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

Polyethylene glycol hypersensitivity, patient outcomes in a 7-year retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Immediate IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reactions to polyethylene glycol (PEG) are rare. Our understanding of PEG hypersensitivity is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical characteristics and investigation outcomes of the largest cohort of patients with PEG allergy reported.

METHODS

A total of 44 patients investigated for suspected PEG allergy across 4 United Kingdom tertiary allergy centers between October 2013 and December 2020 were studied. Clinical characteristics, index reaction, and approaches to and outcomes of allergy investigations were analyzed.

RESULTS

PEG hypersensitivity was confirmed in 42 of 44 cases. Macrogol laxatives were the most common index drugs reported (23%), followed by depo-medroxyprogesterone (19%), oral penicillin V (10%), and depo-methylprednisolone (10%). In general, 61% experienced grade III anaphylaxis. Intradermal testing (IDT) increased the diagnostic sensitivity from 51% to 85%. Five patients experienced systemic reactions during IDT. Of the 5 patients, 2 were skin prick test positive to a high molecular weight PEG. Three patients with negative skin test results had positive drug provocation test results. Seven patients with PEG allergy reported tolerance to H1-antihistamines containing PEG. Administration of messenger RNA COVID-19 or Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines was tolerated in all 16 patients to whom they were administered.

CONCLUSION

PEG hypersensitivity is an uncommon cause of drug-induced anaphylaxis. Four index drugs accounted for two-thirds of the cases, and reactions to these drugs should prompt PEG hypersensitivity investigations. PEG IDT increases diagnostic yield. The role of skin prick test with higher molecular weight PEGs requires further attention. Further studies are required to understand PEG thresholds and PEG equivalent doses of various administration routes. COVID-19 vaccines were tolerated by all exposed.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 mRNA Vaccination Appears Safe in Pediatric Patients With Hypersensitivity to Polyethylene Glycolated Escherichia coli L-asparaginase

Polyethylene glycol-asparaginase (PEGAsp) is an established component of acute leukemia therapy. Hypersensitivity reactions to PEGAsp occur in 10% to 15% of patients, with polyethylene glycol suggested as the antigenic culprit. As coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccines contain polyethylene glycol, the safety of administration of these vaccines to patients with prior PEGAsp hypersensitivity has been questioned. Between December 21, 2020 and March 3, 2022, 66 patients with acute leukemia and PEGAsp allergy received COVID-19 vaccination. No patients (0/66 0%, 95% CI: 0%-5.4%) experienced an allergic reaction to the vaccine. COVID-19 mRNA vaccination appears to be safe in pediatric and young adult patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia with PEGAsp allergy.

Pegloticase co-administered with high MW polyethylene glycol effectively reduces PEG-immunogenicity and restores prolonged circulation in mouse

The interactions between polymers and the immune system remains poorly controlled. In some instances, the immune system can produce antibodies specific to polymer constituents. Indeed, roughly half of pegloticase patients without immunomodulation develop high titers of anti-PEG antibodies (APA) to the PEG polymers on pegloticase, which then quickly clear the drug from circulation and render the gout treatment ineffective. Here, using pegloticase as a model drug, we show that addition of high molecular weight (MW) free (unconjugated) PEG to pegloticase allows us to control the immunogenicity and mitigates APA induction in mice. Compared to pegloticase mixed with saline, mice repeatedly dosed with pegloticase containing different MW or amount of free PEG possessed 4- to 12- fold lower anti-PEG IgG, and 6- to 10- fold lower anti-PEG IgM, after 3 rounds of pegloticase dosed every 2 weeks. The markedly reduced APA levels, together with competitive inhibition by free PEG, restored the prolonged circulation of pegloticase to levels observed in APA-naïve animals. In contrast, mice with pegloticase-induced APA eliminated nearly all pegloticase from the circulation within just four hours post-injection. These results support the growing literature demonstrating free PEG may effectively suppress drug-induced APA, which in turn may offer sustained therapeutic benefits without requiring broad immunomodulation. We also showed free PEG effectively blocked the PEGylated protein from binding with cells expressing PEG-specific B cell receptors. It provides a template of how we may be able to tune the interactions and immunogenicity of other polymer-modified therapeutics. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE: A major challenge with engineering materials for drug delivery is their interactions with the immune system. For instance, our body can produce high levels of anti-PEG antibodies (APA). Unfortunately, the field currently lack tools to limit immunostimulation or overcome pre-existing anti-PEG antibodies, without using broad immunosuppression. Here, we showed that simply introducing free PEG into a clinical formulation of PEG-uricase can effectively limit induction of anti-PEG antibodies, and restore their prolonged circulation upon repeated dosing. Our work offers a readily translatable method to safely and effectively restore the use PEG-drugs in patients with PEG-immunity, and provides a template to use unconjugated polymers with low immunogenicity to regulate interactions with the immune system for other polymer-modified therapeutics.

