Vaccines and allergic reactions: The past, the current COVID‐19 pandemic, and future perspectives

*** Please review all of the [huge] conflicts of interest regarding authors of this document.  It appears they are all on one board or another that receives funding from big pharma. ***


Vaccines are essential public health tools with a favorable safety profile and prophylactic effectiveness that have historically played significant roles in reducing infectious disease burden in populations, when the majority of individuals are vaccinated. The COVID‐19 vaccines are expected to have similar positive impacts on health across the globe. While serious allergic reactions to vaccines are rare, their underlying mechanisms and implications for clinical management should be considered to provide individuals with the safest care possible. In this review, we provide an overview of different types of allergic adverse reactions that can potentially occur after vaccination and individual vaccine components capable of causing the allergic adverse reactions. We present the incidence of allergic adverse reactions during clinical studies and through post‐authorization and post‐marketing surveillance and provide plausible causes of these reactions based on potential allergenic components present in several common vaccines. Additionally, we review implications for individual diagnosis and management and vaccine manufacturing overall. Finally, we suggest areas for future research.


The rapid development and the launch of several novel COVID‐19 vaccines for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) is an extraordinary and remarkable accomplishment of modern science. The Pfizer‐BioNTech BNT162b2 was the first vaccine to be granted temporary authorization for emergency use by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in the U.K for the treatment of COVID‐19 on 2 December 2020. 1 Soon after, on 11 December 2020, it also received emergency use authorization (EUA) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 2 EUA is a mechanism to facilitate the availability of vaccines during public health emergencies, such as the current COVID‐19 pandemic. Under an EUA, the FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products (including vaccines) to prevent serious or life‐threatening disease when certain statutory criteria have been met and no adequate and/or approved alternatives are available. The authorization of BNT162b2 was followed by an EUA for a second COVID‐19 vaccine, the Moderna mRNA‐1273 on 18 December 2020. 3 This was followed by the authorization of mRNA‐1273 for use by other regulatory agencies such as the European Commission, UK MHRA, Israel Ministry of Health, and others. 4 On December 30, a third COVID‐19 vaccine, the Oxford/AstraZeneca recombinant adenoviral AZD1222 or ChAdOx1‐S was authorized for use by the UK MHRA. 5 In addition to the above authorized COVID‐19 vaccines, a number of other novel COVID‐19 vaccines are currently in different phases of clinicals development. Currently, used platforms in COVID‐19 vaccines include classical and novel platforms, such as RNA‐ and DNA‐based, viral vectors (non‐replicating), protein subunits, virus‐like particles, and inactivated viral platform (Table 1). 6 8


Key Characteristics of COVID‐19 vaccines (approved and in phase 3 clinical trials) 7 162

Developers Vaccine Name (s) Vaccine Platform Authorization Status Phase 3 Efficacy Prod. capacity % of doses to HICs for 2021 Agreement with COVAX? No of Dose Temp. for storage (Celsius)
Approved vaccines                  
AstraZeneca with Oxford University AZD1222 Viral vector (non‐replicating) Emergency use in U.K., E.U., other countries. 62% 3bn 27% Yes 2 2–8
Bharat Biotech International Limited BBV152, Covaxin Inactivated virus Emergency use in India. 700 m 0% No 2 2–8
BioNTech with Pfizer+Fosum Pharma BNT162b2, tozinameran, Comirnaty RNA‐based Approved in several countries. Emergency use in United States, E.U., other countries. 95% 2bn 77% Yes 2 −70
CanSino Biological Inc./Beijing Institute of Biotechnology Ad5‐nCoV, Convidecia Viral vector (non‐replicating) Limited use in China. Emergency use in Mexico, Pakistan. 65.7% 320 m 0% No 1 2–8
Gamaleya Research Institute and Health Ministry of the Russian Federation Sputnik V Viral vector (non‐replicating) Early use in Russia. Emergency use in other countries. 92% 1bn 0% No 2 −18
Moderna +National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) mRNA−1273 RNA‐based Approved in Switzerland. Emergency use in U.S., U.K., E.U., others 94% 1bn 97% No 2 −20
Sinopharm with China National Biotec Group Co and Beijing Institute of Biological Products BBIBP‐CorV Inactivated virus Approved in China, U.A.E., Bahrain. Emergency use in Egypt, other countries. 79% 1bn 8% No 2 2–8
Sinopharm and China National Biotec Group Co and Wuhan Institute of Biological Products N/A Inactivated virus Limited use in China, U.A.E. 600 m 8% No 2 2–8
Sinovac and Development Co., Ltd CoronaVac Inactivated virus Approved in China. Emergency use in Brazil, other countries 50–91% 1bn 18% No 2 Room temp.
Vector Institute EpiVacCorona Protein subunit Early use in Russia N/A 11 m No 2 2–8
Vaccines in phase 3 trials (unapproved)                  
AnGesand Takara Bio and Osaka University AG0302‐COVID19 DNA‐based Not approved No 2 −70
Anhui ZhifeiLongcom Biopharmaceutical and Institute of Microbiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences ZF2001 Protein subunit Not approved 300 m No 2 or 3 2–8
Biological E Limited and Dynavax and Baylor College of Medicine N/A   Not approved No 2 2–8
Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Institute of Medical Biology N/A Inactivated virus Not approved            
Clover Pharmaceuticals Inc.,/GSK/Dynavax COVID‐19 S‐Trimer Protein subunit Not approved 1bn No 2 2–8
Covaxx with Nebraska University and United Biomedical Inc UB‐612 Protein subunit Not approved 1bn 0% No 2 2–8
CureVacand Bayer CVnCoV RNA‐based Not approved 300 m 100% No 2 5
Inovio Pharmaceuticals and International Vaccine Institute and Advaccine (Suzhou) Biopharmaceutical Co., Ltd INO‐4800 DNA‐based Not approved 100 m No 2 2–8
Johnson & Johnson Ad26   Not approved 66% 1bn 38% Yes 1 2–8
Medicago, GSK CoVLP Virus‐like particle Not approved 80 m 100% No 2 2–8
Novavax NVX CoV2373 Protein subunit Not approved 89% 2bn 31% Yes 2 2–8
RIBSP QazCovid‐in®   Not approved 60 m No 2 2–8
Research Institute for Biological Safety Problems QazCovid Inactivated virus Not approved            
Sanofi with GlaxoSmithKline N/A   Not approved 73% Yes 2 2–8
SII with Max Planck Institute VPM1002   Not approved No −50 to −15
SK Biosciences GBP510   Not approved No 2–8
University of Hong Kong N/A   Not approved No −50 to −15
Zydus Cadila ZyCoV‐D DNA‐based Not approved         3 doses (by skin patch)  
This article is being made freely available through PubMed Central as part of the COVID-19 public health emergency response. It can be used for unrestricted research re-use and analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source, for the duration of the public health emergency.

With the authorization of COVID‐19 vaccines, vaccination campaigns have been initiated in many areas throughout the world. Within the first few days of public vaccinations, however, BNT162b2 was associated with a few severe cases of anaphylaxis. 9 While severe allergic reactions may pose a potential risk with any vaccine (or systemic medications), the benefits of vaccination outweigh the potential risks of receiving the vaccine for the vast majority of individuals. However, the fear of allergic reactions may lead to vaccine hesitancy, which could compromise herd immunity and limit efforts to contain the pandemic. It is therefore critical that we understand the immunopathological changes in COVID‐19, 10 risk of severe allergic reactions, and their mechanisms in order to improve individual safety and issue proper guidance with the goal of vaccinating the maximum number of individuals. Here, we review adverse events associated with vaccine‐related allergic and non‐allergic reactions to COVID‐19 and other vaccines, mechanisms associated with allergic adverse reactions, and rates of severe allergic reactions with existing vaccines and with the novel COVID‐19 active vaccines currently being administered to large parts of the world.


There are a number of vaccines currently used with proven safety and efficacy. Vaccines are potentially associated with adverse events. An adverse event is defined as any untoward medical occurrence associated with the use of a drug in humans, whether or not considered drug related. 11 Adverse events can present as local or systemic, immediate or non‐immediate, and immune or non–immune‐mediated reactions. While all allergic reactions are immune‐mediated, not all immune‐mediated reactions are allergic. Local non‐immediate reactions that are not allergenic are common and may include swelling and erythema at the injection site. These reactions can occur hours or days after administration and are not always mediated through the immune system. Systemic non‐allergic reactions including mild fever and vasovagal reactions such as hypotension, nausea, and syncope are also relatively common. Neither the local nor the vasovagal reactions pose any serious risk. Although some of these reactions are immune‐mediated, they are not allergic reactions. Rather, soreness at the injection site or fatigue are consequences of activation of the innate immune system. 12 13 14 15

As of 10 February 2021, 44.77 million people had taken one or two doses of a COVID vaccine in the United States. 653 deaths and 12,697 total adverse events had been reported to following COVID‐19 vaccinations to the CDC and Prevention's VAERS. 16 Adverse events, including allergic reactions, are graded according to severity as mild, moderate, and for purposes of this review, serious. Typical signs of an allergic reaction include bronchoconstriction, conjunctivitis, rhinorrhea, gastrointestinal symptoms, and/or characteristic skin lesions such as generalized urticaria and/or angioedema. These can occur in combination or alone, and onset can be immediate, within minutes, or up to several hours post‐vaccination. Examples of mild allergic reactions are swelling with itching at the injection site, conjunctivitis, or rhinorrhea. Examples of moderate allergic reactions are bronchoconstriction that can be adequately treated with nebulized beta‐agonists or generalized urticaria that may be treated with an antihistamine. Serious adverse events (SAE) are those events that are life‐threatening, require inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization, cause a persistent or significant incapacity or substantial disruption in the ability to conduct normal life functions, a congenital anomaly/birth defect, or death. Two examples of SAE that are allergic reactions are bronchospasm that requires intensive treatment and life‐threatening anaphylaxis. 11 17

Anaphylaxis, an immediate systemic multi‐organ reaction, is rare but can be life‐threatening. Organs affected include the cutaneous, gastrointestinal, respiratory, and cardiovascular systems. Anaphylaxis can be either immunological, non‐immunological, or idiopathic. Idiopathic anaphylaxis is diagnosed through exclusion of other known causes and may mask a clonal mast cell disorder. 18 19 20 21 22 23 Non‐immunological anaphylaxis was previously termed anaphylactoid reactions, but the World Allergy Organization (WAO) in 2004 suggested replacing anaphylactoid reactions with non‐immunological anaphylaxis. 24 The change in terminology is to reinforce the risk and potential fatality of all types of anaphylaxis, regardless of the underlying mechanism. All three mechanisms of anaphylaxis produce the same clinical picture (see Section IV on mechanisms below). Distinguishing between systemic vasovagal reactions and anaphylaxis during immunization is critical to ensure that appropriate and immediate treatment can be administered (Table 2). Vasovagal reactions usually occur immediately or up to 30 minutes of vaccine administration. Similar to anaphylaxis, organs affected include the cutaneous, gastrointestinal, respiratory, neurological, and cardiovascular systems. 25 26


Differentiating features of vasovagal episode vs. anaphylaxis 25 26

Vasovagal Episode Anaphylaxis
Immediately or up to 30 minutes after vaccine administration Can be immediate or within minutes or up to several hours after vaccine administration
Normal respiration ‐ may be shallow, but not labored

Cough, wheeze, stridor, hoarseness, rhinorrhea

Signs of respiratory distress (tachypnea, cyanosis, and rib recession)

Upper airway swelling (lip, throat, tongue, uvula, or larynx)


Bradycardia—weak/absent peripheral pulse‐ but with strong central pulse (carotid)

Hypotension—usually transient and corrects in supine position

Loss of consciousness—improves once supine or head‐down position

Tachycardia, weak/absent central pulse

Hypotension—sustained and no improvement without specific treatment (in infants and young children, limpness and pallor are signs of hypotension)

Loss of consciousness—no improvement once supine or in head‐down position

Generalized pallor, cool clammy skin Urticaria, angioedema, pruritus, erythema
Nausea or vomiting Abdominal cramps, diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting
Nausea or vomiting Feels faint, light‐headed, headache, dizziness blurred vision, restless, seldom: seizures
This article is being made freely available through PubMed Central as part of the COVID-19 public health emergency response. It can be used for unrestricted research re-use and analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source, for the duration of the public health emergency.

