Trajectories of humoral and cellular immunity and responses to a third dose of mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with a history of anti-CD20 therapy.

BACKGROUND: The majority of patients with B-cell-depleting therapies show compromised vaccination-induced immune responses. Herein, we report on the trajectories of anti-SARS-CoV-2 immune responses in patients of the RituxiVac study compared with healthy volunteers and investigate the immunogenicity of a third vaccination in previously humoral non-responding patients. METHODS: We investigated the humoral and cell-mediated immune response after SARS-CoV-2 messanger RNA vaccination in patients with a history with anti-CD20 therapies. Coprimary outcomes were antispike and SARS-CoV-2-stimulated interferon-γ concentrations in vaccine responders 4.3 months (median; IQR: 3.6-4.8 months) after first evaluation, and humoral and cell-mediated immunity (CMI) after a third vaccine dose in previous humoral non-responders. Immunity decay rates were compared using analysis of covariance in linear regression. RESULTS: 5.6 months (IQR: 5.1-6.7) after the second vaccination, we detected antispike IgG in 88% (29/33) and CMI in 44% (14/32) of patients with a humoral response after two-dose vaccination compared with 92% (24/26) healthy volunteers with antispike IgG and 69% (11/16) with CMI 6.8 months after the second vaccination (IQR: 6.0-7.1). Decay rates of antibody concentrations were comparable between patients and controls (p=0.70). In two-dose non-responders, a third SARS-CoV-2 vaccine elicited humoral responses in 19% (6/32) and CMI in 32% (10/31) participants. CONCLUSION: This study reveals comparable immunity decay rates between patients with anti-CD20 treatments and healthy volunteers, but inefficient humoral or CMI after a third SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in most two-dose humoral non-responders calling for individually tailored vaccination strategies in this population.Trial registration numberNCT04877496; ClinicalTrials.gov number.

[CME: Rational Laboratory Diagnostics in the Context of COVID-19]. / CME: Rationale Labordiagnostik im Kontext von COVID-19.

CME: Rational Laboratory Diagnostics in the Context of COVID-19 Abstract. In the management of COVID-19, a variety of laboratory tests are available to the general practitioner. The choice is difficult, and some of these laboratory tests are discussed controversially in the lay press. In this article, we discuss the important clinical questions and the contribution of laboratory tests to answering these questions. We describe the most common test principles and discuss their diagnostic value. In doing so, we provide the practicing physician with a simple overview for the clinical practice.

Humoral response to mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with humoral immunodeficiency disease.

OBJECTIVES: Although mRNA-based vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 induce a robust immune response and prevent infections and hospitalizations, there are limited data on the antibody response in individuals with humoral immunodeficiency. The aim of this study was to evaluate the humoral immune response after two vaccine doses with BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 in patients with humoral immunodeficiency disease. METHODS: This cross-sectional study assessed 39 individuals with hypogammaglobulinemia under immunoglobulin replacement therapy. IgG anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein antibodies (anti-S) were measured 4 weeks to 4 months after two doses of an mRNA vaccine against SARS-CoV-2. The proportion of patients, who developed a humoral immune response to the spike protein were evaluated and compared to 19 healthy controls. RESULTS: After vaccination with two vaccine doses, 26/39 patients (66.7%) with humoral immunodeficiency disease and all healthy controls developed anti-S. In subjects with baseline IgG <3 g/l, only 1/5 (20%) showed a humoral immune response. 10 out of 26 with CVID (38.5%) and 7/9 under immunosuppressive drugs (77.8%) developed no immune response (13 subjects with no response) compared to 0/19 in healthy controls. Subgroup analysis in patients without immunosuppressive drugs revealed lower anti-S in patients with moderate to severe humoral immunodeficiency disease: baseline IgG <3 g/l: 12.0 AU/ml (95%CI 12.0-125.0), baseline IgG 3-5 g/l: 99.9 AU/ml (95%CI 14.4-400.0), baseline IgG >5 g/l: 151.5 AU/ml (95%CI 109.0-400.0), healthy controls 250.0 AU/ml (95%CI 209.0-358.0), p = 0.007. CONCLUSION: In most patients with mild to moderate humoral immunodeficiency we found only slightly lower anti-S antibodies compared with healthy controls after two vaccine doses with BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273. However, in patients with a decreased baseline IgG below 3 g/l and/or under immunosuppressive drugs, we found severely impaired humoral immune responses.

Humoral and cellular immune responses on SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with anti-CD20 therapies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 1342 patients.

