Cutaneous reactions reported after Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 vaccination: A registry-based study of 414 cases.
TL;DR: In this article, a provider-facing registry-based study collected cases of cutaneous manifestations after COVID-19 vaccination and found that delayed large local reactions were most common, followed by local injection site reactions, urticarial eruptions, and morbilliform eruptions.
Abstract: Background Cutaneous reactions after messenger RNA (mRNA)-based COVID-19 vaccines have been reported but are not well characterized. Objective To evaluate the morphology and timing of cutaneous reactions after mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Methods A provider-facing registry-based study collected cases of cutaneous manifestations after COVID-19 vaccination. Results From December 2020 to February 2021, we recorded 414 cutaneous reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines from Moderna (83%) and Pfizer (17%). Delayed large local reactions were most common, followed by local injection site reactions, urticarial eruptions, and morbilliform eruptions. Forty-three percent of patients with first-dose reactions experienced second-dose recurrence. Additional less common reactions included pernio/chilblains, cosmetic filler reactions, zoster, herpes simplex flares, and pityriasis rosea-like reactions. Limitations Registry analysis does not measure incidence. Morphologic misclassification is possible. Conclusions We report a spectrum of cutaneous reactions after mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. We observed some dermatologic reactions to Moderna and Pfizer vaccines that mimicked SARS-CoV-2 infection itself, such as pernio/chilblains. Most patients with first-dose reactions did not have a second-dose reaction and serious adverse events did not develop in any of the patients in the registry after the first or second dose. Our data support that cutaneous reactions to COVID-19 vaccination are generally minor and self-limited, and should not discourage vaccination.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: In this article , the authors summarized the emerging evidence about autoimmune manifestations occurring in response to certain COVID-19 vaccines and proposed their current understanding of autoimmune manifestations associated with COVID19 vaccine.
Abstract: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has led to an unprecedented setback for global economy and health. Vaccination is one of the most effective interventions to substantially reduce severe disease and death due to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Vaccination programmes are being rolled out globally, but most of these vaccines have been approved without extensive studies on their side-effects and efficacy. Recently, new-onset autoimmune phenomena after COVID-19 vaccination have been reported increasingly (e.g. immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia, autoimmune liver diseases, Guillain-Barré syndrome, IgA nephropathy, rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus). Molecular mimicry, the production of particular autoantibodies and the role of certain vaccine adjuvants seem to be substantial contributors to autoimmune phenomena. However, whether the association between COVID-19 vaccine and autoimmune manifestations is coincidental or causal remains to be elucidated. Here, we summarize the emerging evidence about autoimmune manifestations occurring in response to certain COVID-19 vaccines. Although information pertaining to the risk of autoimmune disease as a consequence of vaccination is controversial, we merely propose our current understanding of autoimmune manifestations associated with COVID-19 vaccine. In fact, we do not aim to disavow the overwhelming benefits of mass COVID-19 vaccination in preventing COVID-19 morbidity and mortality. These reports could help guide clinical assessment and management of autoimmune manifestations after COVID-19 vaccination.
191 citations
TL;DR: The most reported reactions in each vaccine group were COVID arm (mRNA-1273, Moderna, 61·9%), varicella zoster virus reactivation (BNT162b2, Pfizer-BioNTech, 17·2%) and urticaria (AZD1222, AstraZeneca, 21·1%) as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: Background Cutaneous reactions after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines are poorly characterized. Objective To describe and classify cutaneous reactions after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Methods A nationwide Spanish cross-sectional study was conducted. We included patients with cutaneous reactions within 21 days of any dose of the approved vaccines at the time of the study. After a face-to-face visit with a dermatologist, information on cutaneous reactions was collected via an online professional survey and clinical photographs were sent by email. Investigators searched for consensus on clinical patterns and classification. Results From 16 February to 15 May 2021, we collected 405 reactions after vaccination with the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech; 40·2%), mRNA-1273 (Moderna; 36·3%) and AZD1222 (AstraZeneca; 23·5%) vaccines. Mean patient age was 50·7 years and 80·2% were female. Cutaneous reactions were classified as injection site ('COVID arm', 32·1%), urticaria (14·6%), morbilliform (8·9%), papulovesicular (6·4%), pityriasis rosea-like (4·9%) and purpuric (4%) reactions. Varicella zoster and herpes simplex virus reactivations accounted for 13·8% of reactions. The COVID arm was almost exclusive to women (95·4%). The most reported reactions in each vaccine group were COVID arm (mRNA-1273, Moderna, 61·9%), varicella zoster virus reactivation (BNT162b2, Pfizer-BioNTech, 17·2%) and urticaria (AZD1222, AstraZeneca, 21·1%). Most reactions to the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccine were described in women (90·5%). Eighty reactions (21%) were classified as severe/very severe and 81% required treatment. Conclusions Cutaneous reactions after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination are heterogeneous. Most are mild-to-moderate and self-limiting, although severe/very severe reactions are reported. Knowledge of these reactions during mass vaccination may help healthcare professionals and reassure patients.
