1
|
Gupta V, Gupta VK, Bajwa NK, Sachdeva A, Garg R, Ghosh A. Immunogenicity of Covishield vaccine in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases. J Family Med Prim Care 2024; 13:1904-1910. [PMID: 38948615 PMCID: PMC11213385 DOI: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_1021_23] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/20/2023] [Revised: 12/04/2023] [Accepted: 12/05/2023] [Indexed: 07/02/2024] Open
Abstract
Introduction The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been the biggest threat to humankind during the last 3 years. It has caused the loss of more than 6.9 million precious lives across the world. The only method by which the massacre could be stopped was by mass vaccination or mass immunization. The patients suffering from autoimmune rheumatic disorders (AIRDs) and treated with immunosuppressants were the high-priority candidates for vaccination. However, the data regarding the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in this group of patients are very less. Hence, this study was planned to study the immunogenicity of Covishield in patients with AIRDs attending the rheumatology OPD at DMCH, Ludhiana. Materials and Methods It was a prospective cohort study and was planned by the Department of Biochemistry and Department of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology at Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana. Fifty patients with AIRDs attending the DMCH rheumatology OPD and 52 age and sex-matched healthy controls who had received two doses of Covishield vaccine were included in this study. Patients having any other immunosuppressive conditions like uncontrolled diabetes, hepatitis, malignancy or HIV were excluded. Patients who had suffered from previous laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection (by RT-PCR) were also excluded. Blood samples were collected following all aseptic precautions from patients and controls on the 28th day after administration of a second dose of Covishield vaccine and total antibodies to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 spike (S) protein receptor binding domain was measured using Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S kit from Roche. Results It was observed that no significant difference was there in antibody titre between cases and controls (6213 ± 4418 vs. 8331 ± 7979, P = 0.1022). It was also observed that no statistically significant difference in antibody titre in cases without prednisolone and those taking treatment with prednisolone was found (P = 0.7058). A similar observation was found in terms of methotrexate also (P = 0.457). No significant difference in antibody titres was there when compared with controls (for prednisolone, P = 0.169, for methotrexate, P = 0.078). We found that only the patients receiving mycophenolate mofetil showed a statistically significant decrease in antibody titre in comparison to healthy controls (P = 0.03). Our study showed no statistically significant difference in antibody titres between patients suffering from different AIRDs. Conclusion Our study supplements the fact that patients with AIRDs in India can receive Covishield as the primary vaccine against COVID-19 without concerns regarding decreased immunogenicity or increased adverse effects.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vikas Gupta
- Department of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, DMC and H, Ludhiana, Punjab, India
| | - Vikram Kumar Gupta
- Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, DMC and H, Ludhiana, Punjab, India
| | | | - Ashi Sachdeva
- Medical Officer, Umeed Multispeciality Hospital, Sangrur, Punjab, India
| | - Rupali Garg
- General Medicine, DMC and H, Ludhiana, Punjab, India
| | - Abhra Ghosh
- Department of Biochemistry, DMC and H, Ludhiana, Punjab, India
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Tran AP, Tassone DF, Ding NS, Nossent J. Antibody response to the COVID-19 ChAdOx1nCov-19 and BNT162b vaccines after temporary suspension of DMARD therapy in immune-mediated inflammatory disease: an extension study (RESCUE 2). RMD Open 2023; 9:rmdopen-2022-002871. [PMID: 36863751 PMCID: PMC9990163 DOI: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002871] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/16/2022] [Accepted: 02/01/2023] [Indexed: 03/04/2023] Open
Abstract
