Cellular and humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and booster dose in immunosuppressed patients: An observational cohort study

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and asthma: What we have learned and what is still unknown

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has brought new insights into the immunologic intricacies of asthma. In this review, we discuss the epidemiology of asthma in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 and the risk of severe infection. Type 2 inflammation had an overall protective effect against SARS-CoV-2 infection by various mechanisms summarized in this review. Asthma, intranasal, and inhaled corticosteroids decreased the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor, an important receptor for SARS-CoV-2 entry into host cells. We summarize the nuances of the treatment of type 2 inflammation despite its underlying protective effects. Research to date has shown that patients on various allergen immunotherapies and biologics do benefit from being vaccinated.

Measures to Increase Immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients: A Narrative Review

Purpose of review: To review the data on the immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines, administered by different strategies, in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs). Recent findings: COVID-19 booster vaccines were given to SOTRs as a widespread practice in many transplant centers, mostly as the third and/or fourth dose in an extended vaccine series, with a significantly improved humoral response compared with the initial two-dose scheme. However, one-third of SOTRs remained unresponsive, despite these boosters. Next steps: Vaccination with standard dosing remains the most feasible strategy for attaining protection against COVID-19. Additional booster doses and temporarily holding or reducing mycophenolate mofetil/mycophenolic acid may provide immunogenicity to vaccines, according to recent studies demonstrating some efficacy with these measures. Preexposure prophylaxis with monoclonal antibodies showed benefit in immunocompromised patients but is no longer recommended by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) due to diminished efficacy against Omicron and recent variants. Screening for the presence and titers of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies in SOTRs is not recommended in most clinical settings. T cell-based techniques are needed to evaluate vaccine efficacy and risk of infection. As SARS-CoV-2 continues to evolve, new vaccines based on conservative protein component/complexes of the COVID virus, in addition to its spike protein, are warranted to offer prolonged protection.

Comparative effectiveness of mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised individuals: a systematic review and meta-analysis using the GRADE framework

Introduction

Despite representing only 3% of the US population, immunocompromised (IC) individuals account for nearly half of the COVID-19 breakthrough hospitalizations. IC individuals generate a lower immune response after vaccination in general, and the US CDC recommended a third dose of either mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccines as part of their primary series. Influenza vaccine trials have shown that increasing dosage could improve effectiveness in IC populations. The objective of this systematic literature review and pairwise meta-analysis was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of mRNA-1273 (50 or 100 mcg/dose) vs BNT162b2 (30 mcg/dose) in IC populations using the GRADE framework.

Methods

The systematic literature search was conducted in the World Health Organization COVID-19 Research Database. Studies were included in the pairwise meta-analysis if they reported comparisons of mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 in IC individuals ≥18 years of age; outcomes of interest were symptomatic, laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, SARS-CoV-2 infection, severe SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalization due to COVID-19, and mortality due to COVID-19. Risk ratios (RR) were pooled across studies using random-effects meta-analysis models. Outcomes were also analyzed in subgroups of patients with cancer, autoimmune disease, and solid organ transplant. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. Evidence was evaluated using the GRADE framework.

Results

Overall, 17 studies were included in the pairwise meta-analysis. Compared with BNT162b2, mRNA-1273 was associated with significantly reduced risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.75-0.97]; P=0.0151; I2 = 67.7%), severe SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.77-0.93]; P=0.0009; I2 = 0%), COVID-19-associated hospitalization (RR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.79-0.97]; P<0.0001; I2 = 0%), and COVID-19-associated mortality (RR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.44-0.90]; P=0.0119; I2 = 0%) in IC populations. Results were consistent across subgroups. Because of sample size limitations, relative effectiveness of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in IC populations cannot be studied in randomized trials. Based on nonrandomized studies, evidence certainty among comparisons was type 3 (low) and 4 (very low), reflecting potential biases in observational studies.

Conclusion

This GRADE meta-analysis based on a large number of consistent observational studies showed that the mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine is associated with improved clinical effectiveness in IC populations compared with BNT162b2.