145 citations
TL;DR: The most reported reactions in each vaccine group were COVID arm (mRNA-1273, Moderna, 61·9%), varicella zoster virus reactivation (BNT162b2, Pfizer-BioNTech, 17·2%) and urticaria (AZD1222, AstraZeneca, 21·1%) as mentioned in this paper .
Abstract: Cutaneous reactions after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines are poorly characterized.To describe and classify cutaneous reactions after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.A nationwide Spanish cross-sectional study was conducted. We included patients with cutaneous reactions within 21 days of any dose of the approved vaccines at the time of the study. After a face-to-face visit with a dermatologist, information on cutaneous reactions was collected via an online professional survey and clinical photographs were sent by email. Investigators searched for consensus on clinical patterns and classification.From 16 February to 15 May 2021, we collected 405 reactions after vaccination with the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech; 40·2%), mRNA-1273 (Moderna; 36·3%) and AZD1222 (AstraZeneca; 23·5%) vaccines. Mean patient age was 50·7 years and 80·2% were female. Cutaneous reactions were classified as injection site ('COVID arm', 32·1%), urticaria (14·6%), morbilliform (8·9%), papulovesicular (6·4%), pityriasis rosea-like (4·9%) and purpuric (4%) reactions. Varicella zoster and herpes simplex virus reactivations accounted for 13·8% of reactions. The COVID arm was almost exclusive to women (95·4%). The most reported reactions in each vaccine group were COVID arm (mRNA-1273, Moderna, 61·9%), varicella zoster virus reactivation (BNT162b2, Pfizer-BioNTech, 17·2%) and urticaria (AZD1222, AstraZeneca, 21·1%). Most reactions to the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccine were described in women (90·5%). Eighty reactions (21%) were classified as severe/very severe and 81% required treatment.Cutaneous reactions after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination are heterogeneous. Most are mild-to-moderate and self-limiting, although severe/very severe reactions are reported. Knowledge of these reactions during mass vaccination may help healthcare professionals and reassure patients.
128 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, a cross-sectional survey-based study was carried out using an online questionnaire validated and tested for a priori reliability, and the questionnaire inquired about demographic data, medical and COVID-19-related anamneses, and local, systemic, oral, and skin-related side effects.
Abstract: Background: the increasing number of COVID-19 vaccines available to the public may trigger hesitancy or selectivity towards vaccination. This study aimed to evaluate the post-vaccination side effects of the different vaccines approved in Germany; Methods: a cross-sectional survey-based study was carried out using an online questionnaire validated and tested for a priori reliability. The questionnaire inquired about demographic data, medical and COVID-19-related anamneses, and local, systemic, oral, and skin-related side effects following COVID-19 vaccination; Results: out of the 599 participating healthcare workers, 72.3% were females, and 79.1% received mRNA-based vaccines, while 20.9% received a viral vector-based vaccine. 88.1% of the participants reported at least one side effect. Injection site pain (75.6%) was the most common local side effect, and headache/fatigue (53.6%), muscle pain (33.2%), malaise (25%), chills (23%), and joint pain (21.2%) were the most common systemic side effects. The vast majority (84.9%) of side effects resolved within 1–3 days post-vaccination; Conclusions: the mRNA-based vaccines were associated with a higher prevalence of local side effects (78.3% vs. 70.4%; Sig. = 0.064), while the viral vector-based vaccine was associated with a higher prevalence of systemic side effects (87.2% vs. 61%; Sig. < 0.001). Females and the younger age group were associated with an increased risk of side effects either after mRNA-based or viral vector-based vaccines. The gender- and age-based differences warrant further rigorous investigation and standardized methodology.
