COVID-19 vaccination and the risk of swellings in patients with hereditary angioedema

COVID-19 and vaccination in hereditary angioedema: Single center experience

Like many microbial agents, Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and its vaccination may increase the frequency and/or severity of attacks. We aimed to observe/evaluate patients with hereditary angioedema (HAE) followed by Sakarya University Research/Training Hospital pediatric allergy unit, Sakarya, Türkiye, for the effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination. Ten HAE patients-3 males and 7 females-were evaluated retrospectively. Their mean age was 31.80 ± 19.15 (min. 12 - max. 66) years. Four of 10 patients were diagnosed with type 1 HAE and 6 with type 2 HAE. Two out of 6 patients (mother and daughter) diagnosed with type 2 HAE had angioedema attacks during COVID-19 disease. Six out of 10 HAE patients received different COVID-19 vaccines available in Türkiye up to third and fourth doses. There was no increase in COVID-19 vaccine-related attacks during, after 72 hours, and up to the year after vaccination. As a result, we consider it safe to administer inactivated and/or mRNA vaccines in our patients with HAE. In addition, catching SARS-CoV-2 infection was not always associated with disease exacerbation or activation.

Cardiovascular Autonomic Nervous System in a Patient With Hereditary Angioedema Affected by COVID-19

Autonomic nervous system (ANS) regulation in hereditary angioedema (HAE) and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unknown. ANS alterations could be manifested during both the acute and post-acute phases of COVID-19. Implications of acute and chronic inflammation on ANS in HAE need to be addressed. In this case report, we monitored the systolic arterial blood pressure variability and baroreflex sensitivity in a female HAE patient both before experiencing COVID-19 symptoms and one month afterward. We also tracked the heart rate variability on the day preceding symptom onset, the day of symptom onset (SYM), the day following SYM, five days after SYM, the day of the first negative nasopharyngeal swab (i.e., 12 days after SYM), and one month after symptom onset. The results of this case report provide the characterization of vascular and cardiac autonomic profiles in an HAE patient until the resolution of an acute infection, a potential trigger for the acute HAE attack.

The analysis of the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with hereditary angioedema type I and type II

Due to the similarity between the pathomechanism of SARS-CoV-2 infections and hereditary angioedema due to C1-inhibitor deficiency (C1-INH-HAE), a possibility emerged that C1-INH-HAE may worsen the course of the infection, or that the infection may influence the severity of angioedema (HAE) attacks in C1-INH-HAE patients. Our study aimed to evaluate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the quality of life (QoL) of Hungarian C1-INH-HAE patients, and to survey the acute course of the infection, post COVID symptoms (PCS), vaccination coverage and the side effects of vaccines in this patient population. 93 patients completed our questionnaire between 1st July 2021 and 31st October 2021. In this same period and between March 2019 and March 2020, 63 patients completed the angioedema quality of life questionnaire (AE-QoL). Out of those patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 in the examined period (18/93 patients; 19%), 5% required hospitalization, 28% experienced HAE attacks in the acute phase of the infection, and 44% experienced PCS. A total number of 142 doses of vaccines were administered to the patients. Serious vaccine reactions did not occur in any case, 4 (5%) out of the 73 vaccinated patients experienced HAE attacks. No significant difference (p = 0.59) was found in the median of the AE-QoL total score, or in the number of HAE attacks prior and during the pandemic. Based on our study, HAE patients did not experience more serious SARS-CoV-2 infection, and it did not aggravate the course of HAE either. Changes in the QoL were not significant, and vaccines were safe in HAE patients.

Sensitivity to change and minimal clinically important difference of the angioedema control test

BACKGROUND

The Angioedema Control Test (AECT) is a patient-reported outcome measure developed and validated for the assessment of disease control in patients with recurrent angioedema. Its sensitivity to change and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) have hitherto not been established.

METHODS

Patients with recurrent angioedema due to chronic spontaneous urticaria, hereditary angioedema, or acquired C1-inhibitor deficiency were repeatedly asked to complete the AECT along with the Angioedema Quality of Life Questionnaire (AE-QoL), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and anchors for disease control and whether treatment was sufficient during routine care visits. The sensitivity to the change of the AECT was determined by correlating changes in its scores over time with changes in the applied anchors. The MCID was determined using anchor-based and distributional criterion-based approaches.

RESULTS

Eighty-six cases were used for this analysis. Changes in AECT scores correlated well with AE-QoL changes (but less with changes in the DLQI) as well as other applied anchors, demonstrating its sensitivity to change. The MCID was found to be three points for improvement of angioedema control. The available number of cases with meaningful deterioration in our dataset was too low to reach a definite conclusion on the MCID for deterioration of angioedema control.

