Effect of Different Disease-Modifying Therapies on Humoral Response to BNT162b2 Vaccine in Sardinian Multiple Sclerosis Patients.

Objectives: Vaccination against COVID-19 is highly recommended to patients affected by multiple sclerosis (MS); however, the impact of MS disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) on the immune response following vaccination has been only partially investigated. Here, we aimed to elucidate the effect of DMTs on the humoral immune response to mRNA-based anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in MS patients. Methods: We obtained sera from 912 Sardinian MS patients and 63 healthy controls 30 days after the second dose of BNT162b2 vaccine and tested them for SARS-CoV-2 response using anti-Spike (S) protein-based serology. Previous SARS-CoV-2 infection was assessed by anti-Nucleocapsid (N) serology. Patients were either untreated or undergoing treatment with a total of 13 different DMTs. Differences between treatment groups comprised of at least 10 patients were assessed by generalized linear mixed-effects model. Demographic and clinical data and smoking status were analyzed as additional factors potentially influencing humoral immunity from COVID-19 vaccine. Results: MS patients treated with natalizumab, teriflunomide, azathioprine, fingolimod, ocrelizumab, and rituximab showed significantly lower humoral responses compared to untreated patients. We did not observe a statistically significant difference in response between patients treated with the other drugs (dimethyl fumarate, interferon, alemtuzumab and glatiramer acetate) and untreated patients. In addition, older age, male sex and active smoking were significantly associated with lower antibody titers against SARS-CoV-2. MS patients previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 had significantly higher humoral responses to vaccine than uninfected patients. Conclusion: Humoral response to BNT162b2 is significantly influenced by the specific DMTs followed by patients, as well as by other factors such as previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, age, sex, and smoking status. These results are important to inform targeted strategies to prevent clinically relevant COVID-19 in MS patients.

Risk and prognosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: a systematic literature review to inform EULAR recommendations.

OBJECTIVES: Perform a systematic literature review (SLR) on risk and prognosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). METHODS: Literature was searched up to 31 May 2021, including (randomised) controlled trials and observational studies with patients with RMD. Pending quality assessment, data extraction was performed and risk of bias (RoB) was assessed. Quality assessment required provision of (1) an appropriate COVID-19 case definition, and (2a) a base incidence (for incidence data) or (2b) a comparator, >10 cases with the outcome and risk estimates minimally adjusted for age, sex and comorbidities (for risk factor data). RESULTS: Of 5165 records, 208 were included, of which 90 passed quality assessment and data were extracted for incidence (n=42), risk factor (n=42) or vaccination (n=14). Most studies had unclear/high RoB. Generally, patients with RMDs do not face more risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2 (n=26 studies) or worse prognosis of COVID-19 (n=14) than individuals without RMDs. No consistent differences in risk of developing (severe) COVID-19 were found between different RMDs (n=19). Disease activity is associated with worse COVID-19 prognosis (n=2), possibly explaining the increased risk seen for glucocorticoid use (n=13). Rituximab is associated with worse COVID-19 prognosis (n=7) and possibly Janus kinase inhibitors (n=3). Vaccination is generally immunogenic, though antibody responses are lower than in controls. Vaccine immunogenicity is negatively associated with older age, rituximab and mycophenolate. CONCLUSION: This SLR informed the July 2021 update of the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommendations for the management of RMDs in the context of SARS-CoV-2.

Lower Serologic Response to COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Diseases Treated With Anti-TNFα.

