46
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Spectrum of neurological complications following COVID-19 vaccination

      review-article

      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

          COVID-19 vaccines have brought us a ray of hope to effectively fight against deadly pandemic of COVID-19 and hope to save lives. Many vaccines have been granted emergency use authorizations by many countries. Post-authorization, a wide spectrum of neurological complications is continuously being reported following COVID-19 vaccination. Neurological adverse events following vaccination are generally mild and transient, like fever and chills, headache, fatigue, myalgia and arthralgia, or local injection site effects like swelling, redness, or pain. The most devastating neurological post-vaccination complication is cerebral venous sinus thrombosis. Cerebral venous sinus is frequently reported in females of childbearing age, generally following adenovector-based vaccination. Another major neurological complication of concern is Bell’s palsy that was reported dominantly following mRNA vaccine administration. Acute transverse myelitis, acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, and acute demyelinating polyneuropathy are other unexpected neurological adverse events that occur as result of phenomenon of molecular mimicry. Reactivation of herpes zoster in many persons, following administration of mRNA vaccines, has been also recorded. Considering the enormity of recent COVID-19-vaccinated population, the number of serious neurological events is miniscule. Large collaborative prospective studies are needed to prove or disprove causal association between vaccine and neurological adverse events occurring vaccination.

          Related collections

          Most cited references93

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found

          Pathologic Antibodies to Platelet Factor 4 after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 Vaccination

          Background The mainstay of control of the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic is vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Within a year, several vaccines have been developed and millions of doses delivered. Reporting of adverse events is a critical postmarketing activity. Methods We report findings in 23 patients who presented with thrombosis and thrombocytopenia 6 to 24 days after receiving the first dose of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AstraZeneca). On the basis of their clinical and laboratory features, we identify a novel underlying mechanism and address the therapeutic implications. Results In the absence of previous prothrombotic medical conditions, 22 patients presented with acute thrombocytopenia and thrombosis, primarily cerebral venous thrombosis, and 1 patient presented with isolated thrombocytopenia and a hemorrhagic phenotype. All the patients had low or normal fibrinogen levels and elevated d -dimer levels at presentation. No evidence of thrombophilia or causative precipitants was identified. Testing for antibodies to platelet factor 4 (PF4) was positive in 22 patients (with 1 equivocal result) and negative in 1 patient. On the basis of the pathophysiological features observed in these patients, we recommend that treatment with platelet transfusions be avoided because of the risk of progression in thrombotic symptoms and that the administration of a nonheparin anticoagulant agent and intravenous immune globulin be considered for the first occurrence of these symptoms. Conclusions Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 remains critical for control of the Covid-19 pandemic. A pathogenic PF4-dependent syndrome, unrelated to the use of heparin therapy, can occur after the administration of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine. Rapid identification of this rare syndrome is important because of the therapeutic implications.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Cutaneous Reactions Reported after Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccination: A Registry-Based Study of 414 Cases

            Background Cutaneous reactions after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines have been reported but are not well characterized. Objective To evaluate morphology and timing of cutaneous reactions after mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Methods A provider-facing registry-based study collected cases of cutaneous manifestations after COVID-19 vaccination. Results From December 2020-February 2021, we recorded 414 cutaneous reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines from Moderna (83%) and Pfizer (17%). Delayed large local reactions were most common, followed by local injection site reactions, urticarial eruptions, and morbilliform eruptions. Forty-three percent of patients with first dose reactions experienced second dose recurrence. Limitations Registry analysis does not measure incidence. Morphologic misclassification is possible. Conclusion We report a spectrum of cutaneous reactions after COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. Most patients with first dose reactions did not develop a second dose reaction, and no patients in the registry developed serious adverse events after the first or second dose. These data provide reassurance to patients and providers.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine efficacy