Updated guidance regarding the risk of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines and recommended evaluation and management: A GRADE assessment and international consensus approach

This guidance updates 2021 GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) recommendations regarding immediate allergic reactions following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines and addresses revaccinating individuals with first-dose allergic reactions and allergy testing to determine revaccination outcomes. Recent meta-analyses assessed the incidence of severe allergic reactions to initial COVID-19 vaccination, risk of mRNA-COVID-19 revaccination after an initial reaction, and diagnostic accuracy of COVID-19 vaccine and vaccine excipient testing in predicting reactions. GRADE methods informed rating the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations. A modified Delphi panel consisting of experts in allergy, anaphylaxis, vaccinology, infectious diseases, emergency medicine, and primary care from Australia, Canada, Europe, Japan, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States formed the recommendations. We recommend vaccination for persons without COVID-19 vaccine excipient allergy and revaccination after a prior immediate allergic reaction. We suggest against >15-minute postvaccination observation. We recommend against mRNA vaccine or excipient skin testing to predict outcomes. We suggest revaccination of persons with an immediate allergic reaction to the mRNA vaccine or excipients be performed by a person with vaccine allergy expertise in a properly equipped setting. We suggest against premedication, split-dosing, or special precautions because of a comorbid allergic history.

Utility of eConsults for COVID-19 vaccine-related concerns in Ontario: a cross-sectional analysis

BACKGROUND

The Champlain BASE™ and Ontario eConsult services are virtual platforms that serve to facilitate contact between primary care providers and specialists across Ontario, relaying patient-specific questions to relevant specialists via a secure web-based platform. Despite ample evidence regarding the general effectiveness of these platforms, their utility as it pertains to clinical concerns regarding COVID-19 vaccines has not yet been explored.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional descriptive analysis of COVID-19 vaccine related eConsults on Ontario patients completed by five allergy specialists between February and October of 2021. 4318 COVID-19 vaccine-related eConsults were completed in total during this time; with 1857 completed by the five allergists participating in this analysis. Question types/content were categorized using a taxonomy developed through consensus on a weighted monthly sample of 499 total cases. Data regarding whether external resources were required to answer each eConsult, impact on primary care provider referral decisions, and allergy consultant response times were collected. A 2-question survey was completed by primary care providers following eConsultation and results were collected.

RESULTS

41.08% of eConsults received involved safety concerns regarding COVID-19 vaccine administration in the setting of prior allergic disease and another 36.1% involved a potential reaction the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. 72.1% of eConsults were answered by specialist without needing external resources, and only 9.8% of all eConsults received resulted in a recommendation for formal in-person referral to Clinical Immunology & Allergy specialist or another subspecialty. Average time to complete eConsult was 16.4 min, and 79.7% of PCP eConsult queries which would have traditionally resulted in formal consultation were resolved based on advice provided in the eConsult without need for in-person assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrates the utility of the eConsult service as it pertains to COVID-19 vaccine-related concerns. The eConsult platform proved an effective tool in diverting the need for in-person assessment by an Allergist or other medical specialty. This is significant given the large volume of eConsults completed by Allergists, and demonstrates the impact of an effective electronic delivery of care model during a time of strained resources and public health efforts directed at mass vaccination.

