Search

Background: Local application site reactions are common with sublingual allergy immunotherapy (AIT)‐tablets for the treatment of allergic rhinitis/conjunctivitis (AR/C) and occasionally lead to treatment discontinuation. Because of the lower mast cell density in the vestibular mucosa than the sublingual area, vestibular AIT‐tablet administration may result in fewer adverse events (AEs). This pilot study evaluated the tolerability of the vestibular administration route of AIT‐tablets compared with the sublingual route in adult subjects with AR/C. Methods: Adults (n = 164) aged 18–65 years with AR/C treated with daily birch pollen, grass pollen, ragweed pollen or house dust mite AIT in tablet form were randomized 1:1 to vestibular or sublingual administration for 28 days, followed by 28 days of sublingual administration only. The primary endpoint was the severity (mild, moderate, severe) of local treatment‐related adverse events (TRAEs) during the first 28 days of treatment. Results: During the first 28 days, the percentage of subjects in the vestibular and sublingual groups reporting mild TRAEs were 55.6% versus 50.6%, respectively; moderate TRAEs were 27.2% versus 30.1%; and severe TRAEs were 12.3% versus 6.0% (p =.16). In the vestibular group, 95.1% of the subjects experienced at least one TRAE during the first period versus 81.9% in the sublingual group (p =.01) and discontinuation rates due to AEs were higher (12.3% vs. 3.6%). Conclusion: The frequencies of subjects experiencing severe TRAEs, at least one TRAE, and discontinuations due to AEs at the initiation of AIT‐tablets were numerically higher with vestibular administration than sublingual administration. Sublingual administration should remain the standard of care for subjects treated with AIT‐tablets for AR/C. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: COVID-19 vaccination has been associated with anaphylaxis and hypersensitivity reactions. Infectious disease physicians and allergists in the Canadian Special Immunization Clinic (SIC) Network developed guidance for evaluating patients with adverse events following immunization (AEFI) including suspected hypersensitivity. This study evaluated management and adverse event recurrence following subsequent COVID-19 vaccinations., Methods: Individuals aged 12 years and older enrolled at participating SICs before February 28, 2023 who were referred for suspected or diagnosed hypersensitivity reaction following COVID-19 vaccination, or for prevaccination assessment of suspected allergy to a COVID-19 vaccine component were included. De-identified clinical assessments and revaccination data, captured in a centralized database, were analyzed. The Brighton Collaboration case definition (BCCD) for anaphylaxis (2023 version) was applied., Results: The analysis included 206 participants from 13 sites: 26 participants referred for pre-vaccination assessment and 180 participants referred for adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination (15/180 [8.3%] with BCCD confirmed anaphylaxis, 84 [46.7%] with immediate hypersensitivity symptoms not meeting BCCD, 33 [18.3%] with other diagnosed hypersensitivity reactions, and 48 [26.7%] participants with a final diagnosis of non-hypersensitivity AEFI). Among participants referred for AEFIs following COVID-19 vaccination, 166/180 (92.2%) were recommended for COVID-19 revaccination after risk assessment, of whom 158/166 (95.2%) were revaccinated (all with a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine). After revaccination, 1/15 (6.7%) participants with prior anaphylaxis, 1/77 (1.3%) with immediate hypersensitivity not meeting criteria for anaphylaxis and 1/24 (4.2%) with other physician diagnosed hypersensitivity developed recurrent AEFI symptoms that met the BCCD for anaphylaxis. All 26 participants referred pre-vaccination, including 9 (34.6%) with history of polyethylene glycol-asparaginase reactions, were vaccinated without occurrence of immediate hypersensitivity symptoms., Conclusions: Most individuals in this national cohort who experienced a hypersensitivity event following COVID-19 vaccination and were referred for specialist review were revaccinated without AEFI recurrence, suggesting that specialist evaluation can facilitate safe revaccination., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: MS has been an investigator on projects funded by GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Moderna, Pfizer, and Sanofi-Pasteur; all funds have been paid to his institute, and he has not received any personal payments. VC received honoraria from Pfizer, Aralez pharmaceuticals and CSL Behring financial support for publication from CSL Behring. JEMU reports advisory board for Pfizer, clinical trials with Sanofi, and other from Novartis, all outside the current work. KZ reports honoraria from AstraZeneca and Regeneron. JMP is an investigator on projects funded by MedImmune and Merck; all funds have been paid to his institute, and he has not received any personal payments. ZA reports honoraria for speaker fees for Pfizer outside of the submitted work. AM received honoraria for presentations from Pfizer and Sanofi. ADR participated in multicentric studies with ALK for sublingual immunotherapy as investigator. AC received honoraria for presentations from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline and Moderna. JC received honoraria for presentations from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and GlaxoSmithKline. KAT has received funding to her institution from the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations for vaccine safety studies. All other authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)