Anaphylactic reactions are considered adverse events of special interest (AESI), 27 that is, adverse events that are of significant medical and scientific concern for which immediate medical action with ongoing monitoring and rapid communication by the investigator or sponsor is required. AESI reporting is a critical aspect of pharmacovigilance for characterization of the safety profile of a drug or vaccine in context of previous reports of the vaccine or of other vaccines with similar manufacturing processes, formulation, immunogenicity, and novelty. AESIs alert regulators to potential risks. Particularly in mass vaccination programs where a large number of adverse reactions may be reported, identification and assessment of AESIs are a high priority because they highlight potential risks that may alter risk‐benefit profile and may require immediate investigation, regulatory action, and prompt communication with the public. 28 29 Table 3 lists Pharmacovigilance Practices that follow authorization of a vaccine.


General pharmacovigilance practices for monitoring vaccine reactions 163

Goal Steps
Observed vs. expected (O/E) analysis of AESIs during a mass vaccination program
  • Collect background incidence rates of AESIs

  • Create system to process and display real‐time vaccination data

Routine pharmacovigilance
  • Provide AESI standard case definitions

  • Present age‐stratified data on AESI incidence rate in target population

Follow‐up for an adverse reaction

Collect data on:

  • Patient

  • Adverse reaction

  • Vaccination history

  • Vaccination and diluent (including manufacturer, batch number, batch release specifications, expiry date, laboratory test results about the batch)

  • Route of administration

  • Storage and handling conditions


This article is being made freely available through PubMed Central as part of the COVID-19 public health emergency response. It can be used for unrestricted research re-use and analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source, for the duration of the public health emergency.


In the last 120 years, global vaccination programs have eradicated or vastly reduced the incidence of debilitating infectious diseases such as smallpox, polio, and measles. 30 According to the Institute of Medicine, epidemiologic and mechanistic evidence support a causal relationship between anaphylaxis and several vaccines, including those for measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR), varicella, influenza, hepatitis B, meningococcus, human papillomavirus, and the combined diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (DTaP or TdaP) vaccine. 31 Although approved vaccines have been rigorously tested for safety, anaphylactic reactions, although rare, can occur in individuals. 32 An analysis of reported anaphylaxis to the Vaccine Adverse Reporting System (VAERS) in the United States over a 26‐year period found that out of the almost 500,000 reports to VAERS, only 828 were classified as anaphylaxis based on either on physician's diagnosis or in according to the Brighton Collaboration case standards. 33 A 2003 study analyzing over eight million routine vaccinations in the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) Project 34 found the risk of anaphylaxis ranged between 0.65 and 1.53 cases/million doses. They also noted that most anaphylactic episodes occurred when multiple vaccines were administered during the same visit. 35 Similarly, a 2016 study used health data from VSD and found 33 confirmed cases of anaphylaxis after 25,173,965 vaccine doses or an anaphylaxis rate of 1.31 per million vaccine doses. 36 The study also found that 85% of cases of anaphylaxis had pre‐existing atopic disease, which was consistent with earlier reports emphasizing coexisting atopic disease, particularly asthma, as being clinical risk factors for anaphylaxis. 37 In Asian children, analysis of a large‐linked database found risk of anaphylaxis to be 1.21 cases/million doses. 38 A study conducted in Australia found that estimated incidence rate of anaphylaxis for DTaP vaccines was 0.36 cases per 100,000 doses, and 1.25 per 100,000 doses for MMR vaccines. 39 Overall, rates of reported anaphylaxis occur at a rate of about 1 per 100,000 to one per 1,000,000 depending on the vaccine. 40 Figure 1 and Table 4 show the frequency of anaphylaxis for specific vaccines. Table 5 provides population‐specific considerations for common vaccines. 41 42 43 44

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is ALL-76-1640-g002.jpg

Vaccination‐triggered anaphylaxis rates for major vaccines 19


Frequency of anaphylaxis after vaccines

Vaccine Anaphylaxis rate per 106 doses Comment Reference
Rabies 55.43–86.1   McNeil et al JACI 36
HPV 1.29–26 Different rates according to the type of HPV vaccine

Brotherton et al 164

Erlewyn‐Lajeunesse et al 165

McNeil et al JACI 36

TBE 20 Polygeline‐free TBE vaccine with lower rate of anaphylaxis Zent et al 166
MMRV 19.8   McNeil et al JACI 36
BNT162b COVID‐19 11   CDC MMWR 48
mRNA 1273 2.5   CDC MMWR 45
Varicella 1.2–10.3 Gelatin‐free varicella vaccine with lower rate of anaphylaxis

Sakaguchi et al 95

Ozaki et al 167

Su et al 33

Herpes zoster 6.16–9.6   McNeil et al JACI 36
Pandemic A/H1 N1 vaccine 6.8–8 Increased risk of anaphylaxis compared with seasonal influenza vaccines Rouleau et al 168
Yellow fever 7.6   Kelso et al 169
MMR 0.6–5.14 Egg allergens no longer clinically relevant

D’Souza et al 170

Pool et al Pediatrics 93

McNeil et al JACI 36

Su et al 33

MCV4 6.16   McNeil et al JACI 36
HAV 3.34   McNeil et al JACI 36
DTaP 0.51–3.6 During last two decades, the content of gelatin in this type of vaccine decreased followed by decreased frequency of anaphylaxis Cheng et al 39
PPSV23 0.2–2.48  

McNeil et al JACI 36

Su et al 33

Influenza 0.1–1.83

No significant differences by types of vaccine or manufacturer

2‐fold higher rate for LAV compared with IIV regarding immediate hypersensitivity reactions

Kawai et al 171

Ropero‐Alvarez et al 172

McNeil et al JACI 36

Halsey et al 173

Su et al 33

HBV 0–1.67  

McNeil et al JACI 36

Duclos 174

Japanese encephalitis 0–0.26 Anaphylaxis reported in live attenuated vaccine

Li et al 175

McNeil et al JACI 36

Hib 0 Very rare event McNeil et al JACI 36
PCV13 0 Very rare event McNeil et al JACI 36
Rotavirus vaccines 0 Very rare event McNeil et al JACI 36

Abbreviations: BNT162b2, mRNA vaccine against COVID‐19; DTaP, diphtheria‐tetanus‐acellular pertussis vaccine; HAV, hepatitis A vaccine; Hib, Haemophilus influenza type b vaccine; IIV, inactivated influenza vaccine; LAIV, live attenuated influenza vaccine; MCV4, 4‐valent meningococcal conjugated vaccine; MMR, measles‐mumps‐rubella vaccine; MMRV, measles‐mumps‐rubella‐varicella vaccine; mRNA 1273, mRNA vaccine against COVID‐19; PCV13, pneumococcal conjugated 13‐valent vaccine; PPSV23, 23‐valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine; TBE, tick‐borne encephalitis vaccine.

This article is being made freely available through PubMed Central as part of the COVID-19 public health emergency response. It can be used for unrestricted research re-use and analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source, for the duration of the public health emergency.


Population‐specific considerations for vaccination 41 42 43 44

Population Considerations

(A) Follow routine guidelines/schedule for vaccination.

(B) Monitor mRNA vaccine recipients for 15–30 minutes per local guidelines

History of food allergies

Egg: Proceed with vaccination under supervision.

Yeast: Seek allergist evaluation prior to Hepatitis A, B, HPV, DTaP, Meningococcal, Pneumococcal vaccines.

Gelatin: Seek allergist evaluation prior to MMR, Zoster, Influenza, Rabies, Yellow fever, Typhoid vaccines.

History of immunosuppression

(A) Defer live vaccination.

(B) Administer vaccine prior to immunosuppression if possible.

History of vaccine, drug, or antibiotic allergy

(A) Refer to allergist.

(B) Identify specific components that may be similar in other vaccines.

(C) Graded administration of vaccine/drug after discussion of risks and benefits

This article is being made freely available through PubMed Central as part of the COVID-19 public health emergency response. It can be used for unrestricted research re-use and analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source, for the duration of the public health emergency.


Development of the SARS‐CoV‐2 mRNA vaccine occurred in record time. So far, three candidate vaccines (mRNA BNT162b2, mRNA‐1273, and adenovirus vectored ChAdOx1) have been authorized for COVID‐19 in the European Union and the United Kingdom. Of these, mRNA BNT162b2 and mRNA‐1273 are authorized for emergency use in the United States. Additional candidates have entered or are completing the pivotal stage of clinical development programs. At the time of this review, there are 64 vaccines in several stages of clinical development and 173 in pre‐clinical development worldwide. 45 Details of their composition, mode of action, and developmental stage can be found in the review by Rodriguez‐Coira et al. 46

Even after formal authorization, vaccine rollout in the United Kingdom, United States, and European Union has been and continues to be challenging. Navigating complex distribution logistics, determining ethical allocation of a limited resource, and de‐mystifying widespread news coverage of anaphylactic events that perpetuate vaccine hesitancy is among the most pressing. While anaphylaxis after routine vaccination is very rare, it is important for the scientific community to be informed and prepared to treat adverse vaccine reactions to increase safety and acceptability. During the COVID‐19 pandemic, vast quantities of vaccine are expected to be administered over a very short period of time, with increased public awareness and surveillance. In this situation, the probability of reporting anaphylaxis likely increases without the added context of the denominator, which is the millions of individuals receiving the vaccine.

Of the vaccines authorized for use in Europe and the United States, the first vaccine to be administered and distributed was the mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine in the UK. Following two reports of allergic reactions in the UK on 8 December 2020, the MHRA updated its guidelines to state that individuals should not receive the vaccine if they have had previous anaphylaxis to a vaccine, medicine, or food. In addition, MHRA recommended that individuals who experience anaphylaxis after their first dose of the mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine should not receive the second dose and that everyone should be monitored for a minimum of 15 min after vaccination. However, on December 30, after a review of additional data, the guidelines were further updated to indicate that anyone with a previous history of allergic reactions to the ingredients of the vaccine should not receive it, but those with any other allergies such as a food allergy can receive the vaccine. 47

A CDC report of the VAERS monitoring database indicates that between 14 December 2020 and 23 December 2020, 1,893,360 first doses of the mRNA BNT162b2 COVID‐19 vaccine were administered, and 21 cases of anaphylaxis were reported (11.1 cases per million doses). Seventy‐one percent of these reactions occurred within 15 minutes of vaccination. 48 Similarly, the CDC reported that between 21 December 2020 and 10 January 2021, 10 cases of anaphylaxis were reported after administration of 4,041,396 first doses of the mRNA‐1273 vaccine (2.5 cases per million doses administered). In nine cases, onset occurred within 15 minutes of vaccination. No anaphylaxis‐related deaths were reported. 49 This suggests that the incidence of anaphylaxis in the mRNA BNT162b2 (11.1 cases per million doses) and mRNA‐1273 COVID‐19 vaccines (2.5 cases per million doses) may be about 2 to 8.5 times as high as the incidence reported in the 2016 VSD study for all vaccines (1.31 per million doses). The US FDA authorized labeling currently lists past severe allergic reactions (eg, anaphylaxis) to any component of the vaccine as a contraindication to the mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine. Yet, the CDC also recommends that individuals with a history of immediate allergic reactions to other vaccines weigh their risk of exposure, risk of severe disease or death due to COVID‐19, and consider whether they were previously infected with COVID‐19 (because of lower rates of reinfection in the three‐month period after infection), when deciding whether to delay or forego vaccination. 50 51

