Management of immunosuppressants in the era of coronavirus disease-2019.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Patients on chronic immunosuppressive treatments at baseline are at increased risk of opportunistic infections. These patients are at especially increased risk of morbidity and mortality during the coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) pandemic. This review will focus on patients with diseases in which immunosuppression is a vital part of the treatment regimen, including those with solid organ transplants, rheumatologic disorders, sarcoidosis, and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We will summarize the current knowledge of immunosuppression in these diseases and the risk of contracting COVID-19. Furthermore, we will discuss if immunosuppression increases severity of COVID-19 presentation. RECENT FINDINGS: Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, a large number patients receiving chronic immunosuppression have been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Moreover, our understanding of the immunology of SARS-CoV-2 is advancing at a rapid pace. Currently, a number of clinical trials are underway to investigate the role of immunosuppressive treatments in the management of this disease. SUMMARY: Currently, there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that solid organ transplant recipients on chronic immunosuppression are at increased risk of contracting COVID-19. Solid organ transplant recipients may be at increased risk for worse COVID-19 outcomes but the data are not consistent. There is evidence to suggest that patients with rheumatologic disorders or IBDs are not at increased risk of contracting COVID-19 and do not necessarily experience worse clinical outcomes. Patients with sarcoidosis are not necessarily at increased risk of COVID-19, although there is limited data available to determine if immunosuppression worsens outcomes in this population.

Immunosuppressant Management in Renal Transplant Patients with COVID-19.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic poses a special risk for both immunosuppressed patients, especially transplant recipients. Although the knowledge about this infection is growing, many uncertainties remain, particularly regarding the kidney. Kidney transplant recipients (KDRs) should be considered immunocompromised hosts since a potential risk for infection, comorbidity, and immunosuppression exposure exists. Additionally, the management of immunosuppressive agents in KDRs remains challenging. Potential drug interactions with immunosuppressive treatment escalated the risk of unwanted side effects. In this review, we aimed to attain an augmented awareness and improved management immunosuppressant for COVID-19 KDRs.

Humoral and T-cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients receiving immunosuppression.

OBJECTIVE: There is an urgent need to assess the impact of immunosuppressive therapies on the immunogenicity and efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. METHODS: Serological and T-cell ELISpot assays were used to assess the response to first-dose and second-dose SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (with either BNT162b2 mRNA or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccines) in 140 participants receiving immunosuppression for autoimmune rheumatic and glomerular diseases. RESULTS: Following first-dose vaccine, 28.6% (34/119) of infection-naïve participants seroconverted and 26.0% (13/50) had detectable T-cell responses to SARS-CoV-2. Immune responses were augmented by second-dose vaccine, increasing seroconversion and T-cell response rates to 59.3% (54/91) and 82.6% (38/46), respectively. B-cell depletion at the time of vaccination was associated with failure to seroconvert, and tacrolimus therapy was associated with diminished T-cell responses. Reassuringly, only 8.7% of infection-naïve patients had neither antibody nor T-cell responses detected following second-dose vaccine. In patients with evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (19/140), all mounted high-titre antibody responses after first-dose vaccine, regardless of immunosuppressive therapy. CONCLUSION: SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are immunogenic in patients receiving immunosuppression, when assessed by a combination of serology and cell-based assays, although the response is impaired compared with healthy individuals. B-cell depletion following rituximab impairs serological responses, but T-cell responses are preserved in this group. We suggest that repeat vaccine doses for serological non-responders should be investigated as means to induce more robust immunological response.

Effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination in a Veterans Affairs Cohort of Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease With Diverse Exposure to Immunosuppressive Medications.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has rapidly expanded; however, clinical trials excluded patients taking immunosuppressive medications such as those with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Therefore, we explored real-world effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination on subsequent infection in patients with IBD with diverse exposure to immunosuppressive medications. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients in the Veterans Health Administration with IBD diagnosed before December 18, 2020, the start date of the Veterans Health Administration patient vaccination program. IBD medication exposures included mesalamine, thiopurines, anti-tumor necrosis factor biologic agents, vedolizumab, ustekinumab, tofacitinib, methotrexate, and corticosteroid use. We used inverse probability weighting and Cox's regression with vaccination status as a time-updating exposure and computed vaccine effectiveness from incidence rates. RESULTS: The cohort comprised 14,697 patients, 7321 of whom received at least 1 vaccine dose (45.2% Pfizer, 54.8% Moderna). The cohort had median age 68 years, 92.2% were men, 80.4% were White, and 61.8% had ulcerative colitis. In follow-up data through April 20, 2021, unvaccinated individuals had the highest raw proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infection (197 [1.34%] vs 7 [0.11%] fully vaccinated). Full vaccination status, but not partial vaccination status, was associated with a 69% reduced hazard of infection relative to an unvaccinated status (hazard ratio, 0.31, 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.56; P < .001), corresponding to an 80.4% effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Full vaccination (> 7 days after the second dose) against SARS-CoV-2 infection has an ∼80.4% effectiveness in a broad IBD cohort with diverse exposure to immunosuppressive medications. These results may serve to increase patient and provider willingness to pursue vaccination in these settings.

Impact of disease-modifying drugs on the severity of COVID-19 infection in multiple sclerosis patients.

Recent evidence suggested that neurological manifestations occur in patients with a severe form of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). On the basis of this issue, neurologists are very concerned about patients with neurological disorders, especially multiple sclerosis (MS), as consumers of immunosuppressive or immune-modulating drugs. Therefore, the administration of proper disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) in MS patients is critical during the pandemic status. On the one hand, both the autoimmune diseases and immunosuppressive drugs increase the risk of infection due to impairment in the immune system, and on the other hand, postponing of MS treatment has serious consequences on the central nervous system. In the present study, we discussed recent literature about the effect of DMTs administration on the severity of COVID-19 in the MS patients. Overall, it seems that DMTs do not provoke the COVID-19 infection in the MS patients by declining immune responses and cytokine storm. However, as a precaution, the supervision of a neurologist is highly recommended.

SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination in IBD: Past Lessons, Current Evidence, and Future Challenges.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, patients with inflammatory bowel diseases [IBD] have been considered at high risk for infection and complications of COVID-19. IBD patients and patients taking immunosuppressive therapy were excluded from clinical phase III vaccine trials, complicating the assessment of effectiveness of these new vaccines. From past experience we know that adapted vaccination strategies may be appropriate in some IBD patients to optimise immunogenicity. We review current evidence on SARS-CoV-2 vaccination relevant to IBD patients, including immune responses from humoral to cellular, emerging data on new variants, and off-label vaccination schemes. We also identify clinical and scientific knowledge gaps that can be translated into both large-scale population-based studies and targeted vaccine studies to describe the precise immune responses induced by SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in IBD patients. We strongly endorse the recommendation of vaccinating IBD patients to ensure maximal protection from COVID-19 both for the individual and the community.