Revaccination outcomes among adolescents and adults with suspected hypersensitivity reactions following COVID-19 vaccination: A Canadian immunization research network study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccination has been associated with anaphylaxis and hypersensitivity reactions. Infectious disease physicians and allergists in the Canadian Special Immunization Clinic (SIC) Network developed guidance for evaluating patients with adverse events following immunization (AEFI) including suspected hypersensitivity. This study evaluated management and adverse event recurrence following subsequent COVID-19 vaccinations. METHODS: Individuals aged 12 years and older enrolled at participating SICs before February 28, 2023 who were referred for suspected or diagnosed hypersensitivity reaction following COVID-19 vaccination, or for prevaccination assessment of suspected allergy to a COVID-19 vaccine component were included. De-identified clinical assessments and revaccination data, captured in a centralized database, were analyzed. The Brighton Collaboration case definition (BCCD) for anaphylaxis (2023 version) was applied. RESULTS: The analysis included 206 participants from 13 sites: 26 participants referred for pre-vaccination assessment and 180 participants referred for adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination (15/180 [8.3%] with BCCD confirmed anaphylaxis, 84 [46.7%] with immediate hypersensitivity symptoms not meeting BCCD, 33 [18.3%] with other diagnosed hypersensitivity reactions, and 48 [26.7%] participants with a final diagnosis of non-hypersensitivity AEFI). Among participants referred for AEFIs following COVID-19 vaccination, 166/180 (92.2%) were recommended for COVID-19 revaccination after risk assessment, of whom 158/166 (95.2%) were revaccinated (all with a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine). After revaccination, 1/15 (6.7%) participants with prior anaphylaxis, 1/77 (1.3%) with immediate hypersensitivity not meeting criteria for anaphylaxis and 1/24 (4.2%) with other physician diagnosed hypersensitivity developed recurrent AEFI symptoms that met the BCCD for anaphylaxis. All 26 participants referred pre-vaccination, including 9 (34.6%) with history of polyethylene glycol-asparaginase reactions, were vaccinated without occurrence of immediate hypersensitivity symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Most individuals in this national cohort who experienced a hypersensitivity event following COVID-19 vaccination and were referred for specialist review were revaccinated without AEFI recurrence, suggesting that specialist evaluation can facilitate safe revaccination.

Revaccination and Adverse Event Recurrence in Patients with Adverse Events following Immunization.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the risk of recurrence of adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) upon revaccination and to determine among patients with suspected vaccine allergy whether allergy skin test positivity was associated with AEFI recurrence. STUDY DESIGN: This prospective observational study included patients assessed in the Canadian Special Immunization Clinic Network from 2013 to 2019 with AEFIs who required revaccination with the vaccine temporally associated with their AEFI. Participants underwent standardized assessment and data collection. Special Immunization Clinic physicians used guidelines to inform their recommendations. Participants were followed up after revaccination to capture AEFI recurrences. Data were transferred to a central database for descriptive analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 588 participants were assessed for 627 AEFIs; 570 (91%) AEFIs occurred in children <18 years of age. AEFIs included immediate hypersensitivity (130/627; 21%), large local reactions (110/627; 18%), nonurticarial rash (51/627; 8%), seizures (26/627; 4%), and thrombocytopenia (11/627; 2%). Revaccination was recommended to 513 of 588 (87%) participants. Among participants recommended and due for revaccination during the study period, 63% (299/477) were revaccinated. AEFI recurrence was 10% (31/299) overall, 31% (15/49) for large local reactions, and 7% (5/66) for immediate hypersensitivity. No recurrence was serious. Among 92 participants with suspected vaccine allergy who underwent skin testing and were revaccinated, the negative predictive value of skin testing for AEFI recurrence was 96% (95% CI 92.5%-99.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Most individuals with AEFIs were safely revaccinated. Among those with suspected vaccine allergy, skin testing may help determine the safety of revaccination.

Experiencing a first food allergic reaction: a survey of parent and caregiver perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Insufficient knowledge of food allergy and anaphylaxis has been identified by caregivers as an important barrier to coping, and a potential cause of fear and anxiety, particularly for those with children newly diagnosed with food allergy. The purpose of the study was to better understand the experiences of caregivers of children with a first allergic reaction to food, and to identify any deficiencies in the information received at diagnosis. METHODS: A mixed-methods study consisting of an online survey administered to the Anaphylaxis Canada online registry (a patient support group database of approximately 10,000 members), and a follow-up qualitative interview with a subset of survey participants. Analysis consisted of frequency analysis (quantitative and qualitative data) and descriptive statistics to calculate proportions and means with standard deviations. Qualitative analyses were guided by the constant comparative method of grounded theory methodology. RESULTS: Of 293 survey respondents, 208 were eligible to complete the survey (first allergic reaction to food within 12 months of the study), and 184 respondents consented. Identified gaps included education about food allergy, anaphylaxis management, for example, how to use epinephrine auto- injectors, and coping strategies for fear and anxiety. The qualitative follow-up study supported these findings, yielding 3 major themes: 1) lack of provision of information following the episode on the recognition and management of food allergy related allergic reactions, 2) prolonged wait times for an allergist, and 3) significant family anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: The online survey highlighted multiple deficiencies at diagnosis, findings which were supported by the follow up qualitative study. Results will inform the development of educational strategies for patients newly diagnosed with food allergy.

