Clinical and histopathological spectrum of delayed adverse cutaneous reactions following COVID-19 vaccination.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
As more people become vaccinated against the SARS-CoV-2 virus, reports of delayed cutaneous hypersensitivity reactions are beginning to emerge.Methods
In this IRB-approved retrospective case series, biopsy specimens of potential cutaneous adverse reactions from the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna mRNA vaccine were identified and reviewed. Clinical information was obtained through the requisition form, referring clinician, or medical chart review.Results
Twelve cases were included. Histopathological features from two injection-site reactions showed a mixed-cell infiltrate with eosinophils and a spongiotic dermatitis with eosinophils. Three biopsy specimens came from generalized eruptions that showed interface changes consistent with an exanthematous drug reaction. Three biopsy specimens revealed a predominantly spongiotic pattern, consistent with eczematous dermatitis. Small-vessel vascular injury was seen in two specimens, which were diagnosed as urticarial vasculitis and leukocytoclastic vasculitis, respectively. There were two cases of new-onset bullous pemphigoid supported by histopathological examination and direct immunofluorescence studies. Eosinophils were seen in 10 cases.Conclusions
Dermatopathologists should be aware of potential cutaneous adverse reactions to mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines. Histopathological patterns include mixed-cell infiltrates, epidermal spongiosis, and interface changes. Eosinophils are a common finding but are not always present. Direct immunofluorescence studies may be helpful for immune-mediated cutaneous presentations such as vasculitis or bullous pemphigoid.
SUBMITTER: Larson V
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8444807 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundLimited large-scale studies have been conducted to investigate the adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccine in Latin America, particularly among the healthcare worker (HCW) population in Ecuador. The objective of this study was to assess a cohort of Ecuadorian healthcare workers for adverse reactions following vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.MethodsWe conducted an observational cross-sectional study to assess the potential adverse reactions to the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine among a sample of healthcare workers (HCWs) in the city of Guayaquil, Ecuador, from March to May 2021.ResultsThe sample comprised 1291 patients, with a mean age of 39.3 years (SD, 13.5). In general, 79% (N = 1020) of participants presented an adverse effect of any type at first dose, while 75.1% (N = 969) did so at the second dose. Pain at the puncture site was the most common adverse effect overall after either the first (68.4%) and second (55.6%) dose. Regarding anaphylaxis, no participant developed the condition after the first dose, and only 0.2% (N = 2) developing it at the second dose. No fatalities were reported.ConclusionOur findings suggest that adverse reactions following COVID-19 vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine are relatively common, albeit often mild and self-limited. Consistent with the literature there were few cases of anaphylaxis, and no deaths that could be attributed to the inoculation with the vaccine. We hope our findings can help to reassure the public that benefits of vaccination highly outweigh the risks and contribute to the effort of reducing vaccine hesitancy among those who are concerned about the safety and potential side effects.
| S-EPMC8598282 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8483649 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Numerous vaccines are under clinical development and implementation for the prevention of severe course and lethal outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This systematic review aims to summarize and integrated the findings of studies regarding cutaneous side effects of COVID-19 vaccines. This systematic review conducted by searching the scientific databases of PubMed, Scopus, Science direct, and Web of knowledge from the beginning of the COVID-19 to May 10, 2021. Articles were reviewed and analyzed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist. Seventeen studies on cutaneous side effects of COVID-19 vaccines were included after the screening of search results based on to the eligibility criteria. The results showed that the most common injection site reactions and delayed large local reactions, arising from all vaccine types, were redness/erythema (39%), followed by: itchiness (28%), urticarial rash (17%) on the neck, upper limbs, and trunk, morbilliform eruptions (6.5%), Pityriasis rosea (3%), swelling, and burning, and so forth. Most cutaneous reactions occurred in women (84%), and middle-aged people, after the first dose of vaccine, with the onset ranged from 1 to 21 days after vaccination. In addition, cutaneous reactions were generally self-limiting, and needed little or no therapeutic intervention, that were not regarded as a barrier to injecting a second dose. In conclusion, severe cutaneous side effects are very rare and approved vaccines have satisfactory safety profiles. Therefore, mild or moderate cutaneous reactions should not discourage people from vaccination. In certain groups such as patients with allergies and a history of local injection reactions, pre-vaccination counseling and assurance, also use of appropriate medications may be helpful. However, more studies are needed to investigate the side effect profile of all COVID-19 vaccines.
