Methotrexate Hampers Immunogenicity to BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine in Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Disease

Equity Considerations in COVID-19 Vaccination Studies of Individuals With Autoimmune Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases

OBJECTIVE

We sought to examine the extent to which populations experiencing inequities were considered in studies of COVID-19 vaccination in individuals with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIRDs).

METHODS

We included all studies (n = 19) from an ongoing Cochrane living systematic review on COVID-19 vaccination in patients with AIRDs. We used the PROGRESS-Plus framework (place of residence, race/ethnicity, occupation, gender/sex, religion, education, socioeconomic status, and social capital, plus: age, multimorbidity, and health literacy) to identify factors that stratify health outcomes. We assessed equity considerations in relation to differences in COVID-19 baseline risk, eligibility criteria, and description of participant characteristics and attrition, controlling for confounding factors, subgroup analyses, and applicability of findings.

RESULTS

All 19 studies were cohort studies that followed individuals with AIRDs after vaccination. Three studies (16%) described differences in baseline risk for COVID-19 across age. Two studies (11%) defined eligibility criteria based on occupation and age. All 19 studies described participant age and sex. Twelve studies (67%) controlled for age and/or sex as confounders. Eight studies (47%) conducted subgroup analyses across at least 1 PROGRESS-Plus factor, most commonly age. Ten studies (53%) interpreted applicability in relation to at least 1 PROGRESS-Plus factor, most commonly age (47%), then ethnicity (16%), sex (16%), and multimorbidity (11%).

CONCLUSION

Sex and age were the most frequently considered PROGRESS-Plus factors in studies of COVID-19 vaccination in individuals with AIRDs. The generalizability of evidence to populations experiencing inequities is uncertain. Future COVID-19 vaccine studies should report participant characteristics in more detail to inform guideline recommendations.

Humoral Immunogenicity of mRNA Booster Vaccination after Heterologous CoronaVac-ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or Homologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 Vaccination in Patients with Autoimmune Rheumatic Diseases: A Preliminary Report

Immunogenicity data on the mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine booster after completing a primary series vaccination, other than the mRNA vaccine, in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs) is scarce. In this study, we reported the humoral immunogenicity of an mRNA booster 90–180 days after completing heterologous CoronaVac/ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (n = 19) or homologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (n = 14) vaccination by measuring the anti-SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain (RBD) IgG levels at one and three months after mRNA booster vaccination. This study included 33 patients with ARDs [78.8% women; mean (SD) age: 42.9 (10.6) years]. Most patients received prednisolone (75.8%, mean [IQR] daily dose: 7.5 [5, 7.5] mg) and azathioprine (45.5%). The seropositivity rates were 100% and 92.9% in CoronaVac/ChAdOx1 and ChAdOx1/ChAdOx1, respectively. The median (IQR) anti-RBD IgG level was lower in the ChAdOx1/ChAdOx1 group than in the CoronaVac/ChAdOx1 group (1867.8 [591.6, 2548.6] vs. 3735.8 [2347.9, 5014.0] BAU/mL, p = 0.061). A similar trend was significant in the third month [597.8 (735.5) vs. 1609.9 (828.4) BAU/mL, p = 0.003]. Minor disease flare-ups occurred in 18.2% of the patients. Our findings demonstrated satisfactory humoral immunogenicity of mRNA vaccine boosters after a primary series, with vaccine strategies other than the mRNA platform. Notably, the vaccine-induced immunity was lower in the ChAdOx1/ChAdOx1 primary series.

LGL leukemia patients exhibit substantial protective humoral responses following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination

Large granular lymphocyte leukemia is a rare chronic lymphoproliferative disorder of cytotoxic cells. Other hematological malignancies such as CLL and multiple myeloma have been associated with poor vaccination response and markedly increased severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) mortality rates, specifically in patients who have undergone immunosuppressive therapy. Given the immunosuppressive therapies often used to treat the disease, large granular lymphocytic (LGL) patients may be especially vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 infection. A questionnaire was sent to all patients in the LGL Leukemia Registry at the University of Virginia (UVA) to obtain information on vaccination status, type of vaccine received, side effects of vaccination, patient treatment status before, during, and after vaccination, antibody testing, history of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection, and presence or absence of booster vaccination. Antibody testing of 27 patients who had quantitative SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein IgG levels determined by University of Virginia medical laboratories via the Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG II assay were collected. The assay was scored as reactive at a threshold of ≥50.0 AU/mL or nonreactive with a threshold of <50.0 AU/mL. LGL patients without treatment as well as patients who held treatment prior to their vaccination have a robust humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Patients who did not hold their immunosuppressive treatments have signifigantly diminished vaccine response compared to those who held their immunosuppressive treatment. Our findings support a dual strategy of pausing immunotherapy during the vaccination window and administration of the SARS-CoV-2 booster to all LGL leukemia patients to maximize protective antibodies.

