Urticaria following varicella vaccine associated with gelatin allergy

Optimization of Heat-Resistance Technology for a Duck Hepatitis Lyophilized Live Vaccine

In this study, to improve the quality of a live attenuated vaccine for duck viral hepatitis (DHV), the lyophilization of a heat-resistant duck hepatitis virus vaccine was optimized. The optimized heat protectors were made of 10% sucrose, 1.2% pullulan, 0.5% PVP, and 1% arginine, etc., with a titer freeze-drying loss of ≤0.50 Lg. The vaccine product’s valence measurements demonstrated the following: the vaccine could be stored at 2–8 °C for 18 months with a virus titer loss ≤0.91 Lg; at 37 °C for 10 days with a virus valence loss ≤0.89 Lg; and at 45 °C for 3 days with a virus titer loss ≤0.90 Lg. Regarding safety, no deaths occurred in two-day-old ducklings immunized with a 10 times dose vaccine; their energy, diet, and weight gain were all normal, demonstrating that the DHV heat-resistant vaccines were safe for ducklings and did not cause any immune side effects. Duck viral hepatitis freeze-dried vaccine began to produce antibodies at 7 d after immunization, reached above 5.0 on 14 d, and reached above 7.0 on 21 d, showing a continuous upward trend. This indicates that duck viral hepatitis vaccine has a good immunogen level. The optimization of the freeze-drying process saves costs and also improves the quality of the freeze-drying products, which provides important theoretical and technical support for the further study of vaccine products.

Deceptology in cancer and vaccine sciences: Seeds of immune destruction-mini electric shocks in mitochondria: Neuroplasticity-electrobiology of response profiles and increased induced diseases in four generations - A hypothesis

From Rockefeller's support of patent medicine to Gates' patent vaccines, medical establishment invested a great deal in intellectual ignorance. Through the control over medical education and research it has created a public illusion to prop up corporate profit and encouraged the lust for money and power. An overview of data on cancer and vaccine sciences, the status of Americans' health, a survey of repeated failed projects, economic toxicity, and heavy drug consumption or addiction among young and old provide compelling evidence that in the twentieth century nearly all classic disease categories (congenital, inheritance, neonatal, or induced) shifted to increase induced diseases. Examples of this deceptology in ignoring or minimizing, and mocking fundamental discoveries and theories in cancer and vaccine sciences are attacks on research showing that (a), effective immunity is responsible for defending and killing pathogens and defective cancerous cells, correcting and repairing genetic mutations; (b) viruses cause cancer; and (c), abnormal gene mutations are often the consequences of (and secondary to) disturbances in effective immunity. The outcomes of cancer reductionist approaches to therapies reveal failure rates of 90% (+/-5) for solid tumors; loss of over 50 million lives and waste of $30-50 trillions on too many worthless, out-of-focus, and irresponsible projects. Current emphasis on vaccination of public with pathogen-specific vaccines and ingredients seems new terms for drugging young and old. Cumulative exposures to low level carcinogens and environmental hazards or high energy electronic devices (EMF; 5G) are additional triggers to vaccine toxicities (antigen-mitochondrial overload) or "seeds of immune destruction" that create mini electrical shocks (molecular sinks holes) in highly synchronized and regulated immune network that retard time-energy-dependent biorhythms in organs resulting in causes, exacerbations or consequences of mild, moderate or severe immune disorders. Four generations of drug-dependent Americans strongly suggest that medical establishment has practiced decades of intellectual deception through its claims on "war on cancer"; that cancer is 100, 200, or 1000 diseases; identification of "individual" genetic mutations to cure diseases; "vaccines are safe". Such immoral and unethical practices, along with intellectual harassment and bullying, censoring or silencing of independent and competent professionals ("Intellectual Me Too") present grave concerns, far greater compared with the sexual harassment of 'Me Too' movement that was recently spearheaded by NIH. The principal driving forces behind conducting deceptive and illogical medical/cancer and vaccine projects seem to be; (a) huge return of investment and corporate profit for selling drugs and vaccines; (b) maintenance of abusive power over public health; (c) global control of population growth via increased induction of diseases, infertility, decline in life-span, and death. An overview of accidental discoveries that we established and extended since 1980s, on models of acute and chronic ocular inflammatory diseases, provides series of the first evidence for a direct link between inflammation and multistep immune dysfunction in tumorigenesis and angiogenesis. Results are relevant to demonstrate that current emphasis on vaccinating the unborn, newborn, or infant would induce immediate or long-term immune disorders (eg, low birth weight, preterm birth, fatigue, autism, epilepsy/seizures, BBB leakage, autoimmune, neurodegenerative or digestive diseases, obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular problems, or cancers). Vaccination of the unborn is likely to disturb trophoblast-embryo-fetus-placenta biology and orderly growth of embryo-fetus, alter epithelial-mesenchymal transition or constituent-inducible receptors, damage mitochondria, and diverse function of histamine-histidine pathways. Significant increased in childhood illnesses are likely due to toxicities of vaccine and incipient (eg, metals [Al, Hg], detergents, fetal tissue, DNA/RNA) that retard bioenergetics of mitochondria, alter polarization-depolarization balance of tumoricidal (Yin) and tumorigenic (Yang) properties of immunity. Captivated by complex electobiology of immunity, this multidisciplinary perspective is an attempt to initiate identifying bases for increased induction of immune disorders in three to four generations in America. We hypothesize that (a) gene-environment-immune biorhythms parallel neuronal function (brain neuroplasticity) with super-packages of inducible (adaptive or horizontal) electronic signals and (b) autonomic sympathetic and parasympathetic circuitry that shape immunity (Yin-Yang) cannot be explained by limited genomics (innate, perpendicular) that conventionally explain certain inherited diseases (eg, sickle cell anemia, progeria). Future studies should focus on deep learning of complex electrobiology of immunity that requires differential bioenergetics from mitochondria and cytoplasm. Approaches to limit or control excessive activation of gene-environment-immunity are keys to assess accurate disease risk formulations, prevent inducible diseases, and develop universal safe vaccines that promote health, the most basic human right.

