Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 11 de 11
Filter
1.
Lancet Rheumatol ; 4(5): e338-e350, 2022 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1829743

ABSTRACT

Background: Disease-specific studies have reported impaired humoral responses after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory disorders treated with specific immunosuppressants. Disease-overarching studies, and data on recall responses and third vaccinations are scarce. Our primary objective was to investigate the effects of immunosuppressive monotherapies on the humoral immune response after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with prevalent immune-mediated inflammatory disorders. Methods: We did a cohort study in participants treated in outpatient clinics in seven university hospitals and one rheumatology treatment centre in the Netherlands as well as participants included in two national cohort studies on COVID-19-related disease severity. We included patients aged older than 18 years, diagnosed with any of the prespecified immune-mediated inflammatory disorders, who were able to understand and complete questionnaires in Dutch. Participants with immune-mediated inflammatory disorders who were not on systemic immunosuppressants and healthy participants were included as controls. Anti-receptor binding domain IgG responses and neutralisation capacity were monitored following standard vaccination regimens and a three-vaccination regimen in subgroups. Hybrid immune responses-ie, vaccination after previous SARS-CoV-2 infection-were studied as a proxy for recall responses. Findings: Between Feb 2 and Aug 1, 2021, we included 3222 participants in our cohort. Sera from 2339 participants, 1869 without and 470 participants with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection were analysed (mean age 49·9 years [SD 13·7]; 1470 [62·8%] females and 869 [37·2%] males). Humoral responses did not differ between disorders. Anti-CD20 therapy, sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor (S1P) modulators, and mycophenolate mofetil combined with corticosteroids were associated with lower relative risks for reaching seroconversion following standard vaccination (0·32 [95% CI 0·19-0·49] for anti-CD20 therapy, 0·35 [0·21-0·55] for S1P modulators, and 0·61 [0·40-0·90] for mycophenolate mofetil combined with corticosteroids). A third vaccination increased seroconversion for mycophenolate mofetil combination treatments (from 52·6% after the second vaccination to 89·5% after the third) but not significantly for anti-CD20 therapies (from 36·8% to 45·6%) and S1P modulators (from 35·5% to 48·4%). Most other immunosuppressant groups showed moderately reduced antibody titres after standard vaccination that did not increase after a third vaccination, although seroconversion rates and neutralisation capacity were unaffected. In participants with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were boosted after vaccination, regardless of immunosuppressive treatment. Interpretation: Humoral responses following vaccination are impaired by specific immunosuppressants. After standard vaccination regimens, patients with immune-mediated inflammatory disorders taking most immunosuppressants show similar seroconversion to controls, although antibody titres might be moderately reduced. As neutralisation capacity and recall responses are also preserved in these patients, this is not likely to translate to loss of (short-term) protection. In patients on immunosuppressants showing poor humoral responses after standard vaccination regimens, a third vaccination resulted in additional seroconversion in patients taking mycophenolate mofetil combination treatments, whereas the effect of a third vaccination in patients on anti-CD20 therapy and S1P modulators was limited. Funding: ZonMw (The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development).

