ArticleFrontiers in immunology2023
Administration of BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine to subjects with various allergic backgrounds.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine was introduced to the general public in December 2020. Shortly thereafter, safety concerns were raised due to the reporting of allergic reactions. Allergy-related disorders were suspected to be significant risk factors and the excipient polyethylene glycol was suggested to be a robust allergen. Methods: This is a retrospective study analysis. Subjects with putative risk factors for severe allergic reactions to the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine were referred for vaccination under observation at the Unit of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. Data was collected for each subject, including demographic details, medical history and previous reactions to any allergen. When appropriate, skin tests were done prior to vaccination. Results: A total of 346 subjects received 623 vaccine doses under observation. The study included patients with various allergy-related disorders (n=290) and those with allergy to a previous COVID-19 vaccine dose (n=56). Both groups showed female predominance (78% and 88%, p=NS). Patients without reactions to previous doses reported more drug allergy (80% vs. 39%, p<0.001) and previous anaphylaxis (64% vs. 14%, p<0.001). There was no difference in sensitivity to other allergens, including polyethylene glycol. Under observation, mild allergic reactions were noted in 13 individuals characterized by female gender (100%), a history of anaphylaxis (69%) and drug allergy (62%). In 7 subjects, allergy was treated with antihistamines while others recovered spontaneously. Conclusion: Our study demonstrates that vaccination under specialist-supervision is a powerful tool for reducing over-diagnosis of systemic reactions and for rapid and reliable collection of vaccine safety data.
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.