Delayed Inflammatory Reactions to Hyaluronic Acid Fillers: A Literature Review and Proposed Treatment Algorithm

One-Year Safety Evaluation of New Hyaluronic Acid Fillers (YYS Series): A Prospective, Multicenter, Observational Study

BACKGROUND

With the continuous increasing availability of new filler products, each hyaluronic acid filler brand has distinctive pharmacokinetics, which may be associated with different complications. Therefore, the long-term safety of new generations of fillers should be evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

This prospective, multicenter, observational, postmarketing study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04738019) aimed to investigate the incidence of delayed-onset nodules and adverse reactions after the injection of new hyaluronic acid fillers (YYS series) into the facial skin.

METHODS

Subjects scheduled to receive an injection YYS series filler were followed up for 52 weeks. The authors aimed to determine the incidence of a self-reported delayed-onset nodule-a visible or palpable nodule or mass at the injection site that was detected beyond the 14th day following the injection-during the 1-year follow-up period.

RESULTS

Among the 1,022 subjects who received an injection of the YYS series, the incidences of delayed-onset nodules were 0% for YYS 360, YYS 540, and YYS 720. A 0.21% incidence (1 delayed hypersensitivity reaction) of a delayed-onset adverse reaction was noted for YYS 720, although none were reported for YYS 360 and YYS 540.

CONCLUSION

In this study, a notably low frequency of adverse reactions associated with the YYS series was observed.

Impact of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination or Infection on the Safety and Efficacy of Aesthetic Injections: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Aesthetic injections have become increasingly popular for maintaining a youthful appearance. However, with the rise of SARS-CoV-2, there have been concerns about potential complications. This study aims to summarize and understand the complications that occur in individuals who have received cosmetic injections after SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination. By doing so, we hope to provide recommendations to minimize these complications and ensure the safety of aesthetic treatments in the current COVID-19 era.

METHODS

The PRISMA guidelines, the Preferred Reporting Program for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, were used for this review. Databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, Web of Science and ScienceDirect were searched. The last search time of each database was May 10, 2023. In addition, relevant references were manually searched.

RESULTS

A total of 26 studies containing 139 patients were searched. The complication with the highest percentage of reported patients was delayed inflammatory response (DIR) (n = 68; 48.92%), followed by diminished efficacy (n = 45; 32.37%) and filler reaction (n = 12; 8.63%). The remaining complications include hypersensitivity reactions, symptomatic hypercalcemia, sub-acute hypersensitive reactions, hyperalgesia, infection, fat necrosis and granulomatous reaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Cosmetic injectable procedures are generally safe but may have adverse effects, particularly during the pandemic. It is important for individuals to fully understand these risks beforehand. Clinicians should be knowledgeable about adverse event mechanisms and management to prevent issues. Industry leaders should strengthen risk management efforts to ensure safe and steady development of cosmetic injections. Overall, a comprehensive understanding, effective communication and risk management are crucial for the safe use of cosmetic injectable procedures.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors at www.springer.com/00266 .

Hyaluronidase for Dermal Filler Complications: Review of Applications and Dosage Recommendations

BACKGROUND

Hyaluronidase (Hyal) can reverse complications of hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers, which has contributed substantially to the popularity of such procedures. Still, there are differing opinions regarding Hyal treatment, including dosage recommendations in filler complication management.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to address unanswered questions regarding Hyal treatment for HA filler complications, including timing and dosage, skin pretesting, properties of various Hyals and interactions with HA gels, and pitfalls of the treatment.

METHODS

PubMed and Google Scholar databases were searched from inception for articles on Hyal therapy for filler complications. Articles were evaluated regarding their contribution to the field. The extensive literature review includes international leaders' suggestions and expert panels' recommendations.

RESULTS

There are limited controlled data but increasing clinical experience with Hyal treatment. The currently used Hyals provide good results and have an acceptable safety profile. Nonemergent complications such as the Tyndall effect, noninflamed nodules, and allergic or hypersensitivity reactions should be treated with low or moderate Hyal doses. Hyal should be considered with prior or simultaneous oral antibiotic treatment in managing inflammatory nodules. Hyal may be tried for granulomas that have not responded to intralesional steroids. Emergent complications such as vascular occlusion and blindness require immediate, high-dose Hyal treatment. Regarding blindness, the injection technique, retrobulbar versus supraorbital, remains controversial. Ultrasound guidance can increase the efficacy of the above interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Hyal is essential in aesthetic practice because it can safely treat most HA filler complications. Immediate Hyal treatment is required for emergent complications. Aesthetic practitioners should be versed in using Hyal and effective dosage protocols.

