Individuals with a history of allergy are potentially at risk of suffering from adverse effects after COVID-19 vaccination. We sought to assess the tolerance towards the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in allergic patients. To address this issue, we used a questionnaire conducted on-line in a group of medical professionals who were vaccinated with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. A total of 1808 respondents, out of whom 1707 received two doses of the vaccine, returned the questionnaire. Local reactions after injection were more frequent in allergic individuals after both doses (swelling p = 0.0003). Systemic adverse events (AE-SYS) occurred more often after the second than the first dose in both groups (allergic persons: 77.29% vs. 41.06%); vomiting and arthralgia occurred more often in allergic subjects (p = 0.0009). AE-SYS in allergic individuals lasted longer than in non-allergic ones after the first (p = 0.01) and the second dose (p = 0.0009). Allergic reactions after vaccination were reported more frequently in allergic subjects: after the first dose (p = 0.00001) and after the second dose (p = 0.001). Rhinitis was the most frequent symptom observed more often in allergic patients. No severe allergic reactions occurred during the full cycle of vaccination. Although the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is tolerated worse by allergic than non-allergic individuals, the occurring adverse symptoms are mild and do not preclude a successful completion of the vaccination cycle. The presence of symptoms suggestive of allergy does not constitute a condition of increased risk of developing clinically significant adverse events following Pfizer COVID-19 vaccination.

Background: Patients with heart failure (HF) are at high risk of unfavorable courses of COVID-19. The aim of this study was to evaluate characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 patients with HF. Methods: Data of patients hospitalized in a tertiary hospital in Poland between March 2020 and May 2021 with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 were analyzed. The study population was divided into a HF group (patients with a history of HF) and a non-HF group. Results: Out of 2184 patients (65 ± 13 years old, 50% male), 12% had a history of HF. Patients from the HF group were older, more often males, had more comorbidities, more often dyspnea, pulmonary and peripheral congestion, inflammation, and end-organ damage biomarkers. HF patients had longer and more complicated hospital stay, with more frequent acute HF development as compared with non-HF. They had significantly higher mortality assessed in hospital (35% vs. 12%) at three (53% vs. 22%) and six months (72% vs. 47%). Of 76 (4%) patients who developed acute HF, 71% died during hospitalization, 79% at three, and 87% at six months. Conclusions: The history of HF identifies patients with COVID-19 who are at high risk of in-hospital complications and mortality up to six months of follow-up.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) shows high incidence of thromboembolic events in humans. In the present study, we aimed to evaluate if anticoagulation prior to COVID-19 infection may impact clinical profile, as well as mortality rate among patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The study was based on retrospective analysis of medical records of patients with laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. After propensity score matching (PSM), a group of 236 patients receiving any anticoagulant treatment prior to COVID-19 infection (AT group) was compared to 236 patients without previous anticoagulation (no AT group). In 180 days, the observation we noted comparable mortality rate in AT and no AT groups (38.5% vs. 41.1%, p = 0.51). Similarly, we did not observe any statistically significant differences in admission in the intensive care unit (14.1% vs. 9.6%, p = 0.20), intubation and mechanical ventilation (15.0% vs. 11.6%, p = 0.38), catecholamines usage (14.3% vs. 13.8%, p = 0.86), and bleeding rate (6.3% vs. 8.9%, p = 0.37) in both groups. Our results suggest that antithrombotic treatment prior to COVID-19 infection is unlikely to be protective for morbidity and mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Insect venom is one of the most common triggers of anaphylaxis in the elderly population. Venom immunotherapy (VIT) remains the only treatment for Hymenoptera venom allergy (HVA). However, little is known about the differences in indication for VIT in the group of patients aged 60 years and older. The objective of this study was to assess the clinical and diagnostic differences of HVA in elderly patients. The study compared data from patients aged ≥ 60 (N = 132) to data from patients aged from 11 to 60 years (N = 750) in terms of HVA severity, comorbidities, and immunological parameters, namely, intradermal testing (IDT), specific IgE (sIgE) levels against extracts and major allergenic molecules, and serum tryptase level (sBT). The severity of systemic HVA (I–IV Müller scale) did not differ between adults and seniors. However, the severity of cardiovascular reactions (IV) increased with age, while the frequency of respiratory reactions (III) decreased. No differences were found in the immunological parameters of sensitization IDT, venom-specific IgE concentrations, or sIgE against Api m 1, 2, 4, 5, and 10 between patients below and above 60 or 65 years of age. Differences were noted for sIgE against Ves v1 and Ves v5; they were higher and lower, respectively, in seniors. In the seniors group, sBT levels were higher. Elevated tryptase levels, along with the aging process, can represent a risk factor within this age category. Nevertheless, advanced age does not influence the immunological parameters of immediate HVA reactions, nor does it impact the diagnosis of HVA.

Venom immunotherapy (VIT) is the only efficient therapy for the Hymenoptera insect venom allergy. Immunotherapy with bee venom is encumbered with a higher risk of systemic side effects and/or therapeutic failures. The objective of the study was to assess if specific profiles of molecular IgE (Immunoglobulin E) responses are associated with an increased risk of systemic side effects and/or the treatment’s inefficacy. The study group numbered 64 bee venom allergic patients (BVA) who received venom immunotherapy modo ultra-rush (VIT-UR), (f/m: 32/32, mean age 43.4 ± 17.2). In total, 54.84% of them manifested allergic reactions of grades I-III (acc. to Mueller’s scale), while 48.66% manifested reactions of grade IV. In all the patients, IgE against bee venom extract, rApi m 1 and tryptase (sBT) were assessed. In 46 patients, assessments of IgE against rApi m 2, 3, 5, 10 were also performed. BVA patients manifesting cardiovascular symptoms (SYS IV⁰) showed higher levels of both sIgE-rApi m 5 (p = 0.03) and tryptase (p = 0.07) than patients with SYS I–III. Systemic adverse events during VIT with bee venom were more frequent in the induction phase than in the maintenance phase: 15.22% vs. 8.7%. In BVA patients who experienced systemic adverse events during VIT, higher concentrations of sIgE-rApi m 5 (p < 0.05), rApi m 1 (p = 0.009), and sBT (p = 0.019) were demonstrated. We conclude that higher levels of sIgE against rApi m 1, rApi m 5, and tryptase many constitute a potential marker of the severity of allergic reactions and therapeutic complications that can occur during VIT with bee venom.