Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 46
Filter
1.
Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol ; 36: 3946320221100367, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1846679

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Anaphylaxis , COVID-19 , Latex Hypersensitivity , Sublingual Immunotherapy , Administration, Sublingual , Adult , Anaphylaxis/epidemiology , Anaphylaxis/etiology , Anaphylaxis/prevention & control , COVID-19/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Latex Hypersensitivity/diagnosis , Latex Hypersensitivity/epidemiology , Latex Hypersensitivity/therapy , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Quality of Life , SARS-CoV-2
3.
Allergol Immunopathol (Madr) ; 50(3): 132-137, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1836058

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Anaphylaxis , COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Exercise , Wheat Hypersensitivity , Anaphylaxis/epidemiology , Anaphylaxis/etiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Exercise/adverse effects , Gliadin , Humans , Retrospective Studies
4.
Clin Exp Allergy ; 52(5): 595-597, 2022 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1831989
6.
Nat Nanotechnol ; 17(4): 337-346, 2022 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1783988

ABSTRACT

After over a billion of vaccinations with messenger RNA-lipid nanoparticle (mRNA-LNP) based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, anaphylaxis and other manifestations of hypersensitivity can be considered as very rare adverse events. Although current recommendations include avoiding a second dose in those with first-dose anaphylaxis, the underlying mechanisms are unknown; therefore, the risk of a future reaction cannot be predicted. Given how important new mRNA constructs will be to address the emergence of new viral variants and viruses, there is an urgent need for clinical approaches that would allow a safe repeated immunization of high-risk individuals and for reliable predictive tools of adverse reactions to mRNA vaccines. In many aspects, anaphylaxis symptoms experienced by the affected vaccine recipients resemble those of infusion reactions to nanomedicines. Here we share lessons learned over a decade of nanomedicine research and discuss the current knowledge about several factors that individually or collectively contribute to infusion reactions to nanomedicines. We aim to use this knowledge to inform the SARS-CoV-2 lipid-nanoparticle-based mRNA vaccine field.


Subject(s)
Anaphylaxis , COVID-19 , Anaphylaxis/etiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Humans , Liposomes , Nanomedicine , Nanoparticles , RNA, Messenger/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Vaccines, Synthetic
9.
Am J Trop Med Hyg ; 106(1): 342-344, 2021 10 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1726464

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Anaphylaxis/epidemiology , Anaphylaxis/etiology , Snake Bites/complications , Snake Bites/epidemiology , Aged , Anaphylaxis/therapy , Anti-Bacterial Agents/administration & dosage , Antivenins/administration & dosage , Ceftriaxone/administration & dosage , Clindamycin/administration & dosage , Female , Humans , Portugal/epidemiology , Snake Bites/therapy , Tetanus Toxoid/administration & dosage , Treatment Outcome
11.
J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract ; 10(3): 827-836, 2022 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1587394

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Anaphylaxis , COVID-19 , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Anaphylaxis/epidemiology , Anaphylaxis/etiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Female , Humans , Incidence , Male , Middle Aged , RNA, Messenger , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination/adverse effects , Vaccines, Synthetic
13.
Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol ; 128(2): 161-168.e1, 2022 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1536424