BACKGROUND & AIM: Patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), specifically those treated with anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF)α biologics, are at high risk for vaccine-preventable infections. Their ability to mount adequate vaccine responses is unclear. The aim of the study was to assess serologic responses to messenger RNA-Coronavirus Disease 2019 vaccine, and safety profile, in patients with IBD stratified according to therapy, compared with healthy controls (HCs). METHODS: Prospective, controlled, multicenter Israeli study. Subjects enrolled received 2 BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) doses. Anti-spike antibody levels and functional activity, anti-TNFα levels and adverse events (AEs) were detected longitudinally. RESULTS: Overall, 258 subjects: 185 IBD (67 treated with anti-TNFα, 118 non-anti-TNFα), and 73 HCs. After the first vaccine dose, all HCs were seropositive, whereas ∼7% of patients with IBD, regardless of treatment, remained seronegative. After the second dose, all subjects were seropositive, however anti-spike levels were significantly lower in anti-TNFα treated compared with non-anti-TNFα treated patients, and HCs (both P < .001). Neutralizing and inhibitory functions were both lower in anti-TNFα treated compared with non-anti-TNFα treated patients, and HCs (P < .03; P < .0001, respectively). Anti-TNFα drug levels and vaccine responses did not affect anti-spike levels. Infection rate (∼2%) and AEs were comparable in all groups. IBD activity was unaffected by BNT162b2. CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective study in patients with IBD stratified according to treatment, all patients mounted serologic response to 2 doses of BNT162b2; however, its magnitude was significantly lower in patients treated with anti-TNFα, regardless of administration timing and drug levels. Vaccine was safe. As vaccine serologic response longevity in this group may be limited, vaccine booster dose should be considered.

Importance of the second SARS-CoV-2 vaccination dose for achieving serological response in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and seronegative spondyloarthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the kinetics of humoral response after the first and second dose of messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines in patients with inflammatory joint diseases compared with healthy controls (HC). To analyse factors influencing the quantity of the immune response. METHODS: We enrolled patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and seronegative spondyloarthritis (SpA), excluding those receiving B-cell depleting therapies and assessed the humoral response to mRNA vaccines after the first and the second dose of the vaccine in terms of seroconversion rate and titre. We compared the results to a HC group and analysed the influence of therapies as well as other characteristics on the humoral response. RESULTS: Samples from 53 patients with RA, 46 patients with SpA and 169 healthy participants were analysed. Seroconversion rates after the first immunisation were only 54% in patients with inflammatory arthritis compared with 98% in the HC group. However, seroconversion rates were 100% in all groups after second immunisation. Patients developed reduced antibody titres after the first vaccination compared with HC, but there was no difference after the second dose. While disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) monotherapy did not affect antibody levels, seroconversion rates as well as titre levels were reduced in patients receiving a combination of DMARDs compared with HC. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with inflammatory joint diseases under DMARD therapy show impaired humoral responses to the first vaccine dose but excellent final responses to vaccination with mRNA vaccines. Therefore, the full course of two immunisations is necessary for efficient vaccination responses in patients with inflammatory arthritis under DMARD therapy.

Humoral Response of Renal Transplant Recipients to the BNT162b2 SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccine Using Both RBD IgG and Neutralizing Antibodies.

BACKGROUND: Data about SARS-CoV-2 vaccines efficacy in renal transplant recipients (RTR) are lacking. METHODS: To reveal predictors for humoral response to BNT162b2 vaccine among RTR, patients were divided into positive (N = 42) and negative (N = 78) response groups based on receptor-binding domain (RBD) immunoglobulin G (IgG) ≥1.1 and neutralizing antibodies (NA) ≥16 dilution versus RBD IgG <1.1 or NA <16, respectively. NA were detected using a SARS-CoV-2 pseudo-virus. RESULTS: NA were detected in only 42 of 120 (35%) of RTR versus 197 of 202 (97.5%) immunocompetent controls (P < 0.001). NA geometric mean titers in RTR were significantly lower versus the control group {83.7 (95% confidence interval [CI], 50.5-138.8) versus 482 (95% CI, 411-566), P < 0.001}. In a multivariable analysis, mycophenolic acid (MPA) dose and hemoglobin level were found to be independent predictors for antibody response in RTR. A positive response rate of 27% versus 63% was observed in patients on and off MPA, respectively. An increase in MPA dose by 1 mg/kg weight reduced the odds for a positive response by 17% (odds ratio = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75-0.92; P < 0.001). Geometric mean titers for RBD IgG were significantly reduced as MPA daily dose increased. Hemoglobin blood level <13 g/dL reduced the antibody response by 63% (P = 0.04). Pain at the injection site after the second vaccine dose was significantly higher in the responders versus nonresponders (20.5% versus 5.5%, P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Only 35% of RTR develop NA to the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. MPA is a major suppressor of antibody response in RTR.

