Efficacy of covid-19 vaccines in immunocompromised patients: systematic review and meta-analysis

Occupation, Worker Vulnerability, and COVID-19 Vaccination Uptake: Analysis of the Virus Watch prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Occupational disparities in COVID-19 vaccine uptake can impact the effectiveness of vaccination programmes and introduce particular risk for vulnerable workers and those with high workplace exposure. This study aimed to investigate COVID-19 vaccine uptake by occupation, including for vulnerable groups and by occupational exposure status.

METHODS

We used data from employed or self-employed adults who provided occupational information as part of the Virus Watch prospective cohort study (n = 19,595) and linked this to study-obtained information about vulnerability-relevant characteristics (age, medical conditions, obesity status) and work-related COVID-19 exposure based on the Job Exposure Matrix. Participant vaccination status for the first, second, and third dose of any COVID-19 vaccine was obtained based on linkage to national records and study records. We calculated proportions and Sison-Glaz multinomial 95% confidence intervals for vaccine uptake by occupation overall, by vulnerability-relevant characteristics, and by job exposure.

FINDINGS

Vaccination uptake across occupations ranged from 89-96% for the first dose, 87-94% for the second dose, and 75-86% for the third dose, with transport, trade, service and sales workers persistently demonstrating the lowest uptake. Vulnerable workers tended to demonstrate fewer between-occupational differences in uptake than non-vulnerable workers, although clinically vulnerable transport workers (76%-89% across doses) had lower uptake than several other occupational groups (maximum across doses 86%-96%). Workers with low SARS-CoV-2 exposure risk had higher vaccine uptake (86%-96% across doses) than those with elevated or high risk (81-94% across doses).

INTERPRETATION

Differential vaccination uptake by occupation, particularly amongst vulnerable and highly-exposed workers, is likely to worsen occupational and related socioeconomic inequalities in infection outcomes. Further investigation into occupational and non-occupational factors influencing differential uptake is required to inform relevant interventions for future COVID-19 booster rollouts and similar vaccination programmes.

Humoral immune response following a third SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine dose in solid organ transplant recipients compared with matched controls

Background

Solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients have shown suboptimal antibody response following COVID-19 vaccination. Several risk factors for the diminished response have been identified including immunosuppression and older age, but the influence of different comorbidities is not fully elucidated.

Method

This case-control study consisted of 420 Danish adult SOT recipients and 840 sex- and age-matched controls, all vaccinated with a third homologous dose of either BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccine. The primary outcome was differences in humoral immune response. The secondary outcome was breakthrough infections. Additionally, we looked for factors that could predict possible differences between the two groups.

Results

Response rate increased from 186/382 (49%) to 275/358 (77%) in SOT recipients and remained on 781/790 (99%) to 601/609 (99%) in controls following a third vaccine dose. SOT recipients had significantly lower median antibody concentrations after third dose compared to controls (332.6 BAU/ml vs 46,470.0 BAU/ml, p <0.001). Lowest median antibody concentrations were seen in SOT recipients with liver disease (10.3 BAU/ml, IQR 7.1-319) and diabetes (275.3 BAU/ml, IQR 7.3-957.4). Breakthrough infections occurred similarly frequent, 150 (40%) among cases and 301 (39%) among controls (p = 0.80).

Conclusion

A third COVID-19 vaccine dose resulted in a significant increase in humoral immunogenicity in SOT recipients and maintained high response rate in controls. Furthermore, SOT recipients were less likely to produce antibodies with overall lower antibody concentrations and humoral immunity was highly influenced by the presence of liver disease and diabetes. The prevalence of breakthrough infections was similar in the two groups.

The effect of immunomodulators on seroconversion after BNT162b2 and AZD1222 vaccines in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Biologic and nonbiologic immunomodulators, used to treat immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs), could impair the immune response to COVID-19 vaccines and thus vaccine effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to investigate the association between biologic and nonbiologic immunomodulators and seroconversion following the first and second dose of COVID-19 vaccines in patients with IMIDs.

METHODS

Serum samples were collected following the first or second dose of the BNT162b2 or AZD1222 vaccines from patients receiving biologic and/or nonbiologic immunomodulators for one or more of psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease or systemic lupus erythematosus. Seroconversion was defined as a positive Roche Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S (spike protein subunit S1/receptor binding domain) immunoassay (≥ 0.8 U mL-1). Association between immunomodulator exposure and seroconversion was assessed using logistic regression, adjusting for age and sex.

RESULTS

After excluding those with prior COVID-19, post-first vaccine dose samples from 193 participants and post-second dose samples from 312 participants were included in the analysis. Following the first vaccine dose, 17.6% (n = 34) of participants did not seroconvert. Seroconversion was reduced for those on nonbiologic [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12-0.69] or combined nonbiologic and biologic treatment (adjusted OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.045-0.45) compared with those on biologic monotherapy. Subgroup analysis demonstrated reduced odds of seroconversion in those on methotrexate (adjusted OR 0.097, 95% CI 0.19-0.49) or prednisolone treatment (adjusted OR 0.044, 95% CI 0.002-1.00) relative to tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitor monotherapy. No participants receiving rituximab (n < 5) seroconverted after the first vaccine dose. Following the second vaccine dose, 1.6% of all participants did not seroconvert. Non-seroconversion was associated with receiving rituximab (n = 3 of 4) compared with those receiving other therapies (n = 2 of 308, P < 0.001). Post hoc analyses demonstrated that non-seroconversion was associated with age [adjusted OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.037-0.93 for those aged 60 years and over (reference category age 18-39 years)], but not sex, ethnicity or vaccine type.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with nonbiologics, particularly methotrexate, is associated with impaired seroconversion following two BNT162b2 or AZD1222 vaccine doses, in patients with IMIDs. These findings are consistent with those of other published studies. While this could indicate reduced protection against COVID-19, the immunological parameters that correlate most closely with vaccine effectiveness need to be defined to reach this conclusion.

Tixagevimab/cilgavimab for prevention and treatment of COVID-19: a review

INTRODUCTION

There is a need to protect vulnerable individuals who do not respond to vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), particularly following the emergence of new variants. Tixagevimab/cilgavimab, the only monoclonal antibody combination authorized for pre-exposure prophylaxis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), demonstrated efficacy in unvaccinated individuals in the PROVENT study.

AREAS COVERED

This review focuses predominantly on real-world evidence examining the effectiveness and safety of tixagevimab/cilgavimab in populations who are immunocompromised and otherwise vulnerable. The ability of tixagevimab/cilgavimab to neutralize Omicron subvariants, the appropriate dosage in vulnerable populations, and the impact of prior vaccination on tixagevimab/cilgavimab effectiveness are also discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

The tixagevimab/cilgavimab combination is important in providing protection in people who either cannot have a full vaccination or respond poorly to COVID-19 vaccines. Abundant clinical data have emerged to inform clinical use in adults in need, although some additional data-formal pediatric and adolescent studies, plus information on optimal doses required to protect against emerging variants, and the ideal interval between tixagevimab/cilgavimab dosing and vaccination-would be welcomed. Importantly, despite the current effectiveness of tixagevimab/cilgavimab, we must recognize the possibility that resistant SARS-CoV-2 variants could emerge in the future.

The scar that takes time to heal: A systematic review of COVID-19-related stigma targets, antecedents, and outcomes

COVID-19, as a crucial public health crisis, has affected our lives in nearly every aspect. Besides its major health threats, COVID-19 brings severe secondary impacts, one of which is the rise of social stigma. Although numerous studies have examined the antecedents and outcomes of COVID-19-related stigma, we still lack a systematic understanding of who is being stigmatized during the COVID-19 pandemic, what exacerbates COVID-19-related stigma, and what impacts COVID-19-related stigma has on victims. Therefore, this review aims to provide a systematic overview of COVID-19-related stigma. With 93 papers conducted with 126,371 individuals in more than 150 countries and territories spanning five continents, we identify three targets that have received the most research: Chinese/Asian people, (suspected) patients and survivors, and healthcare workers. Furthermore, we find that for each stigma target, characteristics of the stigmatized, stigmatizer, and context contribute to COVID-19-related stigma and that this stigma negatively influences victims' health and non-health outcomes. We call for future research to provide a more integrative, balanced, and rigorous picture of COVID-19-related stigma via conducting research on neglected topics (e.g., contextual factors that contribute to stigma toward HCWs) and stigma interventions and using a longitudinal design. In practice, we urge governments and institutions (e.g., ministries of public health, hospitals) to pay close attention to stigma issues and to promote safe and inclusive societies.

Coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine effectiveness among a population-based cohort of people living with HIV

OBJECTIVE

People with HIV were underrepresented in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine clinical trials. We estimated vaccine effectiveness (VE) against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection for the BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, and ChAdOx1 vaccines among a population-based cohort of people with HIV in Ontario, Canada.

