ABSTRACT
Background: Chronic urticaria (CU) is a common chronic inflammatory disease. Vaccination against viral infections including COVID-19 can induce increased CU disease activity. As of now, it is unclear how often CU exacerbations occur after COVID-19 vaccination. Method(s): COVAC-CU is an international, multicenter, observational, cross-sectional study of the global network of urticaria centers of reference and excellence (UCAREs). COVAC-CU evaluates the effects of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with CU including rates and risk factors of CU exacerbation. Here, we analyzed 1857 patients with CU who had received at least one COVID-19 vaccination. Data were collected via a questionnaire and retrieved from patient charts. Result(s): Of 1857 patients with CU (median age: 42 years;range: 18-91 years), 72.1% were female and 71.2%, 14.4% and 14.4% had chronic spontaneous urticaria, chronic inducible urticaria, or both, respectively. Most patients had received two doses of COVID-19 vaccine (79.1%), compared to one (9.7%), three (11%), or four (0.3%). Vaccine type included: BTN162b2 (58.4%;BioNTech/Pfizer), ChAdOx1 nCOV-19 (13.8%;AstraZeneca), BBIBP-CorV (8.2%;Sinopharm), Gam-COVID- Vac (8%;Sputnik), mRNA-1273 (5.3%;Moderna), and Ad26.COV 2.5 (4.7%;Janssen/J&J). Less than 10% of patients used premedication, and less than half of patients (44.4%) reported one or more adverse reactions after vaccination. The most common adverse reactions were local injection site reactions (29.6%), fatigue (19.7%), fever (19%), muscle pain (17.9%), headache (14%), and exacerbation of CU (15%). Severe allergic reactions/anaphylaxis were reported by 0.4% of CU patients. In almost all patients who experienced exacerbation of their CU, this occurred within one week after receiving the vaccine, i.e. after 1 to 12 hours (25.8 %), after 12 hours to 48 hours (31.1%) or after 2-7 days (37.9%). Conclusion(s): Most CU patients tolerate COVID-19 vaccination well;severe allergic reaction (anaphylaxis) rates were similar or lower than the self-reported rates reported in the general population. Exacerbation of urticaria was reported in one in five patients, mostly in a week after receiving the vaccine.
ABSTRACT
Background: Delayed local reactions due to mRNA vaccines or COVID arm have been reported. COVID arm commonly presents as an itchy and painful erythematous plaque with swelling and is characterized by a delayed onset of 7 to 10 days after vaccination. New excipients used in mRNA vaccines (polyethylene glycol (PEG)-2000, tromethamol and 1,2-distearoyl-sn-glicero-3-phosphocholine) have increased the awareness about their role in such cutaneous adverse reactions. Objectives: To define the excipient accountability in COVID arm through specific skin provocation testing. Methods: Health workers of a tertiary level hospital suffering COVID arm were patch, skin prick (SP) and intradermal (ID) tested with PEG-400, PEG-2000, tromethamol and 3-phosphocholine at different concentrations (0.001%, 0.01%, 0.1% and 1%). Positive long standing ID reactions were biopsied. Results: Eleven patients were included. Patch tests were always negative. PEG-2000 presented positive SP at 1% (4 patients) and 0.1% (1 patient). PEG-2000 ID was positive at 1% (10 patients), 0.1% (7 patients) and 0.01% (6 patients). Three showed long standing positive reactions to ID of PEG-2000 on day 2, whose biopsies depicted perivascular lymphocytes, occasional eosinophils and dermal edema. In addition, 6 patients reacted to PEG-400, all of which also reacted to PEG-2000. SP and ID for the other excipients were negative. Conclusions: The presence of immediate and delayed reactions to PEG-2000 in patients. with COVID arm poses a challenge on whether PEG-2000 acts as a delayed sensitizer or. these infrequent reactions are irritative.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Psoriasis , COVID-19 Vaccines , Humans , Psoriasis/genetics , RNA, Messenger , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , 2019-nCoV Vaccine mRNA-1273 , BNT162 Vaccine , ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination/adverse effectsSubject(s)
COVID-19 , Pityriasis Rosea , COVID-19 Vaccines , Humans , Pityriasis Rosea/etiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination/adverse effectsABSTRACT
As the COVID-19 pandemic gradually comes under control, the members of the Spanish Contact Dermatitis and Skin Allergy Research Group (GEIDAC) have drawn up a proposed list of the requirements, limitations, and conditioning factors affecting the resumption of work in contact dermatitis units. The assumption is that the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is still circulating and that occasional or seasonal outbreaks will occur. They recommend that the first step should be to assess how many patch tests each clinic can handle and review the waiting list to prioritize cases according to disease severity and urgency. Digital technologies can, where possible, be used to send and receive the documentation necessary for the patch test (information, instructions, informed consent, etc.). If the necessary infrastructure is available, patients can be offered the option of a remote initial consultation. Likewise, in selected cases, the patch test results can be read in a virtual visit using photographs taken by the patient or a video visit can be scheduled to allow the physician to evaluate the site of application remotely. These measures will reduce the number of face-to-face visits required, but will not affect the time spent on each case, which must be scheduled in the normal manner. All of these recommendations are suggestions and should be adapted to the needs and possibilities of each health centre.
ABSTRACT
As the COVID-19 pandemic gradually comes under control, the members of the Spanish Contact Dermatitis and Skin Allergy Research Group (GEIDAC) have drawn up a proposed list of the requirements, limitations, and conditioning factors affecting the resumption of work in contact dermatitis units. The assumption is that the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus2 is still circulating and that occasional or seasonal outbreaks will occur. They recommend that the first step should be to assess how many patch tests each clinic can handle and review the waiting list to prioritize cases according to disease severity and urgency. Digital technologies can, where possible, be used to send and receive the documentation necessary for the patch test (information, instructions, informed consent, etc.). If the necessary infrastructure is available, patients can be offered the option of a remote initial consultation. Likewise, in selected cases, the patch test results can be read in a virtual visit using photographs taken by the patient or a video visit can be scheduled to allow the physician to evaluate the site of application remotely. These measures will reduce the number of face-to-face visits required, but will not affect the time spent on each case, which must be scheduled in the normal manner. All of these recommendations are suggestions and should be adapted to the needs and possibilities of each health centre.