Benefit-risk evaluation of COVID-19 vaccination in special population groups of interest

Several population groups display an increased risk of severe disease and mortality following SARS-CoV-2 infection. These include those who are immunocompromised (IC), have a cancer diagnosis, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection or chronic inflammatory disease including autoimmune disease, primary immunodeficiencies, and those with kidney or liver disease. As such, improved understanding of the course of COVID-19 disease, as well as the efficacy, safety, and benefit-risk profiles of COVID-19 vaccines in these vulnerable groups is paramount in order to inform health policy makers and identify evidence-based vaccination strategies. In this review, we seek to summarize current data, including recommendations by national health authorities, on the impact and benefit-risk profiles of COVID-19 vaccination in these populations. Moving forward, although significant efforts have been made to elucidate and characterize COVID-19 disease course and vaccine responses in these groups, further larger-scale and longer-term evaluation will be instrumental to help further guide management and vaccination strategies, particularly given concerns about waning of vaccine-induced immunity and the recent surge of transmission with SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern.

SARS-CoV-2-specific immune responses in elderly and immunosuppressed participants and patients with hematologic disease or checkpoint inhibition in solid tumors: study protocol of the prospective, observational CoCo immune study

Background

Immunocompromised people (ICP) and elderly individuals (older than 80 years) are at increased risk for severe coronavirus infections. To protect against serious infection with SARS-CoV-2, ICP are taking precautions that may include a reduction of social contacts and participation in activities which they normally enjoy. Furthermore, for these people, there is an uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of the vaccination. The COVID-19 Contact (CoCo) Immune study strives to characterize the immune response to COVID-19 vaccination in immunocompromised, elderly people, and patients with hematological or oncological diseases. The study uses blood-based screenings to monitor the humoral and cellular immune response in these groups after vaccination. Questionnaires and qualitative interviews are used to describe the level of social participation.

Methods

The CoCo Immune Study is a mixed methods prospective, longitudinal, observational study at two large university hospitals in Northern Germany. Starting in March 2021, it monitors anti-SARS-CoV-2 immune responses and collects information on social participation in more than 600 participants, at least 18 years old. Inclusion criteria and subcohorts: Participants with (1) regularly intake of immunosuppressive medication (ICP-cohort) or (2) age ≥ 80 years (80 + -cohort). Additionally, patients with current or former (3) myeloid, (4) lymphatic disease or (5) solid tumor under checkpoint inhibition (3–5: HO-cohort). Exclusion criteria: (1) refusal to give informed consent, (2) contraindication to blood testing, (3) inability to declare consent. Participants complete a questionnaire at four different time points: prior to full vaccination, and 1, 6 and 12 months after completed vaccination. In addition, participants draw blood samples themselves or through a local health care provider and send them with their questionnaires per post at the respective time points after vaccination. Patients of the HO cohort dispense additional blood samples at week 3 to 12 and at month 6 to 9 after 2nd vaccination to gain additional knowledge in B and T cell responses. Selected participants are invited to qualitative interviews about social participation.

Discussion

This observational study is designed to gain insight into the immune response of people with weakened immune systems and to find out how social participation is affected after COVID-19 vaccination.

Trial registration: This study was registered with German Clinical Trial Registry (registration number: DRKS00023972) on 30th December 2020.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12879-022-07347-w.

Response to Vaccination Against SARS-CoV-2 in Patients With Antineutrophil Cytoplasmic Antibody-Associated Vasculitis With Renal Involvement

Background

Patients with anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitides (AAV) present with multisystem disease including renal impairment. The treatment for AAV involves a high burden of immunosuppression. Patients with renal involvement are treated especially intensively. As a result, we identified these patients as being potentially at high risk of failure to seroconvert to COVID-19 vaccination.

Methods

We collected data on seroconversion response rates to COVID-19 vaccination in a multi-ethnic cohort of patients with AAV and renal involvement treated at a busy tertiary nephrology centre as part of a retrospective review of patient notes. Blood samples were taken following vaccination with either Pfizer or Astra-Zeneca COVID-19 vaccines and median fluorescence intensity was measured using the validated MULTICOV-Ab Magnetic Luminex^Ⓡ Assay. We also evaluated whether seroconversion was affected by immunosuppression regimen.

Results

81 patients were included. The mean age was 62, and there were 49 (60%) females. 55 patients had a blood test after the first dose; 46 after the second dose. Patients were in remission with a median BVAS of 0 (IQR 2). Seroconversion after the first dose with either vaccine was 35/55 (63.6%). After the second it was 38/46 (82.6%). Subgroup analyses revealed a trend to impaired seroconversion in non-white versus white patients (77.8 vs. 81.7% (p = 0.69) after the first dose of vaccine and in those treated with Rituximab in the last 12 months (73.3 vs. 87.1%, p = 0.41).