BACKGROUND: Immune responses on SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients receiving anti-CD20 therapies are impaired but vary considerably. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine induced humoral and cell-mediated immune response in patients previously treated with anti-CD20 antibodies. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, Medrxiv and SSRN using variations of search terms 'anti-CD20', 'vaccine' and 'COVID' and included original studies up to 21 August 2021. We excluded studies with missing data on humoral or cell-mediated immune response, unspecified methodology of response testing, unspecified timeframes between vaccination and blood sampling or low number of participants (≤3). We excluded individual patients with prior COVID-19 or incomplete vaccine courses. Primary endpoints were humoral and cell-mediated immune response rates. Subgroup analyses included time since anti-CD20 therapy, B cell depletion and indication for anti-CD20 therapy. We used random-effects models of proportions. FINDINGS: Ninety studies were assessed. Inclusion criteria were met by 23 studies comprising 1342 patients. Overall rate of humoral response was 0.40 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.47). Overall rate of cell-mediated immune responses was 0.71 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.87). A time interval >6 months since last anti-CD20 therapy was associated with higher humoral response rates with 0.63 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.72) versus <6 months 0.2 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.43); p=0<01. Similarly, patients with circulating B cells more frequently showed humoral responses. Anti-CD20-treated kidney transplant recipients showed lower humoral response rates than patients with haematological malignancies or autoimmune disease. INTERPRETATION: Patients on anti-CD20 therapies can develop humoral and cell-mediated immune responses after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, but subgroups such as kidney transplant recipients or those with very recent therapy and depleted B cell are at high risk for non-seroconversion and should be individually assessed for personalised SARS-CoV-2 vaccination strategies. Potential limitations are small patient numbers and heterogeneity of studies included. FUNDING: This study was funded by Bern University Hospital.

Serological testing for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in clinical practice: A comparative diagnostic accuracy study.

BACKGROUND: Serological tests are a powerful tool in the monitoring of infectious diseases and the detection of host immunity. However, manufacturers often provide diagnostic accuracy data generated through biased studies, and the performance in clinical practice is essentially unclear. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine the diagnostic accuracy of various serological testing strategies for (a) identification of patients with previous coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) and (b) prediction of neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in real-life clinical settings. METHODS: We prospectively included 2573 consecutive health-care workers and 1085 inpatients with suspected or possible previous COVID-19 at a Swiss University Hospital. Various serological immunoassays based on different analytical techniques (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays, ELISA; chemiluminescence immunoassay, CLIA; electrochemiluminescence immunoassay, ECLIA; and lateral flow immunoassay, LFI), epitopes of SARS-CoV-2 (nucleocapsid, N; receptor-binding domain, RBD; extended RBD, RBD+; S1 or S2 domain of the spike [S] protein, S1/S2), and antibody subtypes (IgG, pan-Ig) were conducted. A positive real-time PCR test from a nasopharyngeal swab was defined as previous COVID-19. Neutralization assays with live SARS-CoV-2 were performed in a subgroup of patients to assess neutralization activity (n = 201). RESULTS: The sensitivity to detect patients with previous COVID-19 was ≥85% in anti-N ECLIA (86.8%) and anti-S1 ELISA (86.2%). Sensitivity was 84.7% in anti-S1/S2 CLIA, 84.0% in anti-RBD+LFI, 81.0% in anti-N CLIA, 79.2% in anti-RBD ELISA, and 65.6% in anti-N ELISA. The specificity was 98.4% in anti-N ECLIA, 98.3% in anti-N CLIA, 98.2% in anti-S1 ELISA, 97.7% in anti-N ELISA, 97.6% in anti-S1/S2 CLIA, 97.2% in anti-RBD ELISA, and 96.1% in anti-RBD+LFI. The sensitivity to detect neutralizing antibodies was ≥85% in anti-S1 ELISA (92.7%), anti-N ECLIA (91.7%), anti-S1/S2 CLIA (90.3%), anti-RBD+LFI (87.9%), and anti-RBD ELISA (85.8%). Sensitivity was 84.1% in anti-N CLIA and 66.2% in anti-N ELISA. The specificity was ≥97% in anti-N CLIA (100%), anti-S1/S2 CLIA (97.7%), and anti-RBD+LFI (97.9%). Specificity was 95.9% in anti-RBD ELISA, 93.0% in anti-N ECLIA, 92% in anti-S1 ELISA, and 65.3% in anti-N ELISA. Diagnostic accuracy measures were consistent among subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies varied remarkably in clinical practice, and the sensitivity to identify patients with previous COVID-19 deviated substantially from the manufacturer's specifications. The data presented here should be considered when using such tests to estimate the infection burden within a specific population and determine the likelihood of protection against re-infection.

Humoral and cellular responses to mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with a history of CD20 B-cell-depleting therapy (RituxiVac): an investigator-initiated, single-centre, open-label study.