CONCLUSION

The AECT is a valuable tool to assess changes in disease control in patients with recurrent angioedema over time. The lowest AECT score change that reflects a meaningful improvement of disease control to patients (MCID) is three points.

Management of coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine-induced cutaneous complications: A comprehensive literature review

Despite the numerous reports of cutaneous manifestations associated with vaccines for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the relationship between COVID-19 vaccines and cutaneous side effects remains unevaluated. In this review, we examine these manifestations and their management. Reported dermatoses included injection-site reaction (early and delayed), type I allergic reaction, morbilliform eruption, pityriasis rosea, Sweet syndrome, lichen planus, psoriasis, herpes zoster reactivation, erythema multiforme, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN). The most common COVID-19 vaccination-related cutaneous manifestations are delayed local reactions, approximately 66% of which are associated with the Moderna vaccine, and 33% with the Pfizer vaccine. Aside from mild injection-site reactions, severe reactions include anaphylaxis and TEN. Most reactions, except for Stevens-Johnson syndrome and anaphylaxis, though unpredictable and unpreventable are mild and can be treated symptomatically. Findings from this review should allow primary care physicians and dermatologists to reach faster diagnosis and initiate prompt intervention.

[Reasons for allergology consultations prior to COVID-19 vaccination and their outcomes : Two-year experience of an allergy center in North Rhine-Westphalia]

BACKGROUND

To counteract the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, several severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines have been licensed since December 2020. Shortly after the start of the vaccination campaigns, occasional allergic reactions related to vaccines were described, thus, leading to concerns in many patients with a history of allergies. The aim of this work was to evaluate which anamnestic events represented a reason for an allergology work-up before COVID-19 vaccination. Furthermore, the results of the allergology diagnostics are described.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective data analysis of all patients who presented at the Center for Dermatology, Allergology and Dermatosurgery of the Helios University Hospital Wuppertal during the years 2021 and 2022 for allergology work-up prior to COVID-19 vaccination. Demographic data, allergological history, reason for the consultation in the clinic and results of allergology diagnostic tests including reactions after vaccination were included.

RESULTS

A total of 93 patients presented for allergology work-up with COVID-19 vaccines. In about half of the cases, the reasons for the presentation to the clinic were doubts and concerns about allergic reactions and side effects. In all, 26.9% (25/93) of the presented patients had not previously received a COVID-19 vaccine yet and 23.7% (22/93) of patients developed non-allergic reactions after prior COVID-19 vaccine (e.g., headache, chills, fever, malaise). Of the patients, 46.2% (43/93) were successfully vaccinated in the clinic due to a complex allergological history, while the remaining 53.8% (50/93) were subjected to outpatient vaccination in the vaccination practice. Only one patient with known chronic spontaneous urticaria developed a mild angioedema of the lips a few hours after vaccination; however, we do not consider this episode an allergic reaction to the vaccine due to the time delay.

CONCLUSION

Allergic reactions after COVID-19 vaccines are rare, but many patients with a positive medical history of allergies are concerned about allergic reactions after COVID-19 vaccination. Thus, public work by practicing allergologists is important during vaccination campaigns to meet the concerns and fears of the population, especially of patients with allergies in their medical history.

Complement and COVID-19: Three years on, what we know, what we don't know, and what we ought to know

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus was identified in China in 2019 as the causative agent of COVID-19, and quickly spread throughout the world, causing over 7 million deaths, of which 2 million occurred prior to the introduction of the first vaccine. In the following discussion, while recognising that complement is just one of many players in COVID-19, we focus on the relationship between complement and COVID-19 disease, with limited digression into directly-related areas such as the relationship between complement, kinin release, and coagulation. Prior to the 2019 COVID-19 outbreak, an important role for complement in coronavirus diseases had been established. Subsequently, multiple investigations of patients with COVID-19 confirmed that complement dysregulation is likely to be a major driver of disease pathology, in some, if not all, patients. These data fuelled evaluation of many complement-directed therapeutic agents in small patient cohorts, with claims of significant beneficial effect. As yet, these early results have not been reflected in larger clinical trials, posing questions such as who to treat, appropriate time to treat, duration of treatment, and optimal target for treatment. While significant control of the pandemic has been achieved through a global scientific and medical effort to comprehend the etiology of the disease, through extensive SARS-CoV-2 testing and quarantine measures, through vaccine development, and through improved therapy, possibly aided by attenuation of the dominant strains, it is not yet over. In this review, we summarise complement-relevant literature, emphasise its main conclusions, and formulate a hypothesis for complement involvement in COVID-19. Based on this we make suggestions as to how any future outbreak might be better managed in order to minimise impact on patients.

