Meta-analysis of immunologic response after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination in solid organ transplant recipients

Clinical Outcomes of Solid Organ Transplant Recipients Hospitalized with COVID-19: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Solid-organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) receiving immunosuppressive therapy are expected to have worse clinical outcomes from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, published studies have shown mixed results, depending on adjustment for important confounders such as age, variants, and vaccination status.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively collected the data on 7,327 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 from two tertiary hospitals with government-designated COVID-19 regional centers. We compared clinical outcomes between SOTRs and non-SOTRs by a propensity score-matched analysis (1:2) based on age, gender, and the date of COVID-19 diagnosis. We also performed a multivariate logistic regression analysis to adjust other important confounders such as vaccination status and the Charlson comorbidity index.

RESULTS

After matching, SOTRs (n=83) had a significantly higher risk of high-flow nasal cannula use, mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury, and a composite of COVID-19 severity outcomes than non-SOTRs (n=160) (all P <0.05). The National Early Warning Score was significantly higher in SOTRs than in non-SOTRs from day 1 to 7 of hospitalization (P for interaction=0.008 by generalized estimating equation). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, SOTRs (odds ratio [OR], 2.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12-4.11) and male gender (OR, 2.62; 95% CI, 1.26-5.45) were associated with worse outcomes, and receiving two to three doses of COVID-19 vaccine (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.24-0.79) was associated with better outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Hospitalized SOTRs with COVID-19 had a worse prognosis than non-SOTRs. COVID-19 vaccination should be implemented appropriately to prevent severe COVID-19 progression in this population.

Immunologic responses to the third and fourth doses of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines in cell therapy recipients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Multiple studies have provided evidence of suboptimal or poor immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in recipients of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) and chimeric antigen receptor-T (CAR-T) cell therapy compared to healthy individuals. Given the dynamic nature of SARS-CoV2, characterized by the emergence of many viral variations throughout the general population, there is ongoing discussion regarding the optimal quantity and frequency of additional doses required to sustain protection against SARS-CoV2 especially in this susceptible population. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the immune responses of HSCT and CAR-T cell therapy recipients to additional doses of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines.

METHODS

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, the study involved a comprehensive search across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, Embase, and Cochrane Biorxiv and medRxiv, focusing on the serological responses to the third and fourth vaccine doses in HSCT and CAR-T cell patients.

RESULTS

This study included 32 papers, with 31 qualifying for the meta-analysis. Results showed that after the third dose, the seroconversion rate in HSCT and CAR-T cell therapy recipients who didn't respond to the second dose was 46.10 and 17.26%, respectively. Following the fourth dose, HSCT patients had a seroconversion rate of 27.23%. Moreover, post-third-dose seropositivity rates were 87.14% for HSCT and 32.96% for CAR-T cell therapy recipients. Additionally, the seropositive response to the fourth dose in the HSCT group was 90.04%.

CONCLUSION

While a significant portion of HSCT recipients developed antibodies after additional vaccinations, only a minority of CAR-T cell therapy patients showed a similar response. This suggests that alternative vaccination strategies are needed to protect these vulnerable groups effectively. Moreover, few studies have reported cellular responses to additional SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations in these patients. Further studies evaluating cellular responses are required to determine a more precise assessment of immunogenicity strength against SARS-CoV-2 after additional doses.

Risk of Severe COVID-19 and Protective Effectiveness of Vaccination Among Solid Organ Transplant Recipients

BACKGROUND

Solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) are at higher risk for severe infection. However, the risk for severe COVID-19 and vaccine effectiveness among SOTRs remain unclear.

METHODS

This retrospective study used a nationwide health care claims database and COVID-19 registry from the Republic of Korea (2020 to 2022). Adult SOTRs diagnosed with COVID-19 were matched with up to 4 non-SOTR COVID-19 patients by propensity score. Severe COVID-19 was defined as treatment with high-flow nasal cannulae, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

RESULTS

Among 6783 SOTRs with COVID-19, severe COVID-19 was reported with the highest rate in lung transplant recipients (13.16%), followed by the heart (6.30%), kidney (3.90%), and liver (2.40%). SOTRs had a higher risk of severe COVID-19 compared to non-SOTRs, and lung transplant recipients showed the highest risk (adjusted odds ratio, 18.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 8.53-38.58). Vaccine effectiveness against severe disease among SOTRs was 47% (95% CI, 18%-65%), 64% (95% CI, 49%-75%), and 64% (95% CI, 29%-81%) for 2, 3, and 4 doses, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

SOTRs are at significantly higher risk for severe COVID-19 compared to non-SOTRs. Vaccination is effective in preventing the progression to severe COVID-19. Efforts should be made to improve vaccine uptake among SOTRs, while additional protective measures should be developed.

