Sustained cell-mediated but not humoral responses in rituximab-treated rheumatic patients after vaccination against SARS-CoV-2.

OBJECTIVES: B cell depleting monoclonal antibodies are associated with increased COVID-19 severity and impaired immune response to vaccination. We aimed to assess the humoral and cell mediated (CMI) immune response after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in rituximab (RTX)-treated rheumatic patients. METHODS: Serum and whole blood samples were collected from rituximab (RTX)-treated rheumatic patients 3-6 months after last vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. Serum was tested by ELISA for quantitative detection of anti-spike SARS-CoV-2 IgG. Cell-mediated variant-specific SARS-CoV-2 immunity (CMI) was assessed by interferon-γ release assay Covi-FERON FIA. Patients were interviewed for breakthrough COVID-19 infection (BTI) 3 months post sampling. RESULTS: Sixty patients were studied after a median (IQR) of 179 (117-221.5) days from last vaccine to sampling. Forty (66.7%) patients had positive Covi-FERON and 23 (38.3%) had detectable anti-spike IgG. Covi-FERON positive patients had lower median RTX cumulative dose [6 (4-10.75) vs 11 (6.75-14.75) grams, (p= 0.019). Patients with positive anti-spike IgG had received fewer RTX cycles [2 (2-4) vs 6 (4-8), p= 0.002) and cumulative dose [4 (3-7) vs 10 (6.25-13) grams, p= 0.002] and had shorter time from last vaccination to sampling [140 (76-199) vs 192 (128-230) days, p= 0.047). Thirty-seven percent were positive only for Covi-FERON and 7% only for anti-spike IgG. Twenty (33.3%) BTI occurred post sampling, exclusively during Omicron variant predominance. The proportion of patients with CMI response against Delta variant was lower in patients who experienced BTI (25% vs 55%, p= 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Four out of ten RTX-treated vaccinated patients show lasting cell-mediated immune response despite undetectable anti-spike antibodies. Cumulative RTX dose affects both humoral and cell-mediated responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Cell-mediated immune responses call for attention as a vaccine efficacy marker against SARS-CoV-2.

HIV treatment strategies across Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe: New times, old problems.

INTRODUCTION: In the last decade, substantial differences in the epidemiology of, antiretroviral therapy (ART) for, cascade of care in and support to people with HIV in vulnerable populations have been observed between countries in Western Europe, Central Europe (CE) and Eastern Europe (EE). The aim of this study was to use a survey to explore whether ART availability and therapies have evolved in CE and EE according to European guidelines. METHODS: The Euroguidelines in Central and Eastern Europe (ECEE) Network Group conducted two identical multicentre cross-sectional online surveys in 2019 and 2021 concerning the availability and use of antiretroviral drugs (boosted protease inhibitors [bPIs], integrase inhibitors [INSTIs] and nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors [NRTIs]), the introduction of a rapid ART start strategy and the use of two-drug regimens (2DRs) for starting or switching ART. We also investigated barriers to the implementation of these strategies in each region. RESULTS: In total, 18 centres participated in the study: four from CE, six from EE and eight from Southeastern Europe (SEE). Between those 2 years, older PIs were less frequently used and darunavir-based regimens were the main PIs (83%); bictegravir-based and tenofovir alafenamide-based regimens were introduced in CE and SEE but not in EE. The COVID-19 pandemic did not significantly interrupt delivery of ART in most centres. Two-thirds of centres adopted a rapid ART start strategy, mainly in pregnant women and to improve linkage of care in vulnerable populations. The main obstacle to rapid ART start was that national guidelines in several countries from all three regions did not support such as strategy or required laboratory tests first; an INSTI/NRTI combination was the most commonly prescribed regimen (75%) and was exclusively prescribed in SEE. 2DRs are increasingly used for starting or switching ART (58%), and an INSTI/NRTI was the preferred regimen (75%) in all regions and exclusively prescribed in SEE, whereas the use of bPIs declined. Metabolic disorders and adverse drug reactions were the main reasons for starting a 2DR; in the second survey, HIV RNA <500 000 c/ml and high cluster of differentiation (CD)-4 count emerged as additional important reasons. CONCLUSIONS: In just 2 years and in spite of the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, significant achievements concerning ART availability and strategies have occurred in CE, EE and SEE that facilitate the harmonization of those strategies with the European AIDS Clinical Society guidelines. Few exceptions exist, especially in EE. Continuous effort is needed to overcome various obstacles (administrative, financial, national guideline restrictions) in some countries.