The conundrum of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine-induced anaphylaxis

Novel messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines have proven to be effective tools against coronavirus disease 2019, and they have changed the course of the pandemic. However, early reports of mRNA vaccine-induced anaphylaxis resulted in public alarm, contributing toward vaccine hesitancy. Although initial reports were concerning for an unusually high rate of anaphylaxis to the mRNA vaccines, the true incidence is likely comparable with other vaccines. These reactions occurred predominantly in young to middle-aged females, and many had a history of allergies. Although initially thought to be triggered by polyethylene glycol (PEG), lack of reproducibility of these reactions with subsequent dosing and absent PEG sensitization point away from an IgE-mediated PEG allergy in most. PEG skin testing has poor posttest probability and should be reserved for evaluating non-vaccine-related PEG allergy without influencing decisions for subsequent mRNA vaccination. Immunization stress-related response can closely mimic vaccine-induced anaphylaxis and warrants consideration as a potential etiology. Current evidence suggests that many individuals who developed anaphylaxis to the first dose of an mRNA vaccine can likely receive a subsequent dose after careful evaluation. The need to understand these reactions mechanistically remains critical because the mRNA platform is rapidly finding its way into other vaccinations and therapeutics.

Diagnostic accuracy of vaccine and vaccine excipient testing in the setting of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines: A systematic review and meta-analysis

For persons with immediate allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, skin testing (ST) to the vaccine/excipients (polyethylene glycol[PEG] and polysorbate 80 [PS]) has been recommended, but has unknown accuracy. To assess vaccine/excipient ST accuracy in predicting all-severity immediate allergic reactions upon re-vaccination, systematic review was performed searching Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the WHO global coronavirus database (inception-Oct 4, 2021) for studies addressing immediate (≤4 h post-vaccination) all-severity allergic reactions to 2nd mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in persons with 1st dose immediate allergic reactions. Cases evaluating delayed reactions, change of vaccine platform, or revaccination without vaccine/excipient ST were excluded. Meta-analysis of diagnostic testing accuracy was performed using Bayesian methods. The GRADE approach evaluated certainty of the evidence, and QUADAS-2 assessed risk of bias. Among 20 studies of mRNA COVID-19 first dose vaccine reactions, 317 individuals underwent 578 ST to any one or combination of vaccine, PEG, or PS, and were re-vaccinated with the same vaccine. Test sensitivity for either mRNA vaccine was 0.2 (95%CrI 0.01-0.52) and specificity 0.97 (95%CrI 0.9-1). PEG test sensitivity was 0.02 (95%CrI 0.00-0.07) and specificity 0.99 (95%CrI 0.96-1). PS test sensitivity was 0.03 (95%CrI 0.00-0.0.11) and specificity 0.97 (95%CrI 0.91-1). Combined for use of any of the 3 testing agents, sensitivity was 0.03 (95%CrI 0.00-0.08) and specificity was 0.98 (95%CrI 0.95-1.00). Certainty of evidence was moderate. ST has low sensitivity but high specificity in predicting all-severity repeat immediate allergic reactions to the same agent, among persons with 1st dose immediate allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. mRNA COVID-19 vaccine or excipient ST has limited risk assessment utility.

Vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 are safe to administer in patients with antibodies to pegaspargase

OBJECTIVE

Allergic reactions to pegaspargase during ALL therapy are typically due to antibodies against polyethylene glycol (PEG), which is also used as a stabilizing agent in mRNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. To evaluate the safety of these vaccines in patients with anti-pegaspargase antibodies.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the records of patients treated for ALL who had received SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations. All patients had antibodies against pegaspargase assayed during ALL therapy prospectively and in response to clinical allergies. Symptoms of intolerance to vaccination were gathered retrospectively from chart abstraction.