DESIGN

Test-negative design.

METHODS

We identified people with HIV aged ≥19 years who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR between December 14, 2020 (first availability of COVID-19 vaccines) and November 21, 2021 (pre-Omicron circulation). Outcomes included any infection, symptomatic infection, and COVID-19-related hospitalization/death. We compared the odds of vaccination between test-positive cases and test-negative controls using multivariable logistic regression with adjustment for age, sex, region, calendar time, SARS-CoV-2 test histories, influenza vaccination, comorbidities, and neighborhood-level socio-economic status. VE was derived as (1 - adjusted odds ratio) × 100%.

RESULTS

Among 21 023 adults living with HIV, there were 801 (8.3%) test-positive cases and 8,879 (91.7%) test-negative controls. 20.1% cases and 47.8% of controls received ≥1 COVID-19 vaccine dose; among two-dose recipients, 93.4% received ≥1 mRNA dose. Two-dose VE ≥7 days before specimen collection was 82% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 74-87%) against any infection, 94% (95% CI = 82-98%) against symptomatic infection, and 97% (95% CI = 85-100%) against hospitalization/death. Against any infection, VE declined from 86% (95% CI = 77-92%) within 7-59 days after the second dose to 66% (95% CI = -15-90%) after ≥180 days; we did not observe evidence of waning protection for other outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Two doses of COVID-19 vaccine offered substantial protection against symptomatic illness and hospitalization/death in people with HIV prior to the emergence of the Omicron variant. Our findings do not support a broad conclusion that COVID-19 VE is lower among people with HIV in populations that, for the most part, are attending HIV care, taking antiretroviral medication, and are virally suppressed.

Immune Responses to COVID-19 Vaccines in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease and Lead Exposure

Literature data regarding the response rate to COVID-19 vaccination in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients remain inconclusive. Furthermore, studies have reported a relationship between lead exposure and susceptibility to viral infections. This study examined immune responses to COVID-19 vaccines in patients with CKD and lead exposure. Between October and December 2021, 50 lead-exposed CKD patients received two doses of vaccination against COVID-19 at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital. Patients were stratified into two groups based on the median blood lead level (BLL): upper (≥1.30 μg/dL, n = 24) and lower (<1.30 μg/dL, n = 26) 50th percentile. The patients were aged 65.9 ± 11.8 years. CKD stages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 accounted for 26.0%, 20.0%, 22.0%, 8.0% and 24.0% of the patients, respectively. Patients in the lower 50th percentile of BLL had a lower proportion of CKD stage 5 than patients in the upper 50th percentile BLL group (p = 0.047). The patients in the lower 50th percentile BLL group also received a higher proportion of messenger RNA vaccines and a lower proportion of adenovirus-vectored vaccines than the patients in the upper 50th percentile BLL group (p = 0.031). Notably, the neutralizing antibody titers were higher in the lower 50th percentile than in the upper 50th percentile BLL group. Furthermore, the circulating levels of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor, interleukin-8, monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 and macrophage inflammatory protein-1α were higher in the upper 50th percentile than in the lower 50th percentile BLL group. Therefore, it was concluded that lead-exposed CKD patients are characterized by an impaired immune response to COVID-19 vaccination with diminished neutralizing antibodies and augmented inflammatory reactions.

Seroconversion rate after COVID-19 vaccination in patients with solid cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Patients with solid cancer have an increased risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and associated mortality than the general population. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the currently available evidence about the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in patients with solid cancer. We included prospective studies comparing the immunogenicity and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines between patients with solid cancer and healthy individuals. Relative risks of seroconversion after the first and second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine were separately pooled with the use of random effects meta-analysis. Thirty studies with 11,245 subjects met the inclusion criteria. After first vaccine dose, the pooled RR of seroconversion in patients with solid cancer vs healthy individuals was 0.54 (95% CI 0.38-0.78, I² = 94%). After a second dose, the pooled RR of seroconversion in patients with solid cancer vs healthy controls was 0.87 (0.86-0.88, I² = 87%). Our review suggests that, compared with healthy individuals, COVID-19 vaccines show favorable immunogenicity and efficacy in patients with solid cancer. A second dose is associated with significantly improved seroconversion, although it is slightly lower in patients with solid cancer compared with healthy individuals.

Safety and immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccination in immunocompromised patients

ABSTRACT

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic poses a great threat to public health. Individuals who are immunocompromised because of the progression of the primary disease or receiving immunosuppressive medications are prone to severe COVID-19 complications and poor outcomes. Abundant data have shown that many COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective in large-scale populations; however, these clinical trials have excluded immunocompromised populations. Available evidence indicates that immunocompromised populations have a blunted immune response to other vaccines, raising concerns regarding the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccination in these populations. Thus, there is an urgent need to delineate the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in these vulnerable populations. Here, we review the characteristics of specific humoral and cellular responses to COVID-19 vaccination in immunocompromised populations, including HIV-infected patients and those receiving immunosuppressive treatment, especially solid organ transplant recipients and those undergoing anti-CD20 treatment. We also addressed the challenges that immunocompromised populations will face in the future pandemic and the need for basic and clinical translational studies to highlight the best vaccination strategies for these populations.

Boosting of Waned Humoral and Cellular Responses to SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Concern Among Patients with Cancer

This study offers longitudinal insight into the impact of three SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations on humoral and cellular immunity in patients with solid cancers, patients with hematologic malignancies, and persons without cancer. For all cohorts, virus-neutralizing immunity was significantly depleted over a period of up to 9 months following the second vaccine dose, the one striking exception being IL2 production by SARS-CoV-2 antigen-specific T cells. Immunity was restored by the third vaccine dose, except in a substantial number of patients with hematologic malignancy, for whom both cancer type and treatment schedule were associated with nonresponse. Thus, whereas most patients with myelodysplastic syndrome were conspicuously good responders, some patients with other hematologic malignancies receiving cancer therapies within 2 weeks of vaccination showed no seroconversion despite three vaccine doses. Moreover, SARS-CoV-2 exposure during the course of the study neither prevented immunity waning, even in healthy controls, nor guaranteed vaccine responsiveness. These data offer real-world human immunologic insights that can inform health policy for patients with cancer.

COVID-19 vaccine response and safety in patients with cancer: An overview of systematic reviews

Background

To date, the COVID-19 pandemic does not appear to be overcome with new variants continuously emerging. The vaccination against COVID-19 has been the trend, but there are multiple systematic reviews on COVID-19 vaccines in patients with cancer, resulting in redundant and sub-optimal systematic reviews. There are still some doubts about efficacy and safety of the COVID-19 vaccine in cancer patients.

Purpose

To identify, summarize and synthesize the available evidence of systematic reviews on response and COVID-19 vaccine safety in patients with cancer.

Methods

Multiple databases were searched from their inception to May 1, 2022 to fetch the relevant articles. Study quality was assessed by AMSTAR2. The protocol of this study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022327931).

Results

A total of 18 articles were finally included. The seroconversion rates after first dose were ranged from 37.30-54.20% in all cancers, 49.60-62.00% in solid cancers and 33.30-56.00% in hematological malignancies. The seroconversion rates after second dose were ranged from 65.30-87.70% in all cancers, 91.60-96.00% in solid cancers and 58.00-72.60% in hematological malignancies. Cancer types and types of therapy could influence vaccine response. COVID-19 vaccines were safe and well-tolerated.

Conclusions

This study suggests COVID-19 vaccine response is significantly lower in cancer patients. Number of received doses, cancer types and treatment strategies could influence response of COVID-19 vaccine in cancer patients. COVID-19 vaccines are safe and well-tolerated. Considering the emergence of several new variants of SARS-CoV-2 with potential influence on ongoing vaccination programs, there is a need for booster doses to increase the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022327931, identifier CRD42022327931.

Antigenic escape is accelerated by the presence of immunocompromised hosts

The repeated emergence of SARS-CoV-2 escape mutants from host immunity has obstructed the containment of the current pandemic and poses a serious threat to humanity. Prolonged infection in immunocompromised patients has received increasing attention as a driver of immune escape, and accumulating evidence suggests that viral genomic diversity and emergence of immune-escape mutants are promoted in immunocompromised patients. However, because immunocompromised patients comprise a small proportion of the host population, whether they have a significant impact on antigenic evolution at the population level is unknown. We consider an evolutionary epidemiological model that combines antigenic evolution and epidemiological dynamics. Applying this model to a heterogeneous host population, we study the impact of immunocompromised hosts on the evolutionary dynamics of pathogen antigenic escape from host immunity. We derived analytical formulae of the speed of antigenic evolution in heterogeneous host populations and found that even a small number of immunocompromised hosts in the population significantly accelerates antigenic evolution. Our results demonstrate that immunocompromised hosts play a key role in viral adaptation at the population level and emphasize the importance of critical care and surveillance of immunocompromised hosts.

