Inactivated COVID-19 Vaccine Induces a Low Humoral Immune Response in a Subset of Dermatological Patients Receiving Immunosuppressants

Immunogenicity, Effectiveness, and Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines among Patients with Immune-Mediated Dermatological Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Immunocompromised individuals, primarily attributable to using immunosuppressants, face heightened COVID-19 risks. Despite the proven efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, their impact on patients with immune-mediated dermatological diseases remains unclear. This study aims to thoroughly examine vaccine immunogenicity, effectiveness, and safety in immune-mediated dermatological disease patients. Clinical studies in adults that compared vaccinated immune-mediated dermatological disease patients with vaccinated healthy controls or unvaccinated immune-mediated dermatological disease patients in terms of vaccine immunogenicity, COVID-19 infection, adverse events, or exacerbation of immune-mediated dermatological diseases were searched via electronic databases. Seventeen studies (1,348,690 participants) were included. Seroconversion rates between immune-mediated dermatological disease patients and healthy controls were not different. However, among individuals aged ≤55 years, immune-mediated dermatological disease patients had lower mean anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG levels. Immunosuppressed immune-mediated dermatological disease patients also had lower titres and were less likely to achieve T-cell response. In terms of safety, the risk of adverse events was higher in atopic dermatitis patients, but those with psoriasis had a reduced risk. Additionally, immunosuppressed patients had fewer adverse events. Vaccinated immune-mediated dermatological disease patients had a lower risk of COVID-19 infection than unvaccinated patients but a higher risk than healthy controls; however, disease exacerbation may be induced. In conclusion, immune-mediated dermatological diseases showed a reduced vaccine response in our meta-analysis, yet vaccination remained effective against COVID-19 infection and well tolerated.

COVID-19 Vaccines: Where Did We Stand at the End of 2023?

Vaccine development against SARS-CoV-2 has been highly successful in slowing down the COVID-19 pandemic. A wide spectrum of approaches including vaccines based on whole viruses, protein subunits and peptides, viral vectors, and nucleic acids has been developed in parallel. For all types of COVID-19 vaccines, good safety and efficacy have been obtained in both preclinical animal studies and in clinical trials in humans. Moreover, emergency use authorization has been granted for the major types of COVID-19 vaccines. Although high safety has been demonstrated, rare cases of severe adverse events have been detected after global mass vaccinations. Emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants possessing enhanced infectivity have affected vaccine protection efficacy requiring re-design and re-engineering of novel COVID-19 vaccine candidates. Furthermore, insight is given into preparedness against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Immunogenicity of Intradermal Versus Intramuscular BNT162b2 COVID-19 Booster Vaccine in Patients with Immune-Mediated Dermatologic Diseases: A Non-Inferiority Randomized Controlled Trial

The intradermal route has emerged as a dose-sparing alternative during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Despite its efficacy in healthy populations, its immunogenicity has not been tested in immune-mediated dermatologic disease (IMDD) patients. This assessor-blinded, randomized-controlled, non-inferiority trial recruited patients with two representative IMDDs (i.e., psoriasis and autoimmune bullous diseases) to vaccinate with fractionated-dose intradermal (fID) or standard intramuscular (sIM) BNT162b2 vaccines as a fourth booster dose under block randomization stratified by age, sex, and their skin diseases. Post-vaccination SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG and interferon-γ responses measured 4 and 12 weeks post-intervention were serological surrogates used for demonstrating treatment effects. Mean differences in log-normalized outcome estimates were calculated with multivariable linear regression adjusting for their baseline values, systemic immunosuppressants used, and prior COVID-19 vaccination history. The non-inferiority margin was set for fID to retain >80% immunogenicity of sIM. With 109 participants included, 53 received fID (all entered an intention-to-treat analysis). The fID demonstrated non-inferiority to sIM in humoral (mean outcome estimates of sIM: 3.3, ΔfID-sIM [mean, 95%CI]: -0.1, -0.3 to 0.0) and cellular (mean outcome estimates of sIM: 3.2, ΔfID-sIM [mean, 95%CI]: 0.1, -0.2 to 0.3) immunogenicity outcomes. Two psoriasis patients from the fID arm (3.8%) developed injection-site Koebner's phenomenon. Fewer fID recipients experienced post-vaccination fever (fID vs. sIM: 1.9% vs. 12.5%, p = 0.027). The overall incidence of disease flare-ups was low without a statistically significant difference between groups. The intradermal BNT162b2 vaccine is a viable booster option for IMDD patients troubled by post-vaccination fever; its role in mitigating the risk of flare-ups remains unclear.

