Efficacy of inactivated vaccines in patients treated with immunosuppressive drug therapy

Vaccine Strategies Against RNA Viruses: Current Advances and Future Directions

The development of vaccines against RNA viruses has undergone a rapid evolution in recent years, particularly driven by the COVID-19 pandemic. This review examines the key roles that RNA viruses, with their high mutation rates and zoonotic potential, play in fostering vaccine innovation. We also discuss both traditional and modern vaccine platforms and the impact of new technologies, such as artificial intelligence, on optimizing immunization strategies. This review evaluates various vaccine platforms, ranging from traditional approaches (inactivated and live-attenuated vaccines) to modern technologies (subunit vaccines, viral and bacterial vectors, nucleic acid vaccines such as mRNA and DNA, and phage-like particle vaccines). To illustrate these platforms' practical applications, we present case studies of vaccines developed for RNA viruses such as SARS-CoV-2, influenza, Zika, and dengue. Additionally, we assess the role of artificial intelligence in predicting viral mutations and enhancing vaccine design. The case studies underscore the successful application of RNA-based vaccines, particularly in the fight against COVID-19, which has saved millions of lives. Current clinical trials for influenza, Zika, and dengue vaccines continue to show promise, highlighting the growing efficacy and adaptability of these platforms. Furthermore, artificial intelligence is driving improvements in vaccine candidate optimization and providing predictive models for viral evolution, enhancing our ability to respond to future outbreaks. Advances in vaccine technology, such as the success of mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, highlight the potential of nucleic acid platforms in combating RNA viruses. Ongoing trials for influenza, Zika, and dengue demonstrate platform adaptability, while artificial intelligence enhances vaccine design by predicting viral mutations. Integrating these innovations with the One Health approach, which unites human, animal, and environmental health, is essential for strengthening global preparedness against future RNA virus threats.

A Randomized Trial Comparing Imlifidase to Plasmapheresis in Kidney Transplant Recipients With Antibody-Mediated Rejection

BACKGROUND

Antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR) poses a barrier to long-term graft survival and is one of the most challenging events after kidney transplantation. Removing donor specific antibodies (DSA) through therapeutic plasma exchange (PLEX) is a cornerstone of antibody depletion but has inconsistent effects. Imlifidase is a treatment currently utilized for desensitization with near-complete inactivation of DSA both in the intra- and extravascular space.

METHODS

This was a 6-month, randomized, open-label, multicenter, multinational trial conducted at 14 transplant centers. Thirty patients were randomized to either imlifidase or PLEX treatment. The primary endpoint was reduction in DSA level during the 5 days following the start of treatment.

RESULTS

Despite considerable heterogeneity in the trial population, DSA reduction as defined by the primary endpoint was 97% for imlifidase compared to 42% for PLEX. Additionally, imlifidase reduced DSA to noncomplement fixing levels, whereas PLEX failed to do so. After antibody rebound in the imlifidase arm (circa days 6-12), both arms had similar reductions in DSA. Five allograft losses occurred during the 6 months following the start of ABMR treatment-four within the imlifidase arm (18 patients treated) and one in the PLEX arm (10 patients treated). In terms of clinical efficacy, the Kaplan-Meier estimated graft survival was 78% for imlifidase and 89% for PLEX, with a slightly higher eGFR in the PLEX arm at the end of the trial. The observed adverse events in the trial were as expected, and there were no apparent differences between the arms.

CONCLUSION

Imlifidase was safe and well-tolerated in the ABMR population. Despite meeting the primary endpoint of maximum DSA reduction compared to PLEX, the trial was unsuccessful in demonstrating a clinical benefit of imlifidase in this heterogenous ABMR population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EudraCT number: 2018-000022-66, 2020-004777-49; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03897205, NCT04711850.

SARS-CoV-2 infection risk is higher in vaccinated patients with inflammatory autoimmune diseases or liver transplantation treated with mycophenolate due to an impaired antiviral immune response: results of the extended follow up of the RIVALSA prospective cohort

Background

A relevant proportion of immunocompromised patients did not reach a detectable seroconversion after a full primary vaccination cycle against SARS-CoV-2. The effect of different immunosuppressants and the potential risks for SARS-CoV-2 infection in these subjects is largely unknown.