RESULTS

SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was well tolerated in all 78 patients with prior exposure to pegaspargase as part of their leukemia therapy. No reactions were observed in the 54 patients without a history of anti-pegaspargase antibodies or in 19 patients with antibodies who received mRNA vaccination. 1 patient who received the polysorbate containing Janssen vaccine experienced mild symptoms after vaccination not meeting the criteria of clinical allergy which spontaneously resolved within 25 minutes.

CONCLUSION

SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is safe in this population.

Immune Response to COVID-19 Vaccination in Hematologic Malignancies: A Mini-Review

The outbreak of the COVID-19 infection has led to the rapidity of vaccine usage in recent years. Emerging data indicate that the efficacy of vaccination against COVID-19 was about 95% in the general population, though its impact is impaired in patients with hematologic malignancies. As such, we decided to research the publications in which the authors reported the impacts of COVID-19 vaccination in patients suffering from hematologic malignancies. We concluded that patients with hematologic malignancies have lower responses, antibody titers as well as an impaired humoral response following vaccination, notably in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and lymphoma. Furthermore, it seems that the status of treatment can significantly affect the responses to the COVID-19 vaccination.

Safety of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination in paediatric patients with a PEG-asparaginase allergy

Background

Children treated for a malignancy are at risk to develop serious illness from a COVID-19 infection. Pegylated E. coli asparaginase (PEG-asparaginase) is used in the treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Allergy to this drug is common and both asparaginase and polyethylene glycol (PEG) are identified as possible antigens. The mRNA-based vaccines against COVID-19 contain PEG as a stabilizing component.

Methods

We developed a protocol to be able to safely vaccinate children with a PEG-asparaginase allergy. All patients with a history of allergy to PEG-asparaginase have been included and skin prick testing for various PEGs was performed before vaccination with the mRNA Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.

Results

Twelve children between six and 16 years old were vaccinated, without allergic reaction. None of them got a positive skin prick test for PEG. Ten patients had pre-existing IgG or IgM antibodies against PEG.

Conclusion

Children with a PEG-asparaginase allergy can be safely vaccinated against COVID-19 with mRNA vaccines containing PEG irrespective of IgG/IgM antibodies to PEG-asparaginase. Routine skin prick testing in patients with PEG-asparaginase allergy does not seem to be of added value.

Parent Acceptance toward Inactivated COVID-19 Vaccination in Children with Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: The Power of Oncologist and Alliance

Objectives: The current study aims to survey the willingness of parents to vaccinate their children, who are childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia survivors (CALLS), and identify factors associated with vaccine acceptance. Methods: Parents of CALLS on/off treatment, with the general condition of being amendable to vaccination, were recruited for interviews with attending oncologists about COVID-19 vaccination acceptance from July to November 2021 in China. After controlling for socioeconomic factors, the Association of Oncologists’ recommendations and parent−oncologist alliance with acceptance status were investigated. For validation, propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis was used. Results: A total of 424 families were included in the study, with CALLS mean remission age of 5.99 ± 3.40 years. Among them, 91 (21.4%) agreed, 168 (39.6%) hesitated, and 165 (38.9%) parents disagreed with the vaccination. The most common reason that kept parents from vaccinating their children was lack of recommendations from professional personnel (84/165, 50.9%), and massive amounts of internet information (78/175, 44.6%) was the main nonhealthcare resource against vaccination. Logistic regression analysis showed that only the recommendation from the oncologist was associated with parents’ vaccine acceptance (OR = 3.17, 95% CI = 1.93−5.20), as demonstrated by PSM comparison (42 in recommendation group vs. 18 in nonrecommendation group among 114 pairs, p < 0.001). An exploratory analysis revealed that parents with a better patient−oncologist alliance had a significantly higher level of acceptance (65.6% in alliance group vs. 15.6% in nonalliance group among 32 pairs, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Due to a lack of professional recommendation resources and the potential for serious consequences, parents were generally reluctant to vaccinate their CALLS. The recommendation of oncologists, which was influenced by the parent−oncologist alliance, significantly increased acceptance. This study emphasizes the critical role of oncologists in vaccinating cancer survivors and can be used to promote COVID-19 vaccines among vulnerable populations.

