COVID-19 vaccine anaphylaxis: IgE, complement or what else? A reply to: "COVID-19 vaccine anaphylaxis: PEG or not?"

Nano-PROTACs: state of the art and perspectives

PROteolysis TArgeting Chimeras (PROTACs), as a recently identified technique in the field of new drug development, provide new concepts for disease treatment and are expected to revolutionize drug discovery. With high specificity and flexibility, PROTACs serve as an innovative research tool to target and degrade disease-relevant proteins that are not currently pharmaceutically vulnerable to eliminating their functions by hijacking the ubiquitin-proteasome system. To date, PROTACs still face the challenges of low solubility, poor permeability, off-target effects, and metabolic instability. The combination of nanotechnology and PROTACs has been explored to enhance the in vivo performance of PROTACs regarding overcoming these challenging hurdles. In this review, we summarize the latest advancements in the building-block design of PROTAC prodrug nanoparticles and provide an overview of existing/potential delivery systems and loading approaches for PROTAC drugs. Furthermore, we discuss the current status and prospects of the split-and-mix approach for PROTAC drug optimization. Additionally, the advantages and translational potentials of carrier-free nano-PROTACs and their combinational therapeutic effects are highlighted. This review aims to foster a deeper understanding of this rapidly evolving field and facilitate the progress of nano-PROTACs that will continue to push the boundaries of achieving selectivity and controlled release of PROTAC drugs.

Evaluation of association of anti-PEG antibodies with anaphylaxis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination

BACKGROUND

The mechanism for anaphylaxis following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination has been widely debated; understanding this serious adverse event is important for future vaccines of similar design. A mechanism proposed is type I hypersensitivity (i.e., IgE-mediated mast cell degranulation) to polyethylene glycol (PEG). Using an assay that, uniquely, had been previously assessed in patients with anaphylaxis to PEG, our objective was to compare anti-PEG IgE in serum from mRNA COVID-19 vaccine anaphylaxis case-patients and persons vaccinated without allergic reactions. Secondarily, we compared anti-PEG IgG and IgM to assess alternative mechanisms.

METHODS

Selected anaphylaxis case-patients reported to U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System December 14, 2020-March 25, 2021 were invited to provide a serum sample. mRNA COVID-19 vaccine study participants with residual serum and no allergic reaction post-vaccination ("controls") were frequency matched to cases 3:1 on vaccine and dose number, sex and 10-year age category. Anti-PEG IgE was measured using a dual cytometric bead assay (DCBA). Anti-PEG IgG and IgM were measured using two different assays: DCBA and a PEGylated-polystyrene bead assay. Laboratorians were blinded to case/control status.

RESULTS

All 20 case-patients were women; 17 had anaphylaxis after dose 1, 3 after dose 2. Thirteen (65 %) were hospitalized and 7 (35 %) were intubated. Time from vaccination to serum collection was longer for case-patients vs controls (post-dose 1: median 105 vs 21 days). Among Moderna recipients, anti-PEG IgE was detected in 1 of 10 (10 %) case-patients vs 8 of 30 (27 %) controls (p = 0.40); among Pfizer-BioNTech recipients, it was detected in 0 of 10 case-patients (0 %) vs 1 of 30 (3 %) controls (p >n 0.99). Anti-PEG IgE quantitative signals followed this same pattern. Neither anti-PEG IgG nor IgM was associated with case status with both assay formats.

CONCLUSION

Our results support that anti-PEG IgE is not a predominant mechanism for anaphylaxis post-mRNA COVID-19 vaccination.

COVID-19, post-acute COVID-19 syndrome (PACS, "long COVID") and post-COVID-19 vaccination syndrome (PCVS, "post-COVIDvac-syndrome"): Similarities and differences

