Article Study of Excipients in Delayed Skin Reactions to mRNA Vaccines: Positive Delayed Intradermal Reactions to Polyethylene Glycol Provide New Insights for COVID-19 Arm David Pesqué 1 , Ramon Maria Pujol 1 , Orianna Marcantonio 1 , Ainhoa Vidal-Navarro 1 , José María Ramada 2,3 , Alba Arderiu-Formentí 4 , Agustí Albalat-Torres 4 , Consol Serra 2,3 and Ana María Giménez-Arnau 1, * 1 Department of Dermatology, Hospital del Mar—Institut d’Investigacions Mèdiques, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB) and University Pompeu Fabra (UPF), 08003 Barcelona, Spain 2 Department of Occupational Health, Hospital del Mar—Institut Hospital del Mar d’Investigacions Mèdiques (IMIM), Universitat Pompeu Fabra, 08003 Barcelona, Spain 3 CIBER de Epidemiología y Salud Pública, 28029 Madrid, Spain 4 Department of Medical Pharmacy, Hospital del Mar, 08003 Barcelona, Spain * Correspondence: anamariagimenezarnau@gmail.com; Tel.: +34-932483380; Fax: +34-942483328 Abstract: Background: Skin local reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines have been linked to the use of vaccine excipients. The aim of the study is to evaluate the role of skin testing excipients in delayed skin reactions due to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Methods: Skin testing among a group of healthcare workers with skin reactions due to mRNA vaccines was performed. Patch testing Citation: Pesqué, D.; Pujol, R.M.; and intradermal testing (IDT) with polyethylene glycol (PEG)-400, PEG-2000, trometamol, and Marcantonio, O.; Vidal-Navarro, A.; 1,2-dimyristoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine were performed. Healthcare workers without skin Ramada, J.M.; Arderiu-Formentí, A.; reactions to vaccines were used for skin testing as controls. Results: Thirty-one healthcare workers Albalat-Torres, A.; Serra, C.; (from a total of 4315 vaccinated healthcare workers) experienced cutaneous adverse vaccine reactions. Giménez-Arnau, A.M. Study of Skin testing was performed in sixteen of the healthcare workers (11 delayed large local reactions Excipients in Delayed Skin Reactions (DLLR) and 5 widespread reactions). Positive IDT for PEG-2000 1% in DLLR was seen in 10 (90.9%) to mRNA Vaccines: Positive Delayed patients, in comparison with one (16.6%) individual with a delayed widespread reaction. Delayed Intradermal Reactions to positive IDT reactions for PEG-2000 1% on day 2 were observed in three (27.3%) patients with DLLR. Polyethylene Glycol Provide New Insights for COVID-19 Arm. Vaccines Patch testing of the excipients was negative. Among 10 controls, only one exhibited a transient 2022, 10, 2048. https://doi.org/ positive IDT reaction to PEG-2000 1%. Conclusions: Immediate and delayed reactions to IDT are 10.3390/vaccines10122048 frequently detected in patients with DLLR. The observation of positive delayed intradermal reactions to PEG disclosed only in patients with DLLR reinforces a possible role of PEG in the development of Academic Editors: Sung Ryul Shim these reactions. Skin testing of other excipients is of little importance in clinical practice. and Giampiero Girolomoni Received: 5 October 2022 Keywords: COVID-19 vaccine; COVID arm; intradermal test; polyethylene glycol Accepted: 28 November 2022 Published: 30 November 2022 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in 1. Background published maps and institutional affil- Evidence on the effectiveness of vaccines against coronavirus has brought new insights iations. to the COVID-19 pandemic. In this setting, skin vaccine-linked adverse effects have also been evidenced [1,2]. COVID-19-vaccine-induced skin reactions frequently correspond to delayed large local reactions (DLLR) or “COVID arms”, which in medical literature have been mainly reported for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines [3–7]. DLLR present a clinical Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. picture characterized by erythematous plaques, with pain and swelling, which, unlike local Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. reactions to other types of vaccines, start a week or more after the first or second dose of This article is an open access article vaccine [3–7]. distributed under the terms and The mechanisms lying behind these reactions remain poorly understood. Widespread conditions of the Creative Commons skin reactions are believed to be due to the activation of inflammatory pathways triggered Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ by mRNA vaccines, [8] whereas local site reactions have been attributed to some vaccine 4.0/). excipients: polyethylene glycol (PEG)-2000, distearoyl-sn-glicero-3-phosphocholine, and Vaccines 2022, 10, 2048. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines10122048 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/vaccines Vaccines 2022, 10, 2048 2 of 11 trometamol [9]. PEG has not been used before as a vaccine excipient [10]. Different approaches have tried to establish the role of the different excipients of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in skin reactions without success, and to date, the role of skin testing of these excipients has been mostly performed in type I immediate reactions [11–16]. The possible role of mRNA vaccine excipients for delayed reactions has not been elucidated [17]. To date, there is no consensus or protocol on the study of vaccine excipients in delayed reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. The aim of this investigation is to characterize cutaneous adverse vaccine reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and evaluate the role of skin testing excipients in delayed skin reactions. 