The Burden of COVID-19 in the Immunocompromised Patient: Implications for Vaccination and Needs for the Future

Approximately 3% of US adults are immunocompromised and less capable of fighting infections such as SARS-CoV-2 (the causative agent of COVID-19). Individuals may be immunocompromised for reasons related to an underlying medical condition or to immunomodulatory therapies that alter the immune response. In general, vaccination with mRNA-based vaccines is effective at reducing COVID-19-associated hospitalization and death among immunocompromised populations, particularly after 3 or more doses. However, the immunocompromised population is heterogeneous, with COVID-19 vaccine-elicited immune responses and risk for severe COVID-19 existing on a continuum. Therefore, understanding the impact of vaccination and the complexity of immune responses across heterogeneous immunocompromised individuals is essential for guiding effective vaccination regimens including additional (booster) doses. In this article, we provide an overview of the immunocompromised population and the burden of disease attributable to COVID-19, while discussing key opportunities and challenges of vaccinating immunocompromised individuals.

Comparison of humoral and cellular immune responses in hematologic diseases following completed vaccination protocol with BBIBP-CorV, or AZD1222, or BNT162b2 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2

Background

Vaccination has proven the potential to control the COVID-19 pandemic worldwide. Although recent evidence suggests a poor humoral response against SARS-CoV-2 in vaccinated hematological disease (HD) patients, data on vaccination in these patients is limited with the comparison of mRNA-based, vector-based or inactivated virus-based vaccines.

Methods

Forty-nine HD patients and 46 healthy controls (HCs) were enrolled who received two-doses complete vaccination with BNT162b2, or AZD1222, or BBIBP-CorV, respectively. The antibodies reactive to the receptor binding domain of spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 were assayed by Siemens ADVIA Centaur assay. The reactive cellular immunity was assayed by flow cytometry. The PBMCs were reactivated with SARS-CoV-2 antigens and the production of activation-induced markers (TNF-α, IFN-γ, CD40L) was measured in CD4+ or CD8+ T-cells ex vivo.

Results

The anti-RBD IgG level was the highest upon BNT162b2 vaccination in HDs (1264 BAU/mL) vs. HCs (1325 BAU/mL) among the studied groups. The BBIBP-CorV vaccination in HDs (339.8 BAU/mL ***p < 0.001) and AZD1222 in HDs (669.9 BAU/mL *p < 0.05) resulted in weaker antibody response vs. BNT162b2 in HCs. The response rate of IgG production of HC vs. HD patients above the diagnostic cut-off value was 100% vs. 72% for the mRNA-based BNT162b2 vaccine; 93% vs. 56% for the vector-based AZD1222, or 69% vs. 33% for the inactivated vaccine BBIBP-CorV, respectively. Cases that underwent the anti-CD20 therapy resulted in significantly weaker (**p < 0.01) anti-RBD IgG level (302 BAU/mL) than without CD20 blocking in the HD group (928 BAU/mL). The response rates of CD4+ TNF-α+, CD4+ IFN-γ+, or CD4+ CD40L+ cases were lower in HDs vs. HCs in all vaccine groups. However, the BBIBP-CorV vaccine resulted the highest CD4+ TNF-α and CD4+ IFN-γ+ T-cell mediated immunity in the HD group.

Conclusion

We have demonstrated a significant weaker overall response to vaccines in the immunologically impaired HD population vs. HCs regardless of vaccine type. Although, the humoral immune activity against SARS-CoV-2 can be highly evoked by mRNA-based BNT162b2 vaccination compared to vector-based AZD1222 vaccine, or inactivated virus vaccine BBIBP-CorV, whereas the CD4+ T-cell mediated cellular activity was highest in HDs vaccinated with BBIBP-CorV.

Cellular and humoral responses after second and third SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations in patients with autoimmune diseases treated with rituximab: specific T cell immunity remains longer and plays a protective role against SARS-CoV-2 reinfections

Background

Humoral and cellular immune responses are known to be crucial for patients to recover from COVID-19 and to protect them against SARS-CoV-2 reinfection once infected or vaccinated.

