Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
3 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      A case of toxic epidermal necrolysis after ChAdOx1 nCov‐19 (AZD1222) vaccination

      letter
      , MChD, BSc (Hons1) 1 , , , MBBS, MMed, MSc, DCH 1 , , MBBS (Hons), MPH 1 , , MBBS, MBA 1 , , MBBS, MD, OAM, FACD 2
      The Australasian Journal of Dermatology
      John Wiley and Sons Inc.

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Dear Editor, A healthy 48‐year‐old woman presented to hospital with a worsening erythematous eruption, with onset 14 days after receiving her first dose of the ChAdOx1 nCoV‐19 (AZD1222) vaccine. Aside from minor discomfort at the injection site that spontaneously resolved, she denied any other post‐vaccination symptoms. A pruritic eruption initially appeared on her chest, extending rapidly to the trunk, limbs and orogenital mucosa, with florid exfoliation. There were associated fevers, nausea and skin tenderness. Past medical history was unremarkable, with no other medications preceding the eruption. She was prescribed betamethasone valerate 0.02% cream with twice daily topical application, as well as fexofenadine 180 mg once daily per orally by her GP for her pruritic eruption with no relief. Paracetamol 1 g four times daily and ibuprofen 300 mg three times daily per orally were taken for her fever with no improvement. The patient had taken paracetamol, ibuprofen and fexofenadine previously with no issues. Examination showed a confluent erythematous maculopapular eruption with a positive Nikolsky sign and orogenital mucosal involvement (Fig. 1). Skin biopsies demonstrated full‐thickness epidermal necrosis, pauci‐inflammatory dermis, and negative direct immunofluorescence (Fig. 2). Serology did not reveal any active infections with mycoplasma pneumoniae, herpes simplex virus or adenovirus. Screening tests were performed for HIV, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, tuberculosis and Strongyloides infection, which all returned negative results. Aside from mildly increased liver transaminases, blood differential and chemistry were within normal limits. Figure 1 (a) & (b) show clinical images taken on day 4 of admission, showing denuded skin on the anterior trunk (a) with flaccid bullae measuring up to 40mm in diameter and with a total BSA of epidermally detached skin to 15%. Also present were erosions of the hard palate (b) and labia majora (not shown); there was no involvement of the vaginal mucosa or conjunctiva. (c) & (d) show clinical images taken on day 6 of admission, demonstrating progression of exfoliation on the trunk. Figure 2 Shows histopathology of skin biopsy demonstrating partial‐ to full‐thickness epidermal necrosis, subepidermal split, basal vacuolation and scattered superficial dermal perivascular lymphocytes (x40, x200 & x100, H&E). Direct immunofluorescence was negative for fibrinogen, C3, IgA, IgG or IgM deposition. She was admitted to a burns unit for management of Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis (TEN) due to ChAdOx1 nCoV‐19 vaccine. Her SCORTEN at time of admission was 2, scoring for age (>40 years) and more than 10% body surface area (BSA) of epidermal detachment. Treatment with adalimumab, a human IgG1 monoclonal antibody to Tumour Necrosis Factor‐alpha (TNF‐α), was given as an 80mg stat dose via subcutaneous injection. Two further doses were administered on days 3 and 5 after which progression of the eruption ceased. Detachment of involved skin continued up to 28 days of admission, with 90% of BSA involved. She made a full recovery and was discharged home after 35 days. TEN is a severe cutaneous adverse reaction and a medical emergency, with a mortality rate of up to 30%. 1 SJS/TEN have a combined incidence between 2‐7 cases per million annually, whilst vaccine‐induced SJS/TEN is even rarer with less than 0.1 cases of SJS/TEN per million doses of influenza vaccine administered between 2010 to 2017. 2 , 3 The ChAdOx1 nCoV‐19 adenoviral vector vaccine induces a Th1‐polarised response to confer protection against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) via clonal expansion of CD8+ cytotoxic T‐lymphocytes (CTL), which play a pivotal role in the pathogenesis of TEN via granulysin and granzyme B release to induce keratinocyte apoptosis. 2 , 4 TEN following ChAdOx1 nCoV‐19 vaccination may relate to its immunogenicity to stimulate a robust CD8+ CTL response, which peaks between 7 and 28 days after vaccination, consistent with our patients' onset of exfoliative bullous eruptions 14 days after first exposure. 4 TNF‐α is elevated in serum and skin samples of TEN patients, although the extent TNF‐α induces keratinocyte apoptosis in TEN is unknown. 2 The efficacy of TNF‐α inhibitors to abrogate TEN has been demonstrated previously with Etanercept. 5 Adalimumab may prove to be a highly effective treatment for TEN, although larger randomised control studies are required to validate this. We raise awareness of the possibility of TEN following ChAdOx1 nCoV‐19 vaccination and encourage clinicians to have a high index of suspicion for individuals with a rapidly progressive cutaneous eruption following ChAdOx1 nCoV‐19 vaccination to minimise delay in diagnosis and referral to a burns unit. However, we caution that this is a very rare event, the risk of which is minimal compared to the morbidity and mortality of SARS‐CoV‐2. It should not deter the wider community from receiving this or any other vaccine.

