to consider on administration.

Direct Versus Indirect Query Performance of ICD-9/-10 Coding to Identify Anaphylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis is an often under =diagnosed, severe allergic event for which epidemiological data are sporadic. Researchers have leveraged administrative and claims data algorithms to study large databases of anaphylactic events; however, little longitudinal data analysis is available after transition to the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM). OBJECTIVE: Study longitudinal trends in anaphylaxis incidence using direct and indirect query methods. METHODS: Emergency department (ED) and inpatient data were analyzed from a large state health care administration database from 2011 to 2020. Incidence was calculated using direct queries of anaphylaxis ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM codes and indirect queries using a symptom-based ICD-9-CM algorithm and forward mapped ICD-10-CM version to identify undiagnosed anaphylaxis episodes and to assess algorithm performance at the population level. RESULTS: An average of 2.4 million inpatient and 7.5 million ED observations/y were analyzed. Using the direct query method, annual ED anaphylaxis cases increased steadily from 1,454 (2011) to 4,029 (2019) then declined to 3,341 in 2020 during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. In contrast, inpatient cases remained relatively steady, with a slight decline after 2015 during the ICD version transition, until a significant drop occurred in 2020. Using the indirect queries, anaphylaxis cases increased markedly after the ICD transition year, especially involving drug-related anaphylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: Nontypical drug associations with anaphylaxis episodes using the ICD-10-CM version of the algorithm suggest poor performance with drug-related codes. Further, the increased granularity of ICD-10-CM identified potential limitations of a previously validated symptom-based ICD-9-CM algorithm used to detect undiagnosed cases.

Is the use of blue dye really necessary in axillary sentinel lymph node biopsy in staging of breast cancer?

Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is the standard of care for staging the clinically node-negative axilla in early breast cancer. Evidence guiding current practice describes dual localization technique using Patent blue dye and radioisotope (99mTc). Adverse effects of blue dye include 1:1000 risk of anaphylaxis, skin staining and loss of plane visibility, which may increase operative time and reduce resectional accuracy. The risk to a patient posed by anaphylaxis may be greater when operating in a unit without on-site ITU support - a situation more common with recent restructuring during the COVID-19 pandemic. Aim is to quantify the benefit of blue dye above radioisotope alone in identifying nodal disease. This is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected sentinel node data including all consecutive sentinel node biopsies in a single center during the period 2016-2019.In terms of results, 760 sentinel nodes were taken in 435 patients. 59 nodes (7.8%) were detected by blue dye alone; 120 (15.8%) 'hot' only, 581 (76.5%) hot and blue. 4 of the blue only nodes contained macrometastases but 3 of these patients had further hot nodes excised that also contained macrometastases. 1 out of 435 patients (0.2%) had macro metastatic disease identified as a result of blue dye alone which would have been missed had it not been used. In conclusion, the use of blue dye carries risk and offers little benefit in terms of staging in SLNB and its use may be unnecessary in the hands of the skilled surgeon. This study supports the omission of blue dye, which may be advisable if operating in units without ITU support. If larger studies support these figures, it may become as outdated.

Adverse event reports of anaphylaxis after Comirnaty and Vaxzevria COVID-19 vaccinations, Western Australia, 22 February to 30 June 2021.

Within the first 4 months of the Western Australian COVID-19 immunisation programme, 49 suspected anaphylaxis cases were reported to the vaccine safety surveillance system. Twelve reports met Brighton Collaboration case definition, corresponding to rates of 15.9 and 17.7 per million doses of Vaxzevria and Comirnaty administered respectively.