Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Add filters

Document Type
Year range
Gastroenterology ; 162(7):S-162-S-163, 2022.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1967253


Background:Symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 primary vaccination among patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are generally similar to the general population,although symptoms after the second dose are more frequent and severe than after the first dose.Postvaccination symptoms after a 3rd mRNA vaccine dose in the predominantly immune-compromised IBD population is unknown.Methods:Adults with IBD participating in the prospective Coronavirus Risk Associations and Longitudinal Evaluation in IBD (CORALE-IBD) vaccine registry who received a 3rd mRNA vaccine dose were asked to complete a detailed symptom survey 1 week after vaccination.Symptoms were assessed across 11 organ systems,and graded as mild,moderate,or severe,or requiring hospitalization.“Severe+” referred to those with severe symptoms or who required hospitalization.We stratified by age (<or> 50 years) given prior distinct symptom profiles after dose 2 (D2).We also evaluated whether severe+ symptoms after D2 predicted severe+ symptoms after dose 3 (D3).Results:We included 524 participants (70% female, mean age 45 years) who received a 3rd mRNA vaccine through October 11, 2021.Most had Crohn's disease (71%), and 89% were on biologic therapies.Most (58%) had received primary vaccination with BNT562b2,and only 3.5% reported prior COVID infection at the time of initial vaccination.Overall, 97% of subjects received a 3rd dose with the same mRNA vaccine as in their initial series with the remainder receiving the other mRNA vaccine type.No participants received a 3rd dose with the Ad26.CoV.2 (J&J) vaccine. Overall, 41% reported symptoms after a 3rd dose,with symptoms generally more frequent and severe among those <55 years (Table).The most frequent postvaccination symptom was injection site pain (39%).Common systemic symptoms included fatigue/malaise (34%),headache (23%),and muscle, bone or joint symptoms (13%).These were all less frequent after D3 than after D2 (Figure).Gastrointestinal symptoms were reported by 8.8%, which was slightly more frequent than after D2 (7.8%).Among those with postvaccination symptoms, the proportion with severe symptoms after D3 was lower than D2 for fatigue/ malaise, headache, dizziness and lightheadedness, fever/chills, and rheumatologic symptoms, but was slightly higher than D2 for gastrointestinal symptoms.Severe+ symptoms were seen in 17% after D2 and in 14% after D3. Of those with severe+ symptoms after D2, 34% had severe+ symptoms after D3.In contrast, about 22% had severe+ symptoms after D3 but did not report severe+ symptoms after D2.Conclusion:The frequency and severity of symptoms after a 3rd mRNA vaccine dose are generally similar or lower than those after a second dose.Furthermore, prior severe+ symptoms after D2 do not necessarily predict severe+ symptoms after D3. Further evaluation of postvaccination gastrointestinal symptoms in this population is warranted. (Figure Presented) (Table Presented)

Gastroenterology ; 162(7):S-160, 2022.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1967250


Background: Vaccine-induced protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection is predominantly mediated by humoral immunity;protection against disease progression is primarily determined by cellular immunity. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have high rates of post-vaccination anti-Spike IgG [IgG(S)] seroconversion, but postvaccination immune responses relative to non-IBD controls have not been well described. We aimed to assess post-vaccination humoral (antibody) and cellular (T-cell) responses in IBD relative to healthcare worker (HCW) controls. Methods: We evaluated IBD patients enrolled in a US registry referred from 26 centers at 2, 8, and 16 weeks after completing 2 doses of SARSCoV- 2 mRNA vaccination and compared results to non-IBD non-immunosuppressed HCW participating in a parallel study. We analyzed plasma antibodies to the receptor binding domain of the viral spike protein using the SARS-CoV-2 IgG-II assay (Abbott Labs, Abbott Park, IL);IgG(S) > 50 AU/mL was defined as positive. Those with prior COVID were excluded. We also performed T-cell clonal analysis by T-cell receptor (TCR) immunosequencing at 8 weeks (Adaptive Biotechnologies, Seattle, WA). The breadth (number of unique sequences to a given protein) and depth (relative abundance of all the unique sequences to a given protein) of the T-cell clonal response were quantified using reference datasets. Analyses were adjusted for age, sex and vaccine type. Results: Overall, 1805 subjects were included (IBD n=1074 (65% Crohn's disease, 35% ulcerative colitis);HCW n=731). Age and sex were similar between both cohorts;Hispanic ethnicity and Asian race were less common among IBD than HCW (Table). Vaccine type included BNT162b2 (Pfizer) (75% of IBD, 98% of HCW) and the remainder mRNA-1274 (Moderna). IBD treatments included anti- TNF (46%), other biologics (33%), other immune suppressing therapy (9%), and no immune suppression (12%). Postvaccination antibody levels were lower among IBD than HCW both before and after adjusting for vaccine type (p<0.0001 each timepoint;Figure). After further restricting the IBD cohort to those on no immune-suppressive therapies, antibodies remained lower in IBD vs HCW at 2w (p=0.008) and 8w (p<0.0001), but not 16w (p=0.07). Among 321 subjects with available whole cell samples at 8 weeks (IBD n=163, HCW =158), Spikespecific TCR responses were similar between IBD and HCW for both clonal breadth and depth in both unadjusted and adjusted analyses;sub-analyses of those on biologics yielded similar results. Conclusion: Patients with IBD have dampened humoral responses, but similar cellular responses, after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination relative to HCW. These findings suggest a potentially greater risk of infection, but not of disease progression, among those with IBD, and should be considered to help guide booster dosing strategies for the IBD population. (Figure Presented) (Figure Presented) Figure: Post-vaccination immune responses: (A) Antibody responses are lower in IBD relative to non-IBD healthcare workers at 2, 8, and 16 weeks (p<0.0001 at each timepoint). In contrast, post-vaccination Spike-specific T-cell receptor clonal breadth (B1) and clonal depth (B2) at 8 weeks are similar in IBD compared to healthcare workers.

Blood ; 138:4428, 2021.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1582419


Decitabine (Dec) and Azacitidine (Aza) that target DNA methyltransferase 1 (DNMT1) are hypomethylating agents (HMAs) approved to treat acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in combination with Venetoclax (Ven). The combination is also used to treat high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes, especially TP53-mutated (TP53mut) cases in which responses to HMA alone are short-lived. In most patients (pts), however, myelosuppression from treatment leads to frequent Ven duration and/or dose-reductions, and/or cycle delays. An approach to decrease HMA-mediated myelosuppression but maintain S-phase dependent DNMT1-targeting, evaluated in a previous clinical trial (, is to administer noncytotoxic doses/concentrations of Dec (0.2 mg/kg;~5 mg/m 2) by a frequent-distributed schedule of 1X/week. An approach to decrease Ven mediated myelosuppression but maintain cooperation with HMA, shown in pre-clinical studies, is to administer a single-dose prior to HMA. Ven can depolarize mitochondrial membranes;mitochondrial membrane-potential is essential to function of the mitochondrial enzyme DHODH that produces cytidine/deoxycytidine that competes with HMA in cells. Thus, Ven prior to HMA dosing temporarily inhibits de novo pyrimidine synthesis, to counter a major mechanism of resistance to HMA in MDS/AML, without suppressing normal myelopoiesis ( We conducted a retrospective analysis of all pts with TP53mut MDS or AML treated with weekly Ven and low-dose subcutaneous Dec at our institution. We analyzed the characteristics of these pts, response to therapy, and outcomes using standard descriptive statistics. Mutational testing was performed using a commercial next-generation sequencing (NGS) panel. Five pts, 3 male and 2 female, with TP53mut MDS or AML were treated with weekly Ven 400 mg on D1 and subcutaneous Dec 0.2 mg/kg on D2, administered weekly in 28 day cycles. Two pts had MDS (1 de novo, 1 treatment related) and 3 pts had AML (1 de novo, 2 secondary from prior MDS). Four pts (80%) received the treatment in frontline, all with poor performance status (PS), and 1 pt (20%) had R/R disease. Median age at diagnosis was 79 years [41-82]. The only young pt had prolonged severe cytopenias after 1 cycle Dec standard dosing during the peak of COVID-19 pandemic so was switched to this regimen. Of the 4 frontline treated pts, 2 pts had high-risk MDS, and 2 pts had adverse risk AML. The R/R pt had high-risk MDS transformed to AML that was refractory to 2 prior lines of therapy: standard Aza/Ven x5 cycles, then standard Vyxeos. Disease cytogenetics were complex in all pts. 60% (3/5) pts had sole TP53mut on NGS, with median variant allelic frequency (VAF) 48% [28-79]. 80% (4/5) pts were transfusion dependent prior to treatment. Median time to initiating therapy was 7 days from initial or refractory diagnosis [3-59] and median follow-up was 7.8 months (mo) [2.9-11.4]. The overall response rate (ORR) was 100%: 4/4 frontline pts had complete remissions (CR), and the 1 R/R pt achieved morphologic leukemia-free state (MLFS). Median time to best response was 2.9 mo. 50% (2/4) pts became transfusion independent. 40% (2/5) pts lost their TP53mut at best response, and another 40% (2/5) pts had significant reductions (83% and 38%) in TP53 mut VAF. The regimen was well tolerated with no pts stopping therapy due to adverse effects (AE). AE included G3/G4 neutropenia (80%), G1 thrombocytopenia (40%), nausea (20%), fatigue (20%), lower extremity edema (20%), pneumonia (60%), and neutropenic fever (20%) with a median of 1 unplanned hospitalization per pt during follow-up. 60% (3/5) pts remain in CR on continued therapy for a median of 7.8 mo [7.2-9.4] thus far. One pt underwent allogeneic stem cell transplantation, however, died 11.4 mo after conditioning due to transplant related mortality. The R/R pt died after being lost to follow-up 2.9 mo after therapy initiation. No pt had measurable relapse during follow-up. Combination weekly Ven with subcutaneous low-dose Dec is well tolerated yielding igh rates of clinical and molecular response in pts with TP53mut MDS/AML. Although small, this case-series extends previous clinical trial proof-of-activity of non-cytotoxic DNMT1-targeting to a high-risk, poor PS, historically chemorefractory patient population. The regimen allowed frequent, sustained exposure to therapy often not possible with standard HMA/Ven regimens. [Formula presented] Disclosures: Shastri: Kymera Therapeutics: Research Funding;Guidepoint: Consultancy;GLC: Consultancy;Onclive: Honoraria. Gritsman: iOnctura: Research Funding. Feldman: Glycomimetics: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Verma: Celgene: Consultancy;Acceleron: Consultancy;Novartis: Consultancy;Stelexis: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company;Eli Lilly: Research Funding;Curis: Research Funding;Medpacto: Research Funding;Incyte: Research Funding;GSK: Research Funding;BMS: Research Funding;Stelexis: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company;Throws Exception: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Saunthararajah: EpiDestiny: Consultancy, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties.

