ABSTRACT
BackgroundA 3rd COVID-19 vaccination is currently recommended for patients under immunosuppression. However, a fast decline of antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein has been observed.ObjectivesIt remains unclear whether immunosuppressive therapy affects kinetics of humoral and cellular immune responses.Methods50 patients under immunosuppression and 42 healthy controls (HCs) received a 3rd dose of an mRNA-based vaccine and were monitored over a 12-weeks period. Humoral immune response was assessed 4 and 12 weeks after 3rd dose. Antibodies were quantified using the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Spike immunoassay against the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein. SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell responses were quantified by IFN-γ ELISpot assays. Adverse events, including SARS-CoV-2 infections, were monitored over a 12-week period.ResultsAt week 12, reduced anti-RBD antibody levels were observed in IMID patients as compared to HCs (median antibody level 5345 BAU/ml [1781 – 10208] versus 9650 BAU/ml [6633 - 16050], p < 0.001). Reduction in relative antibody levels was significantly higher in IMID patients as compared to HCs at week 12 (p < 0.001). Lowest anti-RBD antibody levels were detected in IMID patients who received biological diseases modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) or a combination therapy with conventional synthetic and biological DMARDs. Number of SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells against wildtype and Omicron variants remained stable over 12 weeks in IMID patients. No serious adverse events were reported.ConclusionDue to a fast decline in anti-RBD antibodies in IMID patients an early 4th vaccination should be considered in this vulnerable group of patients.REFERENCES:NIL.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsDaniel Mrak Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Felix Kartnig: None declared, Daniela Sieghart: None declared, Elisabeth Simader Speakers bureau: Lilly, Helga Radner Speakers bureau: Gilead, Merck Sharp and Pfizer, Peter Mandl: None declared, Lisa Göschl: None declared, Philipp Hofer: None declared, Thomas Deimel: None declared, Irina Gessl: None declared, Renate Kain Speakers bureau: Otsuka, Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Takeda Pharma, MEDahead and Janssen Cilag, Stefan Winkler: None declared, Josef S. Smolen Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Astro, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Gilead-Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, R-Pharma, Samsung, Sanofi, Chugai, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis-Sandoz Roche, Samsung and UCB, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novartis, and Roche, Thomas Perkmann: None declared, Helmuth Haslacher Grant/research support from: Glock Health, BlueSky Immunotherapies and Neutrolis, Daniel Aletaha Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Galapagos, Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, and Sanofi, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Galapagos, Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, and Sanofi, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, Galapagos, Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, and Sanofi, Leonhard Heinz: None declared, Michael Bonelli Consultant of: EliLilly.
ABSTRACT
Background. Though reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 is well documented, there remains uncertainty about the potential for more severe symptoms with reinfections compared to index infections. Methods. Patients who received SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing between March 1, 2020 and March 1, 2021 at New York City Health and Hospitals (NYC H+H) facilities and had two positive tests>=90 days apart were included in the analysis. Clinical and demographic data were extracted from the electronic medical record. Manual chart review was done to confirm symptomatology, assess COVID-19 related hospital admissions, and determine WHO disease severity. Patients were then classified as unlikely reinfection, possible reinfection, or probable reinfection based on symptomatology, PCR and antibody testing, and lack of alternative diagnoses. Patients were classified as 'unable to be assessed' if symptomatology could not be assessed for both episodes of PCR positivity. Results. During our study timeframe, 1,255,584 unique patients received at least one SARS-CoV-2 PCR test, 265 of whom had two positive tests>=90 days apart. We categorized 20 patients as unable to be assessed, 28 as unlikely reinfection (1 persistent PCR positivity, 27 unlikely true infection at index or second PCR-positive episode), and 217 as possible or probable reinfection. Of the 217, at their index episode 79 had an asymptomatic infection (36.4%) and 17 were severe or critical (7.8%). At their second episode, 162 patients had an asymptomatic infection (74.7%), and 5 were severe or critical (2.3%). Only 24 patients with possible/probable reinfection had a more severe COVID reinfection than index infection, and 20 of the 24 had asymptomatic index infections. Three patients were hospitalized at both episodes, and two deaths possibly attributable to COVID-19 reinfection were noted in this cohort. Figure 3: Change in WHO disease severity classification from index to second infection among probable/possible reinfection cases (n=217) Red indicates increase in disease severity from index to reinfection (n=24), blue indicates decrease in disease severity from index to reinfection (n=100), white indicates no change (n=74) and gray indicates unable to assess disease severity at index or second infection (n=19). Conclusion. COVID-19 reinfection was rare in a high incidence setting among patients tested at NYC H+H facilities. Disease severity was generally milder in reinfection, although severe and critical disease occurred in a small number of patients.These findings from earlier in the pandemic (presumably wild-type and alpha variant) provide data for comparison in understanding how reinfection is evolving with newer variants.