Etiology of Delayed Inflammatory Reaction Induced by Hyaluronic Acid Filler

The etiology and pathophysiology of delayed inflammatory reactions caused by hyaluronic acid fillers have not yet been elucidated. Previous studies have suggested that the etiology can be attributed to the hyaluronic acid filler itself, patient's immunological status, infection, and injection technique. Hyaluronic acid fillers are composed of high-molecular weight hyaluronic acids that are chemically cross-linked using substances such as 1,4-butanediol diglycidyl ether (BDDE). The mechanism by which BDDE cross-links the two hyaluronic acid disaccharides is still unclear and it may exist as a fully reacted cross-linker, pendant cross-linker, deactivated cross-linker, and residual cross-linker. The hyaluronic acid filler also contains impurities such as silicone oil and aluminum during the manufacturing process. Impurities can induce a foreign body reaction when the hyaluronic acid filler is injected into the body. Aseptic hyaluronic acid filler injections should be performed while considering the possibility of biofilm formation or delayed inflammatory reaction. Delayed inflammatory reactions tend to occur when patients experience flu-like illnesses; thus, the patient's immunological status plays an important role in delayed inflammatory reactions. Large-bolus hyaluronic acid filler injections can induce foreign body reactions and carry a relatively high risk of granuloma formation.

Adverse reactions to cosmetic implants after COVID-19 vaccination: A literature review

BACKGROUND

As the world's population of people vaccinated with the COVID-19 vaccine increases, adverse reactions are increasingly being reported. There have been progressive reports of the effects of COVID-19 vaccination on cosmetic fillers or prostheses, but they have not been reviewed based on their clinical morphologic patterns. This article reviewed the progress of research on adverse reactions to cosmetic implants after COVID-19 vaccination.

METHODS

We researched the English-language literature up to October 15, 2022, using predefined keywords to identify relevant studies about adverse reactions to cosmetic implants after the COVID-19 vaccination, collecting patient characteristics, implant type, the time interval between vaccination and implantation or injection, time of onset, symptoms, treatments, and outcomes.

RESULTS

Among the adverse reactions to implants associated with COVID-19 vaccination, we distinguished between (1) injectable fillers and (2) surgical prosthetic implants. The most common adverse reactions were at the site of hyaluronic acid injection and breast prosthesis after Pfizer vaccination, mainly DIRs, and mainly manifested as edema, rash, fever, and capsular contracture. This paper also reported the possible causes, treatments of DIRs, and limitations of current studies.

CONCLUSIONS

In this article, we attempted to investigate and discuss all the adverse reactions of cosmetic implants related to COVID-19 vaccination in the current literature, to unmask these reactions and make a more accurate assessment of vaccine safety.

Evaluation of the Safety of Neauvia Stimulate Injectable Product in Patients with Autoimmune Thyroid Diseases Based on Histopathological Examinations and Retrospective Analysis of Medical Records

The aim of this study was to test the effect of hyaluronic acid cross-linked with polyethylene glycol containing micronized portions of calcium hydroxyapatite (Neauvia Stimulate) on both local tissue and systemic consequences, which are crucial from the perspective of long-term safety, in patients suffering from Hashimoto's disease. This most common autoimmune disease is a frequently mentioned contraindication to the use of fillers based on hyaluronic acid as well as biostimulants based on calcium hydroxyapatite. Broad-spectrum aspects of histopathology were analyzed to identify key features of inflammatory infiltration before the procedure and 5, 21, and 150 days after the procedure. A statistically significant effect on the reduction of the intensity of the inflammatory infiltration in the tissue in relation to the state before the procedure was demonstrated, combined with a reduction in the occurrence of both antigen-recognizing (CD4) and cytotoxic (CD8) T lymphocytes. With complete statistical certainty, it was demonstrated that the treatment with Neauvia Stimulate had no effect on the levels of these antibodies. All this corresponds with the risk analysis that showed no alarming symptoms during the time of observation. The choice of hyaluronic acid fillers cross-linked with polyethylene glycol should be considered justified and safe in the case of patients suffering from Hashimoto's disease.

Recurrent Periorbital Edema Associated With Retained Foreign Body After Filler Injection

A 34-year-old man presented with recurrent bilateral periorbital swelling and pain for 16 years after receiving facial fillers of an unknown substance in a hotel room from a stranger claiming to work in a medical office. Exam demonstrated a firm, mildly tender nodule along the right upper cheek. Imaging revealed a tubular hyperdensity in the right premaxillary soft tissues. Lower eyelid and upper cheek dissection resulted in retrieval of a tubular metallic foreign body consistent with a needle. Histopathology of surrounding tissue demonstrated iron deposition with granulomatous inflammation. Periocular fillers are a common aesthetic procedure. Although generally well-tolerated, complications include inflammatory reactions, infection, necrosis, and vision loss. This case highlights retention of a metallic foreign body, a complication of filler injection that has not been previously reported, emphasizing the importance of careful injection technique by licensed professionals and imaging and surgical exploration if a foreign body is suspected.

