Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add filters

Database
Language
Document Type
Year range
1.
Arthritis Rheumatol ; 74(8): 1321-1332, 2022 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1905792

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Immunogenicity and safety following receipt of the standard SARS-CoV-2 vaccination regimen in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) are poorly characterized, and data after receipt of the third vaccine dose are lacking. The aim of the study was to evaluate serologic responses and adverse events following the standard 2-dose regimen and a third dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in IMID patients receiving immunosuppressive therapy. METHODS: Adult patients receiving immunosuppressive therapy for rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis, psoriatic arthritis, Crohn's disease, or ulcerative colitis, as well as healthy adult controls, who received the standard 2-dose SARS-CoV-2 vaccination regimen were included in this prospective observational study. Analyses of antibodies to the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein were performed prior to and 2-4 weeks after vaccination. Patients with a weak serologic response, defined as an IgG antibody titer of ≤100 arbitrary units per milliliter (AU/ml) against the receptor-binding domain of the full-length SARS-Cov-2 spike protein, were allotted a third vaccine dose. RESULTS: A total of 1,505 patients (91%) and 1,096 healthy controls (98%) had a serologic response to the standard regimen (P < 0.001). Anti-RBD antibody levels were lower in patients (median 619 AU/ml interquartile range [IQR] 192-4,191) than in controls (median 3,355 AU/ml [IQR 896-7,849]) (P < 0.001). The proportion of responders was lowest among patients receiving tumor necrosis factor inhibitor combination therapy, JAK inhibitors, or abatacept. Younger age and receipt of messenger RNA-1273 vaccine were predictors of serologic response. Of 153 patients who had a weak response to the standard regimen and received a third dose, 129 (84%) became responders. The vaccine safety profile among patients and controls was comparable. CONCLUSION: IMID patients had an attenuated response to the standard vaccination regimen as compared to healthy controls. A third vaccine dose was safe and resulted in serologic response in most patients. These data facilitate identification of patient groups at risk of an attenuated vaccine response, and they support administering a third vaccine dose to IMID patients with a weak serologic response to the standard regimen.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Viral Vaccines , Adult , Antibodies, Viral , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Humans , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , Immunosuppression Therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus , Vaccination , Viral Vaccines/adverse effects
2.
Lancet Rheumatol ; 4(3): e177-e187, 2022 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1605659

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In rituximab-treated patients with rheumatoid arthritis, humoral and cellular immune responses after two or three doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are not well characterised. We aimed to address this knowledge gap. METHODS: This prospective, cohort study (Nor-vaC) was done at two hospitals in Norway. For this sub-study, we enrolled patients with rheumatoid arthritis on rituximab treatment and healthy controls who received SARS-CoV-2 vaccines according to the Norwegian national vaccination programme. Patients with insufficient serological responses to two doses (antibody to the receptor-binding domain [RBD] of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein concentration <100 arbitrary units [AU]/mL) were allotted a third vaccine dose. Antibodies to the RBD of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein were measured in serum 2-4 weeks after the second and third doses. Vaccine-elicited T-cell responses were assessed in vitro using blood samples taken before and 7-10 days after the second dose and 3 weeks after the third dose from a subset of patients by stimulating cryopreserved peripheral blood mononuclear cells with spike protein peptides. The main outcomes were the proportions of participants with serological responses (anti-RBD antibody concentrations of ≥70 AU/mL) and T-cell responses to spike peptides following two and three doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04798625, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Feb 9, 2021, and May 27, 2021, 90 patients were enrolled, 87 of whom donated serum and were included in our analyses (69 [79·3%] women and 18 [20·7%] men). 1114 healthy controls were included (854 [76·7%] women and 260 [23·3%] men). 49 patients were allotted a third vaccine dose. 19 (21·8%) of 87 patients, compared with 1096 (98·4%) of 1114 healthy controls, had a serological response after two doses (p<0·0001). Time since last rituximab infusion (median 267 days [IQR 222-324] in responders vs 107 days [80-152] in non-responders) and vaccine type (mRNA-1273 vs BNT162b2) were significantly associated with serological response (adjusting for age and sex). After two doses, 10 (53%) of 19 patients had CD4+ T-cell responses and 14 (74%) had CD8+ T-cell responses. A third vaccine dose induced serological responses in eight (16·3%) of 49 patients, but induced CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell responses in all patients assessed (n=12), including responses to the SARS-CoV-2 delta variant (B.1.617.2). Adverse events were reported in 32 (48%) of 67 patients and in 191 (78%) of 244 healthy controls after two doses, with the frequency not increasing after the third dose. There were no serious adverse events or deaths. INTERPRETATION: This study provides important insight into the divergent humoral and cellular responses to two and three doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in rituximab-treated patients with rheumatoid arthritis. A third vaccine dose given 6-9 months after a rituximab infusion might not induce a serological response, but could be considered to boost the cellular immune response. FUNDING: The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Research Council of Norway Covid, the KG Jebsen Foundation, Oslo University Hospital, the University of Oslo, the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority, Dr Trygve Gythfeldt og frues forskningsfond, the Karin Fossum Foundation, and the Research Foundation at Diakonhjemmet Hospital.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL