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.

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.

Anaphylaxis rates following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in children and adolescents: Analysis of data reported to EudraVigilance.

AIM: The present study aimed to estimate the anaphylaxis rates following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in children and adolescents in Europe. METHODS: We retrieved data on 371 anaphylaxis cases following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in children ≤ 17 years old notified to EudraVigilance as of October 8, 2022. Overall, 27,120,512 doses of BNT162b2 vaccine and 1,400,300 doses of mRNA-1273 vaccine have been delivered to children during the study period. RESULTS: The overall mean anaphylaxis rate was 12.81 [95% confidence interval (CI): 11.49-14.12] per 106 mRNA vaccine doses [12.14 (95% CI: 6.37-17.91) per 106 doses for mRNA-1273 and 12.84 (95% CI: 11.49-14.19) per 106 doses for BNT162b2]. Children 12-17 years old accounted for 317 anaphylaxis cases, followed by 48 cases in children 3-11 years old, and 6 cases in children 0-2 years old. Children 10-17 years old had a mean anaphylaxis rate of 13.52 (95% CI: 12.03-15.00) cases per 106 mRNA vaccine doses and children 5-9 years old had a mean anaphylaxis rate of 9.51 (95% CI: 6.82-12.20) cases per 106 mRNA vaccine doses. There were two fatalities, both in the 12-17 years age group. The fatal anaphylaxis rate was 0.07 cases per 106 mRNA vaccine doses. CONCLUSIONS: Anaphylaxis is a rare adverse event after receiving an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in children. Continuous surveillance of serious adverse events is needed to guide vaccination policies as we move towards SARS-CoV-2 endemicity. Larger real-world studies on COVID-19 vaccination in children, using clinical case confirmation, are imperative.

Case Report: Anaphylactoid Shock Associated with Snakebite Envenoming in Portugal.

Although rare in Portugal, snakebite envenoming entails severe morbidity and mortality. We present the case of a 65-year-old woman bitten on her leg in a northern coastal region in Portugal, on a walk during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown. Despite first looking for help at the nearest pharmacy, she developed anaphylactoid shock and was promptly driven to a tertiary hospital, where antivenom was administered in a timely manner under close monitoring. Prophylactic antibiotics were started and maintained based on elevated inflammatory markers and signs of wound inflammation. She evolved favorably, with rapid weaning of vasopressors and resolution of end-organ dysfunction. This case highlights the importance of prompt recognition and describes crucial steps in envenomation management in a country where snakebite is infrequent, but potentially fatal.

Temporal trends in anaphylaxis ED visits over the last decade and the effect of COVID-19 pandemic on these trends.

BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis is an acute systemic and potentially fatal allergic reaction. We evaluated trends in yearly rates of anaphylaxis in a pediatric Emergency Department (ED) in Montreal, Canada. METHODS: A prospective and retrospective recruitment process was used to find families of children who had presented with anaphylaxis at the Montreal Children's Hospital between April 2011 and April 2021. Using a uniform recruitment form, data were collected. Anaphylaxis patterns were compared to clinical triggers using descriptive analysis. RESULTS: Among 830,382 ED visits during the study period, 2726 (26% recruited prospectively) presented with anaphylaxis. The median age was 6 years (IQR: 0.2, 12.00), and 58.7% were males. The relative frequency of anaphylaxis cases doubled between 2011-2015, from 0.22% (95% CI, 0.19, 0.26) to 0.42 March 2020, the total absolute number of anaphylaxis cases and relative frequency declined by 24 cases per month (p < 0.05) and by 0.5% of ED visits (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The rate of anaphylaxis has changed over the years, representing modifications in food introduction strategies or lifestyle changes. The decrease in the frequency of anaphylaxis presenting to the ED during the COVID pandemic may reflect decreased accidental exposures with reduced social gatherings, closed school, and reluctance to present to ED.

