ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Electronic informed consent (eConsent) usage has expanded in recent years in Europe, especially during the pandemic. Slow recruitment rate and limitations in participant outreach are the challenges often faced in clinical research. Given the benefits of eConsent and group counselling reported in the literature, group eConsent was implemented in recruitment for the SWITCH-ON study. We aim to explore the experience of participants who attended group eConsent for the SWITCH-ON study and evaluate its potential for future use. METHODS: SWITCH-ON study aims to analyse the immunogenicity of a healthy population following bivalent COVID-19 booster vaccination. Four hundred thirty-four healthcare workers aged 18-65 were successfully recruited and sent a questionnaire about their experience with group eConsent. Out of 399 completed questionnaires (response rate 92%), 39 participants did not join group eConsent. The remaining 360 responses were included in the final analysis. Quantitative and qualitative data were reported using descriptive statistical analysis and thematic analysis respectively. RESULTS: Participants found that group eConsent was an efficient method that it allowed them to hear each other's questions and concerns and created a sense of togetherness. However, limited privacy, barriers to asking questions in a group, and peer pressure can limit the use of group eConsent. One hundred sixty-five (46%) participants thought that group eConsent was suitable to recruit participants with diseases or conditions, while 87 (24%) reported limitations with this method. The remaining participants suggested that applicability of group eConsent depended on the diseases or conditions of the study population, and one-to-one conversation should always be available. Participants who had experienced both one-to-one and group eConsent shared different preferred consent formats for future studies. CONCLUSION: Group eConsent was positively evaluated by the participants of a low-risk vaccination study. Participants advised using webinars to provide general information about the study, followed by an individual session for each participant, would retain the benefits of group eConsent and minimise the limitations it posed. This proposed setting addresses privacy questions and makes group eConsent easier to implement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05471440 (registered on 22nd of July, 2022).
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Informed Consent , Humans , Adult , Middle Aged , Male , Female , COVID-19/prevention & control , Young Adult , Adolescent , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Aged , Surveys and Questionnaires , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Vaccination , Immunization, Secondary , CommunicationABSTRACT
Bivalent COVID-19 vaccines comprising ancestral Wuhan-Hu-1 (WH1) and the Omicron BA.1 or BA.5 subvariant elicit enhanced serum antibody responses to emerging Omicron subvariants. Here, we characterized the RBD-specific memory B cell (Bmem) response following a fourth dose with a BA.1 or BA.5 bivalent vaccine, in direct comparison with a WH1 monovalent fourth dose. Healthcare workers previously immunized with mRNA or adenoviral vector monovalent vaccines were sampled before and one month after a fourth dose with a monovalent or a BA.1 or BA.5 bivalent vaccine. Serum neutralizing antibodies (NAb) were quantified, as well as RBD-specific Bmem with an in-depth spectral flow cytometry panel including recombinant RBD proteins of the WH1, BA.1, BA.5, BQ.1.1, and XBB.1.5 variants. Both bivalent vaccines elicited higher NAb titers against Omicron subvariants compared to the monovalent vaccine. Following either vaccine type, recipients had slightly increased WH1 RBD-specific Bmem numbers. Both bivalent vaccines significantly increased WH1 RBD-specific Bmem binding of all Omicron subvariants tested by flow cytometry, while recognition of Omicron subvariants was not enhanced following monovalent vaccination. IgG1+ Bmem dominated the response, with substantial IgG4+ Bmem only detected in recipients of an mRNA vaccine for their primary dose. Thus, Omicron-based bivalent vaccines can significantly boost NAb and Bmem specific for ancestral WH1 and Omicron variants and improve recognition of descendent subvariants by pre-existing, WH1-specific Bmem beyond that of a monovalent vaccine. This provides new insights into the capacity of variant-based mRNA booster vaccines to improve immune memory against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants and potentially protect against severe disease. ONE-SENTENCE SUMMARY: Omicron BA.1 and BA.5 bivalent COVID-19 boosters, used as a fourth dose, increase RBD-specific Bmem cross-recognition of Omicron subvariants, both those encoded by the vaccines and antigenically distinct subvariants, further than a monovalent booster.