2. Methods 2.1. Patients A prospective unicentric study of a tertiary referral hospital was conducted with the approval from the Local Ethical Committee (number 2021/9900/I). The recruitment period lasted 4 months in 2021 (1 January to 1 May). A registry of vaccine-related side effects in healthcare professionals was created by the Occupational Health Department, Hospital del Mar, in collaboration with the Dermatology Department. All healthcare workers of the hospital were asked to declare any skin reactions after vaccination, via the use of a questionnaire, that could be found inside the corporative intranet. When a skin reaction was detected, patients were given an appointment for a dermatology visit. Inclusion criteria were healthcare workers vaccinated against COVID-19 with an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine with any skin manifestation within 21 days after vaccina- tion. Vaccines used in our hospital are Pfizer® BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer BioNTech, Mainz, Germany) or Moderna® mRNA-1273 vaccine (Moderna, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA). Exclu- sion criteria were other explainable causes or triggers unrelated to COVID-19 vaccination. 2.2. Clinical Protocol Following a systematized protocol, the following variables were collected: sex, age, working category, type of skin reaction(s), diameter of the lesion (in the case it was an only lesion), location, associated local symptoms, type of vaccine, reaction(s) after the first or second dose, timing and duration of reaction(s), treatments, past medical history, presence of allergies, and allergy type. Skin conditions were graded, including grade 1 (local reaction without symptoms), grade 2 (local reaction with systemic symptoms), grade 3 (widespread macular, papular, or vesicular reaction), and grade 4 (erythrodermic, exfoliative or bullous generalized reaction), following the grading classification suggested by Català et al. [2]. Local reactions were classified according to the timing of appearance after vaccination, as suggested by previous studies [1,2]. The first group were “immediate local reactions”, which occur within 96 h after vaccination, [1,2] and are not accompanied by immediate type I allergy. The second group included local reactions occurring more than 4 days after vaccination, called DLLR [1,2]. Widespread delayed reactions were classified according to their clinical aspect [1,2]. In the case the skin reaction was suggestive of an allergic type I reaction (appearance of acute urticaria within 4 h after vaccine or anaphylactic reaction), the patient was referred to the Allergy Department, and no complementary tests were performed. In the case the reaction had occurred after the first dose, a prophylactic scheme based on both anti- histamines and topical steroids was set. Patients were contacted to assess relapses after the second dose. All patients gave written informed consent to participate and explicit consent to publish iconography. 2.3. Skin Testing Protocol All patients who matched inclusion criteria without evidence of type I hypersensitivity reactions were offered to be skin-tested. Previously, a written consent was signed. Another written consent was required for skin biopsies. The testing protocol to evaluate delayed Vaccines 2022, 10, 2048 3 of 11 reactions was based on patch tests and IDT, which were performed with the clinical evidence and guidelines available at the time of the study [11,14,15]. IDT was performed in accordance with established standards, with readings after 20 min and 2 h and on D2. Reactions were considered positive if the diameter of the wheal was more than 10 mm [18]. Controls were histamine (positive control) and serum (negative control). Excipients were obtained from Sigma-Aldrich (Saint Louis, MO, USA) in its pure form, and in-house prepared. PEG-400, PEG-2000, and trometamol were diluted with normal saline 0.9%. PEG testing concentrations at 0.001%, 0.01%, 0.1% and 1% were decided in accordance with Klimek et al.’s and Wenande et al.’s recommendations [11,16]. A stepwise approach, starting with PEG-400, was used for PEG (CAS Number: 25322-68-3) of two low molecular weights (400 and 2000), based on literature recommendations [16]. The stepwise approach performed did not include PEG of molecular weight bigger than 2000 since PEG-2000 is the form present in vaccines, and the aim of this study was not to evaluate immediate allergy to PEG, as patients had no suspicion or history of immediate allergy to PEG. In the case any patient developed an immediate generalized skin or systemic reaction, no further tests were performed. For trometamol (CAS Number: 77-86-1), testing concentrations (0.001%, 0.01%, 0.1% and 1%) were decided according to Scala et al. recommendations [19]. 1,2-distearoyl-sn- glicero-3-phosphocholine was not available, due to which the homologous-related molecule 1,2-dimyristoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine (CAS Number: 18194-24-6) was considered. However, for 1,2-dimyristoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine, no recommendations were found and the same concentrations were applied. Patch tests were performed according to European standards. Readings were per- formed on D2, D4, and D7. PEG-400 was patch tested at 1%, at 5% and pure pet. with Finn Chambers (8 mm diameter, Smart Practice) on Scanpor tape (Norgesplaster, Vennesla, Norway) [20,21]. PEG-2000 was patch tested at 1%, 5% and 10% pet [20,21]. Trometamol was patch-tested, and 0.5% and 1% aq. [22] 1,2-dimyristoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine could not be patch-tested. For a second time, healthcare workers without skin reaction to mRNA vaccines were offered to participate with the aim of studying the positive results disclosed in the healthcare workers group. These controls also signed an informed consent and accepted skin testing. 3. Results 3.1. Demographic Baseline A total of 4315 healthcare workers were vaccinated during the aforementioned period, with women comprising 62.9% of the sample. A total of 3343 healthcare workers received at least one dose of Pfizer, with 3327 (99.5%) receiving both doses during this period. Furthermore, 972 received at least one dose of the Moderna vaccine, with 851 (87.6%) achieving the two-dose goal during this period. Thirty-one healthcare workers (0.72%) presented with skin reactions attributed to mRNA vaccines and were included, with a median age of 42 years old (IQR 52-30) and with men accounting for 12.9% of the patients. 