Multiple COVID reinfections in a vaccinated psoriatic patient receiving adalimumab

Currently, psoriasis patients are advised to follow their standard therapeutic regimen, and are advised to be vaccinated against Covid-19. However, the data about the antibody responses, induced by the various kinds of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in psoriasis patients who require systemic immunosuppressive treatment is scant. In this case report, we describe antibody responses induced by COVID-19 vaccine, in a 26-year-old male patient with psoriasis being treated with anti-TNF biotherapy, adalimumab biosimilar every two weeks. The patient was vaccinated against COVID-19, according to the national protocol. He experienced three episodes of symptomatic COVID-19. His first and second exposures did not result in antibody production. After the third episode of COVID-19, The SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike antibody (IgG) was more than 100 Ru/mL (ELISA; ≥8 Ru/mL is considered positive), and SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody (total) was more than 40 micg/mL (ELISA; ≥2.5 micg/mL is considered positive). This is the first case with weak antibody response to vaccination and multiple episodes of COVID infection in a psoriatic patient with adalimumab biosimilar. However, we cannot assume causality due to the treatment.

Efficacy, Immunogenicity, and Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines in Patients with Autoimmune Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Patients with autoimmune diseases are among the susceptible groups to COVID-19 infection because of the complexity of their conditions and the side effects of the immunosuppressive drugs used to treat them. They might show impaired immunogenicity to COVID-19 vaccines and have a higher risk of developing COVID-19. Using a systematic review and meta-analysis, this research sought to summarize the evidence on COVID-19 vaccine efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety in patients with autoimmune diseases following predefined eligibility criteria. Research articles were obtained from an initial search up to 26 September 2022 from PubMed, Embase, EBSCOhost, ProQuest, MedRxiv, bioRxiv, SSRN, EuroPMC, and the Cochrane Center of Randomized Controlled Trials (CCRCT). Of 76 eligible studies obtained, 29, 54, and 38 studies were included in systematic reviews of efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety, respectively, and 6, 18, and 4 studies were included in meta-analyses for efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety, respectively. From the meta-analyses, patients with autoimmune diseases showed more frequent breakthrough COVID-19 infections and lower total antibody (TAb) titers, IgG seroconversion, and neutralizing antibodies after inactivated COVID-19 vaccination compared with healthy controls. They also had more local and systemic adverse events after the first dose of inactivated vaccination compared with healthy controls. After COVID-19 mRNA vaccination, patients with autoimmune diseases had lower TAb titers and IgG seroconversion compared with healthy controls.

Optimal time for COVID-19 vaccination in rituximab-treated dermatologic patients

Background

By depleting circulating B lymphocytes, rituximab time-dependently suppresses coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines’ humoral immunogenicity for a prolonged period. The optimal time to vaccinate rituximab-exposed immune-mediated dermatologic disease (IMDD) patients is currently unclear.

Objective

To estimate the vaccination timeframe that equalized the occurrence of humoral immunogenicity outcomes between rituximab-exposed and rituximab-naïve IMDD patients.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study recruited rituximab-exposed and age-matched rituximab-naïve subjects tested for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific immunity post-vaccination. Baseline clinical and immunological data (i.e., immunoglobulin levels, lymphocyte immunophenotyping) and SARS-CoV-2-specific immunity levels were extracted. The outcomes compared were the percentages of subjects who produced neutralizing antibodies (seroconversion rates, SR) and SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG levels among seroconverters. The outcomes were first analyzed using multiple regressions adjusted for the effects of corticosteroid use, steroid-spearing agents, and pre-vaccination immunological status (i.e., IgM levels, the percentages of the total, naïve, and memory B lymphocytes) to identify rituximab-related immunogenicity outcomes. The rituximab-related outcome differences with a 95% confidence interval (CI) between groups were calculated, starting by including every subject and then narrowing down to those with longer rituximab-to-vaccination intervals (≥3, ≥6, ≥9, ≥12 months). The desirable cut-off performances were <25% outcome inferiority observed among rituximab-exposed subgroups compared to rituximab-naïve subjects, and the positive likelihood ratio (LR+) for the corresponding outcomes ≥2.

Findings

Forty-five rituximab-exposed and 90 rituximab-naive subjects were included. The regression analysis demonstrated a negative association between rituximab exposure status and SR but not with SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG levels. Nine-month rituximab-to-vaccination cut-off fulfilled our prespecified diagnostic performance (SR difference between rituximab-exposed and rituximab-naïve group [95%CI]: -2.6 [-23.3, 18.1], LR+: 2.6) and coincided with the repopulation of naïve B lymphocytes in these patients.

Conclusions

Nine months of rituximab-to-vaccination interval maximize the immunological benefits of COVID-19 vaccines while avoiding unnecessary delay in vaccination and rituximab treatment for IMDD patients.