Diagnosis and management of hypersensitivity reactions to vaccines

INTRODUCTION

Many countries in Europe now recommend and enforce mandatory vaccinations to improve vaccination coverage. Thus, the number of adverse events following immunization (AEFI) may show an increase. Among these events, severe hypersensitivity reactions to vaccines are rare. However, it is important that they be identified and recognized so that they may be adequately managed.

AREAS COVERED

The literature search was undertaken through PubMed and Embase to identify English-language papers focusing on hypersensitivity to vaccines.

EXPERT OPINION

Hypersensitivity reactions following vaccinations are rare and are classified according to their chronology and extension: immediate when they occur within the first 4 hours following administration and non-immediate when they occur later. Local reactions are the most common adverse event following injection of vaccines and generally do not require any allergy workup. Immediate reactions, however, are potentially IgE-mediated and require an allergy workup. In general, a previously known food allergy (i.e., egg or milk) is not a contraindication to immunizations. Patients with a known allergy to gelatin, yeast, latex, antibiotics, or other specific components of vaccines require an allergy workup before administration of the vaccine.

Hazardous Medications in Children with Egg, Red Meat, Gelatin, Fish, and Cow's Milk Allergy

Childhood food allergies are a growing public health problem. Once the offending food allergens have been identified, a strict elimination diet is necessary in treatment or prevention of most of the allergic reactions. Accidental food ingestion can lead to severe anaphylaxis. Food- derived substances can be used in medications at various stages of the manufacturing process. In this review, the possible roles of medications which may contain egg, red meat, gelatin, and fish allergens on allergic reactions in children with food allergy were evaluated.

International Consensus (ICON): allergic reactions to vaccines

BACKGROUND

Routine immunization, one of the most effective public health interventions, has effectively reduced death and morbidity due to a variety of infectious diseases. However, allergic reactions to vaccines occur very rarely and can be life threatening. Given the large numbers of vaccines administered worldwide, there is a need for an international consensus regarding the evaluation and management of allergic reactions to vaccines.

METHODS

Following a review of the literature, and with the active participation of representatives from the World Allergy Organization (WAO), the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology (AAAAI), and the American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology (ACAAI), the final committee was formed with the purpose of having members who represented a wide-range of countries, had previously worked on vaccine safety, and included both allergist/immunologists as well as vaccinologists.

RESULTS

Consensus was reached on a variety of topics, including: definition of immediate allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, approaches to distinguish association from causality, approaches to patients with a history of an allergic reaction to a previous vaccine, and approaches to patients with a history of an allergic reaction to components of vaccines.

CONCLUSIONS

This document provides comprehensive and internationally accepted guidelines and access to on-line documents to help practitioners around the world identify allergic reactions following immunization. It also provides a framework for the evaluation and further management of patients who present either following an allergic reaction to a vaccine or with a history of allergy to a component of vaccines.