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Allergic and nonallergic adverse reactions have been reported with global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination. It was previously hypothesized that polyethylene glycol (PEG) may be responsible for anaphylactic reactions to messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccines. OBJECTIVE: To report the workflow established at our institution, types, and frequency of adverse reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in patients presenting for allergy evaluation. METHODS: A COVID-19 vaccine adverse reaction registry was established. We used PEG prick skin testing, followed by PEG challenges in selected cases, to ensure PEG tolerance and encourage completion of COVID-19 vaccination series. RESULTS: A total of 113 patients were included. Most vaccine reactions (86.7%) occurred in women. Anaphylaxis occurred only in women, all of which had a history of allergic disease and two-thirds had asthma. Anaphylaxis rate was 40.6 cases per million. None of the anaphylactic cases developed hypotension, required intubation, or required hospital admission. Systemic allergic symptoms, not fulfilling anaphylaxis criteria, were significantly more common in Pfizer-BioNTech than Moderna-vaccinated patients (P = .02). We observed a higher incidence of dermatologic nonurticarial reactions in men (P = .004). Among first-dose reactors, 86.7% received and tolerated the second dose. We observed a high rate of false-positive intradermal skin test results and frequent subjective symptoms with oral PEG challenge. CONCLUSION: Intradermal PEG testing has limited utility in evaluating anaphylaxis to mRNA vaccines. Most severe postvaccination allergic symptoms are not caused by hypersensitivity to PEG. Most people with reaction to the initial mRNA vaccine can be safely revaccinated. Patients with anaphylaxis to COVID-19 vaccines benefit from physician-observed vaccination.


Subject(s)
Anaphylaxis , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , COVID-19 , Anaphylaxis/etiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Female , Humans , Male , Polyethylene Glycols/adverse effects , Skin Tests , Vaccines, Synthetic/adverse effects , /adverse effects
14.
JAMA ; 326(14): 1390-1399, 2021 10 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1490611

ABSTRACT

Importance: Safety surveillance of vaccines against COVID-19 is critical to ensure safety, maintain trust, and inform policy. Objectives: To monitor 23 serious outcomes weekly, using comprehensive health records on a diverse population. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study represents an interim analysis of safety surveillance data from Vaccine Safety Datalink. The 10 162 227 vaccine-eligible members of 8 participating US health plans were monitored with administrative data updated weekly and supplemented with medical record review for selected outcomes from December 14, 2020, through June 26, 2021. Exposures: Receipt of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) COVID-19 vaccination, with a risk interval of 21 days for individuals after vaccine dose 1 or 2 compared with an interval of 22 to 42 days for similar individuals after vaccine dose 1 or 2. Main Outcomes and Measures: Incidence of serious outcomes, including acute myocardial infarction, Bell palsy, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, myocarditis/pericarditis, pulmonary embolism, stroke, and thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome. Incidence of events that occurred among vaccine recipients 1 to 21 days after either dose 1 or 2 of a messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine was compared with that of vaccinated concurrent comparators who, on the same calendar day, had received their most recent dose 22 to 42 days earlier. Rate ratios (RRs) were estimated by Poisson regression, adjusted for age, sex, race and ethnicity, health plan, and calendar day. For a signal, a 1-sided P < .0048 was required to keep type I error below .05 during 2 years of weekly analyses. For 4 additional outcomes, including anaphylaxis, only descriptive analyses were conducted. Results: A total of 11 845 128 doses of mRNA vaccines (57% BNT162b2; 6 175 813 first doses and 5 669 315 second doses) were administered to 6.2 million individuals (mean age, 49 years; 54% female individuals). The incidence of events per 1 000 000 person-years during the risk vs comparison intervals for ischemic stroke was 1612 vs 1781 (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.87-1.08); for appendicitis, 1179 vs 1345 (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.73-0.93); and for acute myocardial infarction, 935 vs 1030 (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.89-1.18). No vaccine-outcome association met the prespecified requirement for a signal. Incidence of confirmed anaphylaxis was 4.8 (95% CI, 3.2-6.9) per million doses of BNT162b2 and 5.1 (95% CI, 3.3-7.6) per million doses of mRNA-1273. Conclusions and Relevance: In interim analyses of surveillance of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, incidence of selected serious outcomes was not significantly higher 1 to 21 days postvaccination compared with 22 to 42 days postvaccination. While CIs were wide for many outcomes, surveillance is ongoing.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Anaphylaxis/epidemiology , Anaphylaxis/etiology , Child , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Myocarditis/epidemiology , Myocarditis/etiology , Public Health Surveillance , Time Factors , Vaccines, Synthetic/adverse effects , Young Adult
15.
Am J Trop Med Hyg ; 106(1): 342-344, 2021 10 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1485312