Anaphylaxis in elderly people.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Anaphylaxis is common in old-age adults but is insufficiently understood by physicians, and may be underdiagnosed. This review discusses the specificities of anaphylaxis in this age group and stresses the importance of adrenaline in its management. RECENT FINDINGS: Data from the European Anaphylaxis Registry on elderly patients is a major finding. Other findings include the prevention of possible anaphylactic reactions in coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination as well as some new epidemiologic data. SUMMARY: The most common risk factors are hymenoptera venom and food and drug allergy. Cardiovascular symptoms are the most important ones to reverse in old-age adults, especially due to the multiple comorbidities. Anaphylaxis in old-age adults has a more severe outcome than in younger ones. Polypharmacy is a specific factor to be considered. The Airway, Breathing, Circulation, Disability, Exposure (ABCDE) algorithm is applicable in all clinical emergencies for immediate assessment and treatment, and should be considered for all patients. Adrenaline is the mainstay of the management of the condition. There are no absolute contraindications to the prescription of self-injectable adrenaline in elderly individuals at risk of anaphylaxis.

Cat allergy in children and the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: Cat allergen is among the most common household allergens and can cause respiratory allergies and anaphylaxis in children. Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the characteristics of cat allergies in children and the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on these characteristics. Methods: The study included pediatric patients with cat allergen sensitization demonstrated by skin-prick test (SPT) over a period of 2 years: 1 year before and 1 year during the pandemic. Demographic data, clinical features, and laboratory findings were evaluated from the patients' records. Results: Of 7428 SPTs performed, 566 patients (7.6%) were sensitized to cat allergen (56% boys; median age, 11 years). Fifty-eight percent of the patients (n = 329) presented during the pandemic period, 44.5% (n = 252) had symptoms with cat exposure, and 9% (n = 51/566) had anaphylaxis. Allergic rhinitis and asthma were present in 76% (n = 431) and 46.6% (n = 264) of the patients, respectively. When compared to prepandemic period, patients who presented during the pandemic had higher rates of cat sensitization (15% in pandemic group versus 4.4% in prepandemic group of all SPTs performed; p < 0.05), cat ownership (29.1% versus 13.9%; p < 0.001), and symptoms on cat exposure (51% versus 34%; p < 0.001). Factors that predicted symptom development in the patients who were cat sensitized were induration > 5 mm on SPT (odds ratio [OR] 1.9 [95% confidence interval {95% CI}], 1.1-3.2), cat ownership (OR 9.2 [95% CI, 4.9-17.3]), close contact with a cat owner (OR 7.1 [95% CI, 4-12]), allergic rhinitis (OR 3.1 [95% CI, 1.6-5.8]), conjunctivitis (OR 4.7 [95% CI, 2-10]), and atopic dermatitis (OR 2.2 [95% CI, 1-4.7]). Conclusion: We observed an increase in the prevalence of cat allergy among children during the COVID-19 pandemic. Care must be taken in terms of anaphylaxis in patients who were cat sensitized.

Anaphylaxis to SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines in the Setting of a Nationwide Passive Epidemiological Surveillance Program.

BACKGROUND: Information on anaphylaxis among recipients of vaccines against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) remains scarce. OBJECTIVE: To identify the observed incidence of anaphylaxis in recipients of different anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. METHODS: A nationwide observational study among recipients of 61,414,803 doses of seven different anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, describing the incidence and characteristics of adult patients (age ≥ 18 years) who developed anaphylaxis as an adverse event following immunization (AEFI) against SARS-CoV-2 vaccines between December 24, 2020, and October 15, 2021, in Mexico. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients developed anaphylaxis as an AEFI, for an overall observed incidence of 1.07 cases per 1,000,000 (95% CI 0.84-1.37) administered doses. Eighty-six percent of the patients were female, consistent with previous reports of AEFI to COVID-19 vaccines. mRNA-based vaccine recipients had the highest frequency of anaphylaxis, followed by adenovirus-vectored vaccines and inactivated virus recipients, with an observed incidence of 2.5, 0.7, and 0.2 cases per 1,000,000 doses administered, respectively. Only 46% of the patients received correct treatment with epinephrine as the first-line treatment through the appropriate route and dose. We detected one case of anaphylactic reaction-related death occurring 5 min following immunization with ChAdOx1 nCov-19 for a mortality rate of 1.5% among those who developed this AEFI. CONCLUSIONS: In our population, anaphylactic reactions were infrequent. Our study provides further evidence supporting the security of these newly developed vaccines.

Incidence of immediate allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in adults with drug allergies and other allergic disorders.

Concerns have been raised about allergic reactions to messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. A history of allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis to drugs, has been frequently reported in individuals with anaphylaxis to mRNA vaccines. To estimate the rate of immediate allergic reactions in patients with a history of drug allergy or other allergic disorders. We included adult patients who had received at least 1 dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine at the Special Hospital for Pulmonary Diseases between March 1, 2021, and October 1, 2021, and who reported a history of drug allergy or other allergic diseases (asthma, allergic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis, food or insect venom allergy, mastocytosis, idiopathic anaphylaxis, acute or chronic urticaria, and/or angioedema). Immediate allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, occurring within 4 hours of vaccination were recorded. Six immediate allergic reactions were noted in the cohort of 1679 patients (0.36%). One patient experienced anaphylaxis (0.06%), which resolved after epinephrine administration, and the other reactions were mild and easily treatable. Most patients with a history of allergies can safely receive an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, providing adequate observation periods and preparedness to recognize and treat anaphylaxis.

Assessment and management of allergy history with a novel mRNA vaccine.

Context: Tertiary care hospital provided onsite COVID-19 vaccine roll out as a work benefit for all care team members with medically supervised waiting period at the time of the distribution of the first round of the novel mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Little was known about the immediate hypersensivity reactions or what might predispose to cross reactivity. Objective: We developed a working protocol to continuously track the vaccines administered, the patient history of allergy and hypersensistivity, the reactions observed and the care plan developed (determination of allergy to mRNA vaccines or normal vaccine response). Continuous process improvement allowed us to change protocols as the CDC developed guidance. Every patient was observed for at least 15 minutes and every reaction was reviewed by a physician supervising the waiting area. We aimed to determine if there were predictors of adverse, immediate reaction to the vaccine and to assess prevalence of risk factors (history of allergy to polyethylene Glycol or polysorbate; allergy to other injectable medication or vaccines; hypersensitivity to multiple substances). Study Design: Cohort study of all employees who received a first mRNA COVID-19 vaccine between December 16 and January 7th. Descriptive statistics were developed with demographic and medical history recorded, reactions noted and treatment given. Setting or Dataset: Tertiary care hospital in urban area. Population Studied: Employees who received an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. Intervention/Instrument: Clinical records from employee vaccine clinic. Outcome Measures: Record of immediate response, determination of allergy. Results: We served over 7000 individuals with approximately 10% having a history of anaphylactic reaction. We had fewer with history of anaphylaxis to medications or vaccines. We delivered these vaccines safely, and observed three cases of immediate anaphylaxis on first dose of mRNA and over 50 cases of immediate allergic hypersensitivity. We did not see any patterns that predicted these reactions (gender, age or medical history). Expected Outcomes: We used this data to inform our employee health vaccination campaign and to inform the health system as strategies and safety protocols for vaccination of the population were developed.

Reporting of Allergic Reactions During Pfizer-BioNTech BNTT162B2 Vaccination in Israel.

BACKGROUND: In December 2020, the Israeli Ministry of Health launched a national vaccination campaign against SARS-CoV-2. Concomitant sporadic reports on anaphylactic responses in other countries raised safety concerns at the outset of this operation. OBJECTIVE: To characterize reports on allergic reactions to coronavirus disease 2019 vaccines. METHODS: Allergy events were reported by health care professionals throughout the country to Israeli Ministry of Health Division of Epidemiology via a Web-based computerized national vaccine registry. The study period was from December 19, 2020 to September 13, 2021, during which 14,475,979 injections were administered. RESULTS: Allergic reactions were reported in 463 subjects, 99.3% of whom received Pfizer-BioNTech BNTT162B2. The reporting rate was 106 per million in December 2020. From January to May 2021, a reduction was observed to 66, 18, 14, eight, and zero per million, and reporting remained low until September. Mean age of subjects was 48.9 ± 16.7 years (range, 15-96 years) with a female preponderance of 78%. Epinephrine was administered in 34 subjects. Validated immediate allergy was observed in only 37 cases (8%), suggesting 2.5 to 3.3 bona fide reactions per million. In subjects with reactions classified as severe (n = 46), plausible allergy was identified in 36% to 41% of cases. A history of allergy was associated with high false reporting of immediate reactions (83%). Allergic events after the first dose did not compromise adherence to subsequent doses. CONCLUSIONS: Excessive reporting of allergy declined over time and did not affect adherence to vaccination. The existence of previous allergy may affect reporting profiles, but not the occurrence of vaccine allergy.