Multicentric Observational Study on Safety and Tolerability of COVID-19 Vaccines in Patients with Angioedema with C1 Inhibitor Deficiency: Data from Italian Network on Hereditary and Acquired Angioedema (ITACA)

Angioedema due to C1 inhibitor deficiency (AE-C1-INH) is a rare disease characterized by recurrent and unpredictable attacks of angioedema. Multiple trigger factors, including trauma, emotional stress, infectious diseases, and drugs, could elicit angioedema attacks. The aim of this study was to collect data on the safety and tolerability of COVID-19 vaccines in a population of patients affected by AE-C1-INH. Adult patients with AE-C1-INH, followed by Reference Centers belonging to the Italian Network for Hereditary and Acquired Angioedema (ITACA), were enrolled in this study. Patients received nucleoside-modified mRNA vaccines and vaccines with adenovirus vectors. Data on acute attacks developed in the 72 h following COVID-19 vaccinations were collected. The frequency of attacks in the 6 months after the COVID-19 vaccination was compared with the rate of attacks registered in the 6 months before the first vaccination. Between December 2020 and June 2022, 208 patients (118 females) with AE-C1-INH received COVID-19 vaccines. A total of 529 doses of the COVID-19 vaccine were administered, and the majority of patients received mRNA vaccines. Forty-eight attacks of angioedema (9%) occurred within 72 h following COVID-19 vaccinations. About half of the attacks were abdominal. Attacks were successfully treated with on-demand therapy. No hospitalizations were registered. There was no increase in the monthly attack rate following the vaccination. The most common adverse reactions were pain at the site of injection and fever. Our results show that adult patients with angioedema due to C1 inhibitor deficiency can be safely vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 in a controlled medical setting and should always have available on-demand therapies.

Immunogenicity and Safety of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccines in a Cohort of Patients with Hereditary Angioedema

Many factors may trigger hereditary angioedema (HAE) attacks. This study aims to gain insights into the benefits and potential risks of COVID-19 vaccination in HAE patients, focusing particularly on the possibility of triggering attacks. We enrolled 31 patients with HAE undergoing two doses of the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Comirnaty-BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine. To evaluate the possible influence of the vaccine on disease control and attack frequency, we administered the angioedema control test (AECT) 4-week version before (T0), 21 days after the first dose (T1), and between 21 and 28 days after the second dose (T2). Despite 5 patients (16.1%) experiencing attacks within 72 h of the first dose administration, no significant variation in attack frequency was observed before and after vaccination [F(2,60) = 0.123; p = 0.799]. In addition, patients reported higher AECT scores at T1 and T2 compared to T0 [F(2,44) = 6.541; p < 0.05; post hoc p < 0.05)], indicating that the disease was rather more controlled after vaccinations than in the previous period. All patients showed a positive serological response to the vaccine without significant differences from healthy controls (U = 162; p = 0.062). These observations suggest that the vaccine administration is safe and effective in HAE patients.

Hereditary Angioedema with Normal C1 Esterase Inhibitor Refractory to Long-Term Prophylaxis: A Case Report

Hereditary angioedema (HAE) was classically thought to be related to a deficiency in the C1 esterase inhibitor (C1-INH). However, HAE with a normal C1 esterase inhibitor (HAE nC1-INH) is a rare disease that has been recently characterized. In this case, we describe a woman with a 21-year history of angioedema who, in the last two years, has experienced severe exacerbations that led to the formal diagnosis of HAE nC1-INH. The patient has been treated with current HAE long-term prophylaxis (LTP) and on-demand therapies but is still experiencing severe, frequent attacks. Our case describes the timeline of this patient's presentation and provides valuable insight into the presentation and management of HAE nC1-INH.

Positive perception of COVID-19 vaccination in HAE: No significant impact of vaccination on disease course