Vaccine allergy

Overdiagnosis of vaccine allergy is considered a major public health problem. This article discusses the different types of allergic reactions after immunization based on the timing (immediate vs nonimmediate) and the extent of the reaction (local vs systemic). The vaccine components potentially responsible for an allergic reaction are discussed, as well as the management of patients with a history of reaction to a specific vaccine and those with a history of allergy to one of the vaccine components.

Vaccination in children with allergy to non active vaccine components

Childhood immunisation is one of the greatest public health successes of the last century. Vaccines contain an active component (the antigen) which induces the immune response. They may also contain additional components such as preservatives, additives, adjuvants and traces of other substances. This review provides information about risks of hypersensitivity reactions to components of vaccines. Furthermore, recommendations to avoid or reduce reactions to vaccine components have been detailed.

Potential food allergens in medications

Excipients are substances in pharmaceuticals other than the active ingredients. Some excipients are foods or substances derived from foods, raising the possibility that these substances would pose a hazard to patients with food allergy. This review describes which food-derived substances are used as pharmaceutical excipients in which medications and reviews published data regarding the safety of the administration of these medications to recipients with food allergy. Such reactions are rare, usually because the amount of food protein is not present in a large enough quantity to elicit a reaction. When a food protein appears as an unintentional contaminant, the amount, if any, that is present might be variable and might elicit reactions only from some lots of medication or only in some patients. In most circumstances these medications should not be routinely withheld from patients who have particular food allergies because most will tolerate the medications uneventfully. However, if a particular patient has had an apparent allergic reaction to the medication, potential allergy to the food component should be investigated.

Hypersensitivity reactions to vaccine constituents: a case series and review of the literature

Vaccines are composed of immunogens, preservatives, adjuvants, antibiotics, and manufacturing by-products. Components of vaccines may rarely elicit adverse reactions in susceptible individuals, thus raising concerns regarding vaccine safety. In this report, we add to the medical literature 3 cases of cutaneous delayed-type hypersensitivity to the vaccine preservative aluminum. We provide a review of major constituents in vaccines that have elicited immediate-type or delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions and describe their clinical manifestations. We include a table of the Food and Drug Administration-approved vaccines, which lists the quantities of major components including ovalbumin (egg protein), gelatin, aluminum, neomycin, 2-phenoxyethanol, thimerosal, and formaldehyde. Our goals were to inform physicians on the variety of hypersensitivity reactions to common vaccines and to provide information on the choice of vaccines in patients with suspected hypersensitivity.

Review of the United States universal varicella vaccination program: Herpes zoster incidence rates, cost-effectiveness, and vaccine efficacy based primarily on the Antelope Valley Varicella Active Surveillance Project data

In a cooperative agreement starting January 1995, prior to the FDA's licensure of the varicella vaccine on March 17, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funded the Los Angeles Department of Health Services' Antelope Valley Varicella Active Surveillance Project (AV-VASP). Since only varicella case reports were gathered, baseline incidence data for herpes zoster (HZ) or shingles was lacking. Varicella case reports decreased 72%, from 2834 in 1995 to 836 in 2000 at which time approximately 50% of children under 10 years of age had been vaccinated. Starting in 2000, HZ surveillance was added to the project. By 2002, notable increases in HZ incidence rates were reported among both children and adults with a prior history of natural varicella. However, CDC authorities still claimed that no increase in HZ had occurred in any US surveillance site. The basic assumptions inherent to the varicella cost-benefit analysis ignored the significance of exogenous boosting caused by those shedding wild-type VZV. Also ignored was the morbidity associated with even rare serious events following varicella vaccination as well as the morbidity from increasing cases of HZ among adults. Vaccine efficacy declined below 80% in 2001. By 2006, because 20% of vaccinees were experiencing breakthrough varicella and vaccine-induced protection was waning, the CDC recommended a booster dose for children and, in 2007, a shingles vaccination was approved for adults aged 60 years and older. In the prelicensure era, 95% of adults experienced natural chickenpox (usually as children)-these cases were usually benign and resulted in long-term immunity. Varicella vaccination is less effective than the natural immunity that existed in prevaccine communities. Universal varicella vaccination has not proven to be cost-effective as increased HZ morbidity has disproportionately offset cost savings associated with reductions in varicella disease. Universal varicella vaccination has failed to provide long-term protection from VZV disease.

