Cutaneous adverse reactions following anti-infective vaccinations

Cutaneous Adverse Reactions to SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: An increasing number of cutaneous adverse reactions (CARs) to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have been reported, but their incidence is debated. Objective: To estimate the pooled incidence of CARs to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in the general adult population. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of original articles published on MEDLINE via PubMed and Web Of Science from 1 January 2020 to 18 July 2022 was undertaken. Studies reporting the incidence proportion of CARs (defined as number of new cases of CARs on the total of vaccinated people) were included. All types of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine were included. People receiving at least one dose were considered eligible. Local cutaneous reactions were excluded. Results: A total of 970 records were identified and screened by title and abstract; 22 observational studies were included with aggregate data on 93,165 participants. The pooled incidence of overall CARs was 5% (95%CI 4−6%; I2 = 99%; p < 0.001), ranging from <0.01 to 19.00%. Most CARs were new onset dermatitis including rash, urticaria and vascular lesions; one case of Steven−Johnson syndrome and six cases of erythema multiforme were reported. In the sensitivity analysis we found that the incidence of CARs after the first and second dose was similar, i.e., 3% (95%CI 2−3%; I2 = 96%; p < 0.001) and 3% (95%CI 2−4%; I2 = 97%; p < 0.001), respectively. The magnitude of incidence of CARs remained unchanged independently of vaccine platform and in the general population versus healthcare workers. Conclusions: CARs associated with SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are frequent but mild and self-remitting, whereas severe CARs are rare.

Delayed allergic skin reactions to vaccines

Background: Recent advances in vaccination against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic have brought allergists and dermatologists to the forefront because both immediate and delayed hypersensitivity reactions have been reported. Objective: This literature review focused on delayed reactions to vaccines, including possible causative agents and practical information on how to diagnose, evaluate with patch testing, and manage subsequent dose administration. Methods: Currently published reviews and case reports in PubMed, along with data on vaccines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention web site. Relevant case reports and reviews that focused on delayed reactions to vaccines were selected. Results: Most delayed hypersensitivity reactions to vaccines include cutaneous manifestations, which vary from local persistent pruritic nodules to systemic rashes. The onset is usually within a few days but can be delayed by weeks. Multiple excipients have been identified that have been implicated in delayed vaccine reactions, including thimerosal, formaldehyde, aluminum, antibiotics, and gelatin. Treatment with antihistamines, topical corticosteroids, or systemic corticosteroids alleviates symptoms in most patients. Such reactions are generally not contraindications to future vaccination. However, for more-severe reactions, patch testing for causative agents can be used to aid in diagnosis and approach further vaccination. Conclusion: Delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions to vaccines are not uncommon. If needed, patch testing can be used to confirm agents, including antibiotics, formaldehyde, thimerosal, and aluminum. In most cases, delayed cutaneous reactions are not contraindications to further vaccine administration.

Granulomatous Cutaneous Drug Eruptions: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Granulomatous drug eruptions are rare entities, where granuloma formation occurs as an attempt to contain an exogenous or endogenous inciting agent. Granulomatous drug eruptions may be localized to the skin or may include major systemic involvement, and their characteristics depend both on the properties of the causative irritant and host factors. Because of the overlapping features amongst noninfectious granulomatous diseases, granulomatous drug eruptions are challenging to diagnose and distinguish both histologically and clinically.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this article is to provide a review and summary of the current literature on the five major types of cutaneous granulomatous drug eruptions: interstitial granulomatous drug reaction, drug-induced accelerated rheumatoid nodulosis, drug-induced granuloma annulare, drug-induced sarcoidosis, and miscellaneous presentations.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted through PubMed using the search terms "granulomatous drug eruption" and "cutaneous" or "skin". English full-text studies that included human subjects experiencing a cutaneous reaction comprising granulomatous inflammation as the direct result of a drug were included. Of 205 studies identified, 48 articles were selected after a full-text review. Evidence was evaluated using the Tool for evaluating the methodological quality of case reports and case series.