Effect of Previous COVID-19 Vaccination on Humoral Immunity 3 Months after SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Infection and Booster Effect of a Fourth COVID-19 Vaccination 2 Months after SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Infection

In this study, we aimed to determine the effect of COVID-19 vaccination on 3-month immune response and durability after natural infection by the Omicron variant and to assess the immune response to a fourth dose of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with prior natural infection with the Omicron variant. Overall, 86 patients aged ≥60 years with different vaccination histories and 39 health care workers (HCWs) vaccinated thrice before Omicron infection were enrolled. The sVNT50 titer was significantly lower in patients with incomplete vaccination before SARS-CoV-2 infection with the S clade (p < 0.001), Delta variant (p < 0.001), or Omicron variant (p = 0.003) than in those vaccinated thrice. The sVNT results against the Omicron variant did not differ significantly in patients aged ≥60 years (p = 0.49) and HCWs (p = 0.17), regardless of the recipient receiving the fourth dose 2 months after COVID-19. Incomplete COVID-19 vaccination before Omicron infection for individuals aged ≥60 years conferred limited protection against homologous and heterologous virus strains, whereas two or three doses of the vaccine provided cross-variant humoral immunity against Omicron infection for at least 3 months. However, a fourth dose 2 months after Omicron infection did not enhance immunity against the homologous strain. A future strategy using the bivalent Omicron-containing booster vaccine with appropriate timing will be crucial.

Effectiveness of Second mRNA COVID-19 Booster Vaccine in Immunocompromised Persons and Long-Term Care Facility Residents

We used a nationwide population registry in South Korea to estimate the effect of a second booster dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine on the risk for laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, critical infection, and death in immunocompromised persons and long-term care facility (LTCF) residents. During February 16-May 7, 2022, among 972,449 eligible persons, 736,439 (75.7%) received a first booster and 236,010 (24.3%) persons received a second booster. Compared with the first booster group, at 30-53 days, the second booster recipients had vaccine effectiveness (VE) against all infections of 22.28% (95% CI 19.35%-25.11%), VE against critical infection of 56.95% (95% CI 29.99%-73.53%), and VE against death of 62.96% (95% CI 34.18%-79.15%). Our findings provide real-world evidence that a second booster dose of mRNA vaccine substantially increases protection against critical infection and death in these high-risk population groups.

Covid-19 and alcohol associated liver disease

The COVID-19 pandemic is having substantial impacts on the health status of individuals with alcohol use disorder (AUD) and alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD). AUD and ALD have both been impacted throughout the pandemic, with increases in alcohol use during the early stages of the pandemic, reduced access to treatment during the mid-pandemic, and challenges in managing the downstream effects in the post-COVID era. This review will focus on how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted AUD and ALD epidemiology and access to treatment, and will discuss to address this rising AUD and ALD disease burden.

Molnupiravir Outpatient Treatment for Adults with COVID-19 in a Real-World Setting-A Single Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Molnupiravir is approved for the treatment of adult patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. The main goal of the treatment is to reduce hospitalization and mortality rate. This study aimed at the all-cause hospitalization and all-cause death assessment in patients at high risk of severe COVID-19 treated with molnupiravir.

METHODS

This was a prospective, observational single center study. Non-hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 symptoms with the onset of up to 5 days, and at high risk of severe COVID-19 illness received molnupiravir based on attending physician decisions.

RESULTS

In total, 107 patients were enrolled. Adverse events were reported in 28.0% of patients, with nausea and abdominal pain being the most commonly observed. No treatment-emergent AEs resulted in therapy discontinuation. Overall, 15 patients required hospitalization. During the observation, 2.8% (n = 3) of patients subsequently died. All deaths were considered to be related to COVID-19 complications. Age over 65 years, heart failure, and ischemic heart disease showed a significant correlation with the severe course of COVID-19.

CONCLUSION

Molnupiravir may be perceived as an alternative treatment for patients with immunosuppression and advanced chronic kidney disease. Nevertheless, further studies are required to conclusively establish a role for molnupiravir in future COVID-19 treatment recommendations.

Comparison of the Immune Response After an Extended Primary Series of COVID-19 Vaccination in Kidney Transplant Recipients Receiving Standard Versus Mycophenolic Acid-sparing Immunosuppressive Regimen

Two doses of coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination provide suboptimal immune response in transplant patients. Mycophenolic acid (MPA) is one of the most important factors that blunts the immune response. We studied the immune response to the extended primary series of 2 doses of AZD1222 and a single dose of BNT162b2 in kidney transplant patients who were on the standard immunosuppressive regimen compared to those on the MPA-sparing regimen.

METHODS

The kidney transplant recipients who were enrolled into the study were divided into 2 groups based on their immunosuppressive regimen. Those on the standard immunosuppressive regimen received tacrolimus (TAC), MPA, and prednisolone (standard group). The patients in the MPA-sparing group received mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (mTORi) with low dose TAC plus prednisolone (MPA-sparing group). The vaccination consisted of 2 doses of AZD1222 and a single dose of BNT162b2.

RESULTS

A total of 115 patients completed the study. There were 76 (66.08%) patients in the standard group and 39 (33.91%) patients in the MPA-sparing group. The overall median anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) S antibody level at 4 wk after vaccine completion was 676.64 (interquartile range = 6.02-3644.03) BAU/mL with an 80% seroconversion rate. The MPA-sparing group achieved higher anti-SARS-CoV-2 S antibody level compared to the standard group (3060.69 and 113.91 BAU/mL, P < 0.001). The seroconversion rate of MPA-sparing and standard groups were 97.4% and 71.1%, respectively (P < 0.001). The anti-HLA antibodies did not significantly increase after vaccination.

CONCLUSIONS

The extended primary series of 2 doses of AZD1222 and a single dose of BNT162b2 provided significant humoral immune response. The MPA-sparing regimen with mTORi and low dose TAC had a higher ant-SARS-CoV-2 S antibody level and seroconversion rate compared to the participants in the standard regimen.

Impact of COVID-19 Infection, Vaccination, and Serological Response in Immune Thrombocytopenic Purpura Patients: A Single-Center Global Analysis

Both SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination have raised concern in immune-mediated diseases, including immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) considering risk of de novo ITP development and ITP recurrence. Here, we report on data from a single-center retrospective-prospective collection aiming to evaluate platelet (plt) dynamics in patients (pts) with chronic ITP after COVID-19 infection (before and after vaccination) and after the first, second and third vaccine doses. Furthermore, we analyzed the serological response after the first two doses of COVID-19 vaccination. A total of 64 pts currently followed for chronic ITP who experienced COVD-19 infection and/or vaccination with an available plt count before and after such events were included in the analysis. A low incidence of ITP exacerbation following vaccine sessions (6-16%) was observed in comparison with a high frequency of exacerbation and rescue treatment necessity after COVID-19 infection in unvaccinated pts (83%). Moreover, the lower ITP exacerbation rate observed in infected pts previously vaccinated (18%) suggests further protective effects in this population. Finally, a high seroconversion rate was observed, confirming data reported in previously published studies on immune cytopenia and rheumatological diseases, but more evidence is awaited to establish the clinical impact of serological response.

Lessons learned and implications of early therapies for coronavirus disease in a territorial service centre in the Calabria region: a retrospective study

Background

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and antivirals have been approved for early therapy of coronavirus disease (COVID-19), however, in the real-life setting, there are difficulties to prescribe these therapies within few days from symptom onset as recommended, and effectiveness of combined use of these drugs have been hypothesised in most-at-risk patients (such as those immunocompromised) but data supporting this strategy are limited.

Methods

We describe the real-life experience of SARS-CoV-2 antivirals and/or monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and focus on the hospitalisation rate due to the progression of COVID-19. Clinical results obtained through our risk-stratification algorithm and benefits achieved through a strategic proximity territorial centre are provided. We also report a case series with an in-depth evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 genome in relationship with treatment strategy and clinical evolution of patients.

Results

Two hundred eighty-eight patients were analysed; 94/288 (32.6%) patients were treated with mAb monotherapy, 171/288 (59.4%) patients were treated with antivirals, and 23/288 (8%) patients received both mAbs and one antiviral drug. Haematological malignancies were more frequent in patients treated with combination therapy than in the other groups (p = 0.0003). There was a substantial increase in the number of treated patients since the opening of the centre dedicated to early therapies for COVID-19. The provided disease-management and treatment appeared to be effective since 98.6% patients recovered without hospital admission. Moreover, combination therapy with mAbs and antivirals seemed successful because all patients admitted to the hospital for COVID-19 did not receive such therapies, while none of the most-at-risk patients treated with combination therapy were hospitalized or reported adverse events.