          Related collections

          Most cited references5

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          T cell and antibody responses induced by a single dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine in a phase 1/2 clinical trial

          Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), has caused a global pandemic, and safe, effective vaccines are urgently needed1. Strong, Th1-skewed T cell responses can drive protective humoral and cell-mediated immune responses2 and might reduce the potential for disease enhancement3. Cytotoxic T cells clear virus-infected host cells and contribute to control of infection4. Studies of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 have suggested a protective role for both humoral and cell-mediated immune responses in recovery from COVID-19 (refs. 5,6). ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) is a candidate SARS-CoV-2 vaccine comprising a replication-deficient simian adenovirus expressing full-length SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. We recently reported preliminary safety and immunogenicity data from a phase 1/2 trial of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (NCT04400838)7 given as either a one- or two-dose regimen. The vaccine was tolerated, with induction of neutralizing antibodies and antigen-specific T cells against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Here we describe, in detail, exploratory analyses of the immune responses in adults, aged 18-55 years, up to 8 weeks after vaccination with a single dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in this trial, demonstrating an induction of a Th1-biased response characterized by interferon-γ and tumor necrosis factor-α cytokine secretion by CD4+ T cells and antibody production predominantly of IgG1 and IgG3 subclasses. CD8+ T cells, of monofunctional, polyfunctional and cytotoxic phenotypes, were also induced. Taken together, these results suggest a favorable immune profile induced by ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine, supporting the progression of this vaccine candidate to ongoing phase 2/3 trials to assess vaccine efficacy.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Etanercept therapy for toxic epidermal necrolysis.

            Toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) is a severe and potentially lethal drug reaction for which no standard treatment is available.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Toxic epidermal necrolysis: Part II. Prognosis, sequelae, diagnosis, differential diagnosis, prevention, and treatment.

              Toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) is a life-threatening, typically drug-induced, mucocutaneous disease. TEN has a high mortality rate, making early diagnosis and treatment of paramount importance. New but experimental diagnostic tools that measure serum granulysin and high-mobility group protein B1 (HMGB1) offer the potential to differentiate early TEN from other, less serious drug reactions, but these tests have not been validated and are not readily available. The mainstay of treatment for TEN involves discontinuation of the offending drug, specialized care in an intensive care unit or burn center, and supportive therapy. Pharmacogenetic studies have clearly established a link between human leukocyte antigen allotype and TEN. Human leukocyte antigen testing should be performed on patients of East Asian descent before the initiation of carbamezapine and on all patients before the initiation of abacavir. The effectiveness of systemic steroids, intravenous immunoglobulins, plasmapheresis, cyclosporine, biologics, and other agents is uncertain. Copyright © 2013 American Academy of Dermatology, Inc. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                ashodkherlopian@gmail.com
                Journal
                Australas J Dermatol
                Australas J Dermatol
                10.1111/(ISSN)1440-0960
                AJD
                The Australasian Journal of Dermatology
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                0004-8380
                1440-0960
                09 November 2021
                09 November 2021
                : 10.1111/ajd.13742
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Department of Dermatology Royal North Shore Hospital St Leonards New South Wales Australia
                [ 2 ] Royal North Shore Hospital St Leonards New South Wales Australia
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2840-5256
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4722-9673
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3074-7538
                Article
                AJD13742
                10.1111/ajd.13742
                8653013
                34751429
                9f3e6159-a778-4e43-b394-8e023e9fad8d
                © 2021 The Australasian College of Dermatologists

                This article is being made freely available through PubMed Central as part of the COVID-19 public health emergency response. It can be used for unrestricted research re-use and analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source, for the duration of the public health emergency.

                History
                : 24 August 2021
                : 02 July 2021
                : 10 October 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 0, Pages: 3, Words: 990
                Categories
                Letter to the Editor
                Letters to the Editor
                Case Letter
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                corrected-proof
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.0.9 mode:remove_FC converted:08.12.2021

                Comments

                Comment on this article