An algorithm for treatment of patients with hypersensitivity reactions after vaccines

Concerns about possible allergic reactions to immunizations are raised frequently by both patients/parents and primary care providers. Estimates of true allergic, or immediate hypersensitivity, reactions to routine vaccines range from 1 per 50000 doses for diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis to approximately 1 per 500000 to 1000000 doses for most other vaccines. In a large study from New Zealand, data were collected during a 5-year period on 15 marketed vaccines and revealed an estimated rate of 1 immediate hypersensitivity reaction per 450000 doses of vaccine administered. Another large study, conducted within the Vaccine Safety Datalink, described a range of reaction rates to >7.5 million doses. Depending on the study design and the time after the immunization event, reaction rates varied from 0.65 cases per million doses to 1.53 cases per million doses when additional allergy codes were included. For some vaccines, particularly when allergens such as gelatin are part of the formulation (eg, Japanese encephalitis), higher rates of serious allergic reactions may occur. Although these per-dose estimates suggest that true hypersensitivity reactions are quite rare, the large number of doses that are administered, especially for the commonly used vaccines, makes this a relatively common clinical problem. In this review, we present background information on vaccine hypersensitivity, followed by a detailed algorithm that provides a rational and organized approach for the evaluation and treatment of patients with suspected hypersensitivity. We then include 3 cases of suspected allergic reactions to vaccines that have been referred to the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment network to demonstrate the practical application of the algorithm.

Safety of varicella vaccine after licensure in the United States: experience from reports to the vaccine adverse event reporting system, 1995-2005

Widespread use of varicella vaccine in the United States could enable detection of rare adverse events not identified previously. We reviewed data from 1995 to 2005 from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, including data from laboratory analyses, to distinguish adverse events associated with wild-type varicella-zoster virus (VZV) versus those associated with vaccine strain. Almost 48 million doses of varicella vaccine were distributed between 1995 and 2005. There were 25,306 adverse events reported (52.7/100,000 doses distributed); 5.0% were classified as serious (2.6/100,000 doses distributed). Adverse events associated with evidence of vaccine-strain VZV included meningitis in patients with concurrent herpes zoster. Patients with genetic predispositions may rarely have disease triggered by receipt of varicella vaccine. Overall, serious adverse events reported after varicella vaccination continue to be rare and must be considered relative to the substantial benefits of varicella vaccination. Ongoing safety surveillance and further studies may shed light on some of the hypothesized associations.

The case against universal varicella vaccination

In 1995, the United States became the first country to implement a Universal Varicella Vaccination Program. Several questions remain: Is the varicella (chickenpox) vaccine needed? Is it cost effective as a routine immunization for all susceptible children? Or is it more beneficial for the disease to remain endemic so that adults may receive periodic exogenous exposures (boosts) that help suppress the reactivation of herpes zoster (shingles). In addition, as vaccination coverage becomes widespread, does loss of immunologic boosting cause a decline in vaccine efficacy and result in a reduced period of immunity? Scientific literature regarding safety of the varicella vaccine and its associated cost-benefit analysis have often reported optimistic evaluations based on ideal assumptions. Deleterious outcomes and their associated costs must be included when making a circumspect assessment of the Universal Varicella Vaccination Program.

Safety and immunogenicity of gelatin-free varicella vaccine in epidemiological and serological studies in Japan

Following gelatin-containing varicella vaccine (1994-1999: 1,410,000 distributed doses), 28 serious anaphylactic reactions and 139 non-serious allergic reactions were reported, with no serious and only five non-serious reactions following gelatin-free vaccine (1999-2000: 1,300,000 distributed doses). All nine sera available from children with serious reactions tested positive for gelatin-specific IgE, whereas 55 of the 70 available from those with non-serious reactions were positive, with one false positive. There was no correlation between gelatin-specific IgE antibody titers and severity of allergic reaction. Post-immunization anti-varicella antibody titers were comparable for both gelatin-free and gelatin-containing vaccine groups. The new gelatin-free varicella vaccine is thought to be safe, with similar immunogenicity to the earlier gelatin-containing vaccine.

Recurrent papular urticaria after varicella immunization in a fifteen-month-old girl

Varicella-like rash after immunization with the live attenuated varicella vaccine is relatively common. Such vaccine-associated rashes generally consist of fewer lesions than occur in chickenpox. We describe a 15-month-old girl who experienced the onset of recurring papular urticaria after varicella immunization. The rash was varicella-like and thought by us to be caused by vaccine virus.

