Prognostic markers for the clinical course in the blood of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

BACKGROUND: The presentation of peptides and the subsequent immune response depend on the MHC characteristics and influence the specificity of the immune response. Several studies have found an association between HLA variants and differential COVID-19 outcomes and have shown that HLA genotypes are associated with differential immune responses against SARS-CoV-2, particularly in severely ill patients. Information, whether HLA haplotypes are associated with the severity or length of the disease in moderately diseased individuals is absent. METHODS: Next-generation sequencing-based HLA typing was performed in 303 female and 231 male non-hospitalized North Rhine Westphalian patients infected with SARS-CoV2 during the first and second wave. For HLA-Class I, we obtained results from 528 patients, and for HLA-Class II from 531. In those patients, who became ill between March 2020 and January 2021, the 22 most common HLA-Class I (HLA-A, -B, -C) or HLA-Class II (HLA -DRB1/3/4, -DQA1, -DQB1) haplotypes were determined. The identified HLA haplotypes as well as the presence of a CCR5Δ32 mutation and number of O and A blood group alleles were associated to disease severity and duration of the disease. RESULTS: The influence of the HLA haplotypes on disease severity and duration was more pronounced than the influence of age, sex, or ABO blood group. These associations were sex dependent. The presence of mutated CCR5 resulted in a longer recovery period in males. CONCLUSION: The existence of certain HLA haplotypes is associated with more severe disease.

Acute cardiac side effects after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination: a case series.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 has been the main tool to contain the pandemic. The rush development of the 3 vaccines and their expedited approval have led to inoculation of millions of patients around the world, leading to a containment of the disease. Despite continuous viral mutations and the identification of weaker variants, the severity of the infections has been mild, with many patients being either asymptomatic or recovering at home. Currently the focus has shifted from the host of organ damage related to the infection to potential side effects of the vaccine. Myocarditis has been reported as one of the potential side effects from the mRNA vaccine, affecting young healthy individuals. Up to September 30, 2021, 1.243 cases of myocarditis after vaccination with BNT162b2 Comirnaty© were registered in young adults by the Paul-Ehrlich-Institute in Germany alone. The exact pathophysiology and the risk factors for myocarditis following vaccination remain unclear. We present a case series of eight patients with cardiac symptom shortly after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination (BNT162b6, Biontech, Comirnaty© or mRNA-1237 Moderna, Spikevax©). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eight patients between 13 and 56 years of age, vaccinated with either BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 mRNA vaccine between January and August 2021 developed cardiac side effects shortly after either their first or second dose of the vaccine. Clinical data were retrieved from the clinical information system and analyzed. To support diagnosis of myocarditis or pericarditis, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed shortly after the onset of symptoms, with further investigations in severe cases. Symptoms were defined as dyspnea, chest pain and cardiac arrhythmia as determined by electrocardiography. RESULTS: Eight patients (5 males and 3 females) developed cardiac symptoms compatible with myocarditis, according to the CDC criteria, shortly after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination. Three patients (2 males, 1 female) required hospitalization due to severe chest pain and elevated troponin levels. All patients recovered fully within 7 days from the symptom onset. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that cardiac adverse events such as myocarditis or pericarditis shortly after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination are rare but possible and occur particularly in male patients.

Delayed skin reaction after mRNA-1273 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2: a rare clinical reaction.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with a wide clinical spectrum of skin manifestations, including urticarial, vesicular, vasculitic and chilblain-like lesions. Recently, delayed skin reactions have been reported in 1% individuals following mRNA vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. The exact pathophysiology and the risk factors still remain unclear. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 6821 employees and patients were vaccinated at our institutions between February and June 2021. Every patient received two doses of the mRNA-1273 vaccine in our hospitals, and reported back in case of any side effects which were collected in our hospital managed database. RESULTS: Eleven of 6821 vaccinated patients (0.16%) developed delayed skin reactions after either the first or second dose of the mRNA-1273 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2. Eight of 11 patients (73%) developed a rash after the first dose, while in 3/11 (27%), the rash occurred after the second dose. More females (9/11) were affected. Four of 11 patients required antihistamines, with two needing additional topical steroids. All the cutaneous manifestations resolved within 14 days. None of the skin reactions after the first dose of the vaccine prevented the administration of the second dose. There were no long-term cutaneous sequelae in any of the affected individuals. CONCLUSION: Our data suggests that skin reactions after the use of mRNA-1273 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 are possible, but rare. Further studies need to be done to understand the pathophysiology of these lesions.

Informed consent and informed intervention: SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations not just call for disclosure of newly emerging safety data but also for hypothesis generation and testing.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 infection is a major threat to patients and health care providers around the world. One solution is the vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive query of the latest publications on the prevention of viral infections including the recent vaccination program and its side effects. RESULTS: The situation is evolving rapidly and there is no reasonable alternative to population-scale vaccination programs as currently enrolled. CONCLUSION: Therefore, regulatory authorities should consider supplementing their conventional mandate of post-approval pharmacovigilance, which is based on the collection, assessment, and regulatory response to emerging safety findings.

Face masks: benefits and risks during the COVID-19 crisis.

BACKGROUND: The German government has made it mandatory to wear respiratory masks covering mouth and nose (MNC) as an effective strategy to fight SARS-CoV-2 infections. In many countries, this directive has been extended on shopping malls or public transportation. The aim of this paper is to critically analyze the statutory regulation to wear protective masks during the COVID-19 crisis from a medical standpoint. METHODS: We performed an extensive query of the most recent publications addressing the prevention of viral infections including the use of face masks in the community as a method to prevent the spread of the infection. We addressed the issues of practicability, professional use, and acceptability based on the community and the environment where the user resided. RESULTS: Upon our critical review of the available literature, we found only weak evidence for wearing a face mask as an efficient hygienic tool to prevent the spread of a viral infection. However, the use of MNC seems to be linked to relevant protection during close contact scenarios by limiting pathogen-containing aerosol and liquid droplet dissemination. Importantly, we found evidence for significant respiratory compromise in patients with severe obstructive pulmonary disease, secondary to the development of hypercapnia. This could also happen in patients with lung infections, with or without SARS-CoV-2. CONCLUSION: Epidemiologists currently emphasize that wearing MNC will effectively interrupt airborne infections in the community. The government and the politicians have followed these recommendations and used them to both advise and, in some cases, mandate the general population to wear MNC in public locations. Overall, the results seem to suggest that there are some clinically relevant scenarios where the use of MNC necessitates more defined recommendations. Our critical evaluation of the literature both highlights the protective effects of certain types of face masks in defined risk groups, and emphasizes their potential risks.