The Prevalence of Immediate Hypersensitivity Reactions to the BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccine against SARS-CoV-2: Data from the Vaccination Campaign in a Large Academic Hospital.

The anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination has probably been the most effective tool for preventing the infection and negative outcomes of the COVID-19 disease, and therefore for interrupting the pandemic state. The first licensed SARS-CoV-2 vaccine was BNT162b2, an mRNA vaccine that has been widely used since the earliest stages of the global vaccination campaign. Since the beginning of the vaccination campaign, some cases of suspected allergic reactions to BNT162b2 have been described. Epidemiological data, however, have provided reassuring results of an extremely low prevalence of these hypersensitivity reactions to anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. In this article, we describe the results of a survey carried out through the use of a questionnaire, administered to all the health personnel of our university hospital after the first two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine, which investigated the development of adverse reactions after a vaccination. We analyzed the responses of 3112 subjects subjected to the first dose of the vaccine; among these, 1.8% developed symptoms compatible with allergic reactions and 0.9% with clinical manifestations of possible anaphylaxis. Only 10.3% of the subjects who had allergic reactions after the first injection experienced similar reactions after the second dose and none of them experienced anaphylaxis. In conclusion, the anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is rarely associated with severe allergic reactions and the second dose of vaccine is safe for this group of patients.

Polyethylene Glycol and Polysorbate 80 Skin Tests in the Context of an Allergic Risk Assessment for Hypersensitivity Reactions to Anti-SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccines.

Concern has arisen about hypersensitivity reactions in patients with allergic reactions to drugs containing polyethylene glycol (PEG) or polysorbate 80 (PS80), excipients of currently available anti-SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines. However, the actual utility of PEG and PS80 skin allergy testing is currently still debated. We retrospectively analyzed all cases of patients on whom we performed allergometric skin tests for PEG and PS80 in the context of a pre-vaccination screening (for patients with multiple hypersensitivity reactions to drugs for which these excipients were among the suspected agents) or following suspected hypersensitivity reactions to anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. A total of 134 tests were performed for PEG and PS80, eight of which produced uninterpretable results (due to dermographism or non-specific reactions). Of the remaining 126 cases (85 pre-vaccinal and 41 post-vaccine reactions), 16 (12.7%) were positive for PEG and/or PS80. Stratifying by clinical indication, there were no statistically significant differences in the proportion of positive tests between patients evaluated in the context of the pre-vaccination screening and those evaluated after a vaccine reaction (10.6% vs. 17.1%, respectively, p = 0.306). Allergometric skin tests for PEG and PS80 in our case series resulted positive in an unexpectedly high proportion of patients, suggesting that testing for allergy to these two excipients should not be ignored in case of reasonable clinical suspicion.

Desensitization Protocols for Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines in Patients with High Risk of Allergic Reactions.

Vaccines for SAR-CoV-2 are the most effective preventive treatment able to reduce the risk of contracting the infection and experiencing worse outcomes whenever the infection is contracted. Despite their rarity, hypersensitivity reactions to the anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine have been described and could become the reason not to complete the vaccination. Desensitization protocols for other vaccines have been described and validated, while the use of this approach for anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is still anecdotal. We herein describe our experience with 30 patients with previous allergic reactions to anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines or to any of their excipients, proving that they are effective and safe; only two patients experienced hypersensitivity reaction symptoms during the desensitization procedure. Moreover, in this article, we propose desensitization protocols for the most common anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines.

Successful diagnostic stewardship for Clostridioides difficile testing in pediatrics.

OBJECTIVE: To reduce both inappropriate testing for and diagnosis of healthcare-onset (HO) Clostridioides difficile infections (CDIs). DESIGN: We performed a retrospective analysis of C. difficile testing from hospitalized children before (October 2017-October 2018) and after (November 2018-October 2020) implementing restrictive computerized provider order entry (CPOE). SETTING: Study sites included hospital A (a ∼250-bed freestanding children's hospital) and hospital B (a ∼100-bed children's hospital within a larger hospital) that are part of the same multicampus institution. METHODS: In October 2018, we implemented CPOE. No testing was allowed for infants aged ≤12 months, approval of the infectious disease team was required to test children aged 13-23 months, and pathology residents' approval was required to test all patients aged ≥24 months with recent laxative, stool softener, or enema use. Interrupted time series analysis and Mann-Whitney U test were used for analysis. RESULTS: An interrupted time series analysis revealed that from October 2017 to October 2020, the numbers of tests ordered and samples sent significantly decreased in all age groups (P < .05). The monthly median number of HO-CDI cases significantly decreased after implementation of the restrictive CPOE in children aged 13-23 months (P < .001) and all ages combined (P = .003). CONCLUSION: Restrictive CPOE for CDI in pediatrics was successfully implemented and sustained. Diagnostic stewardship for CDI is likely cost-saving and could decrease misdiagnosis, unnecessary antibiotic therapy, and overestimation of HO-CDI rates.

COVID-19 Infection, Prevention, and Control Considerations in the Obstetric Environment.

Pregnancy increases the risk of severe illness due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Thus, prevention of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission in all obstetrical health care settings requires consistent implementation of multiple evidence-based practices and consideration of local epidemiology, local regulations for COVID-19, and guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Professional Societies. COVID-safe practices should be implemented for patients, visitors/support persons, and health care personnel and include screening, appropriate personal protective equipment, and transmission precautions. Vaccination of all health care personnel, pregnant people, and their support persons remains the best strategy to prevent COVID-19.

Management of surgical working in an Italian neighborhood hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The novel SARS-CoV-2 pandemic arose in China in the late 2019 and soon after spread in the rest of the world. The management of SARS-CoV-2 is a serious challenge for all the healthcare professionals. The management of this disease has caused an epochal change in all of the hospitals. The surgical departments too were not excluded from management of COVID-19 patients, because of the disease itself, or as complication of surgical procedure. The surgeons too had to quickly adapt their skills, in order to recognize and treat this life-threatening problem. In the meantime, the surgeons had to ensure continuity of the oncall availability for the emergency procedures, meanwhile the regular scheduled surgical activities were suspended. We present here our experience in a neighborhood hospital located in Milan, Italy.

Infection prevention and control for labor and delivery, well baby nurseries, and neonatal intensive care units.

During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, infection prevention and control (IP&C) for women in labor and mothers and newborns during delivery and receiving post-partum care was quite challenging for staff, patients, and support persons due to a relative lack of evidence-based practices, high rates of community transmission, and shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE). We present our IP&C policies and procedures for the obstetrical population developed from mid-March to mid-May 2020 when New York City served as the epicenter of the pandemic in the U.S. For patients, we describe screening for COVID-19, testing for SARS-CoV-2, and clearing patients from COVID-19 precautions. For staff, we address self-monitoring for symptoms, PPE in different clinical scenarios, and reducing staff exposures to SARS-CoV-2. For visitors/support persons, we address limiting them in labor and delivery, the postpartum units, and the NICU to promote staff and patient safety. We describe management of SARS-CoV-2-positive mothers and their newborns in both the well-baby nursery and in the neonatal ICU. Notably, in the well-baby nursery we do not separate SARS-CoV-2-positive mothers from their newborns, but emphasize maternal mask use and social distancing by placing newborns in isolates and asking mothers to remain 6 feet away unless feeding or changing their newborn. We also encourage direct breastfeeding and do not advocate early bathing. Newborns of SARS-CoV-2-positive mothers are considered persons under investigation (PUIs) until 14 days of life, the duration of the incubation period for SARS-CoV-2. We share two models of community-based care for PUI neonates. Finally, we provide our strategies for enhancing communication and education during the early months of the pandemic.