4.6 Article

Allergies and COVID-19 vaccines: An ENDA/EAACI Position paper

期刊

ALLERGY
卷 77, 期 8, 页码 2292-2312

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/all.15241

关键词

allergy test; anaphylaxis; COVID-19 vaccine; mRNA vaccines; risk assessment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background anaphylaxis after COVID-19 vaccination is rare, and its management is not standardized. The authors propose allergy evaluation and prick test for individuals with specific allergy histories, aiming to improve the understanding and management of anaphylaxis to COVID-19 vaccines and facilitate vaccination for people with allergy history.
Background Anaphylaxis, which is rare, has been reported after COVID-19 vaccination, but its management is not standardized. Method Members of the European Network for Drug Allergy and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology interested in drug allergy participated in an online questionnaire on pre-vaccination screening and management of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines, and literature was analysed. Results No death due to anaphylaxis to COVID-19 vaccines has been confirmed in scientific literature. Potential allergens, polyethylene glycol (PEG), polysorbate and tromethamine are excipients. The authors propose allergy evaluation of persons with the following histories: 1-anaphylaxis to injectable drug or vaccine containing PEG or derivatives; 2-anaphylaxis to oral/topical PEG containing products; 3-recurrent anaphylaxis of unknown cause; 4-suspected or confirmed allergy to any mRNA vaccine; and 5-confirmed allergy to PEG or derivatives. We recommend a prick-to-prick skin test with the left-over solution in the suspected vaccine vial to avoid waste. Prick test panel should include PEG 4000 or 3500, PEG 2000 and polysorbate 80. The value of in vitro test is arguable. Conclusions These recommendations will lead to a better knowledge of the management and mechanisms involved in anaphylaxis to COVID-19 vaccines and enable more people with history of allergy to be vaccinated.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据