Methods

Patients from the Rivalsa prospective, observational cohort study with planned anti SARS-CoV-2 third dose mRNA vaccination between October and December 2021 were asked to participate to this follow-up study. Patients were asked about eventual confirmed positivity to SARS-CoV-2 infection within 6 months from the third dose and to undergo a blood draw to evaluate seroconversion status after the additional vaccine shot.

Results

19 out of 114 patients taking part in the survey developed a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection; we identified mycophenolate treatment as an independent predictor of an increased risk of infection even after the third vaccine dose (OR: 5.20, 95% CI: 1.70-20.00, p=0.0053). This result is in agreement with the in vitro evidence that MMF impairs both B and T lymphocytes driven immune responses (reduction both in memory B cells producing anti-spike antibodies and in proliferating CD4+ and CD8+ T cells).

Conclusions

Immunocompromised patients need an additional vaccine administration to reach a detectable seroconversion, thus fostering a more personalized approach to their clinical management. Moreover, patients undergoing mycophenolate treatment show a specific increased infection risk, with respect to other immunosuppressants thus supporting a closer monitoring of their health status.

Vaccines and use of immunosuppressive and immunomodulatory therapy in a pediatric dermatology clinic-A single institution experience

Vaccine type and timing are critical issues to prevent unintended infections in those on immunosuppressive therapies. We retrospectively chart reviewed patients at Children's Wisconsin Pediatric Dermatology Clinic on immunosuppressives and immunomodulators between 11/1/2012 and 6/1/2020 and found that approximately 76% of patient encounters do not have documented vaccine counseling in the medical chart before initiation of immunosuppressives and immunomodulators. As age increased, vaccine counseling was less likely to be documented (odds ratio: 0.89; 95% confidence interval: 0.84-0.95, p = .001). In addition, 13 patient encounters (4%) were not up to date with live vaccines before immunosuppressive or immunomodulating therapy. There is an opportunity to improve clinical processes to ensure documentation of vaccination status and vaccine counseling before starting immunosuppressive and immunomodulator medications in a pediatric dermatology clinic.

The Impact of Immune-Modifying Treatments for Skin Diseases on the Immune Response to COVID-19 Vaccines: a Narrative Review

Purpose of Review

SARS-CoV-2 has had a devastating global effect, with vaccinations being paramount in the public health strategy against COVID-19. Vaccinations have uncoupled infection from adverse COVID-19 outcomes worldwide. While immune-modifying therapies are effective for the management of skin diseases such as psoriasis and atopic dermatitis, these medications also impair protective immune responses. There has been longstanding uncertainty and concern over the impact of immune-modifying therapies on the effectiveness of vaccines; for example, it is well recognised that methotrexate impairs humoral responses to both influenza and pneumococcal vaccines. This narrative review aims to discuss the evidence to date on the impact of immune-modifying therapies on the immune response to COVID-19 vaccines, with a focus on the first two vaccine doses.

Recent Findings

Individuals receiving immune-modifying therapy are more likely to have attenuated humoral responses to a single dose of COVID-19 vaccine compared to healthy controls; however, this may be improved by a complete course of vaccination. B cell targeted biologics such as rituximab markedly impair the humoral response to both the first and second COVID-19 vaccination. There remains a paucity of data on cellular immune responses, with the few available studies indicating lower responses to two vaccine doses in individuals receiving immune-modifying therapies compared to healthy controls, which may impact the durability of immune responses.

Summary

Inadequate humoral immune responses to a single dose of vaccine in the context of immune-modifying therapy are improved by a complete course of vaccination. Individuals receiving immune-modifying treatments should be encouraged to take up a complete vaccine course to mitigate their risk against COVID-19. Research in large patient populations on the longevity/kinetics of the complex humoral and cellular response to subsequent vaccine doses, including against newer variants of concern, is warranted, in addition to data on immune correlates of vaccine clinical effectiveness.