Delayed Inflammatory Reactions After Hyaluronic Acid Filling of Neck Lines: A Case Report

The incidence of adverse events after hyaluronic acid filling is gradually increasing. In addition to acute reactions in the early postoperative period, there have been some cases of delayed inflammatory reactions. However, such events are rarely reported in Asia, which may be due to atypical symptoms, long intervals, and misidentification of the product quality. Herein, we present a case in which erythema of the neck appeared three weeks after hyaluronic acid injection into the neck lines and a delayed inflammatory reaction was diagnosed. Watchful waiting was performed, and the erythema subsided spontaneously after two weeks. This case suggests that in patients with a history of hyaluronic acid injections who develop allergic and inflammatory reactions after an interval, it is important to consider whether the reaction is a delayed inflammatory reaction, and if aggressive intervention is necessary.

Case report of possible iatrogenic Cushing's disease with low-dose prednisone to treat dermal filler hypersensitivity

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this article is to report a case of iatrogenic Cushing's disease associated with a delayed inflammatory response due to a facial dermal filler procedure.

METHODS

A case report according to CARE guidelines was performed. A delayed inflammatory reaction due to dermal filler injection resulted in iatrogenic Cushing's disease in a patient with no comorbidities or allergies.

RESULTS

Prolonged use of glucocorticoids can cause adverse effects, such as iatrogenic Cushing's disease. Dermal fillers have a very low incidence of complications, but these need to be discussed with patients. Drugs used to treat delayed inflammatory reaction include antibiotics, antihistamines, steroids, and intralesional hyaluronidase. Reversal of dermal fillers should be explained to the patient and included in the written consent.

CONCLUSIONS

Due to patient non-compliance and possible adverse effects of steroid medications, physicians should consider limiting their prescriptions of steroid medications to no more than 2 weeks and require frequent follow-up to discuss hyaluronidase if the condition returns off of steroid medication. In addition, it may be advisable to only treat with one filler brand, especially in the same session as this may be a risk factor.

Delayed infectious reactions of dermal filler injections in the face: Causes and management

OBJECTIVE

Nowadays, dermal filler injections in the face, are widespread. However, late complications are rarely reported and misunderstood. Moreover, they could be potentially severe, particularly cellulitis which is life-threatening. Reactivation of the biofilm and the hypersensitivity reaction are the main etiopathogenic factors of such unpredictable infections and granuloma reactions. Through four cases of foreign-body cellulitis, this article aims to explain the causality of filler material, and trigger conditions while emphasizes the prompt and adequate solution.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This work is a retrospective study and chart review which was granted an exemption by the author's institutional review board (IRB). Four women ranging from 27 to 55 years old, presented with onset symptoms of cellulitis of the face and inflammatory swelling of the lip. The hyaluronic acid filler was injected a long date prior. Trigger conditions caused the hatching of such complications which were solved with medical treatment without any filler dissolution or removal.

RESULTS

Improvement of the symptoms was remarkable within the three and fifth days of antibiotic therapy. There was no abscess formation or, recurrence for more than one-year follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The screening for dermal filler deposits must be considered for any inflammatory reaction of the face. Their causality should be discussed as well as the infectious and/or immunologic etiology, ensuring prompt and adequate medical treatment. Thus abscess formation could then not happen, and the resolution of the inflammatory reaction will be obtained. The extraction of filler material or the use of hyaluronidase should not be mandatory and will be done on a case-by-case basis.

COVID-19 vaccines and filler reactions: Should it be considered as a concern?

BACKGROUND

Any implant or external material used in the body tissues can potentially be followed by autoimmune or inflammatory reactions. With the global vaccination program against COVID-19, the reports of tissue filler reactions would be increasingly demonstrated.

AIM

To summarize the data regarding COVID vaccination and filler reactions.

METHOD

We reviewed the existing data in this regard through searching on PubMed, Google Scholar and Scopus. All of the relevant papers published until March 2022, which we could access to their fulltexts were included.

RESULTS

Here, we summarized the data regarding COVID-19 vaccination and filler reactions and discussed its etiopathogenesis, management, and importance.

CONCLUSION

Although the end of pandemic was announced, the necessity of continuing COVI-D19 vaccination in future mandates gathering data regarding safety of vaccines.

[Translated article] COVID-19 and Dermal Fillers: Should We Really Be Concerned?

