key: cord-0685307-3j1x76j3 authors: Tihy, M.; Menzinger, S.; André, R.; Laffitte, E.; Toutous‐Trellu, L.; Kaya, G. title: Clinicopathological features of cutaneous reactions after mRNA‐based COVID‐19 vaccines date: 2021-09-16 journal: J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol DOI: 10.1111/jdv.17633 sha: 032aa1678e9dd5998e997d16ec220369ab1aff25 doc_id: 685307 cord_uid: 3j1x76j3 BACKGROUND: Cutaneous reactions, mostly on injection site after mRNA‐based COVID‐19 vaccines, have been reported but not with detailed histopathological characterization. OBJECTIVES: Characterization and classification of these reactions in a clinical and pathological point of view. METHODS: Monocentric case series of 11 patients with cutaneous manifestations, clinically and histologically characterized after COVID‐19 vaccination. RESULTS: From January to June 2021, we recorded 11 cutaneous reactions to mRNA COVID‐19 vaccines from BNT162b2 (n = 8) and mRNA‐1273 (n = 3). Generalized reactions showing erythematous rash or purpura were the most common clinical presentation, and drug‐reaction‐like pattern was the most common histological finding. CONCLUSIONS: A proper clinicopathological classification will be helpful in the early diagnosis and management of the cutaneous reactions to mRNA COVID‐19 vaccines. As in many countries, two mRNA COVID-19 vaccines have been authorized in Switzerland by the Swiss Agency for therapeutic products and are currently administered to the general population: Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) and Moderna (mRNA-1273). Cutaneous adverse reactions have been reported for both vaccines. Local injection site reactions (redness and swelling) were few reported, in 5%-7% of the patients after BNT162b2 vaccination. 1 Moderna's trial reported also delayed large local reaction, characterized by erythema, induration and tenderness, called 'COVIDarm' after the first (0.8%) or the second dose (0.2%). Other authors report reactions including « rash » (0.3%), or urticaria (0.2%). 2 Allergic reactions such as generalized urticaria, diffuse erythematous and pruritic rash with a very short delay were also described in patients with or without allergic history. 3, 4 Recently, McMahon et al. reported 414 patients with one or more acute or delayed cutaneous reactions to both vaccines. 5 In this study, the most common cutaneous reactions were delayed large local reaction, followed by local injection site reactions, urticaria, morbilliform rash and erythromelalgia. The median time from first vaccination to onset of cutaneous symptoms was 7 days. They also reported fewer reactions such as swelling at the site of cosmetic fillers, pernio/chilblains, varicella-zoster, herpes simplex flares, pityriasis rosea-like eruption and vasculitis. They also indicated that 90% of the reactions were reported in female patients. 5 Smaller cohorts or cases described Varicella-zoster virus reactivation, erythemato-oedematous reaction at the injection site, diffuse morbilliform rash, mild erythema and positive dermographism. 6,7 Some rare studies described clinicopathological correlation for delayed large local reactions. 8, 9 However, none of these studies focussed on the histological aspect of cutaneous reactions, especially on the lesions located at a distance from the vaccine injection site, which can be of great help for the clinical differential diagnosis. Our work attempts to improve the clinicopathological description and comprehension of cutaneous reactions to the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. We performed a monocentric retrospective data analysis to characterize clinical and histopathological aspects of skin reactions to BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines at University Hospital of Geneva. This vaccination campaign began on January 27. Both vaccines require two doses 3-4 weeks apart. As inclusion criteria, a skin biopsy was needed. Clinical aspects of the skin manifestations were either directly evaluated in the presence of the patients or indirectly assessed through clinical pictures. Allergic reactions, skin or systemic disease history, were recorded, and all patients were re-examined few days later. A skin biopsy was performed for each patient at admission, was placed into formalin 10%, fixed, embedded in a paraffin block and processed for light microscopy using standard procedures. Serial sections were stained with haematoxylin-eosin. The entire skin biopsy specimen was examined by 3 dermatopathologists. Among 11 subjects, 72.7% received BNT162b2. The mean age was 70 years (range 36-89 years), and 7 (63.6%) patients were female. 81% of the skin reaction appeared after the second dose of the vaccine. A mean delay between injection and symptom was near to 4.5 days (range 1-8) after the first and 11.5 days (range 2-21) after the second injection (Table 1) . None were known for allergic history. Most of the lesions observed were not on the injection site. Skin lesions appeared mostly on the trunk (n = 8) followed by the legs (n = 6) and the arms (n = 5). We did not notice acral or facial lesions. Clinical patterns were erythematous (n = 6), purpuric (n = 2), urticarial (n = 1), prurigo-like (n = 1) and pityriasis rosea-like (n = 1; Figs 1,2). Regarding extracutaneous symptoms, 3 patients had systemic symptoms such as fever, fatigue and headache (Patients_2,6,7). Histologically, the most common pattern was a 'drugreaction-like' pattern and was characterized by variable epidermal keratinocyte necrosis associated with a perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate in the superficial and mid dermis, and a variable number of eosinophils and sometimes neutrophils. This pattern was found in 6 patients ( Fig. 1a-f ) with an average time of onset of 11.6 days (range 4-16; Patients_1-6). Skin reactions after COVID-19 vaccines One of these patients (Patient 5), presented an erythematous rash, associated with crusted plaques. She had many medications without no recent changes. Histological examination showed the abovementioned features and also acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis-like features with subcorneal pustules (Fig. 1e) . Another patient, with no previous medical history or medication, presented with an erythematous scaly annular and oval patches of the trunk, two weeks after the second injection of the vaccine. She had a fever 24 h after the injection and diffuse lymph nodes that had disappeared before rash. Clinical picture was consistent with pityriasis rosea (Patient_6). However, histological examination revealed epidermal spongiosis and keratinocyte necrosis associated with lymphocytic infiltrate in the superficial and deep dermis with few eosinophils and was therefore consistent with a 'drug-reaction-like' pattern (Fig. 1f) . Blood PCR test was negative for HHV6 and HHV7. Besides this pattern, five patients