              2020 has been a difficult year for all, but has seen 58 vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) be developed and in clinical trials, 1 with some vaccines reportedly having more than 90% efficacy against COVID-19 in clinical trials. This remarkable achievement is much-needed good news as COVID-19 cases are currently at their highest daily levels globally. 2 New vaccine efficacy results are reported now in The Lancet: investigators of four randomised, controlled trials conducted in the UK, South Africa, and Brazil report pooled results of an interim analysis of safety and efficacy against COVID-19 of the Oxford–AstraZeneca chimpanzee adenovirus vectored vaccine ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) in adults aged 18 years and older. 3 This is the first report of efficacy against COVID-19 for a non-profit vaccine aiming for global supply, equity, and commitment to low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs),4, 5 and as such its publication is very welcomed. After phase 1 results supported a two-dose regimen, the trial protocols were amended where necessary to require two standard doses (SD/SD cohort) of approximately 5 × 1010 viral particles per dose administered 28 days apart, but a subset (LD/SD cohort) in one of the UK trials inadvertently received a half-dose of the vaccine (low dose) as the first dose before a change in dosage quantification methodology; additionally, the protocol amendments enabled other trial participants originally scheduled to receive a single dose to receive a booster more than 28 days after their first dose. Participants randomly received either the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control, which was either meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MenACWY) or saline depending on the trial. Interim efficacy results were available and are reported for two of the four ongoing trials (from the UK and Brazil) based on cases occurring within approximately 4 months of follow-up in 11 636 participants, the majority of whom were aged 18–55 years (10 218 [87·8%] participants), white (9625 [82·7%] participants), and female (7045 [60·5%] participants). No COVID-19-related hospital admissions occurred in ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 recipients, whereas ten (two of which were severe) occurred in the control groups. Vaccine efficacy for the prespecified primary analysis (combining dose groups) against the primary endpoint of COVID-19 occurring more than 14 days after the second dose was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8 to 80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829 participants in the control group). Surprisingly, however, efficacy was substantially lower in the SD/SD cohort (62·1% [95% CI 41·0 to 75·7]; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 vs 71 [1·6%] of 4455) than in the LD/SD cohort (90·0% [67·4 to 97·0]; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374), which remained after accounting for differences in age and time between doses. Efficacy was similar when evaluated starting at 21 days after the first standard dose (192 cases), suggesting there is at least short-term protection with one dose. Although efficacy was lower (58·9% [1·0 to 82·9]) against asymptomatic infection in the LD/SD cohort (and unfortunately only 3·8% [−72·4 to 46·3] in the SD/SD group), the results nonetheless provide some hope that COVID-19 vaccines might be able to interrupt some asymptomatic transmission, although fewer data (69 cases among 6638 participants) were available with this outcome and more data are needed to confirm. Only 1418 (12·1%) of those assessed for efficacy were older than 55 years (none of whom were in the LD/SD cohort), meaning that from the interim analysis of these trials, we cannot yet infer efficacy in older adults, who are the group at greatest risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes. Serious adverse events were evaluated in 12 174 ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 recipients and 11 879 control recipients. No serious adverse events or deaths that were treatment associated occurred in ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 recipients. There were 175 serious adverse events (84 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group), three of which were possibly related to the intervention: transverse myelitis occurring 14 days after a ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 booster vaccination, haemolytic anaemia in a control recipient, and fever higher than 40°C in a participant still masked to group allocation. Two additional transverse myelitis cases considered unlikely to be related to the intervention occurred: one 10 days after the first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 was attributed to pre-existing multiple sclerosis and one in a control group that occurred 68 days after vaccination. The transverse myelitis cases resulted in temporarily pausing the trial and all participants have recovered or are recovering. © 2021 Gallo Images/Getty Images 2021 Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active. The strengths of the study include the large sample size, randomisation to vaccine groups, inclusion of diverse sites targeting different races and ethnicities, standardisation of key elements between the trials, balance of participant characteristics between the vaccine groups, inclusion of all participants in the safety assessment, and having similar results in Brazil as in the UK for the SD/SD group, which lends credibility to the results. Three of the trials also did not restrict enrolment based on age or presence of comorbidities. Although the efficacy results reported here were from single-blind trials, which masked only the participants to the product received, the endpoints were assessed by a blinded independent review committee. The limitations include that less than 4% of participants were older than 70 years of age, no participants older than 55 years of age received the mixed-dose regimen, and those with comorbidities were a minority, with results for that subgroup not yet available. The heterogeneity in vaccine dosage was fortuitous in uncovering a potentially highly efficacious formulation but was unplanned, and needs further evaluation in older adults and to confirm the unexpected results. The observed differences in efficacy by dose were not consistent with results from previous immunogenicity trials of this vaccine, which were similar for participants receiving two low doses and two standard doses; no immunogenicity data exist for the mixed-dose regimen. 6 If immunogenicity is also similar for this regimen, this would be an unusual finding that requires further exploration, including whether this pertains only to milder disease (as there were too few cases to assess efficacy against severe COVID-19). Disparity between immunogenicity and efficacy findings could imply that clear-cut immunological correlates of clinical protection might not exist for COVID-19 vaccines, meaning efficacy cannot be extrapolated to other unevaluated ages or populations. Furthermore, bridging trials, in which new vaccines are tested against such correlates, or immunogenicity equivalence trials, in which new vaccines are tested against licensed vaccines using such immunological surrogates (rather than disease outcomes), that are faster and easier might be infeasible, posing challenges for future vaccine development, evaluation, and regulatory approval. Oxford–AstraZeneca's US$2–3 per dose agreement with the COVAX Facility holds good promise for equitable access for LMICs, compared with the high cost of the two mRNA vaccines that have reported more than 90% efficacy.1, 4, 5, 7 The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine can also use routine refrigerated cold chain, which is important since the ultra-low temperature freezers required to store mRNA vaccines could be unaffordable and impractical in many countries and in settings such as nursing homes. However, other challenges with any two-dose regimen will exist in many LMICs where platforms to easily identify, locate, and reach—twice—adults targeted for vaccination are lacking. 8 If the two vaccine injections require different doses, this will add complexity for health workers with little formal training, but can be managed with innovative packaging and proper change management to reduce errors. Trust and confidence in any COVID-19 vaccine will be crucial to its success. The appropriate pausing of the trial to carefully investigate for safety concerns generated much publicity despite the reassuring outcomes of the safety review and trial recommencement. Public concerns might have been raised by the unplanned administration of different doses, notwithstanding that the per-protocol primary results exceeded licensure thresholds and that the serendipitous findings for recipients of the mixed-dose regimen were of high efficacy. Further trials to substantiate the unexpected findings here and investigation of efficacy in older adults are now needed. When faced with vaccine choices, National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups will have to consider all factors and decide which vaccine is right for their setting. Efficacy is an important consideration, but so are pragmatics of delivery, community acceptance, longevity of effect, whether a vaccine reduces infection and transmission as well as disease, efficacy in high-risk groups, and, of course, safety. Despite the outstanding questions and challenges in delivering these vaccines, it is hard not to be excited about these findings and the existence of three safe and efficacious COVID-19 vaccines, with a further 55 already in clinical trials. 1 With a range of manufacturers, a very large global investment in production, and cooperation in procurement and distribution, it seems likely that 2021 will see COVID-19 vaccines made available to all countries in the world—at least for their priority groups. 9 Perhaps by this time next year, we can celebrate the global control of SARS-CoV-2, in person.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                garg50@yahoo.com
                dr_vimalkpaliwal@rediffmail.com
                Journal
                Neurol Sci
                Neurol Sci
                Neurological Sciences
                Springer International Publishing (Cham )
                1590-1874
                1590-3478
                31 October 2021
                : 1-38
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.411275.4, ISNI 0000 0004 0645 6578, Department of Neurology, , King George Medical University, ; Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh India PIN-226003
                [2 ]GRID grid.263138.d, ISNI 0000 0000 9346 7267, Department of Neurology, , Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, ; Rae Bareli road, Lucknow, India
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0044-7083
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1132-5372
                Article
                5662
                10.1007/s10072-021-05662-9
                8557950
                34719776
                c2315d5f-28d9-4781-8738-08c844ab9837
                © Fondazione Società Italiana di Neurologia 2021

                This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.

                History
                : 4 August 2021
                : 8 October 2021
                Categories
                Covid-19

                Neurosciences
                covid-19; sars-cov-2; vaccination; cerebral venous sinus thrombosis; thrombocytopenia

                Comments

                Comment on this article