Is PEGylation of Drugs Associated with Hypersensitivity Reactions? An Analysis of the Italian National Spontaneous Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting System.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Evidence highlights the allergenic potential of PEGylated drugs because of the production of anti-polyethylene glycol immunoglobulins. We investigated the risk of hypersensitivity reactions of PEGylated drugs using the Italian spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting system database. METHODS: We selected adverse drug reaction reports attributed to medicinal products containing PEGylated active substances and/or PEGylated liposomes from the Italian Spontaneous Reporting System in the period between its inception and March 2021. As comparators, we extracted adverse drug reaction reports of medicinal products containing the same non-PEGylated active substances and/or non-PEGylated liposomes (or compounds belonging to the same mechanistic class). A descriptive analysis of reports of hypersensitivity reactions was performed. Reporting rates and time to onset of hypersensitivity reactions were also calculated in the period between January 2009 and March 2021. As a measure of disproportionality, we calculated the reporting odds ratio. RESULTS: Overall, 3865 adverse drug reaction reports were related to PEGylated medicinal products and 11,961 to their non-PEGylated comparators. Around two-thirds of patients were female and reports mostly concerned patients aged between 46 and 64 years. The frequency of hypersensitivity reactions reporting was higher among PEGylated versus non-PEGylated medicinal products (11.7% vs 9.4%, p < 0.0001). The hypersensitivity reaction reporting rates were higher for PEGylated medicinal products versus non-PEGylated medicinal products, with reporting rate ratios that ranged from 1.4 (95% confidence interval 0.8-2.5) for pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim to 20.0 (95% confidence interval 2.8-143.5) for peginterferon alpha-2a versus interferon alpha-2a. The median time to onset of hypersensitivity reactions was 10 days (interquartile range: 0-61) for PEGylated medicinal products, and 36 days (interquartile range: 3-216) for non-PEGylated comparators. Statistically significant reporting odds ratios were observed when comparing the reporting of hypersensitivity reactions for PEGylated versus non-PEGylated medicinal products (reporting odds ratio: 1.3; 95% confidence interval 1.1-1.4). However, when using all other drugs as comparators, the disproportionality analysis showed no association with hypersensitivity reactions for PEGylated nor non-PEGylated medicinal products, thus suggesting that many other triggers of drug-induced hypersensitivity reactions play a major role. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this analysis of the Italian spontaneous adverse drug reaction database suggest a potential involvement for PEGylation in triggering drug-related hypersensitivity reactions, especially clinically relevant reactions. However, when comparing both PEGylated and non-PEGylated drugs under study to all other drugs no disproportionate reporting of hypersensitivity reactions was observed, probably due to a masking effect owing to the presence in the same database of other medicinal products increasing the threshold required to highlight a safety signal when the entire database is used as a reference.

Treatment and management of hypersensitivity reactions developed against anti-tuberculosis drug.

