7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Alopecia areata after ChAdOx1 nCoV‐19 vaccine (Oxford/AstraZeneca): a potential triggering factor?

      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

          CONSENT STATEMENT A written consent was taken from the patient. ETHICS STATEMENT Authors declare human ethics approval was not needed for this study. CONFLICT OF INTEREST No conflict of interest. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS Essam R. and Moustafa EA conceptualized and designed the work. Essam R., Ehab R., and Al‐Razzaz R drafted the manuscript. Essam R., Moustafa EA., and Khater MW revised the manuscript. All authors contributed to acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data, gave final approval of the manuscript, and agree to be accountable for all aspects of work ensuring integrity and accuracy. Dear Editor, Many dermatologists have been occupied with recording cutaneous associations with SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, and there are some reports about cutaneous side effects of its vaccines. 1 Only a few reports described a possible association between AA and COVID‐19. 2 Here, we report a case of recurrent alopecia areata (AA), in a middle‐aged female patient, shortly after the ChAdOx1 nCoV‐19 vaccine (Oxford/AstraZeneca), after a long period of disease stability. 1 CASE PRESENTATION In June 2021, a 32‐year‐old female patient attended our outpatient clinic with a complaint of a hairless patch involving the scalp that suddenly appeared 2 days ago. According to the history, the patient was vaccinated against SARS‐CoV2 few days before the appearance of the lesion, and the patient did not complain of any associated systemic symptoms. She reported no other underlying diseases except for a previous controlled mild attack of AA followed by disease stability for 6 years. She also reported a pervious COVID attack one year ago. No family history for AA was present or history of any drug intake. Physical examination revealed a sharply demarcated patchy hair loss on the scalp without any scarring or scaling. General examination revealed no other associated cutaneous or systemic abnormalities. KOH examination was negative for fungal infection. Our provisional diagnosis was AA. Trichoscopic examination showed black dots, broken hairs, and newly growing hairs with some exclamation mark hairs (Figure 1). Laboratory investigations including liver, kidney, thyroid functions, anti‐thyroid antibodies, and antinuclear antibody (ANA) test were within normal limits. FIGURE 1 (A) Sharply demarcated bald patch on the scalp. (B &C) Trichoscopic examination showing black dots (blue circle), broken hairs (yellow asterisk), newly growing hairs (green square), and exclamation mark hairs (red arrows) 2 DISCUSSION Molecular mimicry is a well‐established mechanism that could contribute to autoimmunity associated with a wide variety of viruses. The antibody‐mediated response against viruses may cross‐react with self‐antigens, possibly leading to autoimmune diseases. Current data describe SARS‐CoV‐2 to be an additional virus that has molecular mimicry with humans. 3 Mechanism of action of the ChAdOx1 nCov‐19 vaccine includes a modified version of a chimpanzee adenovirus, known as ChAdOx1 that has the ability to insert artificial DNA into human cells. The objective is to generate the synthesis of SARS‐CoV‐2 spike protein by the host cells, which will lead to activation of immune cells. 4 The existence of molecular mimicry between the vaccine‐induced proteins of SARS‐CoV‐2 and human components might give rise to potential side effects by production of pathological autoantibodies. This may results in vaccine‐induced autoimmunity especially in the presence of genetic disposition in a similar mechanism to the vaccine‐induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (Figure 2). 3 FIGURE 2 Suggested mechanism of autoimmune‐mediated alopecia areata following COVID‐19 vaccine 3 , 4 , 7 : The existence of molecular mimicry between the vaccine‐induced proteins of SARS‐CoV‐2 and human components might give rise to pathological autoantibodies. Adjuvants may have a role in the production of these autoantibodies. (Created with BioRender.com) Up to our knowledge, this is the first case of AA reported after COVID‐19 vaccination; however, it is not the first case described after vaccination. In 2016, Chu et al. 5 reported a case of recurrent AA after vaccination. The first episode occurred at age 27 months, approximately 1 week after the third dose of Japanese encephalitis vaccine, followed by complete regrowth in 6 months. The second episode developed within 3 days after the third dose of influenza vaccine at age 36 months as a recurrence of progressive hair loss. Similarly, Wise et al. 6 reported 60 cases of alopecia areata after immunization with zoster vaccination or quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccination. Autoimmune/ inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants (ASIA) is a syndrome that has been introduced, as multiple vaccines have been claimed as potential triggers for autoimmune diseases, mainly in genetically predisposed individuals. Adjuvants and vaccine antigens may evoke T cell–mediated immune reactions, which may trigger AA in genetically susceptible individuals (Figure 2). 7 In conclusion, ChAdOx1 nCoV‐19 vaccine (Oxford/AstraZeneca) was found to be safe and efficacious against symptomatic COVID‐19 in large randomized controlled trials, but our report suggests its possible role in triggering AA in genetically predisposed patients through immune‐mediated mechanisms.