Urticaria, Exanthems, and Other Benign Dermatologic Reactions to Smallpox Vaccination in Adults

A phase 1 smallpox vaccine trial involving 350 adult volunteers was conducted. Of these subjects, 250 were naive to vaccinia virus vaccine (i.e., "vaccinia naive"). Volunteers received a new cell-cultured smallpox vaccine or a live vaccinia virus vaccine. Nine self-limiting rashes (3.6%) were observed in the vaccinia-naive group. None of the vaccinia-experienced patients had a rash. Rashes appeared 6-19 days after vaccination and had 5 different clinical presentations. Five volunteers had urticarial rashes that resolved within 4-15 days, 1 had an exanthem that lasted 20 days, and 1 each presented with folliculitis, contact dermatitis, and erythematous papules found only on the hands and fingers. Volunteers reported pruritus, tingling, and occasional headaches. Relief was obtained with antihistamine and acetaminophen therapy. No volunteer experienced fever or significant discomfort.

Vaccine allergy: diagnosis and management

As a group, vaccines provide a safe and effective way of preventing infectious and allergic illness. Allergic reactions to vaccines and drug products have become important and common features of practice and demand heightened awareness. Serious adverse effects of vaccines are rare but have been reported to various components of different vaccines. Although there are few precise diagnostic tests available, patients usually can be diagnosed accurately after careful attention to the history and physical findings. Better understanding of these reactions can lead to proper vaccine selection and can improve immunization acceptance rates in the community. Prevention, avoidance, use of alternative agents, desensitization, and premedication remain the mainstays of therapy, even as more refined diagnostic and management tools are developed. VAERS data, in addition to the traditional uses (signal detection, large registry of rare vaccine adverse events), can serve as a source of cases for epidemiologic (eg, case-control) studies that evaluate biologic factors that may be related to vaccine-related adverse reactions. Additional studies that are aimed at identifying other causes of immediate hypersensitivity after immunization with live virus vaccines are warranted.

Prevalence of anti-gelatin IgE antibodies in people with anaphylaxis after measles-mumps rubella vaccine in the United States

OBJECTIVE

Anaphylaxis after immunization, although rare, is serious and potentially life-threatening. Understanding risk factors for this reaction is therefore important. Gelatin is added to many vaccines as a heat stabilizer. Japanese researchers have demonstrated a strong association between immediate hypersensitivity reactions to measles, mumps, rubella, varicella, and Japanese encephalitis immunizations and subsequent detection of anti-gelatin immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies. They suggested that previous receipt by these patients of diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis vaccines with trace amounts of gelatin was responsible for the sensitization. We aimed to assess whether a similar association exists for vaccinees in the United States who reported anaphylaxis after receipt of measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) or measles vaccines and to review recent trends in reporting of hypersensitivity reactions.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective case-control study. Cases of anaphylaxis that met a predefined case definition were identified from the US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Mayo Clinic patients who received MMR vaccine uneventfully served as controls. The study subjects were interviewed to obtain the history of allergies. Sera from study subjects and their matched controls were tested for IgE antibodies to gelatin, whole egg, and vaccine viral antigens using solid-phase radioimmunoassay. Data from the Biologics Surveillance System on annual numbers of doses of MMR and varicella vaccines distributed in the United States were used to evaluate possible changes in reporting of selected allergic adverse events.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven study subjects were recruited into the study and interviewed. Of these, 22 provided serum samples for IgE testing. Twenty-seven subjects served as a comparison group and provided a sample for IgE testing; 21 of these completed an allergy history questionnaire. Self-reported history of food allergies was present more frequently in the interviewed study subjects than in the controls, whereas the proportions of people with other characteristics were similar in both groups. None of the interviewed people had a history of food allergy to gelatin. The level of anti-gelatin IgE antibodies was significantly higher among study subjects than among controls, whereas the levels of IgE antibodies against egg and all 3 viral antigens did not differ significantly. Of 22 study subjects, 6 (27%) tested positive for anti-gelatin IgE, whereas none of the 27 controls did. The rate of anaphylactic reactions reported to VAERS after measles virus-containing immunization in the United States between 1991 and 1997 is 1.8 per 1 million doses distributed. No substantial increase in the number of reported allergic events after frequently used gelatin containing MMR and varicella vaccines could be observed during the first 4 years (1997-2000) since the introduction of diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis vaccines for use in infancy.

CONCLUSION

Anaphylactic reactions to MMR in the United States are rare. The reporting rate has the same order of magnitude as estimates from other countries. Almost one fourth of patients with reported anaphylaxis after MMR seem to have hypersensitivity to gelatin in the vaccine. They may be at higher risk of developing anaphylaxis to subsequent doses of other gelatin-containing vaccines. These people should seek an allergy evaluation before such immunization.