After the mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine received central European marketing approval on 21 December 2020, the Paul‐Ehrlich‐Institut, Federal Institute for Vaccines and Biomedicines in Germany, and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) released its own guidance for vaccination of people with allergies. These guidelines recommended that only individuals in the European Union with an allergy to a specific vaccine component not receive the vaccine. 52 The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) position paper on diagnosis, management, and prevention of severe allergic reactions to the COVID‐19 vaccines states that the vaccines are contraindicated only when there is an allergy to one of the vaccine components or if there was a severe allergic reaction to the first dose. The paper also provides a simplified algorithm of prevention, diagnosis and treatment of severe allergic reactions and a list of recommended medications and equipment for vaccine centers. 53


Immunological hypersensitivity is either IgE‐mediated (hypersensitivity reaction type 1), 54 IgG‐mediated (hypersensitivity reaction type 2), immune complex and/or complement‐mediated (hypersensitivity reaction type 3), or cell‐mediated (hypersensitivity reaction type 4) (Figure 2). 55 The mechanisms underlying IgE‐mediated hypersensitivity are best understood. Individuals with IgE‐mediated allergic reactions first undergo an initial sensitization phase during which allergen‐specific IgE antibodies bind to high‐affinity FcεRI receptors on mast cells and basophils. Subsequent allergen exposure can cross‐link the cell‐bound IgE antibodies and triggers degranulation of mast cells and/or basophils, with subsequent release of histamine and other inflammatory chemical mediators (cytokines, interleukins, leukotrienes, and prostaglandins) into the surrounding tissue causing several systemic effects, such as vasodilation, mucous secretion, tissue eosinophilic infiltration, and airway smooth muscle contraction. 56

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is ALL-76-1640-g001.jpg

Types of hypersensitivity reactions

Type II IgG‐mediated immune vaccine reactions are rare but have been observed with an MMR vaccine containing dextran before those preparations were taken off the market. 57 The occurrence of large, local injection‐site reactions with TdaP vaccines has been reported to be due to a local immune complex type III hypersensitivity reaction. 58 Type IV hypersensitivity reactions occur when an individual's T cells provoke an inflammatory response against allergens, leading to T‐cell activation and the release of cytokines and chemokines. 59 Type IV reactions to vaccines induce local eczema, which may start between 2 hours to up to 2 days after vaccinations. These reactions are typically observed following vaccines containing aluminum and antimicrobial agents. The occurrence of such an event is not a contraindication for further vaccinations. 60

Non‐immunologic anaphylaxis is caused by agents or events that induce sudden, massive mast cell and/or basophil degranulation in the absence of immunoglobulins. These reactions may be due to activation of complement by nanoparticles, colloidal solutions, or liposomes without immune complex formation, commonly termed complement activation‐related pseudoallergy or CARPAs 61 (eg, medications containing Cremophor EL 62 ), direct mast cell and basophil activation resulting in histamine release (vancomycin 63 and opiate medications 61 ), or other mechanisms (activation of the kallikrein‐kinin pathway 64 ). Nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), 65 local anesthetics, 66 monoclonal antibodies, and chemotherapeutic agents have also been reported to induce non‐immunologic anaphylaxis. Recently, transient receptor potential cation receptor, subfamily V (TRPV4) channel has been implicated as a driver of IgE‐independent mast cell‐dependent bronchospasm via cysteinyl leukotrienes release. 67 In addition, MRGPRX2, a Mas‐related G protein‐coupled receptor, has been identified as a mechanism for mast cell degranulation. Since 2015, evidence has accumulated that off‐target occupation of this receptor by different therapy regimens, such as neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA) and opioids could constitute an additional mechanism of non‐immune immediate drug hypersensitivity. 68 69 70 While radio‐contrast agents have traditionally been considered to be non‐immunologic, some of the newer, low‐osmolar agents may induce IgE‐mediated reactions. 21

Although the clinical presentations of both IgE‐mediated anaphylaxis and non‐immunologic anaphylaxis are similar, measurements of tryptase and SC5b‐9may assist in differentiating the two types. 71 72 Tryptase is a marker of mast cell activation which is released following mast cell degranulation while SC5b‐9 is a marker of complement activation and is a terminal complement complex. 71 73 As both tryptase and SC5b‐9 are transiently elevated soon after an anaphylaxis episode, blood should ideally be collected between 30 and 90 min after the onset of reaction. 71 Acute serum total tryptase should be at least 20% plus 2 ng/mL over the baseline tryptase level. 73 Another novel emerging biomarker is hereditary α‐tryptasemia which is present in mastocytosis and may be useful for determining the individual patient's risk of developing severe anaphylaxis. 74 Figure 3 depicts the mechanisms of IgE‐mediated and non‐immunological anaphylaxis. 75 76 77 78 79 80 81

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is ALL-76-1640-g003.jpg

Immunological (IgE‐mediated) and non‐immunological anaphylaxis


Anaphylaxis to vaccines is rare and occurs primarily among individuals who have histories of allergies to the components of the vaccines. 19 Allergic reactions after vaccination can be due to any of the vaccine components such as antigens, adjuvants, stabilizers, preservatives, emulsifiers, leached packaging components, residual antibiotics, cell culture materials, and inactivating ingredients (Box 1). 82 Table 6 lists components that have been implicated in allergenic reactions and related adverse events. Here, we discuss some of the most common allergenic or potentially allergenic components of vaccines.


Major components, function, and allergic reactions a

Component Function Vaccine Allergic reactions
Gelatin Stabilizer

MMR, Zoster, Influenza

Rabies, Yellow fever, Typoid

Anaphylaxis, Urticaria, Local
Albumin (eggprotein, bovine/calf/fetal serum) Residual médium, Stabilizer Yellow fever, MMR, Influenza, Rabies, Influenza Anaphylaxis
Casein Medium nutrient DTaP, Meningococcal, Hib, Tdap, Influenza Anaphylaxis
Aluminum Adjuvant Adenovirus Antrax, DTaP, Hib, Hepatitis A/B, HPV, Japanese EncephalitisMeningococcalPheumococcal, Tdap Local
2‐Phenoxyethanol Stabilizer, Preservative DTaP, Influenza, Polio, Tdap Local
Thimerosal Preservative Influenza, Td Local
Yeast Medium nutrient Hepatitis A, B, HPV, DTaP, Meningococcal, Pneumococcal, Typhoid Anaphylaxis
Natural latex Pharmaceuticalclosure Tdap, Meningococcal, Anthrax, Hepatitis A, B, Influenza, DTaP, Rotavirus, Td, Yellowfever Anaphylaxis, Urticaria
Neomycin Antimicrobial Polio, DTaP, Hepatitis A, Influenza, MMR, Rabies, Polio, Smallpox, Varicella, Zoster Anaphylaxis
Polymyxin B Antimicrobial DTaP, Influenza, Polio, Smallpox NA
Streptomycin Antimicrobial DTaP, Polio NA
Kanamycin Antimicrobial Meningococcal, Influenza Anaphylaxis
Gentamicin Antimicrobial Influenza NA
Amphotericin B Antimicrobial Rabies NA
Dextran Stabilizer Medium nutrient MMR b , Rotavirus Anaphylaxis
Formaldehyde Inactivation of virus, Detoxification of bacterial toxin (Inactivating agent) Polio, DTaP, Hib, Hepatitis B, Influenza, Japanese Encephalitis, Meningococcal, Tdap, Thypoid Local
Peptone (soy) Medium nutrient Pneumococcal Hepatitis B  
Polysorbate 80 Surfactant DTaP, Hepatitis A, B, HPV, Influenza, Meningococcal, Pneumococcal, Rotavirus, Tdap, Zoster Non‐immunological anaphylaxis, Local
Polyethylene glycol Surfactant of mRNA COVID‐19 Anaphylaxis
aAll reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this information, but manufacturers can change product contents before that information is reflected here. Some major components of vaccines have higher levels in food.
bCurrently, MMR vaccines containing Dextran not on the market.
This article is being made freely available through PubMed Central as part of the COVID-19 public health emergency response. It can be used for unrestricted research re-use and analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source, for the duration of the public health emergency.


Description of common components and contaminants present in vaccine formulations 43 82 83 84


Vaccine Component Category Function
Antigen or its genetic code (DNA, RNA) Molecules of the pathogen that cause the formation of antibodies and development of specific immune protection (humoral, cellular)
Adjuvants To stimulate, broaden and optimize immune response
Stabilizers To keep the vaccine potent and safe during storage and transportation
Preservatives To prevent contamination
Residual antibiotics To prevent contamination by bacteria during the vaccine manufacturing process
Residual cell culture materials To grow enough of the virus or bacteria to make the vaccine
Residual inactivating ingredients To kill viruses or inactivate toxins during the manufacturing process
Latex Found in the vial and syringes used to contain and administer the vaccine. It is a potential contaminant.


Many vaccines contain small amounts of the egg protein ovalbumin. Influenza, yellow fever, and rabies vaccines tend to have higher concentrations of ovalbumin because they are cultured in embryonated chicken eggs. 85 Vaccines cultured in chicken embryo fibroblasts, such as the MMR vaccine, have lower concentrations of egg protein than those cultured in embryonic eggs. 86 While egg allergy is common in childhood, studies have shown that vaccinating egg‐allergic children with MMR and influenza vaccines is well tolerated and risk of an allergic reaction is similar in the general population. 87 88 Specifically, egg‐allergic children, including those who have had anaphylaxis, were successfully vaccinated with yellow fever 89 vaccines with no serious adverse events reported. Since severe allergic reactions to egg‐based influenza vaccines are rare, the CDC and its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) guidelines state that individuals with mild egg allergy can receive any licensed and recommended age‐appropriate flu vaccine and no longer need to be observed for 30 minutes after receiving the vaccine. However, in those with severe egg allergy, the vaccines should only be given under the supervision of a health care provider who is capable of recognizing and managing serious allergic conditions. 90 91

Gelatin, a protein derived from bovine or porcine sources, is added to both live and inactivated vaccines as a stabilizing agent. 60 Sensitivity to gelatin was confirmed with both skin‐prick tests and by immunoassay in a 17‐year‐old female who had an anaphylactic reaction to an MMR vaccine. 92 A retrospective case‐control study which interviewed and collected sera from individuals who had suffered anaphylaxis after receiving MMR found that 27% of them had anti‐gelatin IgE. In comparison, anti‐gelatin IgE was not detected in any of the vaccinated subjects who did not present with adverse events. 93 It was subsequently shown that patients who have anaphylaxis to MMR were sensitized to gelatin present in the DTaP vaccine, 94 95 and that cellular immunity to gelatin from the DTaP vaccine can persist for more than three years. 96 However, sensitization may also persist due to exposure to gelatin in foods or through cross‐reactivity to other allergens such as egg, chicken, and cow's milk. 97 Gelatin is also a source of alpha‐gal, an carbohydrate allergen that causes meat allergy. 98 Anaphylaxis was observed after vaccination with MMR, Varicella, and DTaP/IPV in pediatric subjects with alpha‐gal allergy. 99 Removal of gelatin from vaccines has dramatically reduced allergic reactions to these vaccines. 100

Milk proteins are used as growth media in DTaP and Tdap vaccines. Although bovine casein is present in nanogram quantities in these vaccines, they rarely cause anaphylaxis. Kattan et al reported eight children with severe cow's milk allergy who reacted with anaphylaxis to the booster dose of DTaP or Tdap vaccine and suggested casein present in the vaccines may play role in the induction of anaphylaxis in atopic children. 101 102 However, the methods used in this report were questioned 102 and to our knowledge, there have been no subsequent data that support a causative role for DTaP or Tdap vaccines in the induction of allergic disease. It is the position of EAACI (or subcommittee) that these vaccines do not contribute to the pathogenesis of allergic disease and that atopy is not a contraindication to these vaccines. 32

As stated above, dextran present in one preparation of MMR vaccine was responsible for numerous cases of anaphylaxis, but this brand of MMR vaccine has since been withdrawn from the market. 103 It was used as a medium nutrient or as a stabilizer. Similarly, during Brazil's national MMR vaccination campaign in 2004, the rate of hypersensitivity following MMR vaccination was unexpectedly high while its case‐control study showed no association with a history of allergy. However, subsequent studies implicated dextran as the likely cause of these hypersensitivity events. 104