SARS-CoV-2 has caused millions of infections and deaths worldwide and case numbers continue to rise. Besides the effect of the virus on key organs – leading to respiratory illness, anosmia, diarrhea, and fever and other complications – delayed inflammatory reactions to hyaluronic acid dermal fillers, mainly in the face, have also been reported to occur after confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections and in vaccinated individuals. While delayed inflammatory reactions tend to be self-limiting, they should be diagnosed and treated with corticosteroids, hyaluronidase, and/or antibiotics when necessary. The inflammation is generally not severe, yet these complications are classified as serious adverse events by the US Food and Drug Administration. They appear to be delayed type IV hypersensitivity reactions triggered by the immune system in the presence of SARS-CoV-2 or other viruses, such as those causing influenza, although the underlying mechanisms have not been fully elucidated. Because the longevity of dermal fillers is increasing, while the pandemic continues to evolve and new vaccines are under development, the long-term effects on hyaluronic acid fillers and other bioimplant materials should be studied. Physicians must also be encouraged to report these reactions, however mild, to ensure accurate records.

Association between BNT162b2 vaccination and the development of delayed inflammatory reactions to hyaluronic acid-based dermal fillers - A nationwide survey

Background

Delayed inflammatory reactions (DIRs) to hyaluronic acid (HA)‐based dermal fillers following COVID‐19 vaccination has been reported in a few anecdotal reports and small series of cases.

Aim

To evaluate the clinical characteristics, incidence and management options relevant to BNT162b2 vaccination‐associated DIR – A nationwide survey was conducted.

Methods

An online self‐administered survey was sent to physicians who actively practice tissue filler injections. The data acquired included demographic and clinical characteristics of relevant DIR cases.

Results

Out of 262 responders, 20 cases with DIR following the vaccination were reported. 35% and 65% occurred shortly after the first and second vaccination dose, respectively. Overall, 65% of the DIRs appeared ≤5 days after vaccine administration and most DIRs resolved within 21 days. The filler's volume (P = .016) was associated with higher DIR severity, and the same tendency was noted among some filler types and locations of injection. Medical intervention was provided in 12 (60%) cases.

Conclusion

DIR associated with BNT162b2 vaccination is rare and tends to resolve spontaneously or with short‐term medical intervention.

Current Practices in Hyaluronic Acid Dermal Filler Treatment in Asia Pacific and Practical Approaches to Achieving Safe and Natural-Looking Results

Complications such as delayed inflammatory reactions (DIRs) and unnatural outcomes can sometimes arise from hyaluronic acid (HA) dermal filler treatments and can be challenging to address. Given the popularity of HA dermal fillers for aesthetic procedures, there is a need for preventive strategies to minimize these complications. Two hundred practitioners from 10 regions in Asia Pacific who administer HA fillers completed a survey on prevention of DIRs and unnatural outcomes. Thirteen global experts convened to evaluate the current practices and propose practical approaches for safe and appropriate use of HA dermal fillers. From the survey, the top three measures used to reduce the risk of DIRs included choosing an appropriate HA filler, aseptic technique, and patient selection. Key strategies employed to achieve natural-looking outcomes were treatment customization, understanding the rheological properties and behavior of different HA fillers, and being conservative in treatment approach. The panel developed a concise reference guide aimed at minimizing the risk of DIRs while achieving natural aesthetic outcomes. Five practical considerations were recommended: patient assessment and individualization of treatment plan, choice of an appropriate HA filler, adequate knowledge of facial anatomy, strict adherence to aseptic methods, and proper injection technique. The panel highlighted the need for education efforts to increase awareness of differential immunogenicity between HA fillers and to improve understanding on the importance of preserving aesthetic individuality for optimal results. These practical insights from the global experts support practitioners in optimizing safety and quality of aesthetic treatment with HA fillers.

COVID y rellenos faciales ¿realmente debemos preocuparnos?

La pandemia por COVID ha causado hoy en día millones de afectados, continuando su aumento a nivel mundial. Junto con la afectación los órganos diana clave (aparato respiratorio, anosmia, diarrea, fiebre, etc.), se han descrito reacciones inmunológicas tardías en los rellenos dérmicos por ácido hialurónico (AH), fundamentalmente a nivel facial. Estas alteraciones aparecen tanto en pacientes positivos para el virus, independientemente de la sintomatología sistémica, como en pacientes que han recibido vacunación frente al SARS-CoV-2. Aunque las reacciones suelen ser autolimitadas y autoresolutivas, es importante saber diagnosticarlas y en ocasiones establecer tratamiento con corticoides, hialuronidasa y/o antibióticos. Aunque no son graves, la Administración de Alimentos y Medicamentos de los Estados Unidos (FDA) las ha clasificado como evento adverso serio. Los mecanismos que originan están reacciones no están completamente dilucidados. Parece que son reacciones de hipersensibilidad retardada tipo IV, favorecidas por estímulos inmunológicos que se activan en presencia de la COVID o de otros virus como la gripe. Sin embargo, dado que los rellenos presentan cada vez mayor durabilidad y a que la pandemia continúa su curso, existiendo nuevas vacunas en desarrollo, es esencial la realización de estudios que describan la evolución a largo plazo tanto de los rellenos de AH, como de otros bioimplantes. Así mismo, es esencial alentar a los médicos de que reporten este tipo de reacciones, aunque no revistan gravedad con el objetivo de poder realizar un registro fidedigno de ellas.

Treatment of Delayed-onset Inflammatory Reactions to Hyaluronic Acid Filler: An Algorithmic Approach

Hyaluronic acid fillers are one of the most widely used and versatile fillers worldwide. Although traditionally regarded as immunologically inert, many currently available products have been substantially modified to improve longevity and to optimize properties for specific indications. Such modifications, either alone or in combination with other factors (such as the immune status of the patient, immune-triggering events, and bacterial contamination), may lead to the development of late-onset inflammatory nodules in some patients. This article discusses the clinical presentation of late-onset adverse inflammatory reactions to hyaluronic acid injections, describes their likely triggers, and presents the author's treatment algorithm for successful resolution.

Serious Adverse Events With Injectable Fillers: Retrospective Analysis of 7,659 Patient Outcomes

BACKGROUND

In total, 2.7 million injectable filler treatments were performed in 2019 in the United States. Although generally considered to be a safe treatment modality, adverse events may occur in rare situations.

OBJECTIVE

Analyze serious adverse events from injectable filler treatments, including infections, cutaneous necrosis, blindness, or delayed-onset nodule formation, spanning 11 years for 3 board-certified dermatologists and review their incidence, management, and outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed of injectable filler treatments spanning 11 years at a multipractitioner outpatient clinic. Serious adverse events were identified, and treatment measures were documented. A literature search was performed to determine recent trends and outcomes for comparison.

RESULTS

Between January 2009 and August 2020, 18,013 mL of injectable filler was administered to 7,659 patients. Of the 18,013 mL administered, 74.1% comprised hyaluronic acid derivatives, 19.19% poly-l-lactic acid, and 6.71% calcium hydroxylapatite. Four serious adverse events were identified. Three events were delayed-onset skin nodule formation. One adverse event was related to vascular compromise and subsequent cutaneous necrosis. After appropriate treatment, all adverse events resolved without significant long-term sequelae.

CONCLUSION

Serious adverse events associated with injectable fillers, when performed by board-certified dermatologists, are extremely rare and can be successfully managed with appropriate treatment.

Adipose Collagen Fragment: A Novel Adipose-Derived Extracellular Matrix Concentrate for Skin Filling

BACKGROUND

Skin filler is an option for treating skin aging and wrinkles; however, currently used fillers are limited by poor biocompatibility, rapid degradation, and possible hypersensitivity reactions. Autologous adipose tissue-derived products have been recognized as promising options for skin rejuvenation.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to develop a novel adipose-derived product for skin filling.

METHODS

Adipose collagen fragment (ACF) was prepared through pulverization, filtration, and centrifugation. The macrography, structure, types of collagen, and cell viability of ACF were evaluated by immunostaining, western blotting, and cell culture assays. ACF, nanofat, and phosphate-buffered saline (9 spots/side, 0.01 mL/spot) were intradermally injected in the dorsal skin of 36 female BALB/c nude mice; the skin filling capacity and the collagen remodeling process were then investigated. Twenty-one female patients with fine rhytides in the infraorbital areas were enrolled and received clinical applications of ACF treatment. Therapeutic effects and patients' satisfaction scores were recorded.

RESULTS

The mean [standard deviation] yield of ACF from 50 mL of Coleman fat was 4.91 [0.25] mL. ACF contained nonviable cells and high levels of collagen I, collagen IV, and laminin. Fibroblasts and procollagen significantly increased in ACF and ACF-treated dermis (P < 0.05). Overall, 85.7% of patients were satisfied with the therapy results, and no infections, injection site nodules, or other unwanted side effects were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

ACF significantly improved dermal thickness and collagen synthesis and may serve as a potential autologous skin filler.

Delayed adverse reaction to a natural dermal filler mimicking salivary gland neoplasia

BACKGROUND

Cosmetic dermal fillers are a sought-after procedure globally. However, despite the safety claims of filler materials by the manufacturers, adverse reactions still occur.