Objectives

This study aimed to investigate humoral and T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with autoimmune diseases after the second and third vaccine doses while on rituximab and their potential protective role against reinfection.

Methods

Ten COVID-19-naïve patients were included. Three time points were used for monitoring cellular and humoral responses: pre-vaccine to exclude virus exposure (time point 1) and post-second and post-third vaccine (time points 2 and 3). Specific IgG antibodies were monitored by Luminex and T cells against SARS-CoV-2 spike-protein by ELISpot and CoVITEST. All episodes of symptomatic COVID-19 were recorded.

Results

Nine patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis and one with an undifferentiated autoimmune disease were included. Nine patients received mRNA vaccines. The last rituximab infusion was administered for a mean (SD) of 15 (10) weeks before the first vaccine and six patients were CD19-B cell-depleted. After a mean (SD) of 19 (10) and 16 (2) days from the second and third vaccine dose, IgG anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were detected in six (60%) and eight (80%) patients, respectively. All patients developed specific T cell responses by ELISpot and CoVITEST in time points 2 and 3. Previous B cell depletion correlated with anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG levels. Nine (90%) patients developed mild COVID-19 after a median of 7 months of the third dose.

Conclusion

Rituximab in patients with autoimmune diseases reduces humoral responses but does not avoid the development of T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, which remain present after a booster dose. A steady cellular immunity appears to be protective against subsequent reinfections.

Immunogenicity and risks associated with impaired immune responses following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and booster in hematologic malignancy patients: an updated meta-analysis

Patients with hematologic malignancies (HM) have demonstrated impaired immune responses following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Factors associated with poor immunogenicity remain largely undetermined. A literature search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and medRxiv databases to identify studies that reported humoral or cellular immune responses (CIR) following complete SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. The primary aim was to estimate the seroconversion rate (SR) following complete SARS-CoV-2 vaccination across various subtypes of HM diseases and treatments. The secondary aims were to determine the rates of development of neutralizing antibodies (NAb) and CIR following complete vaccination and SR following booster doses. A total of 170 studies were included for qualitative and quantitative analysis of primary and secondary outcomes. A meta-analysis of 150 studies including 20,922 HM patients revealed a pooled SR following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination of 67.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 64.8-70.4%; I² = 94%). Meta-regression analysis showed that patients with lymphoid malignancies, but not myeloid malignancies, had lower seroconversion rates than those with solid cancers (R² = 0.52, P < 0.0001). Patients receiving chimeric antigen receptor T-cells (CART), B-cell targeted therapies or JAK inhibitors were associated with poor seroconversion (R² = 0.39, P < 0.0001). The pooled NAb and CIR rates were 52.8% (95% CI; 45.8-59.7%, I² = 87%) and 66.6% (95% CI, 57.1-74.9%; I² = 86%), respectively. Approximately 20.9% (95% CI, 11.4-35.1%, I² = 90%) of HM patients failed to elicit humoral and cellular immunity. Among non-seroconverted patients after primary vaccination, only 40.5% (95% CI, 33.0-48.4%; I² = 87%) mounted seroconversion after the booster. In conclusion, HM patients, especially those with lymphoid malignancies and/or receiving CART, B-cell targeted therapies, or JAK inhibitors, showed poor SR after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. A minority of patients attained seroconversion after booster vaccination. Strategies to improve immune response in these severely immunosuppressed patients are needed.

Immunogenicity Rates after SARS-CoV-2 Three-Dose Vaccination in Patients under Dialysis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Considering the indeterminate effects following the administration of three doses of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine to patients under dialysis, the present study aimed to evaluate the immunogenicity rates of patients who received the three-dose vaccine.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials were searched to select the relevant literature to perform the present review. We included randomized controlled trials, non-randomized trials, prospective, observational cohort, and case-control studies to assess the humoral and cellular immune responses following the administration of the three-dose SARS-CoV-2 vaccine to patients receiving dialysis.

RESULTS

Overall, 38 studies are included in the meta-analysis presented in this paper. For patients on dialysis, the overall humoral antibody response rate is 97% following three doses of mRNA or viral vector vaccines and 100% following four doses of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. A subgroup analysis shows that the antibody response rate is 96% for patients on hemodialysis (HD) and 100% for those receiving peritoneal dialysis (PD). The antibody response rate in the different immunogen-vaccinated groups tends to be higher than that in the same immunogen-vaccinated group (99% vs. 96%). For those who exhibit no response following two doses of the vaccine, the third and fourth doses can elevate the antibody response rate to 81%, and that number for low responders increases to 96%. However, the pooled results obtained from the relatively few trials conducted indicate that the positive T-cell response rate only increases to 59% following three doses of the vaccine. The antibody response rate is not different between dialysis and non-dialysis groups (relative risk = 0.95, 95% CI 0.90-1.02) following three doses of the vaccine. The relative risks for a SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection, all-cause mortality, and hospital admissions are 0.59 (95% CI 0.30-1.04), 0.63 (95% CI 0.35-1.12), and 0.53 (95% CI 0.37-0.74), respectively, when comparing three doses with two doses of the vaccine administered to the dialysis population.

CONCLUSIONS

The third or fourth dose of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine significantly increases the immunogenicity rates in dialysis patients, and this beneficial effect does not vary with the type of vaccine (the same or different immunogen vaccination), dialysis modality (HD or PD), or previous low response following the administration two doses of the vaccine. We believe that healthcare workers should encourage patients receiving dialysis to receive a third or fourth vaccine dose to strengthen their immunity against SARS-CoV-2.

Anti-spike T-cell and Antibody Responses to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccines in Patients with Hematologic Malignancies

The anti-spike T-cell and antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines in patients with B-cell malignancies were examined in a real-world setting. A next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based molecular assay was used to assess SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell responses. After the second dose, 58% (166/284) of seropositive and 45% (99/221) of seronegative patients display anti-spike T cells. The percentage of patients who displayed T-cell response was higher among patients receiving mRNA-1273 vaccines compared with those receiving BNT162b2 vaccines. After the third vaccination, 40% (137/342) of patients seroconverted, although only 22% displayed sufficient antibody levels associated with the production of neutralizing antibodies. 97% (717/738) of patients who were seropositive before the third dose had markedly elevated anti-spike antibody levels. Anti-spike antibody levels, but not T-cell responses, were depressed by B cell-directed therapies. Vaccinated patients with B-cell malignancies with a poor response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines may remain vulnerable to COVID-19 infections.

SIGNIFICANCE

This study represents the first investigation of SARS-CoV-2-specific immune responses to vaccination in a patient registry using an NGS-based method for T-cell receptor repertoire-based analysis combined with anti-spike antibody assessments. Vaccinated patients with B cell-derived hematologic malignancies are likely at higher risk of infection or severe COVID-19. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 476.

Antibody response to a third booster dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in adults with haematological and solid cancer: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Patients living with cancer are at a significantly increased risk of morbidity and mortality after infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). This systematic review aims to investigate the current available evidence about the immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 booster vaccines in patients living with cancer.

METHODS

A systematic search was undertaken for studies published until March 1, 2022. A systematic narrative review was undertaken to include all studies that evaluated the efficacy of booster vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with cancer.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies encompassing 1205 patients with cancer were included. We found that a booster vaccine dose induced a higher response in patients with solid cancer as compared to haematological malignancies. Recent systemic anticancer therapy does not appear to affect seroconversion in solid organ malignancies, however, there is an association between B-cell depleting therapies and poor seroconversion in haematological patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Third booster vaccination induces an improved antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 in adults with haematological and solid cancer, relative to patients who only receive two doses. Access to vaccination boosters should be made available to patients at risk of poor immunological responses, and the provision of fourth doses may be of benefit to this vulnerable population.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO number CRD42021270420.