ArticleTuberkuloz ve toraks2023
[Vaccination approach in patients with an allergic reaction to COVID-19 vaccines or at risk of developing allergic reactions].
Article in Tuberkuloz ve toraks, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Drug Excipients. Necessary, but not Harmless].Farmaceuticos comunitarios · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: There is consensus that patients at risk of developing an allergic reaction to COVID-19 vaccines should be evaluated by an immunologist-allergist to determine whether vaccination should be recommended. We wanted to share our experiences in the management of these high-risk patients, from diagnostic tests in allergological evaluation to the vaccination process. Materials and Methods: Our retrospective cross-sectional study included patients who had previously developed an allergic reaction to COVID-19 vaccines or drugs and therefore were referred to our allergy and immunology clinic. Prick and intradermal tests were performed on all patients with methylprednisolone acetate (Depo-Medrol®, Pfizer) 40 mg/mL containing polyethylene Glycol (PEG) and triamcinolone acetonide (Kenacort®, Deva) 40 mg/mL containing polysorbate 80. While vaccination with desensitization was recommended for all patients with positive skin tests, split-dose vaccination was recommended for patients with negative skin tests. After explaining the risks and benefits, the choice of the vaccine (Pfizer/BioNTech or Sinovac/ CoronoVac) was left to the patients' discretion. Result: A total of 41 patients, 10 males, and 31 females, with a mean age of 42.37 ± 14.177 years were included. Eighteen patients with a history of allergy after COVID-19 vaccines were analyzed according to the type of reaction and type of vaccine administered (Pfizer/BioNTech/Coronovac; Anaphylaxis: 4/1, Urticaria: 11/2). Moreover, there was a history of drug allergy in 23 patients who had not been vaccinated before. Skin tests with PEG were positive in a total of seven patients while skin tests with polysorbate 80 were negative in all patients. No allergic reaction developed in seven patients who underwent desensitization and in 34 patients who received a split dose. Conclusions: Considering the potentially life-saving benefits of vaccination in a global pandemic environment, it is a safe and effective method to administer vaccines to at-risk patients using desensitization or split dosing techniques, based on their sensitivity status determined through a PEG skin test. This approach allows for the avoidance of preventing access to vaccines, while still ensuring the safety of patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.