CASE PRESENTATION

This case report is of a 66-year-old female who presented with a late-onset complication of a hyaluronic acid dermal filler that clinically mimicked a salivary gland neoplasm. The patient presented with firm peri-oral swellings of short duration that clinically mimicked a pleomorphic adenoma and mucoepidermoid carcinoma. The diagnosis was that of a foreign-body granulomatous response to dermal fillers. Although other mimics of a similar nature are reported a knowledgeable clinician, careful choice of filler material, knowledge of the product, thorough pre-procedural history taking and post-procedural patient follow-up can drastically minimize a possible misdiagnosis. The reaction was treated with a combination of hyaluronidase, betamethasone and 5-flurouracil intra-lesional injections monthly for 11 consecutive months, with total clinical resolution.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient education of the procedure, product name and the possibility of an adverse reaction occurring, even years later or at a site distant to the initial site of placement, is vital. Further, we review the recent reported adverse association of the new mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and dermal filler placement.

Hyaluronic acid delayed inflammatory reaction after third dose of SARS CoV-2 vaccine

Background

Treatments based on hyaluronic acid represent one of the most largely used practice of esthetic medicine. In the literature, it has already been described delayed reaction after vaccine like flu vaccine mediated by T‐lymphocytes.

Aim

We report three cases of dermal filler reactions following mRNA vaccination against SARS‐CoV‐2; all the patients had received the filler months or even years before the vaccine.

Patients

Patient one: A 60‐year–old female patient that was treated one year ago in the lip developed swelling days after getting mRNA Pfizer Biotech vaccine. She received her booster of Pfizer vaccination one week before. Patient two: A 45‐year–old female patient treated in the lip two years before developed angioedema days after getting her booster of Pfizer Biotech vaccine. In this case, it was necessary to prescribe cortisone per os. Patient three: A 40‐year‐old female patient treated for the nasolabial fold five months before developed erythema and edema after receiving the booster of Moderna Vaccine.

Results

As demonstrated in our three case reports, even the booster of vaccine can cause delayed inflammatory reactions in patients that have previously received fillers.

Conclusion

Delayed inflammatory reactions in patients that have received filler in the past are uncommon and usually self‐limited. Those are the first example reported in the literature of reaction after the booster dose without any previous symptoms.

Hyaluronic Acid Filler Incidentally Found During Mohs Micrographic Surgery: Observations in 36 Patients Regarding Skin Depth, Degradation Size, and Estimated Persistence Time

BACKGROUND

Although its clinical effect is reported to last up to 2 years, how long hyaluronic acid filler (HAF) histologically persists in the skin is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the approximate persistence time of HAF in the skin and to correlate persistence time with HAF histological appearance, size, depth, and location.

METHODS

Retrospective review of patient data and available frozen sections from 2003 to 2021 in which HAF was identified in 36 Mohs micrographic surgery patients.

RESULTS

Incidental HAF histologically persisted in the skin for as long as 10.75 years in 1 patient and 3 years or more in 36.8% (7/19) of the patients who remembered the time of implantation. HAF is more apparent in frozen sections stained with toluidine blue than those stained with hematoxylin and eosin. Although HAF volume tended to be less with time, fragmentation was present both early at 3 months and at 3 years or more. There was no correlation of persistence time with anatomic location or depth. In 90.3% of the cases (28/31), HAF was located in the subcutaneous fat. There was no granulomatous or giant cell response at any time period.

CONCLUSION

Hyaluronic acid filler may be seen histopathologically in the skin, usually in the subcutaneous fat, up to 10.75 years after implantation.

Increase in the incidence of acute inflammatory reactions to injectable fillers during COVID-19 era

Background

Acute inflammatory reactions (AIRs) are a rare complication following esthetic treatment with hyaluronic acid (HA) and/or human collagen fillers. However, a substantial increase in the frequency of AIRs was observed in the first author's clinic since May 2020.

Aims

To report AIR cases, we experienced and discuss potential underlying mechanisms.

Methods

This was a retrospective review of patients representing AIR symptoms following filler injection with HA or human collagen in our clinic.

Results

Although only one case of an AIR with an incidence rate of 0.01% was recorded following filler treatment between September 2008 and April 2020 in our clinic, we observed 14 AIR cases without anaphylaxis, with an incidence rate of 1.18% between May 2020 and June 2021, in line with the spreading of the new coronavirus pandemic. All cases were females aged 40–57 years, and the time of onset was within hours after filler injection. Three patients had been treated with HA fillers only, 2 with HA plus human collagen, and 9 with human collagen only. Most patients had been treated with these products in the past. Nine patients were treated with oral prednisolone. In all cases, symptoms resolved entirely within a week without sequelae.