Allergic diseases and immunodeficiencies in children, lessons learnt from COVID-19 pandemic by 2022: A statement from the EAACI-section on pediatrics

By the April 12, 2022, the COVID-19 pandemic had resulted in over half a billion people being infected worldwide. There have been 6.1 million deaths directly due to the infection, but the pandemic has had many more short- and long-term pervasive effects on the physical and mental health of the population. Allergic diseases are among the most prevalent noncommunicable chronic diseases in the pediatric population, and health-care professionals and researchers were seeking answers since the beginning of pandemic. Children are at lower risk of developing severe COVID-19 or dying from infection. Allergic diseases are not associated with a higher COVID-19 severity and mortality, apart from severe/poorly controlled asthma. The pandemic disrupted routine health care, but many mitigation strategies, including but not limited to telemedicine, were successfully implemented to continue delivery of high-standard care. Although children faced a multitude of pandemic-related issues, allergic conditions were effectively treated remotely while reduction in air pollution and lack of contact with outdoor allergens resulted in improvement, particularly respiratory allergies. There is no evidence to recommend substantial changes to usual management modalities of allergic conditions in children, including allergen immunotherapy and use of biologicals. Allergic children are not at greater risk of multisystem inflammatory syndrome development, but some associations with Long COVID were reported, although the data are limited, and further research is needed. This statement of the EAACI Section on Pediatrics provides recommendations based on the lessons learnt from the pandemic, as available evidence.

Adverse Events and Safety of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines: What's New and What's Next

Just over 1 year following rollout of the first vaccines for coronavirus disease 2019, 572 million doses have been administered in the United States. Compared with the number of vaccines administered, adverse effects such as anaphylaxis have been rare, and seemingly, the more serious the effect, the rarer the occurrence. Despite these adverse effects, there are few, if any, true contraindications to coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination and most individuals recover without further sequelae. This review provides guidance for the allergist/immunologist regarding appropriate next steps based on patient's known allergy history or adverse reaction after receipt of coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine to assist in safe global immunization.

Immunologic response, Efficacy, and Safety of Vaccines against COVID-19 Infection in Healthy and immunosuppressed Children and Adolescents Aged 2 - 21 years old: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Children and adolescents form a large proportion of societies and play an important role in the transmission of COVID-19. On the other hand, their education, mental and physical wellness, and safety are compromised which makes vaccination a crucial step to return to normal life. In the current systematic review, the COVID-19 vaccination was evaluated in a total of 50,148 children and adolescents in 22 published studies and 5,279 participants in two ongoing clinical trials. The study was registered in the PROSPERO with the ID# CRD42022303615. Data were collected about multiple vaccines including BNT162b2 (Pfizer), mRNA-1273 (Moderna), JNJ-78436735 (Johnson and Johnson), CoronaVac (Sinovac), BBIBP-CorV (Sinopharm), adenovirus type-5-vectored vaccine, ZyCov-D, and BBV152 (COVAXIN). The immune response and efficacy of such vaccines were 96% - 100% in healthy children and adolescents and were also acceptable in those with underlying diseases and suppressed immune systems. The current systematic review revealed favorable safety profiles of employed vaccines in children and adolescents; however, adverse reactions such as myocarditis and myopericarditis were reported which were transient and resolved entirely. Consequently, vaccinating children and adolescents aged 2 - 21 years old is beneficial to abort the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, the risk-benefit assessments revealed favorable results for vaccinating children and adolescents, especially those with underlying diseases and immunosuppressed conditions, alongside adults to prevent transmission, severe infection, negative outcomes, and new variants formation. Also, according to the meta-analysis, the efficacy and immune response of vaccines after the first and second doses were 91% and 92%, respectively. Meanwhile, overall immune response for all vaccines was 95% and 91% for Pfizer vaccine.

