ABSTRACT
Background: The effects of immunosuppressive medications on immune responses to COVID-19 vaccination in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) have been reported. However there is little data on immune responses in naturally infected SARS-CoV-2 patients compared with vaccination. We compared in a longitudinal study SARS-CoV-2 antibody and T cell responses in naturally-infected vs. vaccinated IBD patients Methods: 110 IBD patients enrolled at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai were prospectively followed with serial blood collection between May 2020, and February 2022. Samples were screened by ELISA to determine seropositivity, and stratified by infection, vaccination status, and IBD medications. Subsequently, ELISA-based inhibition assay and pseudotyped SARS-CoV-2 microneutralization assays were used to determine the inhibition and neutralization capacity of the seropositive individuals for wild type (WT) delta variant (Dv) and Omicron. Cellular responses were measured by IFN-gamma ELIspot using nucleocapsid and spike peptide libraries Results: Overall, 64 patients had Crohn's Disease and 46 had Ulcerative Colitis (UC), 69 were naturally infected. Only Anti-TNF (N=52), Ustekinumab (N=16), and Vedolizumab (VDZ) (N=33) treatment groups were considered. Only US-available vaccinations were included. Double-vaccinated IBD patients showed greater neutralizing responses to SARS-CoV-2 WT and Dv than naturally-infected individuals (p=0.0003, p=0.0025). Moreover, double-vaccinated individuals had greater neutralizing reactions against WT than DV (p 0.017) and Omicron (p 0.001) variants. Following natural infection, there were no differences between treatment groups in neutralization response, however those double-vaccinated on anti-TNF had lower neutralization than VDZ (p=0.008). Neutralization responses were maintained for a period of 8 months following natural infection and double vaccination SARS-CoV-2 spike T cell responses were significantly higher in naturally infected (p=0.009) and double vaccinated individuals (p=0.005) with no significant differences between treatment groups (p<0.999) Conclusion(s): After a second vaccine dose, IBD patients showed stronger neutralizing antibody titers than naturally infected patients. Those on anti-TNF exhibited lower neutralizing responses than VDZ. T-cell responses were similar in infected and double-vaccinated subjects after vaccination or infection. These data imply COVID-19 immunization provides additional serological protection over natural infection.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Benefit from convalescent plasma therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been inconsistent in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) involving critically ill patients. As COVID-19 patients are immunologically heterogeneous, we hypothesized that immunologically similar COVID-19 subphenotypes may differ in their treatment responses to convalescent plasma and explain inconsistent findings between RCTs . METHODS: We tested this hypothesis in a substudy involving 1239 patients, by measuring 26 biomarkers (cytokines, chemokines, endothelial biomarkers) within the randomized, embedded, multifactorial, adaptive platform trial for community-acquired pneumonia (REMAP-CAP) that assigned 2097 critically ill COVID-19 patients to either high-titer convalescent plasma or usual care. Primary outcome was organ support free days at 21 days (OSFD-21) . RESULTS: Unsupervised analyses identified three subphenotypes/endotypes. In contrast to the more homogeneous subphenotype-2 (N = 128 patients, 10.3%; with elevated type i and type ii effector immune responses) and subphenotype-3 (N = 241, 19.5%; with exaggerated inflammation), the subphenotype-1 had variable biomarker patterns (N = 870 patients, 70.2%). Subphenotypes-2, and -3 had worse outcomes, and subphenotype-1 had better outcomes with convalescent plasma therapy compared with usual care (median (IQR). OSFD-21 in convalescent plasma vs usual care was 0 (- 1, 21) vs 10 (- 1, to 21) in subphenotype-2; 1.5 (- 1, 21) vs 12 (- 1, to 21) in suphenotype-3, and 0 (- 1, 21) vs 0 (- 1, to 21) in subphenotype-1 (test for between-subphenotype differences in treatment effects p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: We reported three COVID-19 subphenotypes, among critically ill adults, with differential treatment effects to ABO-compatible convalescent plasma therapy. Differences in subphenotype prevalence between RCT populations probably explain inconsistent results with COVID-19 immunotherapies.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Humans , COVID-19/therapy , Critical Illness/therapy , Biomarkers , Cytokines , Treatment Outcome , COVID-19 SerotherapyABSTRACT
Introduction: More adverse clinical outcomes following SARS-CoV-2 infection are reported in patients treated with infliximab/thiopurines (IFX/THIO), compared with biological monotherapy with anti-TNF or vedolizumab (VDZ). VDZ has been associated with a heightened and more durable serological response after infection and vaccination, compared to IFX. However, whether IBD patients on VDZ have a fully intact systemic response to SARS- CoV2 remains unknown. We explored the serological and functional neutralizing response after SARS-CoV-2 infection in IBD patients treated with VDZ, IFX or IFX/THIO compared to true healthy controls to guide treatment decisions and vaccination strategies. Methods: Serum from 640 IBD patients attending routine infusions in Oxford and London (May to December 2020) was screened by the Abbott assay for SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N) antibodies. Serum from seropositive patients was compared to seropositive health care workers (Table 1). Antibody reactivity to the SARS-CoV-2 wild type (WT) strain receptor-binding domain (RBD), full-length spike, and N was assayed by IgG/IgA ELISA over time as well as by IgG MSD V-PLEX ELISA at the time of seropositivity. A pseudotyped SARS-CoV-2 virus microneutralization assay was used to detect neutralizing antibodies to the WT, and an ELISA-based inhibition assay to compare differential inhibition of the WT vs. delta variant (DV) SARS-CoV-2 RBD-ACE2 interaction. Results: All IBD patients showed significantly reduced IgG antibody responses compared to healthy controls to all SARS-CoV-2 antigens, using MSD V-PLEX (Figure 1A-C). The greatest reduction in IgG response by ELISA was observed in patients treated with IFX/THIO (p=0.00019), whereas IgG response over time declined significantly faster in the IFX treated group (p=0.019). IgA responses were significantly reduced in the IFX/THIO group compared to healthy controls (p=0.009), but not in the IFX or VDZ group. The rate of decline in these monotherapy groups was not significantly different to healthy controls. Compared to healthy controls, functional SARS-CoV-2 neutralization was reduced in each treatment group (Figure 1D), with the greatest effect in patients receiving IFX/THIO (p=0.00000091). Neutralizing capacity to the DV was significantly reduced in 68.1% of IBD patients (30/44, p=0.0005). Conclusion: Both IFX and VDZ are associated with significantly reduced IgG responses to multiple SARS-CoV-2 antigens, and with impaired functional SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody capacity, compared to healthy individuals. However, whilst IgG and neutralization responses are reduced in IBD patients on biological monotherapy, these findings were most pronounced in the combination treatment group. As neutralizing antibody responses are associated with protection, these observations may impact on decision-making regarding treatment and vaccination strategies.(Table Presented)(Figure Presented)
ABSTRACT
Background: Recent data have highlighted adverse clinical outcomes in IBD patients treated with infliximab/thiopurines (IFX/ THIO) upon infection with SARS-CoV-2, as well as attenuated serological responses after infection and vaccination in patients treated with IFX. To provide mechanistic insight, we explored the serological and functional anti-viral response after infection in IBD patients treated with VDZ, IFX or IFX/THIO compared to healthy controls to guide clinical decision-making regarding treatment and vaccination strategies. Methods: Serum from 640 IBD patients attending routine infusions in Oxford and London in May to December 2020 was screened for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses by the Abbott assay. Serum from seropositive patients was compared to seropositive health care workers (Table 1). Antibody reactivity to the SARS-CoV-2 wild type strain receptor-binding domain (RBD), full-length spike, and nucleocapsid was assayed by IgG/IgA ELISA over time as well as by IgG high-throughput MSD V-PLEX ELISA at the time of seropositivity. A pseudotyped SARS-CoV-2 virus microneutralization assay was used to detect neutralising antibodies to the wild type, and an ELISA-based inhibition assay to compare differential inhibition of the wild type vs. delta variant SARS-CoV-2 RBD-ACE2 interaction. Results: All IBD patients showed significantly reduced IgG antibody responses compared to healthy controls for all SARS-CoV-2 antigens, using MSD V-PLEX ELISA (Figure 1). The greatest reduction in IgG response by ELISA was observed in individuals treated with IFX/THIO (p=0.00019), whereas IgG response over time declined significantly faster in the IFX treated group (p=0.019). IgA responses were significantly reduced in the IFX/THIO group compared to healthy controls (p=0.009), but not in the IFX or VDZ monotherapy group. The rate of decline in these monotherapy groups was also not significantly different to healthy controls. Functional SARS-CoV-2 neutralisation was significantly lower in all IBD patients compared to healthy controls, with the greatest reduction in patients receiving IFX/THIO (Figure 2A;p=0.00000091). The delta variant inhibition capacity was significantly reduced in 68.1% of IBD patients (30/44, Figure 2B;p=0.0005). Conclusion: IFX/THIO is associated with significantly lower IgA and IgG responses, and with impaired functional SARS-CoV-2 neutralising antibody capacity, compared to healthy individuals. Whilst IgG and neutralisation responses are reduced in each group of IBD patients, these findings were most pronounced in the combination treatment group. As neutralising antibody responses are associated with protection, this observation may impact on decision-making regarding treatment and vaccination/antiviral strategies.