Pausing methotrexate improves immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccination in elderly patients with rheumatic diseases

Effect of methotrexate hold on COVID-19 vaccine response in the patients with autoimmune inflammatory disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Immunosuppressants, such as methotrexate (MTX), can suppress the COVID-19 vaccine response in patients with autoimmune diseases. Thus, this study aims to evaluate the effects of MTX hold following COVID-19 vaccination on vaccine efficacy response. A systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant studies retrieved from Web of Science, SCOPUS, PubMed, and CENTRAL from inception until Oct 1, 2023, was conducted. Covidence was used to screen the eligible articles, and all relevant outcomes data were synthesized using risk ratios (RRs) or standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in meta-analysis models within RevMan 5.4. PROSPERO ID: CRD42024511628. Four studies with a total of 762 patients with autoimmune inflammatory disorders were included. Holding MTX following the COVID-19 vaccination for approximately 2 weeks was associated with significantly higher antibody titer (SMD: 0.70, 95% CI [0.54, 0.87], P < 0.00001). However, the flare rate was significantly higher in the MTX hold group based on CDAI > 10 or DAS28-CRP > 1.2 either after 1st dose (RR: 2.49 with 95% CI [1.39, 4.47], P = 0.002) or 2nd dose (RR: 2.16 with 95% CI [1.37, 3.41], P = 0.0009) and self-reported disease flare (RR: 1.71 with 95% CI [1.35, 2.17], P < 0.00001). Holding MTX for 2 weeks after the COVID-19 vaccination resulted in significantly higher antibody titer but also had a higher disease flare rate, necessitating cautious clinical monitoring during this period. There is still a need to investigate safer MTX hold duration, considering patients' vulnerability to COVID-19, disease status, and demographics while adopting this strategy.

Immunosuppressive therapy and humoral response to third mRNA COVID-19 vaccination with a six-month interval in rheumatic disease patients

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the long-term impact of immunosuppressive therapeutic agents on antibody response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) mRNA vaccination in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRD) in order to propose a strategy for annual vaccination.

METHODS

This prospective multicentre cohort study evaluated the humoral response to second and third BNT162b2 and/or mRNA-1273 vaccines in 382 Japanese AIRD patients classified into 12 different medication groups and in 326 healthy controls (HCs). The third vaccination was administered six months after the second vaccination. Antibody titres were measured using the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S assay.

RESULTS

The seroconversion rate and antibody titres were lower in AIRD patients than in HCs 3-6 weeks after the second vaccination and 3-6 weeks after the third vaccination. Seroconversion rates were <90% after the third vaccination in patients receiving mycophenolate mofetil and rituximab. Antibody levels after the third vaccination were significantly lower in the groups prescribed TNF inhibitor with or without methotrexate, abatacept and rituximab or cyclophosphamide than those of HCs in a multivariate analysis adjusting for age, sex, and glucocorticoid dosage. The third vaccination induced an adequate humoral response in patients treated with sulfasalazine, bucillamine, methotrexate monotherapy, iguratimod, interleukin-6 inhibitors or calcineurin inhibitors including tacrolimus.

CONCLUSIONS

Repeated vaccinations in many immunosuppressed patients produced antibody responses similar to those observed in HCs. In contrast, annual vaccination in patients receiving TNF inhibitors, abatacept, mycophenolate mofetil and rituximab may require caution.

Beneficial effect of temporary methotrexate interruption on B and T cell responses upon SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis

B and T cell responses were evaluated in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) after 1 or 2 weeks of methotrexate (MTX) withdrawal following each COVID-19 vaccine dose and compared with those who maintained MTX. Adult RA and PsA patients treated with MTX were recruited and randomly assigned to 3 groups: MTX-maintenance (n = 72), MTX-withdrawal for 1 week (n = 71) or MTX-withdrawal for 2 weeks (n = 73). Specific antibodies to several SARS-CoV-2 antigens and interferon (IFN)-γ and interleukin (IL)-21 responses were assessed. MTX withdrawal in patients without previous COVID-19 was associated with higher levels of anti-RBD IgG and neutralising antibodies, especially in the 2-week withdrawal group and with higher IFN-γ secretion upon stimulation with pools of SARS-CoV-2 S peptides. No increment of RA/PsA relapses was detected across groups. Our data indicate that two-week MTX interruption following COVID-19 vaccination in patients with RA or PsA improves humoral and cellular immune responses.