3.2. Clinical Characterization of Skin Reactions Due to mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Twenty-three individuals (74.2%) had received the Moderna vaccine and eight had received the Pfizer vaccine. Twenty-three patients (74.2%) presented with local site reactions, with eighteen (78.3%) corresponding to DLLR. Local symptoms were seen in 26 (83.8%) patients. Nine skin reactions were observed after the second dose. Relapses with the second dose were seen in four patients. Local reactions were grade 2 (n = 19, 82.6%), even if some grade 1 reactions were seen (n = 4). All generalized reactions were grade 3. All patients were treated with conventional therapies (anti-histamines and/or topical steroids and/or paracetamol) and no vaccine discontinuation was needed. No immediate type I hypersensitivity reactions was observed during this period at our hospital. received the Pfizer vaccine. Twenty-three patients (74.2%) presented with local site reac- tions, withthe received eighteen (78.3%)Twenty-three Pfizer vaccine. corresponding to DLLR. patients (74.2%)Local symptoms presented with were seen local site in 26 reac- tions, with eighteen (78.3%) corresponding to DLLR. Local symptoms were seen in 26 (83.8%) patients. tions, with Nine(78.3%) eighteen skin reactions were observed corresponding to DLLR.after Localthesymptoms second dose. wereRelapses seen in 26 with (83.8%) patients. Nine skin reactions were observed after the second dose. Relapses with the second (83.8%) dose were patients. Nineseen skin in four patients. reactions Local reactions were observed after the were second grade dose.2Relapses (n = 19, 82.6%), with the second dose were seen in four patients. Local reactions were grade 2 (n = 19, 82.6%), the second even if somedose grade were seen in four 1 reactions were patients. seen (nLocal = 4). reactions were grade All generalized 2 (n =were reactions 19, 82.6%), grade 3. even if some grade 1 reactions were seen (n = 4). All generalized reactions were grade 3. even if some grade 1 reactions were seen (n = 4). All generalized All patients were treated with conventional therapies (anti-histamines and/or topical reactions were grade ster- 3. Vaccines 2022, 10, 2048 All patients were treated with conventional therapies (anti-histamines and/or topical ster-4 of 11 All patients were treated with conventional therapies (anti-histamines oids and/or paracetamol) and no vaccine discontinuation was needed. No immediate type and/or topical ster- oids and/or paracetamol) and no vaccine discontinuation was needed. No immediate type oids and/or paracetamol) and no observed vaccine discontinuation was needed. No immediate type II hypersensitivity hypersensitivity reactions reactions was was observed during duringthis thisperiod period atatourourhospital. hospital. I hypersensitivity In terms terms of reactions of local local reactions,was observed reactions,DLLR DLLRhad during hadaamedian this medianonsetperiod at onsettime our hospital. timeofofapproximately approximately8 8days days In and InIn a terms of terms median of local local reactions, duration reactions, of DLLR DLLR practically 5 had hada amedian days. median Most onset patients time onset(n of time = 13)approximately of approximately presented the 8reaction days8 days andandaaamedian median duration duration of of practically practically 55 days. Most patients (n == 13) 13) presented presented the the reaction reaction and after median the first duration shot, and ofthree practically relapsed 5days. days. with MostMost the patients patients second (n (n =despite dose 13) presented the the reaction prophylactic after the afterthe first theImmediate first shot, shot, and and three three relapsed relapsed with with the second dose despite thethe prophylactic prophylactic after scheme. first shot, and three local relapsed reactions with presented theathe second second median dosedose onset despite despite the prophylactic ofapproximately approximately 2 days scheme. with scheme. Immediate scheme. Immediate local reactions local reactions presented presented a median a median onset onset of of approximately 22with days days with with Immediate a median a amedian local duration duration reactions of of 3 presented days. All a median immediate onset local of approximately reactions occurred 2 days after the firsta median dose, median duration of duration 3 relapse days. of33immediate All days. days. All All immediate immediate local reactions local occurred occurred after reactions after occurred after the the first first dose, dose, and only and only oneone relapse wasseen. was Thelocal seen.The reactions majority majority oflocal of localreactions reactions(DLLR theand (DLLR first dose, andimmediate immediateand local only one local and only one relapse was seen. The majority of local reactions (DLLR and immediate local relapse was reactions) were reactions) seen. were due to The majority to Moderna,in of local reactions in sixteen(88.9%) (DLLR (88.9%) andfive and immediate fiveindividuals, local individuals,respectively. respectively. reactions) reactions) weredue due toModerna, Moderna, insixteen sixteen (88.9%) and and five individuals, respectively. wereThe duedemographic The to Moderna, baseline demographic in sixteen baseline (88.9%) and and and clinical clinical five individuals, features features detailedrespectively. aredetailed are ininTable Table1.1. The demographic baseline and clinical features are detailed in Table 1. The demographic baseline and clinical features are detailed in Table 1. Table 1. Table 1. Demographicbaseline baseline andclinical clinical characterizationofofskin skinreactions reactionsdue duetoto mRNA COVID- Table 1.Demographic Demographic baselineand and clinicalcharacterization characterization of skin reactions due to mRNA mRNA COVID- COVID- 1919vaccines. vaccines. Table 19 1. Demographic baseline and clinical characterization of skin reactions due to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. vaccines. Morbilliform Morbilliform Morbilliform andPit- and Pit- Morbilliform and and Pit- Skin Skin Reactions Reactions Skin Skin Reactions Reactions DLLR DLLR DLLR ILR ILR ILRILR yriasis yriasis yriasis Rosea-Like Urticariform Rosea-Like Rosea-Like Pityriasis Urticariform Urticariform Urticariform Rash Psoriasiform Rash Rash Rash Psoriasiform Psoriasiform Psoriasiform Rash BMS Rash Rash Rash BMS BMS BMS Rash Rash Rosea-Like RashRash NoNo NoNoimage image image image Clinical Clinicalpicture picture Clinical Clinical picture picture