Many vaccines contain antigens that are created in cell lines. For example, hepatitis B vaccines and the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines contain antigens that are recombinant proteins expressed in Baker's yeast. 105 Purification removes most of the cellular material, but it is impossible to remove all trace components. Between 1990 and 2004, only 15 reports were identified of probable or possible anaphylaxis following vaccination of individuals with a reported history of yeast allergy. Eleven of these occurred after administration of the hepatitis B vaccine, which contains trace amounts of yeast proteins. Because these subjects were not tested for yeast allergy, it cannot be confirmed that sensitivity to yeast caused these adverse reactions. These data indicate that recombinant yeast‐derived hepatitis B vaccine poses minimal risk of allergic reactions in yeast‐sensitive individuals. Therefore, evaluation by an allergist is recommended for people who have a history of severe yeast allergy before administration of hepatitis B and HPV vaccines. 105 According to VAERS, there were 107 reports of adverse events in those with a history of yeast allergy present prior to vaccination; of these 11 recipients of hepatitis B vaccine had probable or possible anaphylaxis events. 105 By contrast, another study found no episodes of anaphylaxis in a large cohort of women who had positive skin tests to yeast extract after the HPV vaccine. 106

Antibiotics such as neomycin, streptomycin, polymyxin B, kanamycin, and gentamicin are well known to cause mild to life‐threatening allergic reactions. An individual receiving an MMR vaccine containing neomycin was reported to have experienced anaphylaxis shortly after vaccination. 107 Although a skin test to neomycin alone could not be performed in this individual due to a lack of a commercial preparation suitable for skin testing, patient history indicated systemic sensitivity on topical application of neomycin during infancy to disrupted skin. In another case, a history of previous reaction and positive skin test to neomycin was not associated with immediate or delayed hypersensitivity reactions following MMR vaccination. 108 In a report of anaphylaxis after rabies vaccination, the presence of residual kanamycin in the vaccine and a positive kanamycin result to an antibiotic skin sensitivity test suggested that kanamycin was the likely cause of the adverse event. 109 Finally, there is one report of anaphylaxis after applying eye drops containing polymyxin B, an excipient used in DTaP and other vaccines. 43 110 To our knowledge, no other antibiotics have been associated with vaccine‐associated anaphylaxis. 2‐Phenoxyethanol is widely used as preservative in cosmetics and vaccines due to its large spectrum of antimicrobial activity and is considered as one of the most well‐tolerated preservatives. 111

Natural latex allergy is well characterized among healthcare personnel and latex content in vaccines as vial stopper or syringe plunger may pose safety concerns in this population. However, Smith et al could not detect latex allergens in adult vaccines. 112 In 2004, an analysis of VAERS revealed only 28 cases of immediate hypersensitivity with latex allergy in vaccine recipients among 160,000 reports of vaccine‐associated adverse events. 113

Thimerosal, which is approximately 50% mercury by weight, has been one of the most widely used preservatives in vaccines to prevent growth of harmful microbes. All vaccines routinely recommended for children 6 years of age and younger in the United States are available in formulations that do not contain thimerosal. 114 A risk assessment study revealed that except for local hypersensitivity reactions, there is no evidence of harm caused by thimerosal in vaccines. 115 Thus, while thimerosal is the most prevalent preservative inducing contact dermatitis, it is considered irrelevant to vaccine‐induced anaphylaxis. 116

Formaldehyde and beta‐propiolactone (BPL) have been used to inactivate viruses during the production of vaccines. However, approximately 6% of individuals who receive a booster dose of the rabies human diploid cell vaccine (HDCV) develop an immune complex‐like reaction in the 2–21 days that follow. 117 118 These reactions have been associated with the presence of BPL altered human albumin contained in the HDCV. 119 120 Currently, SinoPharm’ BBIBP‐CorV 121 and Sinovac Life Sciences's CoronaVac's 122 COVID‐19 vaccine are using BPL to inactivate SARS‐CoV‐2. Both vaccines are approved for use in China. Although formaldehyde is only found in residual quantities in vaccine preparation, it has been reported to aggravate eczematous dermatitis following hepatitis B vaccination. 123 It is used to inactivate virus or for the detoxification of bacterial toxin. Formaldehyde‐specific contact dermatitis had also been reported following formaldehyde‐containing influenza vaccine. 124 It is hypothesized that the introduction of carbonyl groups on antigens by formaldehyde in vaccines profoundly affects its immunogenicity, thus explaining adverse effects due to formaldehyde‐containing vaccines. 125 126

Adjuvants are incorporated into some vaccines to boost T‐cell immunity and increase helper T‐cell function. The most commonly used adjuvants in vaccines are aluminum hydroxide and aluminum phosphate. Despite its long‐standing use as an adjuvant in vaccines, aluminum has always been the target of controversy. Although no association between direct toxicity of aluminum and vaccines has been established, several delayed‐type hypersensitivity reactions have been reported. 127 128 129 In Denmark, 39 out of 42 children with persistent skin reactions following vaccination had positive patch tests for aluminum. 130 In another study, vaccination‐induced granulomas and contact allergy to aluminum was reported in 60 out of 63 Swedish children receiving DTP vaccines. 131 In contrast, an in vivo study in a mouse model of peanut allergy found that the severity of peanut‐hypersensitivity was reduced by an alum/CpG‐adjuvanted vaccine while exposure to endotoxin and alum did not influence allergic symptoms. 132 Other novel adjuvants such as MF59, AS03, and AF03, which are squalene‐based are also used in vaccines. 133 Although safety concerns were raised due to presence of antibodies to squalene, clinical evidence clearly suggested that squalene is poorly immunogenic and that low titers of antibodies to squalene are found in healthy individuals. Further, neither the presence of anti‐squalene antibodies nor their titer is significantly increased by immunization with vaccines containing squalene. 134 Details on the mechanism of these and other vaccine adjuvants under clinical investigation are detailed in the review by Shi et al. 135

Polysorbate 80 is an emulsifier which has been widely used to solubilize agents in foods and medicines, including vaccines. This nonionic detergent induces local and systemic allergic reactions, including IgE‐mediated and non‐immune anaphylaxis. The hydrophilic polymer polyethylene glycol (PEG) is structurally similar to polysorbate 80 and PEG, and its derivatives are frequently found in household products including toothpaste, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, and foods. In addition, PEG is often conjugated to biological therapeutics to form a depot agent. It is now well understood that sensitivity to PEG can cause IgE‐mediated anaphylaxis after administration of PEG‐conjugated biological therapeutics, 136 137 138 139 140 141 and that severe allergic reactions to PEG have been associated with pre‐existing anti‐PEG antibodies induced by PEG‐containing household products. 142 Polysorbate 80 is present in many vaccines and some foods as well. Polysorbates are obtained from PEG moieties but have lower molecular weights and thus may be much less likely to trigger an allergic reaction. PEG may also be cross‐reactive with polysorbates, which are contained in some COVID‐19 vaccines. 141 143 144 145 However, measures of pre‐existing anti‐PEG antibodies vary widely, range from 0.2% to 72% of healthy individuals. 146 This has become immediately relevant because PEG 2000, a high‐molecular weight version of PEG, is a component in two of the three authorized COVID‐19 vaccines. The mRNA BNT162b2 and mRNA‐1273 COVID‐19 vaccines are lipid nanoparticles containing mRNA that codes for the spike protein in the coronavirus. 147 The lipid nanoparticle delivery system prevents premature degradation of the genetic instructions necessary for individuals to eventually become protected against SARS‐CoV‐2. 148 PEG 2000‐lipid is a component of the mRNA‐1273 vaccine. The lipid nanoparticles stabilize and improve the aqueous solubility of the two mRNA vaccines, and also act as an adjuvant. While more research is needed to determine the cause of the potentially increased rate of anaphylaxis to COVID‐19 compared to other vaccines, based on the experience with PEG‐conjugated biologics, PEG 2000 in the vaccines is considered the most likely culprit. 138 139 149 150 151 152 153 Therefore, individuals with a known allergy to PEG should be excluded from vaccination with these vaccines for the time being. 154 In addition to PEG, other excipients present in COVID‐19 vaccines, such as distearoyl phosphatidylcholine, tromethamol, polysorbate 80, and EDTA, should also be evaluated as potential allergenic components Table 7 lists the excipients present in the mRNA and ChAdOx1‐S vaccines. 155


Excipients in the COVID‐19 vaccines mRNA BNT162b2, mRNA‐1273, and ChAdOx1‐Sand their functions

Type of Excipient Excipient Vaccine
Lipid nanoparticles: stability and transport of mRNA    
PEGylated lipids ((4‐hydroxybutyl)azanediyl)bis(hexane‐6,1‐diyl)bis(2‐hexyldecanoate) (ALC‐0159) mRNA BNT162b2
1,2‐dimyristoyl‐rac‐glycero‐3‐methoxypolyethylene glycol‐2000 (PEG2000 DMG) mRNA‐1273
Phospholipids 1,2‐distearoyl‐sn‐glycero‐3‐phosphocholine (DSPC) mRNA BNT162b2, mRNA‐1273
Lipids ((4‐hydroxybutyl)azanediyl)bis(hexane‐6,1‐diyl)bis(2‐hexyldecanoate) (ALC‐0315) mRNA BNT162b2
Lipid SM‐102 (patented ionizable lipid) mRNA‐1273
Cholesterol mRNA BNT162b2, mRNA‐1273
Buffer: stability of lipid nanoparticles/radical oxidation inhibition    
Phosphate buffer Potassium dihydrogen phosphate/disodium phosphate dihydrate) mRNA BNT162b2
Tromethamol Tromethamol/tromethamol hydrochloride mRNA‐1273
Acetic acid/acetate Acetic acid/sodium acetate trihydrate mRNA‐1273
Histidine L‐histidine/L‐histidine hydrochloride monohydrate ChAdOx1‐S
Other stabilizers: Ionic strength, surfactant, metal‐ion chelates    
  Potassium chloride mRNA BNT162b2
  Sodium chloride mRNA BNT162b2, ChAdOx1‐S
  Magnesium chloride hexahydrate ChAdOx1‐S
  Ethanol ChAdOx1‐S
  Disodium edetate dihydrate (EDTA) ChAdOx1‐S
  Polysorbate 802 ChAdOx1‐S
  Sucrose mRNA BNT162b2, mRNA‐1273, ChAdOx1‐S

Adapted from: Borgsteede S, Tjerk G, Tempels‐Pavlica Z, Other excipients than PEG might cause serious hypersensitivity reactions in COVID‐19 vaccines. Allergy. Accepted January 2021. In Press (2021).

This article is being made freely available through PubMed Central as part of the COVID-19 public health emergency response. It can be used for unrestricted research re-use and analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source, for the duration of the public health emergency.


Treatment of anaphylaxis in the setting of vaccine administration is reviewed in Sokolowska et al 156 and Castells et al. 137 Briefly, due to the possibility of an anaphylactic reaction to the vaccine, any professional administering the vaccine must be capable of managing an anaphylactic reaction and should have the necessary medications and tools on hand. There must be a mandatory observation period after vaccine administration of at least 15 minutes for all individuals, to allow for the administration of adrenaline in an adequate dose. 157 Individuals with a suspected allergic reaction to the first dose of the vaccine should be followed up by an allergist so that administration of the second dose can be performed in a specialized setting equipped to treat anaphylaxis. One approach used successfully for many vaccine‐allergic individuals, but which has not been evaluated for the COVID‐19 vaccines, is to administer the vaccine in incremental doses. Any adverse allergic reactions should be promptly reported including any additional information including individual characteristics.


