ABSTRACT
BackgroundSafety and efficacy of updated bivalent vaccines, containing both the original vaccine variant of SARS-CoV-2 Spike and either Omicron variants BA.1 or BA.4/5, are of particular interest in arthritis patients on immunosuppressive therapies. With the continuous emergence of new viral variants, it is important to evaluate whether updated vaccines induce more adverse events in this patient group.ObjectivesTo examine if a second booster dose with updated bivalent vaccine increases the risk of adverse events, compared to the first booster dose with monovalent vaccines.MethodsThe prospective Nor-vaC study investigates vaccine responses in patients with immune mediated inflammatory diseases using immunosuppressive therapies (1). The present analyses included arthritis patients who received two booster doses. Patients received available vaccines according to the Norwegian vaccination program. The current recommendation in the Norwegian arthritis population is a three-dose primary vaccination series followed by two booster doses. Adverse events following vaccines doses were self-reported through questionnaires. Adverse events following the first (monovalent) and second (bivalent) booster were compared with McNemar's test.ResultsBetween 7th of July 2021 and 6th of December 2022 a total of 243 arthritis patients (127 rheumatoid arthritis, 65 psoriatic arthritis, 51 spondyloarthritis) on immunosuppressive therapies (Table 1) received a first, monovalent (BNT162b2, mRNA-1273) and a second, bivalent booster dose (BNT162b2 (WT/OMI BA.1), mRNA-1273.214, BNT162b2 (WT/OMI BA.4/BA.5)). Adverse events were recorded within 2 weeks in all patients (Figure 1). In total, 45 vs 49 (19% vs 20 %) patients reported any adverse event after a second, bivalent booster dose, compared to the first, monovalent booster, respectively. There was no significant difference in adverse events overall (p= 0.57). The most common adverse events after the second booster were pain at injection site (12 %), flu-like symptoms (9 %) and headache (6 %). No new safety signals emerged. A total of 15 (6 %) patients reported a disease flare after receiving the second, bivalent booster, compared to 21 (8 %) after the first, monovalent booster.ConclusionThere was no difference in adverse events between the monovalent, first booster, and the bivalent, second booster, indicating that bivalent vaccines are safe in this patient group.Reference[1]Syversen S.W. et al Arthritis Rheumatol 2022Table 1.Demographic characteristics and immunosuppressive medication in patients receiving a 1st monovalent and a 2nd bivalent booster dose.CharacteristicsPatients, n (%)Total243Age (years), median (IQR)61 (52-67)Female152 (63)Immunosuppressive medicationTNFi monoa75 (31)TNFi comboa+b72 (30)Methotrexate62 (26)Rituximab9 (4)IL-inhibitorsc6 (2)JAK-inhibitorsd11 (5)Othere8 (3)1st boosterBNT162b2106 (44)mRNA-1273137 (56)2nd boosterBNT162b2 (WT/OMI BA.1)65 (25)BNT162b2 (WT/OMI BA.4/BA.5)120 (47)mRNA-1273.214 (WT/OMI BA.1)58 (23)Results in n (%) unless otherwise specified.aTumor necrosis factor inhibitors: infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, golimumab, certolizumab pegol.bCombination therapy: methotrexate, sulfasalazine, leflunomide, azathioprine.cInterleukin inhibitors: tocilizumab, secukinumab.dJanus kinase inhibitors: filgotinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, tofacitinib.eOther: abatacept, sulfasalazine, leflunomide, azathioprine.Figure 1.Adverse events after bivalent vaccine as a 2nd booster dose compared to a monovalent vaccine as a 1st booster dose.[Figure omitted. See PDF]AcknowledgementsWe thank the patients and health-care workers who have participated in the Norwegian study of vaccine response to COVID-19. We thank the patient representatives in the study group, Kristin Isabella Kirkengen Espe and Roger Thoresen. We thank all study personnel, laboratory personnel, and other staff involved at the clinical departments involved, particularly Synnøve Aure, Margareth Sveinsson, May Britt Solem, Elisabeth Røssum-Haaland, and Kjetil Bergsmark.Disclosure of InterestsHilde Ørbo: None declared, Ingrid Jyssum: None declared, Anne Therese Tveter: None declared, Ingrid E. Christensen: None declared, Joseph Sexton: None declared, Kristin Hammersbøen Bjørlykke Speakers bureau: Janssen-Cilag, Grete B. Kro: None declared, Tore K. Kvien Speakers bureau: Amgen, Celltrion, Egis, Evapharma, Ewopharma, Hikma, Oktal, Sandoz, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, Biogen, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Mylan, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Ludvig A. Munthe Speakers bureau: Novartis, Cellgene, Gunnveig Grodeland Speakers bureau: Bayer, Sanofi, ThermoFisher, Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Siri Mjaaland: None declared, John Torgils Vaage: None declared, Espen A Haavardsholm Speakers bureau: Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Kristin Kaasen Jørgensen Speakers bureau: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Sella Aarrestad Provan: None declared, Silje Watterdal Syversen: None declared, Guro Løvik Goll Speakers bureau: AbbVie/Abbott, Galapagos, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie/Abbott, Galapagos, Pfizer, UCB.