Effects of Short-Term Corticosteroid Use on Reactogenicity and Immunogenicity of the First Dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 Vaccine.

The effects of corticosteroid use on the reactogenicity and immunogenicity of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (ChAd) vaccine were evaluated. Healthcare workers (HCWs) who took low-dose corticosteroid agents around the time of the first dose of ChAd (ChAdPd group) were recruited and the reactogenicity and immunogenicity were compared with those of ChAd (ChAd group) and BNT162b2 vaccination (BNT group) of HCWs without corticosteroid exposure. The immunogenicity was measured three weeks after vaccination using quantitative anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (S) antibody electrochemiluminescence immunoassay and interferon gamma (IFN-γ) release assay. A total of 67 HCWs comprising 24 ChAd, 29 BNT, and 14 ChAdPd was included. The median total corticosteroid dose of the ChAdPd group was 30 mg prednisolone equivalents (interquartile range (IQR) 20-71.3 mg). HCWs in the ChAdPd group experienced significantly milder reactogenicity (median total score 7.5, IQR 4.0-18.0) compared to those in the ChAd group (median 23.0, IQR 8.0-43.0, P=0.012) but similar to that in the BNT group (median 5.0, IQR 3.0-9.0, P=0.067). The S antibody concentration of the ChAdPd group (62.4 ± 70.0 U/mL) was higher than that of the ChAd group, though without statistical significance (3.45 ± 57.6 U/mL, P=0.192). The cellular immune response was most robust in the ChAdPd group, with significantly higher IFN-γ concentration (5.363 ± 4.276 IU/mL), compared to the ChAd (0.978 ± 1.181 IU/mL, P=0.002) and BNT (1.656 ± 1.925 IU/mL, P=0.009) groups. This finding suggest that short-term corticosteroid reduces reactogenicity of the first dose of ChAd without hindering immunogenicity.

BNT162b2 vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses against SARS-CoV-2 variants in systemic lupus erythematosus.

OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to evaluate systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) disease activity and SARS-CoV-2-specific immune responses after BNT162b2 vaccination. METHODS: In this prospective study, disease activity and clinical assessments were recorded from the first dose of vaccine until day 15 after the second dose in 126 patients with SLE. SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses were measured against wild-type spike antigen, while serum-neutralising activity was assessed against the SARS-CoV-2 historical strain and variants of concerns (VOCs). Vaccine-specific T cell responses were quantified by interferon-γ release assay after the second dose. RESULTS: BNT162b2 was well tolerated and no statistically significant variations of BILAG (British Isles Lupus Assessment Group) and SLEDAI (SLE Disease Activity Index) scores were observed throughout the study in patients with SLE with active and inactive disease at baseline. Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and methotrexate (MTX) treatments were associated with drastically reduced BNT162b2 antibody response (ß=-78, p=0.007; ß=-122, p<0.001, respectively). Anti-spike antibody response was positively associated with baseline total immunoglobulin G serum levels, naïve B cell frequencies (ß=2, p=0.018; ß=2.5, p=0.003) and SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell response (r=0.462, p=0.003). In responders, serum neutralisation activity decreased against VOCs bearing the E484K mutation but remained detectable in a majority of patients. CONCLUSION: MMF, MTX and poor baseline humoral immune status, particularly low naïve B cell frequencies, are independently associated with impaired BNT162b2 mRNA antibody response, delineating patients with SLE who might need adapted vaccine regimens and follow-up.

SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in rituximab-treated patients: B cells promote humoral immune responses in the presence of T-cell-mediated immunity.

OBJECTIVES: Evidence suggests that B cell-depleting therapy with rituximab (RTX) affects humoral immune response after vaccination. It remains unclear whether RTX-treated patients can develop a humoral and T-cell-mediated immune response against SARS-CoV-2 after immunisation. METHODS: Patients under RTX treatment (n=74) were vaccinated twice with either mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2. Antibodies were quantified using the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S immunoassay against the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein and neutralisation tests. SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell responses were quantified by IFN-γ enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot assays. Prepandemic healthy individuals (n=5), as well as healthy individuals (n=10) vaccinated with BNT162b2, served as controls. RESULTS: All healthy controls developed antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 RBD of the spike protein, but only 39% of the patients under RTX treatment seroconverted. Antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 RBD significantly correlated with neutralising antibodies (τ=0.74, p<0.001). Patients without detectable CD19+ peripheral B cells (n=36) did not develop specific antibodies, except for one patient. Circulating B cells correlated with the levels of antibodies (τ=0.4, p<0.001). However, even patients with a low number of B cells (<1%) mounted detectable SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody responses. SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells were detected in 58% of the patients, independent of a humoral immune response. CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest that vaccination can induce SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies in RTX-treated patients, once peripheral B cells at least partially repopulate. Moreover, SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells that evolved in more than half of the vaccinated patients may exert protective effects independent of humoral immune responses.

Serological Response to the BNT162b2 COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine in Adolescent and Young Adult Kidney Transplant Recipients.

BACKGROUND: Initial reports in adult kidney transplant recipients (KTR) indicate low immunogenicity after 2 doses of the BNT162b2 COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. We describe the immunogenicity of this vaccine compared to the serologic response in naturally infected COVID-19 positive adolescent and young adult KTR. METHODS: For this prospective observational study, the study group included 38 KTR who received 2 doses of the tested vaccine, and the control group included 14 KTR who had a previous polymerase chain reaction-confirmed COVID-19 infection. RESULTS: The mean age was 18 ± 3 y. Positive serologic responses were observed in 63% and 100% of the study and control groups, respectively (P = 0.01). Antibody titers were almost 30-fold higher in the control than the study group (median [interquartile range (IQR)]: 2782 [1908-11 000] versus 100.3 [4.7-1744] AU/mL, P < 0.001), despite the longer time from the COVID-19 infection to serologic testing compared to time from vaccination (median [IQR]: 157.5 [60-216] versus 37 [20.5-53] d, P = 0.011). Among vaccinated patients, higher proportions of those seronegative than seropositive were previously treated with rituximab (50% versus 8%, P = 0.01). Time from the second vaccine dose to serologic testing was longer in seropositive than seronegative patients (median [IQR]: 24.5 [15-40] versus 46 [27-56] d, P = 0.05). No patient developed symptomatic COVID-19 disease postvaccination. CONCLUSIONS: The BNT162b2 COVID-19 mRNA vaccine yielded higher positive antibody response in adolescent and young adult KTR than previously reported for adult KTR. Antibody titers after vaccination were significantly lower than following COVID-19 infection. Longer time may be required to mount appropriate humoral immunity to vaccination in KTR.

Immunogenicity and safety of the CoronaVac vaccine in patients with cancer receiving active systemic therapy.

Aim: To evaluate the immunogenicity and safety of the CoronaVac vaccine in patients with cancer receiving active systemic therapy. Methods: This multicenter, prospective, observational study was conducted with 47 patients receiving active systemic therapy for cancer. CoronaVac was administered as two doses (3 µg/day) on days 0 and 28. Antibody level higher than 1 IU/ml was defined as 'immunogenicity.' Results: The immunogenicity rate was 63.8% (30/47) in the entire patient group, 59.5% (25/42) in those receiving at least one cytotoxic drug and 100% (five of five) in those receiving monoclonal antibody or immunotherapy alone. Age was an independent predictive factor for immunogenicity (odds ratio: 0.830; p = 0.043). Conclusion: More than half of cancer patients receiving active systemic therapy developed immunogenicity.

Difluoromethylornithine (DFMO), an Inhibitor of Polyamine Biosynthesis, and Antioxidant N-Acetylcysteine Potentiate Immune Response in Mice to the Recombinant Hepatitis C Virus NS5B Protein.