Conclusions

A low rate of COVID-19 progression requiring hospital admission was observed in patients included in this study. The dedicated COVID-19 proximity territorial service appeared to strengthen the regional sanitary system, avoiding the overwhelming of other services. Importantly, our results also support early combination therapy: it is possible that this strategy reduces the emergence of escape mutants of SARS-CoV-2, thereby increasing efficacy of early treatment, especially in immunocompromised individuals.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12879-022-07774-9.

Type of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine and immunomodulatory treatment influence humoral immunogenicity in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases

Patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRD) are at increased risk for worse COVID-19 outcomes. Identifying whether mRNA vaccines differ in immunogenicity and examining the effects of immunomodulatory treatments may support COVID-19 vaccination strategies. We aimed to conduct a long-term, model-based comparison of the humoral immunogenicity following BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccination in a cohort of IRD patients. Patients from the Swiss IRD cohort (SCQM), who assented to mRNA COVID-19 vaccination were recruited between 3/2021-9/2021. Blood samples at baseline, 4, 12, and 24 weeks post second vaccine dose were tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike IgG (anti-S1). We examined differences in antibody levels depending on the vaccine and treatment at baseline while adjusting for age, disease, and past SARS-CoV-2 infection. 565 IRD patients provided eligible samples. Among monotherapies, rituximab, abatacept, JAKi, and TNFi had the highest odds of reduced anti-S1 responses compared to no medication. Patients on specific combination therapies showed significantly lower antibody responses than those on monotherapy. Irrespective of the disease, treatment, and past SARS-CoV-2 infection, the odds of higher antibody levels at 4, 12, and 24 weeks post second vaccine dose were, respectively, 3.4, 3.8, and 3.8 times higher with mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2 (p < 0.0001). With every year of age, the odds ratio of higher peak humoral immunogenicity following mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2 increased by 5% (p < 0.001), indicating a particular benefit for elderly patients. Our results suggest that in IRD patients, two-dose vaccination with mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2 results in higher anti-S1 levels, even more so in elderly patients.

Adjusted COVID-19 booster schedules balance age-dependent differences in antibody titers benefitting risk populations

We provide follow-up data on the humoral immune response after COVID-19 vaccinations of two distinct cohorts aged below 60 and over 80 years to screen for age-related differences in the longevity and magnitude of the induction of the antibody responses post booster-vaccinations. While anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific IgG and neutralization capacity waned rapidly after the initial vaccination schedule, additional boosters highly benefitted the humoral immune responses especially in the elderly cohort, including the neutralization of Omikron variants. Thus, adjusted COVID-19 booster vaccination schedules are an appropriate tool to overcome limitations in the success of vaccinations.

Antibody response to a third booster dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in adults with haematological and solid cancer: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Patients living with cancer are at a significantly increased risk of morbidity and mortality after infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). This systematic review aims to investigate the current available evidence about the immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 booster vaccines in patients living with cancer.

METHODS

A systematic search was undertaken for studies published until March 1, 2022. A systematic narrative review was undertaken to include all studies that evaluated the efficacy of booster vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with cancer.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies encompassing 1205 patients with cancer were included. We found that a booster vaccine dose induced a higher response in patients with solid cancer as compared to haematological malignancies. Recent systemic anticancer therapy does not appear to affect seroconversion in solid organ malignancies, however, there is an association between B-cell depleting therapies and poor seroconversion in haematological patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Third booster vaccination induces an improved antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 in adults with haematological and solid cancer, relative to patients who only receive two doses. Access to vaccination boosters should be made available to patients at risk of poor immunological responses, and the provision of fourth doses may be of benefit to this vulnerable population.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO number CRD42021270420.

Benefits of Switching Mycophenolic Acid to Sirolimus on Serological Response after a SARS-CoV-2 Booster Dose among Kidney Transplant Recipients: A Pilot Study

Kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) have a suboptimal immune response to COVID-19 vaccination due to the effects of immunosuppression, mostly mycophenolic acid (MPA). This study investigated the benefits of switching from the standard immunosuppressive regimen (tacrolimus (TAC), MPA, and prednisolone) to a regimen of mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor (mTORi), TAC and prednisolone two weeks pre- and two weeks post-BNT162b2 booster vaccination. A single-center, opened-label pilot study was conducted in KTRs, who received two doses of ChAdOx-1 and a single dose of BNT162b2. The participants were randomly assigned to continue the standard regimen (control group, n = 14) or switched to a sirolimus (an mTORi), TAC, and prednisolone (switching group, n = 14) regimen two weeks before and two weeks after receiving a booster dose of BNT162b2. The anti-SARS-CoV-2 S antibody level after vaccination in the switching group was significantly greater than the control group (4051.0 [IQR 3142.0-6466.0] BAU/mL vs. 2081.0 [IQR 1077.0-3960.0] BAU/mL, respectively; p = 0.01). One participant who was initially seronegative in the control group remained seronegative after the booster dose. These findings suggest humoral immune response benefits of switching the standard immunosuppressive regimen to the regimen of mTORi, TAC, and prednisolone in KTRs during vaccination.

SARS-CoV-2 reinfections with BA.1 (Omicron) variant among fully vaccinated individuals in northeastern Brazil

BACKGROUND

The first case of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in Rio Grande do Norte, northeastern Brazil, was diagnosed on March 12, 2020; thereafter, multiple surges of infection occurred, similar to what was seen elsewhere. These surges were mostly due to SARS-CoV-2 mutations leading to emergence of variants of concern (VoC). The introduction of new VoCs in a population previously exposed to SARS-CoV-2 or after vaccination has been a challenge to understanding the kinetics of the protective immune response against this virus. The aim of this study was to investigate the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 reinfections observed in mid-January 2022 in Rio Grande do Norte state, Brazil. It describes the clinical and genomic characteristics of nine cases of reinfection that occurred coincident with the introduction of the omicron variant.

METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Of a total of 172,965 individuals with upper respiratory symptoms tested for SARS-CoV-2, between March 2020 through mid-February 2022, 58,097 tested positive. Of those, 444 had documented a second SARS-CoV-2 infection and nine reinfection cases were selected for sequencing. Genomic analysis revealed that virus lineages diverged between primary infections and the reinfections, with the latter caused by the Omicron (BA.1) variant among individuals fully vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2.

CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE

Our findings suggest that the Omicron variant is able to evade both natural and vaccine-induced immunity, since all nine cases had prior natural infection and, in addition, were fully vaccinated, emphasizing the need to develop effective blocking vaccines.

Factors Associated With COVID-19 Vaccine Response in Transplant Recipients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The rapid development and universal access to vaccines represent a milestone in combating the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. However, there are major concerns about vaccine response in immunocompromised populations in particular transplant recipients. In the present study, we aim to comprehensively assess the humoral response to COVID-19 vaccination in both orthotopic organ transplant and allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of 96 studies that met inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

The pooled rates of seroconversion were 49% (95% confidence interval [CI], 43%-55%) in transplant recipients and 99% (95% CI, 99%-99%) in healthy controls after the second dose of vaccine. The pooled rate was 56% (95% CI, 49%-63%) in transplant recipients after the third dose. Immunosuppressive medication is the most prominent risk factor associated with seroconversion failure, but different immunosuppressive regimens are associated with differential outcomes in this respect. Calcineurin inhibitors, steroids, or mycophenolate mofetil/mycophenolic acid are associated with an increased risk of seroconversion failure, whereas azathioprine or mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors do not. Advanced age, short interval from receiving the vaccine to the time of transplantation, or comorbidities confers a higher risk for seroconversion failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Transplant recipients compared with the general population have much lower rates of seroconversion upon receiving COVID-19 vaccines. Immunosuppressants are the most prominent factors associated with seroconversion, although different types may have differential effects.

SARS-CoV-2 reinfections with BA.1 (Omicron) variant among fully vaccinated individuals in northeastern Brazil

BACKGROUND

The first case of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in Rio Grande do Norte, northeastern Brazil, was diagnosed on March 12, 2020; thereafter, multiple surges of infection occurred, similar to what was seen elsewhere. These surges were mostly due to SARS-CoV-2 mutations leading to emergence of variants of concern (VoC). The introduction of new VoCs in a population previously exposed to SARS-CoV-2 or after vaccination has been a challenge to understanding the kinetics of the protective immune response against this virus. The aim of this study was to investigate the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 reinfections observed in mid-January 2022 in Rio Grande do Norte state, Brazil. It describes the clinical and genomic characteristics of nine cases of reinfection that occurred coincident with the introduction of the omicron variant.

METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Of a total of 172,965 individuals with upper respiratory symptoms tested for SARS-CoV-2, between March 2020 through mid-February 2022, 58,097 tested positive. Of those, 444 had documented a second SARS-CoV-2 infection and nine reinfection cases were selected for sequencing. Genomic analysis revealed that virus lineages diverged between primary infections and the reinfections, with the latter caused by the Omicron (BA.1) variant among individuals fully vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2.

CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE

Our findings suggest that the Omicron variant is able to evade both natural and vaccine-induced immunity, since all nine cases had prior natural infection and, in addition, were fully vaccinated, emphasizing the need to develop effective blocking vaccines.

Severe infections in recipients of cancer immunotherapy: what intensivists need to know

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Given the increased number of cancer patients admitted in the ICU and the growing importance of immunotherapy in their therapeutic arsenal, intensivists will be increasingly confronted to patients treated with immunotherapies who will present with complications, infectious and immunologic.

RECENT FINDINGS

Apart from their specific immunologic toxicities, cancer immunotherapy recipients also have specific immune dysfunction and face increased infectious risks that may lead to intensive care unit admission.

SUMMARY

Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy is associated with profound immunosuppression and the risks of bacterial, fungal and viral infections vary according to the time since infusion.Immune checkpoint blockers are associated with an overall favorable safety profile but associations of checkpoint blockers and corticosteroids and immunosuppressive drugs prescribed to treat immune-related adverse events are associated with increased risks of bacterial and fungal infections.The T-cell engaging bispecific therapy blinatumomab causes profound B-cell aplasia, hypogammaglobulinemia and neutropenia, but seems to be associated with fewer infectious adverse events compared with standard intensive chemotherapy.Lastly, intravesical administration of Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) can lead to disseminated BCGitis and severe sepsis requiring a specific antibiotherapy, often associated with corticosteroid treatment.

Magnitude of venous or capillary blood-derived SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell response determines COVID-19 immunity

T cells specific for SARS-CoV-2 are thought to protect against infection and development of COVID-19, but direct evidence for this is lacking. Here, we associated whole-blood-based measurement of SARS-CoV-2-specific interferon-γ-positive T cell responses with positive COVID-19 diagnostic (PCR and/or lateral flow) test results up to 6 months post-blood sampling. Amongst 148 participants donating venous blood samples, SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell response magnitude is significantly greater in those who remain protected versus those who become infected (P < 0.0001); relatively low magnitude T cell response results in a 43.2% risk of infection, whereas high magnitude reduces this risk to 5.4%. These findings are recapitulated in a further 299 participants testing a scalable capillary blood-based assay that could facilitate the acquisition of population-scale T cell immunity data (14.9% and 4.4%, respectively). Hence, measurement of SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells can prognosticate infection risk and should be assessed when monitoring individual and population immunity status.

Immunogenicity and Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines among People Living with HIV: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The immunogenicity and safety of COVID-19 vaccines among people living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLWH) are unclear. We aimed to evaluate the immunogenicity and safety of COVID-19 vaccines among PLWH.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science from 1 January 2020 to 28 April 2022 and included observational studies, randomized clinical trials, and non-randomized clinical trials reporting extractable data about the immunogenicity and safety of COVID-19 vaccines among PLWH.

RESULTS

A total of 34 eligible studies covering 4517 PLWH were included. The pooled seroconversion rates among PLWH after the first and second doses were 67.51% (95% confident interval (CI) 49.09-85.93%) and 96.65% (95%CI 95.56-97.75%), respectively. The seroconversion was similar between PLWH and healthy controls after the first (risk ratio (RR) = 0.89, 95%CI 0.76-1.04) and the second (RR = 0.97, 95%CI 0.93-1.00) dose. Moreover, the geometric mean titer (GMT) showed no significant difference between PLWH and healthy controls after the first dose (standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.30, 95%CI -1.11, 1.70) and the second dose (SMD = -0.06, 95%CI -0.18, 0.05). Additionally, the pooled incidence rates of total adverse events among PLWH after the first and the second dose were 46.55% (95%CI 28.29-64.82%) and 30.96% (95%CI 13.23-48.70%), respectively. There was no significant difference in risks of total adverse events between PLWH and healthy controls after the first (RR = 0.86, 95%CI 0.67-1.10) and the second (RR = 0.88, 95%CI 0.68-1.14) dose.

CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence suggested that the immunogenicity and safety of COVID-19 vaccines among PLWH were acceptable. There was no significant difference in the seroconversion rates and incidence rates of adverse events of COVID-19 vaccines between PLWH and healthy controls.

SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination elicits broad and potent Fc effector functions to VOCs in vulnerable populations

SARS-CoV-2 variants have continuously emerged even as highly effective vaccines have been widely deployed. Reduced neutralization observed against variants of concern (VOC) raises the question as to whether other antiviral antibody activities are similarly compromised, or if they might compensate for lost neutralization activity. In this study, the breadth and potency of antibody recognition and effector function was surveyed in both healthy individuals as well as immunologically vulnerable subjects following either natural infection or receipt of an mRNA vaccine. Considering pregnant women as a model cohort with higher risk of severe illness and death, we observed similar binding and functional breadth for healthy and immunologically vulnerable populations. In contrast, considerably greater functional antibody breadth and potency across VOC was associated with vaccination than prior infection. However, greater antibody functional activity targeting the endemic coronavirus OC43 was noted among convalescent individuals, illustrating a dichotomy in recognition between close and distant human coronavirus strains that was associated with exposure history. Probing the full-length spike and receptor binding domain (RBD) revealed that antibody-mediated Fc effector functions were better maintained against full-length spike as compared to RBD. This analysis of antibody functions in healthy and vulnerable populations across a panel of SARS-CoV-2 VOC and extending through endemic alphacoronavirus strains suggests the differential potential for antibody effector functions to contribute to protecting vaccinated and convalescent subjects as the pandemic progresses and novel variants continue to evolve.

One Sentence Summary

As compared to natural infection with SARS-CoV-2, vaccination drives superior functional antibody breadth raising hopes for candidate universal CoV vaccines.

mRNA Vaccine Effectiveness Against Coronavirus Disease 2019 Hospitalization Among Solid Organ Transplant Recipients

BACKGROUND

The study objective was to evaluate 2- and 3-dose coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccine effectiveness (VE) in preventing COVID-19 hospitalization among adult solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients.

METHODS

We conducted a 21-site case-control analysis of 10 425 adults hospitalized in March to December 2021. Cases were hospitalized with COVID-19; controls were hospitalized for an alternative diagnosis (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-negative). Participants were classified as follows: SOT recipient (n = 440), other immunocompromising condition (n = 1684), or immunocompetent (n = 8301). The VE against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was calculated as 1-adjusted odds ratio of prior vaccination among cases compared with controls.

RESULTS

Among SOT recipients, VE was 29% (95% confidence interval [CI], -19% to 58%) for 2 doses and 77% (95% CI, 48% to 90%) for 3 doses. Among patients with other immunocompromising conditions, VE was 72% (95% CI, 64% to 79%) for 2 doses and 92% (95% CI, 85% to 95%) for 3 doses. Among immunocompetent patients, VE was 88% (95% CI, 87% to 90%) for 2 doses and 96% (95% CI, 83% to 99%) for 3 doses.

CONCLUSIONS

Effectiveness of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines was lower for SOT recipients than immunocompetent adults and those with other immunocompromising conditions. Among SOT recipients, vaccination with 3 doses of an mRNA vaccine led to substantially greater protection than 2 doses.

A critical overview of current progress for COVID-19: development of vaccines, antiviral drugs, and therapeutic antibodies

The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic remains a global public health crisis, presenting a broad range of challenges. To help address some of the main problems, the scientific community has designed vaccines, diagnostic tools and therapeutics for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. The rapid pace of technology development, especially with regard to vaccines, represents a stunning and historic scientific achievement. Nevertheless, many challenges remain to be overcome, such as improving vaccine and drug treatment efficacies for emergent mutant strains of SARS-CoV-2. Outbreaks of more infectious variants continue to diminish the utility of available vaccines and drugs. Thus, the effectiveness of vaccines and drugs against the most current variants is a primary consideration in the continual analyses of clinical data that supports updated regulatory decisions. The first two vaccines granted Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs), BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, still show more than 60% protection efficacy against the most widespread current SARS-CoV-2 variant, Omicron. This variant carries more than 30 mutations in the spike protein, which has largely abrogated the neutralizing effects of therapeutic antibodies. Fortunately, some neutralizing antibodies and antiviral COVID-19 drugs treatments have shown continued clinical benefits. In this review, we provide a framework for understanding the ongoing development efforts for different types of vaccines and therapeutics, including small molecule and antibody drugs. The ripple effects of newly emergent variants, including updates to vaccines and drug repurposing efforts, are summarized. In addition, we summarize the clinical trials supporting the development and distribution of vaccines, small molecule drugs, and therapeutic antibodies with broad-spectrum activity against SARS-CoV-2 strains.