Background: There are some adverse effects with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, but the impact of COVID-19 vaccination on attacks in hereditary angioedema (HAE) is not well defined. Objective: We aimed to investigate the influence of COVID-19 vaccination on the course of HAE. Method: The COVID-19 vaccination status was determined in 140 adult patients with HAE. The number and severity of attacks recorded from patients' diaries were evaluated at four different periods, comprising 1 month before the first dose, the period between the first and the second doses of COVID-19 vaccine in all the patients, the period between the second dose and the third doses in those who received three doses, and 1 month after the last vaccination dose. The disease and attack severities were assessed with the disease severity score (DSS) and 10-point visual analog scale, respectively. The patients were divided into two main groups as group 1 (those who had at least two doses of COVID-19 vaccines [n = 114]) and group 2 (those who had no vaccination [n = 26]). Only Sinovac and Biontech, which were only approved in Turkey. Results: The mean ± standard deviation DSS was significantly higher in the patients who experienced an attack after vaccination within 48 hours (6.61 ± 1.88 versus 4.14 ± 1.69; p < 0.001). Long-term prophylaxis was less common in the patients with an increased number of attacks (n = 5 (27.8%) versus n = 54 (56.3%); p = 0.027). The number of patients with less than a high school education was higher in group 2 (n = 23 [88.5%]) than in group 1 (n = 26 [3.1%]) (p < 0.001). The number of patients who had concerns about the triggering of a vaccine-induced HAE attack or about the possible vaccine adverse effects was higher in group 2 (n = 26 [100%]) than in group 1 (n = 74 [64.9%]). Conclusion: It seems that COVID-19 vaccination does not increase HAE attacks regardless of the type of the vaccines. We recommend that HAE activity should be under control before COVID-19 vaccination, and the patients should be well informed about the safety of the vaccines.

Allergic Reactions to COVID-19 Vaccines: Risk Factors, Frequency, Mechanisms and Management

Conventional vaccines have been widely studied, along with their risk of causing allergic reactions. These generally consist of mild local reactions and only rarely severe anaphylaxis. Although all the current COVID-19 vaccines marketed in Europe have been shown to be safe overall in the general population, early post-marketing evidence has shown that mRNA-based vaccines using novel platforms (i.e., lipid nanoparticles) were associated with an increased risk of severe allergic reactions as compared to conventional vaccines. In this paper we performed an updated literature review on frequency, risk factors, and underlying mechanisms of COVID-19 vaccine-related allergies by searching MEDLINE and Google Scholar databases. We also conducted a qualitative search on VigiBase and EudraVigilance databases to identify reports of "Hypersensitivity" and "Anaphylactic reaction" potentially related to COVID-19 vaccines (Comirnaty, Spikevax, Vaxzevria and COVID-19 Janssen Vaccine), and in EudraVigilance to estimate the reporting rates of "Anaphylactic reaction" and "Anaphylactic shock" after COVID-19 vaccination in the European population. We also summarized the scientific societies' and regulatory agencies' recommendations for prevention and management of COVID-19 vaccine-related allergic reactions, especially in those with a history of allergy.

The international WAO/EAACI guideline for the management of hereditary angioedema - The 2021 revision and update

Hereditary Angioedema (HAE) is a rare and disabling disease for which early diagnosis and effective therapy are critical. This revision and update of the global WAO/EAACI guideline on the diagnosis and management of HAE provides up-to-date guidance for the management of HAE. For this update and revision of the guideline, an international panel of experts reviewed the existing evidence, developed 28 recommendations, and established consensus by an online DELPHI process. The goal of these recommendations and guideline is to help physicians and their patients in making rational decisions in the management of HAE with deficient C1-inhibitor (type 1) and HAE with dysfunctional C1-inhibitor (type 2), by providing guidance on common and important clinical issues, such as: 1) How should HAE be diagnosed? 2) When should HAE patients receive prophylactic on top of on-demand treatment and what treatments should be used? 3) What are the goals of treatment? 4) Should HAE management be different for special HAE patient groups such as children or pregnant/breast feeding women? 5) How should HAE patients monitor their disease activity, impact, and control? It is also the intention of this guideline to help establish global standards for the management of HAE and to encourage and facilitate the use of recommended diagnostics and therapies for all patients.

The international WAO/EAACI guideline for the management of hereditary angioedema-The 2021 revision and update

Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare and disabling disease for which early diagnosis and effective therapy are critical. This revision and update of the global WAO/EAACI guideline on the diagnosis and management of HAE provides up-to-date guidance for the management of HAE. For this update and revision of the guideline, an international panel of experts reviewed the existing evidence, developed 28 recommendations, and established consensus by an online DELPHI process. The goal of these recommendations and guideline is to help physicians and their patients in making rational decisions in the management of HAE with deficient C1 inhibitor (type 1) and HAE with dysfunctional C1 inhibitor (type 2), by providing guidance on common and important clinical issues, such as: (1) How should HAE be diagnosed? (2) When should HAE patients receive prophylactic on top of on-demand treatment and what treatments should be used? (3) What are the goals of treatment? (4) Should HAE management be different for special HAE patient groups such as children or pregnant/breast-feeding women? and (5) How should HAE patients monitor their disease activity, impact, and control? It is also the intention of this guideline to help establish global standards for the management of HAE and to encourage and facilitate the use of recommended diagnostics and therapies for all patients.