Background: The World Health Organization Global Tuberculosis Report 2021 defines tuberculosis as the second infectious disease that causes sickness and death after COVID 19 and ranks it as the 13^th among the global causes of death. However, the prevalence of the patients developing a hypersensitivity reaction against antituberculosis treatment is yet unknown. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of drug allergy against antituberculosis treatment and the management of such a problem. Methods: This is a case--control study. All patients hospitalized in the tuberculosis inpatient service between February 01, 2015 and May 01, 2021 due to hypersensitivity reaction or who developed hypersensitivity during hospitalization were included in the case group. Patients who received inpatient treatment between the same dates and did not develop any drug allergy were included in the control group. The demographic characteristics of the patients, the tuberculosis diagnostic indicator, the type of hypersensitivity reaction that developed, the duration of the manifestation of the reaction and its treatment were evaluated for the purpose of the study. Results: A total of 2677 patients were hospitalized in the tuberculosis inpatient service between the specified dates. Two hundred and ten patients were consulted for drug hypersensitivity reactions in the Allergy Clinic. The prevalence of drug allergy in inpatients was calculated as 7.8%. One hundred and forty-eight patients examined by the authors were included in the study. Seventy-nine of the 148 patients (53.4%) who developed a hypersensitivity reaction were male, the mean age of these patients was 47.20 ± 18.95 years, 89.2% (n = 132) were citizens of the Republic of Turkey, 7.4% (n = 11) of the patients had received tuberculosis treatment before, 16.9% (25) had developed antituberculosis drug resistance and the bacteriological diagnosis was present in 79.7% (118) of the patients. Chi-square test results applied in the allergy group revealed that the risk of developing a hypersensitivity reaction is statistically significantly higher in female patients (P < 0.001), Turkish citizen patients (P = 0.004), in new cases (P = 0.017), in the group not diagnosed bacteriologically (histopathologically, clinically, and radiologically) (P = 0.006). The results of the logistic regression analysis performed also revealed that the risk of developing a hypersensitivity reaction is statistically significantly higher in female patients (P = 0.006), Turkish citizen patients (P = 0.023), in new cases (P = 0.017) and in the group not diagnosed bacteriologically (histopathologically, clinically, and radiologically) (P = 0.006). The success of the treatment was higher in the group that developed a hypersensitivity reaction compared to the control group. About 63.5% (94) of the patients examined developed Type I hypersensitivity reactions, whereas 36.7% (53) of the patients examined developed Type IV hypersensitivity reactions. Type I and Type IV reactions were observed simultaneously in a single patient. Considering the prevalence of developing a hypersensitivity reaction, pyrazinamide was determined as the drug inducing the hypersensitivity reaction in 25 (48.1%) patients. This figure was 15 patients (28.2%) for rifampicin, nine patients (17.3%) for isoniazid, and five patients (9.6%) for ethambutol. As a result, even patients who developed Type I or Type IV reactions were able to complete their antituberculous drug regimens with successful desensitization. Conclusion: The risk of developing an allergic reaction in patients who are administered on antituberculosis treatment is common, particularly in the first 2 months of treatment. However, we believe that the compliance of the patients to the antituberculosis treatment has been improved at the end of appropriate management of hypersensitivity reactions and the treatment results in success.

Oncologist counseling practice and COVID-19 vaccination outcomes for patients with history of PEG-asparaginase hypersensitivity.

Vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is an effective strategy to prevent serious coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and is important for oncology patients. mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines are contraindicated in those with a history of severe or immediate allergy to any vaccine component, including polyethylene glycol (PEG)2000. Patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma receive asparaginase conjugated to PEG5000 (PEG-ASNase) and those with PEG-ASNase-associated hypersensitivity may be unnecessarily excluded from receiving mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. We, therefore, surveyed oncologists on COVID-19 vaccine counseling practice and vaccination outcomes in COVID-19 vaccination-eligible patients and show safe receipt of mRNA vaccines despite PEG-ASNase hypersensitivity.

Allergies and COVID-19 vaccines: An ENDA/EAACI Position paper.

BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis, which is rare, has been reported after COVID-19 vaccination, but its management is not standardized. METHOD: Members of the European Network for Drug Allergy and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology interested in drug allergy participated in an online questionnaire on pre-vaccination screening and management of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines, and literature was analysed. RESULTS: No death due to anaphylaxis to COVID-19 vaccines has been confirmed in scientific literature. Potential allergens, polyethylene glycol (PEG), polysorbate and tromethamine are excipients. The authors propose allergy evaluation of persons with the following histories: 1-anaphylaxis to injectable drug or vaccine containing PEG or derivatives; 2-anaphylaxis to oral/topical PEG containing products; 3-recurrent anaphylaxis of unknown cause; 4-suspected or confirmed allergy to any mRNA vaccine; and 5-confirmed allergy to PEG or derivatives. We recommend a prick-to-prick skin test with the left-over solution in the suspected vaccine vial to avoid waste. Prick test panel should include PEG 4000 or 3500, PEG 2000 and polysorbate 80. The value of in vitro test is arguable. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations will lead to a better knowledge of the management and mechanisms involved in anaphylaxis to COVID-19 vaccines and enable more people with history of allergy to be vaccinated.

Analysis of COVID-19 Vaccine Type and Adverse Effects Following Vaccination.