Worldwide there have been over 760 million confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases, and over 13 billion COVID-19 vaccine doses have been administered as of April 2023, according to the World Health Organization. An infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) can lead to an acute disease, i.e. COVID-19, but also to a post-acute COVID-19 syndrome (PACS, "long COVID"). Currently, the side effects of COVID-19 vaccines are increasingly being noted and studied. Here, we summarise the currently available indications and discuss our conclusions that (i) these side effects have specific similarities and differences to acute COVID-19 and PACS, that (ii) a new term should be used to refer to these side effects (post-COVID-19 vaccination syndrome, PCVS, colloquially "post-COVIDvac-syndrome"), and that (iii) there is a need to distinguish between acute COVID-19 vaccination syndrome (ACVS) and post-acute COVID-19 vaccination syndrome (PACVS) - in analogy to acute COVID-19 and PACS ("long COVID"). Moreover, we address mixed forms of disease caused by natural SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination. We explain why it is important for medical diagnosis, care and research to use the new terms (PCVS, ACVS and PACVS) in order to avoid confusion and misinterpretation of the underlying causes of disease and to enable optimal medical therapy. We do not recommend to use the term "Post-Vac-Syndrome" as it is imprecise. The article also serves to address the current problem of "medical gaslighting" in relation to PACS and PCVS by raising awareness among the medical professionals and supplying appropriate terminology for disease.

Clinical translational barriers against nanoparticle-based imaging agents

Nanoparticle based imaging agents (NIAs) have been intensively explored in bench studies. Unfortunately, only a few cases have made their ways to clinical translation. In this review, clinical trials of NIAs were investigated for understanding possible barriers behind that. First, the complexity of multifunctional NIAs is considered a main barrier because it brings uncertainty to batch-to-batch fabrication, and results in sophisticated in vivo behaviors. Second, inadequate biosafety studies slow down the translational work. Third, NIA uptake at disease sites is highly heterogeneous, and often exhibits poor targeting efficiency. Focusing on the aforementioned problems, key design parameters were analyzed including NIAs' size, composition, surface characteristics, dosage, administration route, toxicity, whole-body distribution and clearance in clinical trials. Possible strategies were suggested to overcome these barriers. Besides, regulatory guidelines as well as scale-up and reproducibility during manufacturing process were covered as they are also key factors to consider during clinical translation of NIAs.

A Nanomedicine Structure-Activity Framework for Research, Development, and Regulation of Future Cancer Therapies

Despite their clinical success in drug delivery applications, the potential of theranostic nanomedicines is hampered by mechanistic uncertainty and a lack of science-informed regulatory guidance. Both the therapeutic efficacy and the toxicity of nanoformulations are tightly controlled by the complex interplay of the nanoparticle's physicochemical properties and the individual patient/tumor biology; however, it can be difficult to correlate such information with observed outcomes. Additionally, as nanomedicine research attempts to gradually move away from large-scale animal testing, the need for computer-assisted solutions for evaluation will increase. Such models will depend on a clear understanding of structure-activity relationships. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the field of cancer nanomedicine and provides a knowledge framework and foundational interaction maps that can facilitate future research, assessments, and regulation. By forming three complementary maps profiling nanobio interactions and pathways at different levels of biological complexity, a clear picture of a nanoparticle's journey through the body and the therapeutic and adverse consequences of each potential interaction are presented.

Clinical Effects of BNT162b2 Vaccine on the Short-Term Course of Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria Patients

Background

The clinical effects of Pfizer-BioNTech coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19; BNT162b2) vaccine on the clinical course of chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is unclear.

Aims and Objectives

To evaluate the clinical effects of BNT162b2 vaccine on the clinical course of CSU.

Methods

In this study, 90 CSU patients vaccinated with one or two repeated doses of BNT162b2 vaccine were included. Urticaria Activity Score over 28 days (UAS28), Urticaria Control Test (UCT), Chronic Urticaria Quality of Life Questionnaire (CU-Q2oL), and Medication Scores (MSs) were obtained before the vaccination, 28 days after the first and, if available, after the second dose of BNT162b2 vaccine. The demographic, clinical, and laboratory features were compared between the subjects with exacerbated (group A) and non-exacerbated (group B) disease activity.

Results

Among the 90 study participants, 14 (15.5%) experienced exacerbations in their urticarial activity after the first or repeated doses of BNT162b2 vaccinations. The demographic, clinical, and laboratory features were similar between the exacerbated and non-exacerbated CSU patients. However, the rate of adverse reactions within 48 hours, such as hives, injection site reactions and wheals lasting <1 hour, were significantly higher in group A than in group B (P = 0.004, P < 0.001, P = 0.001, P = 0.018).

Conclusions

BNT162b2 vaccination caused an exacerbation in 15.5% of CSU patients during the short-term follow-up. The long-term evaluation can be informative about the lasting effects of BNT162b2 vaccine on the clinical course of CSU patients.

Do we miss rare adverse events induced by COVID-19 vaccination?

