Kinetics of cellular and humoral immunogenicity and effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 booster vaccination in hematologic neoplasms.

Data on the effect of booster SARS-CoV-2 vaccination are mainly focused on humoral immunogenicity, while the kinetics of vaccine-induced cellular response and its correlation with effectiveness in hematologic patients are less explored. Our aim was to evaluate the longitudinal cellular and humoral immunogenicity induced by two and three doses of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in 270 patients with hematologic malignancies, and its relationship with the severity of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection. Results indicate that at 23 weeks after the second dose, the seroconversion rate declined from 68.5% to 59.3%, with a reduction in median anti-S titers from 1577 to 456 BAU/mL, mainly in patients over 65 years of age or chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients undergoing active therapy. Cellular immunogenicity, however, remained positive in 84.4% of cases. A third vaccine dose seroconverted 42.7% (41/96) and triggered cellular response in 36.7% (11/30) of previously negative patients. Notably, only 7.2% (15/209) of patients failed to develop both humoral and cellular response. Active therapy, anti-CD20 antibodies, lymphopenia, hypogammaglobulinemia, and low CD19+ cell count were associated with poor humoral response, while active disease, GvHD immunosuppressive therapy, lymphopenia, and low CD3+ , CD4+ , CD56+ cell count determined an impaired cellular response. After 13.8 months of follow-up, the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was 24.8% (67/270), including 6 (9%) severe/critical cases associated with a weaker cellular (median interferon gamma (IFN-γ) 0.19 vs. 0.35 IU/mL) and humoral response (median anti-S titer <4.81 vs. 788 BAU/mL) than asymptomatic/mild cases. In conclusion, SARS-CoV-2 booster vaccination improves humoral response and COVID-19 severity is associated with impaired vaccine-induced immunogenicity.

Enhanced safety surveillance of GSK's quadrivalent seasonal influenza vaccine in Germany and Spain (2021/2022 season) using an electronic patient-reported outcome system for vaccine safety remote monitoring.

BACKGROUND: Seasonal influenza epidemics are managed through vaccination each winter in the European Union, to prevent infections, complications, and deaths. As circulating virus strains vary unpredictably, vaccines are reformulated annually, and their safety monitored rapidly and continuously at the start of each season, following European Medicines Agency guidelines.Seasonal influenza epidemics are managed through vaccination each winter in the European Union, to prevent infections, complications, and deaths. As circulating virus strains vary unpredictably, vaccines are reformulated annually, and their safety monitored rapidly and continuously at the start of each season, following European Medicines Agency guidelines. METHODS: This enhanced safety surveillance study assessed pre-specified and other adverse events (AEs) occurring within 7 days of GSK's inactivated quadrivalent seasonal influenza vaccine (IIV4) in children and adults in Spain and Germany. As the study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic (2021/2022 season), data were collected electronically, using a web portal or call center. RESULTS: Safety was assessed in 737 participants (median age 49 and 9 years in Germany and Spain, respectively, 19.3% with a chronic medical condition). After Dose 1 and Dose 2, respectively, 332 (45.1%) and 5 (26.3%) participants reported at least one AE, primarily pre-specified AEs. The most common AEs after Dose 1 (adults and children) were injection site pain, swelling or erythema, headache, and fatigue. After Dose 2 (in children), the most common AEs were injection site pain, rhinorrhea, fatigue, and decreased appetite. No new or unexpected safety issues were identified. CONCLUSION: This study supports and confirms the safety profile of GSK's IIV4 in all age groups with a vaccine indication. The new electronic safety reporting method (with response rates of 75.4% following Dose 1 and 100% following Dose 2) provides an alternative for future studies to reduce the burden on sites or in case site visits are not feasible.

Reactogenicity to the mRNA-1273 Booster According to Previous mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination.

