Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Cutaneous thrombosis associated with skin necrosis following Oxford‐AstraZeneca COVID‐19 vaccination

      letter

      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 73‐year‐old man presented with ulceration of his left shin 2 weeks after receiving his first dose of the ChAdOx1 nCov‐19 (Oxford‐AstraZeneca) COVID‐19 vaccine. He had a background of atrial fibrillation with ischaemic cardiomyopathy and had been on several longstanding medications, including apixaban. Within 24 h of vaccination, he had become generally unwell with fever and headache. After resolution of these systemic symptoms, on the third day after vaccination, he developed left shin erythema and blistering, which rapidly ulcerated (Fig. 1). Figure 1 (a–c) Evolution of clinical features on lateral aspect of left shin on (a) Day 3, (b) Day 7 and (c) Day 21 post‐ChAdOx1 nCov‐19 (Oxford‐AstraZeneca) vaccination. On physical examination, the patient was found to have two superficial ulcers with a necrotic base and a violaceous edge, which measured approximately 20 × 30 mm, on the lateral aspect of his left shin. Blood tests revealed normal liver and renal function tests with normal levels for antinuclear antibodies, antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies, prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, fibrinogen and D‐dimer. Full blood count showed a normal white cell differential count and mild thrombocytopenia (platelets 112 × 109/L; normal range: 150–450 × 109/L); the latter had been intermittently present at similar levels over the preceding 12 months but had not been previously investigated. The differential diagnosis included pyoderma gangrenosum, vasculitic ulceration and a cutaneous adverse drug reaction to vaccination. A punch biopsy was obtained from the edge of an ulcer, which revealed microthrombi within blood vessels, an ischaemic epidermis and fat necrosis of subcutaneous tissue (Fig. 2). Figure 2 Skin biopsy showing epidermal necrosis with underlying proliferation of blood vessels, many of which show the presence of microthrombi. Fat necrosis also evident in the subcutaneous tissue. Haematoxylin and eosin, original magnification × 400. The patient experienced slow healing of ulceration with topical clobetasol propionate 0.05%, neomycin sulfate and nystatin ointment, along with compression bandaging treatment. To complete the vaccination schedule, the second dose was switched to the Pfizer COVID‐19 vaccine, which the patient received with no complications, 12 weeks after his first vaccination. Several types of vaccination have been developed against the SARS‐CoV‐2 virus as part of public health strategies in the current COVID‐19 pandemic. The ChAdOx1 nCov‐19 vaccine delivers the SARS‐CoV‐2 spike protein DNA within a nonreplicating recombinant chimpanzee adenovirus vector system. 1 Recently there have been concerns related to rare reports of thrombotic events at atypical sites (including cerebral and splanchnic vascular beds) associated with thrombocytopenia following ChAdOx1 nCov‐19 vaccination (termed ‘vaccine‐induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia’). 2 The mechanism of thrombotic events secondary to ChAdOx1 nCov‐19 vaccination remains unknown. SARS‐CoV‐2 infection itself is associated with hypercoagulability, with a high incidence of venous thromboembolism. 3 Vaccine‐induced thrombotic cases exhibit similarities to those with heparin‐induced thrombocytopenia, notably the presence of serum antibodies against platelet factor 4. 2 This is hypothesized to cause platelet activation and stimulation of the thrombotic cascade to create a prothrombotic state. 4 Whether these changes are initiated by the presence of free DNA in the vaccine, factors related to the viral vector system, or the spike protein triggered immune response are yet to be elucidated. Furthermore, it is also currently unclear why this immunogenic thrombotic phenomenon preferentially manifests at certain sites. To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of cutaneous thrombosis associated with skin necrosis following ChAdOx1 nCov‐19 vaccination. These findings extend the range of atypically located thromboses associated with COVID‐19 vaccination. This case reinforces the necessity for physicians to be vigilant for signs and symptoms related to thromboses at atypical sites in recently vaccinated patients.

          Related collections

          Most cited references4

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Safety and immunogenicity of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2: a preliminary report of a phase 1/2, single-blind, randomised controlled trial

          Summary Background The pandemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) might be curtailed by vaccination. We assessed the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of a viral vectored coronavirus vaccine that expresses the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2. Methods We did a phase 1/2, single-blind, randomised controlled trial in five trial sites in the UK of a chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) expressing the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein compared with a meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MenACWY) as control. Healthy adults aged 18–55 years with no history of laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection or of COVID-19-like symptoms were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 at a dose of 5 × 1010 viral particles or MenACWY as a single intramuscular injection. A protocol amendment in two of the five sites allowed prophylactic paracetamol to be administered before vaccination. Ten participants assigned to a non-randomised, unblinded ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 prime-boost group received a two-dose schedule, with the booster vaccine administered 28 days after the first dose. Humoral responses at baseline and following vaccination were assessed using a standardised total IgG ELISA against trimeric SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, a muliplexed immunoassay, three live SARS-CoV-2 neutralisation assays (a 50% plaque reduction neutralisation assay [PRNT50]; a microneutralisation assay [MNA50, MNA80, and MNA90]; and Marburg VN), and a pseudovirus neutralisation assay. Cellular responses were assessed using an ex-vivo interferon-γ enzyme-linked immunospot assay. The co-primary outcomes are to assess efficacy, as measured by cases of symptomatic virologically confirmed COVID-19, and safety, as measured by the occurrence of serious adverse events. Analyses were done by group allocation in participants who received the vaccine. Safety was assessed over 28 days after vaccination. Here, we report the preliminary findings on safety, reactogenicity, and cellular and humoral immune responses. The study is ongoing, and was registered at ISRCTN, 15281137, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606. Findings Between April 23 and May 21, 2020, 1077 participants were enrolled and assigned to receive either ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (n=543) or MenACWY (n=534), ten of whom were enrolled in the non-randomised ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 prime-boost group. Local and systemic reactions were more common in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and many were reduced by use of prophylactic paracetamol, including pain, feeling feverish, chills, muscle ache, headache, and malaise (all p<0·05). There were no serious adverse events related to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. In the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, spike-specific T-cell responses peaked on day 14 (median 856 spot-forming cells per million peripheral blood mononuclear cells, IQR 493–1802; n=43). Anti-spike IgG responses rose by day 28 (median 157 ELISA units [EU], 96–317; n=127), and were boosted following a second dose (639 EU, 360–792; n=10). Neutralising antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 were detected in 32 (91%) of 35 participants after a single dose when measured in MNA80 and in 35 (100%) participants when measured in PRNT50. After a booster dose, all participants had neutralising activity (nine of nine in MNA80 at day 42 and ten of ten in Marburg VN on day 56). Neutralising antibody responses correlated strongly with antibody levels measured by ELISA (R 2=0·67 by Marburg VN; p<0·001). Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 showed an acceptable safety profile, and homologous boosting increased antibody responses. These results, together with the induction of both humoral and cellular immune responses, support large-scale evaluation of this candidate vaccine in an ongoing phase 3 programme. Funding UK Research and Innovation, Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and the German Center for Infection Research (DZIF), Partner site Gießen-Marburg-Langen.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia after ChAdOx1 nCov-19 Vaccination