COVID-19 Vaccination and Immunosuppressive Therapy in Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases

The COVID-19 vaccination program has probably been the most complex and extensive project in history until now, which has been a challenge for all the people involved in the planning and management of this program. Patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) on immunosuppressive therapy have required special attention, not only because of the particular haste in carrying out the process but also because of the uncertainty regarding their response to the vaccines. We now have strong scientific evidence that supports the hypothesis that immunosuppressive therapy inhibits the humoral response to vaccines against other infectious agents, such as influenza, pneumococcus and hepatitis B. This has led to the hypothesis that the same could happen with the COVID-19 vaccine. Several studies have therefore already been carried out in this area, suggesting that temporarily discontinuing the administration of methotrexate for 2 weeks post-vaccination could improve the vaccine response, and other studies with various immunosuppressive drugs are in the same line. However, the fact of withholding or interrupting immunosuppressive therapy when dealing with COVID-19 vaccination remains unclear. On this basis, our article tries to compile the information available on the effect of immunosuppressant agents on COVID-19 vaccine responses in patients with IMIDs and proposes an algorithm for the management of these patients.

Impact of Holding Immunosuppressive Therapy in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease Around mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine Administration on Humoral Immune Response and Development of COVID-19 Infection

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines are efficacious in patients with inflammatory bowel disease; but there is a lack of data examining if holding immunosuppressive therapy around vaccination improves immune response. We studied the effect of holding IBD medications around the time of vaccination on antibody response and breakthrough COVID-19 infection.

METHODS

Partnership to Report Effectiveness of Vaccination in populations Excluded from iNitial Trials of COVID is a prospective cohort of individuals with IBD receiving COVID-19 vaccination. Quantitative measurement of anti-receptor binding domain IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 was performed 8 weeks after completing a vaccination series.

RESULTS

A total of 1854 patients were included; 59% were on anti-tumour necrosis factor [TNF] [10% of these on combination therapy], 11% on vedolizumab, and 14% on ustekinumab; 11% of participants held therapy before or after vaccine administration for at least 2 weeks. Antibody levels were similar in participants continuing versus holding anti-TNF monotherapy before or after the second vaccine [BNT162b2: 10 μg/mL vs 8.9 μg/mL; mRNA-1273: 17.5 μg/mL vs 14.5 μg/mL]. Comparable results were seen in those on combination therapy. Antibody titres in those on ustekinumab or vedolizumab were higher compared with anti-TNF users, but there was no significant difference if the drug was held or continued [BNT162b2: 22.5 μg/mL vs 23 μg/mL; mRNA-1273: 88 μg/mL vs 51 μg/mL]. Holding therapy was not associated with decreased rate of COVID-19 infection compared with those not holding therapy [BNT162b2: 28% vs 29%; mRNA-1273: 19% vs 31%].

CONCLUSION

We recommend continuing IBD medications while receiving mRNA COVID-19 vaccination without interruption.

Effect of DMARDs on the immunogenicity of vaccines

Vaccines are important for protecting individuals at increased risk of severe infections, including patients undergoing DMARD therapy. However, DMARD therapy can also compromise the immune system, leading to impaired responses to vaccination. This Review focuses on the impact of DMARDs on influenza and SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations, as such vaccines have been investigated most thoroughly. Various data suggest that B cell depletion therapy, mycophenolate mofetil, cyclophosphamide, azathioprine and abatacept substantially reduce the immunogenicity of these vaccines. However, the effects of glucocorticoids, methotrexate, TNF inhibitors and JAK inhibitors on vaccine responses remain unclear and could depend on the dosage and type of vaccination. Vaccination is aimed at initiating robust humoral and cellular vaccine responses, which requires efficient interactions between antigen-presenting cells, T cells and B cells. DMARDs impair these cells in different ways and to different degrees, such as the prevention of antigen-presenting cell maturation, alteration of T cell differentiation and selective inhibition of B cell subsets, thus inhibiting processes that are necessary for an effective vaccine response. Innovative modified vaccination strategies are needed to improve vaccination responses in patients undergoing DMARD therapy and to protect these patients from the severe outcomes of infectious diseases.

Susceptibility to COVID-19 and Immunologic Response to Vaccination in Patients With Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases

Immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) are a highly heterogeneous group of diseases that share a common etiology of immune dysregulation, such as rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and psoriasis, among others. It is estimated that the prevalence of IMIDs ranges between 5% and 7% in developed countries. As current management of IMIDs includes the use of immunomodulatory medications, the resulting weakened immune response can increase the risk of infection, including with SARS-CoV-2 (the causative agent of COVID-19) and reduce response to vaccination, placing these individuals at continued risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19. In this article, we summarize the current literature related to COVID-19 outcomes and the immunogenicity and reactogenicity of COVID-19 mRNA vaccination among patients with rheumatologically dominated IMIDs, as well as the effect of immunomodulatory therapies on these outcomes. We conclude by providing current COVID-19 vaccination recommendations for individuals with IMID.

Performance of commercial SARS-CoV-2 wild-type and Omicron BA.1 antibody assays compared with pseudovirus neutralization tests

BACKGROUND

Commercially available ELISA-based antibody tests are used to approximate vaccination success against SARS-CoV-2 in at-risk patients, but it is unclear whether they correlate with neutralization of the Omicron variant.

