Immune Response to Seasonal Influenza Vaccination in Multiple Sclerosis Patients Receiving Cladribine.

Cladribine has been approved for the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS) and its administration results in a long-lasting depletion of lymphocytes. As lymphopenia is known to hamper immune responses to vaccination, we evaluated the immunogenicity of the influenza vaccine in patients undergoing cladribine treatment at different stages vs. controls. The antibody response in 90 cladribine-treated MS patients was prospectively compared with 10 control subjects receiving platform immunotherapy (NCT05019248). Serum samples were collected before and six months after vaccination. Response to vaccination was determined by the hemagglutination-inhibition test. Postvaccination seroprotection rates against influenza A were comparable in cladribine-treated patients and controls (H1N1: 94.4% vs. 100%; H3N2: 92.2% vs. 90.0%). Influenza B response was lower in the cladribine cohort (61.1% vs. 80%). The increase in geometric mean titers was lower in the cladribine group vs. controls (H1N1: +98.5 vs. +188.1; H3N2: +225.3 vs. +300.0; influenza B: +40.0 vs. +78.4); however, titers increased in both groups for all strains. Seroprotection was achieved irrespective of vaccination timing and lymphocyte subset counts at the time of vaccination in the cladribine cohort. To conclude, cladribine-treated MS patients can mount an adequate immune response to influenza independently of treatment duration and time interval to the last cladribine administration.

Immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in relation to peripheral immune cell profiles among patients with multiple sclerosis receiving ocrelizumab.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination has proven to be effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission and severe disease courses. However, immunocompromised patients have not been included in clinical trials and real-world clinical data point to an attenuated immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines among patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) receiving immunomodulatory therapies. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study including 59 ocrelizumab (OCR)-treated patients with MS who received SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Anti-SARS-CoV-2-antibody titres, routine blood parameters and peripheral immune cell profiles were measured prior to the first (baseline) and at a median of 4 weeks after the second vaccine dose (follow-up). Moreover, the SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell response and peripheral B cell subsets were analysed at follow-up. Finally, vaccination-related adverse events were assessed. RESULTS: After vaccination, we found anti-SARS-CoV-2(S) antibodies in 27.1% and a SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell response in 92.7% of MS cases. T cell-mediated interferon (IFN)-γ release was more pronounced in patients without anti-SARS-CoV-2(S) antibodies. Antibody titres positively correlated with peripheral B cell counts, time since last infusion and total IgM levels. They negatively correlated with the number of previous infusion cycles. Peripheral plasma cells were increased in antibody-positive patients. A positive correlation between T cell response and peripheral lymphocyte counts was observed. Moreover, IFN-γ release was negatively correlated with the time since the last infusion. CONCLUSION: In OCR-treated patients with MS, the humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is attenuated while the T cell response is preserved. However, it is still unclear whether T or B cell-mediated immunity is required for effective clinical protection. Nonetheless, given the long-lasting clinical effects of OCR, monitoring of peripheral B cell counts could facilitate individualised treatment regimens and might be used to identify the optimal time to vaccinate.

Ocrelizumab Extended Interval Dosing in Multiple Sclerosis in Times of COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical consequences of extended interval dosing (EID) of ocrelizumab in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: In our retrospective, multicenter cohort study, we compared patients with RRMS on EID (defined as ≥4-week delay of dose interval) with a control group on standard interval dosing (SID) at the same period (January to December 2020). RESULTS: Three hundred eighteen patients with RRMS were longitudinally evaluated in 5 German centers. One hundred sixteen patients received ocrelizumab on EID (median delay [interquartile range 8.68 [5.09-13.07] weeks). Three months after the last ocrelizumab infusion, 182 (90.1%) patients following SID and 105 (90.5%) EID patients remained relapse free (p = 0.903). Three-month confirmed progression of disability was observed in 18 SID patients (8.9%) and 11 EID patients (9.5%, p = 0.433). MRI progression was documented in 9 SID patients (4.5%) and 8 EID patients (6.9%) at 3-month follow-up (p = 0.232). Multivariate logistic regression showed no association between treatment regimen and no evidence of disease activity status at follow-up (OR: 1.266 [95% CI: 0.695-2.305]; p = 0.441). Clinical stability was accompanied by persistent peripheral CD19+ B-cell depletion in both groups (SID vs EID: 82.6% vs 83.3%, p = 0.463). Disease activity in our cohort was not associated with CD19+ B-cell repopulation. CONCLUSION: Our data support EID of ocrelizumab as potential risk mitigation strategy in times of the COVID-19 pandemic. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class IV evidence that for patients with RRMS, an EID of at least 4 weeks does not diminish effectiveness of ocrelizumab.

"Neurological manifestations of COVID-19" - guideline of the German society of neurology.

Infection with the new severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) leads to a previously unknown clinical picture, which is known as COVID-19 (COrona VIrus Disease-2019) and was first described in the Hubei region of China. The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has implications for all areas of medicine. It directly and indirectly affects the care of neurological diseases. SARS-CoV-2 infection may be associated with an increased incidence of neurological manifestations such as encephalopathy and encephalomyelitis, ischemic stroke and intracerebral hemorrhage, anosmia and neuromuscular diseases. In October 2020, the German Society of Neurology (DGN, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Neurologie) published the first guideline on the neurological manifestations of the new infection. This S1 guideline provides guidance for the care of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection regarding neurological manifestations, patients with neurological disease with and without SARS-CoV-2 infection, and for the protection of healthcare workers. This is an abbreviated version of the guideline issued by the German Neurological society and published in the Guideline repository of the AWMF (Working Group of Scientific Medical Societies; Arbeitsgemeinschaft wissenschaftlicher Medizinischer Fachgesellschaften).

Merits and culprits of immunotherapies for neurological diseases in times of COVID-19.

Immunosuppression and immunomodulation are valuable therapeutic approaches for managing neuroimmunological diseases. In times of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, clinicians must deal with the question of whether immunotherapy should currently be initiated or discontinued in neurological patients. Uncertainty exists especially because different national medical associations publish different recommendations on the extent to which immunotherapies must be continued, monitored, or possibly switched during the current pandemic. Based on the most recently available data both about the novel coronavirus and the approved immunotherapies for neurological diseases, we provide an updated overview that includes current treatment strategies and the associated COVID-19 risk, but also the potential of immunotherapies to treat COVID-19.

Risiken und Chancen von Immuntherapien in Zeiten der Coronavirus-2019-Pandemie

Immuntherapien stellen die essenzielle Grundlage der Behandlung von neuroinflammatorischen Erkrankungen dar. In Zeiten der Coronavirus-2019 (COVID-19)-Pandemie ergibt sich im klinischen Alltag jedoch zunehmend die Frage, ob eine Immuntherapie bei neurologischen Patienten aufgrund des potenziellen Infektionsrisikos eingeleitet, intensiviert, pausiert oder gar beendet werden sollte. Unsicherheit besteht v. a. deshalb, weil verschiedene nationale und internationale Fachgesellschaften diesbezüglich unterschiedliche Empfehlungen veröffentlichten. In diesem Artikel soll ein Überblick über die Wirkmechanismen von Immuntherapien und den daraus abzuleitenden Infektionsrisiken in Bezug auf COVID-19 (durch den Coronavirus verursachte Erkrankung) gegeben werden. Potenzielle Chancen und vorteilhafte Effekte einzelner Substrate in der Akuttherapie von COVID-19 werden diskutiert.