BACKGROUND: B-cell-depleting therapies increase the risk of morbidity and mortality due to COVID-19. Evidence-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccination strategies for patients on B-cell-depleting therapies are scarce. We aimed to investigate humoral and cell-mediated immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-based vaccines in patients receiving CD20-targeted B-cell-depleting agents for autoimmune disease, malignancy, or transplantation. METHODS: The RituxiVac study was an investigator-initiated, single-centre, open-label study done at the Bern University Hospital (Bern, Switzerland). Patients with a treatment history of anti-CD20-depleting agents (rituximab or ocrelizumab) and with no previous history of SARS-CoV-2 infection were enrolled between April 26 and June 30, 2021, for analysis of humoral and cell-mediated immune responses (by interferon-γ [IFNγ] release assay) at least 4 weeks after completing vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. Healthy controls without a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection were also enrolled at least 4 weeks after completing vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. All study participants received two doses of either the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine or the Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with a history of anti-CD20 treatment who showed a humoral immune response against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in comparison with immunocompetent controls. Prespecified secondary endpoints were the effect of anti-CD20 therapy (including time since last treatment and cumulative dose) on humoral or cell-mediated immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, and biomarkers of immunocompetence. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04877496. FINDINGS: The final study population comprised 96 patients and 29 immunocompetent controls. The median age of patients was 67 years (IQR 57-72) and of controls was 54 years (45-62), and 51 (53%) of 96 patients and 19 (66%) of 29 controls were female. The median time since last anti-CD20 treatment was 1·07 years (IQR 0·48-2·55) and the median cumulative dose of an anti-CD20 depleting agent was 2·80 g (1·50-5·00). Anti-spike IgG antibodies were detected in 47 (49%) of 96 patients 1·79 months (IQR 1·16-2·48) after the second vaccine dose compared to 29 (100%) of 29 controls 1·81 months (1·17-2·48) after the second vaccine dose (p<0·001). SARS-CoV-2-specific IFNγ release was detected in 13 (20%) of 66 patients and 21 (75%) of 28 of healthy controls (p<0·001). Only nine (14%) of 66 patients were double positive for anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike IgG and cell-mediated responses, compared with 21 (75%) of 28 healthy controls (p<0·001). Time since last anti-CD20 therapy (>7·6 months; positive predictive value 0·78), peripheral CD19+ cell count (>27 cells per µL; positive predictive value 0·70), and CD4+ lymphocyte count (>653 cells per µL; positive predictive value 0·71) were predictive of humoral vaccine response (area under the curve [AUC] 67% [95% CI 56-78] for time since last anti-CD20 therapy, 67% [55-80] for peripheral CD19+ count, and 66% [54-79] for CD4+ count). INTERPRETATION: This study provides further evidence of blunted humoral and cell-mediated immune responses elicited by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines in patients with a history of CD20 B-cell-depleting treatment. Lymphocyte subpopulation counts were associated with vaccine response in this highly vulnerable population. On validation, these results could help guide both the administration of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and B-cell-depleting agents in this population. FUNDING: Bern University Hospital.

Accuracy of serological testing for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies: First results of a large mixed-method evaluation study.

BACKGROUND: Serological immunoassays that can identify protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2 are needed to adapt quarantine measures, assess vaccination responses, and evaluate donor plasma. To date, however, the utility of such immunoassays remains unclear. In a mixed-design evaluation study, we compared the diagnostic accuracy of serological immunoassays that are based on various SARS-CoV-2 proteins and assessed the neutralizing activity of antibodies in patient sera. METHODS: Consecutive patients admitted with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were prospectively followed alongside medical staff and biobank samples from winter 2018/2019. An in-house enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay utilizing recombinant receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein was developed and compared to three commercially available enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) targeting the nucleoprotein (N), the S1 domain of the spike protein (S1), and a lateral flow immunoassay (LFI) based on full-length spike protein. Neutralization assays with live SARS-CoV-2 were performed. RESULTS: One thousand four hundred and seventy-seven individuals were included comprising 112 SARS-CoV-2 positives (defined as a positive real-time PCR result; prevalence 7.6%). IgG seroconversion occurred between day 0 and day 21. While the ELISAs showed sensitivities of 88.4% for RBD, 89.3% for S1, and 72.9% for N protein, the specificity was above 94% for all tests. Out of 54 SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals, 96.3% showed full neutralization of live SARS-CoV-2 at serum dilutions ≥ 1:16, while none of the 6 SARS-CoV-2-negative sera revealed neutralizing activity. CONCLUSIONS: ELISAs targeting RBD and S1 protein of SARS-CoV-2 are promising immunoassays which shall be further evaluated in studies verifying diagnostic accuracy and protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2.