Neutralizing antibodies to Omicron after the fourth SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine dose in immunocompromised patients highlight the need of additional boosters (preprint)

Immunocompromised patients have been shown to have an impaired immune response to COVID-19 vaccines. Here we compared the B-cell, T-cell and neutralizing antibody response to WT and Omicron BA.2 SARS-CoV-2 virus after the fourth dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in patients with hematological malignancies (HM, n=71), solid tumors (ST, n=39) and immune-rheumatological (ID, n=25) diseases. We show that the T-cell response is similarly boosted by the fourth dose across the different subgroups, while the antibody response is improved only in patients not receiving B-cell targeted therapies, independent on the pathology. However, 9% of patients with anti-RBD antibodies did not have neutralizing antibodies to both virus variants, while an additional 5.7% did not have neutralizing antibodies to Omicron BA.2, making these patients particularly vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 infection. The increment of neutralizing antibodies was very similar towards Omicron BA.2 and WT virus after the third or fourth dose of vaccine, suggesting that there is no preferential skewing towards either virus variant with the booster dose. The only limited step is the amount of antibodies that are elicited after vaccination, thus increasing the probability of developing neutralizing antibodies to both variants of virus. Hence, additional booster doses are recommended to frail patients.

mRNA-COVID19 vaccination can be considered safe and tolerable for frail patients (preprint)

Background Frail patients are considered at relevant risk of complications due to COVID-19 infection and, for this reason, are prioritized candidates for vaccination. As these patients were originally not included in the registration trials, fear related to vaccine side-effects and disease worsening was one of the reasons for vaccine hesitancy. Herein we report the safety profile of the prospective, multicenter, national VAX4FRAIL study (NCT04848493) to evaluate vaccines in a large trans-disease cohort of patients with solid or hematological malignancies, neurological and rheumatological diseases. Methods Between March 3rd and September 2nd, 2021, 566 patients were evaluable for safety endpoint: 105 received the mRNA-1273 vaccine and 461 the BNT162b2 vaccine. Frail patients were defined per protocol as patients under treatment with hematological malignancies (131), solid tumors (191), immune-rheumatological diseases (86), and neurological diseases (158), including multiple sclerosis and generalized myasthenia. The impact of the vaccination on the health status of patients was assessed through a questionnaire focused on the first week after each vaccine dose. Results The most frequently reported moderate-severe adverse events were pain at the injection site (60.3% after the first dose, 55.4% after the second), fatigue (30.1% - 41.7%), bone pain (27.4% - 27.2%) and headache (11.8% - 18.9%). Risk factors associated with the occurrence of severe symptoms after vaccine administration were identified through a multivariate logistic regression analysis: age was associated with severe fever presentation (younger patients vs. middle-aged vs. older ones), females presented a higher probability of severe pain at the injection site, fatigue, headache, and bone pain; the mRNA-1237 vaccine was associated with a higher probability of severe pain at the injection site and fever. After the first dose, patients presenting a severe symptom were at a relevant risk of recurrence of the same severe symptom after the second one. Overall, 11 patients (1.9%) after the first dose and 7 (1.2%) after the second one required to postpone or suspend the disease-specific treatment. Finally, 2 fatal events occurred among our 566 patients. These two events were considered unrelated to the vaccine. Conclusions Our study reports that mRNA-COVID-19 vaccination is safe also in frail patients as expected side effects were manageable and had a minimum impact on patient care path.

Humoral and T-cell immune response after three doses of mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in fragile patients: the Italian VAX4FRAIL study (preprint)

BackgroundPatients with solid or hematological tumors, neurological and immune-inflammatory disorders represent potentially fragile subjects with increased risk to experience severe COVID-19 and inadequate response to SARS-CoV2 vaccination. MethodsWe designed a prospective Italian multicentric study to assess humoral and T-cell response to SARS-CoV2 vaccination in patients (n=378) with solid tumors (ST), hematological malignancies (HM), neurological (ND) and immuno-rheumatological diseases (ID). The immunogenicity of primary vaccination schedule and of the booster dose were analyzed. ResultsOverall, patient seroconversion rate after two doses was 62.1%. A significant lower rate was observed in HM (52.4%) and ID (51.9%) patients compared to ST (95.6%) and ND (70.7%); a lower median level of antibodies was detected in HM and ID versus the others (p<0.0001). A similar rate of patients with a positive SARS-CoV2 T-cell response was observed in all disease groups, with a higher level observed in the ND group. The booster dose improved humoral responses in all disease groups, although with a lower response in HM patients, while the T-cell response increased similarly in all groups. In the multivariable logistic model, the independent predictors for seroconversion were disease subgroups, type of therapies and age. Notably, the ongoing treatment known to affect the immune system was associated with the worst humoral response to vaccination (p<0.0001), but had no effects on the T-cell responses. ConclusionsImmunosuppressive treatment more than disease type per se is a risk factor for low humoral response after vaccination. The booster dose can improve both humoral and T-cell response. Articles main point- Lower rate of seroconversion was observed in fragile patients as compared to healthy controls - The booster dose improves humoral and T-cell response in all fragile patient groups - Immunosuppressive treatment was associated with the worst humoral response to vaccination, but had no effects on T-cell responses.