METHODS

269 serum samples of a cohort of 44 non-immunosuppressed participants and 65 MTX-treated rheumatic patients taken before and after COVID-19 booster vaccinations were measured using COVID-19 antibody testing systems with wild-type and Omicron BA.1 antigens developed by three different manufacturers (surrogate virus neutralization test cPass, and binding antibody tests QuantiVac and SeraSpot), as well as with a pseudovirus neutralization test (pVNT). The pVNT was considered the gold standard for determining the presence and level of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.

RESULTS

All three wild-type ELISAs showed excellent test performance compared with wild-type neutralization in pVNT. However, out of 56 samples without Omicron BA.1 neutralization in pVNT, 71.4% showed positive results in at least one and 28.6% in all three wild-type ELISAs at the manufacturer-defined cut-offs. Omicron ELISAs showed either decreased specificity (57.1% and 55.4% for binding ELISAs) or sensitivity (51.2% in cPass) compared to Omicron neutralization in pVNT. The proportion of any false positive results among all samples decreased from 26.5% before to 3.2% after booster vaccination, however binding antibody test specificities remained below 70%.

CONCLUSIONS

We found a poorer test performance of new Omicron antibody test systems compared to wild-type tests in detecting neutralizing antibodies against the corresponding SARS-CoV-2 variants. Decisions for booster vaccination or passive immunization of at-risk patients should not be based solely on antibody test results.

Humoral and cellular immune responses in persons with rheumatoid arthritis after a third dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine

OBJECTIVE

Disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) that treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA) may reduce immune responses to COVID-19 vaccination. We compared humoral and cell-mediated immunity before and after a 3rd dose of mRNA COVID vaccine in RA subjects.

METHODS

RA patients that received 2 doses of mRNA vaccine enrolled in an observational study in 2021 before receiving a 3rd dose. Subjects self-reported holding or continuing DMARDs. Blood samples were collected pre- and 4 weeks after the 3rd dose. 50 healthy controls provided blood samples. Humoral response was measured with in-house ELISA assays for anti-Spike IgG (anti-S) and anti-receptor binding domain IgG (anti-RBD). T cell activation was measured after stimulation with SARS-CoV-2 peptide. Spearman's correlations assessed the relationship between anti-S, anti-RBD, and frequencies of activated T cells.

RESULTS

Among 60 subjects, mean age was 63 years and 88% were female. 57% of subjects held at least 1 DMARD around the 3rd dose. 43% (anti-S) and 62% (anti-RBD) had a normal humoral response at week 4, defined as ELISA within 1 standard deviation of the healthy control mean. No differences in antibody levels were observed based on holding DMARDs. Median frequency of activated CD4 T cells was significantly greater post- vs. pre-3rd dose. Changes in antibody levels did not correlate with change in frequency of activated CD4 T cells.

CONCLUSION

Virus-specific IgG levels significantly increased in RA subjects using DMARDs after completing the primary vaccine series, though fewer than two-thirds achieved a humoral response like healthy controls. Humoral and cellular changes were not correlated.

Antibody response to the COVID-19 ChAdOx1nCov-19 and BNT162b vaccines after temporary suspension of DMARD therapy in immune-mediated inflammatory disease: an extension study (RESCUE 2)

The persistence of immunogenicity in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMID) on disease-modifying antirheumatic therapy (DMARD) has been less well studied. This extension study evaluates the SARS-CoV2 antibody decay kinetics 6 months following two doses of ChAdO1nCov-19 (AZ) and BNT162b (Pfizer) and subsequent response following an mRNA booster. RESULTS: 175 participants were included. Six months after initial AZ vaccination, 87.5%, 85.4% and 79.2% (p=0.756) in the withhold, continue and control groups remained seropositive compared with 91.4%, 100% and 100% (p=0.226), respectively, in the Pfizer group. Both vaccine groups developed robust humoral immune responses following a booster with seroconversion rates being 100% for all three intervention categories. The mean SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels were significantly lower in the targeted synthetic DMARD (tsDMARD) group that continued therapy compared with the control (2.2 vs 4.8 U/mL, p=0.010). The mean time interval until loss of protective antibodies in the IMID group was 61 days for the AZ and 137.5 days for the Pfizer vaccine. Within each DMARD class the interval until loss of protective antibody titres in the csDMARD, bDMARD and tsDMARD groups were 68.3, 71.8 and 64.0 days in the AZ group and 185.5, 137.5 and 116.0 days in the Pfizer group, respectively. CONCLUSION: Antibody persistence was longer in the Pfizer group due to a higher peak antibody level following second vaccination with levels of protection in IMID on DMARD therapy similar to controls except in those on tsDMARDs where it was lower. A third mRNA vaccine booster can restore immunity in all groups.