ABSTRACT
Background: Patients with immune-mediated infammatory diseases (IMIDs) on immunosuppressive therapy have an inadequate serologic response following two-dose SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, and a standard vaccination strategy of three doses for this patient group is currently under implementation in several countries. However, the serological response and safety of this strategy has not been evaluated. Objectives: To assess serological response and safety of a three-dose vaccination strategy in IMID patients on immunosuppressive therapy as compared to standard two-dose vaccination of healthy controls. Methods: The prospective observational Nor-vaC study (NCT04798625) enrolled adult patients on immunosuppressive therapy for infammatory joint-and bowel diseases. Healthy controls were health care workers from participating hospitals. All participants received standard vaccines according to the national vaccination program with three doses in patients and two doses in controls. The third dose was offered to IMID patients >4 weeks after the second dose. Analyses of antibodies binding the receptor-binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein were performed prior to, and 2-4 weeks after the second and third vaccine doses. Levels were compared across groups by Mann-Whitney U tests and multi-variate linear regression was used to identify predictors of response. Results: Overall, 961 patients (315 rheumatoid arthritis, 156 spondyloarthritis, 171 psoriatic arthritis, 132 ulcerative colitis and182 Crohn's disease) (median age 54 years [IQR 43-64];56 % women) and 227 controls (median age 44 years [IQR 32-55];83 % women) were included in the present analyses. TNFi mon-otherapy was used by 399 patients, 229 used TNFi in combination with other immunomodulators, 189 methotrexate monotherapy, 39 vedolizumab, 32 JAKi and 73 patients used other drugs. Patients on rituximab were not included. Patients were vaccinated with Pfzer BNT162b2 (54% patients, 14% controls), Moderna mRNA-1273 (16% patients, 40% controls) or a combination of vaccines (30% patients, 46% controls). Patients received the third vaccine dose a median of 120 (IQR 102-143) days after the second dose. After two doses, median antiSpike antibody levels were signifcantly lower in patients (861 BAU/ml (IQR 418-4275) than controls (6318 BAU/ml (IQR 2468-9857)), p<0.001 (Figure 1). Following the third dose, patients achieved antibody levels comparable to the two-dose vaccinated controls (median 5480 BAU/ml (IQR 1081-12069), p=0.28) (Figure 1). In the patients anti-Spike antibody levels increased by a median of 2685 BAU/ml (IQR 265-9129) from the second to the third dose. Main factors associated with increased antibody level after the third dose were younger age (β-87.7 (p=0.002)), and vaccine status (mRNA-1273 vaccine (β 5549 (p<0.001)) or a combination of vaccines (β 4367.3 (p<0.001)). Adverse events were reported by 438 (48%) of patients after the third dose as compared to 471 (54%) after the second dose and 193 (78 %) of controls. Disease fares were reported by 42 (5%) and 69 (8%) patients after the second and third dose, respectively. Conclusion: This study suggests that a third vaccine dose for immunosup-pressed patients closes the gap in serological response between patients and the healthy population. Antibody levels following the three-dose regimen in IMID patients were comparable to healthy controls vaccinated twice, and no new safety issues emerged. This fnding was consistent across all diagnoses and treatment groups, supporting the implementation of a three-dose vaccine regimen as standard in the IMID population.