The persistence of immunogenicity in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMID) on disease-modifying antirheumatic therapy (DMARD) has been less well studied. This extension study evaluates the SARS-CoV2 antibody decay kinetics 6 months following two doses of ChAdO1nCov-19 (AZ) and BNT162b (Pfizer) and subsequent response following an mRNA booster. RESULTS: 175 participants were included. Six months after initial AZ vaccination, 87.5%, 85.4% and 79.2% (p=0.756) in the withhold, continue and control groups remained seropositive compared with 91.4%, 100% and 100% (p=0.226), respectively, in the Pfizer group. Both vaccine groups developed robust humoral immune responses following a booster with seroconversion rates being 100% for all three intervention categories. The mean SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels were significantly lower in the targeted synthetic DMARD (tsDMARD) group that continued therapy compared with the control (2.2 vs 4.8 U/mL, p=0.010). The mean time interval until loss of protective antibodies in the IMID group was 61 days for the AZ and 137.5 days for the Pfizer vaccine. Within each DMARD class the interval until loss of protective antibody titres in the csDMARD, bDMARD and tsDMARD groups were 68.3, 71.8 and 64.0 days in the AZ group and 185.5, 137.5 and 116.0 days in the Pfizer group, respectively. CONCLUSION: Antibody persistence was longer in the Pfizer group due to a higher peak antibody level following second vaccination with levels of protection in IMID on DMARD therapy similar to controls except in those on tsDMARDs where it was lower. A third mRNA vaccine booster can restore immunity in all groups.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ai Phuong Tran
- Department of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia .,St John of God Private Hospital, Murdoch, Western Australia, Australia
| | - D F Tassone
- The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.,Gastroenterology, St Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - N S Ding
- The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.,Gastroenterology, St Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Johannes Nossent
- Rheumatology Section, School of Medicine, University of Western Australia Faculty of Medicine Dentistry and Health Sciences, Crawley, Western Australia, Australia.,Rheumatology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Frommert LM, Arumahandi de Silva AN, Zernicke J, Scholz V, Braun T, Jeworowski LM, Schwarz T, Tober-Lau P, ten Hagen A, Habermann E, Kurth F, Sander LE, Corman VM, Burmester GR, Biesen R, Albach FN, Klotsche J. Type of vaccine and immunosuppressive therapy but not diagnosis critically influence antibody response after COVID-19 vaccination in patients with rheumatic disease. RMD Open 2022; 8:rmdopen-2022-002650. [PMID: 36597977 PMCID: PMC9729845 DOI: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002650] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/08/2022] [Accepted: 11/01/2022] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The development of sufficient COVID-19 vaccines has been a big breakthrough in fighting the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. However, vaccination effectiveness can be reduced in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRD). The aim of this study was to identify factors that lead to a diminished humoral vaccination response in patients with AIRD. METHODS Vaccination response was measured with a surrogate virus neutralisation test and by testing for antibodies directed against the receptor-binding-domain (RBD) of SARS-CoV-2 in 308 fully vaccinated patients with AIRD. In addition, 296 immunocompetent participants were investigated as a control group. Statistical adjusted analysis included covariates with a possible influence on antibody response. RESULTS Patients with AIRD showed lower antibody responses compared with immunocompetent individuals (median neutralising capacity 90.8% vs 96.5%, p<0.001; median anti-RBD-IgG 5.6 S/CO vs 6.7 S/CO, p<0.001). Lower antibody response was significantly influenced by type of immunosuppressive therapy, but not by rheumatic diagnosis, with patients under rituximab therapy developing the lowest antibody levels. Patients receiving mycophenolate, methotrexate or janus kinase inhibitors also showed reduced vaccination responses. Additional negative influencing factors were vaccination with AZD1222, old age and shorter intervals between the first two vaccinations. CONCLUSION Certain immunosuppressive therapies are associated with lower antibody responses after vaccination. Additional factors such as vaccine type, age and vaccination interval should be taken into account. We recommend antibody testing in at-risk patients with AIRD and emphasise the importance of booster vaccinations in these patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Leonie Maria Frommert
- Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Amanthi Nadira Arumahandi de Silva
- Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Jan Zernicke
- Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Veronika Scholz
- Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Tanja Braun
- Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Lara Maria Jeworowski
- Institute of Virology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany,German Centre for Infection Research (DZIF), Associated Partner Site, Berlin, Germany
| | - Tatjana Schwarz
- Institute of Virology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany,German Centre for Infection Research (DZIF), Associated Partner Site, Berlin, Germany
| | - Pinkus Tober-Lau
- Department of Infectious Diseases and Respiratory Medicine, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Alexander ten Hagen
- Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Elisa Habermann
- Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Florian Kurth
- Department of Infectious Diseases and Respiratory Medicine, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Leif Erik Sander
- Department of Infectious Diseases and Respiratory Medicine, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Victor Max Corman
- Institute of Virology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany,German Centre for Infection Research (DZIF), Associated Partner Site, Berlin, Germany,Labor Berlin, Charité - Vivantes GmbH, Berlin, Germany
| | - Gerd-Rüdiger Burmester
- Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Robert Biesen
- Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Fredrik N. Albach
- Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Jens Klotsche
- Epidemiology Unit, German Rheumatism Research Center Berlin – a Leibniz Institute (DRFZ), Berlin, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Skaria TG, Sreeprakash A, Umesh R, Joseph S, Mohan M, Ahmed S, Mehta P, Oommen SE, Benny J, Paulose A, Paul A, George J, Sukumaran A, Babu SS, Navas S, Vijayan A, Joseph S, Nalianda KK, Narayanan K, Shenoy P. Withholding methotrexate after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCov19 in patients with rheumatoid or psoriatic arthritis in India (MIVAC I and II): results of two, parallel, assessor-masked, randomised controlled trials. THE LANCET RHEUMATOLOGY 2022; 4:e755-e764. [PMID: 36320825 PMCID: PMC9612848 DOI: 10.1016/s2665-9913(22)00228-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/03/2023]
Abstract
Background There is a necessity for an optimal COVID-19 vaccination strategy for vulnerable population groups, including people with autoimmune inflammatory arthritis on immunosuppressants such as methotrexate, which inhibit vaccine-induced immunity against SARS-CoV-2. Thus, we aimed to assess the effects of withholding methotrexate for 2 weeks after each dose of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 (Oxford–AstraZeneca) vaccine (MIVAC I) or only after the second dose of vaccine (MIVAC II) compared with continuation of methotrexate, in terms of post-vaccination antibody titres and disease flare rates. Methods MIVAC I and II were two parallel, independent, assessor-masked, randomised trials. The trials were done at a single centre (Dr Shenoy's Centre for Arthritis and Rheumatism Excellence; Kochi, India) in people with either rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis with stable disease activity, who had been on a fixed dose of methotrexate for the preceding 6 weeks. Those with previous COVID-19 or who were positive for anti-SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antibodies were excluded from the trials. People on high-dose corticosteroids and rituximab were also excluded, whereas other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs were allowed. In MIVAC I, participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to stop