Vaccinations benefit public health and help to reduce the risk of disease across the entire population. Despite early reports of waning of antibody responses over 20 days following SARS‐CoV2 infection, evidence is now accumulating that similarly to other infections, recovered patients develop long‐lasting immunity. 158 Recently, Hartley et al. reported that patients who have recovered from SARS‐CoV‐2 infection have stable virus‐specific memory B cells that recognize the spike or nucleocapsid proteins of the SARS‐CoV‐2 virus for at least eight months post infection. 159 Another study found that neutralizing antibody titers against the SARS‐CoV‐2 spike protein persisted for at least 5 months after infection. 160 These findings support optimism that the currently licensed vaccines will be efficacious despite the emergence of highly infectious mutant viruses and are consistent with the limited reports of natural reinfection after confirmed illnesses. These mRNA vaccines are currently not available for children. Moreover, research by Pfizer and researchers from the University of Texas have determined that antibodies from 20 recipients of the mRNA BNT162b2vaccine can neutralize the mutant strains in vitro (as yet not peer reviewed). 161

It is crucial that further research is conducted to better understand to which components of the currently available vaccines individuals are reacting and how to identify individuals who may be at risk of an adverse allergic reaction (Box 2). Individuals who may be at risk for an allergic response or who have a history of allergic responses to vaccinations (or their components) should be evaluated by an allergist. 60


Future safety research objectives

General COVID−19

Develop individualized prediction algorithms to determine risk of a vaccine reaction.

Refine reaction reporting guidelines for continued accurate vaccine pharmacovigilance.

Identify vaccine components that mediate allergic reactions.

Understand mechanisms for reactions to various vaccine components.

Develop better adjuvants

Compare various COVID−19 vaccines to each other to understand key differences in safety and efficacy, stratified by patient age and health status.

Compare intradermal PEG tests to oral challenges in evaluating PEG sensitization.


The best mechanism to further our understanding is to study individuals who have had reactions through a variety of in vitro experiments and clinical testing. In vitro experiments including analysis of plasma IgE markers as well as, basophil and mast cell line activation tests can help to better characterize potential allergens and identify individuals at risk of an anaphylaxis. Clinical testing, including skin‐prick and intradermal tests, can also help identify allergens and at‐risk individuals. All of these tests can involve testing the individual components of the vaccine to determine the reaction‐inducing antigen. However, the critical and pragmatic evaluation of these tests’ results in relationship to particular patient's clinical problems remains crucial.

Increased understanding of vaccine‐related allergies will help to further improve the manufacturing processes and safety of vaccines. Specifically, through identifying specific vaccine components that cause allergic reactions, vaccine manufacturers can either try to remove or create replacements for those components. This also has an impact on the management of vaccine distribution, specifically with regards to ensuring that those who need vaccination will not have an allergic reaction.


Dr. Diamant reports personal fees from ALK, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, HAL Allergy, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Sanofi‐Genzyme‐Regeneron and acted as Research Directorat QPS‐NL, an institution which received research support from several bio‐pharmaceutical companies, esp within respiratory: HAL Allergy, Foresee Pharmaceuticals, Patara Pharma (now Respivant), Novartis;

Dr. Jesenak received honoraria, consultancy and speaker fees from Sanofi‐Pasteur, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp&Dohme, Takeda, ALK, Stallergenes‐Greer, Angelini, Novartis, Mundipharma and Berlin‐Chemie and acted as principal investigator in trials sponsored by BioCryst, Pharming, Octapharma, and Baxalta; Dr. Vieths reports personal fees from Swiss Society for Allergy and Immunology, SchattauerAllergologieHandbuch, Elsevier Nahrungsmittelallergien und Intoleranzen, and Karger Food Allergy: Molecular Basis and Clinical Practice and also reports non‐financial support from German Research Foundation, European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines and Health Care, European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, German Chemical Society (GDCh), AKM Allergiekongress, International Union of Immunological Societies, and from Spanish Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology (SEAIC);

Dr. Agache is an Associate Editor at Allergy and PAI; Dr. Chinthrajah reports grants from NIAID, CoFAR, Aimmune, DBV Technologies, Astellas, Regeneron, and FARE and is an advisory board member of Alladapt Therapeutics, Genentech, Novartis, and Sanofi;

Dr. Eiwegger acts as local PI for company‐sponsored trials by DBV and sub‐investigator for Regeneron, holds grants from Innovation fund Denmark, CIHR. He is Co‐Investigator or scientific lead in three investigator‐initiated oral immunotherapy trials supported by the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Program SickKids and serves as associate editor for Allergy. He/his laboratory received unconditional/kind contributions from Macro Array Diagnostics and ALK. He holds advisory board roles for ALK;

Dr. Barber reports grants from ALK, ALLERO therapeutics, personal fees from ALK and Aimmune;

Dr. Ollert reports personal fees from Hycor Biomedical and is Scientific co‐founder of TolerogenicsSarL;

Dr. Palomares received research grants from Inmunotek S.L., Novartis and MINECO, received fees for giving scientific lectures or participation in Advisory Boards from Allergy Therapeutics, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Diater, GlaxoSmithKline, S.A, Inmunotek S.L, Novartis, Sanofi‐Genzyme and Stallergenes;

Dr. Pfaar reports grants and personal fees from ALK‐Abelló, Allergopharma, Stallergenes Greer, HAL Allergy Holding B.V./HAL Allergie GmbH, BencardAllergie GmbH/Allergy Therapeutics, Lofarma, ASIT Biotech Tools S.A, Laboratorios LETI/LETI Pharma, Anergis S.A, and Glaxo Smith Kline, and grants from Biomay, Circassia, Pohl‐Boskamp, and Inmunotek S.L, and personal fees from MEDA Pharma/MYLAN, Mobile Chamber Experts (a GA2LEN Partner), Indoor Biotechnologies, Astellas Pharma Global, EUFOREA, ROXALL Medizin, Novartis, Sanofi‐Aventis and Sanofi‐Genzyme, Med Update Europe GmbH, streamedup! GmbH, John Wiley and Sons, AS, and Paul‐Martini‐Stiftung (PMS);

Dr. Sokolowska reports grants from Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) and from GSK;


Dr. Torres reports grants from European Comission, SEAIC, and ISCIII and personal fees from Diater laboratory, Leti laboratory, and consultancy from Aimmune Therapeutics;

Dr. Traidl‐Hoffmann reports personal fees from Sanofi Genzyme, Lilly Pharma, Novartis, Töpfer, and grants and personal fees from Sebapharma; Dr. van Zelm reports grants from NHMRC and has a patent pending, “Methods for detecting immune response”;

Dr. Akdis reports grants from Allergopharma, Idorsia, Swiss National Science Foundation, Christine Kühne‐Center for Allergy Research and Education, European Commission's Horizon's 2020 Framework Programme, Cure, Novartis Research Institutes, Astra Zeneca, Scibase, advisory board from Sanofi/Regeneron, Glaxo Smith‐Kline, Scibase, and Novartis;

Dr. Nadeau reports grants from National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS); Food Allergy Research & Education (FARE), Director of World Allergy Organization (WAO) Center of Excellence at Stanford; Advisor at Cour Pharma; Co‐founder of Before Brands, Alladapt, Latitude, and IgGenix; National Scientific Committee member at Immune Tolerance Network (ITN) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) clinical research centers; DSMB member for NHLBI, US patents for basophil testing, multifood immunotherapy and prevention, monoclonal antibody from plasmablasts, and device for diagnostics. All other authors report no COI.


We would like to thank the Parker foundation, the Sunshine foundation, the Crown Foundation, and the NIAID SARS Vaccine study for funding the study.



1. Pfizer and BioNTech achieve first authorization in the world for a vaccine to combat COVID‐19; 2020. https://www.pfizer.com/news/press‐release/press‐release‐detail/pfizer‐and‐biontech‐achieve‐first‐authorization‐world. Accessed January 14, 2021.

2. Pfizer . Pfizer and BioNTech celebrate historic first authorization in the U.S. of vaccine to prevent COVID‐19; 2020. https://www.pfizer.com/news/press‐release/press‐release‐detail/pfizer‐and‐biontech‐celebrate‐historic‐first‐authorization. Accessed January 13, 2021.

3. U.S. FDA Takes Additional Action in Fight Against COVID‐19 By Issuing Emergency Use Authorization for Second COVID‐19 Vaccine; 2020. https://www.fda.gov/news‐events/press‐announcements/fda‐takes‐additional‐action‐fight‐against‐covid‐19‐issuing‐emergency‐use‐authorization‐second‐covid. Accessed January 14, 2021.

4. Moderna . Press Release; 2021. https://investors.modernatx.com/news‐releases. Accessed January 22, 2021.

5. AstraZeneca’s COVID‐19 vaccine authorised for emergency supply in the UK; 2020. https://www.astrazeneca.com/media‐centre/press‐releases/2020/astrazenecas‐covid‐19‐vaccine‐authorised‐in‐uk.html. Accessed January 14, 2021.

6. van Riel D, de Wit E. Next‐generation vaccine platforms for COVID‐19Nat Mater. 2020;19(8):810‐812. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

7. World Health Organization . Draft landscape of COVID‐19 candidate vaccines; 2021. https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/draft‐landscape‐of‐covid‐19‐candidate‐vaccines. Accessed January 14, 2021.

8. Karamloo F, Konig R. SARS‐CoV‐2 immunogenicity at the crossroadsAllergy. 2020;75(7):1822‐1824. [PMC free article] [PubMed[Google Scholar]

9. Klimek L, Jutel M, Akdis CA, et al. ARIA‐EAACI statement on severe allergic reactions to COVID‐19 vaccines ‐ an EAACI‐ARIA position paperAllergy. 2020;76(6):1624‐1628. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

10. Azkur AK, Akdis M, Azkur D, et al. Immune response to SARS‐CoV‐2 and mechanisms of immunopathological changes in COVID‐19Allergy. 2020;75(7):1564‐1581. [PMC free article] [PubMed[Google Scholar]

11. FDA US . CFR ‐ Code of Federal Regulations Title 21; 2010. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?fr=312.32. Accessed January 22, 2021.

12. Morris L, Swofford S. Vaccine SafetyPrim Care. 2020;47(3):431‐441. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

13. Siegrist CA. Mechanisms underlying adverse reactions to vaccinesJ Comp Pathol. 2007;137(Suppl 1):S46‐50. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

14. Spencer JP, Trondsen Pawlowski RH, Thomas S. Vaccine adverse events: separating myth from realityAm Fam Physician. 2017;95(12):786‐794. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

15. Kelso JM, Greenhawt MJ, Li JT, et al. Adverse reactions to vaccines practice parameter 2012 updateJ Allergy Clin Immunol. 2012;130(1):25‐43. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

16. Views TD‐CsHDNa . 653 Deaths +12,044 Other Injuries Reported Following COVID Vaccine, Latest CDC Data Show; 2021. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/vaers‐injuries‐covid‐vaccine‐cdc‐data/. Accessed March 8, 2021.

17. U.S. Department for Health and Human Services . Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). Version 5.0; 2017. https://ctep.cancer.gov/protocoldevelopment/electronic_applications/docs/CTCAE_v5_Quick_Reference_5x7. pdf. Accessed May 28, 2021.

18. Sampson HA, Munoz‐Furlong A, Campbell RL, et al. Second symposium on the definition and management of anaphylaxis: summary report–Second National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease/Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network symposiumJ Allergy Clin Immunol. 2006;117(2):391‐397. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

19. McNeil MM, DeStefano F. Vaccine‐associated hypersensitivityJ Allergy Clin Immunol. 2018;141(2):463‐472. [PMC free article] [PubMed[Google Scholar]

20. Radice A, Carli G, Macchia D, Farsi A. Allergic reactions after vaccination: translating guidelines into clinical practiceEur Ann Allergy Clin Immunol. 2019;51(2):51‐61. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

21. Watts MM, Marie DA. AnaphylaxisAllergy Asthma Proc. 2019;40(6):453‐456. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

22. Bilo MB, Martini M, Tontini C, Corsi A, Antonicelli L. AnaphylaxisEur Ann Allergy Clin Immunol. 2021;53(1):4‐17. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

23. Jensen F, Woudwyk M, Teles A, et al. Estradiol and progesterone regulate the migration of mast cells from the periphery to the uterus and induce their maturation and degranulationPLoS One 2010;5(12):e14409. [PMC free article] [PubMed[Google Scholar]

24. Johansson SG, Bieber T, Dahl R, et al. Revised nomenclature for allergy for global use: Report of the Nomenclature Review Committee of the World Allergy Organization, October 2003J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2004;113(5):832‐836. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

25. National Advisory Committee on Immunization . Canadian Immunization Guide. Anaphylaxis and other acute reactions following vaccination 2020https://www.canada.ca/en/public‐health/services/publications/healthy‐living/canadian‐immunization‐guide‐part‐2‐vaccine‐safety/page‐4‐early‐vaccine‐reactions‐including‐anaphylaxis.html. Accessed January 23, 2021.