Although severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has caused many complications, the invention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines has also brought about several adverse events, from common side effects to unexpected and rare ones. Common vaccine-related adverse reactions manifest locally or systematically following any vaccine, including COVID-19 vaccines. Specific side effects, known as adverse events of particular interest (AESI), are unusual and need more evaluation. Here, we discuss some of the most critical rare adverse events of COVID-19 vaccines.

Anaphylaxis to additives in vaccines

Anaphylaxis in connection with the administration of vaccines occurs only very rarely. Triggers of immunoglobulin IgE-mediated and non-IgE-mediated anaphylaxis—in addition to the active ingredient itself—may be excipients contained in the vaccine due to their special properties. Some of the excipients in medicinal products are the same compounds used as additives in food. Furthermore, residues from the manufacturing process (e.g., chicken egg white, casein, antibiotics, formaldehyde) or contaminants (e.g., from the primary packaging material) may be potential triggers of anaphylaxis in vaccines. This review article provides an overview of ingredients in vaccines that pose an allergenic risk potential. The components of COVID-19 vaccines approved and marketed in Germany are discussed with regard to their potential for triggering anaphylaxis and possible pathophysiological mechanisms involved.

Anaphylaxie auf Zusatzstoffe in Impfstoffen

Anaphylaxien im zeitlichen Zusammenhang mit der Verabreichung von Impfstoffen treten nur sehr selten auf. Auslöser von IgE-vermittelten und nicht IgE-vermittelten Anaphylaxien können neben dem Wirkstoff selbst Hilfsstoffe sein, die aufgrund spezieller Eigenschaften im Impfstoff enthalten sind. Bei den Hilfsstoffen in Arzneimitteln handelt es sich teilweise um dieselben Verbindungen, die als Zusatzstoffe in Lebensmitteln eingesetzt werden. Weiterhin kommen in Impfstoffen Rückstände aus dem Herstellungsprozess (z. B. Hühnereiweiß, Kasein, Antibiotika, Formaldehyd) oder Kontaminationen (z. B. aus dem Primärpackmittel) als potenzielle Auslöser von Anaphylaxien in Frage. Der vorliegende Review gibt einen Überblick über Bestandteile in Impfstoffen, von denen ein allergenes Risikopotenzial ausgeht. Die Bestandteile der in Deutschland zugelassenen COVID-19-Impfstoffe als potenzielle Auslöser von Anaphylaxien und mögliche pathophysiologische Mechanismen werden diskutiert.

Zitierweise: Mahler V, Junker AC. Anaphylaxis to additives in vaccines. Allergo J Int 2022;31: 123-36

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40629-022-00215-8

The value of the basophil activation test in the evaluation of patients reporting allergic reactions to the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine

BACKGROUND

mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines have been reported to induce hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) in a small number of individuals. We aimed to evaluate the real-world incidence of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine HSR and to determine the value of the basophil activation test (BAT) in the allergological workup of patients reporting these reactions.

METHODS

We prospectively enrolled patients with a clinical history indicative of HSR to the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. The allergological workup included skin testing (STs) and BAT with polyethylene glycol (PEG) and the vaccine. In those with negative allergy assessments, the administration of the second dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine was offered.

RESULTS

Seventeen adults were included. Eleven cases (64.7%) tested negative in the allergological workup and tolerated the re-administration of the second dose of the vaccine and considered non-allergic. Six cases (35.3%) were considered allergic and classified into three groups: 2 subjects displayed positive STs and/or BAT to PEG (Group A), two individuals displayed positive BAT to the vaccine (Group B), and in 2 patients with moderate or severe reactions, the culprit was not identified, tested negative to STs and BAT to both PEG and vaccine (Group C). We further evaluated the value of BAT when the results were positive to the vaccine and negative to PEG by performing BAT in controls groups, finding positive BAT results in 50% of controls, all of them recovered from COVID-19 infection. In contrast, BAT was negative in patients who had not suffered from COVID-19 disease.

CONCLUSIONS

BAT can be used as a potential diagnostic tool for confirming allergy to PEG excipient but not to the vaccine as a positive result in BAT may indicate a past COVID-19 infection instead of an allergy.