methotrexate treatment for 2 weeks after each vaccine dose or to continue methotrexate treatment. In MIVAC II, participants who had continued methotrexate during the first dose of vaccine were randomly assigned (1:1) to withhold methotrexate for 2 weeks after the second dose of vaccine or to continue to take methotrexate. The treating physician was masked to the group assignments. The primary outcome for both MIVAC I and MIVAC II was the titre (absolute value) of anti-receptor binding domain (RBD) antibody measured 4 weeks after the second dose of vaccine. All analyses were done per protocol. The trials were registered with the Clinical Trials Registry- India, number CTRI/2021/07/034639 (MIVAC I) and CTRI/2021/07/035307 (MIVAC II). Findings Between July 6 and Dec 15, 2021, participants were recruited to the trials. In MIVAC I, 250 participants were randomly assigned and 158 completed the study as per the protocol (80 in the methotrexate hold group and 78 in the control group; 148 [94%] were women and 10 [6%] were men). The median post-vaccination antibody titres in the methotrexate hold group were significantly higher compared with the control group (2484·0 IU/mL, IQR 1050·0–4388·8 vs 1147·5 IU/mL, 433·5–2360·3; p=0·0014). In MIVAC II, 178 participants were randomly assigned and 157 completed the study per protocol (76 in the methotrexate hold group and 81 in the control group; 135 [86%] were women and 22 [14%] were men). The methotrexate hold group had higher post-vaccination antibody titres compared with the control group (2553·5 IU/ml, IQR 1792·5–4823·8 vs 990·5, 356·1–2252·5; p<0·0001). There were no reports of any serious adverse events during the trial period. Interpretation Withholding methotrexate after both ChAdOx1 nCov-19 vaccine doses and after only the second dose led to higher anti-RBD antibody titres compared with continuation of methotrexate. However, withholding methotrexate only after the second vaccine dose resulted in a similar humoral response to holding methotrexate after both vaccine doses, without an increased risk of arthritis flares. Hence, interruption of methotrexate during the second dose of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 vaccine appears to be a safe and effective strategy to improve the antibody response in patients with rheumatoid or psoriatic arthritis. Funding Indian Rheumatology Association.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Sneha Joseph
- Centre for Arthritis and Rheumatism Excellence, Kochi, India
- Sree Sudheendra Medical Mission, Kochi, India
| | - Manju Mohan
- Centre for Arthritis and Rheumatism Excellence, Kochi, India
| | - Sakir Ahmed
- Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology Department, Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, India
| | | | | | - Jannet Benny
- Centre for Arthritis and Rheumatism Excellence, Kochi, India
| | - Anagha Paulose
- Centre for Arthritis and Rheumatism Excellence, Kochi, India
| | - Aby Paul
- Centre for Arthritis and Rheumatism Excellence, Kochi, India
| | - Justin George
- Centre for Arthritis and Rheumatism Excellence, Kochi, India
| | | | - Sageer S Babu
- Centre for Arthritis and Rheumatism Excellence, Kochi, India
| | - Safna Navas
- Centre for Arthritis and Rheumatism Excellence, Kochi, India
| | - Anuroopa Vijayan
- Centre for Arthritis and Rheumatism Excellence, Kochi, India
- Sree Sudheendra Medical Mission, Kochi, India
| | - Sanjana Joseph
- Centre for Arthritis and Rheumatism Excellence, Kochi, India
| | - Kaveri K Nalianda
- Centre for Arthritis and Rheumatism Excellence, Kochi, India
- Sree Sudheendra Medical Mission, Kochi, India
| | - Krishnan Narayanan
- Centre for Arthritis and Rheumatism Excellence, Kochi, India
- Sree Sudheendra Medical Mission, Kochi, India
| | - Padmanabha Shenoy
- Centre for Arthritis and Rheumatism Excellence, Kochi, India
- Sree Sudheendra Medical Mission, Kochi, India