Allergic Reactions to COVID-19 Vaccines: Risk Factors, Frequency, Mechanisms and Management.

Conventional vaccines have been widely studied, along with their risk of causing allergic reactions. These generally consist of mild local reactions and only rarely severe anaphylaxis. Although all the current COVID-19 vaccines marketed in Europe have been shown to be safe overall in the general population, early post-marketing evidence has shown that mRNA-based vaccines using novel platforms (i.e., lipid nanoparticles) were associated with an increased risk of severe allergic reactions as compared to conventional vaccines. In this paper we performed an updated literature review on frequency, risk factors, and underlying mechanisms of COVID-19 vaccine-related allergies by searching MEDLINE and Google Scholar databases. We also conducted a qualitative search on VigiBase and EudraVigilance databases to identify reports of "Hypersensitivity" and "Anaphylactic reaction" potentially related to COVID-19 vaccines (Comirnaty, Spikevax, Vaxzevria and COVID-19 Janssen Vaccine), and in EudraVigilance to estimate the reporting rates of "Anaphylactic reaction" and "Anaphylactic shock" after COVID-19 vaccination in the European population. We also summarized the scientific societies' and regulatory agencies' recommendations for prevention and management of COVID-19 vaccine-related allergic reactions, especially in those with a history of allergy.

Clinical and quality of life assessment in patients with latex allergy during COVID-19 pandemic: Possible protective role of continuous latex immunotherapy.

Introduction: During COVID-19 pandemic, the massive use of Personal Protective Equipment could provoke severe adverse reactions in latex allergy patients and could negatively affect their quality of life. Methods: Trough a survey the study aimed: (a) to evaluate the incidence of allergic reactions in patients with latex allergy during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic; (b) to evaluate the protective role of continuous latex sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) during this period; and (c) to evaluate quality of life of natural rubber latex allergy (NRLA) patients during the pandemic. Results: 67 patients (9 males and 58 females, mean age of 45.9 ± 11.4 years) suffering from latex allergy were included in the present study. We recorded among our patients 13 cases (34.2%) of urticarial/angioedema (U/A), 9 cases (23.6%) of respiratory symptoms (dyspnoea, shortness of breath and wheezing) and 7 cases (18.4%) of anaphylaxis. In patients who underwent continuous SLIT, we observed less cases of U/A (p < 0.001), respiratory symptoms (p < 0.001), anaphylaxis (p = 0.003), hospitalizations (p = 0.014) and a lower therapy administration. We compared the results of SF-36 questionnaire in patients who underwent continuous and not-continuous SLIT with a significance differences score between these two groups. Conclusions: Our study is the first that investigated the clinical and quality of life effects of COVID-19 pandemic in NRLA patients.

Safety of an inactivated COVID-19 vaccine in patients with - wheat-dependent exercise-induced anaphylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Inactivated vaccines against coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) offer an effective public health intervention to mitigate this devastating pandemic. However, little is known about their safety in patients with wheat-dependent exercise-induced anaphylaxis (WDEIA). METHODS: We recruited 72 WDEIA patients and 730 healthy matched controls who received an inactivated COVID-19 vaccine. Participants were monitored for 4 weeks after each immunization for adverse reactions and completed questionnaires regarding local and systemic reactions at 7 and 28 days after each vaccination. For those who had received the COVID-19 vaccine prior to enrollment, adverse event data were obtained retrospectively. RESULTS: Local and systemic adverse events occurred at similar rates in the WDEIA group and the control group. In both groups, injection-site pain and fatigue were the most common local and systemic reactions, respectively. Compared with healthy controls, more allergic events were reported in the WDEIA group (after dose 1, 0.5% vs. 4.2%, p=0.019; after dose 2, 0% vs. 1.4%, p=0.089). Allergic reactions mainly manifested as rash, urticaria, and edema, which were mild and controllable. No serious allergic events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The adverse event profile of inactivated COVID-19 vaccine did not differ between WDEIA patients and healthy controls. The risk of allergic reactions in patients with WDEIA seems higher, but no anaphylaxis was reported, and the allergic reactions were controllable. Inactivated COVID-19 vaccines appear to be well-tolerated in WDEIA patients, but patients with potential allergy risks should be cautious.