Coronavirus Vaccination: Spike Antibody Levels in Health Workers after Six Months-A Cross-Sectional Study

Healthcare workers bear a high risk of infection during epidemics and pandemics such as the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Various new vaccines have been approved. We investigated the influence of the time elapsed since vaccination, as well as of vaccination schema, on health workers' spike antibody levels following their second vaccination. Blood samples were obtained from employees working at a German hospital between August 2021 and December 2021 on average half a year (range 130-280 days) after their second vaccination. Levels of SARS-CoV-2-IgG antibodies (spike and nucleocapsid protein) were qualitatively detected via chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIAs). A previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 was an exclusion criterion. In total, 545 persons were included in this cross-sectional study. Most participants (97.8%) showed elevated anti-spike concentrations. Anti-spike levels differed significantly among vaccination schemas. Repeated vector vaccinations resulted in lower protective antibody levels. Higher age levels, immunosuppression and a longer time period since the second vaccination resulted in lower anti-spike levels. Women's antibody levels were higher, but not significantly. Since anti-spike levels drop after vaccination, further boosters are required to increase immunoreactivity. If two vector vaccines have been administered, it is possible that an mRNA booster might increase the anti-spike level.

SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination in Solid-Organ Transplant Recipients

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has posed significant global challenges for solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. Mortality rates of COVID-19 in this patient population remain high, despite new available therapeutic options and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination. Priority access to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination for waitlisted candidates and for SOT patients and their family members is recommended since the advantage from vaccination reduces the risk of COVID-19-related complications. However, immunogenicity and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines are lower in waitlisted candidates and SOT recipients than in the general population. Routine systematic assessment of humoral and cellular immune responses after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is controversial, although highly recommended for investigation and improvement of knowledge. SOT recipients should continue to adhere to preventive protective measures despite vaccination and may undergo passive antibody prophylaxis. This article seeks to provide an update on SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and preventive measures in SOT recipients based on existing literature and international guidelines.

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in Australian Patients with Solid Organ Cancers

Background: Vaccination is the cornerstone of the global public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Excess morbidity and mortality of COVID-19 infection is seen in people with cancer. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy has been observed in this medically vulnerable population, although associated attitudes and beliefs remain poorly understood. Methods: An online cross-sectional survey of people with solid organ cancers was conducted through nine health services across Australia. Demographics, cancer-related characteristics and vaccine uptake were collected. Perceptions and beliefs regarding COVID-19 vaccination were assessed using the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale, the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Confidence and Complacency Scale and the Disease Influenced Vaccine Acceptance Scale-6. Results: Between June and October 2021, 2691 people with solid organ cancers completed the survey. The median age was 62.5 years (SD = 11.8; range 19–95), 40.9% were male, 71.3% lived in metropolitan areas and 90.3% spoke English as their first language. The commonest cancer diagnoses were breast (36.6%), genitourinary (18.6%) and gastrointestinal (18.3%); 59.2% had localized disease and 56.0% were receiving anti-cancer therapy. Most participants (79.7%) had at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose. Vaccine uptake was higher in people who were older, male, metropolitan, spoke English as a first language and had a cancer diagnosis for more than six months. Vaccine hesitancy was higher in people who were younger, female, spoke English as a non-dominant language and lived in a regional location, and lower in people with genitourinary cancer. Vaccinated respondents were more concerned about being infected with COVID-19 and less concerned about vaccine safety and efficacy. Conclusions: People with cancer have concerns about acquiring COVID-19, which they balance against vaccine-related concerns about the potential impact on their disease progress and/or treatment. Detailed exploration of concerns in cancer patients provides valuable insights, both for discussions with individual patients and public health messaging for this vulnerable population.

Longitudinal evaluation of the impact of immunosuppressive regimen on immune responses to COVID-19 vaccination in kidney transplant recipients

Immunocompromised patients have a high risk of death from SARS-CoV-2 infection. Vaccination with an mRNA vaccine may protect these patients against severe COVID-19. Several studies have evaluated the impact of immune-suppressive drug regimens on cellular and humoral responses to SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern in this context. We performed a prospective longitudinal study assessing specific humoral (binding and neutralizing antibodies against spike (S) and T-lymphocyte (cytokine secretion and polyfunctionality) immune responses to anti-COVID-19 vaccination with at least two doses of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine in stable kidney transplant recipients (KTR) on calcineurin inhibitor (CNI)- or belatacept-based treatment regimens. Fifty-two KTR−31 receiving CNI and 21 receiving belatacept—were enrolled in this study. After two doses of vaccine, 46.9% of patients developed anti-S IgG. Anti-spike IgG antibodies were produced in only 21.4% of the patients in the belatacept group, vs. 83.3% of those in the CNI group. The Beta and Delta variants and, more importantly, the Omicron variant, were less well neutralized than the Wuhan strain. T-cell functions were also much weaker in the belatacept group than in the CNI group. Renal transplant patients have an impaired humoral response to BNT162b2 vaccination. Belatacept-based regimens severely weaken both humoral and cellular vaccine responses. Clinically, careful evaluations of at least binding IgG responses, and prophylactic or post-exposure strategies are strongly recommended for transplant recipients on belatacept-based regimens.

Humoral response to different SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in orthotopic liver transplant recipients

Background

The safety and efficacy data of the different types of available vaccines is still needed. The goal of the present analysis was to evaluate the humoral response to the COVID-19 vaccines in orthotopic liver transplant (OLT) recipients.

Methods

Participants were included from February to September 2021. No prioritized vaccination roll call applied for OLT patients. Controls were otherwise healthy people. Blood samples were drawn after 15 days of the complete vaccine doses. The samples were analyzed according to the manufacturer's instructions using the Liaison XL platform from DiaSorin (DiaSorin S.p.A., Italy), and SARS-COV-2 IgG II Quant (Abbott Diagnostics, IL, USA).

Results

A total of 187 participants (133 OLT, 54 controls, median age: 60 years, 58.8% women) were included for the analysis; 74.3% had at least one comorbidity. The serologic response in OLT patients was lower than in controls (median 549 AU/mL vs. 3450 AU/mL, respectively; p = 0.001). A positive humoral response was found in 133 OLT individuals: 89.2% with BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), 60% ChAdOx1 nCOV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca), 76.9% with CoronaVac (Sinovac, Life Sciences, China), 55.6% Ad5-nCov (Cansino, Biologics), 68.2% Gam-COVID-Vac (Sputnik V) and 100% with mRNA-1273. In controls the serological response was 100%, except for Cansino (75%). In a multivariable model, personal history of COVID-19 and BNT162b2 inoculation were associated with the serologic response, while the use of prednisone (vs. other immunosuppressants) reduced this response.

Conclusion

The serologic response to COVID-19 vaccines in OLT patients is lower than in healthy controls. The BNT162b2 vaccine was associated with a higher serologic response.

Immunity after COVID-19 vaccination in people with higher risk of compromised immune status: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

High efficacy in terms of protection from severe COVID-19 has been demonstrated for several SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. However, patients with compromised immune status develop a weaker and less stable immune response to vaccination. Strong immune response may not always translate into clinical benefit, therefore it is important to synthesise evidence on modified schemes and types of vaccination in these population subgroups for guiding health decisions. As the literature on COVID-19 vaccines continues to expand, we aimed to scope the literature on multiple subgroups to subsequently decide on the most relevant research questions to be answered by systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVES

To provide an overview of the availability of existing literature on immune response and long-term clinical outcomes after COVID-19 vaccination, and to map this evidence according to the examined populations, specific vaccines, immunity parameters, and their way of determining relevant long-term outcomes and the availability of mapping between immune reactivity and relevant outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, the Web of Science Core Collection, and the World Health Organization COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease on 6 December 2021.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that published results on immunity outcomes after vaccination with BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, AZD1222, Ad26.COV2.S, Sputnik V or Sputnik Light, BBIBP-CorV, or CoronaVac on predefined vulnerable subgroups such as people with malignancies, transplant recipients, people undergoing renal replacement therapy, and people with immune disorders, as well as pregnant and breastfeeding women, and children. We included studies if they had at least 100 participants (not considering healthy control groups); we excluded case studies and case series.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently and in duplicate onto an online data extraction form. Data were represented as tables and as online maps to show the frequency of studies for each item. We mapped the data according to study design, country of participant origin, patient comorbidity subgroup, intervention, outcome domains (clinical, safety, immunogenicity), and outcomes.  MAIN RESULTS: Out of 25,452 identified records, 318 studies with a total of more than 5 million participants met our eligibility criteria and were included in the review. Participants were recruited mainly from high-income countries between January 2020 and 31 October 2021 (282/318); the majority of studies included adult participants (297/318).  Haematological malignancies were the most commonly examined comorbidity group (N = 54), followed by solid tumours (N = 47), dialysis (N = 48), kidney transplant (N = 43), and rheumatic diseases (N = 28, 17, and 15 for mixed diseases, multiple sclerosis, and inflammatory bowel disease, respectively). Thirty-one studies included pregnant or breastfeeding women. The most commonly administered vaccine was BNT162b2 (N = 283), followed by mRNA-1273 (N = 153), AZD1222 (N = 66), Ad26.COV2.S (N = 42), BBIBP-CorV (N = 15), CoronaVac (N = 14), and Sputnik V (N = 5; no studies were identified for Sputnik Light). Most studies reported outcomes after regular vaccination scheme.  The majority of studies focused on immunogenicity outcomes, especially seroconversion based on binding antibody measurements and immunoglobulin G (IgG) titres (N = 179 and 175, respectively). Adverse events and serious adverse events were reported in 126 and 54 studies, whilst SARS-CoV-2 infection irrespective of severity was reported in 80 studies. Mortality due to SARS-CoV-2 infection was reported in 36 studies. Please refer to our evidence gap maps for more detailed information.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Up to 6 December 2021, the majority of studies examined data on mRNA vaccines administered as standard vaccination schemes (two doses approximately four to eight weeks apart) that report on immunogenicity parameters or adverse events. Clinical outcomes were less commonly reported, and if so, were often reported as a secondary outcome observed in seroconversion or immunoglobulin titre studies. As informed by this scoping review, two effectiveness reviews (on haematological malignancies and kidney transplant recipients) are currently being conducted.

