Observations of a Potential Immune Response to Breast Implants After Immunization With COVID-19 Vaccines

Abstract Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and the resulting coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) have afflicted tens of millions of people in a worldwide pandemic. Safe and effective vaccines are needed urgently. Methods In an ongoing multinational, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, pivotal efficacy trial, we randomly assigned persons 16 years of age or older in a 1:1 ratio to receive two doses, 21 days apart, of either placebo or the BNT162b2 vaccine candidate (30 μg per dose). BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle–formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine that encodes a prefusion stabilized, membrane-anchored SARS-CoV-2 full-length spike protein. The primary end points were efficacy of the vaccine against laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and safety. Results A total of 43,548 participants underwent randomization, of whom 43,448 received injections: 21,720 with BNT162b2 and 21,728 with placebo. There were 8 cases of Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose among participants assigned to receive BNT162b2 and 162 cases among those assigned to placebo; BNT162b2 was 95% effective in preventing Covid-19 (95% credible interval, 90.3 to 97.6). Similar vaccine efficacy (generally 90 to 100%) was observed across subgroups defined by age, sex, race, ethnicity, baseline body-mass index, and the presence of coexisting conditions. Among 10 cases of severe Covid-19 with onset after the first dose, 9 occurred in placebo recipients and 1 in a BNT162b2 recipient. The safety profile of BNT162b2 was characterized by short-term, mild-to-moderate pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. The incidence of serious adverse events was low and was similar in the vaccine and placebo groups. Conclusions A two-dose regimen of BNT162b2 conferred 95% protection against Covid-19 in persons 16 years of age or older. Safety over a median of 2 months was similar to that of other viral vaccines. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728.)

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.

Besides reports of alarming potential side effects after COVID-19 vaccinations there have been rare observations of rather benign reactions to foreign materials such as cosmetic hyaluronic acid filler injections after a COVID-19 immunization. Likewise to dermal fillers any foreign material may cause a reaction when the immune system is triggered. In the recent weeks we observed four noteworthy potential reactions in association with breast implants between one and three days after COVID-19 vaccinations. We release these information at the earliest to educate colleagues and draw attention to possible reactions between the COVID-19 vaccines and foreign bodies such as breast implants.