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Zhao T, Wang B, Shen J, Wei Y, Zhu Y, Tian X, Wen G, Xu B, Fu C, Xie Z, Xi Y, Li Z, Peng J, Wu Y, Tang X, Wan C, Pan L, Zhu W, Li Z, Qin D. Third dose of anti-SARS-CoV-2 inactivated vaccine for patients with RA: Focusing on immunogenicity and effects of RA drugs. Front Med (Lausanne) 2022; 9:978272. [PMID: 36117981 PMCID: PMC9470915 DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2022.978272] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/25/2022] [Accepted: 08/15/2022] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Objectives To evaluate the immunogenicity of the third dose of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients and explore the effect of RA drugs on vaccine immunogenicity. Methods We recruited RA patients (n = 222) and healthy controls (HC, n = 177) who had been injected with a third dose of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, and their neutralizing antibody (NAb) titer levels were assessed. Results RA patients and HC were age- and gender-matched, and the mean interval between 3rd vaccination and sampling was comparable. The NAb titers were significantly lower in RA patients after the third immunization compared with HC. The positive rate of NAb in HC group was 90.4%, while that in RA patients was 80.18%, and the difference was significant. Furthermore, comparison of NAb titers between RA treatment subgroups and HC showed that the patients in the conventional synthetic (cs) disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) group exhibited no significant change in NAb titers, while in those receiving the treatment of biological DMARDs (bDMARDs), Janus Kinase (JAK) inhibitors, and prednisone, the NAb titers were significantly lower. Spearman correlation analysis revealed that NAb responses to SARS-CoV-2 in HC did differ significantly according to the interval between 3rd vaccination and sampling, but this finding was not observed in RA patients. In addition, NAb titers were not significantly correlated with RA-related laboratory indicators, including RF-IgA, RF-IgG, RF-IgM, anti-CCP antibody; C-RP; ESR; NEUT% and LYMPH%. Conclusion Serum antibody responses to the third dose of vaccine in RA patients were weaker than HC. Our study will help to evaluate the efficacy and safety of booster vaccination in RA patients and provide further guidance for adjusting vaccination strategies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ting Zhao
- School of Basic Medical Sciences, Yunnan University of Chinese Medicine, Kunming, China
- The First School of Clinical Medicine, Yunnan University of Chinese Medicine, Kunming, China
| | - Bo Wang
- The Department of Educational Administration, Yunnan University of Chinese Medicine, Kunming, China
| | - Jiayan Shen
- School of Basic Medical Sciences, Yunnan University of Chinese Medicine, Kunming, China
- The First School of Clinical Medicine, Yunnan University of Chinese Medicine, Kunming, China
| | - Yuanyuan Wei
- School of Basic Medical Sciences, Yunnan University of Chinese Medicine, Kunming, China
| | - Youyang Zhu
- The Third Affiliated Hospital, Yunnan University of Chinese Medicine, Kunming, China
| | - Xiaofang Tian
- The First School of Clinical Medicine, Yunnan University of Chinese Medicine, Kunming, China
| | - Guangfen Wen
- The First School of Clinical Medicine, Yunnan University of Chinese Medicine, Kunming, China
| | - Bonan Xu
- School of Basic Medical Sciences, Yunnan University of Chinese Medicine, Kunming, China
| | - Chenyang Fu
- School of Basic Medical Sciences, Yunnan University of Chinese Medicine, Kunming, China
| | - Zhaohu Xie
- School of Basic Medical Sciences, Yunnan University of Chinese Medicine, Kunming, China
| | - Yujiang Xi
- The First School of Clinical Medicine, Yunnan University of Chinese Medicine, Kunming, China
| | - Zhenmin Li
- School of Basic Medical Sciences, Yunnan University of Chinese Medicine, Kunming, China
| | - Jiangyun Peng
- The First School of Clinical Medicine, Yunnan University of Chinese Medicine, Kunming, China
| | - Yang Wu
- The First School of Clinical Medicine, Yunnan University of Chinese Medicine, Kunming, China
| | - Xiaohu Tang
- The First School of Clinical Medicine, Yunnan University of Chinese Medicine, Kunming, China
| | - Chunping Wan
- The First School of Clinical Medicine, Yunnan University of Chinese Medicine, Kunming, China
| | - Lei Pan
- The Second School of Clinical Medicine, Yunnan University of Chinese Medicine, Kunming, China
| | - Wenxin Zhu
- Department of Rehabilitation, The People's Hospital of Yunxian, Yunxian, China
- Wenxin Zhu
| | - Zhaofu Li
- School of Basic Medical Sciences, Yunnan University of Chinese Medicine, Kunming, China
- Zhaofu Li
| | - Dongdong Qin
- School of Basic Medical Sciences, Yunnan University of Chinese Medicine, Kunming, China
- *Correspondence: Dongdong Qin
| |
Collapse
|