American Journal of Gastroenterology ; 116(SUPPL):S427-S428, 2021.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1534706


Introduction: In the SARS-CoV2 mRNA vaccine trials, post-vaccination gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms were reported in 10-20% of participants. These symptoms could be perceived as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) flare which could lead to patient anxiety, and unnecessary tests or treatment. We aimed to assess GI symptoms after SARS-CoV2 mRNA vaccination in patients with IBD relative to non-IBD healthcare workers (HCW). Methods: We assessed GI symptoms in adults with IBD and HCW at baseline and after each dose of a SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine. We analyzed patient-reported IBD-specific disease activity (PRO2) after each dose (stool frequency (SF) and rectal bleeding for ulcerative colitis (UC), SF and abdominal pain for Crohn's disease (CD)). We also compared the frequency, severity, and duration of postvaccination GI symptoms in IBD patients compared to HCW. Severity was defined by impact on daily activities (mild, did not interfere;moderate, some interference;severe, prevented routine activity;extreme, required hospitalization). Severe and extreme were combined and designated as severe+. Duration was classified as<2 days, 2-7 days, or>7 days. Results: Post-vaccination GI symptoms were assessed after dose 1 (D1) (1391 IBD, 933 HCW) and dose 2 (D2) (1271 IBD, 884 HCW) (Table). About 60% of IBD and>99% of HCW received the BNT162b vaccine (Pfizer);the remainder received mRNA-1273 (Moderna). New GI symptoms after D1 were more frequent among IBD than HCW (6.0% vs 2.9%, p=0.001) but not after D2 (12.1% vs 12.7%, p=NS). Relative to HCW, IBD patients reported more diarrhea (3.8% vs. 1% (p<0.001) after D1 and 7.5% vs 4.2% (p=0.003) after D2) and abdominal pain (2.2% vs. 0.4% (p=0.001) after D1 and 6.2% vs 3% (p=0.002) after D2). Severe1 symptoms were noted in 1.5% IBD and 0.3% HCW (p=NS) after D1 and in 3.3% IBD and 0.1% HCW (p<0.001) after D2 (Figure 1). Longer GI symptom duration was more common in IBD than HCW after D1 (2.1% vs 0.5%, p=0.002) and D2 (5.4% vs. 2.1%, p<0.001). Among 423 CD and 300 UC patients with PRO2 data, 71%, 68%, and 65% of CD and 86%, 86%, and 83% of UC were in clinical remission at baseline, after D1, and after D2, respectively. Conclusion: The frequency of GI symptoms in IBD was greater than HCW after D1, but similar after D2. More severe and longer duration of GI symptoms were noted in a small number of IBD patients. Reassuringly, the mRNA vaccines do not seem to increase the risk of a disease flare in the vast majority of IBD patients.