2.
Lancet Rheumatol ; 4(6): e417-e429, 2022 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1815345

ABSTRACT

Background: Concerns have been raised regarding the risks of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections in vaccinated patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases treated with immunosuppressants, but clinical data on breakthrough infections are still scarce. The primary objective of this study was to compare the incidence and severity of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections between patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases using immunosuppressants, and controls (patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases not taking immunosuppressants and healthy controls) who had received full COVID-19 vaccinations. The secondary objective was to explore determinants of breakthrough infections of the delta (B.1.617.2) variant of SARS-CoV-2, including humoral immune responses after vaccination. Methods: In this substudy, we pooled data collected in two large ongoing prospective multicentre cohort studies conducted in the Netherlands (Target to-B! [T2B!] study and Amsterdam Rheumatology Center COVID [ARC-COVID] study). Both studies recruited adult patients (age ≥18 years) with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases and healthy controls. We sourced clinical data from standardised electronic case record forms, digital questionnaires, and medical files. We only included individuals who were vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. For T2B!, participants were recruited between Feb 2 and Aug 1, 2021, and for ARC-COVID, participants were recruited between April 26, 2020, and March 1, 2021. In this study we assessed data on breakthrough infections collected between July 1 and Dec 15, 2021, a period in which the delta SARS-CoV-2 variant was the dominant variant in the Netherlands. We defined a SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection as a PCR-confirmed or antigen test-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection that occurred at least 14 days after vaccination. All breakthrough infections during this period were assumed to be due to the delta variant due to its dominance during the study period. We analysed post-vaccination serum samples for anti-receptor binding domain (RBD) antibodies to assess the humoral vaccination response (T2B! study only) and anti-nucleocapsid antibodies to identify asymptomatic breakthrough infections (ARC-COVID study only). We used multivariable logistic regression analyses to explore potential clinical and humoral determinants associated with the odds of breakthrough infections. The T2B! study is registered with the Dutch Trial Register, Trial ID NL8900, and the ARC-COVID study is registered with Dutch Trial Register, trial ID NL8513. Findings: We included 3207 patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases who receive immunosuppressants, and 1807 controls (985 patients with immune-mediated inflammatory disease not on immunosuppressants and 822 healthy controls). Among patients receiving immunosuppressants, mean age was 53 years (SD 14), 2042 (64%) of 3207 were female and 1165 (36%) were male; among patients not receiving immunosuppressants, mean age was 54 years (SD 14), 598 (61%) of 985 were female and 387 (39%) were male; and among healthy controls, mean age was 57 years (SD 13), 549 (67%) of 822 were female and 273 (33%) were male. The cumulative incidence of PCR-test or antigen-test confirmed SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections was similar in patients on immunosuppressants (148 of 3207; 4·6% [95% CI 3·9-5·4]), patients not on immunosuppressants (52 of 985; 5·3% [95% CI 4·0-6·9]), and healthy controls (33 of 822; 4·0% [95% CI 2·8-5·6]). There was no difference in the odds of breakthrough infection for patients with immune-mediate inflammatory disease on immunosuppressants versus combined controls (ie, patients not on immunosuppressants and healthy controls; adjusted odds ratio 0·88 [95% CI 0·66-1·18]). Seroconversion after vaccination (odds ratio 0·58 [95% CI 0·34-0·98]; T2B! cohort only) and SARS-CoV-2 infection before vaccination (0·34 [0·18-0·56]) were associated with a lower odds of breakthrough infections. Interpretation: The incidence and severity of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases on immunosuppressants was similar to that in controls. However, caution might still be warranted for those on anti-CD20 therapy and those with traditional risk factors. Funding: ZonMw (the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development) and Reade foundation.

3.
J Allergy Clin Immunol ; 149(6): 1949-1957, 2022 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1783444

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Patients with inborn errors of immunity (IEI) are at increased risk of severe coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Effective vaccination against COVID-19 is therefore of great importance in this group, but little is known about the immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines in these patients. OBJECTIVES: We sought to study humoral and cellular immune responses after mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccination in adult patients with IEI. METHODS: In a prospective, controlled, multicenter study, 505 patients with IEI (common variable immunodeficiency [CVID], isolated or undefined antibody deficiencies, X-linked agammaglobulinemia, combined B- and T-cell immunodeficiency, phagocyte defects) and 192 controls were included. All participants received 2 doses of the mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine. Levels of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2-specific binding antibodies, neutralizing antibodies, and T-cell responses were assessed at baseline, 28 days after first vaccination, and 28 days after second vaccination. RESULTS: Seroconversion rates in patients with clinically mild antibody deficiencies and phagocyte defects were similar to those in healthy controls, but seroconversion rates in patients with more severe IEI, such as CVID and combined B- and T-cell immunodeficiency, were lower. Binding antibody titers correlated well to the presence of neutralizing antibodies. T-cell responses were comparable to those in controls in all IEI cohorts, with the exception of patients with CVID. The presence of noninfectious complications and the use of immunosuppressive drugs in patients with CVID were negatively correlated with the antibody response. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccination with mRNA-1273 was immunogenic in mild antibody deficiencies and phagocyte defects and in most patients with combined B- and T-cell immunodeficiency and CVID. Lowest response was detected in patients with X-linked agammaglobulinemia and in patients with CVID with noninfectious complications. The assessment of longevity of immune responses in these vulnerable patient groups will guide decision making for additional vaccinations.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Neutralizing , COVID-19 , Genetic Diseases, Inborn , Immunologic Deficiency Syndromes , /blood , /therapeutic use , Adult , Agammaglobulinemia/genetics , Agammaglobulinemia/immunology , Antibodies, Neutralizing/blood , Antibodies, Neutralizing/immunology , Antibodies, Viral/blood , Antibodies, Viral/genetics , Antibodies, Viral/immunology , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , Common Variable Immunodeficiency/genetics , Common Variable Immunodeficiency/immunology , Genetic Diseases, Inborn/blood , Genetic Diseases, Inborn/genetics , Genetic Diseases, Inborn/immunology , Genetic Diseases, X-Linked/genetics , Genetic Diseases, X-Linked/immunology , Humans , Immunologic Deficiency Syndromes/blood , Immunologic Deficiency Syndromes/genetics , Immunologic Deficiency Syndromes/immunology , Primary Immunodeficiency Diseases/genetics , Primary Immunodeficiency Diseases/immunology , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus
4.
BMC Med ; 20(1): 100, 2022 03 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1724485

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Studies have suggested incremental short-term adverse events (AE) after repeated vaccination. In this report, we assessed occurrence and risk factors for short-term AEs following repeated SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with various immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). METHODS: Self-reported daily questionnaires on AEs during the first 7 days after vaccination were obtained of 2259 individuals (2081 patients and 178 controls) participating in an ongoing prospective multicenter cohort study on SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with various IMIDs in the Netherlands (T2B-COVID). Relative risks were calculated for potential risk factors associated with clinically relevant AE (rAE), defined as AE lasting longer than 2 days or impacting daily life. RESULTS: In total, 5454 vaccinations were recorded (1737 first, 1992 second and 1478 third vaccinations). Multiple sclerosis, Crohn's disease and rheumatoid arthritis were the largest disease groups. rAEs were reported by 57.3% (95% CI 54.8-59.8) of patients after the first vaccination, 61.5% (95% CI 59.2-63.7) after the second vaccination and 58% (95% CI 55.3-60.6) after the third vaccination. At day 7 after the first, second and third vaccination, respectively, 7.6% (95% CI 6.3-9.1), 7.4% (95% CI 6.2-8.7) and 6.8% (95% CI 5.4-8.3) of patients still reported AEs impacting daily life. Hospital admissions and allergic reactions were uncommon (<0.7%). Female sex (aRR 1.43, 95% CI 1.32-1.56), age below 50 (aRR 1.14, 95% CI 1.06-1.23), a preceding SARS-CoV-2 infection (aRR 1.14, 95% CI 1.01-1.29) and having an IMID (aRR 1.16, 95% CI 1.01-1.34) were associated with increased risk of rAEs following a vaccination. Compared to the second vaccination, the first vaccination was associated with a lower risk of rAEs (aRR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84-0.99) while a third vaccination was not associated with increased risk on rAEs (aRR 0.93, 95% CI 0.84-1.02). BNT162b2 vaccines were associated with lower risk on rAEs compared to CX-024414 (aRR 0.86, 95% CI 0.80-0.93). CONCLUSIONS: A third SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was not associated with increased risk of rAEs in IMID patients compared to the second vaccination. Patients with an IMID have a modestly increased risk of rAEs after vaccination when compared to controls. Most AEs are resolved within 7 days; hospital admissions and allergic reactions were uncommon. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NL74974.018.20 , Trial ID: NL8900. Registered on 9 September 2020.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Prospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination/adverse effects
6.
Clin Transl Sci ; 15(4): 854-858, 2022 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1625873