Real-World Third COVID-19 Vaccine Dosing and Antibody Response in Patients With Hematologic Malignancies

Purpose

This study sought to describe the changes in immune response to a third dose of either Pfizer's or Moderna's COVID-19 mRNA vaccine (3V) among patients with hematologic malignancies, as well as associated characteristics.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study analyzed pre-3V and post-3V data on 493 patients diagnosed with hematologic malignancies across a large Midwestern health system between August 28, 2021, and November 1, 2021. For antibody testing, S1 spike antigen of the SARS-CoV-2 virus titer was used to determine serostatus.

Results

Among 493 participants, 274 (55.6%) were seropositive both pre- and post-3V (+/+) while 115 (23.3%) seroconverted to positive from prior negative following the third dose (-/+). The remaining 104 (21.1%) were seronegative both before and after 3V (-/-). No participant was seropositive pre-3V and seronegative post-3V (+/-). Results showed a statistically significant increase in the proportion of seropositivity after receiving a third COVID-19 vaccine (P<0.00001). Response to 3V was significantly associated with the 3V vaccine type (P=0.0006), previous COVID-19 infection (P=0.0453), and malignancy diagnosis (P<0.0001). Likelihood of seroconversion (-/+) after 3V was higher in the group of patients with multiple myeloma or related disorders compared to patients with lymphoid leukemias (odds ratio: 8.22, 95% CI: 2.12-31.79; P=0.0008).

Conclusions

A third COVID-19 vaccination is effective in producing measurable seroconversion in many patients with hematologic malignancies. Oncologists should actively encourage all their patients, especially those with multiple myeloma, to receive a 3V, given the high likelihood of seroconversion.

Efficacy and safety profile of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine in patients with hematological malignancies: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Patient populations, including those with hematological malignancies, have different responses to COVID-19 vaccines. This study aimed to quantitatively analyze the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in patients with hematological malignancies. Studies reporting on the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in cohorts with hematological malignancies compared to healthy controls were systematically searched in four databases. Meta-analysis and subgroup analyses were performed to generate quantitative synthesis. Fifteen studies with 2,055 cohorts with hematological malignancies and 1,105 healthy subjects as control were included. After two doses of COVID-19 vaccination, only 60% of cohorts with hematological malignancies were seroconverted compared to healthy controls (RR 0.60; 95%CI 0.50–0.71). A single dose of the vaccine resulted in a significantly lower seroconversion rate (RR 0.30; 95%CI 0.16–0.54). Non-Hodgkin lymphoma cohorts had the lowest rate of seroconversion (RR 0.5; 95%CI 0.35–0.71) and those who received active treatments had lower immunological responses (RR 0.59; 95%CI 0.46–0.75). Antibody titers were lower in cohorts with hematological malignancies without any differences in adverse effects in both groups. In conclusion, cohorts with hematological malignancies showed a lower seroconversion rate and antibody titers after receiving COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. The type of malignancy and the status of treatment had a significant impact on the response to vaccination. The vaccines were shown to be safe for both patients with hematological malignancies and healthy controls. Booster doses and stricter health protocols might be beneficial for patient populations.

Real-world effectiveness of early remdesivir and sotrovimab in the highest-risk COVID-19 outpatients during the Omicron surge

BACKGROUND

Remdesivir and sotrovimab both have clinical trial data in the outpatient setting demonstrating reduction in the risk of hospitalizations and emergency department (ED) visits related to COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of remdesivir in comparison with sotrovimab and matched high-risk control patients in preventing COVID-19-related hospitalizations and ED visits during the Omicron B.1.1.529 surge.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included outpatients positive for SARS-CoV-2, with non-severe symptoms for ≤7 days and deemed high-risk for severe COVID-19 by an internal scoring matrix. Patients who received remdesivir or sotrovimab from 27/12/2021 to 04/02/2022 were included (n = 82 and n = 88, respectively). These were compared with a control cohort of high-risk COVID-19 outpatients who did not receive therapy (n = 90). The primary outcome was a composite of 29 day COVID-19-related hospitalizations and/or ED visits. Pre-specified secondary outcomes included components of the primary endpoint, 29 day all-cause mortality and serious adverse drug events.

RESULTS

Patients treated with remdesivir were significantly less likely to be hospitalized or visit the ED within 29 days from symptom onset (11% versus 23.3%; OR = 0.41, 95% CI = 0.17-0.95). Patients receiving sotrovimab were also less likely to be hospitalized or visit the ED (8% versus 23.3%; OR = 0.28, 95% CI = 0.11-0.71). There was no difference in the incidence of hospitalizations/ED visits between sotrovimab and remdesivir.

CONCLUSIONS

Our highest-risk outpatients with Omicron-related COVID-19 who received early sotrovimab or remdesivir had significantly lower likelihoods of a hospitalization and/or ED visit.

Association Between AZD7442 (Tixagevimab-Cilgavimab) Administration and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Infection, Hospitalization, and Mortality

BACKGROUND

Intramuscular AZD7442 (tixagevimab-cilgavimab [Evusheld; AstraZeneca]) has been found effective among immunocompromised individuals (ICIs) in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe disease in ICIs. We evaluated the association between AZD7442 administration and SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe disease (COVID-19 hospitalization and all-cause mortality) among selected ICIs, during a fifth Omicron-dominated wave of COVID-19 (December 2021-April 2022) in Israel.

METHODS

ICIs aged ≥12 years identified in the Maccabi HealthCare Services database were invited by SMS/e-mail to receive AZD7442. Demographic information, comorbidities, coronavirus vaccination, and prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 outcome data (infection, severe disease) were extracted from the database. Rates of infection and severe disease were compared between those administered AZD7442 and those who did not respond to the invitation over a 3-month period.

RESULTS

Of all 825 ICIs administered AZD7442, 29 (3.5%) became infected with SARS-CoV-2 compared with 308 (7.2%) of 4299 ICIs not administered AZD7442 (P < .001). After adjustment, the AZD7442 group was half as likely to become infected with SARS-CoV-2 than the nonadministered group (OR: .51; 95% CI: .30-.84). One person in the AZD7442 group (0.1%) was hospitalized for COVID-19 compared with 27 (0.6%) in the nonadministered group (P = .07). No mortality was recorded among the AZD7442 group compared with 40 deaths (0.9%) in the nonadministered group (P = .005). After adjustment, ICIs administered AZD7442 were 92% less likely to be hospitalized/die than those not administered AZD7442 (OR: .08; 95% CI: .01-.54).

CONCLUSIONS

AZD7442 among ICIs may protect against Omicron variant infection and severe disease and should be considered for pre-exposure prophylactic AZD7442.