The objective of this study was to assess the local and systemic adverse reactions after the administration of a COVID-19 mRNA-1273 booster between December 2021 and February 2022 by comparing the type of mRNA vaccine used as primary series (mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2) and homologous versus heterologous booster in health care workers (HCW). A cross-sectional study was performed in HCW at a tertiary hospital in Barcelona, Spain. A total of 17% of booster recipients responded to the questionnaire. The frequency of reactogenicity after the mRNA-1273 booster (88.5%) was similar to the mRNA-1273 primary doses (85.8%), and higher than the BNT162b2 primary doses (71.1%). The reactogenicity was similar after receiving a heterologous booster compared to a homologous booster (88.0% vs. 90.2%, p = 0.3), and no statistically significant differences were identified in any local or systemic reactions. A higher frequency of medical leave was identified in the homologous booster dose group vs. the heterologous booster dose group (AOR 1.45; 95% CI: 1.00-2.07; p = 0.045). Our findings could be helpful in improving vaccine confidence toward heterologous combinations in the general population and in health care workers.

Exposing and Overcoming Limitations of Clinical Laboratory Tests in COVID-19 by Adding Immunological Parameters; A Retrospective Cohort Analysis and Pilot Study.

Background: Two years since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic no predictive algorithm has been generally adopted for clinical management and in most algorithms the contribution of laboratory variables is limited. Objectives: To measure the predictive performance of currently used clinical laboratory tests alone or combined with clinical variables and explore the predictive power of immunological tests adequate for clinical laboratories. Methods: Data from 2,600 COVID-19 patients of the first wave of the pandemic in the Barcelona area (exploratory cohort of 1,579, validation cohorts of 598 and 423 patients) including clinical parameters and laboratory tests were retrospectively collected. 28-day survival and maximal severity were the main outcomes considered in the multiparametric classical and machine learning statistical analysis. A pilot study was conducted in two subgroups (n=74 and n=41) measuring 17 cytokines and 27 lymphocyte phenotypes respectively. Findings: 1) Despite a strong association of clinical and laboratory variables with the outcomes in classical pairwise analysis, the contribution of laboratory tests to the combined prediction power was limited by redundancy. Laboratory variables reflected only two types of processes: inflammation and organ damage but none reflected the immune response, one major determinant of prognosis. 2) Eight of the thirty variables: age, comorbidity index, oxygen saturation to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, C-reactive protein, aspartate aminotransferase/alanine aminotransferase ratio, fibrinogen, and glomerular filtration rate captured most of the combined statistical predictive power. 3) The interpretation of clinical and laboratory variables was moderately improved by grouping them in two categories i.e., inflammation related biomarkers and organ damage related biomarkers; Age and organ damage-related biomarker tests were the best predictors of survival, and inflammatory-related ones were the best predictors of severity. 4) The pilot study identified immunological tests (CXCL10, IL-6, IL-1RA and CCL2), that performed better than most currently used laboratory tests. Conclusions: Laboratory tests for clinical management of COVID 19 patients are valuable but limited predictors due to redundancy; this limitation could be overcome by adding immunological tests with independent predictive power. Understanding the limitations of tests in use would improve their interpretation and simplify clinical management but a systematic search for better immunological biomarkers is urgent and feasible.

Local and Systemic Adverse Reactions to mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Comparing Two Vaccine Types and Occurrence of Previous COVID-19 Infection.

The aim of this study was to assess adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines, comparing the BNT162b2 or the mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines and the presence and seriousness of a previous COVID-19 infection. We conducted a cross-sectional online survey of vaccinated healthcare workers at a tertiary hospital in Barcelona (Spain). Thirty-eight percent of vaccine recipients responded to the questionnaire. We compared the prevalence of adverse reactions by vaccine type and history of COVID-19 infections. A total of 2373 respondents had received the BNT162b2 vaccine, and 506 the mRNA-1273 vaccine. The prevalence of at least one adverse reaction with doses 1 and 2 was 41% and 70%, respectively, in the BNT162b2 group, and 60% and 92% in the mRNA-1273 group (p < 0.001). The BNT162b2 group reported less prevalence of all adverse reactions. Need for medical leave was significantly more frequent among the mRNA-1273 group (12% versus 4.6% p < 0.001). Interestingly, respondents with a history of allergies or chronic illnesses did not report more adverse reactions. The frequency of adverse reactions with dose 2 was 96% (95% CI 88-100%) for those with a history of COVID-19 related hospitalization, and 86% (95% CI 83-89%) for those with mild or moderate symptomatic COVID-19, significantly higher than for participants with no history of COVID-19 infections (67%, 95% CI 65-69%). Our results could help inform vaccine recipients of the probability of their having adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines.