2022 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for Vaccinations in Patients With Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases

OBJECTIVE

To provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of vaccinations in children and adults with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).

METHODS

This guideline follows American College of Rheumatology (ACR) policy guiding management of conflicts of interest and disclosures and the ACR guideline development process, which includes the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. It also adheres to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) criteria. A core leadership team consisting of adult and pediatric rheumatologists and a guideline methodologist drafted clinical population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) questions. A review team performed a systematic literature review for the PICO questions, graded the quality of evidence, and produced an evidence report. An expert Voting Panel reviewed the evidence and formulated recommendations. The panel included adult and pediatric rheumatology providers, infectious diseases specialists, and patient representatives. Consensus required ≥70% agreement on both the direction and strength of each recommendation.

RESULTS

This guideline includes expanded indications for some vaccines in patients with RMDs, as well as guidance on whether to hold immunosuppressive medications or delay vaccination to maximize vaccine immunogenicity and efficacy. Safe approaches to the use of live attenuated vaccines in patients taking immunosuppressive medications are also addressed. Most recommendations are conditional and had low quality of supporting evidence.

CONCLUSION

Application of these recommendations should consider patients' individual risk for vaccine-preventable illness and for disease flares, particularly if immunosuppressive medications are held for vaccination. Shared decision-making with patients is encouraged in clinical settings.

2022 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for Vaccinations in Patients With Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases

OBJECTIVE

To provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of vaccinations in children and adults with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).

METHODS

This guideline follows American College of Rheumatology (ACR) policy guiding management of conflicts of interest and disclosures and the ACR guideline development process, which includes the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. It also adheres to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) criteria. A core leadership team consisting of adult and pediatric rheumatologists and a guideline methodologist drafted clinical population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) questions. A review team performed a systematic literature review for the PICO questions, graded the quality of evidence, and produced an evidence report. An expert Voting Panel reviewed the evidence and formulated recommendations. The panel included adult and pediatric rheumatology providers, infectious diseases specialists, and patient representatives. Consensus required ≥70% agreement on both the direction and strength of each recommendation.

RESULTS

This guideline includes expanded indications for some vaccines in patients with RMDs, as well as guidance on whether to hold immunosuppressive medications or delay vaccination to maximize vaccine immunogenicity and efficacy. Safe approaches to the use of live attenuated vaccines in patients taking immunosuppressive medications are also addressed. Most recommendations are conditional and had low quality of supporting evidence.

CONCLUSION

Application of these recommendations should consider patients' individual risk for vaccine-preventable illness and for disease flares, particularly if immunosuppressive medications are held for vaccination. Shared decision-making with patients is encouraged in clinical settings.

Improvement of humoral immunity by repeated dose-intensified COVID-19 vaccinations in primary non- to low-responders and B cell deficient rheumatic disease patients

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether repeated, dose-intensified mRNA vaccinations against COVID-19 increase humoral immunity in previously low-responding patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRD), including rituximab-treated and B cell depleted patients.

METHODS

Of 308 AIRD patients receiving basic immunization, 98 had a low serological response against SARS-CoV-2 with a neutralizing capacity of < 70% using surrogate neutralization assay. 38 patients received a third vaccination with 30 μg BNT162b2 16 weeks after second vaccination. If neutralizing serum capacity was below 70% four weeks after the last vaccination, then the fourth vaccination (n = 19) and the fifth (n = 4) vaccination with 100 μg mRNA-1273 took place eight weeks after the last vaccination.

RESULTS

Each of the three booster vaccinations resulted in a significant increase of mean serum neutralizing capacity (3rd: Δ = 42%, p < 0.001; 4th: Δ = 19%, p = 0.049 and 5th: Δ = 51%, p = 0.043) and produced a significant proportion of high-responders (3rd: 34%; 4th: 32% and 5th: 75%). Low B cell counts (p = 0.047), lower previous antibody response (p < 0.001) and rituximab therapy (p = 0.021) were negatively associated with successful response to the third but not to the fourth vaccination. Remarkably, substantial increases in neutralization capacity of up to 99% were observed after repeated vaccinations in B cell depleted patients.

CONCLUSION

AIRD patients with low humoral response benefited from up to three repeated dose-intensified mRNA booster vaccinations - despite low B cell count and previous rituximab therapy. Each additional vaccination substantially reduced the number of low-responding, vulnerable patients.