Absence of active systemic anaphylaxis in guinea pigs upon intramuscular injection of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (Vero cells).

Background: The safety of novel vaccines against COVID-19 is currently a major focus of preclinical research. As a part of the safety evaluation testing package, 24 healthy guinea pigs were used to determine whether repeated administration of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine could induce active systemic anaphylaxis (ASA), and to evaluate its degree of severity.Method: According to sex and body weight, the animals were randomly divided into three experimental groups (eight animals per group). The negative control group received 0.9% sodium chloride (priming dose: 0.5 mL/animal; challenge dose: 1 mL/animal); the positive control group received 10% ovalbumin (priming dose: 0.5 mL/animal; challenge dose: 1 mL/animal); and the inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine group received inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccines (priming dose: 100 U in 0.5 mL/animal; challenge dose: 200 U in 1 mL/animal). Priming dose administration was conducted by multi-point injection into the muscles of the hind limbs, three times, once every other day. On days 14 and 21 after the final priming injection, a challenge test was conducted. Half of the animals in each group were injected intravenously with twice the dose and volume of the tested substance used for immunization. During the experimental course, the injection site, general clinical symptoms, body weight, and systemic allergic reaction symptoms were monitored.Result: After intramuscular injection of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, there were no abnormal reactions at the injection site, clinical symptoms, or deaths. There was no difference in body weight between the groups, and there were no allergic reactions. Conclusion: Thus, inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine injected intramuscularly in guinea pigs did not produce ASA and had a good safety profile, which can provide actual data on vaccine risks and important reference data for clinical research on this vaccine.

Background incidence rates of adverse events of special interest related to COVID-19 vaccines in Ontario, Canada, 2015 to 2020, to inform COVID-19 vaccine safety surveillance.

BACKGROUND: Background incidence rates are critical in pharmacovigilance to facilitate identification of vaccine safety signals. We estimated background incidence rates of 11 adverse events of special interest related to COVID-19 vaccines in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: We conducted a population-based retrospective observational study using linked health administrative databases for hospitalizations and emergency department visits among Ontario residents. We estimated incidence rates of Bell's palsy, idiopathic thrombocytopenia, febrile convulsions, acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, myocarditis, pericarditis, Kawasaki disease, Guillain-Barré syndrome, transverse myelitis, acute myocardial infarction, and anaphylaxis during five pre-pandemic years (2015-2019) and 2020. RESULTS: The average annual population was 14 million across all age groups with 51% female. The pre-pandemic mean annual rates per 100,000 population during 2015-2019 were 191 for acute myocardial infarction, 43.9 for idiopathic thrombocytopenia, 28.8 for anaphylaxis, 27.8 for Bell's palsy, 25.0 for febrile convulsions, 22.8 for acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, 11.3 for myocarditis/pericarditis, 8.7 for pericarditis, 2.9 for myocarditis, 2.0 for Kawasaki disease, 1.9 for Guillain-Barré syndrome, and 1.7 for transverse myelitis. Females had higher rates of acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, transverse myelitis and anaphylaxis while males had higher rates of myocarditis, pericarditis, and Guillain-Barré syndrome. Bell's palsy, acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, and Guillain-Barré syndrome increased with age. The mean rates of myocarditis and/or pericarditis increased with age up to 79 years; males had higher rates than females: from 12 to 59 years for myocarditis and ≥12 years for pericarditis. Febrile convulsions and Kawasaki disease were predominantly childhood diseases and generally decreased with age. CONCLUSIONS: Our estimated background rates will permit estimating numbers of expected events for these conditions and facilitate detection of potential safety signals following COVID-19 vaccination.