nn=n=n1= 1=11 =n nn =18=1818 =n=5==555 nnn nnn n==4=444 = nn=2==222 n n= nn n =1=n11= 1 = Median Median Median Median ageage age age (IQR) (IQR) (IQR) (IQR) 38.9 38.9 38.9 38.9 (47–30) (47–30) (47–30) (47–30) 47.6 47.6 47.6 47.6 (61.5–34) (61.5–34) (61.5–34) (61.5–34) 43.8(59.5–28) 43.8 43.8 43.8 (59.5–28) (59.5–28) (59.5–28) 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 7272 7272 44 4444 44 Sex, Sex,Sex, Sex,nn(%) n n (%) (%)(%) WomenWomen Women 161616(88.9) (88.9) (88.9) 5 55 333 2 22 None None None 11 1 Women 16 (88.9) 5 3 2 None 1 MenMen 2 2 None None 11 None None 11 None None Men Men 22 None None 11 None None 11 None None Allergies, Allergies, n (%)(%)n (%) 111111(61.1) (61.1)(61.1) 1 11 222 1 11 1 11 11 1 Allergies, nn (%) Allergies, 11 (61.1) 1 2 1 1 1 PastPast Past anaphylaxis, anaphylaxis, anaphylaxis, n nn n 22 2 None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None Past anaphylaxis, 2 None None None None None Chronic Chronic skin skin disorder, disorder, n Chronic Chronic skin skin disorder, disorder, n nn AD AD AD 3 33 2 22 None None None 1 11 None None None None None None AD CSU 3 2 None 1 None None CSUCSU 3 33 1 11 111 1 11 None None None None None None Median CSU onset (days) 3 1 1 1 None None Medianonset Median onset onset (days) (days) 8.1 (9–7) 2.4 (3.5–1.5) 6.8(8.5–5) (8.5–5) Median (IQR) (days) 8.1 (9–7) 8.1 (9–7) 2.4 2.4(3.5–1.5) (3.5–1.5) 6.8 6.8 (8.5–5) 6 66 1010 10 11 1 (IQR) (IQR) 8.1 (9–7) 2.4 (3.5–1.5) 6.8 (8.5–5) 6 10 1 Median (IQR) duration (days) Median Medianduration duration (days) (days) 4.8 (7–3) 3 (4.5v1.5) 4.3 (6–2.5) 6.5 Median (IQR) duration (IQR) (days) 4.8 4.8(7–3) (7–3) 33(4.5–1.5) (4.5v1.5) 4.3 4.3(6–2.5) (6–2.5) 6.5 6.5 1515 15 10 10 10 (IQR) 4.8 (7–3) 3 (4.5v1.5) 4.3 (6–2.5) 6.5 15 10 (IQR) n (%) Vaccine, Vaccine, Vaccine, n (%)n (%) Vaccine, Moderna Moderna n (%) 161616 (88.9) (88.9) 5 55 111 None None 1 11 None None Moderna (88.9) None None Moderna PfizerPfizer 162(88.9) 2 5 None None 3 31 2None 2 None1 None 1None 1 Pfizer 2 None 3 2 None 1 Dose,Pfizer Dose, n (%)n (%) 2 None 3 2 None 1 Dose, n (%) 1st n1st Dose, (%) 13 (72.2) 13 (72.2) 5 5 33 None None None None 1 1 2nd 1st 13 (72.2) 5 1313 None None 1 1st2nd 135(72.2) 5 None None 5 2None 2 1 None 1 None None 1 2nd 5 None 1 2 1 None Relapse Relapse with with2nd 2nd dose, 2nd dose, n n 3 53 1 1 None None None 1 None None 2 None1 None None None None Relapse with 2nd dose, n 3 1 None None None None Local Relapse Local symptoms, with symptoms, (%)n (%) 2ndn dose, n 163(88.9) 16 (88.9) 3 13 44 None 2 2None None None None 1None 1 Local symptoms, n (%) 16 (88.9) 3 4 2 None 1 Response Local symptoms, to treatment n (%) 16 (88.9) All 3 patients presented a good 4 response to conventional 2 treatments None 1 Response Response to to treatment treatment All patients All patients presented presented a good a good responsetotoconventional response conventional treatments treatments Response to treatment All patients presented a good response to conventional treatments Vaccine discontinuation No vaccine discontinuation was needed for any patient with the 2nd dose Abbreviations: DLLR: delayed large local reactions; ILR: immediate local reactions; BMS: burning mouth syn- drome; IQR: interquartile range; AD: atopic dermatitis; CSU: chronic spontaneous urticaria. 3.3. Patch Testing Results All patch tests performed were negative for all the excipients and concentrations in the 16 patients. 3.4. Intradermal Testing Results in Patients with Delayed Reactions Sixteen patients accepted being skin tested, eleven patients who had presented DLLR and five with widespread reactions (two delayed urticariform rashes, one pityriasis rosea- like eruption, one morbilliform or maculo-papular reaction, and one psoriasiform eruption). Vaccines 2022, 10, 2048 5 of 11 In the case of DLLR, skin testing showed positive reactions to PEG. IDT of PEG-400 at 1% showed positive reactions in four patients. All these reactions remained positive at 2h and even one on D2 for PEG-400 at 1%. In terms of PEG-2000 IDT, ten patients developed positive reactions at 1% at 20 min and 2 h, and even three of these presented long-standing reactions that persisted on D2. Results were similar for 0.1% and 0.01%. All patients that presented positivity against PEG-400 had also presented positivity for PEG-2000. Correlation of clinical findings and skin testing showed that two of the patients with delayed positive IDT on D2 to PEG-2000 corresponded to patients who had presented DLLR relapses with the second dose and the other presented DLLR only with the second vaccine. In addition, some of the biggest vertical and horizontal diameters corresponded to patients who presented with delayed positive reactions to PEG. For other delayed widespread reactions, no cases of delayed positive reactions were seen, and two transient reactions were evidenced: one patient presented a positive reaction to IDT for PEG-400 and another for PEG-2000 at different concentrations. Immediate transient reactions to trometamol and 1,2-dimyristoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine in isolated individuals were interpreted as possible irritative non-relevant reactions. No immediate generalized skin reactions nor systemic or anaphylactic reactions occurred during IDT of the excipients, including PEG. Skin testing results are detailed in Table 2 and the clinical features of skin-tested patients are detailed in Table 3. The numerical order of patients from 1 to 16 between Tables 2 and 3 is equal. Clinical pictures can be seen in Figure 1. Table 2. Skin testing delayed large local reactions (DLLR) and widespread skin reactions with intradermal tests. Intradermal Testing (Readings at 20 min/2 h/D2; if All Negative: Neg) Skin Reaction PEG-400 PEG-2000 TR 3-PC 1.0% 0.1% 0.01% 0.001% 1.0% 0.1% 0.01% 0.001% 1.0% 0.1% 0.01% 0.001% 1.0% 0.1% 0.01% 0.001% Widespread skin reactions 1 (+/+/−) (+/+/−) Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg 2 Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg 3 Neg Neg Neg Neg (+/+/−) (+/+/−) (+/−/−) Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg 4 Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg 5 Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg 6 Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg 7 (+/+/+) (+/+/−) Neg Neg (+/+/+) (+/+/−) (+/+/−) Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg (+/−/−) Neg Neg Neg 8 Neg Neg Neg Neg (+/+/−) Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg “COVID ARMS” or DLLR 9 (+/+/−) (+/+/−) (+/+/−) Neg (+/+/+) (+/+/+) (+/+/−) (+/+/−) (+/−/−)(+/−/−)(+/−/−)(+/−/−) Neg Neg Neg Neg 10 (+/+/−) Neg Neg Neg (+/+/−) (+/+/−) (+/+/−) (+/+/−) Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg 11 Neg Neg Neg Neg (+/+/−) Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg 12 Neg Neg Neg Neg (+/+/−) (+/−/−)(+/−/−) Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg 13 (+/+/−) Neg Neg Neg (+/+/−) (+/+/−) (+/+/−) Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg 14 Neg Neg Neg Neg (+/+/−) (+/+/−) (+/+/−) Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg 15 Neg Neg Neg Neg (+/+/−) (+/+/−) (+/+/−) (+/+/−) Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg 16 Neg Neg Neg Neg (+/+/+) (+/+/−) Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Skin testing of DLLR versus widespread reactions. Abbreviations: (+): positive; (−): negative; PEG: polyethylene glycol; TR: trometamol; 3-PC: 1,2-dimyristoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine; D2: Day 2. Vaccines 2022, 10, 2048 6 of 11 Vaccines 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 11 Table 3. Clinical characteristics of skin-tested patients. 14 Neg Neg Neg Neg (+/+/−) (+/+/−) (+/+/−) Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Duration Vertical Horizontal Skin15 Reaction Neg Neg Neg Neg Type(+/+/−) (+/+/−) (+/+/−) Grading (+/+/−) Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg (days) D (cm) D (cm) Neg 16 Neg Neg Neg Neg (+/+/+) (+/+/−) Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Widespread skin reactions 1 Skin testing Psoriasiform of DLLR versus widespread eruption 3 reactions. 15Abbreviations: (+): NApositive; (−): negative; NA PEG: polyethylene glycol; TR: trometamol; 3-PC: 1,2-dimyristoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine; D2: Day 2 Pityriasis 2. rosea rash 3 6 NA NA 3 Morbilliform rash characteristics 3of skin-tested patients. Table 3. Clinical 4 NA NA 4 Urticariform rash 3 7 Vertical Horizontal Skin Reaction Type Grading Duration (days) NA NA D (cm) D (cm) 5 Urticariform rash Psoriasiform 3 6 NA NA 1 3 15 NA NA Widespread skin reactions eruption 6 NA Pityriasis rosea1 6 6.5 8.0 2 3 6 NA NA rash 7 NA 2 3 11.0 6.1 Morbilliform 3 3 4 NA NA rash 8 NA 2 7 8.4 5.3 Urticariform 4 3 7 NA NA “COVID ARMS” or DLLR 9 NA rash 2 15 14.5 7.4 Urticariform 5 3 6 NA NA 10 NA rash 2 7 8.5 6.8 6 NA 1 6 6.5 8.0 11 NA 7 NA 1 2 6 3 5.8 11.0 4.56.1 “COVID ARMS” or DLLR 8 NA 2 7 8.4 5.3 12 NA 2 4 8.5 7.2 9 NA 2 15 14.5 7.4 13 NA 10 NA 2 2 7 7 9.5 8.5 7.06.8 11 NA 1 6 5.8 4.5 14 NA 12 NA 2 2 6 4 8.8 8.5 7.57.2 13 NA 2 7 9.5 7.0 15 NA 14 NA 2 2 7 6 8.0 8.8 6.57.5 15 NA 2 7 8.0 6.5 16 NA 1 3 9.5 5.0 16 NA 1 3 9.5 5.0 Abbreviations: Abbreviations:NA: not not NA: applicable; D: diameter. applicable; D: diameter. Figure1.1.Skin Figure Skintesting: testing:results resultsfor forpolyethylene polyethyleneglycol. glycol.(A) (A)Intradermal Intradermaltesting testing(IDT) (IDT)ofofPEG-2000 PEG-2000 with positivity for all concentrations with significant papules and erythema at 20 min. (B) IDT of with positivity for all concentrations with significant papules and erythema at 20 min. (B) IDT of PEG-2000 with positivity for PEG-2000 1%, 0.1%, and 0.01% at 2 h. PEG-2000 with positivity for PEG-2000 1%, 0.1%, and 0.01% at 2 h. 3.5. Skin Testing Health Care Workers without Skin Reactions Vaccines 2022, 10, 2048 7 of 11 3.5. Skin Testing Health Care Workers without Skin Reactions A total of 10 healthcare workers without skin reactions were skin-tested (patch testing and IDT to PEG). Those were mostly women (n = 8), with a median age of 43 years (IQR 51-36). Nine but one had previously been vaccinated with mRNA vaccines. Skin testing revealed only one positive transient reaction to PEG in a 42-year-old woman when IDT of PEG-2000 at 1% was performed at 20min with negative results at 2 h and D2. No other positive reactions were evidenced. 3.6. Skin Biopsy of PEG Reactions Biopsies of IDT-positive reactions to PEG-2000 on D2 were performed in two patients who consented to the test. Those depicted discrete papillary dermal edema and superficial perivascular lymphocytes with occasional eosinophils. No epidermal changes were noted. 4. Discussion 4.1. Skin Reactions Features The number of healthcare workers with skin reactions attributed to mRNA vaccines during the period of study was low, in accordance with what was described in trials [23]. This possibly implies that these reactions are also an infrequent adverse effect in real- clinical practice. Cutaneous adverse vaccine reactions were more commonly reported due to the Moderna vaccine (74.2%), despite only being administered in 22.5% of healthcare workers, and DLLR was the most frequently reported skin finding, as observed in previous literature [2]. Most reactions were observed after the first dose, with only 17.4% of patients presenting a relapse after the second dose, which is much lower than reported by McMahon et al. 43% [1]. In terms of demographic features, reactions were reported mostly in women (87.1%), possibly due to possibly higher reactogenicity in this group [24]. 4.2. Skin Testing Results for PEG A total of 12 patients presented with positive reactions to PEG-400 and/or 2000, the majority of whom (n = 10) had experienced episode(s) of DLLR, but also some patients with delayed widespread reactions (n = 2) and one control. The high rate of positive results observed with IDT using PEG of low molecular weight at low concentration are not in ac- cordance with previous skin testing procedures to study immediate PEG allergy [14–16]. In previous studies, the rates of prick testing positivity when studying PEG immediate allergy were low, particularly at low concentrations and low molecular weight [14]. However, since IDT is controverted in suspicion of immediate allergy to PEG, there are fewer data available on the nature of IDT to PEG in this group. IDT is considered to be more sensitive than skin prick testing, which can also lead to false-positive and irritative reactions if the substance is injected at high concentrations [25]. PEG-400 and PEG-2000 are causes of allergic contact urticaria and eczema [21,26]. In addition, urticarial reactions have been described when PEG-containing products have been rubbed in open application tests [16]. Findings in this study favor the idea that PEG can trigger both immediate and delayed skin reactions. Despite positive IDT having been described in patients with immediate allergy to PEG, [27] our group of health workers did not present with any immediate reaction, and therefore, immediate reactions observed in IDT do not correspond to an IgE-dependent mechanism. Immediate reactions have also been associated with other mechanisms (direct mast cell activation and complement activa- tion), but one study has already suggested that these mechanisms may not be sufficient to understand these reactions [28]. It is important to note that only one control, presented with a positive transient reaction to PEG, suggesting that patients who have not experienced skin reactions to mRNA vaccines may be less prone to present with positive skin testing. The increased presence of positive long-standing reactions to PEG in patients with DLLR shows that PEG has the ability to induce delayed skin inflammatory responses, which could mimic a delayed local reaction. Additionally, these results were not seen in healthcare workers without skin reactions nor widespread delayed reactions. Clinically, Vaccines 2022, 10, 2048 8 of 11 patients that presented DLLR to both doses also presented positive delayed IDT. Therefore, delayed positive IDT in patients with previous relapsing DLLR may raise awareness of PEG leading to delayed hypersensitivity. The mechanisms behind DLLR remain poorly understood. It has been stated that DLLR could correspond to forms of Arthus reactions [4] or to T-cell mediated hypersensi- tivity/delayed hypersensitivity. To date, DLLR has not shown vasculitis lesions that could suggest an Arthus reaction, and delayed hypersensitivity reactions would be expected to occur sooner and would require previous sensitization [3,4,7]. Previous sensitization in some individuals could be possible due to its presence in many daily products, even if both immediate and delayed PEG allergy are considered to be globally rare [14,29]. Even if PEG is present in different medical products (laxatives, oncologic drugs, etc.), the occurrence of occupational exposure and sensitization has not been described in the literature before. However, in the present study, some observations may indicate that these reactions do not correspond with typical delayed hypersensitivity. Patients with DLLR and positive IDT presented negative patch testing to PEG. In previous literature, patch testing has proved that PEG-2000 delayed allergy, even when these tests were performed in the setting of delayed hypersensitivity to topical drugs [26]. Bianchi et al. have also observed positive late readings of IDT for PEG-2000 in patients having experienced type I immediate reactions to mRNA vaccines and have suggested that such reactions could correspond to non-specific immunological reactions that show cellular immune protection against the vaccine [30]. In this previous work, all vaccinated patients presented positive IDT reactions at 24 h and had previously presented with immediate reactions. These results are not comparable to the results described in this work, since the vast majority of positive IDTs were seen in patients with DLLR and not in vaccinated controls or patients who had experienced delayed widespread reactions. All the points addressed highlight the need to establish the exact nature of delayed local reactions to PEG and the mechanisms triggering DLLR. Finally, revaccination in patients experiencing skin reactions after the first dose proved to be safe and broadly well-tolerated. This is in accordance with the previously observed tol- erability in patients with delayed reactions and even PEG-delayed hypersensitivity [1,2,31]. 4.3. Limitations This study has limitations. In this case, IDT was performed in order to achieve a better understanding of the delayed reactions observed in mRNA vaccine reactions in patients with no suspicion of immediate allergy to PEG, but the role of skin testing these excipients with different approaches has not presented conclusive results [30,32–36]. Skin testing delayed skin reactions with these excipients is not standardized, and its specificity, validity, and reproducibility remain unknown since the PEG used for the study is a chemical that has not been yet studied for specificity. Another important limitation to this study is that IgG, IgE for PEG-2000, and interferon-releasing assay stimulated with PEG-2000 were not performed. Future studies that include the use of interferon-releasing assays [37] would be of importance for the assessment of delayed reactions. 5. Conclusions This study brings to light the low frequency of adverse skin effects to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. During the follow-up of our cohort (4315 health workers), the occurrence of de- layed reactions was very rare (<1%) and no immediate reactions were evidenced. The vast majority of delayed reactions corresponded to COVID arm reactions. Delayed reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were not a contraindication for subsequent vaccination since no severe generalized reactions were seen, even if relapses could occur. In terms of skin testing, the results of this study may suggest that skin-testing the other vaccine excipients (trometamol and 1,2-dimyristoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine) in patients with delayed reactions attributed to mRNA vaccines could not contribute significantly to the diagnostic and therapeutic management of these skin conditions, and it could be of limited clinical impact on real-clinical practice. Future studies will have to confirm this hypothesis. In Vaccines 2022, 10, 2048 9 of 11 terms of PEG testing, the rather frequent observation of both immediate and delayed reac- tions to IDT of PEG-400 and −2000 at low concentrations in individuals with DLLR raises the possibility of PEG triggering different types of skin reactions, including immediate reactions due to non-IgE mechanisms and delayed reactions after vaccination with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. However, it is our belief that only in selected patients with local reactions to mRNA vaccines associated with particular features (e.g., previous history of delayed allergy to PEG-containing topical drugs, relapsing episodes of DLLR, exaggerated clinical pictures of DLLR) should the study of delayed PEG allergy be performed. Although delayed allergy to PEG continues to be rare, with an ever-increasing presence of PEG in a wide range of topical and injected medical products, and the suspicion of PEG as one of the triggers of mRNA cutaneous adverse vaccine reactions, the investigation of delayed hypersensitivity to PEG, in patients without suspicion of immediate allergy, may be seen as a challenge to tackle. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.M.G.-A., R.M.P. and C.S.; methodology, A.M.G.-A. and R.M.P.; software, C.S. and J.M.R.; formal analysis, D.P.; investigation, A.A.-F. and A.A.-T.; resources, A.M.G.-A. and C.S.; data curation, D.P., O.M. and A.V.-N.; writing—original draft preparation, D.P.; writing—review and editing, D.P., R.M.P. and A.M.G.-A.; visualization, D.P., R.M.P., A.M.G.-A., C.S. and J.M.R.; supervision, A.M.G.-A. and R.M.P.; project administration, A.M.G.-A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research received no external funding. Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of Parc Salut Mar (protocol code AGA-VAC-2021). Informed Consent Statement: The study has been approved by the local ethical committee (number 2021/9900/I). All patients involved in the study signed an informed consent. Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy restrictions. Conflicts of Interest: David Pesqué, Orianna Marcantonio, Ainhoa Vidal-Navarro, José María Ra- mada, Alba Arderiu-Formentí, Agustí Albalat-Torres, and Consol Serra have no conflicts of interest to declare. Ramon Maria Pujol is a medical advisor for Kyowa Kirin, Almirall, and Takeda. Ana María Giménez-Arnau is a medical advisor for Uriach Pharma, Genentech, Novartis, FAES, GSK, Sanofi–Regeneron, Amgen, Thermo Fisher Scientific. Ana María Giménez-Arnau has research grants supported by Uriach Pharma and Novartis and has received grants from Instituto Carlos III—FEDER. Ana María Giménez-Arnau has participated in educational activities for Uriach Pharma, Novartis, Genentech, Menarini, LEO-PHARMA, GSK, MSD, Almirall, Sanofi. References 1. McMahon, D.E.; Amerson, E.; Rosenbach, M.; Lipoff, J.B.; Moustafa, D.; Tyagi, A.; Desai, S.R.; French, L.E.; Lim, H.W.; Thiers, B.H.; et al. Cutaneous reactions reported after Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 vaccination: A registry-based study of 414 cases. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2021, 85, 46–55. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 2. Català, A.; Muñoz-Santos, C.; Galván-Casas, C.; Riesco, M.R.; Nebreda, D.R.; Solá-Truyols, A.; Giavedoni, P.; Llamas-Velasco, M.; González-Cruz, C.; Cubiró, X.; et al. Cutaneous reactions after SARS-COV-2 vaccination: A cross-sectional Spanish nationwide study of 405 cases. Br. J. Dermatol. 2022, 186, 142–152. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 3. Kempf, W.; Kettelhack, N.; Kind, F.; Courvoisier, S.; Galambos, J.; Pfaltz, K. ‘COVID arm’—Histological features of a delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction to Moderna mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV2 vaccine. J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol. 2021, 35, e730–e732. [CrossRef] 4. Ramos, C.L.; Kelso, J.M. “COVID Arm”: Very delayed large injection site reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. Pract. 2021, 9, 2480–2481. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 5. Wei, N.; Fishman, M.; Wattenberg, D.; Gordon, M.; Lebwohl, M. “COVID arm”: A reaction to the Moderna vaccine. JAAD Case Rep. 2021, 10, 92–95. [CrossRef] 6. Fernandez-Nieto, D.; Hammerle, J.; Fernandez-Escribano, M.; Moreno-Del Real, C.M.; Garcia-Abellas, P.; Carretero-Barrio, I.; Solano-Solares, E.; de-la-Hoz-Caballer, B.; Jimenez-Cauhe, J.; Ortega-Quijano, D.; et al. Skin manifestations of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in healthcare workers. ‘COVID-arm’: A clinical and histological characterization. J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol. 2021, 35, e425–e427. [CrossRef] Vaccines 2022, 10, 2048 10 of 11 7. Johnston, M.S.; Galan, A.; Watsky, K.L.; Little, A.J. Delayed Localized Hypersensitivity Reactions to the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine: A Case Series. JAMA Dermatol. 2021, 157, 716–720. [CrossRef] 8. Sahin, U.; Muik, A.; Derhovanessian, E.; Vogler, I.; Kranz, L.M.; Vormehr, M.; Baum, A.; Pascal, K.; Quandt, J.; Maurus, D.; et al. COVID-19 vaccine BNT162b1 elicits human antibody and TH1 T cell responses. Nature 2020, 586, 594–599. [CrossRef] 9. Cabanillas, B.; Novak, N. Allergy to COVID-19 vaccines: A current update. Allergol. Int. 2021, 70, 313–318. [CrossRef] 10. Nilsson, L.; Csuth, Á.; Storsaeter, J.; Garvey, L.H.; Jenmalm, M.C. Vaccine allergy: Evidence to consider for COVID-19 vaccines. Curr. Opin. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2021, 21, 401–409. [CrossRef] 11. Klimek, L.; Novak, N.; Cabanillas, B.; Jutel, M.; Bousquet, J.; Akdis, C.A. Allergenic components of the mRNA-1273 vaccine for COVID-19, Possible involvement of polyethylene glycol and IgG-mediated complement activation. Allergy 2021, 76, 3307–3313. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 12. Restivo, V.; Candore, G.; Barrale, M.; Caravello, E.; Graziano, G.; Onida, R.; Raineri, M.; Tiralongo, S.; Brusca, I. Allergy to Polyethilenglicole of Anti-SARS CoV2 Vaccine Recipient: A Case Report of Young Adult Recipient and the Management of Future Exposure to SARS-CoV2. Vaccines 2021, 9, 412. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 13. Sellaturay, P.; Nasser, S.; Islam, S.; Gurugama, P.; Ewan, P.W. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is a cause of anaphylaxis to the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. Clin. Exp. Allergy 2021, 51, 861–863. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 14. Bruusgaard-Mouritsen, M.A.; Jensen, B.M.; Poulsen, L.K.; Duus Johansen, J.; Garvey, L.H. Optimizing investigation of suspected allergy to polyethylene glycols. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2022, 149, 168–175. [CrossRef] 15. Bianchi, A.; Bottau, P.; Calamelli, E.; Caimmi, S.; Crisafulli, G.; Franceschini, F.; Liotti, L.; Mori, F.; Paglialunga, C.; Saretta, F.; et al. Hypersensitivity to polyethylene glycol in adults and children: An emerging challenge. Acta Biomed. 2021, 92, e2021519. 16. Wenande, E.; Garvey, L.H. Immediate-type hypersensitivity to polyethylene glycols: A review. Clin. Exp. Allergy 2016, 46, 907–922. [CrossRef] 17. Kounis, N.G.; Koniari, I.; de Gregorio, C.; Velissaris, D.; Petalas, K.; Brinia, A.; Assimakopoulos, S.F.; Gogos, C.; Kouni, S.N.; Kounis, G.N.; et al. Allergic Reactions to Current Available COVID-19 Vaccinations: Pathophysiology, Causality, and Therapeutic Considerations. Vaccines 2021, 9, 221. [CrossRef] 18. Barbaud, A.; Gonçalo, M.; Bruynzeel, D.; Bircher, A.J. European Society of Contact Dermatitis. Guidelines for performing skin tests with drugs in the investigation of cutaneous adverse drug reactions. Contact Dermat. 2001, 45, 321–328. [CrossRef] 19. Scala, E.; Giani, M.; Pirrotta, L.; Guerra, E.; Locanto, M.; De Pità, O.; Puddu, P. Selective severe anaphylactic reaction due to ketorolac tromethamine without nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug intolerance. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2001, 107, 557. [CrossRef] 20. de Groot, A.C. Patch Testing. In Test Concentrations and Vehicles for 4900 Chemicals, 4th ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018. 21. Fisher, A.A. Contact Dermatitis, 3rd ed.; Lea & Febiger: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1986. 22. Bohn, S.; Hurni, M.; Bircher, A.J. Contact allergy to trometamol. Contact Dermat. 2001, 44, 319. [CrossRef] 23. Baden, L.R.; El Sahly, H.M.; Essink, B.; Kotloff, K.; Frey, S.; Novak, R.; Diemert, D.; Spector, S.A.; Rouphael, N.; Creech, B.; et al. Efficacy and Safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine. N. Engl. J. Med. 2021, 384, 403–416. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 24. Klein, S.L.; Jedlicka, A.; Pekosz, A. The Xs and Y of immune responses to viral vaccines. Lancet Infect Dis. 2010, 10, 338–349, Erratum in Lancet Infect Dis. 2010, 10, 740. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 25. Brockow, K.; Romano, A. Skin tests in the diagnosis of drug hypersensitivity reactions. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2008, 14, 2778–2791. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 26. Tramontana, M.; Bianchi, L.; Biondi, F.; Hansel, K.; Malatesta, N.; Marietti, R.; Stingeni, L. A case of delayed allergy to polyethylene glycol 2000 and polysorbate 80 confirmed by patch test: Consequences for anti-SARS-CoV2 vaccination? Contact Dermat. 2022, 87, 209–210. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 27. Shavit, R.; Maoz-Segal, R.; Offengenden, I.; Yahia, S.H.; Maayan, D.M.; Lifshitz, Y.; Niznik, S.; Deutch, M.; Elbaz, E.; Genaim, H.; et al. Assessment of Immediate Allergic Reactions After Immunization with the Pfizer BNT162b2 Vaccine Using Intradermal Skin Testing With the COVID-19 Vaccines. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. Pract. 2022, 10, 2677–2684. [CrossRef] 28. Lim, X.R.; Tan, J.W.L.; Chan, G.Y.L.; Hou, J.; Xie, L.; Goh, V.H.L.; Boon, J.; Lee, S.S.M.; Teo, C.M.-L.; Tan, S.C.; et al. Evaluation of Patients with Vaccine Allergies Prior to mRNA-Based COVID-19 Vaccination. Vaccines 2022, 10, 1025. [CrossRef] 29. Cox, F.; Khalib, K.; Conlon, N. PEG That Reaction: A Case Series of Allergy to Polyethylene Glycol. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2021, 61, 832–835. [CrossRef] 30. Bianchi, L.; Biondi, F.; Hansel, K.; Murgia, N.; Tramontana, M.; Stingeni, L. Skin tests in urticaria/angioedema and flushing to Pfizer-BioNTech SARS-CoV-2 vaccine: Limits of intradermal testing. Allergy 2021, 76, 2605–2607. [CrossRef] 31. Loli-Ausejo, D.; Gómez-Armayones, S.; Sáez-Peñataro, J.; González-Matamala, M.; Mascaró, B.; Muñoz-Cano, R.; Bartra, J. COVID-19 vaccine tolerabilty in a patient with a delayed allergic reaction to polyethylene glycol: A case report. J. Investig. Allergol. Clin. Immunol. 2022, 33. [CrossRef] 32. Wolfson, A.R.; Robinson, L.B.; Li, L.; McMahon, A.E.; Cogan, A.S.; Fu, X.; Wickner, P.; Samarakoon, U.; Saff, R.R.; Blumenthal, K.G.; et al. First-Dose mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine Allergic Reactions: Limited Role for Excipient Skin Testing. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. Pract. 2021, 9, 3308–3320. [CrossRef] Vaccines 2022, 10, 2048 11 of 11 33. Pickert, J.; Hennighausen, I.; Mühlenbein, S.; Möbs, C.; Pfützner, W. Immediate-Type Hypersensitivity to Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) Including a PEG-containing COVID-19 Vaccine Revealed by Intradermal Testing. J. Investig. Allergol. Clin. Immunol. 2021, 31, 526–527. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 34. Pitlick, M.M.; Sitek, A.N.; Kinate, S.A.; Joshi, A.Y.; Park, M.A. Polyethylene glycol and polysorbate skin testing in the evaluation of coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine reactions: Early report. Ann. Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2021, 126, 735–738. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 35. Vieira, J.; Marcelino, J.; Ferreira, F.; Silva, R.; Proença, M.; Tomaz, E. Skin testing with Pfizer SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and PEG 2000. Asia Pac. Allergy. 2021, 11, e18. [CrossRef] 36. Sokolowska, M.; Eiwegger, T.; Ollert, M.; Torres, M.J.; Barber, D.; del Giacco, S.; Jutel, M.; Nadeau, K.C.; Palomares, O.; Rabin, R.L.; et al. EAACI statement on the diagnosis, management and prevention of severe allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines. Allergy 2021, 76, 1629–1639. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 37. Kaplan, Y.; Goldberg, I.; Sprecher, E.; Slodownik, D. Patch testing versus interferon-gamma release assay in evaluation of drug eruptions. Fundam. Clin. Pharmacol. 2022, 36, 414–420. [CrossRef]