Clinical usefulness of testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 antibodies

In the COVID-19 pandemic era, antibody testing against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has proven an invaluable tool and herein we highlight some of the most useful clinical and/or epidemiological applications of humoral immune responses recording. Anti-spike circulating IgGs and SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies can serve as predictors of disease progression or disease prevention, whereas anti-nucleocapsid antibodies can help distinguishing infection from vaccination. Also, in the era of immunotherapies we address the validity of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody monitoring post-infection and/or vaccination following therapies with the popular anti-CD20 monoclonals, as well as in the context of various cancers or autoimmune conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis. Additional crucial applications include population immunosurveillance, either at the general population or at specific communities such as health workers. Finally, we discuss how testing of antibodies in cerebrospinal fluid can inform us on the neurological complications that often accompany COVID-19.

Type of vaccine and immunosuppressive therapy but not diagnosis critically influence antibody response after COVID-19 vaccination in patients with rheumatic disease

OBJECTIVE

The development of sufficient COVID-19 vaccines has been a big breakthrough in fighting the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. However, vaccination effectiveness can be reduced in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRD). The aim of this study was to identify factors that lead to a diminished humoral vaccination response in patients with AIRD.

METHODS

Vaccination response was measured with a surrogate virus neutralisation test and by testing for antibodies directed against the receptor-binding-domain (RBD) of SARS-CoV-2 in 308 fully vaccinated patients with AIRD. In addition, 296 immunocompetent participants were investigated as a control group. Statistical adjusted analysis included covariates with a possible influence on antibody response.

RESULTS

Patients with AIRD showed lower antibody responses compared with immunocompetent individuals (median neutralising capacity 90.8% vs 96.5%, p<0.001; median anti-RBD-IgG 5.6 S/CO vs 6.7 S/CO, p<0.001). Lower antibody response was significantly influenced by type of immunosuppressive therapy, but not by rheumatic diagnosis, with patients under rituximab therapy developing the lowest antibody levels. Patients receiving mycophenolate, methotrexate or janus kinase inhibitors also showed reduced vaccination responses. Additional negative influencing factors were vaccination with AZD1222, old age and shorter intervals between the first two vaccinations.

CONCLUSION

Certain immunosuppressive therapies are associated with lower antibody responses after vaccination. Additional factors such as vaccine type, age and vaccination interval should be taken into account. We recommend antibody testing in at-risk patients with AIRD and emphasise the importance of booster vaccinations in these patients.

Glucocorticoid use as a cause of non-cellular immune response to SARS-Cov2 Spike in patients with immune system diseases

Disease modifying therapies compromise immune response to SARS-Cov2 or its vaccine in patients with immune system diseases (ISD). Therefore, analysis of the humoral and cellular responses against Spike is of utmost importance to manage ISD patients. A single-center retrospective study was conducted to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 immunization in 87 ISD patients and 81 healthy controls. We performed a whole blood interferon gamma release assay using SARS-Cov2 Spike and Nucleocapsid recombinant proteins in order to evaluate T-cell memory response, and an IgG anti-Spike ELISA to evaluate humoral response. Cellular (26.4%) and humoral (44.8%) responses were negative against Spike in ISD patients following COVID-19 immunization. In univariate analysis, an anti-Spike T cell defective response was associated with the use of glucocorticoids (Odds ratio [OR] = 10.0; p < 10^-4), serum albumin level ≤40 g/L (OR = 18.9; p < 10^-4), age over 55 years old (OR = 3.9, p = 0.009) and ≤2 vaccine injections (OR = 4.9; p = 0.001). The impact of glucocorticoids persisted after adjustment for age and number of vaccine injections (OR = 8.38, p < 0.001). In contrast, the humoral response was impacted by the use of anti-CD20 mAb (OR = 24.8, p < 10^-4), and an extended time since immunization (≥75 days; OR = 4.3, p = 0.002). Double defective cellular/humoral responses (6.9%) were typically encountered in glucocorticoids and/or anti-CD20 mAb treated ISD with a serum albumin level ≤40 g/L (OR = 17.5; p = 0.002). Glucocorticoid usage, B cell depleting therapies, and a low serum albumin level were the main factors associated with a non-response to COVID-19 immunization in ISD patients. These results need further confirmation in larger studies.

Long COVID and the Neuroendocrinology of Microbial Translocation Outside the GI Tract: Some Treatment Strategies

