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 There is controversy whether taking β‐blockers or ACE inhibitors (ACEI) is a risk factor for more severe systemic insect sting reactions (SSR) and whether it increases the number or severity of adverse events (AE) during venom immunotherapy (VIT). Methods In this open, prospective, observational, multicenter trial, we recruited patients with a history of a SSR and indication for VIT. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate whether patients taking β‐blockers or ACEI show more systemic AE during VIT compared to patients without such treatment. Results In total, 1,425 patients were enrolled and VIT was performed in 1,342 patients. Of all patients included, 388 (27.2%) took antihypertensive (AHT) drugs (10.4% took β‐blockers, 11.9% ACEI, 5.0% β‐blockers and ACEI). Only 5.6% of patients under AHT treatment experienced systemic AE during VIT as compared with 7.4% of patients without these drugs (OR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.43–1.22, p = 0.25). The severity of the initial sting reaction was not affected by the intake of β‐blockers or ACEI (OR: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.89–1.46, p = 0.29). In total, 210 (17.7%) patients were re‐stung during VIT and 191 (91.0%) tolerated the sting without systemic symptoms. Of the 19 patients with VIT treatment failure, 4 took β‐blockers, none an ACEI. Conclusions This trial provides robust evidence that taking β‐blockers or ACEI does neither increase the frequency of systemic AE during VIT nor aggravate SSR. Moreover, results suggest that these drugs do not impair effectiveness of VIT. (Funded by Medical University of Graz, Austria; Clinicaltrials.gov number, NCT04269629).

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.