A real-world prospective cohort study of immunogenicity and reactogenicity of ChAdOx1-S[recombinant] among patients with immune-mediated dermatological diseases

BACKGROUND

Immunogenicity and reactogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines have been established in various groups of immunosuppressed patients; however, studies involving patients with immune-mediated dermatological diseases (IMDDs) are scarce.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the influence of IMDDs on the development of SARS-CoV-2-specific immunity and side-effects following ChAdOx1-S[recombinant] vaccination.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study included 127 patients with IMDDs and 97 participants without immune-mediated diseases who received ChAdOx1-S[recombinant]. SARS-CoV-2-specific immunity and side-effect profiles were assessed at 1 month postvaccination and compared between groups. Immunological (primary) outcomes were the percentages of participants who tested positive for neutralizing antibodies [seroconversion rate (SR)] and those who developed T-cell-mediated immunity demonstrated by an interferon-γ-releasing assay (IGRA) [positive IGRA rate (+IGRA)]. Reactogenicity-related (secondary) outcomes were the unsolicited adverse reactions and worsening of IMDD activity reflected by the uptitration of immunosuppressants during and within 1 month of vaccination.

RESULTS

Overall, the SR for the IMDD group was similar to that of participants without immune-mediated conditions (75·6 vs. 84·5, P = 0·101), whereas + IGRA was lower (72·4 vs. 88·7, P = 0·003). Reactogenicity was similar between groups. No severe adverse reaction was reported. By stratifying the participants in the IMDD group according to individual disease, the immunogenicity of the vaccine was lowest in patients with autoimmune bullous diseases (AIBD) (SR 64·5%, +IGRA 62·9%) and highest in patients with psoriasis (SR 87·7%, +IGRA 80·7%). The reverse trend was found for vaccine-related reactions. Immunosuppressants were uptitrated in 15·8% of cases; 75% of these were patients with AIBD.

CONCLUSIONS

Among participants with IMDDs, ChAdOx1-S[recombinant] showed good immunogenicity among patients with psoriasis, but demonstrated lower levels of immunogenicity for patients with AIBD. Some patients, especially patients with AIBD, should be closely monitored as they may require treatment escalation within 1 month postvaccination.

Autoimmune bullous diseases during COVID-19 pandemic: 2022 update on rituximab and vaccine

Autoimmune bullous diseases (AIBDs) are a heterogeneous group of life-threatening disorders associated with subepidermal or intraepidermal blistering. Skin barrier alterations and prolonged immunosuppressive treatments increase the risk of infections in patients with AIBDs, who are considered fragile. COVID-19 pandemic had a heavy impact on these patients. Although advances have been made in terms of prevention and treatment of COVID-19, this topic remains significant as the pandemic and its waves could last several years and, so far, a relevant proportion of the population worldwide is not vaccinated. This review is a 2022 update that summarizes and discusses the pandemic's burden on AIBD patients mainly considering relevant studies in terms of: (i) sample dimension; (ii) quality of control populations; (iii) possible standardization by age, gender and country. The findings show that: (i) the risk of COVID-19 infection and its severe course were comparable in AIBD patients and in the general population, except for rituximab-treated patients that presented a higher risk of infection and severe disease; (ii) the mortality rate in COVID-19-infected bullous pemphigoid patients was higher than in the general population, (iii) 121 cases of AIBD onset and 185 cases of relapse or exacerbation occurred after COVID-19 vaccination and a causal relationship has not been demonstrated so far. Altogether, acquired knowledge on COVID-19 pandemic could also be important in possible, albeit undesirable, future pandemic scenarios.

COVID vaccine recommendations in dermatologic patients on immunosuppressive agents: Lessons learned from pandemic

BACKGROUND

Since SARS-CoV2 vaccines were approved without enough long-term monitoring due to emergent situations, some issues have been raised about timing and protocol of receiving them by patients treated by different immunosuppressive agents.

AIM AND METHOD

Here, we present different aspects of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in such patients in the field of dermatology.

RESULT

In brief, SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is recommended in all dermatologic patients, regardless of their disorders and therapeutic regimens. Nevertheless, special considerations should be given to the immunosuppressive therapy and its association with vaccination timing due to the decreased immunogenicity of vaccines in this setting.

CONCLUSION

Novel biologic immunotherapies are advantageous over conventional systemic therapies not only in their safety and selective functions but also in this aspect that many of them do not affect vaccines immunogenicity.