Importance: Little is known about the factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine adverse effects in a real-world population. Objective: To evaluate factors potentially associated with participant-reported adverse effects after COVID-19 vaccination. Design, Setting, and Participants: The COVID-19 Citizen Science Study, an online cohort study, includes adults aged 18 years and older with a smartphone or internet access. Participants complete daily, weekly, and monthly surveys on health and COVID-19-related events. This analysis includes participants who provided consent between March 26, 2020, and May 19, 2021, and received at least 1 COVID-19 vaccine dose. Exposures: Participant-reported COVID-19 vaccination. Main Outcomes and Measures: Participant-reported adverse effects and adverse effect severity. Candidate factors in multivariable logistic regression models included age, sex, race, ethnicity, subjective social status, prior COVID-19 infection, medical conditions, substance use, vaccine dose, and vaccine brand. Results: The 19 586 participants had a median (IQR) age of 54 (38-66) years, and 13 420 (68.8%) were women. Allergic reaction or anaphylaxis was reported in 26 of 8680 participants (0.3%) after 1 dose of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccine, 27 of 11 141 (0.2%) after 2 doses of the BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccine or 1 dose of the JNJ-78436735 (Johnson & Johnson) vaccine. The strongest factors associated with adverse effects were vaccine dose (2 doses of BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 or 1 dose of JNJ-78436735 vs 1 dose of BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273; odds ratio [OR], 3.10; 95% CI, 2.89-3.34; P < .001), vaccine brand (mRNA-1273 vs BNT162b2, OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.86-2.15; P < .001; JNJ-78436735 vs BNT162b2: OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.52-0.79; P < .001), age (per 10 years: OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.72-0.76; P < .001), female sex (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.53-1.78; P < .001), and having had COVID-19 before vaccination (OR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.77-2.66; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this real-world cohort, serious COVID-19 vaccine adverse effects were rare and comparisons across brands could be made, revealing that full vaccination dose, vaccine brand, younger age, female sex, and having had COVID-19 before vaccination were associated with greater odds of adverse effects. Large digital cohort studies may provide a mechanism for independent postmarket surveillance of drugs and devices.

Allergic reactions against Covid-19 vaccines

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) affected the whole world in a short time. One of the most influential public health initiatives modern medicine has to offer, the vaccine has become even more important as the COVID-19 pandemic continues to worsen worldwide. Many vaccine trials were launched during the COVID-19 pandemic, and these vaccines were widely used around the world, offering realistic hope for ending the pandemic. Allergic reactions to vaccines were reported shortly after their approval. These reactions, in general, are rare, but, in some circumstances, they can be serious. Allergy to vaccines can occur because of either the active vaccine component or vaccine ingredients. The spectrum of the reactions may be just a local hypersensitiviy reaction or may be as severe as an anaphylaxis, which is an acute severe, life-threatening systemic hypersensitive reaction, and it requires quick intervention. If an allergy is suspected, a correct examination followed by algorithms is important for true diagnosis, treatment, and decision regarding revaccination. Patients who experience an allergic reaction with the first dose of covid 19 vaccine should be directed to the allergy-immunologist, and the evaluation of at-risk patients should be individualized. Finally, we should point out that the benefits of current COVID-19 vaccines go far beyond the side effects, and that the vaccine is the most important way to recover from the pandemic.

The Polysorbate containing AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine is tolerated by polyethylene glycol (PEG) allergic patients.

BACKGROUND: Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is the excipient found in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. We previously demonstrated PEG allergy was a cause of severe anaphylaxis to the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. PEG is widely used in many household products, cosmetics and medicines. However PEG allergy is rare, there have been few confirmed cases of PEG allergy. The excipient of potential concern in the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine is polysorbate 80 (PS80). Cross-reactivity between PEG and polysorbate has been suggested, based on their composition and skin-test data. The aim of this study was to determine whether PEG-allergic patients could be vaccinated with the PS80 containing AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. METHOD: Eight patients with PEG allergy were identified by the allergy clinic at Cambridge University Hospital. Patients underwent skin prick testing to PS80 (20%) and to the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine prior to vaccination. RESULTS: All eight patients allergic to PEG tolerated the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, even in 2 patients where the PS80 skin prick test was positive and 1 with a positive skin prick test to the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. CONCLUSION: Patients allergic to PEG, previously denied COVID vaccination, may now be safely vaccinated with the PS80 containing AstraZeneca vaccine and need only avoid the PEG-containing mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. This opens up the possibility that these patients will also tolerate other vaccines containing PS80 such as the Janssen/Johnson and Johnson COVID-19 vaccine. Clinical cross-reactivity between PEG and PS80 did not occur in this vaccine setting.