| S-EPMC9111405 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A good safety and immunogenicity profile was reported in Phase I and II clinical trials of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Here, we report two cases associated with vaccine-associated adverse events, including one patient with fever and another with anaphylactic shock resulting from inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Cell sub-types and the importance of genetic characteristics were assessed using single-cell mRNA sequencing and machine learning. Overall, the patient with fever showed a significant increase in the numbers of cytotoxic CD8 T cells and MKI67high CD8 T cells. A potential concurrent infection with the Epstein-Barr virus enhanced interferon type I responses to vaccination against the virus. STAT1, E2F1, YBX1, and E2F7 played a key role in the transcription regulation of MKI67high CD8 T cells. In contrast, the patient with allergic shock displayed predominant increases in the numbers of S100A9high monocytes, activated CD4 T cells, and PPBPhigh megakaryocytes. The decision tree showed that LYZ and S100A8 in S100A9high monocytes contributed to the degranulation of neutrophils and activation of neutrophils involved in allergic shock. PPBP and PF4 were major contributors to platelet degranulation. These findings highlight the diversity of adverse reactions following inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and show the emerging role of cellular subtypes and central genes in vaccine-associated adverse reactions.
| S-EPMC10453975 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundVaccination is a key intervention to prevent COVID-19. Many vaccines are administered globally, yet there is not much evidence regarding their safety and adverse effects. Iran also faces this challenge, especially as data regarding the Sputnik V vaccine is sparse. Therefore, the aim of this study is to determine the adverse effects of the most commonly used vaccines in Iran.MethodsUsing a retrospective cohort study design, 6600 subjects aged 18 years or older who had received two doses of any of the three COVID-19 vaccines (Sinopharm, AstraZeneca, and Sputnik V) were selected using a random sampling method between March and August 2021. Subjects were asked about any adverse effects of the vaccines by trained interviewers via telephone interview. Vaccine-related adverse effects in individuals during the first 72 h and subsequently following both doses of the vaccines were determined. The demographic variables, type of administered vaccine, adverse effects, and history of the previous infection with COVID-19 were collected. Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation) and analytical statistics (Chi-squared and Wilcoxon tests) were performed at a 95% significance level using STATA software version 15 (STATA Corp, College Station, TX, USA).ResultsFrom 6600 participants, 4775 responded (response rate = 72.3%). Of the participants, 1460 (30.6%) received the AstraZeneca vaccine, 1564 (32.8%) received the Sinopharm vaccine and 1751 (36.7%) received the Sputnik V vaccine. 2653 participants (55.56%) reported adverse effects after the first dose and 1704 (35.7%) after the second dose. Sputnik V caused the most adverse effects with 1449 (82.7%) vaccine recipients reporting symptoms after the first or second dose, compared with 1030 (70.5%) for AstraZeneca and only 585 (37.4%) for the Sinopharm vaccine. The most common adverse effects after the first dose were fatigue (28.37%), chill/fever (26.86%), and skeletal pain (22.38%). These three adverse effects were the same for the second dose, although their prevalence was lower.ConclusionsIn this study, we demonstrate that the Sputnik V vaccine has the highest rate of adverse effects, followed by the AstraZeneca and Sinopharm vaccines. COVID-19 vaccines used in Iran are safe and there were no reports of serious adverse effects.
| S-EPMC9116064 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesIn this study covering all of Turkey, we aimed to define cutaneous and systemic adverse reactions in our patient population after COVID-19 vaccination with the Sinovac/CoronaVac (inactivated SARS-CoV-2) and Pfizer/BioNTech (BNT162b2) vaccines.MethodsThis prospective, cross-sectional study included individuals presenting to the dermatology or emergency outpatient clinics of a total of 19 centers after having been vaccinated with the COVID-19 vaccines. Systemic, local injection site, and non-local cutaneous reactions after vaccination were identified, and their rates were determined.ResultsOf the 2290 individuals vaccinated between April 15 and July 15, 2021, 2097 (91.6%) received the CoronaVac vaccine and 183 (8%) BioNTech. Systemic reactions were observed at a rate of 31.0% after the first CoronaVac dose, 31.1% after the second CoronaVac dose, 46.4% after the first BioNTech dose, and 46.2% after the second BioNTech dose. Local injection site reactions were detected at a rate of 35.6% after the first CoronaVac dose, 35.7% after the second CoronaVac dose, 86.9% after the first BioNTech dose, and 94.1% after the second BioNTech dose. A total of 133 non-local cutaneous reactions were identified after the CoronaVac vaccine (2.9% after the first dose and 3.5% after the second dose), with the most common being urticaria/angioedema, pityriasis rosea, herpes zoster, and maculopapular rash. After BioNTech, 39 non-local cutaneous reactions were observed to have developed (24.8% after the first dose and 5% after the second dose), and the most common were herpes zoster, delayed large local reaction, pityriasis rosea, and urticaria/angioedema in order of frequency. Existing autoimmune diseases were triggered in 2.1% of the patients vaccinated with CoronaVac and 8.2% of those vaccinated with BioNTech.ConclusionsThere are no comprehensive data on cutaneous adverse reactions specific to the CoronaVac vaccine. We determined the frequency of adverse reactions from the dermatologist's point of view after CoronaVac and BioNTech vaccination and identified a wide spectrum of non-local cutaneous reactions. Our data show that CoronaVac is associated with less harmful reactions while BioNTech may result in more serious reactions, such as herpes zoster, anaphylaxis, and triggering of autoimmunity. However, most of these reactions were self-limiting or required little therapeutic intervention.
| S-EPMC9349975 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Metabolomics may help identify a particular metabolic signature “metabotype” in patients who are predisposed to developing AEFI such as a systemic reaction, or myocarditis that currently is difficult or impossible to identify prior to the development of the AEFI. This proposed pilot study looks at the metabolic profiles of a specific population of subjects who received the smallpox vaccine with or without other concomitantly administered vaccines to help determine if a unique metabotype can be identified in subjects who reported systemic reactions following immunization. In addition, this proposed study will look at the metabolic profile of several subjects with subclinical or clinically diagnosed myopericarditis to determine if these subjects have a unique metabotype. The ability to identify a unique metabotype would allow a clinician to potentially mitigate serious AEFI and ultimately improve the quality of immunization healthcare. If identified, these profiles might represent novel biomarkers of risk that can supplement existing clinical decision making for risk stratification or vaccine exemptions.
2016-08-02 | ST000440 | MetabolomicsWorkbench
Project description:(1) Background: Numerous vaccines are under preclinical and clinical development for prevention of severe course and lethal outcome of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In light of high efficacy rates and satisfactory safety profiles, some agents have already reached approval and are now distributed worldwide, with varying availability. Real-world data on cutaneous adverse drug reactions (ADRs) remain limited. (2) Methods: We performed a literature research concerning cutaneous ADRs to different COVID-19 vaccines, and incorporated our own experiences. (3) Results: Injection site reactions are the most frequent side effects arising from all vaccine types. Moreover, delayed cutaneous ADRs may occur after several days, either as a primary manifestation or as a flare of a pre-existing inflammatory dermatosis. Cutaneous ADRs may be divided according to their cytokine profile, based on the preponderance of specific T-cell subsets (i.e., Th1, Th2, Th17/22, Tregs). Specific cutaneous ADRs mimic immunogenic reactions to the natural infection with SARS-CoV-2, which is associated with an abundance of type I interferons. (4) Conclusions: Further studies are required in order to determine the best suitable vaccine type for individual groups of patients, including patients suffering from chronic inflammatory dermatoses.