26. Department for Health and Wellbeing, Government of South Australia . Vasovagal Episode or Anaphylaxis; 2019. https://www.sahealth.sa.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/7bf436004f0c7c268dc7af791a12b24c/Vasovagal+episode+or+anaphylaxis+Chart+‐+201907+%28v1.0%29.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=ROOTWORKSPACE‐7bf436004f0c7c268dc7af791a12b24c‐niQpYNW. Accessed January 14, 2021.

27. Kochhar S, Salmon DA. Planning for COVID‐19 vaccines safety surveillanceVaccine. 2020;38(40):6194‐6198. [PMC free article] [PubMed[Google Scholar]

28. Ruggeberg JU, Gold MS, Bayas JM, et al. Anaphylaxis: case definition and guidelines for data collection, analysis, and presentation of immunization safety dataVaccine. 2007;25(31):5675‐5684. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

29. Wittes J, Crowe B, Chuang‐Stein C, et al. The FDA's Final Rule on Expedited Safety Reporting: Statistical ConsiderationsStat Biopharm Res. 2015;7(3):174‐190. [PMC free article] [PubMed[Google Scholar]

30. Minor PD. Live attenuated vaccines: Historical successes and current challengesVirology. 2015;480:379‐392. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

31. Stratton K, Ford A, Rusch E, Clayton EW, editors. Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2011. [Google Scholar]

32. Nilsson L, Brockow K, Alm J, et al. Vaccination and allergy: EAACI position paper, practical aspectsPediatr Allergy Immunol. 2017;28(7):628‐640. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

33. Su JR, Moro PL, Ng CS, Lewis PW, Said MA, Cano MV. Anaphylaxis after vaccination reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, 1990–2016J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2019;143(4):1465‐1473. [PMC free article] [PubMed[Google Scholar]

34. CDC . Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD); 2020. https://www.CDC.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/monitoring/vsd/index.html. Accessed January 23, 2021.

35. Bohlke K, Davis RL, Marcy SM, et al. Risk of anaphylaxis after vaccination of children and adolescentsPediatrics 2003;112(4):815‐820. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

36. McNeil MM, Weintraub ES, Duffy J, et al. Risk of anaphylaxis after vaccination in children and adultsJ Allergy Clin Immunol. 2016;137(3):868‐878. [PMC free article] [PubMed[Google Scholar]

37. Clark S, Wei W, Rudders SA, Camargo CA Jr. Risk factors for severe anaphylaxis in patients receiving anaphylaxis treatment in US emergency departments and hospitalsJ Allergy Clin Immunol. 2014;134(5):1125‐1130. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

38. Choe YJ, Lee H, Kim JH, Choi WS, Shin JY. Anaphylaxis following vaccination among children in Asia: A large‐linked database studyAllergy. 2021;76(4):1246‐1249. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

39. Cheng DR, Perrett KP, Choo S, Danchin M, Buttery JP, Crawford NW. Pediatric anaphylactic adverse events following immunization in Victoria, Australia from 2007 to 2013Vaccine. 2015;33(13):1602‐1607. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

40. Dreskin SC, Halsey NA, Kelso JM, et al. International Consensus (ICON): allergic reactions to vaccinesWorld Allergy Organ J. 2016;9(1):32. [PMC free article] [PubMed[Google Scholar]

41. Sarti L, Lezmi G, Mori F, Giovannini M, Caubet JC. Diagnosis and management of hypersensitivity reactions to vaccinesExpert Rev Clin Immunol. 2020;16(9):883‐896. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

42. CDC . Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP): Use of Vaccines and Immune Globulins in Persons with Altered Immunocompetence; 1993. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00023141.htm. Accessed January 21, 2021. [PubMed]

43. CDC . Vaccine Excipient Summary: Excipients Included in U.S. Vaccines, by Vaccine; 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/b/excipient‐table‐2.pdf. Accessed January 14, 2021.

44. Echeverria‐Zudaire LA, Ortigosa‐del Castillo L, Alonso‐Lebrero E, et al. Consensus document on the approach to children with allergic reactions after vaccination or allergy to vaccine componentsAllergol Immunopathol (Madr). 2015;43(3):304‐325. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

45. World Health Organization . Draft landscape of COVID‐19 candidate vaccines; 2021. https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/draft‐landscape‐of‐covid‐19‐candidate‐vaccines. Accessed January 10, 2021.

46. Rodriguez‐Coira J, Sokolowska M. SARS‐CoV‐2 candidate vaccines ‐ composition, mechanisms of action and stages of clinical developmentAllergy. 2021;76(6):1922‐1924. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

47. Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency . Confirmation of guidance to vaccination centres on managing allergic reactions following COVID‐19 vaccination with the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine; 2020. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/confirmation‐of‐guidance‐to‐vaccination‐centres‐on‐managing‐allergic‐reactions‐following‐covid‐19‐vaccination‐with‐the‐pfizer‐biontech‐vaccine. Accessed January 14, 2021.

48. CDC . Allergic Reactions Including Anaphylaxis After Receipt of the First Dose of Pfizer‐BioNTech COVID‐19 Vaccine — United States. December 14–23, 2020; 2021. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7002e1.htm. Accessed January 14, 2021.

49. CDC . Allergic Reactions Including Anaphylaxis After Receipt of the First Dose of Moderna COVID‐19 Vaccine — United States. December 21, 2020–January 10, 2021; 2021. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7004e1.htm. Accessed January 24, 2021.

50. CDC . Interim Clinical Considerations for Use of mRNA COVID‐19 Vaccines Currently Authorized in the United States; 2021. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid‐19/info‐by‐product/clinical‐considerations.html#SARS‐CoV‐2‐infection. Accessed January 24, 2021.

51. CDC . Moderna COVID‐19 Vaccine Questions; 2021. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid‐19/info‐by‐product/moderna/moderna‐faqs.html. Accessed January 24, 2021.

52. Paul‐Ehrlich‐Institut . Corona vaccination in individuals suffereing from allergies; 2020. https://www.pei.de/EN/newsroom/positions/covid‐19‐vaccines/positions‐corona‐vaccination‐allergies.html. Accessed January 14, 2021.

53. Sokolowska M, Eiwegger T, Ollert M, et al. EAACI statement on the diagnosis, management and prevention of severe allergic reactions to COVID‐19 vaccinesAllergy. 2021. 10.1111/all.14739. Epub ahead of print. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[Google Scholar]

54. Janeway CA, Travers P, Walport M, Shlomchik MJ. Immunobiology: The immune system in health and disease, 5th edn. New York, NY: Garland Publishing; 2001. Part V, The Immune System in Health and Disease. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10775/ [Google Scholar]

55. Dispenza MC. Classification of hypersensitivity reactionsAllergy Asthma Proc. 2019;40(6):470‐473. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

56. Sampath V, Sindher SB, Alvarez Pinzon AM, Nadeau KC. Can food allergy be cured? What are the future prospects? Allergy. 2020;75(6):1316‐1326. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

57. Kelos J. Allergic reactions to vaccines; 2021. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/allergic‐reactions‐to‐vaccines. Accessed January 14, 2021.

58. Pool V, Mege L, Abou‐Ali A. Arthus Reaction as an Adverse Event Following Tdap VaccinationVaccines (Basel) 2020;8(3):385. [PMC free article] [PubMed[Google Scholar]

59. Marwa K . Type IV Hypersensitivity Reaction. In: Bayot ML, Abdelgawad I , editors. StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing ; 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK562228/ [Google Scholar]

60. Chung EH. Vaccine allergiesClin Exp Vaccine Res. 2014;3(1):50‐57. [PMC free article] [PubMed[Google Scholar]

61. Zhang B, Li Q, Shi C, Zhang X. Drug‐Induced Pseudoallergy: A Review of the Causes and MechanismsPharmacology. 2018;101(1–2):104‐110. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

62. Kim YN, Kim JY, Kim JW, et al. The Hidden Culprit: A Case of Repeated Anaphylaxis to CremophorAllergy Asthma Immunol Res. 2016;8(2):174‐177. [PMC free article] [PubMed[Google Scholar]

63. De Luca JF, Holmes NE, Trubiano JA. Adverse reactions to vancomycin and cross‐reactivity with other antibioticsCurr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020;20(4):352‐361. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

64. Oza NB, Ryan JW, Ryan US, Berryer P, Pena G. Pulmonary anaphylaxis and the kallikrein‐kinin systemAdv Exp Med Biol. 1979;120A:473‐486. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

65. Thong BY. Nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drug hypersensitivity in the Asia‐PacificAsia Pac Allergy. 2018;8(4):e38. [PMC free article] [PubMed[Google Scholar]

66. Navines‐Ferrer A, Serrano‐Candelas E, Lafuente A, Munoz‐Cano R, Martin M, Gastaminza G. MRGPRX2‐mediated mast cell response to drugs used in perioperative procedures and anaesthesiaSci Rep. 2018;8(1):11628. [PMC free article] [PubMed[Google Scholar]

67. Bonvini SJ, Birrell MA, Dubuis E, et al. Novel airway smooth muscle‐mast cell interactions and a role for the TRPV4‐ATP axis in non‐atopic asthmaEur Respir J. 2020;56(1):1901458. [PMC free article] [PubMed[Google Scholar]

68. Ali H. Emerging Roles for MAS‐Related G Protein‐Coupled Receptor‐X2 in Host Defense Peptide, Opioid, and Neuropeptide‐Mediated Inflammatory ReactionsAdv Immunol. 2017;136:123‐162. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

69. McNeil BD, Pundir P, Meeker S, et al. Identification of a mast‐cell‐specific receptor crucial for pseudo‐allergic drug reactionsNature. 2015;519(7542):237‐241. [PMC free article] [PubMed[Google Scholar]

70. Tatemoto K, Nozaki Y, Tsuda R, et al. Immunoglobulin E‐independent activation of mast cell is mediated by Mrg receptorsBiochem Biophys Res Commun. 2006;349(4):1322‐1328. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

71. CDC . Lab Tests to Collect Shortly After Severe Allergic Reaction/Anaphylaxis Following COVID‐19 Vaccination; 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid‐19/clinical‐considerations/testing‐after‐allergic‐reaction.html#:~:text=Tryptase%20is%20released%20from%20mast,characterize%20the%20severe%20allergic%20reaction. Accessed January 24, 2021.