Impaired neutralizing antibodies and preserved cellular immunogenicity against SARS-CoV-2 in systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases

Reports on vaccine immunogenicity in patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs) have been inconclusive. Here, we report the immunogenicity of heterologous prime-boost with an inactivated vaccine followed by an adenoviral vector vaccine in patients with SARDs using anti-RBD antibodies, neutralizing capacity against Omicron BA.2 [plaque-reduction neutralization test (PRNT)], T cell phenotypes, and effector cytokine production at 4 weeks after vaccination. SARD patients had lower median (IQR) anti-RBD-IgG levels and neutralizing function against the Omicron BA.2 variant than the healthy group (p = 0.003, p = 0.004, respectively). T cell analysis revealed higher levels of IFN-γ- and TNF-α-secreting CD4 + T cells (p < 0.001, p = 0.0322, respectively) in SARD patients than in the healthy group. Effector cytokine production by CD8 + T cells was consistent with Th responses. These results suggest that this vaccine regimen revealed mildly impaired humoral response while preserving cellular immunogenicity and may be an alternative for individuals for whom mRNA vaccines are contraindicated.

The Impact of Immune-Modifying Treatments for Skin Diseases on the Immune Response to COVID-19 Vaccines: a Narrative Review

Purpose of Review

SARS-CoV-2 has had a devastating global effect, with vaccinations being paramount in the public health strategy against COVID-19. Vaccinations have uncoupled infection from adverse COVID-19 outcomes worldwide. While immune-modifying therapies are effective for the management of skin diseases such as psoriasis and atopic dermatitis, these medications also impair protective immune responses. There has been longstanding uncertainty and concern over the impact of immune-modifying therapies on the effectiveness of vaccines; for example, it is well recognised that methotrexate impairs humoral responses to both influenza and pneumococcal vaccines. This narrative review aims to discuss the evidence to date on the impact of immune-modifying therapies on the immune response to COVID-19 vaccines, with a focus on the first two vaccine doses.

Recent Findings

Individuals receiving immune-modifying therapy are more likely to have attenuated humoral responses to a single dose of COVID-19 vaccine compared to healthy controls; however, this may be improved by a complete course of vaccination. B cell targeted biologics such as rituximab markedly impair the humoral response to both the first and second COVID-19 vaccination. There remains a paucity of data on cellular immune responses, with the few available studies indicating lower responses to two vaccine doses in individuals receiving immune-modifying therapies compared to healthy controls, which may impact the durability of immune responses.

Summary

Inadequate humoral immune responses to a single dose of vaccine in the context of immune-modifying therapy are improved by a complete course of vaccination. Individuals receiving immune-modifying treatments should be encouraged to take up a complete vaccine course to mitigate their risk against COVID-19. Research in large patient populations on the longevity/kinetics of the complex humoral and cellular response to subsequent vaccine doses, including against newer variants of concern, is warranted, in addition to data on immune correlates of vaccine clinical effectiveness.

Exacerbation of Autoimmune Bullous Diseases After Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Vaccination: Is There Any Association?

Background and Aim

There have been concerns regarding the potential exacerbation of autoimmune bullous diseases (AIBDs) following vaccination against COVID-19 during the pandemic. In the current study, vaccine safety was evaluated in patients with AIBDs.

Methods

In this study, patients with AIBDs were contacted via face-to-face visits or phone calls. Patient demographics, vaccine-related information, pre- and post-vaccine disease status, and complications were recorded. The exacerbation was considered either relapse in the remission/controlled phase of the disease or disease worsening in the active phase. The univariate and multivariate logistic regression tests were employed to determine the potential risk factors of disease exacerbation.

Results

Of the patients contacted, 446 (74.3%) reported receiving at least one dose of vaccine injection (54.7% female). Post-vaccine exacerbation occurred in 66 (14.8%) patients. Besides, there were 5 (1.1%) patients with AIBD diagnosis after vaccination. According to the analysis, for every three patients who received vaccines during the active phase of the disease one experienced disease exacerbation. The rate of disease exacerbation increased by three percent with every passing month from the last rituximab infusion. Active disease in the past year was another risk factor with a number needed to harm of 10.

Conclusion

Risk of AIBD exacerbation after the COVID-19 vaccine is not high enough to prevent vaccination. This unwanted side effect, can be reduced if the disease is controlled at the time of vaccination.

Subacute Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus-Like Eruption Induced by Durvalumab: A Case Report and Literature Review

Reports of immune-related adverse events caused by programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor have been emerging. Herein, we report a subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus (SCLE)-like eruption presented after the treatment of durvalumab in a patient with extensive-stage small cell lung carcinoma. A 74-year-old Thai man was referred to our department after experiencing multiple dusky red to brownish papules and patches with scale and erosions on photo-distributed areas after receiving 3 infusion cycles of durvalumab. Histological finding revealed epidermal atrophy with interface changes and superficial perivascular infiltration of lymphocytes. Serum antinuclear antibodies (ANA) was 1:320 and anti-Ro/Sjogren's-syndrome-related antigen A (anti-Ro/SSA) antibodies were positive (2+). Based on the history and clinicopathological correlation, the diagnosis of SCLE-like eruption due to durvalumab was made. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first case of durvalumab-induced SCLE.