ABSTRACT

Recently, we reported the phase II portion of the adaptive phase II/III PANAMO trial exploring potential benefit and safety of selectively blocking C5a with the monoclonal antibody vilobelimab (IFX-1) in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The potent anaphylatoxin C5a attracts neutrophils and monocytes to the infection site, causes tissue damage by oxidative radical formation and enzyme releases, and leads to activation of the coagulation system. Results demonstrated that C5a inhibition with vilobelimab was safe and secondary outcomes appeared in favor of vilobelimab. We now report the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) analysis of the phase II study. Between March 31 and April 24, 2020, 30 patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia confirmed by real-time polymerase chain reaction were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive vilobelimab plus best supportive care or best supportive care only. Samples for measurement of vilobelimab, C3a and C5a blood concentrations were taken. Vilobelimab predose (trough) drug concentrations in plasma ranged from 84,846 to 248,592 ng/ml (571 to 1674 nM) with a geometric mean of 151,702 ng/ml (1022 nM) on day 2 and from 80,060 to 200,746 ng/ml (539 to 1352 nM) with a geometric mean of 139,503 ng/ml (939 nM) on day 8. After the first vilobelimab infusion, C5a concentrations were suppressed in the vilobelimab group (median 39.70 ng/ml 4.8 nM, IQR 33.20-45.55) as compared to the control group (median 158.53 ng/ml 19.1 nM, IQR 60.03-200.89, p = 0.0006). The suppression was maintained on day 8 (p = 0.001). The current PK/PD analysis shows that vilobelimab efficiently inhibits C5a in patients with severe COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal , COVID-19 , Antibodies, Monoclonal/pharmacology , Antibodies, Monoclonal/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic , Complement C3a , Complement C5a , Humans , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
8.
Lancet Rheumatol ; 2(12): e764-e773, 2020 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1003183

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Severe COVID-19 is characterised by inflammation and coagulation in the presence of complement system activation. We aimed to explore the potential benefit and safety of selectively blocking the anaphylatoxin and complement protein C5a with the monoclonal antibody IFX-1 (vilobelimab), in patients with severe COVID-19. METHODS: We did an exploratory, open-label, randomised phase 2 trial (part of the adaptive phase 2/3 PANAMO trial) of intravenous IFX-1 in adults with severe COVID-19 at three academic hospitals in the Netherlands. Eligibility criteria were age 18 years or older; severe pneumonia with pulmonary infiltrates consistent with pneumonia, a clinical history of severe shortness of breath within the past 14 days, or a need for non-invasive or invasive ventilation; severe disease defined as a ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fractional concentration of oxygen in inspired air (PaO2/FiO2) between 100 mm Hg and 250 mm Hg in the supine position; and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection confirmed by RT-PCR. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive IFX-1 (up to seven doses of 800 mg intravenously) plus best supportive care (IFX-1 group) or best supportive care only (control group). The primary outcome was the percentage change in PaO2/FiO2 in the supine position between baseline and day 5. Mortality at 28 days and treatment-emergent and serious adverse events were key secondary outcomes. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population and safety analyses were done in all patients according to treatment received. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04333420). FINDINGS: Between March 31 and April 24, 2020, 30 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the IFX-1 group (n=15) or the control group (n=15). During the study it became clear that several patients could not be assessed regularly in the supine position because of severe hypoxaemia. It was therefore decided to focus on all PaO2/FiO2 assessments (irrespective of position). At day 5 after randomisation, the mean PaO2/FiO2 (irrespective of position) was 158 mm Hg (SD 63; range 84-265) in the IFX-1 group and 189 mm Hg (89; 71-329) in the control group. Analyses of the least squares mean relative change in PaO2/FiO2 at day 5 showed no differences between treatment groups (17% change in the IFX-1 group vs 41% in the control group; difference -24% [95% CI -58 to 9], p=0·15. Kaplan-Meier estimates of mortality by 28 days were 13% (95% CI 0-31) for the IFX-1 group and 27% (4-49) for the control group (adjusted hazard ratio for death 0·65 [95% CI 0·10-4·14]). The frequency of serious adverse events were similar between groups (nine [60%] in the IFX-1 group vs seven [47%] in the control group) and no deaths were considered related to treatment assignment. However, a smaller proportion of patients had pulmonary embolisms classed as serious in the IFX-1 group (two [13%]) than in the control group (six [40%]). Infections classed as serious were reported in three (20%) patients in the IFX-1 group versus five (33%) patients in the control group. INTERPRETATION: In this small exploratory phase 2 part of the PANAMO trial, C5a inhibition with IFX-1 appears to be safe in patients with severe COVID-19. The secondary outcome results in favour of IFX-1 are preliminary because the study was not powered on these endpoints, but they support the investigation of C5a inhibition with IFX-1 in a phase 3 trial using 28-day mortality as the primary endpoint. FUNDING: InflaRx.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL