Humoral response among patients with interstitial lung disease vaccinated with the BNT162b2 SARS-Cov-2 vaccine: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) are at high risk of severe COVID-19 infection. Additionally, their anti-inflammatory and antifibrotic treatment may cause immunosuppression. Nevertheless, their ability to mount an adequate immune response to messenger RNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines was not evaluated. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the humoral response after the BNT162b2 vaccine among idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) patients treated with antifibrotic therapy and among non-IPF ILD patients treated with anti-inflammatory therapy. METHODS: We conducted an observational prospective cohort study to evaluate the level of anti-spike (S-IgG) antibodies after two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine in patients with ILD. The cohort included 40 patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) treated with anti-fibrotic therapy and 29 patients with non-IPF ILD treated with anti-inflammatory therapy. For S-IgG titer measurement, one serology test was drawn from all patients 4-6 months after the second vaccine dose. In addition a control group matched for age and sex was created from a healthy control cohort of 107 patients. The study was conducted in Rabin Medical Center (Israel) between June and August 2021. RESULTS: All patients in the anti-fibrotic arm were seropositive (40/40), corresponding to the matched control group (P = 1.0). The anti-fibrotic arm had a significantly lower median antibody titer in comparison to the matched control group (361.10 [IQR, 207-811] AU/ml vs. 820.75 [IQR, 459-1313] AU/ml; P < 0.001). Only 48.3% (14/29) of patients in the anti-inflammatory arm were seropositive in comparison to 100% (29/29) in the healthy control group (P < 0.001). The anti-inflammatory arm had a significantly lower median antibody titer in comparison to the healthy control group (39.6 [IQR, 4.25-165] AU/ml vs. 970.1 [IQR, 505-1926] AU/ml; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: IPF patients treated with antifibrotic therapy mount an adequate immune response after 2 doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine, and maintain a 100% seropositivity rate 4-6 months after vaccination. However, their antibody titer was reduced in comparison to a healthy control group. Among patients with non-IPF ILD treated with anti-inflammatory therapy, 48% were seronegative 4-6 months after the second vaccine dose. Moreover, treatment with rituximab caused significant immunosuppression, even in comparison to other anti-inflammatory treatments.

Serological response to a third booster dose of BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine among seronegative cancer patients.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer/BioNTech), given as a two-dose series, 3 weeks apart, elicits a serological response in 84-98% of patients with cancer, even if administered while undergoing anticancer treatments. Herein, we report the impact of a third (booster) dose of BNT162b2, delivered 6 months following the second vaccine dose. METHODS: This pilot study included four patients with cancer who were seronegative after two vaccine doses, and received a third (booster) dose of BNT162b2 at 6 months following the second vaccine dose. The four patients received the three vaccine doses between December 2020 and July 2021. Samples were evaluated with an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) that detects IgG (Immunoglobulin G) antibodies against the RBD (receptor-binding domain) of SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: At a mean time of 19 days (ranges 7-28) after the second vaccination, all four patients were seronegative for RBD-IgG. However, at a mean time of 21 days (ranges 20-22) after the third dose, three out of the four patients (75%) were now seropositive. Mean RBD-IgG titers were increased after the third vaccine dose from 0.37 to 2.81 (Student's t-test, p = 0.05, two-sided). CONCLUSIONS: Although limited by the small sample size, our findings suggest that a third (booster) dose administered to patients with cancer, who remain seronegative despite two doses of BNT162b2, may be efficacious in eliciting an antibody response.

Seropositivity and neutralising antibodies at six months after BNT162b2 vaccination in patients with solid tumours.

AIM: Patients with cancer are at an increased risk for severe coronavirus disease of 2019. We previously reported initial findings from a single centre prospective study evaluating antibody response after BNT162b2 vaccine, showing that adequate antibody response was achieved after two doses, but not after one, in patients with cancer vaccinated during anticancer therapy. Herein, we report a follow-up study, evaluating antibody response six months after the second vaccine dose. METHODS: The study included patients with solid tumours undergoing anticancer treatment, and immunocompetent health-care workers serving as controls. Serum titres of the receptor-binding domain (RBD) IgG and neutralising antibodies (Nabs) were measured approximately six months after the second vaccine dose. Complete blood count values were collected and evaluated as predictors for antibody response. RESULTS: The analysis included 93 patients with cancer (66.7% metastatic). Six months after the second vaccine dose (mean 176 ± 20 days), seropositivity rate among patients and controls was 83.9% versus 96.3% (p = 0.0001), respectively. Median RBD-IgG titre was lower among patients compared with controls (2.3 versus 3.2, p = 0.0002). Among seropositive individuals, median Nabs titre was similar between patients with cancer and controls (p = 0.566). Among patients with cancer, lymphocyte and neutrophil counts were not correlated with either RBD-IgG or Nabs titres. CONCLUSIONS: Seropositivity rates and RBD-IgG titre at six months after second BNT162b2 vaccine dose are lower among patients with cancer compared with healthy controls. However, Nabs titre is similar, suggesting a comparable protection among seropositive individuals. Lymphocyte count is not predictive of antibody response.

BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in immunocompromised patients: A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Trials of the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine showed 95% efficacy in preventing symptomatic disease; however, the trials excluded immunocompromised patients (ICPs). We aim at analyzing antibody response in ICPs. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted at Sheba Medical Center, Israel, between January and April 2020, in 1274 participants who received the vaccine, including 1002 ICPs and 272 immunocompetent healthcare workers (HCWs). Antibodies were measured two-four weeks after vaccination by SARS-CoV-2 anti-receptor binding domain IgG antibodies (RBD IgG) and pseudo-virus neutralization assays. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to identify factors associated with vaccine-induced antibody response. Adverse events (AEs) were monitored. FINDINGS: RBD-IgG antibodies were detected in 154/156 (98.7%) of patients with HIV, 75/90 (83.3%) with solid malignancies, 149/187 (79.7%) with myeloma, 83/111 (74.8%) following hematopoietic stem cell transplants, 25/36 (69.4%) following liver transplantation, 26/43 (60.5%) with myelodysplastic syndrome, 96/188 (51.0%) with chronic lymphocytic leukemia/non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, 50/110 (45.5%) following kidney transplantation, 15/80 (18.8%) following heart transplantation, and 269/272 (98.9%) in controls. There was a significant correlation r = 0.74 (95%CI 0.69,0.78) between RBD-binding IgG and neutralizing antibodies in all groups. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that age > 65 years (OR 0.41,95%CI 0.30,0.57) and underlying immunosuppression (OR 0.02,95%CI 0.01,0.07) were significantly associated with a non-reactive response of IgG antibodies. HIV patients showed a similar immunological response as healthy adults. The vaccine was safe without any episodes of rejection, graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) or allergy. Immunocompetent HCWs experienced significantly more AEs than ICPs. INTERPRETATION: Antibody response to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was highly variable among different ICPs; thus, individual recommendations should be provided for the different immunosuppression states.

Efficacy and safety of BNT162b2 vaccination in patients with solid cancer receiving anticancer therapy - a single centre prospective study.

AIM: Patients with cancer are at an increased risk for severe coronavirus disease of 2019, thus data on the safety and efficacy of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines are essential. We conducted this prospective study of patients with cancer vaccinated with BNT162b2 and monitored for antibody response and safety. The aim was to evaluate the rate of seropositivity and define predictors for non-reactive immune response. Furthermore, we evaluated the frequency and the severity of adverse events. METHODS: The study included patients with solid tumours undergoing anticancer treatment and immunocompetent health-care workers serving as controls. Serum titres of the receptor-binding domain (RBD) immunoglobulin G (IgG) and neutralising antibodies were measured 2-4 weeks after each vaccine dose. RESULTS: The analysis included 129 patients, of which 70.5% patients were metastatic. Patients were treated with chemotherapy (55%), immunotherapy (34.1%), biological agents (24.8%), hormonal treatment (8.5%) and radiotherapy (4.6%), that were given either alone or in combinations. The seropositivity rate among patients with cancer and controls was 32.4% versus 59.8% (p < 0.0001) after the first dose and 84.1% versus 98.9% (p < 0.0001) after the second dose, respectively. Median RBD-IgG titre was lower among patients than controls (p < 0.0001). Patients who were seronegative after the second dose had significantly more comorbidities than that with patients with seropositivity (77.8% vs 41.1%, respectively, p = 0.0042). CONCLUSION: Adequate antibody response after BNT162b2 vaccination was achieved after two doses but not after one dose, in patients with cancer vaccinated during anticancer therapy.

Long COVID in Children: Observations From a Designated Pediatric Clinic.

Systematic data are lacking on pediatric long COVID. This study prospectively assessed 90 children with persistent symptoms who presented to a designated multidisciplinary clinic for long COVID. In nearly 60%, symptoms were associated with functional impairment at 1-7 months after the onset of infection. A comprehensive structured evaluation revealed mild abnormal findings in approximately half the patients, mainly in the respiratory aspect.

Effects of Wearing Facemasks During Brisk Walks: A COVID-19 Dilemma.

BACKGROUND: During the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, wearing facemasks became obligatory worldwide. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of facemasks on gas exchange. METHODS: Healthy adults were assessed at rest and during slow and brisk 5-minute walks, with and without masks. We monitored O2 saturation, end-tidal carbon dioxide (EtCO2), and heart and respiratory rates. Participants graded their subjective difficulty and completed individual sensations questionnaires. RESULTS: Twenty-one participants with a median age of 38 years (range, 29-57 years) were recruited. At rest, all vital signs remained normal, without and with masks. However, during slow and brisk walks, EtCO2 increased; the rise was significantly higher while wearing masks: slow walk, mean EtCO2 (mmHg) change +4.5 ± 2.4 versus +2.9 ± 2.3, P = .004; brisk walk EtCO2 change +8.4 ± 3.0 versus +6.2 ± 4.0, P = .009, with and without masks, respectively. Wearing masks was also associated with higher proportions of participant hypercarbia (EtCO2 range, 46-49 mmHg) compared with walking without masks, though this was only partially significant. Mean O2-saturation remained stable (98%) while walking without masks but decreased by 1.2 % ± 2.2 while walking briskly with a mask (P = .01). Mild desaturation (O2 range, 93% to 96%) was noted during brisk walks among 43% of participants with masks, compared with only 14% without masks (P = .08). Borg's scale significantly increased while walking with a mask, for both slow and brisk walks (P < .001). Sensations of difficulty breathing and shortness of breath were more common while walking with masks. CONCLUSION: While important to prevent viral spread, wearing facemasks during brisk 5-minute walks might be associated with mild hypercarbia and desaturation. The clinical significance of these minor gas exchange abnormalities is unclear and should be further investigated.