125 citations
TL;DR: There is growing evidence that not only the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) but also the COVID19 vaccines can cause a variety of skin reactions as mentioned in this paper, including delayed large local skin lesions, inflammatory reactions in dermal filler or previous radiation sites or even old BCG scars.
Abstract: There is growing evidence that not only the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) but also the COVID-19 vaccines can cause a variety of skin reactions. In this review article, we provide a brief overview on cutaneous findings that have been observed since the emerging mass COVID-19 vaccination campaigns all over the world. Unspecific injection site reactions very early occurring after the vaccination are most frequent. Type I hypersensitivity reactions (e.g., urticaria, angioedema, anaphylaxis) likely due to allergy to ingredients may rarely occur but can be severe. Type IV hypersensitivity reactions may be observed, including delayed large local skin lesions ("COVID arm"), inflammatory reactions in dermal filler or previous radiation sites or even old BCG scars, and more commonly moribilliform and erythema multiforme-like rashes. Autoimmune-mediated skin findings after COVID-19 vaccination include leukocytoclastic vasculitis, lupus erythematosus, and immune thrombocytopenia. Functional angiopathies (chilblain-like lesions, erythromelalgia) may also be observed. Pityriasis rosea-like rashes and reactivation of herpes zoster have also been reported after COVID-19 vaccination. In conclusion, there are numerous cutaneous reaction patterns that may occur following COVID-19 vaccination, whereby many of these skin findings are of immunological/autoimmunological nature. Importantly, molecular mimicry exists between SARS-CoV-2 (e.g., the spike-protein sequences used to design the vaccines) and human components and may thus explain some COVID-19 pathologies as well adverse skin reactions to COVID-19 vaccinations.
114 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: A two-dose regimen of BNT162b2 conferred 95% protection against Covid-19 in persons 16 years of age or older and safety over a median of 2 months was similar to that of other viral vaccines.
Abstract: Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and the resulting coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) have afflicted tens of millions of people in a world...
10,274 citations
Brigham and Women's Hospital1, Baylor College of Medicine2, Emory University3, University of Maryland, Baltimore4, Saint Louis University5, University of Illinois at Chicago6, George Washington University7, University of California, San Diego8, Vanderbilt University9, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center10
TL;DR: The mRNA-1273 vaccine as discussed by the authors is a lipid nanoparticle-encapsulated mRNA-based vaccine that encodes the prefusion stabilized full-length spike protein of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes Covid-19.
Abstract: Background Vaccines are needed to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) and to protect persons who are at high risk for complications. The mRNA-1273 vaccine is a lipid nanoparticle-encapsulated mRNA-based vaccine that encodes the prefusion stabilized full-length spike protein of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes Covid-19. Methods This phase 3 randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at 99 centers across the United States. Persons at high risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection or its complications were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive two intramuscular injections of mRNA-1273 (100 μg) or placebo 28 days apart. The primary end point was prevention of Covid-19 illness with onset at least 14 days after the second injection in participants who had not previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Results The trial enrolled 30,420 volunteers who were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either vaccine or placebo (15,210 participants in each group). More than 96% of participants received both injections, and 2.2% had evidence (serologic, virologic, or both) of SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline. Symptomatic Covid-19 illness was confirmed in 185 participants in the placebo group (56.5 per 1000 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 48.7 to 65.3) and in 11 participants in the mRNA-1273 group (3.3 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 1.7 to 6.0); vaccine efficacy was 94.1% (95% CI, 89.3 to 96.8%; P Conclusions The mRNA-1273 vaccine showed 94.1% efficacy at preventing Covid-19 illness, including severe disease. Aside from transient local and systemic reactions, no safety concerns were identified. (Funded by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; COVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04470427.).
2,721 citations
TL;DR: The cutaneous manifestations of COVID‐19 disease are poorly characterized and there are no known treatments for this disease.