            Background Several cases of unusual thrombotic events and thrombocytopenia have developed after vaccination with the recombinant adenoviral vector encoding the spike protein antigen of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (ChAdOx1 nCov-19, AstraZeneca). More data were needed on the pathogenesis of this unusual clotting disorder. Methods We assessed the clinical and laboratory features of 11 patients in Germany and Austria in whom thrombosis or thrombocytopenia had developed after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCov-19. We used a standard enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to detect platelet factor 4 (PF4)–heparin antibodies and a modified (PF4-enhanced) platelet-activation test to detect platelet-activating antibodies under various reaction conditions. Included in this testing were samples from patients who had blood samples referred for investigation of vaccine-associated thrombotic events, with 28 testing positive on a screening PF4–heparin immunoassay. Results Of the 11 original patients, 9 were women, with a median age of 36 years (range, 22 to 49). Beginning 5 to 16 days after vaccination, the patients presented with one or more thrombotic events, with the exception of 1 patient, who presented with fatal intracranial hemorrhage. Of the patients with one or more thrombotic events, 9 had cerebral venous thrombosis, 3 had splanchnic-vein thrombosis, 3 had pulmonary embolism, and 4 had other thromboses; of these patients, 6 died. Five patients had disseminated intravascular coagulation. None of the patients had received heparin before symptom onset. All 28 patients who tested positive for antibodies against PF4–heparin tested positive on the platelet-activation assay in the presence of PF4 independent of heparin. Platelet activation was inhibited by high levels of heparin, Fc receptor–blocking monoclonal antibody, and immune globulin (10 mg per milliliter). Additional studies with PF4 or PF4–heparin affinity purified antibodies in 2 patients confirmed PF4-dependent platelet activation. Conclusions Vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCov-19 can result in the rare development of immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia mediated by platelet-activating antibodies against PF4, which clinically mimics autoimmune heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. (Funded by the German Research Foundation.)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Arterial and venous thromboembolism in COVID-19: a study-level meta-analysis

              Background The prevalence of venous thromboembolic event (VTE) and arterial thromboembolic event (ATE) thromboembolic events in patients with COVID-19 remains largely unknown. Methods In this meta-analysis, we systematically searched for observational studies describing the prevalence of VTE and ATE in COVID-19 up to 30 September 2020. Results We analysed findings from 102 studies (64 503 patients). The frequency of COVID-19-related VTE was 14.7% (95% CI 12.1% to 17.6%, I2=94%; 56 studies; 16 507 patients). The overall prevalence rates of pulmonary embolism (PE) and leg deep vein thrombosis were 7.8% (95% CI 6.2% to 9.4%, I2=94%; 66 studies; 23 117 patients) and 11.2% (95% CI 8.4% to 14.3%, I2=95%; 48 studies; 13 824 patients), respectively. Few were isolated subsegmental PE. The VTE prevalence was significantly higher in intensive care unit (ICU) (23.2%, 95% CI 17.5% to 29.6%, I2=92%, vs 9.0%, 95% CI 6.9% to 11.4%, I2=95%; pinteraction<0.0001) and in series systematically screening patients compared with series testing symptomatic patients (25.2% vs 12.7%, pinteraction=0.04). The frequency rates of overall ATE, acute coronary syndrome, stroke and other ATE were 3.9% (95% CI 2.0% to to 3.0%, I2=96%; 16 studies; 7939 patients), 1.6% (95% CI 1.0% to 2.2%, I2=93%; 27 studies; 40 597 patients) and 0.9% (95% CI 0.5% to 1.5%, I2=84%; 17 studies; 20 139 patients), respectively. Metaregression and subgroup analyses failed to explain heterogeneity of overall ATE. High heterogeneity limited the value of estimates. Conclusions Patients admitted in the ICU for severe COVID-19 had a high risk of VTE. Conversely, further studies are needed to determine the specific effects of COVID-19 on the risk of ATE or VTE in less severe forms of the disease.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                ravi.ramessur@nhs.net
                Journal
                Clin Exp Dermatol
                Clin Exp Dermatol
                10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2230
                CED
                Clinical and Experimental Dermatology
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                0307-6938
                1365-2230
                29 July 2021
                29 July 2021
                : 10.1111/ced.14819
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Departments of Dermatology Watford General Hospital Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust Watford UK
                [ 2 ] Clinical Haematology Watford General Hospital Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust Watford UK
                [ 3 ] Histopathology Watford General Hospital Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust Watford Hertfordshire UK
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4599-9455
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3890-4833
                Article
                CED14819
                10.1111/ced.14819
                8444634
                34189756
                adafeb39-64c6-420a-a171-95ac55128473
                © 2021 British Association 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
                : 18 June 2021
                : 24 June 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 0, Pages: 2, Words: 2696
                Categories
                Letter to the Editor
                Correspondence
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                corrected-proof
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.0.7 mode:remove_FC converted:16.09.2021

                Dermatology
                Dermatology

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content2,245

                Cited by14

                Most referenced authors1,252