Conclusions

The marked increase in AIRs coincided with the COVID‐19 pandemic. Possible explanations include immune system alterations caused by extensive changes in domestic and personal hygiene, prolonged and elevated stress levels, and subclinical COVID‐19 infection. Further studies may be warranted.

Late inflammatory reactions (LIRs) in patients with soft tissue fillers after SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination: A systematic review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

Soft tissue fillers are used for cosmetic and reconstructive purposes, and soft tissue filler procedures are among the most common nonsurgical procedures in the USA. Although soft tissue filler procedures are relatively quick and safe, adverse events such as late inflammatory reactions have been reported with every filler product. Infections and vaccinations have been proposed as potential triggers for late inflammatory reactions (LIRs), and it is therefore not surprising that these adverse events have been reported after SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination. Therefore, this review aims to give a detailed overview of these cases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature search was undertaken on LIRs in patients with a history of soft tissue filler use after SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination. This systematic review was reported according to the PRISMA guidelines. We searched the electronic database PubMed from January 2020-August 2021. Data on patient characteristics, filler characteristics, clinical findings and treatment options were included.

RESULTS

This review included 7 articles with a total of 19 patients with LIRs after SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination. Three patients with postinfection LIRs and 16 patients with postvaccination LIRs were reported. These LIRS mainly occurred in females who had HA injections for cosmetic purposes. Three patients with postinfection LIRs had symptoms of facial swelling and/or lip angioedema in a matter of weeks. Sixteen patients reported reactions after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination (13 following Moderna vaccination and 3 after Pfizer vaccination, after both the first and second doses) from 13 hours up to three weeks. These patients presented with similar clinical symptoms as patients with postinfection LIRs. All patients were treated in a conservative manner.

DISCUSSION

This review shows a relationship between LIRs and SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination. In the case of vaccination, these adverse events have been reported only after Moderna and Pfizer vaccinations. The reported adverse events are generally minor and self-limiting, and we encourage patients with soft tissue fillers to participate in vaccination programs.

Adverse Events Following COVID-19 Vaccine in Patients Previously Injected with Facial Filler: Scoping Review and Case Report

The “Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee 17 December 2020 Meeting Briefing Document”, formulated by the FDA, reported three cases of swelling in areas previously injected with HA filler, introducing the possible relationship between a COVID-19 vaccine and adverse events in areas previously injected with HA fillers. The aim of this research is to report a case of an adverse event following a COVID-19 vaccine in a patient previously injected with facial filler. Furthermore, a scoping review on the same topic was performed. The research was carried out on the electronic databases PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Google Scholar and Scopus. The selection process identified four articles as eligible for inclusion in the review. Nineteen patients, including the described case report, who experienced an adverse event following a COVID-19 vaccine in areas previously injected with facial filler were identified. Adverse events following a COVID-19 vaccine in patients previously injected with facial filler appear to be rare. A high BDDE cross-linking rate and/or a low-molecular-weight hyaluronic acid filler may have a higher tardive adverse event rate when triggered.

Cutaneous and Allergic reactions due to COVID-19 vaccinations: A review

Introduction

The pandemic caused by the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) has had an unprecedented impact on the overall health and the global economy. Vaccination is currently the most dependable strategy to end the pandemic, despite the slower‐than‐hoped‐for rollout, particularly for low‐to‐middle‐income countries, and the uncertain duration of protection afforded by vaccination. The spike protein of the virus (immunodominant antigen of the virus) is the main target of the approved and candidate SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccines. This protein binds to the ACE2 receptor of the host cell, initiating the entry of the virus into the cell and the chain of subsequent events ending to Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. The safety profile of these vaccines needs is closely assessed.

Methods

This comprehensive review includes searching the PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases using the keywords “coronavirus”, “COVID‐19”, “vaccine”, “cutaneous reactions”, “allergic reactions”, and “SARS‐CoV‐2”. Manual searching of reference lists of included articles augmented the research. The research was updated in June 2021.

Results

In this narrative review, we tried to investigate and discuss the cutaneous and allergic reactions related to SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccines currently available in the literature. As a result, although COVID‐19 vaccines can be reported to develop allergic and anaphylactic reactions, especially after m‐RNA vaccines, they remain at a low rate, and it is observed that these reactions may develop more frequently, especially in patients with previous allergies and mast cell disorders. Fortunately, these reactions are generally transient, benign, self‐limited.

Conclusion

Although there is still no definitive evidence, as dermatologists, we must be aware of the possibility of cutaneous reactions, newly diagnosed dermatoses, or exacerbation of existing dermatoses that may develop after the COVID‐19 vaccinations.