Conclusions

These data offer real-world evidence of lower seroconversion in response to vaccination with one dose in patients with AAV and renal involvement than the general UK population. After two doses, seroconversion is in line with national data. These data provide a rationale for hospital-led identification of patients most at risk of COVID-19 and underscore the importance of local connexions between hospitals and their communities. These data provide further support for targeting booster vaccination programmes to vulnerable patient cohorts. They add to the growing evidence of reduced seroconversion in response to vaccination in patients with renal disease of any cause.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 Infection and Autoimmunity 1 Year Later: The Era of Vaccines

Impressive efforts have been made by researchers worldwide in the development of target vaccines against the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) and in improving the management of immunomodulating agents. Currently, different vaccine formulations, such as viral vector, mRNA, and protein-based, almost all directed toward the spike protein that includes the domain for receptor binding, have been approved. Although data are not conclusive, patients affected by autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs) seem to have a slightly higher disease prevalence, risk of hospitalization, and death from coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) than the general population. Therefore, ARD patients, under immunosuppressive agents, have been included among the priority target groups for vaccine administration. However, specific cautions are needed to optimize vaccine safety and effectiveness in these patients, such as modification in some of the ongoing immunosuppressive therapies and the preferential use of mRNA other than vector-based vaccines. Immunomodulating agents can be a therapeutic opportunity for the management of COVID-19 patients; however, their clinical impact depends on how they are handled. To place in therapy immunomodulating agents in the correct window of opportunity throughout the identification of surrogate markers of disease progression and host immune response is mandatory to optimize patient's outcome.

ImmunosuppressiveTherapies Differently Modulate Humoral- and T-Cell-Specific Responses to COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients

Objective

To assess in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, treated with different immunosuppressive therapies, the induction of SARS-CoV-2-specific immune response after vaccination in terms of anti-region-binding-domain (RBD)-antibody- and T-cell-specific responses against spike, and the vaccine safety in terms of clinical impact on disease activity.

Methods

Health care workers (HCWs) and RA patients, having completed the BNT162b2-mRNA vaccination in the last 2 weeks, were enrolled. Serological response was evaluated by quantifying anti-RBD antibodies, while the cell-mediated response was evaluated by a whole-blood test quantifying the interferon (IFN)-γ-response to spike peptides. FACS analysis was performed to identify the cells responding to spike stimulation. RA disease activity was evaluated by clinical examination through the DAS28crp, and local and/or systemic clinical adverse events were registered. In RA patients, the ongoing therapeutic regimen was modified during the vaccination period according to the American College of Rheumatology indications.

Results

We prospectively enrolled 167 HCWs and 35 RA patients. Anti-RBD-antibodies were detected in almost all patients (34/35, 97%), although the titer was significantly reduced in patients under CTLA-4-inhibitors (median: 465 BAU/mL, IQR: 103-1189, p<0.001) or IL-6-inhibitors (median: 492 BAU/mL, IQR: 161-1007, p<0.001) compared to HCWs (median: 2351 BAU/mL, IQR: 1389-3748). T-cell-specific response scored positive in most of RA patients [24/35, (69%)] with significantly lower IFN-γ levels in patients under biological therapy such as IL-6-inhibitors (median: 33.2 pg/mL, IQR: 6.1-73.9, p<0.001), CTLA-4-inhibitors (median: 10.9 pg/mL, IQR: 3.7-36.7, p<0.001), and TNF-α-inhibitors (median: 89.6 pg/mL, IQR: 17.8-224, p=0.002) compared to HCWs (median: 343 pg/mL, IQR: 188-756). A significant correlation between the anti-RBD-antibody titer and spike-IFN-γ-specific T-cell response was found in RA patients (rho=0.432, p=0.009). IFN-γ T-cell response was mediated by CD4+ and CD8+ T cells. Finally, no significant increase in disease activity was found in RA patients following vaccination.

Conclusion

This study showed for the first time that antibody-specific and whole-blood spike-specific T-cell responses induced by the COVID-19 mRNA-vaccine were present in the majority of RA patients, who underwent a strategy of temporary suspension of immunosuppressive treatment during vaccine administration. However, the magnitude of specific responses was dependent on the immunosuppressive therapy administered. In RA patients, BNT162b2 vaccine was safe and disease activity remained stable.

Robust immune responses after one dose of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine dose in SARS-CoV-2 experienced individuals

The use of COVID-19 vaccines will play the major role in helping to end the pandemic that has killed millions worldwide. COVID-19 vaccines have resulted in robust humoral responses and protective efficacy in human trials, but efficacy trials excluded individuals with a prior diagnosis of COVID-19. As a result, little is known about how immune responses induced by mRNA vaccines differ in individuals who recovered from COVID-19. Here, we evaluated longitudinal immune responses to two-dose BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination in 15 adults who recovered from COVID-19, compared to 21 adults who did not have prior COVID-19 diagnosis. Consistent with prior studies of mRNA vaccines, we observed robust cytotoxic CD8+ T cell responses in both cohorts following the second dose. Furthermore, SARS-CoV-2-naive individuals had progressive increases in humoral and antigen-specific antibody-secreting cell (ASC) responses following each dose of vaccine, whereas SARS-CoV-2-experienced individuals demonstrated strong humoral and antigen-specific ASC responses to the first dose but muted responses to the second dose of the vaccine at the time points studied. Together, these data highlight the relevance of immunological history for understanding vaccine immune responses and may have significant implications for personalizing mRNA vaccination regimens used to prevent COVID-19, including booster shots.