What have we learned about the allergenicity and adverse reactions associated with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccines: One year later

OBJECTIVE

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has led to the most rapid response and scale-up in vaccine and therapeutic development in history. We highlight the history of these amazing achievements with a focus on the description of the classification and mechanisms of allergic reactions and adverse events relevant to the allergist and immunologist that have been associated with the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Finally, we offer a detailed management approach in the context of a possible allergic reaction.

DATA SOURCES

Using defined search strategy, we identified peer-reviewed articles within PubMed that were published between January 1, 2019, and December 4, 2021.

STUDY SELECTIONS

All recent articles on COVID-19 published in English were reviewed with focus on the immunogenicity and allergenicity of the current existing COVID-19 vaccines.

RESULTS

Following a detailed literature review, we discuss the evolution and development of the new vaccines for SARS-CoV-2. Furthermore, we provide evidence regarding the significance and mechanisms of allergic reactions associated with the vaccines and offer a management approach for those with an increased risk of presenting an allergic or other relevant vaccine reaction.

CONCLUSION

The international rollout of COVID-19 vaccination started with reports of immediate allergic reactions. Although we still need to understand the mechanisms of these reactions, we can be reassured that patients with underlying allergic disease will not need to avoid SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. In addition, the vast majority of those with a first-dose reaction will tolerate subsequent doses.

Rapid progress in our understanding of COVID-19 vaccine allergy: A cause for optimism, not hesitancy

Anaphylaxis is a life-threatening condition and when associated with vaccination, leads to vaccine hesitancy. The concerns around vaccine-related anaphylaxis have become even more important during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic where the COVID-19 vaccines remain one of our most important tools. Although rates of anaphylaxis to COVID-19 vaccines are not significantly different from those to other vaccines, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidance recommends avoidance of the same COVID-19 vaccine in individuals who had an allergic reaction or are allergic to a COVID-19 vaccine component. Fortunately, our understanding of COVID-19 vaccine allergic reactions has improved dramatically in the past year in large part due to important research efforts from individuals in the allergy community. Initially, researchers published algorithmic approaches using risk stratification and excipient skin testing. However, as our experience and knowledge improved with ongoing research, we have better data showing safety of repeat vaccination despite an initial reaction. We review our progress starting in December 2020 when the Food and Drug Administration approved the first COVID-19 vaccine in the United States through early 2022, highlighting our success in understanding COVID-19 vaccine reactions.

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.

Coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine administration in patients with reported reactions to polyethylene glycol- and polysorbate-containing therapeutics

BACKGROUND

Polyethylene glycol (PEG) and polysorbate reactions were initially implicated as a likely risk factor for reacting to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines and remain a source of vaccine hesitancy despite increasing evidence that they do not pose an increased risk for COVID-19 vaccine reactions.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate COVID-19 vaccine safety outcomes in patients with reported reactions to PEG- and polysorbate-containing medications and vaccines.

METHODS

COVID-19 vaccine safety was reviewed in patients with PEG or polysorbate reactions documented in their electronic medical records at a tertiary academic medical center (cohort 1) and patients referred to Allergy and Immunology with reported PEG or polysorbate reactions (cohort 2). COVID-19 vaccine safety was also reviewed following reported symptoms (onset ≤ 12 hours) to first-dose PEG-containing messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccine (cohort 3).

RESULTS

Of 252 patients in cohort 1 (n = 202) and cohort 2 (n = 50), 236 (94%) received mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (106 Pfizer, 130 Moderna); 235 received both doses. Only 3 patients from cohort 2 developed mild rash following vaccination. None of the 44 patients in cohort 3 with acute symptoms following first-dose mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (27 Pfizer, 17 Moderna) had previously reported PEG or polysorbate reactions. Of these 44 patients, 43 received the second dose and all 3 who developed symptoms following the second dose (1 required epinephrine) had negative PEG skin testing.