Safety Profile of GSK's Inactivated Quadrivalent Seasonal Influenza Vaccine in Belgium, Germany and Spain: Passive Enhanced Safety Surveillance Study for the 2019/2020 Influenza Season.

INTRODUCTION: Seasonal influenza infects millions annually in Europe. Annual influenza vaccination is the most effective measure to reduce the risk of infection and its complications, especially among young children and older adults. OBJECTIVE: We assessed adverse event (AE) frequency after receiving GSK's inactivated quadrivalent seasonal influenza vaccine (IIV4). METHODS: A passive enhanced safety surveillance study was conducted in Belgium, Germany, and Spain. Adults who had received GSK's IIV4 or the parent(s)/guardian(s)/legally acceptable representative(s) of children given the vaccine were invited to complete an adverse drug reaction (ADR) card to document AEs experienced within 7 days post vaccination. RESULTS: A total of 1082 participants (51.6% females) received GSK's IIV4, including 115 children < 9 years of age who received two doses. The ADR card return rate was 97.0% (n = 1049) after dose 1 and 100% (n = 115) after dose 2. All participants in Belgium and Germany were adults. In Spain, 71.2% were children. After dose 1, 39.2% reported one or more AE. The most frequent AEs category was "general disorders and administration site conditions" (GDASC). AEs were most frequently reported in adults aged 18-65 years (47.2%), followed by children aged 6 months-17 years (38.1%), and adults aged > 65 years (31.6%). After dose 2, 7.8% reported one or more AE, and GDASC was again the most frequent AE category. There were no serious AEs related to GSK's IIV4 within 7 days post vaccination. CONCLUSION: No serious AEs related to GSK's IIV4 within 7 days post vaccination were reported. This study supports the favourable risk-benefit safety profile of GSK's IIV4.

Seasonal influenza infects millions annually in Europe, especially young children and older adults. Annual influenza vaccination is the most effective measure to reduce the risk of infection and its complications. As the wild influenza virus strains change every year, the composition of the influenza vaccine changes as well. Since the vaccine is produced in the same way over the years, extensive safety studies are no longer required by regulatory authorities. Instead, monitoring of any unwanted medical incidents (adverse events) after vaccination is required. For the 2019/2020 season, we monitored the adverse events reported by a representative sample of people in Belgium, Germany, and Spain within 7 days after receiving GSK's seasonal influenza vaccine.Of the 1082 people who received the first dose of the vaccine, 39% reported at least one adverse event, such as pain and swelling at the injection site, tiredness, fever, headache, or dizziness. A total of 115 children under 9 years of age received two doses 4 weeks apart. After their second dose, few of these children (8%) reported adverse events. The most frequent adverse events were fever, swelling and pain at the injection site, runny nose, or irritability. No serious adverse events were reported after either the first or second dose.No serious adverse events related to GSK's seasonal influenza vaccine within the 7 days after vaccination were reported. This study supports the favourable risk­benefit safety profile of GSK's seasonal influenza vaccine.

Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Nursing Homes, Barcelona, Spain, April 2020.

During the coronavirus disease pandemic in Spain, from April 10-24, 2020, a total of 5,869 persons were screened for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 at nursing homes. Among residents, 768 (23.9%) tested positive; among staff, 403 (15.2%). Of those testing positive, 69.7% of residents and 55.8% of staff were asymptomatic.