The Immunogenicity of Hyaluronic Fillers and Its Consequences

Hyaluronic acid (HA) is a glycosaminoglycan, a natural component of the extracellular matrix. The identical structure of the molecule in all living organisms is its main advantage, as it translates into the minimal probability of immunogenicity. Therefore, it is the closest to the ideal preparation used as a filler, due to its biocompatibility and stability at the site of implantation. This paper includes the discussion of the potential mechanisms of adverse immune reactions to HA along with the mechanisms of reaction following vaccinations against SARS-CoV-2. Based on the literature, we tried to systematize adverse immune reactions with systemic manifestations to HA. The occurrence of unpredictable reactions to hyaluronic acid indicates that they may not be treated as neutral or non-allergenic. The modifications of the chemical structure of HA, additives and individual tendencies in a patient may be the cause of unpredictable reactions, leading to serious health consequences. Preparations of unknown origin, poorly purified, or including bacterial DNA are particularly dangerous. Therefore, long-lasting follow-up of the patient and the selection of a preparation approved by the FDA or EMA are of high importance. Patients are often unaware of the consequences of cheaper procedures performed by persons without suitable knowledge with the use of unregistered products, so the public should be educated and legal regulations should be introduced.

Hyaluronic acid soft tissue filler delayed inflammatory reaction following COVID-19 vaccination - A case report

Background

The use of hyaluronic acid soft tissue fillers in aesthetic medicine exploded in recent years for many reasons, including being relatively safe. Incidence of delayed inflammatory reactions (DIRs) to hyaluronic acid soft tissue fillers range between 0.3% and 4.25%. These reactions are mediated by T‐lymphocytes and can be triggered by flu‐like illnesses, including SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Vaccination may also induce hypersensitivity.

Aim

In this case report, we present two cases of delayed reaction after hyaluronic acid soft tissue filler treatment of the tear trough area and following mRNA vaccination against SARS‐Cov‐2, also known as COVID‐19, months later.

Patients

A 39‐year old female who previously had her tear trough area treated with hyaluronic acid soft tissue filler developed swelling days after getting the mRNA Pfizer‐BioNTech COVID‐19 vaccine. Another patient, a 61‐year‐olf female, developed intermittent facial swelling in areas previously treated with hyaluronic acid soft tissue fillers days after receiving her first dose of the mRNA Pfizer‐BioNTech COVID‐19 vaccine.

Results

As demonstrated in our case report, vaccination against COVID‐19 may induce DIRs in patients who previously had hyaluronic soft tissue fillers.

Conclusion

Delayed inflammatory reactions to hyaluronic acid soft tissue fillers are uncommon and usually self‐limited, with frequent spontaneous resolution. However, considering the ongoing pandemic and the worldwide demand for vaccines against COVID‐19, the aesthetic providers should be conscious of the risks posed by the interaction of such vaccines in patients who previously had or seeking hyaluronic acid soft tissue filler injections.

Delayed-onset Nodules (DONs) and Considering their Treatment following use of Hyaluronic Acid (HA) Fillers

Delayed-onset nodules (DONs) represent a poorly understood and generally neglected group of complications. It is not a diagnosis. The underlying pathologies and their incidences are largely unknown due to the lack of specificity in clinical signs and the challenges in accessing diagnostic tests, cost implications, or reluctance from patients to undergo them. A lack of presumptive clinical diagnosis, coupled with management ranging from "scatter-gun" polypharmacy to clinical inertia, is believed to result in chronicity and increased morbidity. This paper provides guidance on the identification and understanding of the underlying pathologies and encourages the increased utilization of a medical model of care. The more routine adoption of histopathology, inflammatory markers, and ultrasound will permit a more targeted management and a greater understanding of the incidences and evolution of the pathologies.

A case of delayed inflammatory filler reaction following vaccination with succesful response to colchicine

Delayed inflammatory reactions (DIRs) associated with hyaluronic acid injections are not rare and can be seen in up to 4.25% of patients. Although the exact mechanism is not clear, several triggering factors, including infections, trauma, and dental procedures, were reported in the literature. A 43-year-old female patient treated with HA fillers developed an inflammatory reaction following vaccination in all areas of injection, including temples, lips, and lower eyelids. Systemic steroid and ciprofloxacin were used as a first-line treatment without response. Colchicine 1 mg/day along with hyaluronidase in lower eyelids improved all lesions successfully.

"COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 virus spike protein-related delayed inflammatory reaction to hyaluronic acid dermal fillers: a challenging clinical conundrum in diagnosis and treatment"

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.