RESULTS

Polypharmacy and a prolonged lag period from drug ingestion to rash onset may create diagnostic challenges. Ruling out tuberculosis is imperative in the endemic setting, particularly where anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy is the presumed cause. Interstitial granulomatous drug reactions and granuloma annulare are often localized to the skin whereas accelerated rheumatoid nodulosis and sarcoidosis may sometimes be associated with systemic features as well. Granulomatous drug eruptions typically resolve on discontinuing the offending medication; however, the decision for drug cessation is dependent on a risk-benefit assessment. In some situations, supplementation of an additional agent to suppress the reaction may resolve symptoms. In some cases, granulomatous drug eruptions may be pivotal in the successful outcome of the drug, as in cases of melanoma treatment. In all situations, the decision to continue or withdraw the drug should be carefully based on the severity of the eruption, necessity of continuing the drug, and availability of a suitable alternative.

CONCLUSIONS

Granulomatous drug eruptions should always be considered in the differential diagnosis of noninfectious granulomatous diseases of the skin. Further research examining dose-response relationships and the recurrence of granulomatous drug eruptions on the rechallenge of offending agents is required. Increased awareness of granulomatous drug eruption types is important, especially with continuous development of new anti-cancer agents that may induce these reactions.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number CRD42020157009.

Prevention of Pertussis, Tetanus, and Diphtheria with Vaccines in the United States: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)

This report compiles and summarizes all recommendations from CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding prevention and control of tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis in the United States. As a comprehensive summary of previously published recommendations, this report does not contain any new recommendations and replaces all previously published reports and policy notes; it is intended for use by clinicians and public health providers as a resource. ACIP recommends routine vaccination for tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis. Infants and young children are recommended to receive a 5-dose series of diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis (DTaP) vaccines, with one adolescent booster dose of tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine. Adults who have never received Tdap also are recommended to receive a booster dose of Tdap. Women are recommended to receive a dose of Tdap during each pregnancy, which should be administered from 27 through 36 weeks' gestation, regardless of previous receipt of Tdap. After receipt of Tdap, adolescents and adults are recommended to receive a booster tetanus and diphtheria toxoids (Td) vaccine every 10 years to assure ongoing protection against tetanus and diphtheria.

Granulomatous Drug Eruptions

Granuloma formation is usually regarded as a means of defending the host from persistent irritants of either exogenous or endogenous origin. Noninfectious granulomatous disorders of the skin encompass a challenging group of diseases owing to their clinical and histologic overlap. Drug reactions characterized by a granulomatous reaction pattern are rare, and defined by a predominance of histiocytes in the inflammatory infiltrate. This review summarizes current knowledge on the various types of granulomatous drug eruptions, focusing on the 4 major types: interstitial granulomatous drug reaction, drug-induced accelerated rheumatoid nodulosis, drug-induced granuloma annulare, and drug-induced sarcoidosis.

Vaccination against Oncoproteins of HPV16 for Noninvasive Vulvar/Vaginal Lesions: Lesion Clearance Is Related to the Strength of the T-Cell Response

PURPOSE

Therapeutic vaccination with human papillomavirus type 16 (HPV16) E6 and E7 synthetic long peptides (SLP) is effective against HPV16-induced high-grade vulvar and vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia (VIN/VaIN). However, clinical nonresponders displayed weak CD8(+) T-cell reactivity. Here, we studied if imiquimod applied at the vaccine site could improve CD8(+) T-cell reactivity, clinical efficacy, and safety of HPV16-SLP (ISA101).

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

A multicenter open-label, randomized controlled trial was conducted in patients with HPV16(+) high-grade VIN/VaIN. Patients received ISA101 vaccination with or without application of 5% imiquimod at the vaccine site. The primary objective was the induction of a directly ex vivo detectable HPV16-specific CD8(+) T-cell response. The secondary objectives were clinical responses (lesion size, histology, and virology) and their relation with the strength of vaccination-induced immune responses.

RESULTS

Forty-three patients were assigned to either ISA101 with imiquimod (n = 21) or ISA101 only (n = 22). Imiquimod did not improve the outcomes of vaccination. However, vaccine-induced clinical responses were observed in 18 of 34 (53%; 95% CI, 35.1-70.2) patients at 3 months and in 15 of 29 (52%; 95% CI, 32.5-70.6) patients, 8 of whom displayed a complete histologic response, at 12 months after the last vaccination. All patients displayed vaccine-induced T-cell responses, which were significantly stronger in patients with complete responses. Importantly, viral clearance occurred in all but one of the patients with complete histologic clearance.

CONCLUSIONS

This new study confirms that clinical efficacy of ISA101 vaccination is related to the strength of vaccine-induced HPV16-specific T-cell immunity and is an effective therapy for HPV16-induced high-grade VIN/VaIN. Clin Cancer Res; 22(10); 2342-50. ©2016 AACRSee related commentary by Karaki et al., p. 2317.

Possible Triggering Effect of Influenza Vaccination on Psoriasis

Psoriasis is a chronic, recurrent, immune-mediated inflammatory disease and it can be provoked or exacerbated by a variety of different environmental factors, particularly infections and drugs. In addition, a possible association between vaccination and the new onset and/or exacerbation of psoriasis has been reported by a number of different authors. The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of influenza vaccination on patients with psoriasis. Here, we report the findings from 43 patients suffering from psoriasis (clinical phenotypes as mixed guttate/plaque lesions, palmoplantar or scalp psoriasis) whose diseases had been triggered after influenza vaccination applied in the 2009-2010 season. The short time intervals between vaccination and psoriasis flares in our patients and the lack of other possible triggers suggest that influenza vaccinations may have provocative effects on psoriasis. However, further large and controlled studies need to be carried out to confirm this relationship.

Systemic Allergic Contact Dermatitis After Formaldehyde-Containing Influenza Vaccination

BACKGROUND

Systemic contact dermatitis occurs when a patient sensitized to an allergen topically is systemically reexposed to the allergen and develops a cutaneous eruption.

OBJECTIVE

To report the case of a 48-year-old male who developed explosive dermatitis following injection of a formaldehyde-containing influenza vaccine and was subsequently shown to be strongly positive to formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasing allergens by patch testing, as well as to review the literature for similar cases.

METHODS

A PubMed search was made using the following search terms: systemic contact dermatitis, formaldehyde, influenza, and vaccine.

RESULTS

A review of the literature revealed 2 cases of systemic contact dermatitis from formaldehyde derived from aspartame and 1 case from a thimerosal-containing influenza vaccine. No cases caused by formaldehyde in influenza or other vaccines were found.

CONCLUSION

This case highlights the importance of considering systemic allergic contact dermatitis in any patient presenting with dermatitis following injection of a formaldehyde-containing vaccine.

The safety and tolerability of an HIV-1 DNA prime-protein boost vaccine (DP6-001) in healthy adult volunteers

This report describes the safety observations following administration of a polyvalent DNA prime-protein boost HIV-1 vaccine formulated with adjuvant QS21. Local injection site reactions were the most common (65% of subjects), and included type IV delayed-type hypersensitivity (DTH) reactions at prior DNA inoculation sites in 12 of 28 (43%) subjects following protein vaccination. Systemic reactions revealed two cases of vasculitis temporally related to inoculation with recombinant Env protein+QS21 adjuvant. Questions remain regarding the cause of the vasculitis, but the unique DTH observation may have contributed to the high level of immune responses previously reported for this vaccine.

Bullous pemphigoid triggered by influenza vaccination? Ecological study in Galicia, Spain

BACKGROUND

Influenza vaccination has been suggested to be a trigger for bullous pemphigoid (BP). In our area most new patients with BP are admitted to hospital.

OBJECTIVES

To detect a difference in the rate of admissions to hospital for BP during population influenza vaccination programmes, which are mainly targeted at individuals aged 65 years or older, start in the last week of September and last for 2 months.

METHODS

An ecological study in Galicia, north-west Spain (1997-2005), restricted to people aged 65 years or older. Using Poisson regression, results were controlled for mean age of admission and percentage of the population vaccinated each year.

RESULTS

There were 29 admissions registered during 'vaccination periods' (i.e. approximately 10 weeks per year, including the period of vaccination and two further weeks), and 158 during nonvaccination periods (the rest of the year). The incidence rate ratio of admissions for BP in vaccination vs. nonvaccination periods was 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.57-1.27, P = 0.43).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data do not support the hypothesis of influenza vaccination being an important trigger for severe BP on a population level.