Abstract: Background The cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 disease are poorly characterized. Objectives To describe the cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 disease and to relate them to other clinical findings. Methods We carried out a nationwide case collection survey of images and clinical data. Using a consensus we described five clinical patterns. We later described the association of these patterns with patient demographics, the timing in relation to symptoms of the disease, the severity and the prognosis. Results The lesions may be classified as acral areas of erythema with vesicles or pustules (pseudo-chilblain) (19%), other vesicular eruptions (9%), urticarial lesions (19%), maculopapular eruptions (47%) and livedo or necrosis (6%). Vesicular eruptions appear early in the course of the disease (15% before other symptoms). The pseudo-chilblain pattern frequently appears late in the evolution of the COVID-19 disease (59% after other symptoms), while the rest tend to appear with other symptoms of COVID-19. The severity of COVID-19 shows a gradient from less severe disease in acral lesions to more severe in the latter groups. The results are similar for confirmed and suspected cases, in terms of both clinical and epidemiological findings. Alternative diagnoses are discussed but seem unlikely for the most specific patterns (pseudo-chilblain and vesicular). Conclusions We provide a description of the cutaneous manifestations associated with COVID-19 infection. These may help clinicians approach patients with the disease and recognize cases presenting with few symptoms. What is already known about this topic? Previous descriptions of cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 were case reports and mostly lacked illustrations. What does this study add? We describe a large, representative sample of patients with unexplained skin manifestations and a diagnosis of COVID-19, using a consensus method to define morphological patterns associated with COVID-19. We describe five clinical patterns associated with different patient demographics, timing and prognosis, and provide illustrations of these patterns to allow for easy recognition.
1,035 citations
TL;DR: Chilblains (‘COVID toes’) are being seen with increasing frequency in children and young adults during the COVID‐19 pandemic, and causality of SARS‐CoV‐2 has not yet been established.
Abstract: Background Chilblains ('COVID toes') are being seen with increasing frequency in children and young adults during the COVID-19 pandemic Detailed histopathological descriptions of COVID-19 chilblains have not been reported, and causality of SARS-CoV-2 has not yet been established Objectives To describe the histopathological features of COVID-19 chilblains and to explore the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in the tissue Methods We examined skin biopsies from seven paediatric patients presenting with chilblains during the COVID-19 pandemic Immunohistochemistry for SARS-CoV-2 was performed in all cases and electron microscopy in one Results Histopathology showed variable degrees of lymphocytic vasculitis ranging from endothelial swelling and endotheliitis to fibrinoid necrosis and thrombosis Purpura, superficial and deep perivascular lymphocytic inflammation with perieccrine accentuation, oedema, and mild vacuolar interface damage were also seen SARS-CoV-2 immunohistochemistry was positive in endothelial cells and epithelial cells of eccrine glands Coronavirus particles were found in the cytoplasm of endothelial cells on electron microscopy Conclusions Although the clinical and histopathological features were similar to other forms of chilblains, the presence of viral particles in the endothelium and the histological evidence of vascular damage support a causal relation of the lesions with SARS-CoV-2 Endothelial damage induced by the virus could be the key mechanism in the pathogenesis of COVID-19 chilblains and perhaps also in a group of patients severely affected by COVID-19 presenting with features of microangiopathic damage What is already known about this topic? Despite the high number of cases of chilblains seen during the COVID-19 pandemic, a definite causative role for SARS-CoV-2 has not yet been proven Different pathogenetic hypotheses have been proposed, including coagulation anomalies, interferon release and external factors What does this study add? The demonstration of SARS-CoV-2 in endothelial cells of skin biopsies by immunohistochemistry and electron microscopy confirms that these lesions are part of the spectrum of COVID-19 Virus-induced vascular damage and secondary ischaemia could explain the pathophysiology of COVID-19 chilblains Our findings support the hypothesis that widespread endothelial infection by SARS-CoV-2 could have a pathogenetic role in the severe forms of COVID-19 Linked Comment: Wetter Br J Dermatol 2020; 183:611
355 citations
TL;DR: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recently issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for 2 highly effective coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna.
311 citations