Autoimmune disease and COVID-19: a multicentre observational study in the United Kingdom

Effectiveness and immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 booster vaccine in immunosuppressed systemic autoimmune disease patients: A prospective study

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease (SARD) are a vulnerable population for severe COVID-19 and worse response to vaccination, prompting the need of a booster vaccine. Data regarding its response is limited and inconsistent. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness and immunogenicity of the third dose of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in immunosuppressed SARD patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a prospective study in immunosuppressed SARD Portuguese patients, who received a SARS-CoV-2 booster vaccine, from October 2021 to August 2022. We evaluated COVID-19 incidence in the following 6 months, as well as vaccine immunogenicity through anti-Spike IgG titers and T-cell reactivity to the Spike protein.

RESULTS

We included 131 patients with a mean age of 54.9±12.2 years. Almost 40% (n=52) developed COVID-19 within 6 months after the booster, but 51 (98.1%) were mild infections. Median post-booster antibody levels and antibody variation were 9540.7 (14,724) and 8937.9 (11,561.3)AU/mL, respectively, and 73.3% (n=96) of the patients showed post-booster T-cell reactivity. Antibody variation was significantly lower in the COVID group (p=0.015). Although post-booster antibody levels and T-cell reactivity were statistically significantly lower in the patients under biologic DMARD, there was not a significant increase in COVID-19 incidence.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that a booster vaccine elicits strong immunogenicity and reduces COVID-19 severity, highlighting its importance in immunosuppressed SARD patients. Larger and more homogeneous cohorts are needed to guide periodic booster administration in this susceptible population.

Predictors of COVID-19 severity in autoimmune disease patients: A retrospective study during full epidemic decontrol in China

BACKGROUND

Early identification of risk factors for adverse COVID-19 progression in patients with autoimmune diseases is crucial for patient management, but data on the Chinese population are scarce.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to identify predictors of severe COVID-19 in patients using blood cell ratios, such as the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), systemic immune-inflammation index (SII), and other inflammatory markers.

METHODS

A retrospective study of 855 patients (746 females; median age 49 years) with autoimmune diseases and concurrent COVID-19 was conducted from December 2022 to February 2023 at the Rheumatology and Immunology Department of the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University. Disease severity was assessed according to the 8th edition of the National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China's COVID-19 Diagnosis and Treatment Guidelines. The clinical classification criteria group mild and moderate cases as nonsevere cases and severe and critical cases as severe cases. A multivariate logistic regression model was established to evaluate the relationships between COVID-19 severity and demographic characteristics, comorbidities, medication use, and laboratory findings.

RESULTS

The PLR, NLR, and SII were significantly greater in the severe COVID-19 group than in the nonsevere group (all P < 0.05). In addition to classical independent clinical risk factors, increases in the PLR (OR: 1.004, 95 % CI: 1.001∼1.007, p = 0.001), NLR (OR: 1.180, 95 % CI: 1.041∼1.337, p = 0.010), and SII (OR: 0.999, 95 % CI: 0.998∼1.000, p = 0.005) were identified as risk factors for severe COVID-19 in patients with autoimmune diseases. After adjusting for clinical risk factors, the PLR (AUC: 0.592 vs. 0.865; P < 0.05), NLR (AUC: 0.670 vs. 0.866; P < 0.05), and SII (AUC: 0.616 vs. 0.864; P < 0.05) demonstrated higher predictive values.

CONCLUSION

Early prediction of severe COVID-19 in patients with autoimmune diseases can be achieved using the NLR, PLR, and SII.

Mendelian randomization and Bayesian model averaging of autoimmune diseases and Long COVID

Background

Following COVID-19, reports suggest Long COVID and autoimmune diseases (AIDs) in infected individuals. However, bidirectional causal effects between Long COVID and AIDs, which may help to prevent diseases, have not been fully investigated.

Methods

Summary-level data from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of Long COVID (N = 52615) and AIDs including inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) (N = 377277), Crohn's disease (CD) (N = 361508), ulcerative colitis (UC) (N = 376564), etc. were employed. Bidirectional causal effects were gauged between AIDs and Long COVID by exploiting Mendelian randomization (MR) and Bayesian model averaging (BMA).

Results

The evidence of causal effects of IBD (OR = 1.06, 95% CI = 1.00-1.11, p = 3.13E-02), CD (OR = 1.10, 95% CI = 1.01-1.19, p = 2.21E-02) and UC (OR = 1.08, 95% CI = 1.03-1.13, p = 2.35E-03) on Long COVID was found. In MR-BMA, UC was estimated as the highest-ranked causal factor (MIP = 0.488, MACE = 0.035), followed by IBD and CD.

Conclusion

This MR study found that IBD, CD and UC had causal effects on Long COVID, which suggests a necessity to screen high-risk populations.

Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir co-administration inpatients with rheumatic disease infected with SARS-CoV-2: a real-world study

Background: The breakthrough development of novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines and oral antivirals have played a critical role in curtailing the spread of the pandemic and dramatically reducing the morbidity and mortality rates among those infected. Among these oral antivirals, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NR) has been repurposed successfully for use against coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) and is now readily available on the market with promising therapeutic effects. The availability of convenient and effective NR treatments for COVID-19 greatly mitigates the severity of the epidemic and contributes to an early end to the pandemic. Furthermore, certain patient subgroups, specifically those with rheumatic disease (RD) who are currently undergoing intensive immunodeficiency and/or immunosuppressive treatments, continue to be vulnerable and at a higher risk of experiencing severe consequences from COVID-19. Additionally, it has also been observed that NR exhibited prevalent drug-drug interactions of clinical significance, and more instances of COVID-19 rebound were being recognized with increasing frequency. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on a real-world RD population who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 and treated with NR. The time of symptom resolution, length of hospitalization, and response rate were assessed. Results were compared among the standard regimen and non-standard regimen groups, early NR regimen and late NR regimen groups, and the NR indication regimen and NR non-indication regimen groups. During the course, all grades of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) directly associated with NR administration and associated with drug-drug interactions (DDIs) were also monitored. Results: A total of 32 patients with RD, who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 and received NR, were retrospectively identified and divided into different groups. We found that the standard regimen group and the early NR regimen group had a shorter median time of symptom resolution compared to the control group [9.0 (interquartile range [IQR], 8.3-11.3) vs. 21.5 (IQR16.0-24.0) days, p < 0.001 and 9.0 (IQR 8.3-11.3) vs. 23.0 (IQR 18.0-24.0) days, p = 0.0]. We further found that even if the NR administration time exceeds 5 days, patients with RD who receive the NR indication regimen can still derive certain benefits from it. The proportion of patients who showed symptom improvement was higher in the NR indication regimen compared to the NR non-indication regimen group (n = 13/17 vs. 3/6, 76.5% vs. 50.0%) at the end of follow-up, and there was a statistical difference (p = 0.0) in the response rate of patients between the two groups. We also analyzed the effect of comorbidities on patient response rates and found that the percentage of patients who showed symptom improvement was higher in the group with <4 comorbidities compared to the group with ≥ 4 comorbidities (n = 7/7 vs. 16/25, 100.0% vs. 64.0%) at the end of follow-up. During the course, all grades of ADRs and grade ≥3ADRs directly associated with NR administration were not observed in any of the 32 cases. Despite discontinuing warfarin prior to NR application (using NR immediately on the first day of warfarin withdrawal), one patient still experienced an increased international normalized ratio [INR, 5.32(0.90-1.20)] and coagulation disorders (weak positive fecal occult blood test) on the second day after using NR. The INR levels decreased to nearly normal values, and coagulation disorders returned to normal after 2 days of discontinuing NR (the seventh day after the initial administration of NR). Conclusion: We showed NR therapy to be associated with a favorable outcome and an acceptable safety profile in an immunosuppressed population with RD during the Omicron surge. Early use of NR (within 5 days of symptom onset) could improve the prognosis of patients. NR administration for symptoms and confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection after >5 days may also mitigate progression to severe disease and is a viable strategy. Our results highlight the importance of early utilization and/or NR indication, which may yield clinical advantages for patients with RD infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Venous Thromboembolism After COVID-19 Infection Among People With and Without Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases

Importance

Immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) and COVID-19 are independently associated with venous thromboembolisms (VTEs).

Objective

To determine if individuals with IMIDs are at higher risk of VTE following COVID-19 infection compared with individuals without IMIDs.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Population-based matched cohort study using multiple deterministically linked health administrative databases from Ontario, Canada, and including patients testing positive for COVID-19 between January 1, 2020, and December 30, 2021, and followed up until March 31, 2022. Individuals with IMIDs (n = 28 440) who tested positive for COVID-19 were matched with up to 5 individuals without an IMID (n = 126 437) who tested positive for COVID-19. Matching was based on year of birth, sex, neighborhood income, and rural/urban residence. Data analysis was performed from August 6, 2022, to August 21, 2023.

Exposure

Diagnosis of an IMID, identified using algorithms based on diagnostic codes, procedures, and specialist visits.

Main Outcome and Measure

The main outcome was estimated age- and sex-standardized incidence of VTE. Proportional cause-specific hazard models compared the risk of VTE in people with and without IMIDs. Death was a competing risk. Models adjusted for history of VTE, 2 or more doses of a COVID-19 vaccine 14 or more days prior to COVID-19 diagnosis, and the Charlson Comorbidity Index. Routinely collected health data were used, so the hypothesis tested was formulated after data collection but prior to being granted access to data.

Results

The study included 28 440 individuals (16 741 [58.9%] female; 11 699 [41.1%] male) with an IMID diagnosed prior to first COVID-19 diagnosis, with a mean (SD) age of 52.1 (18.8) years at COVID-19 diagnosis. These individuals were matched to 126 437 controls without IMIDs. The incidence of VTE within 6 months of COVID-19 diagnosis among 28 440 individuals with an IMID was 2.64 (95% CI, 2.23-3.10) per 100 000 person-days compared with 2.18 (95% CI, 1.99-2.38) per 100 000 person-days among 126 437 matched individuals without IMIDs. The VTE risk was not statistically significantly different among those with vs without IMIDs (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.95-1.32).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this retrospective population-based cohort study of individuals with IMIDs following COVID-19, individuals with IMIDs did not have a higher risk of VTE compared with individuals without an IMID. These data provide reassurance to clinicians caring for individuals with IMIDs and COVID-19.