          Related collections

          Most cited references7

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

          Molecular mimicry between SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein and mammalian proteomes: implications for the vaccine

          Introduction The ethiopathology of the diseasome induced by the SARS-CoV-2 infection in the human host [1] is under intensive investigation. A likely mechanism is that the multitude of the diseases encompassed within COVID-19 derives from molecular mimicry phenomena between the virus and human proteins [2]. The rationale is that, following an infection, the immune responses raised against the pathogen can cross-react with human proteins that share peptide sequences (or structures) with the pathogen, in this way, leading to harmful autoimmune pathologies [3, 4]. Accordingly, lungs and airways dysfunctions associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection might be explained by the sharing of peptides between SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein and alveolar lung surfactant proteins [2]. In support of this thesis, additional reports [5–8] highlight molecular mimicry and cross-reactivity as capable of explaining the SARS-CoV diseases. Of special interest, cross-reactive T cell recognition between circulating “common cold” coronaviruses and SARS-CoV-2 has been also suggested [9]. In this scientific framework, this study comparatively analyzed the peptide sharing between SARS-CoV-2 and mammalian species. Our reasoning is that if it were true that molecular mimicry between SARS-CoV-2 and human proteins contributes to or causes COVID-19, then different levels/patterns of molecular mimicry vs. the virus should characterize the various animal species. Indeed, scarce data exist to indicate that domestic animals, for instances dogs and cats, can either transmit the virus or develop the virus-associated diseasome [10]. In general, currently, the consensus remains that there is no evidence that infected pets are a source of SARS-CoV-2 infection for people or other pets [11, 12]. Based on this rationale and using hexa- and heptapeptides as sequence probes [13–15], the peptide overlap between SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein and mammalian proteomes was analyzed. Methods Peptide sharing analyses have been extensively described elsewhere [16, 17]. Briefly, SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein (NCBI protein Id=QHD43416.1) primary sequence was dissected into hexa- and heptapeptides offset by one residue (i.e., MFVFLV, FVFLVL, VFLVLL, FLVLLP). We obtained 1268 hexapeptides and 1267 heptapeptides. Then each viral hexa- or heptapeptide was analyzed as a probe to scan for occurrences of the same hexa- or heptapeptide in the reference proteome from the following mammalian organisms (with taxonomy ID in parentheses): human, Homo sapiens (9606); mouse, Mus musculus (10090); rat, Rattus norvegicus (10116); cat, Felis catus (9685); dog, Canis lupus familiaris (9615); rabbit, Oryctolagus cuniculus (9986); chimpanzee, Pan troglodytes (9598); gorilla, Gorilla gorilla gorilla (9595); and rhesus macaque, Macaca mulatta (9544). Three viral proteomes were added as coronavirus controls: human coronavirus HKU1 (290028); human coronavirus 229E (11137); and human coronavirus OC43 (31631). The hexa/heptapeptide matching analyses were conducted by using Pir Peptide Matching program [18]. The expected value for hexapeptide sharing between two proteins was calculated by considering the number of all possible hexapeptides. Since in a hexapeptide, each residue can be any of the 20 amino acid (aa), the number of all possible hexapeptides N is given by N = 206 = 64 × 106. Then, the number of the expected occurrences is directly proportional to the number of hexapeptides in the two proteins and inversely proportional to N. Assuming that the number of hexapeptides in the two proteins is << N and neglecting the relative abundance of aa, we obtain a formula derived by approximation, where the expected number of hexapeptides is 1/N or 20−6. By applying the same calculation, the expected value for heptapeptide sharing between two proteins is equal to 20−7. Results The graphical illustration of the peptide sharing between SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein and the analyzed mammalian and coronavirus proteomes is reported in Fig. 1. The hexa- and heptapeptide sequences involved in the sharing are detailed in Tables S1 and S2, respectively. Fig. 1 Peptide sharing between SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein and mammalian and coronavirus proteomes. a Peptide sharing at the 6-mer level. b Peptide sharing at the 7-mer level Figure 1 shows that: A massive heptapeptide sharing exists between SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein and human proteins. Such a peptide commonality is unexpected and highly improbable from a mathematical point of view, given that, as detailed under the “Methods” section, the probability of the occurrence in two proteins of just one heptapeptide is equal to ~ 20−7 (or 1 out of 1,280,000,000). Likewise, the probability of the occurrence in two proteins of just one hexapeptide is close to zero by being equal to ~ 20−6 (or 1 out of 64,000,000). Only the viral peptide sharing with the murine proteome and, at a lesser extent, with the rat proteome keeps up with that shown by human proteins; Domestic animals, rabbit, and the three primates analyzed here have no or only a few peptide commonalities; Likewise, the proteomes of the three human coronaviruses HKU1, 229E, and OC43, which were used as viral controls, have no or only a few peptides in common with the spike glycoprotein. In this regard, it seems that the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein is phenetically more similar to humans and mice than to its coronavirus “cousins”. Conclusions This study thoroughly quantifies the hexa- and heptapeptide sharing of SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein—which is a major antigen of the virus—with mammalian proteomes. A massive peptide commonality is present with humans and mice, i.e., organisms that undergo pathologic consequences following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Instead, no or a lowest number of common peptides are present in mammals that have no major pathologic sequelae once infected by SARS-CoV-2 [10–12]. Hence, the data appear to be an indisputable proof in favor of molecular mimicry as a potential mechanism that can contribute to or cause the SARS-CoV-2 associated diseases [8]. As a second relevant annotation, this study indicates that particular attention has to be dedicated to the choice of the laboratory animals to be used in preclinical studies during the formulation/validation of anti-pathogen vaccines. In the case in object, given the lowest level of sequence similarity of SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein vs. primates proteins, results obtained in studies that use primates as animal models, i.e., rhesus macaque [19], would be unreliable because of the impossibility of verifying the occurrence of cross-reactivity and related autoimmunity in the absence of shared sequences. In this regards, data illustrated in Fig. 1 explain why, as highlighted by Hogan [20], “SARS-CoV infection of cynomolgus macaques did not reproduce the severe illness seen in the majority of adult human cases of SARS” [21]. Actually, no clinical signs of disease or marked lung pathology were seen in a study in which both rhesus and cynomolgus macaques were infected with SARS-CoV [22], and the Authors’ conclusion is that the macaque model is of limited utility in the study of SARS and the evaluation of therapies. Likewise, McAuliffe et al. [23] described similar findings: “SARS-CoV administered intranasally and intratracheally to rhesus, cynomolgus and African Green monkeys replicated in the respiratory tract but did not induce illness”. As for domestic animals and cattles, coronaviruses are long known to be enteric pathogens of cats (FeCoV), dogs (CaCoV), cattle (BCoV), and swine (TGEV) [24]. Nonetheless, coronaviruses do not appear to be pathogenic for domestic animals and cattles. Indeed, the scarce or null susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2-induced pathologies is certified by the American Veterinary Medical Association that verbatim declares: “during the first five months of the COVID-19 outbreak (January 1 – June 8, 2020), which includes the first twelve weeks following the March 11 declaration by the WHO of a global pandemic, fewer than 20 pets have tested positive, with confirmation, for SARS-CoV-2 globally. This despite the fact that as of June 8, the number of people confirmed with COVID-19 exceeded 7 million globally and 1.9 million in the United States” (https://www.avma.org/). In conclusion, in light of the data exposed in Fig. 1 and given the susceptibility parameters such as aging and health status, only aged mice appear to be a correct animal model for testing an anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein vaccine to be used in humans [25, 26]. Finally, this study once more reiterates the concept that only vaccines based on minimal immune determinants unique to pathogens and absent in the human proteome might offer the possibility of safe and efficacious vaccines [16, 27–30]. Electronic supplementary material Table S1 (DOCX 22 kb) Table S2 (DOCX 20 kb)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Cutaneous adverse effects of the available COVID-19 vaccines