| S-EPMC8470727 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOral adverse events (AEs) following COVID-19 vaccination have been sporadically reported during the previous months, warranting further investigation for their prevalence and suspected relationship with vaccine-elicited immune response.MethodsA retrospective analysis using the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) data was conducted to evaluate AEs within the oral cavity (mucosa, tongue, lips, palate, dentition, salivary glands) and AEs involving taste and other sensations. Oral AEs reported after receiving COVID-19 vaccination (test group) and seasonal influenza vaccination (control group) were extracted and cross-tabulated to assess their relative prevalence.ResultsAmong the 128 solicited (suspected) oral AEs, oral paresthesia (0.872%) was most reported after receiving COVID-19 vaccines, followed by the swelling of lips (0.844%), ageusia (0.722%), oral hypoesthesia (0.648%), swollen tongue (0.628%), and dysgeusia (0.617%). The reported prevalence of oral AEs was higher in the COVID-19 vaccine group than in the seasonal influenza group. The distribution pattern of the most reported oral AEs was similar for both COVID-19 and seasonal influenza vaccines. Female sex, older age (>39 years old), primer doses, and mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines exhibited a higher reported prevalence of oral AEs.ConclusionWithin the limitations of this study, COVID-19 vaccines were found to be associated with rare oral AEs that are predominantly similar to those emerging following seasonal influenza vaccines. The most commonly reported oral AEs were oral paraesthesia (mouth-tingling), lip swelling, and ageusia, representing various pathophysiologic pathways that remain unclear. Taste-related AEs should be acknowledged in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and the public should be adequately informed about a potential taste dysfunction after receiving the COVID-19 vaccination. Dentists and dental teams need to be aware of the prevalence, severity, and prognosis of oral AEs to inform their patients and increase public confidence in vaccines.
| S-EPMC9309565 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceLittle is known about the factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine adverse effects in a real-world population.ObjectiveTo evaluate factors potentially associated with participant-reported adverse effects after COVID-19 vaccination.Design, setting, and participantsThe COVID-19 Citizen Science Study, an online cohort study, includes adults aged 18 years and older with a smartphone or internet access. Participants complete daily, weekly, and monthly surveys on health and COVID-19-related events. This analysis includes participants who provided consent between March 26, 2020, and May 19, 2021, and received at least 1 COVID-19 vaccine dose.ExposuresParticipant-reported COVID-19 vaccination.Main outcomes and measuresParticipant-reported adverse effects and adverse effect severity. Candidate factors in multivariable logistic regression models included age, sex, race, ethnicity, subjective social status, prior COVID-19 infection, medical conditions, substance use, vaccine dose, and vaccine brand.ResultsThe 19 586 participants had a median (IQR) age of 54 (38-66) years, and 13 420 (68.8%) were women. Allergic reaction or anaphylaxis was reported in 26 of 8680 participants (0.3%) after 1 dose of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccine, 27 of 11 141 (0.2%) after 2 doses of the BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccine or 1 dose of the JNJ-78436735 (Johnson & Johnson) vaccine. The strongest factors associated with adverse effects were vaccine dose (2 doses of BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 or 1 dose of JNJ-78436735 vs 1 dose of BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273; odds ratio [OR], 3.10; 95% CI, 2.89-3.34; P < .001), vaccine brand (mRNA-1273 vs BNT162b2, OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.86-2.15; P < .001; JNJ-78436735 vs BNT162b2: OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.52-0.79; P < .001), age (per 10 years: OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.72-0.76; P < .001), female sex (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.53-1.78; P < .001), and having had COVID-19 before vaccination (OR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.77-2.66; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceIn this real-world cohort, serious COVID-19 vaccine adverse effects were rare and comparisons across brands could be made, revealing that full vaccination dose, vaccine brand, younger age, female sex, and having had COVID-19 before vaccination were associated with greater odds of adverse effects. Large digital cohort studies may provide a mechanism for independent postmarket surveillance of drugs and devices.
| S-EPMC8696570 | biostudies-literature