Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
1.
Front Immunol ; 14: 1087996, 2023.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2318168

RESUMEN

Background: To evaluate the benefits of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in cancer patients it is relevant to understand the adaptive immune response elicited after vaccination. Patients affected by hematologic malignancies are frequently immune-compromised and show a decreased seroconversion rate compared to other cancer patients or controls. Therefore, vaccine-induced cellular immune responses in these patients might have an important protective role and need a detailed evaluation. Methods: Certain T cell subtypes (CD4, CD8, Tfh, γδT), including cell functionality as indicated by cytokine secretion (IFN, TNF) and expression of activation markers (CD69, CD154) were assessed via multi-parameter flow cytometry in hematologic malignancy patients (N=12) and healthy controls (N=12) after a second SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose. The PBMC of post-vaccination samples were stimulated with a spike-peptide pool (S-Peptides) of SARS-CoV-2, with CD3/CD28, with a pool of peptides from the cytomegalovirus, Epstein-Barr virus and influenza A virus (CEF-Peptides) or left unstimulated. Furthermore, the concentration of spike-specific antibodies has been analyzed in patients. Results: Our results indicate that hematologic malignancy patients developed a robust cellular immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination comparable to that of healthy controls, and for certain T cell subtypes even higher. The most reactive T cells to SARS-CoV-2 spike peptides belonged to the CD4 and Tfh cell compartment, being median (IQR), 3.39 (1.41-5.92) and 2.12 (0.55-4.14) as a percentage of IFN- and TNF-producing Tfh cells in patients. In this regard, the immunomodulatory treatment of patients before the vaccination period seems important as it was strongly associated with a higher percentage of activated CD4 and Tfh cells. SARS-CoV-2- and CEF-specific T cell responses significantly correlated with each other. Compared to lymphoma patients, myeloma patients had an increased percentage of SARS-CoV-2-specific Tfh cells. T-SNE analysis revealed higher frequencies of γδT cells in patients compared to controls, especially in myeloma patients. In general, after vaccination, SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells were also detectable in patients without seroconversion. Conclusion: Hematologic malignancy patients are capable of developing a SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4 and Tfh cellular immune response after vaccination, and certain immunomodulatory therapies in the period before vaccination might increase the antigen-specific immune response. A proper response to recall antigens (e.g., CEF-Peptides) reflects immune cellular functionality and might be predictive for generating a newly induced antigen-specific immune response as is expected after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Infecciones por Virus de Epstein-Barr , Neoplasias Hematológicas , Mieloma Múltiple , Humanos , Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Leucocitos Mononucleares , COVID-19/prevención & control , Herpesvirus Humano 4 , Neoplasias Hematológicas/terapia , Vacunación
2.
Infect Dis Rep ; 15(1): 125-131, 2023 Feb 20.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2244044

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibodies represent one option for treatment of COVID-19 early after infection. Although large clinical trials have been successfully conducted, real world data are needed to obtain a realistic assessment of the assumed effect on hospitalization rates. METHODS: For this retrospective, observational study, clinical data were collected in 2021 from outpatients (402) as well as hospitalized patients (350) receiving monoclonal antibodies Bamlanivimab, Casirivimab/Imdevimab or Etesevimab/Bamlanivimab. These data were compared with data from a control group of patients not receiving antibodies because admission to the hospital was too late for this therapy. RESULTS: Both groups showed a comparable spectrum of risk factors. Due to the late hospitalization of control patients, a higher frequency of severe symptoms, such as fever, dyspnea, syncope and lower viral load, were observed. CRP and leukocytes counts were also higher in the untreated group. Most importantly, hospitalization time was significantly shorter and the number of deaths was also lower in the treated group. CONCLUSIONS: Apparently, the application of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies reduced the work load of our hospital as shown by the shorter hospitalization time and lower number of COVID-19-related deaths.

3.
Open Forum Infect Dis ; 9(5): ofac172, 2022 May.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1831312

RESUMEN

Background: In the phase 2/3 BLAZE-1 trial, bamlanivimab and etesevimab together reduced coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related hospitalizations and any-cause mortality in ambulatory patients. Herein, we assess the impact of bamlanivimab and etesevimab treatment on the severity and length of symptoms and health outcomes among patients at increased risk for severe COVID-19. Methods: In the phase 3 portion of BLAZE-1 (NCT04427501), symptomatic patients with increased risk for severe COVID-19 were randomized (2:1) to a single infusion of 700 mg bamlanivimab and 1400 mg etesevimab or placebo. Hospitalization events, vital signs, and symptomatology were monitored throughout the trial. Results: Overall, 769 patients were randomized to bamlanivimab and etesevimab together (n = 511) or placebo (n = 258). The time to sustained symptom resolution was significantly shorter among patients who received bamlanivimab and etesevimab compared with placebo (8 vs 10 days; P < .01). The median time to first sustained symptom resolution of body aches and pain, chills, fatigue, feeling feverish, headache, and shortness of breath was significantly different in patients receiving bamlanivimab and etesevimab compared to placebo (P < .05). The proportion of patients who experienced COVID-19-related hospitalization by day 29 was significantly reduced among the bamlanivimab and etesevimab group compared with placebo (0.8% vs 5.4%; P < .01). The mean duration of hospital stay was numerically shorter among patients who received bamlanivimab and etesevimab (7.3 vs 13.5 days; P = .16), with fewer intensive care admissions. Conclusions: Patients receiving bamlanivimab and etesevimab together resolved their symptoms more rapidly than those receiving placebo. Bamlanivimab and etesevimab treatment was associated with reduced rates of hospitalizations and shorter hospital stays. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT04427501.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA