Adverse events reported after administration of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines among hospital workers: a cross-sectional survey-based study in a Spanish hospital.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic in March 2020. The first vaccine became available in December, with practically no post-marketing data. METHODS: An analytical cross-sectional survey-based study was conducted in a third-level hospital in Spain between March and April 2021 to describe the difference in adverse events with the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines. The participants were hospital workers who completed a survey voluntarily at least 14 days after the last vaccine. The STROBE checklist was followed. RESULTS: One thousand two hundred and forty-nine respondents completed the survey; 48% (599) received mRNA-1273 and 52% (650) BNT162b2. Fourteen thousand four hundred and two adverse reactions were recorded, 6896 local (3939 with mRNA-1273 and 2957 with BNT162b2 (6.6 vs 4.4 reactions per patient)) and 7506 systemic (4460 with mRNA-1273 and 3046 with BNT162b2 (7.4 vs 4.7 per patient)). Local reactions were more frequent after the first dose, while systemic reactions were higher after the second, for both vaccines and in a higher percentage with mRNA-1273 compared to BNT162b2 (p-value<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Licensed mRNA vaccines were highly safe when administered under post-marketing conditions among working-age adults. The main adverse events were mild, although they occurred in most patients, especially after the mRNA-1273 vaccine.

Vancomycin-associated Henoch-Schönlein purpura.

Intravenous vancomycin is a widely used antibiotics, but it causes different types of cutaneous hypersensitivity reactions, ranging from maculopapular rash, red-man syndrome, drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, IgA bullous dermatosis, leukocytoclastic vasculitis, Stevens-Johnsons syndrome, to IgE-mediated anaphylaxis. We report an elderly patient with the end-stage renal disease presented with diffuse palpable purpura while receiving IV vancomycin therapy for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus septicemia. Histopathology of skin biopsy revealed perivascular infiltrates of leukocytoclastic debris with necrosis of the small-sized blood vessels. Direct immunofluorescence analysis demonstrated vivid IgA plus C3 immune-complex deposits localized to the vessel walls, and no immune complexes were noted on the dermoepidermal junction. There was no IgG or IgM immunoreactivity detected on the tissue specimen. Rheumatologic disease work-ups were negative. A diagnosis of vancomycin-associated Henoch-Schönlein variant of vasculitis was made. Vancomycin was substituted by daptomycin, and the purpuric skin rashes were resolved. Since vancomycin is a commonly used antibacterial agent, clinicians are encouraged to have a heightened awareness of this rare adverse skin reaction. Early recognition and prompt discontinuation of the medication is the key in management. As it is not an Ig-E mediated reaction, desensitization of vancomycin or re-challenge with vancomycin is not recommended as re-exposure to the drug may result in a recurrence of similar manifestations with potential permanent renal failure.