Sirolimus is not always responsible for new-onset proteinuria after conversion for chronic allograft nephropathy.

An eight-yr-old combined liver and kidney transplant recipient for hyperoxaluria type I developed significant proteinuria and hypertension after conversion of a Tacrolimus, MMF, and corticosteroids-based immunosuppression to Sirolimus, low-dose Tacrolimus, and corticosteroids six and a half yr after the transplant for chronic allograft nephropathy. There was only one class I HLA match and the recipient had multiple blood exposures prior to transplantation. The patient was treated with combined hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis while awaiting transplantation to reduce the oxalate load. A renal biopsy revealed a de novo transplant glomerulopathy that was associated with specific HLA antibodies unrelated to the donor (HLA DR 17 and 18). After reintroduction of MMF, these antibodies became undetectable and the proteinuria completely resolved. We hypothesize that HLA antibodies may cause transplant glomerulopathy even if they are not donor-specific. Their production appears more susceptible to MMF therapy. A thorough work-up of new-onset proteinuria after conversion to Sirolimus should be performed, including an immunological work-up and a renal biopsy.

Nonfinancial factors associated with decreased plasma viral load testing in Ontario, Canada.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether individual characteristics were associated with differential use of viral load testing when testing is available without charge to all HIV-positive patients with provincial health insurance. METHODS: Individuals enrolled in the HIV Ontario Observational Database with complete medication records and health insurance numbers for linkage were studied. Generalized estimating equation regression models were used to examine the relationship between time-varying covariates such as plasma viral load levels, CD4 counts, and antiretroviral regimen characteristics and the number of days between viral load tests and the occurrence of an interval of >or=6 or 9 months between tests. RESULTS: A total of 1032 individuals were included in the analysis with a median follow-up of 4.6 years and a median of 18 viral load tests. In multivariate analyses, clinically important gaps in viral load testing were more likely among injection drug users (odds ratio [OR]=1.86, P<0.0001), in more recent years (P<0.01) and for individuals not using antiretrovirals (OR=1.70, P<0.0001) and less likely among individuals using >4 antiretrovirals (OR=0.62, P<0.0001). Results were similar when the outcome was the number of days between tests. CONCLUSIONS: Injection drug users, younger individuals, and residents of Toronto used fewer viral load tests than other individuals, even when financial barriers to testing were removed.

Clinical impact of double protease inhibitor boosting with lopinavir/ritonavir and amprenavir as part of salvage antiretroviral therapy.

PURPOSE: Double protease inhibitor (PI) boosting is being explored as a new strategy in salvage antiretroviral (ARV) therapy. However, if a negative drug interaction leads to decreased drug levels of either or both PIs, double PI boosting could lead to decreased virologic response. A negative drug interaction has been described between amprenavir (APV) and lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r). This observational cohort study assessed the virologic impact of the addition of APV to a salvage ARV regimen, which also contains LPV/r, compared to a regimen containing LPV/r alone. METHOD: Patients initiated on a salvage ARV regimen that included LPV/r obtained from the expanded access program in Toronto, Canada, were evaluated. APV (600-1,200 mg bid) was added at the discretion of the treating physician. RESULTS: Using multivariate Cox proportional hazards models, we found that the addition of APV to a LPV/r-containing salvage regimen was not significantly associated with time to virologic suppression (< 50 copies/mL; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 0.75, p =.12) or with time to virologic rebound (adjusted HR = 1.46, p =.34). Those patients who received higher doses of APV had an increased chance of virologic suppression (p =.03). In a subset of 27 patients, the median LPV C(trough) was significantly lower in patients receiving APV (p =.04), and the median APV C(trough) was reduced compared to reported controls. CONCLUSION: Our data do not support an additional benefit in virologic reduction of double boosting with APV and LPV/r relative to LPV/r alone in salvage ARV therapy. Our study's limitations include its retrospective nature and the imbalance between the two groups potentially confounding the results. Although these factors were adjusted for in the multivariate analysis, a prospective randomized controlled trial is warranted to confirm our findings.