Delayed localized hypersensitivity reactions to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines: a 6-month retrospective study.

Several individuals have developed delayed localized cutaneous vaccine reactions to the two novel mRNA Covid-19 vaccines. Clinical and histopathologic results of this case series study confirm that the localized injection-site reactions to the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are delayed hypersensitivity reactions that, unlike immediate hypersensitivity reactions, are not a contraindication to vaccination.

Safety of administration of BNT162b2 mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech) COVID-19 vaccine in youths and young adults with a history of acute lymphoblastic leukemia and allergy to PEG-asparaginase.

Vaccinationis a critical tool in the prevention of COVID-19 infection for individuals and for communities. The mRNA vaccines contain polyethylene glycol (PEG) as a stabilizer. Currently, in North America, only the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) mRNA vaccine is approved for individuals aged 12-17. Most patients treated with contemporary regimens for acute lymphoblastic leukemia receive PEG-asparaginase (PEG-ASNase) and 10%-30% will develop allergic reactions. Optimizing access and safety for vaccine administration for these patients is critical. This report describes a process developed to support COVID vaccination in a cohort of adolescents and young adults with a history of PEG-ASNase allergy.

Vaccine allergy: evidence to consider for COVID-19 vaccines.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Whereas the COVID-19 pandemic has changed our lives worldwide, we hope that vaccination can combat the disease. We propose how to evaluate suspected severe allergic reactions to the vaccines so that as many as possible may be safely vaccinated. RECENT FINDINGS: Rare cases of severe allergic reactions after COVID-19 vaccination have been observed, seemingly at a higher frequency than for other vaccines. Few excipients are likely to have caused these reactions. IgE-mediated reactions to polyethylene glycol (PEG) and its derivatives are the most suspected, albeit hitherto unproven, causes. We suggest to make a diagnosis based on skin tests with PEG and PEG derivatives and that these be considered in relation to the decisions required before the first and the second vaccine dose. A vaccine without these excipients is available, but published data about its side effects are limited. SUMMARY: The underlying immunological mechanisms of the rare severe allergic reactions to the COVID-19 vaccines are poorly understood and need to be clarified. Identifying those who have an undiagnosed allergy to PEG and PEG derivatives is crucial before vaccination, and these substances are found in laxatives, cosmetics and in 30% of all our medications today.

Are the Allergic Reactions of COVID-19 Vaccines Caused by mRNA Constructs or Nanocarriers? Immunological Insights.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recently authorized the two messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 for emergency use against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causing the COVID-19 coronavirus disease. BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines were developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, respectively, in 2020. The United Kingdom, Bahrain, Canada, Mexico, United States, Singapore, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and European Union began their vaccination programs with the BNT162b2 vaccine, while the United States and Canada also started the mRNA-1273 vaccination program in mid December 2020. On 28th December 2020, studies reported severe allergic reactions in people who received the BNT162b2, and few people who received the mRNA-1273 vaccine. Authors of the letter thus attempt to explore possible causes of anaphylaxis following COVID-19 vaccination.

Allergy to COVID-19 vaccines: A current update.

Adverse allergic reactions due to the administration of the vaccines developed for the protection of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been reported since the initiation of the vaccination campaigns. Current analyses provided by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States have estimated the rates of anaphylactic reactions in 2.5 and 11.1 per million of mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 vaccines administered, respectively. Although rather low, such rates could have importance due to the uncommon fact that a large majority of the world population will be subjected to vaccination with the aforementioned vaccines in the following months and vaccination will most likely be necessary every season as for influenza vaccines. Health regulators have advised that any subject with a previous history of allergy to drugs or any component of the vaccines should not be vaccinated, however, certain misunderstanding exists since allergy to specific excipients in drugs and vaccines are in occasions misdiagnosed due to an absence of suspicion to specific excipients as allergenic triggers or due to inaccurate labeling or nomenclature. In this review, we provide an updated revision of the most current data regarding the anaphylactic reactions described for BNT162b2 vaccine, mRNA-1273 vaccine, and AZD1222 vaccine. We extensively describe the different excipients in the vaccines with the potential to elicit systemic allergic reactions such as polyethylene glycol (PEG), polysorbates, tromethamine/trometamol, and others and the possible immunological mechanisms involved.