CONCLUSION

Patients with reported reactions to PEG and polysorbate safely received COVID-19 vaccines. PEG and polysorbate skin testing did not identify patients at risk for first dose or recurrent reactions to COVID-19 vaccines. Screening for PEG and polysorbate allergy may only increase vaccine hesitancy without identifying patients at risk for COVID-19 vaccine reactions.

Consensus on COVID-19 Vaccination in Pediatric Oncohematological Patients, on Behalf of Infectious Working Group of Italian Association of Pediatric Hematology Oncology

Vaccines represent the best tool to prevent the severity course and fatal consequences of the pandemic by the new Coronavirus 2019 infection (SARS-CoV-2). Considering the limited data on vaccination of pediatric oncohematological patients, we developed a Consensus document to support the Italian pediatric hematological oncological (AIEOP) centers in a scientifically correct communication with families and patients and to promote vaccination. The topics of the Consensus were: SARS-CoV-2 infection and disease (COVID-19) in the pediatric subjects; COVID-19 vaccines (type, schedule); who and when to vaccinate; contraindications and risk of serious adverse events; rare adverse events; third dose and vaccination after COVID-19; and other general prevention measures. Using the Delphi methodology for Consensus, 21 statements and their corresponding rationale were elaborated and discussed with the representatives of 31 centers, followed by voting. A high grade of Consensus was obtained on topics such as the potential risk of severe COVID-19 outcome in pediatric oncohematological patients, the need for vaccination as a preventative measure, the type, schedule and booster dose of vaccine, the eligibility of the patients for vaccination, and the timing, definition, and management of contraindications and serious adverse events, and other general prevention measures. All 21 of the statements were approved. This consensus document highlights that children and adolescents affected by hematological and oncological diseases are a fragile category. Vaccination plays an important role to prevent COVID-19, to permit the regular administration of chemotherapy or other treatments, to perform control visits and hospital admissions, and to prevent treatment delays.

Learning through a Pandemic: The Current State of Knowledge on COVID-19 and Cancer

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has left patients with current or past history of cancer facing disparate consequences at every stage of the cancer trajectory. This comprehensive review offers a landscape analysis of the current state of the literature on COVID-19 and cancer including the immune response to COVID-19, risk factors for severe disease, and impact of anticancer therapies. We also review the latest data on treatment of COVID-19 and vaccination safety and efficacy in patients with cancer, as well as impact of the pandemic on cancer care, including the urgent need for rapid evidence generation and real-world study designs.

A Systematic Review on COVID-19 Vaccine Strategies, Their Effectiveness, and Issues

COVID-19 vaccines are indispensable, with the number of cases and mortality still rising, and currently no medicines are routinely available for reducing morbidity and mortality, apart from dexamethasone, although others are being trialed and launched. To date, only a limited number of vaccines have been given emergency use authorization by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency. There is a need to systematically review the existing vaccine candidates and investigate their safety, efficacy, immunogenicity, unwanted events, and limitations. The review was undertaken by searching online databases, i.e., Google Scholar, PubMed, and ScienceDirect, with finally 59 studies selected. Our findings showed several types of vaccine candidates with different strategies against SARS-CoV-2, including inactivated, mRNA-based, recombinant, and nanoparticle-based vaccines, are being developed and launched. We have compared these vaccines in terms of their efficacy, side effects, and seroconversion based on data reported in the literature. We found mRNA vaccines appeared to have better efficacy, and inactivated ones had fewer side effects and similar seroconversion in all types of vaccines. Overall, global variant surveillance and systematic tweaking of vaccines, coupled with the evaluation and administering vaccines with the same or different technology in successive doses along with homologous and heterologous prime-booster strategy, have become essential to impede the pandemic. Their effectiveness appreciably outweighs any concerns with any adverse events.