Real-Life Effectiveness and Safety of Baricitinib as Adjunctive to Standard-of-Care Treatment in Hospitalized Patients With Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic options for hospitalized patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (sCOVID-19) are limited. Preliminary data have shown promising results with baricitinib, but real-life experience is lacking. We assessed the safety and effectiveness of add-on baricitinib to standard-of-care (SOC) including dexamethasone in hospitalized patients with sCOVID-19. METHODS: This study is a 2-center, observational, retrospective cohort study of patients with sCOVID-19, comparing outcomes and serious events between patients treated with SOC versus those treated with SOC and baricitinib combination. RESULTS: We included 369 patients with sCOVID-19 (males 66.1%; mean age 65.2 years; median symptom duration 6 days). The SOC was administered in 47.7% and combination in 52.3%. Patients treated with the combination reached the composite outcome (intensive care unit [ICU] admission or death) less frequently compared with SOC (22.3% vs 36.9%, P = .002). Mortality rate was lower with the combination in the total cohort (14.7% vs 26.6%, P = .005), and ICU admission was lower in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (29.7% vs 44.8%, P = .03). By multivariable analysis, age (odds ratio [OR] = 1.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.36-2.44, per 10-year increase), partial pressure of oxygen/fraction of inspired oxygen ratio (OR = 0.60, 95% CI = .52-0.68, per 10 units increase), and use of high-flow nasal cannula (OR = 0.34; 95% CI, .16-0.74) were associated with the composite outcome, whereas baricitinib use was marginally not associated with the composite outcome (OR = 0.52; 95% CI, .26-1.03). However, baricitinib use was found to be significant after inverse-probability weighted regression (OR = 0.93; 95% CI, .87-0.99). No difference in serious events was noted between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: In real-life settings, addition of baricitinib to SOC in patients hospitalized with sCOVID-19 is associated with decreased mortality without concerning safety signals.

Association of COVID-19 with impaired endothelial glycocalyx, vascular function and myocardial deformation 4 months after infection.

AIMS: SARS-CoV-2 infection may lead to endothelial and vascular dysfunction. We investigated alterations of arterial stiffness, endothelial coronary and myocardial function markers 4 months after COVID-19 infection. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a case-control prospective study, we included 70 patients 4 months after COVID-19 infection, 70 age- and sex-matched untreated hypertensive patients (positive control) and 70 healthy individuals. We measured (i) perfused boundary region (PBR) of the sublingual arterial microvessels (increased PBR indicates reduced endothelial glycocalyx thickness), (ii) flow-mediated dilatation (FMD), (iii) coronary flow reserve (CFR) by Doppler echocardiography, (iv) pulse wave velocity (PWV), (v) global left and right ventricular longitudinal strain (GLS), and (vi) malondialdehyde (MDA), an oxidative stress marker, thrombomodulin and von Willebrand factor as endothelial biomarkers. COVID-19 patients had similar CFR and FMD as hypertensives (2.48 ± 0.41 vs. 2.58 ± 0.88, P = 0.562, and 5.86 ± 2.82% vs. 5.80 ± 2.07%, P = 0.872, respectively) but lower values than controls (3.42 ± 0.65, P = 0.0135, and 9.06 ± 2.11%, P = 0.002, respectively). Compared to controls, both COVID-19 and hypertensives had greater PBR5-25 (2.07 ± 0.15 µm and 2.07 ± 0.26 µm, P = 0.8 vs. 1.89 ± 0.17 µm, P = 0.001), higher PWV (carotid-femoral PWV 12.09 ± 2.50 vs. 11.92 ± 2.94, P = 0.7 vs. 10.04 ± 1.80 m/s, P = 0.036) and impaired left and right ventricular GLS (-19.50 ± 2.56% vs. -19.23 ± 2.67%, P = 0.864 vs. -21.98 ± 1.51%, P = 0.020 and -16.99 ± 3.17% vs. -18.63 ± 3.20%, P = 0.002 vs. -20.51 ± 2.28%, P < 0.001). MDA and thrombomodulin were higher in COVID-19 patients than both hypertensives and controls (10.67 ± 0.32 vs 1.76 ± 0.03, P = 0.003 vs. 1.01 ± 0.05 nmol/L, P = 0.001 and 3716.63 ± 188.36 vs. 3114.46 ± 179.18 pg/mL, P = 0.017 vs. 2590.02 ± 156.51 pg/mL, P < 0.001). Residual cardiovascular symptoms at 4 months were associated with oxidative stress and endothelial dysfunction markers. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 may cause endothelial and vascular dysfunction linked to impaired cardiac performance 4 months after infection.

Increased influenza vaccination rates in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases during the Covid-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study.

To assess non-compliance and potential changes in seasonal flu vaccination coverage before and during the Covid-19 pandemic in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs). Consecutive patients with ARDs followed-up in 2 tertiary hospitals were telephone-interviewed (December 12-30, 2020) regarding seasonal flu vaccination during the 2019/20 and 2020/21 time periods. Self-reported disease flares that occurred after flu vaccination, as well as reasons for non-vaccination were recorded. One thousand fifteen patients were included. The rate of flu vaccination increased from 76% before to 83% during the COVID-19 pandemic (p = 0.0001). The rate of self-reported disease flares was < 1% among vaccinated patients. Reasons for not vaccination in both periods, respectively, included: 'was not recommended by their rheumatologists' (35.0vs.12.2%, p < 0.0001), 'did not feel that they would have any benefit' (36.9 vs. 32.6%), felt unsafe to do so (27.5 vs. 30.2%), or other reasons (18.9 vs. 23.8%). By multivariate analysis, age [OR = 1.03 (95% CI 1.02-1.04)] vs. [1.04 (95% CI 1.02-1.05)] and treatment with biologics [OR = 1.66 (95% CI 1.22-2.24) vs. [1.68 (95% CI 1.19-2.38)] were independent factors associated with vaccination in both periods. These findings, although are temporally encouraging, emphasize the need for continuous campaigns aiming at increasing patients' and physicians' awareness about the benefits of vaccination.