COVID-19 Vaccination Is Safe among Mast Cell Disorder Patients, under Adequate Premedication

Reported cases of anaphylaxis following COVID-19 vaccination raised concerns about the safety of these vaccines, namely in patients suffering from clonal mast cell (MC) disorders-a heterogenous group of disorders in which patients may be prone to anaphylaxis caused by vaccination. This study aimed to assess the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in patients with clonal MC disorders. We performed an ambidirectional cohort study with 30 clonal MC disorder patients (n = 26 in the prospective arm and n = 4 in the retrospective arm), that were submitted to COVID-19 vaccination. Among these, 11 (37%) were males, and median age at vaccination date was 41 years (range: 5y to 76y). One patient had prior history of anaphylaxis following vaccination. Those in the prospective arm received a premedication protocol including H1- and H2-antihistamines and montelukast, while those in the retrospective arm did not premedicate. Overall, patients received a total of 81 doses, 73 under premedication and 8 without premedication. No MC activation symptoms were reported. COVID-19 vaccination seems to be safe in patients with clonal mast cell disorders, including those with prior anaphylaxis following vaccination. Robust premedication protocols may allow for vaccination in ambulatory settings.

Evaluation of the Autoimmunity and Preexisting Risky Conditions for Hypersensitivity Reactions to COVID-19 Vaccines

INTRODUCTION

The role of autoimmunity and other preexisting risky conditions in hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to COVID-19 vaccines seems unclear. The aim of the study was to investigate the autoimmunity and preexisting risky conditions in HSRs to COVID-19 vaccines.

METHODS

The patients aged ≥18 years with a history of HSR to CoronaVac or Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines within 24 h in 2 tertiary centers were assessed. The patients were divided according to the type of vaccine which they showed immediate-type (<4 h) HSR to (group A1 for CoronaVac and group B1 for Pfizer-BioNTech). Equal number of subjects who did not show HSR to two doses of either CoronaVac or Pfizer-BioNTech was recruited into the study as control groups (group A2 for CoronaVac and group B2 for Pfizer-BioNTech). The autologous serum skin test (ASST) was performed on patient and control groups. Later, the demographic, clinical, and laboratory features were compared between groups.

RESULTS

A total number of 27 patients were included in the study. Subjects with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) were more frequent in group B1 than in group B2 (p:0.041). In addition to CSU, the presence of HSRs to drugs was higher in group A1 than in A2 (both p:0.007). The presence of autoimmunity and autoimmune diseases, positivity of antithyroid peroxidase antibody, and ASST were less in group A2 than in A1 (p:0.015, p:0.048, p:0.048, and p:0.037). Additionally, COVID-19 infection history was less in group A2 than in A1 (p:0.037).

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

Type IIb autoimmunity seems to play a role in immediate type HSRs to the CoronaVac vaccine as previously shown in autoimmune CSU and multidrug hypersensitivity.

COVID-19 phase 4 vaccine candidates, effectiveness on SARS-CoV-2 variants, neutralizing antibody, rare side effects, traditional and nano-based vaccine platforms: a review

The COVID-19 pandemic has endangered world health and the economy. As the number of cases is increasing, different companies have started developing potential vaccines using both traditional and nano-based platforms to overcome the pandemic. Several countries have approved a few vaccine candidates for emergency use authorization (EUA), showing significant effectiveness and inducing a robust immune response. Oxford-AstraZeneca, Pfizer-BioNTech's BNT162, Moderna's mRNA-1273, Sinovac's CoronaVac, Johnson & Johnson, Sputnik-V, and Sinopharm's vaccine candidates are leading the race. However, the SARS-CoV-2 is constantly mutating, making the vaccines less effective, possibly by escaping immune response for some variants. Besides, some EUA vaccines have been reported to induce rare side effects such as blood clots, cardiac injury, anaphylaxis, and some neurological effects. Although the COVID-19 vaccine candidates promise to overcome the pandemic, a more significant and clear understanding is needed. In this review, we brief about the clinical trial of some leading candidates, their effectiveness, and their neutralizing effect on SARS-CoV-2 variants. Further, we have discussed the rare side effects, different traditional and nano-based platforms to understand the scope of future development.

