Abstract
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 excipient 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. Anti-PEG IgG and IgM were measured using two different assays. 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>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.
Competing Interest Statement
Donna S. Hummel: eDMC monitoring clinical trial (Merck) Mary A. Staat: funding from NIH, CDC, Pfizer and Merck and royalties from UPToDate Kathryn M. Edwards: Grant funding from NIH and CDC; Consultant to Bionet and IBM; Member Data Safety and Monitoring Board for Sanofi, X-4 Pharma, Seqirus, Moderna, Pfizer, Merck, Roche, Novavax, Brighton Collaboration The other authors have no conflicts of interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Project contracts 200-2012-53661 to Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, 200-2012-50430 to Vanderbilt University Medical Center and 200-2012-53664 to Johns Hopkins University.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This activity was reviewed by CDC and FDA in accordance with applicable regulations and institutional policies and was deemed not to be research, per 45 C.F.R. 46.102(l)(2), and it was determined not to be a clinical investigation as defined in 21 CFR part 56. IRB approval and formal informed consent procedures were not required.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Patient specific data may be confidential. Other data can be shared upon request to authors.