Population-Based Incidence, Severity, and Risk Factors Associated with Treated Acute-Onset COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination-Associated Hypersensitivity Reactions.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 mRNA vaccination-associated acute-onset hypersensitivity reactions have caused anxiety and may be contributing to vaccine hesitancy. OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence, severity, and risk factors for treated acute-onset COVID-19 mRNA vaccination-associated hypersensitivity reactions in a well-characterized population. METHODS: All Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC) members who received COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations between December 15, 2020, and March 11, 2021, at a KPSC facility were identified and characterized, along with all treated acute-onset vaccination-associated hypersensitivity events. RESULTS: We identified 391,123 unique vaccine recipients (59.18% female, age 64.19 ± 17.86 years); 215,156 received 2 doses (53.54% Moderna), 157,615 only a first dose (50.13% Moderna) (1961 [1.46%] >2 weeks late getting a second dose), and 18,352 (74.43% Moderna) only a second dose. Only 104 (0.028%) (85.58% female, age 53.18 ± 15.96 years) had treated first dose events, 68 (0.030%) Moderna. Only 32 (0.014%) (93.75% female, age 57.28 ± 17.09 years) had treated second dose events, 21 (0.016%) Moderna. Only 2 (0.00033%) vaccinations resulted in anaphylaxis. Only 27 (20.77%) of those with treated first dose reactions failed to get a second dose. Only 6 of 77 (7.8%) with first dose reactions also had second dose reactions. Individuals with treated events were more likely to be female (P < .0001), younger (P < .0001), and had more pre-existing drug "allergies" (2.11 ± 2.12 vs 1.02 ± 1.41 [P < .0001] for average recipients). CONCLUSIONS: Treated acute-onset hypersensitivity events were mostly benign, more common with first COVID-19 mRNA vaccine doses, more likely to occur in younger females with typical risk factors associated with multiple drug intolerance syndrome, and very unlikely to be primarily immunologically mediated.

Acute unsolicited adverse events following BNT162b2 vaccine in Saudi Arabia, a real-world data.

BACKGROUND: Acute adverse events and anaphylaxis were reported after the administration of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) mRNA vaccines. We aim to explore the nature and outcome of adverse events following BNT162B2 vaccine in a community vaccination center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. METHOD: Within 30 min post vaccination, all acute adverse events (AAEs) that occurred before March 31st, 2021, and in people older than 16 years were reviewed (AAE group). We used the case definition of Brighton collaboration on vaccine safety to define anaphylaxis. Patients' demographics, comorbidities, allergy history, and outcome at disposition were collected. Observation duration after vaccination was short (<15 min) or extended (<3 h). Statistical analysis was performed to study AAEs association with the study variables and outcomes. RESULTS: Out of 71,221 vaccine recipients, 144 (0.002%) had developed 345 AAEs, at a rate of 48.4 events per 10,000 dose administered. The majority of cases in AAE group were first dose recipients (93.8%) and previously healthy (59%), while the minority had a previous history of allergy (6.3%) or a laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 (4.2%). We found a significant association between female gender and the occurrence of any AAE (p-value = 0.002). Per every 10,000 doses administered, non-anaphylactic AAEs were dizziness (17.8), headache (9.7), nausea (7.1), or syncope (3.2). Only one in every ten AAEs was considered serious and resulted in an extended observation (4.8 per 10,000 doses), but only 1/144 required hospitalization for non-anaphylaxis reasons (0.1 per 10,000 doses). According to the Brighton collaboration definition of anaphylaxis, no single case of high certainty anaphylaxis was recorded. No death was documented in this cohort. CONCLUSION: Acute adverse events due toBNT162b2 vaccinewere rare andmostlynon-seriouswith a tendency to occur more in women. Further prospectivestudieson largervaccine recipientsto evaluatethe incidenceof anaphylaxis in the Saudi population are warranted.