            Vaccination has played a crucial role in the improvement of global health. Some of the world's deadliest diseases like smallpox and rinderpest have been eradicated with the help of vaccines and many others have been restrained. The appearance of the strain of coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 and its impact on global health have made crucial the development of effective and safe vaccines for this new lethal disease. So far, there are three main types of COVID-19 vaccines in use around the world: mRNA-based vaccines, adenoviral vector vaccines, and inactivated whole-virus vaccines. Some of them have passed through phase 3 safety and efficacy trials and are widely used for prophylaxis of the coronavirus infection. A plethora of cutaneous adverse events have been reported, most of them mild or moderate injection site reactions. Some rare delayed inflammatory reactions such as "COVID arm" have been reported posing questions on their pathophysiology and their clinical importance. Some rare serious adverse events such as VIPIT and anaphylaxis have been described raising great concerns on the safety of some widely spread vaccines. More data need to be collected with further and more detailed analysis. Still, the overall risk of those severe adverse reactions remains extremely low and the benefits of the existing vaccines in combating the widespread threat of COVID-19 continue to outweigh the risk of their side effects.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants (ASIA) 2013: Unveiling the pathogenic, clinical and diagnostic aspects.

              In 2011 a new syndrome termed 'ASIA Autoimmune/Inflammatory Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants' was defined pointing to summarize for the first time the spectrum of immune-mediated diseases triggered by an adjuvant stimulus such as chronic exposure to silicone, tetramethylpentadecane, pristane, aluminum and other adjuvants, as well as infectious components, that also may have an adjuvant effect. All these environmental factors have been found to induce autoimmunity by themselves both in animal models and in humans: for instance, silicone was associated with siliconosis, aluminum hydroxide with post-vaccination phenomena and macrophagic myofasciitis syndrome. Several mechanisms have been hypothesized to be involved in the onset of adjuvant-induced autoimmunity; a genetic favorable background plays a key role in the appearance on such vaccine-related diseases and also justifies the rarity of these phenomena. This paper will focus on protean facets which are part of ASIA, focusing on the roles and mechanisms of action of different adjuvants which lead to the autoimmune/inflammatory response. The data herein illustrate the critical role of environmental factors in the induction of autoimmunity. Indeed, it is the interplay of genetic susceptibility and environment that is the major player for the initiation of breach of tolerance. Crown Copyright © 2013. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                ranaehab015@gmail.com
                Journal
                J Cosmet Dermatol
                J Cosmet Dermatol
                10.1111/(ISSN)1473-2165
                JOCD
                Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                1473-2130
                1473-2165
                24 September 2021
                December 2021
                24 September 2021
                : 20
                : 12 ( doiID: 10.1111/jocd.v20.12 )
                : 3727-3729
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Dermatology, Venereology and Andrology Department Faculty of Medicine Zagazig University Zagazig Egypt
                [ 2 ] General Dermatology Department Cairo Hospital for Dermatology and Venereology (Al‐Haud Al‐Marsoud) Cairo Egypt
                [ 3 ] Medical Microbiology and Immunology Department Faculty of Medicine Zagazig University Zagazig Egypt
                [ 4 ] Tropical medicine Department Faculty of Medicine Zagazig University Zagazig Egypt
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Rana Ehab, Dermatology, Venereology and Andrology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt.

                Email: ranaehab015@ 123456gmail.com

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5648-6842
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8045-5547
                Article
                JOCD14459
                10.1111/jocd.14459
                8661988
                34559937
                fb92f354-d899-43ce-b7a2-435cf439c3ad
                © 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC

                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
                : 31 August 2021
                : 24 August 2021
                : 03 September 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 0, Pages: 0, Words: 1063
                Categories
                Letters to the Editor
                Covid
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                December 2021
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.0.9 mode:remove_FC converted:10.12.2021

                Dermatology
                chadox1 ncov‐19 vaccine,covid‐19,hair falling,sars‐cov‐2
                Dermatology
                chadox1 ncov‐19 vaccine, covid‐19, hair falling, sars‐cov‐2

                Comments

                Comment on this article