Blood-derived product therapies for SARS-CoV-2 infection and long COVID

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is capable of large-scale transmission and has caused the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Patients with COVID-19 may experience persistent long-term health issues, known as long COVID. Both acute SARS-CoV-2 infection and long COVID have resulted in persistent negative impacts on global public health. The effective application and development of blood-derived products are important strategies to combat the serious damage caused by COVID-19. Since the emergence of COVID-19, various blood-derived products that target or do not target SARS-CoV-2 have been investigated for therapeutic applications. SARS-CoV-2-targeting blood-derived products, including COVID-19 convalescent plasma, COVID-19 hyperimmune globulin, and recombinant anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing immunoglobulin G, are virus-targeting and can provide immediate control of viral infection in the short term. Non-SARS-CoV-2-targeting blood-derived products, including intravenous immunoglobulin and human serum albumin exhibit anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory, antioxidant, and anticoagulatory properties. Rational use of these products can be beneficial to patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection or long COVID. With evidence accumulated since the pandemic began, we here summarize the progress of blood-derived product therapies for COVID-19, discuss the effective methods and scenarios regarding these therapies, and provide guidance and suggestions for clinical treatment.

Evaluation of two anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody immunoassays for monitoring patients on pre-exposure prophylaxis

Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is crucial to prevent severe COVID-19 in immunocompromised patients. A reliable method is needed to quantify anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels for personalized monitoring during PrEP. We measured the binding antibody concentrations of 63 immunocompromised patients receiving 300mg or 600mg tixagevimab/cilgavimab on PrEP day and twice during the following 3 months. All blood samples were tested using the Abbott anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant assay, the Roche Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 S assay, and live virus-based neutralization assays. The results of the two immunoassays were correlated on day 0, 1 month, and 3 months post-PrEP. Passing-Bablok regression demonstrated higher anti-S concentration values measured with the Roche immunoassay compared to those measured with the Abbott immunoassay. Antibody concentrations were higher after 600 mg tixagevimab/cilgavimab prophylaxis than after 300 mg. The neutralizing antibody titers obtained using the omicron BA.5 and BA.2.75 strains were low. Both automated immunoassays are suitable for monitoring immunocompromised patients on PrEP.

COVID‑19 vaccination in liver transplant recipients (Review)

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (Sars-CoV-2) infection has significantly affected immunocompromised individuals and subsequently, liver transplant recipients (LTRs). Early in the course of pandemic, this vulnerable population was prioritized for vaccination, after obtaining encouraging data about the vaccination benefits on disease severity and mortality. As the published knowledge was mainly supported from studies which were limited to the healthy population, the present review summarizes the data from the literature on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in LTRs and the available vaccination guidelines of international societies. The COVID-19 vaccination of LTRs is strongly recommended as a safe and effective measure in order to prevent severe disease and mortality.

Use of Monoclonal Antibodies in Immunocompromised Patients Hospitalized with Severe COVID-19: A Retrospective Multicenter Cohort

OBJECTIVE

We aim to describe the safety and efficacy of sotrovimab in severe cases of COVID-19 in immunocompromised hosts.

METHODS

We used a retrospective multicenter cohort including immunocompromised hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 treated with sotrovimab between October 2021 and December 2021.

RESULTS

We included 32 patients. The main immunocompromising conditions were solid organ transplantation (46.9%) and hematological malignancy (37.5%). Seven patients (21.9%) had respiratory progression: 12.5% died and 9.4% required mechanical ventilation. Patients treated within the first 14 days of their symptoms had a lower progression rate: 12.0% vs. 57.1%, p = 0.029. No adverse event was attributed to sotrovimab.

CONCLUSIONS

Sotrovimab was safe and may be effective in its use for immunocompromised patients with severe COVID-19. More studies are needed to confirm these preliminary data.

Impaired serological response to COVID-19 vaccination following anti-cancer therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Owing to the high coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19)‐related morbidity and fatality rate among patients with cancer, the introduction of COVID‐19 vaccines is of profound significance in this fragile population. Accumulating data suggested that oncologic patients, especially those with anticancer therapy have an impaired immune response to COVID‐19 vaccination. However, the exact effect of anticancer treatments on postvaccination response has not been elucidated yet. We, therefore, conducted a meta‐analysis to evaluate the impact of treatments on response to COVID‐19 vaccination in patients with cancer. A total of 39 studies were finally included comprising 11 075 oncologic patients. Overall, we found the humoral response was significantly decreased in patients undergoing anticancer treatments (odds ratio [OR] = 2.55, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.04–3.18) compared with those without active treatment. The seroconversion rates were significantly lower in patients with chemotherapy (OR = 3.04, 95% CI: 2.28–4.05), targeted therapy (OR = 4.72, 95% CI: 3.18–7.01) and steroid usage (OR = 2.19, 95% CI: 1.57–3.07), while there was no significant association between immunotherapy or hormonal therapy and seroconversion after vaccination. Subgroup analyses showed therapies with anti‐CD20 antibody (OR = 11.28, 95% CI: 6.40–19.90), B‐cell lymphoma 2 inhibitor (OR = 5.76, 95% CI: 3.64–9.10), and Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (OR = 6.86, 95% CI: 4.23–11.15) were significantly correlated with the risk of negative humoral response to vaccination. In conclusion, our results demonstrated that specific oncologic therapies may significantly affect serological response to COVID‐19 vaccines in patients with cancer. Thus, an adapted vaccination strategy taking the influence of active treatment into account is in need, and further research on the effect of the third dose of vaccine and the role of postvaccination cellular response in oncologic patients is also needed.