New-onset autoimmune phenomena post COVID-19 vaccination

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has led to an unprecedented setback for global economy and health. Vaccination is one of the most effective intervention to substantially reduce severe disease and death due to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Vaccination programs are being rolled out globally, but most of these vaccines have been approved without extensive studies on their side effects and efficacy. Recently, new-onset autoimmune phenomena after COVID-19 vaccination have been reported increasingly (e.g., immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia, autoimmune liver diseases, Guillain-Barré syndrome, IgA nephropathy, rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus, etc.). Molecular mimicry, the production of particular autoantibodies and the role of certain vaccine adjuvants seem to be substantial contributors to autoimmune phenomena. However, whether the association between COVID-19 vaccine and autoimmune manifestations is coincidental or causal remains to be elucidated. Here, we summarize the emerging evidence about autoimmune manifestations occurring in response to certain COVID-19 vaccines. Although information pertaining to the risk of autoimmune disease as a consequence of vaccination is controversial, we merely propose our current understanding of autoimmune manifestations associated with COVID-19 vaccine. In fact, we do not aim to disavow the overwhelming benefits of mass COVID-19 vaccination in preventing COVID-19 morbidity and mortality. These reports could help guide clinical assessment and management of autoimmune manifestations after COVID-19 vaccination.

Recent advances and developments in COVID-19 in the context of allergic diseases

BACKGROUND

Since the first reports of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, there have been 198 million confirmed cases worldwide as of August 2021. The scientific community has joined efforts to gain knowledge of the newly emerged virus named severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the immunopathological mechanisms leading to COVID-19, and its significance for patients with allergies and asthma.

METHODS

Based on the current literature, recent advances and developments in COVID-19 in the context of allergic diseases were reviewed.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

In this review, we discuss the prevalence of COVID-19 in subjects with asthma, attacks of hereditary angioedema, and other allergic diseases during COVID-19. Underlying mechanisms suggest a protective role of allergy in COVID-19, involving eosinophilia, SARS-CoV-2 receptors expression, interferon responses, and other immunological events, but further studies are needed to fully understand those associations. There has been significant progress in disease evaluation and management of COVID-19, and allergy care should continue during the COVID-19 pandemic. The European Academy of Allergy & Clinical Immunology (EAACI) launched a series of statements and position papers providing recommendations on the organization of the allergy clinic, handling of allergen immunotherapy, asthma, drug hypersensitivity, allergic rhinitis, and other allergic diseases. Treatment of allergies using biologics during the COVID-19 pandemic has also been discussed. Allergic reactions to the COVID-19 vaccines, including severe anaphylaxis, have been reported. Vaccination is a prophylactic strategy that can lead to a significant reduction in the mortality and morbidity associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, and in this review, we discuss the proposed culprit components causing rare adverse reactions and recommendations to mitigate the risk of anaphylactic events during the administration of the vaccines.

Allergy to COVID-19 vaccines: A current update

Adverse allergic reactions due to the administration of the vaccines developed for the protection of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been reported since the initiation of the vaccination campaigns. Current analyses provided by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States have estimated the rates of anaphylactic reactions in 2.5 and 11.1 per million of mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 vaccines administered, respectively. Although rather low, such rates could have importance due to the uncommon fact that a large majority of the world population will be subjected to vaccination with the aforementioned vaccines in the following months and vaccination will most likely be necessary every season as for influenza vaccines. Health regulators have advised that any subject with a previous history of allergy to drugs or any component of the vaccines should not be vaccinated, however, certain misunderstanding exists since allergy to specific excipients in drugs and vaccines are in occasions misdiagnosed due to an absence of suspicion to specific excipients as allergenic triggers or due to inaccurate labeling or nomenclature. In this review, we provide an updated revision of the most current data regarding the anaphylactic reactions described for BNT162b2 vaccine, mRNA-1273 vaccine, and AZD1222 vaccine. We extensively describe the different excipients in the vaccines with the potential to elicit systemic allergic reactions such as polyethylene glycol (PEG), polysorbates, tromethamine/trometamol, and others and the possible immunological mechanisms involved.

Adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines: A practical approach

COVID-19-related mortality in high-risk individuals is substantial and current treatment options are limited. There is convincing evidence that the COVID-19 vaccines reduce the severity of infection and prevent deaths. Three COVID-19 vaccines are approved in the United Kingdom with many more in development. There are limited data on the triggers and mechanisms of anaphylaxis to these vaccines. We review the potential allergenic compounds in the COVID-19 vaccines and describe an innovative allergy support model for the vaccination hubs that allows most patients with severe allergy be immunized. Finally, we propose a practical algorithm for the investigations of anaphylaxis to these vaccines.