72. Sahiner UM, Yavuz ST, Buyuktiryaki B, et al. Serum basal tryptase may be a good marker for predicting the risk of anaphylaxis in children with food allergyAllergy. 2014;69(2):265‐268. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

73. Valent P, Akin C, Arock M, et al. Definitions, criteria and global classification of mast cell disorders with special reference to mast cell activation syndromes: a consensus proposalInt Arch Allergy Immunol. 2012;157(3):215‐225. [PMC free article] [PubMed[Google Scholar]

74. Greiner G, Sprinzl B, Gorska A, et al. Hereditary alpha tryptasemia is a valid genetic biomarker for severe mediator‐related symptoms in mastocytosisBlood. 2020;37:238‐247. [PMC free article] [PubMed[Google Scholar]

75. Porebski G, Kwiecien K, Pawica M, Kwitniewski M. Mas‐Related G Protein‐Coupled Receptor‐X2 (MRGPRX2) in Drug Hypersensitivity ReactionsFront Immunol. 2018;9:3027. [PMC free article] [PubMed[Google Scholar]

76. Supajatura V, Ushio H, Nakao A, et al. Differential responses of mast cell Toll‐like receptors 2 and 4 in allergy and innate immunityJ Clin Invest. 2002;109(10):1351‐1359. [PMC free article] [PubMed[Google Scholar]

77. Urb M, Sheppard DC. The role of mast cells in the defence against pathogensPLoS Pathog. 2012;8(4):e1002619. [PMC free article] [PubMed[Google Scholar]

78. McCurdy JD, Lin TJ, Marshall JS. Toll‐like receptor 4‐mediated activation of murine mast cellsJ Leukoc Biol. 2001;70(6):977‐984. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

79. Kajiwara N, Sasaki T, Bradding P, et al. Activation of human mast cells through the platelet‐activating factor receptorJ Allergy Clin Immunol. 2010;125(5):1137‐1145. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

80. Ferguson GT, Cole J, Aurivillius M, et al. Single‐use autoinjector functionality and reliability for at‐home administration of benralizumab for patients with severe asthma: GRECO trial resultsJ Asthma Allergy. 2019;12:363‐373. [PMC free article] [PubMed[Google Scholar]

81. Ito T, Smrz D, Jung MY, et al. Stem cell factor programs the mast cell activation phenotypeJ Immunol. 2012;188(11):5428‐5437. [PMC free article] [PubMed[Google Scholar]

82. CDC . What’s in Vaccines?; 2019. cdc.gov/vaccines/vac‐gen/additives.htm. Accessed January 14, 2021.

83. CDC . Vaccine Recommendations and Guidelines of the ACIP; 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip‐recs/general‐recs/adverse‐reactions. html. Accessed May 28, 2021.

84. CDC . Latex in Vaccine Packaging; 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/b/latex‐table.pdf. Accessed January 14, 2021.

85. Magista S, Albanesi M, Chaoul N, et al. Safety of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine in egg allergy: in vivo and in vitro managementClin Mol Allergy. 2020;18(1):21. [PMC free article] [PubMed[Google Scholar]

86. Cerecedo Carballo I, Dieguez Pastor MC, Bartolome Zavala B, Sanchez Cano M, de la Hoz CB. Safety of measles‐mumps‐rubella vaccine (MMR) in patients allergic to eggsAllergol Immunopathol (Madr). 2007;35(3):105‐109. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

87. Upton JEM, Hummel DB, Kasprzak A, Atkinson AR. No systemic reactions to influenza vaccination in egg‐sensitized tertiary‐care pediatric patientsAllergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology. 2012;8(1):2. [PMC free article] [PubMed[Google Scholar]

88. Kang J‐H. Effectiveness and safety of seasonal influenza vaccination in children with underlying respiratory diseases and allergyKorean J Pediatr. 2014;57(4):164. [PMC free article] [PubMed[Google Scholar]

89. Sharma K, Perrett KP, Wood N. Yellow Fever Vaccination In EGG‐Allergic ChildrenPediatr Infect Dis J. 2020;39(6):e76‐e78. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

90. CDC . Flu Vaccine and People with EggAllergies. 2020; https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/egg‐allergies.htm. Accessed January 14, 2021. [Google Scholar]

91. Grohskopf LA, Sokolow LZ, Broder KR, Walter EB, Bresee JS, Fry AM. Prevention and Control of Seasonal Influenza with Vaccines: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices — United States, 2017–18 Influenza SeasonMMWR. Recommend Rep. 2017;66(2):1‐20. [PMC free article] [PubMed[Google Scholar]

92. Kelso JM, Jones RT, Yunginger JW. Anaphylaxis to measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine mediated by IgE to gelatinJ Allergy Clin Immunol. 1993;91(4):867‐872. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

93. Pool V, Braun MM, Kelso JM, et al. Prevalence of anti‐gelatin IgE antibodies in people with anaphylaxis after measles‐mumps rubella vaccine in the United StatesPediatrics 2002;110(6):e71. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

94. Nakayama T, Aizawa C, Kuno‐Sakai H. A clinical analysis of gelatin allergy and determination of its causal relationship to the previous administration of gelatin‐containing acellular pertussis vaccine combined with diphtheria and tetanus toxoidsJ Allergy Clin Immunol. 1999;103(2):321‐325. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

95. Sakaguchi M, Inouye S. Systemic allergic reactions to gelatin included in vaccines as a stabilizerJpn J Infect Dis. 2000;53(5):189‐195. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

96. Kumagai T, Kamada M, Igarashi C, et al. Gelatin‐specific cellular immune responses persist for more than 3 years after priming with gelatin containing DTaP vaccineClin Exp Allergy. 2002;32(10):1510‐1514. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

97. Patja A, Makinen‐Kiljunen S, Davidkin I, Paunio M, Peltola H. Allergic Reactions to Measles‐Mumps‐Rubella VaccinationPediatrics. 2001;107(2):e27. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

98. Swiontek K, Morisset M, Codreanu‐Morel F, et al. Drugs of porcine origin‐A risk for patients with alpha‐gal syndrome? J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2019;7(5):1687‐1690. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

99. Stone CA Jr, Commins SP, Choudhary S, et al. Anaphylaxis after vaccination in a pediatric patient: further implicating alpha‐gal allergyJ Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2019;7(1):322‐324. [PMC free article] [PubMed[Google Scholar]

100. Kuno‐Sakai H, Kimura M. Removal of gelatin from live vaccines and DTaP‐an ultimate solution for vaccine‐related gelatin allergyBiologicals. 2003;31(4):245‐249. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

101. Kattan JD, Konstantinou GN, Cox AL, et al. Anaphylaxis to diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis vaccines among children with cow's milk allergyJ Allergy Clin Immunol. 2011;128(1):215‐218. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

102. Slater JE, Rabin RL, Martin D. Comments on cow's milk allergy and diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis vaccinesJ Allergy Clin Immunol. 2011;128(2):434; author reply 435. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

103. Zanoni G, Puccetti A, Dolcino M, et al. Dextran‐specific IgG response in hypersensitivity reactions to measles‐mumps‐rubella vaccineJ Allergy Clin Immunol. 2008;122(6):1233‐1235. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

104. Freitas DRC, Moura E, Araújo G, et al. Investigation of an outbreak of hypersensitivity‐type reactions during the 2004 national measles‐mumps‐rubella vaccination campaign in BrazilVaccine. 2013;31(6):950‐954. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

105. DiMiceli L, Pool V, Kelso JM, Shadomy SV, Iskander J. Team VAERS. Vaccination of yeast sensitive individuals: review of safety data in the US vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS)Vaccine. 2006;24(6):703‐707. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

106. Brotherton JML, Gold MS, Kemp AS, McIntyre PB, Burgess MA, Campbell‐Lloyd S. Anaphylaxis following quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccinationCan Med Assoc J. 2008;179(6):525‐533. [PMC free article] [PubMed[Google Scholar]

107. Kwittken PL, Rosen S, Sweinberg SK. MMR Vaccine and Neomycin AllergyArch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1993;147(2):128. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

108. Elliman D, Dhanraj B. Safe MMR vaccination despite neomycin allergyLancet. 1991;337(8737):365. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

109. Huang S, Zhu Z, Cai L, et al. Analysis on the risks of severe adverse events in rabies post‐exposure prophylaxis and appropriate decision‐making procedureHuman Vacc Immunotherap. 2018;15(9):2121‐2125. [PMC free article] [PubMed[Google Scholar]

110. Henao MP, Ghaffari G. Anaphylaxis to polymyxin B–trimethoprim eye dropsAnn Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2016;116(4):372. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

111. Dréno B, Zuberbier T, Gelmetti C, Gontijo G, Marinovich M. Safety review of phenoxyethanol when used as a preservative in cosmeticsJ Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2019;33(S7):15‐24. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

112. Smith D, Gomez R, Davenport J. Latex content in adult vaccinesMil Med. 2020;185(3–4):354‐355. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

113. Russell M, Pool V, Kelso JM, Tomazic‐Jezic VJ. Vaccination of persons allergic to latex: a review of safety data in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)Vaccine. 2004;23(5):664‐667. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

114. U.S. FDA . Thimerosal and Vaccines; 2018. https://www.fda.gov/vaccines‐blood‐biologics/safety‐availability‐biologics/thimerosal‐and‐vaccines. Accessed January 24, 2021.

115. Ball LK, Ball R, Pratt RD. An assessment of thimerosal use in childhood vaccinesPediatrics. 2001;107(5):1147‐1154. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

116. Jacob SE, Brod B, Crawford GH. Clinically relevant patch test reactions in children‐a United States based studyPediatr Dermatol. 2008;25(5):520‐527. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

117. Centers for Disease C . Systemic allergic reactions following immunization with human diploid cell rabies vaccineMMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1984;33(14):185‐187. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

118. Huang DB, Wu JJ, Tyring SK. A review of licensed viral vaccines, some of their safety concerns, and the advances in the development of investigational viral vaccinesJ Infect. 2004;49(3):179‐209. [PMC free article] [PubMed[Google Scholar]

119. Swanson MC, Rosanoff E, Gurwith M, Deitch M, Schnurrenberger P, Reed CE. IgE and IgG antibodies to beta‐propiolactone and human serum albumin associated with urticarial reactions to rabies vaccineJ Infect Dis. 1987;155(5):909‐913. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

120. Fishbein DB, Yenne KM, Dreesen DW, Teplis CF, Mehta N, Briggs DJ. Risk factors for systemic hypersensitivity reactions after booster vaccinations with human diploid cell rabies vaccine: a nationwide prospective studyVaccine. 1993;11(14):1390‐1394. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

121. Xia S, Zhang Y, Wang Y, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of an inactivated SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccine, BBIBP‐CorV: a randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, phase 1/2 trialLancet Infect Dis. 2021;21(1):39‐51. [PMC free article] [PubMed[Google Scholar]

122. Zhang Y, Zeng G, Pan H, et al. Safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of an inactivated SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccine in healthy adults aged 18–59 years: a randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, phase 1/2 clinical trialLancet Infect Dis. 2021;21(2):181‐192. [PMC free article] [PubMed[Google Scholar]

123. Ring J. Exacerbation of eczema by formalin‐containing hepatitis B vaccine in formaldehyde‐allergic patientLancet. 1986;328(8505):522‐523. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

124. Kuritzky LA, Pratt M. Systemic allergic contact dermatitis after formaldehyde‐containing influenza vaccinationJ Cutaneous Med Surg. 2015;19(5):504‐506. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

125. Moghaddam A, Olszewska W, Wang B, et al. A potential molecular mechanism for hypersensitivity caused by formalin‐inactivated vaccinesNat Med. 2006;12(8):905‐907. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

126. Peebles JRS, Sheller James R, Collins Robert D, Jarzecka K, Mitchell Daphne B, Graham BS. Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV)–Induced Airway Hyperresponsiveness in Allergically Sensitized Mice Is Inhibited by Live RSV and Exacerbated by Formalin‐Inactivated RSVJ Infect Dis. 2000;182(3):671‐677. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

127. Lauren CT, Belsito DV, Morel KD, LaRussa P. Case report of subcutaneous nodules and sterile abscesses due to delayed type hypersensitivity to aluminum‐containing vaccinesPediatrics. 2016;138(4):e20141690. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

128. Kelly E, Leahy R, McDermott M, et al. Persistent pruritic subcutaneous nodules at injection sites and other delayed type hypersensitivity reactions to aluminium adsorbed vaccines in Irish children: A case seriesActa Paediatr. 2020;109(12):2692‐2693. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

129. Gordon SC, Bartenstein DW, Tajmir SH, Song JS, Hawryluk EB. Delayed‐type hypersensitivity to vaccine aluminum adjuvant causing subcutaneous leg mass and urticaria in a childPediatr Dermatol. 2018;35(2):234‐236. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

130. Salik E, Løvik I, Andersen K, Bygum A. Persistent Skin Reactions and Aluminium Hypersensitivity Induced by Childhood VaccinesActa Derm Venereol. 2016;96(7):967‐971. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

131. Bergfors E, Trollfors B. Sixty‐four children with persistent itching nodules and contact allergy to aluminium after vaccination with aluminium‐adsorbed vaccines—prognosis and outcome after booster vaccinationEur J Pediatr. 2012;172(2):171‐177. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

132. Johnson‐Weaver BT, McRitchie S, Mercier KA, et al. Effect of endotoxin and alum adjuvant vaccine on peanut allergyJ Allergy Clin Immuno. 2018;141(2):791‐794. [PMC free article] [PubMed[Google Scholar]

133. Montana M, Verhaeghe P, Ducros C, Terme T, Vanelle P, Rathelot P. Safety review: squalene and thimerosal in vaccinesTherapie. 2010;65(6):533‐541. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

134. Lippi G, Targher G, Franchini M. Vaccination, squalene and anti‐squalene antibodies: facts or fiction? Eur J Intern Med. 2010;21(2):70‐73. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

135. Shi S, Zhu H, Xia X, Liang Z, Ma X, Sun B. Vaccine adjuvants: Understanding the structure and mechanism of adjuvanticityVaccine. 2019;37(24):3167‐3178. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

136. Meller S, Gerber PA, Kislat A, et al. Allergic sensitization to pegylated interferon‐alpha results in drug eruptionsAllergy. 2015;70(7):775‐783. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

137. Castells MC, Phillips EJ. Maintaining Safety with SARS‐CoV‐2 VaccinesN Engl J Med. 2021;384(7):643‐649. [PMC free article] [PubMed[Google Scholar]

138. Cabanillas B, Akdis C, Novak N. Allergic reactions to the first COVID‐19 vaccine: a potential role of polyethylene glycol? Allergy. 2021;76(6):1617‐1618. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

139. Pfaar O, Mahler V. Allergic reactions to COVID‐19 ‐vaccination ‐ unveiling the secret(s)Allergy. 2021;76(6):1617‐1618. [PMC free article] [PubMed[Google Scholar]

140. Kozma GT, Shimizu T, Ishida T, Szebeni J. Anti‐PEG antibodies: Properties, formation, testing and role in adverse immune reactions to PEGylated nano‐biopharmaceuticalsAdv Drug Deliv Rev. 2020;155:163‐175. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

141. Stone CA, Liu Y, Relling MV, et al. Immediate hypersensitivity to polyethylene glycols and polysorbates: more common than we have recognizedJ Allergy Clinical Immunol Pract. 2019;7(5):1533‐1540. [PMC free article] [PubMed[Google Scholar]

142. Povsic TJ, Lawrence MG, Lincoff AM, et al. Pre‐existing anti‐PEG antibodies are associated with severe immediate allergic reactions to pegnivacogin, a PEGylated aptamerJ Allergy Clin Immunol. 2016;138(6):1712‐1715. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

143. Banerji A, Wickner PG, Saff R, et al. mRNA Vaccines to Prevent COVID‐19 Disease and Reported Allergic Reactions: Current Evidence and Suggested ApproachJ Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2020;9(4):1423‐1437. [PMC free article] [PubMed[Google Scholar]

144. Maggio E. Polysorbates, biotherapeutics and anaphylaxis: a reviewBioprocess Int. 2017;15(8). https://bioprocessintl.com/manufacturing/formulation/polysorbates-biotherapeutics‐and‐anaphylaxis‐a‐review/ [Google Scholar]

145. Badiu I, Geuna M, Heffler E, Rolla G. Hypersensitivity reaction to human papillomavirus vaccine due to polysorbate 80BMJ Case Rep. 2012;2012:bcr0220125797. [PMC free article] [PubMed[Google Scholar]

146. Hong L, Wang Z, Wei X, Shi J, Li C. Antibodies against polyethylene glycol in human blood: A literature reviewJ Pharmacol Toxicol Methods. 2020;102:106678. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

147. Nanomedicine and the COVID‐19 vaccinesNat Nanotechnol. 2020;15(12):963. 10.1038/s41565-020-00820-0 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[Google Scholar]

148. Jackson LA, Anderson EJ, Rouphael NG, et al. An mRNA Vaccine against SARS‐CoV‐2 ‐ Preliminary ReportN Engl J Med. 2020;383(20):1920‐1931. [PMC free article] [PubMed[Google Scholar]

149. de Vrieze J. Pfizer's vaccine raises allergy concernsScience. 2021;371(6524):10‐11. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

150. Cabanillas B, Akdis C, Novak N. Allergic reactions to the first COVID-19 vaccine: a potential role of polyethylene glycol? Allergy. 2021;76(6):1621‐1623. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

151. Garvey LH, Nasser S. Anaphylaxis to the first COVID‐19 vaccine: is polyethylene glycol (PEG) the culprit? Br J Anaesth. 2021;126(3):e106‐e108. [PMC free article] [PubMed[Google Scholar]

152. Bruusgaard‐Mouritsen MA, Johansen JD, Garvey LH. Clinical manifestations and impact on daily life of allergy to polyethylene glycol (PEG) in ten patientsClin Exp Allergy. 2021;51(3):463‐470. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

153. Zhou ZH, Stone CA Jr, Jakubovic B, et al. Anti‐PEG IgE in anaphylaxis associated with polyethylene glycolJ Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2020;9(4):1731‐1733.e3. 10.1016/j.jaip.2020.11.011 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[Google Scholar]

154. Klimek L, Jutel M, Akdis CA, et al. ARIA‐EAACI statement on severe allergic reactions to COVID‐19 vaccines – an EAACI‐ARIA position paperAllergy. 2021;76(6):1624‐1628. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

155. Hatziantoniou S, Maltezou HC, Tsakris A, Poland GA, Anastassopoulou C. Anaphylactic reactions to mRNA COVID‐19 vaccines: A call for further studyVaccine. 2021;39(19):2605‐2607. [PMC free article] [PubMed[Google Scholar]

156. Sokolowska M, Lukasik ZM, Agache I, et al. Immunology of COVID‐19: Mechanisms, clinical outcome, diagnostics, and perspectives‐A report of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI)Allergy. 2020;75(10):2445‐2476. [PMC free article] [PubMed[Google Scholar]

157. European Medicines Agency . Annex I: Summary of product characteristicshttps://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product‐information/comirnaty‐epar‐product‐information_en.pdf. Accessed January 10, 2021.

158. Sasisekharan V, Pentakota N, Jayaraman A, Tharakaraman K, Wogan GN, Narayanasami U. Orthogonal immunoassays for IgG antibodies to SARS‐CoV‐2 antigens reveal that immune response lasts beyond 4 mo post illness onsetProc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021;118(5):e2021615118. [PMC free article] [PubMed[Google Scholar]

159. Hartley GE, Edwards ESJ, Aui PM, et al. Rapid generation of durable B cell memory to SARS‐CoV‐2 spike and nucleocapsid proteins in COVID‐19 and convalescenceSci Immunol. 2020;5(54):eabf8891. [PMC free article] [PubMed[Google Scholar]

160. Wajnberg A, Amanat F, Firpo A, et al. Robust neutralizing antibodies to SARS‐CoV‐2 infection persist for monthsScience. 2020;370(6521):1227‐1230. [PMC free article] [PubMed[Google Scholar]

161. Xie X, Zou J, Fontes‐Garfias CR, et al. Neutralization of N501Y mutant SARS‐CoV‐2 by BNT162b2 vaccine‐elicited serabioRxiv. 2001;2021(2021):2007. [Google Scholar]

162. Ashraf MU, Kim Y, Kumar S, Seo D, Ashraf M, Bae YS. COVID‐19 vaccines (revisited) and oral‐mucosal vector system as a potential vaccine platformVaccines (Basel). 2021;9(2):171. [PMC free article] [PubMed[Google Scholar]

163. European Medicines Agency . Guideline on good pharmacovigilance practices (GVP). Product‐ or Population‐Specific Considerations I: Vaccines for prophylaxis against infectious diseases; 2012. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific‐guideline/draft‐guideline‐good‐pharmacovigilance‐practices‐gvp‐product‐population‐specific‐considerations‐i_en.pdf. Accessed January 14, 2021.

164. Brotherton JM, Gold MS, Kemp AS, et al. Anaphylaxis following quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccinationCMAJ. 2008;179(6):525‐533. [PMC free article] [PubMed[Google Scholar]

165. Erlewyn‐Lajeunesse M, Hunt LP, Heath PT, Finn A. Anaphylaxis as an adverse event following immunisation in the UK and IrelandArch Dis Child. 2012;97(6):487‐490. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

166. Zent O, Beran J, Jilg W, Mach T, Banzhoff A. Clinical evaluation of a polygeline‐free tick‐borne encephalitis vaccine for adolescents and adultsVaccine. 2003;21(7–8):738‐741. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

167. Ozaki T, Nishimura N, Muto T, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of gelatin‐free varicella vaccine in epidemiological and serological studies in JapanVaccine. 2005;23(10):1205‐1208. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

168. Rouleau I, De Serres G, Drolet JP, et al. Increased risk of anaphylaxis following administration of 2009 AS03‐adjuvanted monovalent pandemic A/H1N1 (H1N1pdm09) vaccineVaccine. 2013;31(50):5989‐5996. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

169. Kelso JM, Mootrey GT, Tsai TF. Anaphylaxis from yellow fever vaccineJ Allergy Clin Immunol. 1999;103(4):698‐701. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

170. D'Souza RM, Campbell‐Lloyd S, Isaacs D, et al. Adverse events following immunisation associated with the 1998 Australian Measles Control CampaignCommun Dis Intell. 2000;24(2):27‐33. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

171. Kawai AT, Li L, Kulldorff M, et al. Absence of associations between influenza vaccines and increased risks of seizures, Guillain‐Barre syndrome, encephalitis, or anaphylaxis in the 2012–2013 seasonPharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2014;23(5):548‐553. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

172. Ropero‐Alvarez AM, Whittembury A, Bravo‐Alcantara P, Kurtis HJ, Danovaro‐Holliday MC, Velandia‐Gonzalez M. Events supposedly attributable to vaccination or immunization during pandemic influenza A (H1N1) vaccination campaigns in Latin America and the CaribbeanVaccine. 2015;33(1):187‐192. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

173. Halsey NA, Griffioen M, Dreskin SC, et al. Immediate hypersensitivity reactions following monovalent 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) vaccines: reports to VAERSVaccine. 2013;31(51):6107‐6112. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

174. Duclos P. Safety of immunisation and adverse events following vaccination against hepatitis BExpert Opin Drug Saf. 2003;2(3):225‐231. [PubMed[Google Scholar]

175. Li X, Ma SJ, Liu X, et al. Immunogenicity and safety of currently available Japanese encephalitis vaccines: a systematic reviewHum Vaccin Immunother. 2014;10(12):3579‐3593. [PMC free article] [PubMed[Google Scholar]

Vanitha Sampath, 1 Grace Rabinowitz, 1 Mihir Shah, 1 Surabhi Jain, 1 Zuzana Diamant, 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 Milos Jesenak, 6 Ronald Rabin, 7 Stefan Vieths, 8 Ioana Agache, 9 Mübeccel Akdis, 10 Domingo Barber, 11 , 12 Heimo Breiteneder, 13 Sharon Chinthrajah, 1 , 14 Tomas Chivato, 15 William Collins, 1 , 16 Thomas Eiwegger, 17 , 18 , 19 Katharine Fast, 1 Wytske Fokkens, 20 Robyn E. O'Hehir, 21 Markus Ollert, 22 , 23 Liam O'Mahony, 24 Oscar Palomares, 25 Oliver Pfaar, 26 Carmen Riggioni, 27 , 28 Mohamed H Shamji, 29 , 30 Milena Sokolowska, 10 Maria Jose Torres, 31 Claudia Traidl‐Hoffmann, 32 , 33 Menno van Zelm, 34 , 35 De Yun Wang, 36 Luo Zhang, 37 Cezmi A. Akdis, 10 and Kari C. Nadeaucorresponding author 1 , 14

Allergy. 2021 Jun; 76(6): 1640–1660.
Published online 2021 Jun 4. doi: 10.1111/all.14840
PMCID: PMC8251022
PMID: 33811364

Source : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8251022/

You must be logged in to comment due to spam issues.