Interventions to reduce infections in patients with hematological malignancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Acquired hypogammaglobulinemia is common in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), and multiple myeloma (MM). No previous systematic reviews (SRs) have compared different approaches to infection prevention. We sought to assess the efficacy and safety of prophylactic immunoglobulin, antibiotics, and vaccination in these patients. We performed an SR and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy and safety of prophylactic immunoglobulin, antibiotics, and vaccination in adult patients with hematological malignancies commonly associated with acquired hypogammaglobulinemia, specifically, CLL, NHL, and MM. We searched PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, and Cochrane Registry up to 9 January 2021. Results for dichotomous data were expressed as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and pooled in a random-effects model. This review was registered with PROSPERO CRD42017070825. From 10 576 studies screened, there were 21 completed RCTs and 1 ongoing. Of these, 8 evaluated prophylactic immunoglobulin (n = 370; 7 published before 2000), 5 evaluated prophylactic antibiotics (n = 1587), 7 evaluated vaccination (n = 3996), and 1 compared immunoglobulin to antibiotics (n = 60). Prophylactic immunoglobulin reduced the risk of clinically documented infection (CDI) by 28% (n = 2 trials; RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.96), and vaccination reduced the risk by 63% (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.30-0.45). Prophylactic antibiotics did not reduce the risk. No intervention reduced all-cause mortality. Prophylactic immunoglobulin and antibiotics increased the risk of adverse events. Findings should be interpreted with caution, given the high risk of bias in many studies. There is a clear need for high-quality contemporary trials to establish the effectiveness of different approaches to preventing infection.

Clinical and Virological Features of Patients Hospitalized with Different Types of COVID-19 Vaccination in Mexico City

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines effectively protect against severe disease and death. However, the impact of the vaccine used, viral variants, and host factors on disease severity remain poorly understood. This work aimed to compare COVID-19 clinical presentations and outcomes in vaccinated and unvaccinated patients in Mexico City. From March to September 2021, clinical, demographic characteristics, and viral variants were obtained from 1014 individuals with a documented SARS-CoV-2 infection. We compared unvaccinated, partially vaccinated, and fully vaccinated patients, stratifying by age groups. We also fitted multivariate statistical models to evaluate the impact of vaccination status, SARS-CoV-2 lineages, vaccine types, and clinical parameters. Most hospitalized patients were unvaccinated. In patients over 61 years old, mortality was significantly higher in unvaccinated compared to fully vaccinated individuals. In patients aged 31 to 60 years, vaccinated patients were more likely to be outpatients (46%) than unvaccinated individuals (6.1%). We found immune disease and age above 61 years old to be risk factors, while full vaccination was found to be the most protective factor against in-hospital death. This study suggests that vaccination is essential to reduce mortality in a comorbid population such as that of Mexico.

SARS-CoV-2 Omicron escapes mRNA vaccine booster-induced antibody neutralisation in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases: an observational cohort study

OBJECTIVES

This study investigates whether COVID-19 vaccines can elicit cross-reactive antibody responses against the Omicron variant in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs).

METHODS

This observational cohort study comprised 149 patients with ARDs and 94 healthcare workers (HCWs). Blood samples were obtained at enrolment, a median of 15 weeks after the second vaccine dose or 8 weeks after the third dose. The functional cross-neutralisation capacity of sera was measured using the Omicron variant receptor-binding domain-ACE2 binding inhibition assay. We assessed the incidence of breakthrough infections and the potential correlation with neutralising responses in participants after receiving third doses. The association of time-from-vaccine and neutralising responses in sera was predicted using linear regression analysis.

RESULTS

The mean cross-neutralising responses against the Omicron variant developed after the second dose was 11.5% in patients with ARDs and 18.1% in HCWs (p=0.007). These responses were significantly lower in patients with ARDs than in HCWs after the third dose (26.8% vs 50.3%, p<0.0001). Only 39.2% of the patient sera showed functional neutralisation capacity to the Omicron variant and cross-neutralising responses were shown to be poorly correlated with anti-spike immunoglobulin G titres. Within 6 weeks of immunological assessments, significantly lower Omicron-neutralising responses were detected in sera from patients with ARDs who developed breakthrough infections compared with those who did not (p=0.018). Additionally, a relative decline was implied in neutralising responses against the Omicron variant as a reference to the wild-type virus during 120 days since the third vaccination, with a predicted decay rate of -0.351%/day (95% CI, -0.559 to -0.144, p=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Striking antibody evasion manifested by the Omicron variant in patients with ARDs and current vaccine-induced immunity may not confer broad protection from Omicron breakthrough infection, highlighting the need for further research on vaccine effectiveness in patients with immune dysfunctions.

Evaluation of the Roche SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antibody Test in Samples from Vaccinated Individuals

The study aimed to establish the performance of the SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antibody Test (IgG and IgM) and the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S assay in vaccinated individuals. A panel of serum samples from Boca Biolistics was utilized to assess antibodies following vaccination, consisting of samples drawn prior to vaccination, after the first dose, or at least 14 days after the second dose of Moderna mRNA-1273 or Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccines. Agreement between the two methods was measured and stratified by test evaluator and assay lot. Agreement between the SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antibody Test (IgG) and Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S assay qualitative measurements at the different assessment points for both mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 ranged between 97.06% (95% confidence interval [CI] 84.67, 99.93) to 100% (95% CI 82.35, 100). Agreement of the SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antibody Test (IgG) with the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S assay was not highly influenced by either lot or evaluator. There was a medium-to-strong correlation between the semiquantitative SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antibody Test (IgG) result and quantitative Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S assay in samples taken after both doses of the vaccines, with higher intensity bands being associated with higher total anti-S antibody titer (mRNA-1273, P = 0.0019; BNT162b2, P < 0.0001). Conclusion Semiquantitative SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antibody Test (IgG) and quantitative Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S assay correlated well, suggesting that the SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antibody Test (IgG) is helpful in understanding the immune response postvaccination. The current data support the use of the SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antibody Test (IgG) in the vaccinated population.

IMPORTANCE Serologic assays are an essential tool for seroprevalence surveys, for quality control of vaccines, and to determine the response to vaccination. Although a correlate of immunity has not yet been established for COVID-19 vaccines, antibody titers after natural infection and vaccination have been associated with protection from symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Rapid point-of-care assays can be of use in this context with advantages over centralized testing, such as speed and ease of use. The point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antibody Test (IgG) compared favorably to the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S assay with agreement rates above 97.06%, after one or two doses of Moderna mRNA-1273 or Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2. Semiquantitative SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antibody Test (IgG) and quantitative Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S assay results correlated well, suggesting that SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antibody Test (IgG) is helpful in understanding the immune response postvaccination. The current data support the use of the SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antibody Test (IgG) in the vaccinated population.

Self-Reported COVID-19 Vaccines' Side Effects among Patients Treated with Biological Therapies in Saudi Arabia: A Multicenter Cross-Sectional Study

Objective: The aim of this study was to explore the side effects of COVID-19 vaccines among a mixed gender sample of patients on monoclonal antibody biologics (mAbs) in Saudi Arabia. Methods: This was a prospective questionnaire-based cross-sectional study in which adult patients (≥18 years) on mAbs who had received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine from three tertiary care centers in Saudi Arabia were included. Descriptive statistics and univariate logistic regressions were conducted to present the vaccine side effects and examine the association between the reported side effects and vaccine type. Results: Four-hundred and seventeen patients, with a mean age of 39 years, consented to participate. Approximately 82% and 18% of the participants received Pfizer–BioNTech and Oxford–AstraZeneca vaccines, respectively, and nearly 71% received two doses of the vaccine. Diarrhea (9.59%), fever (51.32%), headache (32.13%), hypotension (13.67%), palpitation (9.11%), and temporary loss of smell (5.28%) were the most commonly reported side effects. Conclusion: COVID-19 vaccines are generally safe for patients treated with mAbs. Future studies should examine the rates of side effects across different COVID-19 vaccines among patients on mAbs using more robust study designs and representative samples.

SARS-CoV-2 Specific Antibody Response and T Cell-Immunity in Immunocompromised Patients up to Six Months Post COVID: A Pilot Study

COVID-19 generates SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies in immunocompetent individuals. However, in immunocompromised patients, the humoral immunity following infection may be impaired or absent. Recently, the assessment of cellular immunity to SARS-CoV-2, both following natural infection and vaccination, has contributed new knowledge regarding patients with low or no antibody responses. As part of a prospective cohort study which included hospitalized patients with COVID-19, we identified immunocompromised patients and compared them with age- and sex-matched immunocompetent patients regarding co-morbidities, biomarkers of COVID-19 and baseline viral load by real-time PCR in nasopharyngeal swabs. Spike and nucleocapsid antibody responses were analyzed at inclusion and after two weeks, six weeks and six months. Plasma immunoglobulin G (IgG) levels were quantified, lymphocyte phenotyping was performed, and SARS-CoV-2 specific CD4 and CD8 T cell responses after in vitro antigen stimulation were assessed at six months post infection. All patients showed IgG levels above or within reference limits. At six months, all patients had detectable SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike antibody levels. SARS-CoV-2 specific T cell responses were detected in 12 of 12 immunocompetent patients and in four of six immunocompromised patients. The magnitude of long-lived SARS-CoV-2 specific T cell responses were significantly correlated with the number of CD4 T cells and NK cells. Determining the durability of the humoral and cellular immune response against SARS-CoV-2 in immunocompromised individuals could be of importance by providing insights into the risk of re-infection and the need for vaccine boosters.