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is one of the main triggers of chronic liver disease. Despite tremendous progress in the HCV field, there is still no vaccine against this virus. Potential vaccines can be based on its recombinant proteins. To increase the humoral and, especially, cellular immune response to them, more effective adjuvants are needed. Here, we evaluated a panel of compounds as potential adjuvants using the HCV NS5B protein as an immunogen. These compounds included inhibitors of polyamine biosynthesis and urea cycle, the mTOR pathway, antioxidants, and cellular receptors. A pronounced stimulation of cell proliferation and interferon-γ (IFN-γ) secretion in response to concanavalin A was shown for antioxidant N-acetylcysteine (NAC), polyamine biosynthesis inhibitor 2-difluoromethylornithine (DFMO), and TLR9 agonist CpG ODN 1826 (CpG). Their usage during the immunization of mice with the recombinant NS5B protein significantly increased antibody titers, enhanced lymphocyte proliferation and IFN-γ production. NAC and CpG decreased relative Treg numbers; CpG increased the number of myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs), whereas neither NAC nor DFMO affected MDSC counts. NAC and DFMO suppressed NO and interleukin 10 (IL-10) production by splenocytes, while DFMO increased the levels of IL-12. This is the first evidence of immunomodulatory activity of NAC and DFMO during prophylactic immunization against infectious diseases.

COVID-19 vaccines: comparison of biological, pharmacological characteristics and adverse effects of Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna Vaccines.

OBJECTIVE: The "Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)" disease has caused a worldwide challenging and threatening pandemic (COVID-19), with huge health and economic losses. The US Food and Drug Administration, (FDA) has granted emergency use authorization for treatment with the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. Many people have a history of a significant allergic reaction to a specific food, medicine, or vaccine; hence, people all over the world have great concerns about these two authorized vaccines. This article compares the pharmacology, indications, contraindications, and adverse effects of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The required documents and information were collected from the relevant databases, including Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics), PubMed, EMBASE, World Health Organization (WHO), Food and Drug Authorities (FDA) USA, Local Ministries, Health Institutes, and Google Scholar. The key terms used were: Coronavirus, SARS-COV-2, COVID-19 pandemic, vaccines, Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, Moderna vaccine, pharmacology, benefits, allergic responses, indications, contraindications, and adverse effects. The descriptive information was recorded, and we eventually included 12 documents including research articles, clinical trials, and websites to record the required information. RESULTS: Based on the currently available literature, both vaccines are beneficial to provide immunity against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Pfizer/BioNTech Vaccine has been recommended to people 16 years of age and older, with a dose of 30 µg (0.3 m) at a cost of $19.50. It provides immunogenicity for at least 119 days after the first vaccination and is 95% effective in preventing the SARS-COV-2 infection. However, Moderna Vaccine has been recommended to people 18 years of age and older, with a dose of 50 µg (0.5 mL) at a cost of $32-37. It provides immunogenicity for at least 119 days after the first vaccination and is 94.5% effective in preventing the SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, some associated allergic symptoms have been reported for both vaccines. The COVID-19 vaccines can cause mild adverse effects after the first or second doses, including pain, redness or swelling at the site of vaccine shot, fever, fatigue, headache, muscle pain, nausea, vomiting, itching, chills, and joint pain, and can also rarely cause anaphylactic shock. The occurrence of adverse effects is reported to be lower in the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine compared to the Moderna vaccine; however, the Moderna vaccine compared to the Pfizer vaccine is easier to transport and store because it is less temperature sensitive. CONCLUSIONS: The FDA has granted emergency use authorization for the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. These vaccines can protect recipients from a SARS-CoV- 2 infection by formation of antibodies and provide immunity against a SARS-CoV-2 infection. Both vaccines can cause various adverse effects, but these reactions are reported to be less frequent in the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine compared to the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine; however, the Moderna vaccine compared to the Pfizer vaccine is easier to transport and store because it is less temperature sensitive.