presented other clinical and histological aspects. One patient presented petechial and purpuric macules on legs, one day after the first injection (Patient_7). Histological examination was consistent with pigmented purpuric dermatosis, with a perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate associated with red blood cell extravasation and hemosiderin deposits, confirmed by Prussian blue staining without vascular fibrinoid necrosis (Fig. 2a) . Another one was characterized by urticarial papules and plaques lasted more than 24 h (Patient_8). Histological examination showed a picture of early leucocytoclastic vasculitis with a perivascular infiltrate with neutrophils, foci of leucocytoclasia, extravasated red blood cells and without vascular fibrinoid necrosis. The clinical and pathological correlation was consistent with urticarial vasculitis (Fig. 2b) . One of these cases was characterized clinically by an intense pruritus, associated with excoriated papules and nodules on trunk, arms and legs 15 days after the second dose (Patient_9). Histological examination revealed a crust and superficial ulceration filled with thick, eosinophilic and verticalized collagen fibres perforating the crust, and was consistent with prurigo nodularis with excoriations (Fig. 2c) . One patient presented with eczematiform erythematous and squamous plaques with a nummular aspect on trunk and legs. He was not known for atopic dermatitis or nummular eczema (Patient_10). Histological examination was characterized by suprabasal acantholysis, and balloon-like keratinocytes with no dyskeratosis. The direct immunofluorescence examination was negative and not suggestive of pemphigus. Furthermore, the clinical aspect and topography of the lesions were not consistent with Grover's disease (Fig. 2d) . We also observed a delayed large local reaction or 'COVIDarm'. (Patient_11). Histological examination showed dilated capillaries and venules in the superficial and mid dermis, lymphocytic perivascular infiltrate with rare neutrophils and eosinophils, without leucocytoclasia or vascular fibrinoid necrosis. These findings were reminiscent of erythema annulare centrifugum, as recently proposed for COVID-arm lesions induced by Moderna vaccines (Fig. 2e) . 10 For all the patients, the lesions decreased in size, number or disappeared completely during the 2 weeks after the first consultation. The clinical presentations were erythematous, purpuric, urticarial, prurigo-like and pityriasis rosea-like. Histologically, the main finding was drug-reaction-like pattern. We also observed pigmented purpuric dermatosis, prurigo nodularis with excoriations, vasculitis and acantholytic dermatosis. This study included only patients with skin biopsy. Other patients with clinically characteristic post-vaccination skin lesions were not included. Biopsies were performed to help on the differential diagnosis and for the pharmacovigilance reporting. Clinical differential diagnosis was sometimes challenging. For example, one patient was known to have transplanted chronic myeloid leukaemia, and graft-versus-host disease was a differential diagnosis (Patient_2). All reactions were benign and resolved inside 2 weeks. Although our cohort is predominantly female, it is not possible to draw a trend because we only included patients who had a biopsy and more women were vaccinated at the beginning of the vaccination phase in Switzerland. 11 Also note that our cohort is on average older than those already published. Indeed, the previous cohorts were mostly composed of healthcare workers which is mostly not the case in our study. Even though the skin reactions are quite rare in comparison with the number of vaccinations, 12 it remains important not to misdiagnose a cutaneous reaction related to the vaccine. All of these reactions have been described clinically and histologically with other vaccines. 13 Moreover, unusual vaccine reaction should be notified as for any adverse drug reaction. A previous drug or vaccine allergy seems to be a risk factor for COVID-19 vaccine adverse reaction. 7 However, we did not find it in any of our patients. Our study has several limitations, first of all, few patients were collected; we had a spontaneous, retrospective recruitment, and some patients may have been missed. We did not analyse serological anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses or RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 during vaccination to exclude asymptomatic infection. However, little is known about this point; moreover, none of the patients had presented a previous episode consistent with COVID-19 infection. However, the exploration of the presence of viral proteins using anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies by immunohistochemistry on the skin samples of patients would give some clues about the immunopathogenesis of these skin reactions. As mRNA vaccines are based on a totally new mechanism to deliver an immunogenic response, we insist on a meticulous description of cutaneous adverse effects. A proper clinicopathological classification will be helpful in the early diagnosis, management of these cutaneous reactions, and give clues of physiopathological mechanisms. Safety and efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccine Efficacy and safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine Allergic reactions including anaphylaxis after receipt of the first dose of pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine Acute allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines Cutaneous reactions reported after Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 vaccination: A registry-based study of 414 cases Varicellazoster virus reactivation after SARS-Cov2 BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination: Report of five cases Transient cutaneous manifestations after administration of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine: an Italian single centre case series Delayed large local reactions to mRNA-1273 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 Skin manifestations of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in healthcare workers COVID arm" -histological features of a delayed type hypersensitivity reaction to Moderna mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV2 vaccine Vaccine side-effects and SARS-CoV-2 infection after vaccination in users of the COVID Symptom Study app in the UK: a prospective observational study Vaccine-induced pityriasis rosea and pityriasis rosea-like eruptions: a review of the literature The patients in this manuscript have given written informed consent to publication of their case details. We thank Mr J. Fraga Brea for the clinical pictures. We thank Drs E. Brocco, S. Dumont, A. Hsieh, A. Maillard, P. Piletta, J. Puenchera and B. Russo for clinical evaluation and anamnestic information.