Transcriptional analysis of lung epithelial cells using WGCNA revealed the role of IRF9 and IFI6 genes in SARS-CoV-2 pathogenicity (preprint)

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak is an ongoing global health emergence, but the pathogenesis remains unclear. Here, we applied weighted gene co-expression network analysis to comprehensively characterize transcriptional changes in bronchial epithelium cells (NHBE and A549 cells) during SARS-CoV-2 infection. Our analysis identified a network highly correlated to COVID-19 pathogenicity based on MX1, IFIT1, ISG15, IFI6, DDX60, IRF9, PARP9, PGLYRP4, IL36G, SAA2 and IL-8 hub genes. The results also indicated a unique transcriptional signatures of infected cells including IFI6 and IRF9 as novel gene candidates and suggested their prospective mechanism in COVID-19 pathogenesis. The result of hub genes enrichment showed that the most correlation topic in biological process and KEGG were type I interferon signaling pathway, IL-17 signaling pathway, cytokine mediated signaling pathway, and defense response to virus categories which all play significant roles in restricting viral infection. Also according to the drug-target network, we recognized 54 FDA-approved drug candidates for other indications could potentially use for the treatment of COVID-19 patients through regulation of six hub genes of the co-expression network. Our findings also showed that the 19 experimentally validated miRNAs regulated the co-expression network through 5 hub genes (SLC19A3, FAM13A, PLA2G16, and HRASLS5). In conclusion, these hub genes had potential roles in the translational medicine and might become promising therapeutic targets further in vitro and in vivo experimental studies are needed to evaluate the role of above mentioned genes in COVID-19. 

COVID-19 SCREENING AND MONITORING OF ASYMPTOMATIC HEALTH WORKERS WITH A RAPID SEROLOGICAL TEST (preprint)

Background Health workers are at high risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and, if asymptomatic, for transmitting the virus on to fragile cancer patients. Materials and method We monitored health care workers (HCW) of our Cancer Institute with the rapid serological test Viva-DiagTM analyzing COVID-19 associated-IgG/IgM. Test were performed at time 0 and after 14 days; Rt-PCR and CLIA assays were also perfoRmed in positive Viva-DiagTM cases. 606 and 393 HCW had blood sample taken at time 0 and 14, respectively. Results Overall, 9 HCW (1.5%) resulted not-negative at Viva-DiagTM and one of them was confirmed positive for SARS-COV2 infection at RT-PCR oropharingeal swab. At time 0, all 9 cases showed some IgM expression and only one IgG; after 14 days IgM persisted in all cases while IgG became evident in 4 ones. A parallel CLIA test was performed in 23 quaratined subjetcs and in all Viva-Diag not negative cases. CLIA confirmed a positive level of IgM in 5/13 positive Viva-Diag cases; conversely, IgG was confirmed positive at CLIA in 4/5 cases positive at Viva-Diag. These results pose the question of different performances of the two tests. Conclusions Our study suggest that Viva-Diag assay can be of help in individualizing SARS_COV2 infected people fisrt of all in cohorts of subjetcs with high prevalence. Different performances of serological colorimetric and CLIA tools remain to be ascertained.

RAPID SEROLOGICAL TESTS HAVE A ROLE IN ASYMPTOMATIC HEALTH WORKERS COVID-19 SCREENING (preprint)

Health workers are at high risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and, if asymptomatic, for transmitting the virus on to fragile cancer patients. We screened 512 health workers of our Cancer Institute with rapid serological test Viva-Diag analyzing, with colorimetric test,IgG/IgM- COVID-19 associated. Five subjects (1%) resulted with Viva-Diag test not-negative for IgM. All of them had rt-PCR SARS-CoV-2 test negative while for 2 out of 5 cases, CLIA analysis confirmed positive IgM expression. In this original study on health workers we demonstrated that Viva-Diag is able to evidence subjects positive for IgM expression. However, discordant results with respect to rt-PCR and CLIA assays clearly refer to further studies to optimize the utilization of the serological test in asymptomatic and in at risk subjects.

Clinical meanings of rapid serological assay in patients tested for SARS-Co2 RT-PCR (preprint)

Background RT-PCR test for identifiction of viral nucleic acid is the current standard diagnostic method for the diagnosis of COVID-19 disease but technical reasons limit the utilization of this assay on large scale screenings. Method We verified in a consecutive series of 191 symptomatic patients the clinical information that new rapid serological colorimetric test qualitatively analyzing IgM/IgG expression can provide with respect to standard assay and with respect to clinical outcome of patients. Results Rapid serological test showed a sensitivity of 30% and a specificity of 89% with respect to the standard assay but, interestingly, these performances improve after 8 days of symptoms appearance. After 10 days of symptoms the predictive value of rapid serological test is higher than that of standard assay. When the behaviour of the two immunoglobulins was evaluated with respect to time length of symptoms appearance, no significant difference in immunoglobulins behaviour was shown. Conclusions The rapid serological test analyzed in the present study is candidate to provide information on immunoreaction of the subject to COVID-19 exposure.