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Anaphylaxis/epidemiology , Anaphylaxis/etiology , Snake Bites/complications , Snake Bites/epidemiology , Aged , Anaphylaxis/therapy , Anti-Bacterial Agents/administration & dosage , Antivenins/administration & dosage , Ceftriaxone/administration & dosage , Clindamycin/administration & dosage , Female , Humans , Portugal/epidemiology , Snake Bites/therapy , Tetanus Toxoid/administration & dosage , Treatment Outcome
18.
Allergy Asthma Proc ; 42(5): 395-399, 2021 Sep 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1394716

ABSTRACT

Background: Adverse reactions, including anaphylaxis, to messenger RNA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines rarely occur. Because of the need to administer a timely second dose in subjects who reported a reaction to their first dose, a panel of health-care professionals developed a safe triage of the employees and health care providers (EHCP) at a large health-care system to consider administration of future dosing. Methods: There were 28,544 EHCPs who received their first dose of COVID-19 vaccines between December 15, 2020, and March 8, 2021. The EHCPs self-reported adverse reactions to a centralized COVID-19 command center (CCC). The CCC screened and collected information on the quality of reaction, symptoms, and timing of the onset of the reaction. Results: Of 1253 calls to the CCC, 113 were identified as requiring consideration by a panel of three (American Board of Allergy and Immunology) ABAI-certified allergists for future dosing or formal in-person assessment. Of the 113 EHCPs, 94 (83.2%) were recommended to get their second dose. Eighty of 94 received their second planned dose without a severe or immediate reaction. Of the 14 of 113 identified as needing further evaluation, 6 were evaluated by a physician and subsequently received their second dose without a serious adverse reaction. Eight of 14 did not receive their second dose. Only 5 of the 113 EHCPs reported reactions (4.4%) were recommended to not take the second dose: 3 (2.6%) because of symptoms consistent with anaphylaxis, and 2 because of neurologic complications (seizure, stroke). Conclusion: The panel demonstrated that, by consideration of reaction history alone, the ECHPs could be appropriately triaged to receive scheduled second dosing of COVID-19 vaccines without delays for in-person evaluation and allergy testing.


Subject(s)
Anaphylaxis/etiology , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , COVID-19/prevention & control , Health Personnel , Occupational Diseases/prevention & control , Triage/methods , Vaccines, Synthetic/adverse effects , Adult , Aged , Anaphylaxis/diagnosis , Anaphylaxis/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Occupational Health Services/methods , Occupational Health Services/standards , Quality Improvement , Retrospective Studies , Self Report , Triage/standards , Vaccines, Synthetic/administration & dosage
19.
JAMA ; 326(14): 1390-1399, 2021 10 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1391514

ABSTRACT

Importance: Safety surveillance of vaccines against COVID-19 is critical to ensure safety, maintain trust, and inform policy. Objectives: To monitor 23 serious outcomes weekly, using comprehensive health records on a diverse population. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study represents an interim analysis of safety surveillance data from Vaccine Safety Datalink. The 10 162 227 vaccine-eligible members of 8 participating US health plans were monitored with administrative data updated weekly and supplemented with medical record review for selected outcomes from December 14, 2020, through June 26, 2021. Exposures: Receipt of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) COVID-19 vaccination, with a risk interval of 21 days for individuals after vaccine dose 1 or 2 compared with an interval of 22 to 42 days for similar individuals after vaccine dose 1 or 2. Main Outcomes and Measures: Incidence of serious outcomes, including acute myocardial infarction, Bell palsy, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, myocarditis/pericarditis, pulmonary embolism, stroke, and thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome. Incidence of events that occurred among vaccine recipients 1 to 21 days after either dose 1 or 2 of a messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine was compared with that of vaccinated concurrent comparators who, on the same calendar day, had received their most recent dose 22 to 42 days earlier. Rate ratios (RRs) were estimated by Poisson regression, adjusted for age, sex, race and ethnicity, health plan, and calendar day. For a signal, a 1-sided P < .0048 was required to keep type I error below .05 during 2 years of weekly analyses. For 4 additional outcomes, including anaphylaxis, only descriptive analyses were conducted. Results: A total of 11 845 128 doses of mRNA vaccines (57% BNT162b2; 6 175 813 first doses and 5 669 315 second doses) were administered to 6.2 million individuals (mean age, 49 years; 54% female individuals). The incidence of events per 1 000 000 person-years during the risk vs comparison intervals for ischemic stroke was 1612 vs 1781 (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.87-1.08); for appendicitis, 1179 vs 1345 (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.73-0.93); and for acute myocardial infarction, 935 vs 1030 (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.89-1.18). No vaccine-outcome association met the prespecified requirement for a signal. Incidence of confirmed anaphylaxis was 4.8 (95% CI, 3.2-6.9) per million doses of BNT162b2 and 5.1 (95% CI, 3.3-7.6) per million doses of mRNA-1273. Conclusions and Relevance: In interim analyses of surveillance of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, incidence of selected serious outcomes was not significantly higher 1 to 21 days postvaccination compared with 22 to 42 days postvaccination. While CIs were wide for many outcomes, surveillance is ongoing.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Anaphylaxis/epidemiology , Anaphylaxis/etiology , Child , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Myocarditis/epidemiology , Myocarditis/etiology , Public Health Surveillance , Time Factors , Vaccines, Synthetic/adverse effects , Young Adult
20.
JAMA Netw Open ; 4(8): e2122255, 2021 08 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1378909

ABSTRACT

Importance: Allergic reactions among some individuals who received the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) COVID-19 vaccine discourage patients with allergic conditions from receiving this vaccine and physicians from recommending the vaccine. Objective: To describe the assessment and immunization of highly allergic individuals with the BNT162b2 vaccine. Design, Setting, and Participants: In a prospective cohort study from December 27, 2020, to February 22, 2021, 8102 patients with allergies who applied to the COVID 19 vaccine referral center at the Sheba Medical Center underwent risk assessment using an algorithm that included a detailed questionnaire. High-risk patients (n = 429) were considered "highly allergic" and were immunized under medical supervision. Exposures: Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) COVID-19 vaccine. Main Outcomes and Measures: Allergic and anaphylactic reactions after the first and second doses of BNT162b2 vaccine among highly allergic patients. Results: Of the 429 individuals who applied to the COVID-19 referral center and were defined as highly allergic, 304 (70.9%) were women and the mean (SD) age was 52 (16) years. This highly allergic group was referred to receive immunization under medical supervision. After the first dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine, 420 patients (97.9%) had no immediate allergic event, 6 (1.4%) developed minor allergic responses, and 3 (0.7%) had anaphylactic reactions. During the study period, 218 highly allergic patients (50.8%) received the second BNT162b2 vaccine dose, of which 214 (98.2%) had no allergic reactions and 4 patients (1.8%) had minor allergic reactions. Other immediate and late reactions were comparable with those seen in the general population, except for delayed itch and skin eruption, which were more common among allergic patients. Conclusions and Relevance: The rate of allergic reactions to BNT162b2 vaccine, is higher among patients with allergies, particularly among a subgroup with a history of high-risk allergies. This study suggests that most patients with a history of allergic diseases and, particularly, highly allergic patients can be safely immunized by using an algorithm that can be implemented in different medical facilities and includes a referral center, a risk assessment questionnaire, and a setting for immunization under medical supervision of highly allergic patients. Further studies are required to define more specific risk factors for allergic reactions to the BNT162b2 vaccine.


Subject(s)
Anaphylaxis/etiology , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , COVID-19/prevention & control , Vaccination/adverse effects , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Anaphylaxis/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Hypersensitivity/epidemiology , Hypersensitivity/etiology , Male , Middle Aged , Prevalence , Prospective Studies , Risk Assessment , SARS-CoV-2 , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL