Immunological and clinical efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised populations: a systematic review

SARS-CoV-2-neutralising monoclonal antibodies to prevent COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are laboratory-produced molecules derived from the B cells of an infected host. They are being investigated as potential prophylaxis to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs, including mAb fragments, to prevent infection with SARS-CoV-2 causing COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, MEDLINE, Embase, and three other databases on 27 April 2022. We checked references, searched citations, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs, including mAb fragments, alone or combined, versus an active comparator, placebo, or no intervention, for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) of COVID-19. We excluded studies of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs to treat COVID-19, as these are part of another review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed search results, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane RoB 2. Prioritised outcomes were infection with SARS-CoV-2, development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms, all-cause mortality, admission to hospital, quality of life, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). We rated the certainty of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four RCTs of 9749 participants who were previously uninfected and unvaccinated at baseline. Median age was 42 to 76 years. Around 20% to 77.5% of participants in the PrEP studies and 35% to 100% in the PEP studies had at least one risk factor for severe COVID-19. At baseline, 72.8% to 82.2% were SARS-CoV-2 antibody seronegative. We identified four ongoing studies, and two studies awaiting classification. Pre-exposure prophylaxis Tixagevimab/cilgavimab versus placebo One study evaluated tixagevimab/cilgavimab versus placebo in participants exposed to SARS-CoV-2 wild-type, Alpha, Beta, and Delta variant. About 39.3% of participants were censored for efficacy due to unblinding and 13.8% due to vaccination. Within six months, tixagevimab/cilgavimab probably decreases infection with SARS-CoV-2 (risk ratio (RR) 0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.70; 4685 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), decreases development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.35; 5172 participants; high-certainty evidence), and may decrease admission to hospital (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0 to 0.59; 5197 participants; low-certainty evidence). Tixagevimab/cilgavimab may result in little to no difference on mortality within six months, all-grade AEs, and SAEs (low-certainty evidence). Quality of life was not reported. Casirivimab/imdevimab versus placebo One study evaluated casirivimab/imdevimab versus placebo in participants who may have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 wild-type, Alpha, and Delta variant. About 36.5% of participants opted for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and had a mean of 66.1 days between last dose of intervention and vaccination. Within six months, casirivimab/imdevimab may decrease infection with SARS-CoV-2 (RR 0.01, 95% CI 0 to 0.14; 825 seronegative participants; low-certainty evidence) and may decrease development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms (RR 0.02, 95% CI 0 to 0.27; 969 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether casirivimab/imdevimab affects mortality regardless of the SARS-CoV-2 antibody serostatus. Casirivimab/imdevimab may increase all-grade AEs slightly (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.31; 969 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects on grade 3 to 4 AEs and SAEs within six months. Admission to hospital and quality of life were not reported. Postexposure prophylaxis Bamlanivimab versus placebo One study evaluated bamlanivimab versus placebo in participants who may have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 wild-type. Bamlanivimab probably decreases infection with SARS-CoV-2 versus placebo by day 29 (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.98; 966 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), may result in little to no difference on all-cause mortality by day 60 (R 0.83, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.70; 966 participants; low-certainty evidence), may increase all-grade AEs by week eight (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.46; 966 participants; low-certainty evidence), and may increase slightly SAEs (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.91; 966 participants; low-certainty evidence). Development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms, admission to hospital within 30 days, and quality of life were not reported. Casirivimab/imdevimab versus placebo One study evaluated casirivimab/imdevimab versus placebo in participants who may have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 wild-type, Alpha, and potentially, but less likely to Delta variant. Within 30 days, casirivimab/imdevimab decreases infection with SARS-CoV-2 (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.48; 1505 participants; high-certainty evidence), development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms (broad-term definition) (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.35; 1505 participants; high-certainty evidence), may result in little to no difference on mortality (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 73.43; 1505 participants; low-certainty evidence), and may result in little to no difference in admission to hospital. Casirivimab/imdevimab may slightly decrease grade 3 to 4 AEs (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.02; 2617 participants; low-certainty evidence), decreases all-grade AEs (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.80; 2617 participants; high-certainty evidence), and may result in little to no difference on SAEs in participants regardless of SARS-CoV-2 antibody serostatus. Quality of life was not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For PrEP, there is a decrease in development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms (high certainty), infection with SARS-CoV-2 (moderate certainty), and admission to hospital (low certainty) with tixagevimab/cilgavimab. There is low certainty of a decrease in infection with SARS-CoV-2, and development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms; and a higher rate for all-grade AEs with casirivimab/imdevimab. For PEP, there is moderate certainty of a decrease in infection with SARS-CoV-2 and low certainty for a higher rate for all-grade AEs with bamlanivimab. There is high certainty of a decrease in infection with SARS-CoV-2, development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms, and a higher rate for all-grade AEs with casirivimab/imdevimab.   Although there is high-to-moderate certainty evidence for some outcomes, it is insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions. These findings only apply to people unvaccinated against COVID-19. They are only applicable to the variants prevailing during the study and not other variants (e.g. Omicron). In vitro, tixagevimab/cilgavimab is effective against Omicron, but there are no clinical data. Bamlanivimab and casirivimab/imdevimab are ineffective against Omicron in vitro. Further studies are needed and publication of four ongoing studies may resolve the uncertainties.

