Association between BNT162b2 vaccination and the development of delayed inflammatory reactions to hyaluronic acid-based dermal fillers-A nationwide survey.

BACKGROUND: Delayed inflammatory reactions (DIRs) to hyaluronic acid-based dermal fillers following COVID-19 vaccination has been reported in a few anecdotal reports and small series of cases. AIM: To evaluate the clinical characteristics, incidence, and management options relevant to BNT162b2 vaccination-associated DIR-A nationwide survey was conducted. METHODS: An online self-administered survey was sent to physicians who actively practice tissue filler injections. The data acquired included demographic and clinical characteristics of relevant DIR cases. RESULTS: Out of 262 responders, 20 cases with DIR following the vaccination were reported. 35% and 65% occurred shortly after the first and second vaccination dose, respectively. Overall, 65% of the DIRs appeared ≤5 days after vaccine administration and most DIRs resolved within 21 days. The filler's volume (p = 0.016) was associated with higher DIR severity, and the same tendency was noted among some filler types and locations of injection. Medical intervention was provided in 12 (60%) cases. CONCLUSION: DIR associated with BNT162b2 vaccination is rare and tends to resolve spontaneously or with short-term medical intervention.

Cutaneous Reactions to COVID-19 Vaccines in a Monocentric Study: A Case Series.

After coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused a global pandemic, vaccines were rapidly developed to control the spread of the virus. Although they were effective in most of the cases at protecting people from becoming seriously ill and being hospitalized, they showed side effects, too. Among other adverse vaccine reactions, cutaneous eruptions following SARS-CoV-2 have been described in the literature, but they are not well-characterized yet. We described the morphology and timing of the spectrum of cutaneous reactions following most of the COVID-19 vaccines available in Italy, which were observed in outpatients referred to our non-invasive diagnostic clinic. Most of these reactions appeared after the second or third COVID-19 vaccine dose (most of them after mRNA COVID-19 vaccines). Our data support that cutaneous reactions to COVID-19 vaccination are generally self-limited; in addition, history of allergic reaction to a specific food, medicine or vaccine should not discourage vaccination in the general population, although patients with immune dysregulation should be accurately selected and monitored. Further research is necessary to better assess the true prevalence and preventive measures of skin reactions to COVID-19 vaccination.

Cutaneous reactions reported after Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 vaccination: A registry-based study of 414 cases.

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.

"COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 virus spike protein-related delayed inflammatory reaction to hyaluronic acid dermal fillers: a challenging clinical conundrum in diagnosis and treatment".

We present the first reported cases of delayed inflammatory reactions (DIR) to hyaluronic acid (HA) dermal fillers after exposure to the COVID-19 spike protein. DIR to HA is reported to occur in the different scenarios including: secondary to poor injection technique, following dental cleaning procedures, following bacterial/viral illness, and after vaccination. In this report of 4 cases with distinct clinical histories and presentations: one case occured following a community acquired COVID-19 infection, one case occured in a study subject in the mRNA-1273 clinical phase III trial, one case occurred following the first dose of publically available mRNA-1273 vaccine (Moderna, Cambridge MA), and the last case occurred after the second dose of BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer, New York, NY). Injectable HA dermal fillers are prevalent in aesthetic medicine for facial rejuvenation. Structural modifications in the crosslinking of HA fillers have enhanced the products' resistance to enzymatic breakdown and thus increased injected product longevity, however, have also led to a rise in DIR. Previous, DIR to HA dermal fillers can present clinically as edema with symptomatic and inflammatory erythematous papules and nodules. The mechanism of action for the delayed reaction to HA fillers is unknown and is likely to be multifactorial in nature. A potential mechanism of DIR to HA fillers in COVID-19 related cases is binding and blockade of angiotensin 2 converting enzyme receptors (ACE2), which are targeted by the SARS-CoV-2 virus spike protein to gain entry into the cell. Spike protein interaction with dermal ACE2 receptors favors a pro-inflammatory, loco-regional TH1 cascade, promoting a CD8+T cell mediated reaction to incipient granulomas, which previously formed around residual HA particles. Management to suppress the inflammatory response in the native COVID-19 case required high-dose corticosteroids (CS) to suppress inflammatory pathways, with concurrent ACE2 upregulation, along with high-dose intralesional hyaluronidase to dissolve the inciting HA filler. With regards to the two vaccine related cases; in the mRNA-1273 case, a low dose angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACE-I) was utilized for treatment, to reduce pro-inflammatory Angiotensin II. Whereas, in the BNT162b2 case the filler reaction was suppressed with oral corticosteroids. Regarding final disposition of the cases; the vaccine-related cases returned to baseline appearance within 3 days, whereas the native COVID-19 case continued to have migratory, evanescent, periorbital edema for weeks which ultimately subsided.