Similar to previous pandemics, COVID-19 has been succeeded by well-documented post-infectious sequelae, including chronic fatigue, cough, shortness of breath, myalgia, and concentration difficulties, which may last 5 to 12 weeks or longer after the acute phase of illness. Both the psychological stress of SARS-CoV-2 infection and being diagnosed with COVID-19 can upregulate cortisol, a stress hormone that disrupts the efferocytosis effectors, macrophages, and natural killer cells, leading to the excessive accumulation of senescent cells and disruption of biological barriers. This has been well-established in cancer patients who often experience unrelenting fatigue as well as gut and blood–brain barrier dysfunction upon treatment with senescence-inducing radiation or chemotherapy. In our previous research from 2020 and 2021, we linked COVID-19 to myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) via angiotensin II upregulation, premature endothelial senescence, intestinal barrier dysfunction, and microbial translocation from the gastrointestinal tract into the systemic circulation. In 2021 and 2022, these hypotheses were validated and SARS-CoV-2-induced cellular senescence as well as microbial translocation were documented in both acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, long COVID, and ME/CFS, connecting intestinal barrier dysfunction to disabling fatigue and specific infectious events. The purpose of this narrative review is to summarize what is currently known about host immune responses to translocated gut microbes and how these responses relate to fatiguing illnesses, including long COVID. To accomplish this goal, we examine the role of intestinal and blood–brain barriers in long COVID and other illnesses typified by chronic fatigue, with a special emphasis on commensal microbes functioning as viral reservoirs. Furthermore, we discuss the role of SARS-CoV-2/Mycoplasma coinfection in dysfunctional efferocytosis, emphasizing some potential novel treatment strategies, including the use of senotherapeutic drugs, HMGB1 inhibitors, Toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4) blockers, and membrane lipid replacement.

Postvaccination anti-S IgG levels predict anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralising activity over 24 weeks in patients with RA

OBJECTIVES

To correlate immune responses following a two-dose regimen of mRNA anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to the development of a potent neutralising antiviral activity.

METHODS

The RECOVER study was a prospective, monocentric study including patients with RA and healthy controls (HCs). Assessments were performed before, and 3, 6, 12 and 24 weeks, after the first vaccine dose, respectively, and included IgG, IgA and IgM responses (against receptor binding domain, S1, S2, N), IFN-γ ELISpots as well as neutralisation assays.

RESULTS

In patients with RA, IgG responses developed slower with lower peak titres compared with HC. Potent neutralising activity assessed by a SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus neutralisation assay after 12 weeks was observed in all 21 HCs, and in 60.3% of 73 patients with RA. A significant correlation between peak anti-S IgG levels 2 weeks after the second vaccine dose and potent neutralising activity against SARS-CoV-2 was observed at weeks 12 and 24. The analysis of IgG, IgA and IgM isotype responses to different viral proteins demonstrated a delay in IgG but not in IgA and IgM responses. T cell responses were comparable in HC and patients with RA but declined earlier in patients with RA.

CONCLUSION

In patients with RA, vaccine-induced IgG antibody levels were diminished, while IgA and IgM responses persisted, indicating a delayed isotype switch. Anti-S IgG levels 2 weeks after the second vaccine dose correlate with the development of a potent neutralising activity after 12 and 24 weeks and may allow to identify patients who might benefit from additional vaccine doses or prophylactic regimen.

Reduced humoral response to a third dose (booster) of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines by concomitant methotrexate therapy in elderly patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Background

Several health authorities recommend a third (booster) vaccination to protect patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases from severe COVID-19. Methotrexate has been shown to reduce the efficacy of the first and second dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines. So far, it remains unknown how concomitant methotrexate affects the efficacy of a COVID-19 booster vaccination.

Methods

We compared the humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in 136 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with methotrexate and/or biological or targeted synthetic (b/tsDMARDs). IgG targeting the receptor binding domain (RBD) of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein was measured at a median of 52.5 (range 2–147) days after a third dose of the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273.

Results

Anti-RBD IgG was significantly reduced in elderly patients receiving concomitant treatment with methotrexate as compared with elderly patients receiving monotherapy with b/tsDMARDs or methotrexate (64.8 (20.8, 600.3) binding antibody units per mL (BAU/mL) vs 1106.0 (526.3, 4965.2) BAU/mL vs 1743.8 (734.5, 6779.6) BAU/mL, median (IQR), p<0.001, Kruskal-Wallis test). In younger patients (< 64.5 years), concomitant methotrexate had no significant impact on the humoral immune response.

Conclusions

Concomitant methotrexate increases the risk of an insufficient humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in elderly patients with RA. Pausing methotrexate during the third vaccination period may be considered for this group of patients.

Pausing methotrexate prevents impairment of Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 neutralisation after COVID-19 booster vaccination

OBJECTIVE

The level of neutralising capacity against Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 after third COVID-19 vaccination in patients on paused or continuous methotrexate (MTX) therapy is unclear.

METHODS

In this observational cohort study, neutralising serum activity against SARS-CoV-2 wild-type (Wu01) and variant of concern Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 were assessed by pseudovirus neutralisation assay before, 4 and 12 weeks after mRNA booster immunisation in 50 rheumatic patients on MTX, 26 of whom paused the medication. 44 non-immunosuppressed persons (NIP) served as control group.

RESULTS

While the neutralising serum activity against SARS-CoV-2 Wu01 and Omicron variants increased 67-73 fold in the NIP after booster vaccination, the serum activity in patients receiving MTX increased only 20-23 fold. Patients who continued MTX treatment during vaccination had significantly lower neutralisation against all variants at weeks 4 and 12 compared with patients who paused MTX and the control group, except for BA.2 at week 12. Patients who paused MTX reached comparably high neutralising capacities as NIP, except for Wu01 at week 12. The duration of the MTX pause after-not before-was associated with a significantly higher neutralisation capacity against all three variants, with an optimal duration at 10 days after vaccination.

CONCLUSION

Patients pausing MTX after COVID-19 booster showed a similar vaccine response to NIP. Patients who continued MTX demonstrated an impaired response indicating a potentially beneficial second booster vaccination. Our data also suggest that a 1 week MTX break is sufficient if the last administration of MTX occurs 1-3 days before vaccination.

Withholding methotrexate after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCov19 in patients with rheumatoid or psoriatic arthritis in India (MIVAC I and II): results of two, parallel, assessor-masked, randomised controlled trials

Background

There is a necessity for an optimal COVID-19 vaccination strategy for vulnerable population groups, including people with autoimmune inflammatory arthritis on immunosuppressants such as methotrexate, which inhibit vaccine-induced immunity against SARS-CoV-2. Thus, we aimed to assess the effects of withholding methotrexate for 2 weeks after each dose of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 (Oxford–AstraZeneca) vaccine (MIVAC I) or only after the second dose of vaccine (MIVAC II) compared with continuation of methotrexate, in terms of post-vaccination antibody titres and disease flare rates.

Methods

MIVAC I and II were two parallel, independent, assessor-masked, randomised trials. The trials were done at a single centre (Dr Shenoy's Centre for Arthritis and Rheumatism Excellence; Kochi, India) in people with either rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis with stable disease activity, who had been on a fixed dose of methotrexate for the preceding 6 weeks. Those with previous COVID-19 or who were positive for anti-SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antibodies were excluded from the trials. People on high-dose corticosteroids and rituximab were also excluded, whereas other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs were allowed. In MIVAC I, participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to stop methotrexate treatment for 2 weeks after each vaccine dose or to continue methotrexate treatment. In MIVAC II, participants who had continued methotrexate during the first dose of vaccine were randomly assigned (1:1) to withhold methotrexate for 2 weeks after the second dose of vaccine or to continue to take methotrexate. The treating physician was masked to the group assignments. The primary outcome for both MIVAC I and MIVAC II was the titre (absolute value) of anti-receptor binding domain (RBD) antibody measured 4 weeks after the second dose of vaccine. All analyses were done per protocol. The trials were registered with the Clinical Trials Registry- India, number CTRI/2021/07/034639 (MIVAC I) and CTRI/2021/07/035307 (MIVAC II).

Findings

Between July 6 and Dec 15, 2021, participants were recruited to the trials. In MIVAC I, 250 participants were randomly assigned and 158 completed the study as per the protocol (80 in the methotrexate hold group and 78 in the control group; 148 [94%] were women and 10 [6%] were men). The median post-vaccination antibody titres in the methotrexate hold group were significantly higher compared with the control group (2484·0 IU/mL, IQR 1050·0–4388·8 vs 1147·5 IU/mL, 433·5–2360·3; p=0·0014). In MIVAC II, 178 participants were randomly assigned and 157 completed the study per protocol (76 in the methotrexate hold group and 81 in the control group; 135 [86%] were women and 22 [14%] were men). The methotrexate hold group had higher post-vaccination antibody titres compared with the control group (2553·5 IU/ml, IQR 1792·5–4823·8 vs 990·5, 356·1–2252·5; p<0·0001). There were no reports of any serious adverse events during the trial period.

Interpretation

Withholding methotrexate after both ChAdOx1 nCov-19 vaccine doses and after only the second dose led to higher anti-RBD antibody titres compared with continuation of methotrexate. However, withholding methotrexate only after the second vaccine dose resulted in a similar humoral response to holding methotrexate after both vaccine doses, without an increased risk of arthritis flares. Hence, interruption of methotrexate during the second dose of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 vaccine appears to be a safe and effective strategy to improve the antibody response in patients with rheumatoid or psoriatic arthritis.

Funding

Indian Rheumatology Association.

Effect of a 2-week interruption in methotrexate treatment versus continued treatment on COVID-19 booster vaccine immunity in adults with inflammatory conditions (VROOM study): a randomised, open label, superiority trial

BACKGROUND

Immunosuppressive treatments inhibit vaccine-induced immunity against SARS-CoV-2. We evaluated whether a 2-week interruption of methotrexate treatment immediately after the COVID-19 vaccine booster improved antibody responses against the S1 receptor-binding domain (S1-RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein compared with uninterrupted treatment in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.

METHODS

We did an open-label, prospective, two-arm, parallel-group, multicentre, randomised, controlled, superiority trial in 26 hospitals in the UK. We recruited adults from rheumatology and dermatology clinics who had been diagnosed with an immune-mediated inflammatory disease (eg, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis with or without arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, atopic dermatitis, polymyalgia rheumatica, and systemic lupus erythematosus) and who were taking low-dose weekly methotrexate (≤25 mg per week) for at least 3 months. Participants also had to have received two primary vaccine doses from the UK COVID-19 vaccination programme. We randomly assigned the participants (1:1), using a centralised validated computer randomisation program, to suspend methotrexate treatment for 2 weeks immediately after their COVID-19 booster (suspend methotrexate group) or to continue treatment as usual (continue methotrexate group). Participants, investigators, clinical research staff, and data analysts were unmasked, while researchers doing the laboratory analyses were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was S1-RBD antibody titres 4 weeks after receiving the COVID-19 booster vaccine dose, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ISRCT, ISRCTN11442263; following the pre-planned interim analysis, recruitment was stopped early.

FINDINGS

Between Sept 30, 2021 and March 3, 2022, we recruited 340 participants, of whom 254 were included in the interim analysis and had been randomly assigned to one of the two groups: 127 in the continue methotrexate group and 127 in the suspend methotrexate group. Their mean age was 59·1 years, 155 (61%) were female, 130 (51%) had rheumatoid arthritis, and 86 (34%) had psoriasis with or without arthritis. After 4 weeks, the geometric mean S1-RBD antibody titre was 22 750 U/mL (95% CI 19 314-26 796) in the suspend methotrexate group and 10 798 U/mL (8970-12 997) in the continue methotrexate group, with a geometric mean ratio (GMR) of 2·19 (95% CI 1·57-3·04; p<0·0001; mixed-effects model). The increased antibody response in the suspend methotrexate group was consistent across methotrexate dose, administration route, type of immune-mediated inflammatory disease, age, primary vaccination platform, and history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. There were no intervention-related serious adverse events.

INTERPRETATION

A 2-week interruption of methotrexate treatment for people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases resulted in enhanced boosting of antibody responses after COVID-19 vaccination. This intervention is simple, low-cost, and easy to implement, and could potentially translate to increased vaccine efficacy and duration of protection for susceptible groups.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Antibody response to the COVID-19 ChAdOx1nCov-19 and BNT162b vaccines after temporary suspension of DMARD therapy in immune-mediated inflammatory disease (RESCUE)

OBJECTIVE

To assess the antibody response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy after the first and second dose of the ChAdOx1nCov-19 (AstraZeneca (AZ)) and BNT162b (Pfizer) vaccines in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory disease (IMID) compared with controls and if withholding therapy following the first vaccination dose has any effect on seroconversion and SARS-CoV-2 antibody (Ab) levels.

METHODS

A multicentre three-arm randomised controlled trial compared the immunogenicity of the Pfizer and AZ vaccines in adult patients on conventional synthetic (csDMARD), biologic (bDMARD) or targeted synthetic (tsDMARD) therapy for IMID (n=181) with a control group (n=59). Patients were randomised to continue or withhold DMARD therapy for 1-2 weeks post first dose vaccination only. Serum SARS-CoV-2 IgG detection (IgG ≥1.0 U/mL) and titres against the S1/S2 proteins were measured at baseline, 3-4 weeks post first vaccination and 4 weeks post second vaccination.

RESULTS

AZ vaccination was given to 47.5%, 41.5% and 52.5% in the continue, withhold and control groups, respectively while Pfizer vaccination was given to 52.5%, 58.5% and 47.5% among the continue, withhold and control groups, respectively. Seroconversion rates following the first dose in the AZ and Pfizer groups were only 27.3% vs 79.2% (p=0.000) and 64.58% vs 100% (p=0.000), respectively in the IMID groups who continued therapy compared with the AZ and Pfizer controls, respectively. Withholding DMARD therapy following the first vaccination dose resulted in higher seroconversion to 67.7% and 84.1% in the AZ and Pfizer groups, respectively. Following the second AZ and Pfizer vaccinations when all DMARDs were continued, despite a slightly lower seroconversion rate (83.7% vs 100%, p=0.000 and 95.9% vs 100%, p=0.413), respectively, the mean SARS-CoV2 IgG Ab titres were not significantly different in the csDMARD and bDMARD groups compared with the controls regardless of hold while it was significantly lower in patients taking tsDMARD (12.88 vs 79.49 U/mL, p=0.000).

CONCLUSIONS

Following the first vaccination dose, antibody responses were lower in IMID on DMARD therapy, however the final responses were excellent regardless of hold with the exception of the tsDMARD group where withholding therapy is recommended. At least 2 vaccinations are therefore recommended preferably with an messenger RNA vaccine.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ANZCTR: 12621000661875.