Assessing the Reliability of SARS-CoV-2 Neutralization Studies That Use Post-Vaccination Sera

Assessing COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants is crucial for determining future vaccination strategies and other public health strategies. When clinical effectiveness data are unavailable, a common method of assessing vaccine performance is to utilize neutralization assays using post-vaccination sera. Neutralization studies are typically performed across a wide array of settings, populations and vaccination strategies, and using different methodologies. For any comparison and meta-analysis to be meaningful, the design and methodology of the studies used must at minimum address aspects that confer a certain degree of reliability and comparability. We identified and characterized three important categories in which studies differ (cohort details, assay details and data reporting details) and that can affect the overall reliability and/or usefulness of neutralization assay results. We define reliability as a measure of methodological accuracy, proper study setting concerning subjects, samples and viruses, and reporting quality. Each category comprises a set of several relevant key parameters. To each parameter, we assigned a possible impact (ranging from low to high) on overall study reliability depending on its potential to influence the results. We then developed a reliability assessment tool that assesses the aggregate reliability of a study across all parameters. The reliability assessment tool provides explicit selection criteria for inclusion of comparable studies in meta-analyses of neutralization activity of SARS-CoV-2 variants in post-vaccination sera and can also both guide the design of future neutralization studies and serve as a checklist for including important details on key parameters in publications.

COVID-19 Infection With the Omicron SARS-CoV-2 Variant in a Cohort of Kidney and Kidney Pancreas Transplant Recipients: Clinical Features, Risk Factors, and Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Since November 2021, a new variant of concern (VOC), the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) lineage B.1.1.529 (Omicron) has emerged as the dominant coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection worldwide. We describe the clinical presentation, risk factors, and outcomes in a cohort of kidney and kidney pancreas transplant recipients with COVID-19 caused by Omicron infection.

METHODS

We included all kidney and kidney pancreas transplant recipients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infections between December 26, 2021, and January 14, 2022, in a single transplant center in Australia. Identification of the VOC Omicron was confirmed using phylogenetic analysis of SARS-CoV-2 sequences.

RESULTS

Forty-one patients with kidney (6 living and 33 deceased) and kidney pancreas transplants were diagnosed with the VOC Omicron (lineage B.1.1.529/BA.1) infection during the study period. The mean age (SD) at the time of diagnosis was 52 (11.1) y; 40 (out of 41) (98%) had received at least 2 doses of COVID-19 vaccine. Cough was the most frequent symptom (80.5%), followed by myalgia (70.7%), sore throat (63.4%), and fever (58.5%). After a follow-up time of 30 d, 1 (2.4%) patient died, 2 (4.9%) experienced multiorgan failure, and 5 (12.2%) had respiratory failure; 11 (26.8%) patients developed other superimposed infections. Compared with recipients who did not receive sotrovimab antibody therapy, the odds ratio (95% confidence interval) for hospitalization among patients who received sotrovimab was 0.05 (0.005-0.4).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite double or triple dose vaccination, VOC Omicron infections in kidney and kidney pancreas transplant recipients are not necessarily mild. Hospitalization rates remained high (around 56%), and sotrovimab use may prevent hospitalization.

Vaccination for the Prevention of Infection among Immunocompromised Patients: A Concise Review of Recent Systematic Reviews

Vaccination is crucial for avoiding infection-associated morbidity and mortality among immunocompromised patients. However, immunocompromised patients respond less well to vaccinations compared to healthy people, and little is known about the relative efficacy of various vaccines among different immunocompromised states. A total of 54 systematic reviews (22 COVID-19; 32 non-COVID-19) published within the last 5 years in Pubmed® were reviewed. They demonstrated similar patterns within three seroconversion response categories: good (about >60% when compared to healthy controls), intermediate (~40−60%), and poor (about <40%). Good vaccine responses would be expected for patients with chronic kidney disease, human immunodeficiency virus infection (normal CD4 counts), immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, post-splenectomy states, and solid tumors. Intermediate vaccine responses would be expected for patients with anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 therapy, hematologic cancer, and human immunodeficiency virus infection (low CD4 counts). Poor vaccine responses would be expected for patients with B-cell-depleting agents (e.g., anti-CD20 therapy), hematopoietic stem-cell transplant, solid organ transplant, and liver cirrhosis. For all vaccine response categories, vaccination should be timed when patients are least immunosuppressed. For the intermediate and poor vaccine response categories, high-dose vaccine, revaccination when patients are less immunosuppressed, checking for seroconversion, additional booster doses, and long-acting monoclonal antibodies may be considered, supplemented by shielding measures.

Antiviral Cell Products against COVID-19: Learning Lessons from Previous Research in Anti-Infective Cell-Based Agents

COVID-19 is a real challenge for the protective immunity. Some people do not respond to vaccination by acquiring an appropriate immunological memory. The risk groups for this particular infection such as the elderly and people with compromised immunity (cancer patients, pregnant women, etc.) have the most serious problems in developing an adequate immune response. Therefore, dendritic cell (DC) vaccines that are loaded ex vivo with SARS-CoV-2 antigens in the optimal conditions are promising for immunization. Lymphocyte effector cells with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR lymphocytes) are currently used mainly as anti-tumor treatment. Before 2020, few studies on the antiviral CAR lymphocytes were reported, but since the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 the number of such studies has increased. The basis for CARs against SARS-CoV-2 were several virus-specific neutralizing monoclonal antibodies. We propose a similar, but basically novel and more universal approach. The extracellular domain of the immunoglobulin G receptors will be used as the CAR receptor domain. The specificity of the CAR will be determined by the antibodies, which it has bound. Therefore, such CAR lymphocytes are highly universal and have functional activity against any infectious agents that have protective antibodies binding to a foreign surface antigen on the infected cells.

Decline of Humoral Responses 6 Months after Vaccination with BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNTech) in Patients on Hemodialysis

This study analyzed binding and neutralizing antibody titers up to 6 months after standard vaccination with BNT162b2 (two doses of 30 µg each) in SARS-CoV-2 naïve patients (n = 59) on hemodialysis. Humoral vaccine responses were measured before and 6, 12, and 24 weeks after the first vaccination. A chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) was used to quantify SARS-CoV-2 IgG against the spike glycoprotein. SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing activity was tested against the wild-type virus. A multivariable binary regression model was used to identify risk factors for the absence of humoral immune responses at 6 months. At week 6, vaccine-specific seroconversion was detected in 96.6% of all patients with median anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgGs of 918 BAU/mL. At weeks 12 and 24, seroconversion rates decreased to 91.5% and 79.7%, and corresponding median binding antibody titers declined to 298 BAU/mL and 89 BAU/mL, respectively. Neutralizing antibodies showed a decay from 79.6% at week 6 to 32.8% at week 24. The risk factor with the strongest association for vanishing immune responses was low serum albumin (p = 0.018). Regarding vaccine-specific humoral responses 6 months after the standard BNT162b2 vaccination schedule, SARS-CoV-2 naïve patients receiving hemodialysis must be considered at risk of becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2 and being infectious.

Multiple Sclerosis Patients and Disease Modifying Therapies: Impact on Immune Responses against COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination

This article reviews the literature on SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and multiple sclerosis (MS). The first part of the paper focuses on the current data on immunopathology of SARS-CoV-2 and leading vaccines produced against COVID-19 infection. In the second part of the article, we discuss the effect of Disease Modifying Therapies (DMTs) on COVID-19 infection severity or SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in MS patients plus safety profile of different vaccine platforms in MS patients.