Background: Late hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to the BNT162b2-vaccine have raised concerns regarding its safety, particularly as further immunizations are required. The yield of skin testing with the BNT162b2v is unclear, as well as the risk factors and outcomes of re-immunization after late HSRs. Objective: We studied a series of patients with late HSRs to BNT162b2v. Methods: Patients referred to the Sheba medical center from December 2020 to May 2021 with late HSRs to the first dose of BNT162b2 were included. HSRs were defined as late if they appeared or lasted >24 h after inoculation. We compared late HSRs to immediate HSRs that appeared within minutes–2 h after vaccination. Intradermal testing with PEG-containing medication and BNT162b2v was performed. Results: A total of 17 patients that presented with late HSRs (study group) were compared to 34 patients with immediate HSRs (control group). Delayed sensitivity to intradermal testing of the BNT162b2v was observed in 9/17 (53%) of the study group compared to 4/34 (12%) in the control group (p = 0.01). Former exposure to a dermal filler with hyaluronic acid was documented among 7/17 (41%) vs. 2/34 (6%) in the study and control groups, respectively, (p = 0.0038). All patients who presented with late HSRs were advised to receive subsequent doses of the BNT162b2v vaccine with or without concomitant medication, and all were re-immunized successfully. Conclusions: Late HSRs to BNT162b2v were linked with positive responses to intradermal testing with the vaccine and prior exposure to derma fillers with hyaluronic acid. This may elude to an immune mechanism triggered by former exposures. Although further studies are needed, late HSRs to the BNT162b2-vaccine did not prevent patients from receiving subsequent doses of the vaccines.

Background: Eosinophilia, defined as peripheral blood eosinophil counts > 0.5 K/μL, is associated with various clinical conditions, including allergic, infectious, and malignant diseases. Emerging evidence suggests that eosinophils may contribute to thrombo-inflammatory processes, but their association with thromboembolic events and mortality remains insufficiently characterized. This study aimed to evaluate whether eosinophilia is independently associated with increased risk of thromboembolic events and mortality in hospitalized patients. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using electronic medical records from Sheba Medical Center (2011–2020). Eosinophilia was classified as mild (0.5–1.5 K/μL) or hypereosinophilia (HE, >1.5 K/μL). Patients with eosinophilia were matched 1:1 to controls with normal eosinophil counts based on age, sex, and follow-up duration. Results: Among 93,320 patients (46,660 with eosinophilia and 46,660 controls), thromboembolic events occurred in 20.9% of eosinophilic patients vs. 9.8% of controls. Eosinophilia was independently associated with thrombosis (OR = 1.33; 95% CI, 1.28–1.38; p < 0.0001), with increased risk from counts ≥ 0.7 K/μL. Mortality was also higher among eosinophilic patients (HR = 1.17; 95% CI, 1.13–1.20; p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Eosinophilia is associated with increased thromboembolic and mortality risk, highlighting the importance of eosinophil monitoring in clinical practice.