Evidence Hub

COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine–Associated Uveitis Leading to Diagnosis of Sarcoidosis: Case Report and Review of Literature

T. Matsuo, Hiroyuki Honda, Takehiro Tanaka, K. Uraguchi, M. Kawahara, Hideharu Hagiya

Journal of Investigative Medicine High Impact Case Reports, 2022

22 citations

Abstract

A 34-year-old Japanese person with male gender identity who had been taking intramuscular injection of methyltestosterone depot for 11 years after bilateral mastectomy noticed blurred vision 5 days after the second vaccination for COVID-19 (Tozinameran; Pfizer-BioNTech) in the interval of 3 weeks following the first vaccination. The patient was diagnosed as granulomatous iritis with mutton-fat keratic precipitates and small iris nodules at the pupillary margin in the right eye and began to have 0.1% betamethasone eye drops with good response. The patient, however, continued to have fever and malaise and showed a high level of serum soluble interleukin-2 receptor (sIL-2R) even 4 weeks after the second vaccination. Computed tomographic scan disclosed mediastinal and bilateral hilar small lymphadenopathy together with limited granular lesion in the right lung. Gallium-67 scintigraphy demonstrated high uptake not only in mediastinal and hilar lymph nodes but also in bilateral parotid glands. Right parotid gland biopsy revealed noncaseating granulomas and proved pathological diagnosis of sarcoidosis. The systemic symptoms were relieved by oral prednisolone 20 mg daily. Even though the causal relationship remains undetermined, this case is unique at the point that vaccine-associated uveitis led to the detection of pulmonary lesions and lymphadenopathy, resulting in clinical and pathological diagnosis of sarcoidosis. In literature review, 3 patients showed sarcoidosis-like diseases…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case report, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free