ABSTRACT
Waning antibody responses after COVID-19 vaccination combined with the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron lineage led to reduced vaccine effectiveness. As a countermeasure, bivalent mRNA-based booster vaccines encoding the ancestral spike protein in combination with that of Omicron BA.1 or BA.5 were introduced. Since then, different BA.2-descendent lineages have become dominant, such as XBB.1.5, JN.1, or EG.5.1. Here, we report post-hoc analyses of data from the SWITCH-ON study, assessing how different COVID-19 priming regimens affect the immunogenicity of bivalent booster vaccinations and breakthrough infections (NCT05471440). BA.1 and BA.5 bivalent vaccines boosted neutralizing antibodies and T-cells up to 3 months after boost; however, cross-neutralization of XBB.1.5 was poor. Interestingly, different combinations of prime-boost regimens induced divergent responses: participants primed with Ad26.COV2.S developed lower binding antibody levels after bivalent boost while neutralization and T-cell responses were similar to mRNA-based primed participants. In contrast, the breadth of neutralization was higher in mRNA-primed and bivalent BA.5 boosted participants. Combined, our data further support the current use of monovalent vaccines based on circulating strains when vaccinating risk groups, as recently recommended by the WHO. We emphasize the importance of the continuous assessment of immune responses targeting circulating variants to guide future COVID-19 vaccination policies.
Subject(s)
Antibodies, Neutralizing , Antibodies, Viral , COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Immunization, Secondary , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/virology , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Antibodies, Neutralizing/immunology , Antibodies, Neutralizing/blood , Antibodies, Viral/immunology , Antibodies, Viral/blood , Female , Male , Adult , Middle Aged , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/immunology , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/genetics , T-Lymphocytes/immunology , VaccinationABSTRACT
Non-timely reporting, selective reporting, or non-reporting of clinical trial results are prevalent and serious issues. WHO mandates that summary results be available in registries within 12 months of study completion and published in full text within 24 months. However, only a limited number of clinical trials in infectious diseases, including those done during the COVID-19 pandemic, have their results posted on ClinicalTrials.gov. An analysis of 50 trials of eight antiviral drugs tested against COVID-19 with a completion date of at least 2 years ago revealed that only 18% had their results published in the registry, with 40% not publishing any results. Non-timely and non-reporting practices undermine patient participation and are ethically unacceptable. Strategies should include obligatory reporting of summary results within 12 months in clinical trial registries, with progress towards peer-reviewed publication within 24 months indicated. Timely publication of research papers should be encouraged through an automated flagging mechanism in clinical trial registries that draws attention to the status of results reporting, such as a green tick for trials that have reported summary results within 12 months and a red tick in case of failure to do so. We propose the inclusion of mandatory clinical trial reporting standards in the International Conference on Harmonization Good Clinical Practice guidelines, which should prohibit sponsor contract clauses that restrict reporting (referred to as gag clauses) and require timely reporting of results as part of the ethics committees' clearance process for clinical trial protocols.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Communicable Diseases , Humans , Pandemics , Communicable Diseases/drug therapy , Registries , BiasABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Recommended duration of antibiotic treatment of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) is frequently based on distinguishing uncomplicated and complicated SAB, and several risk factors at the onset of infection have been proposed to define complicated SAB. Predictive values of risk factors for complicated SAB have not been validated, and consequences of their use on antibiotic prescriptions are unknown. METHODS: In a prospective cohort, patients with SAB were categorized as complicated or uncomplicated through adjudication (reference definition). Associations and predictive values of 9 risk factors were determined, compared with the reference definition, as was accuracy of Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) criteria that include 4 risk factors, and the projected consequences of applying IDSA criteria on antibiotic use. RESULTS: Among 490 patients, 296 (60%) had complicated SAB. In multivariable analysis, persistent bacteremia (odds ratio [OR], 6.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.9-12.0), community acquisition of SAB (OR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.9-4.7) and presence of prosthetic material (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.5-3.6) were associated with complicated SAB. Presence of any of the 4 risk factors in the IDSA definition of complicated SAB had a positive predictive value of 70.9% (95% CI, 65.5-75.9) and a negative predictive value of 57.5% (95% CI, 49.1-64.8). Compared with the reference, IDSA criteria yielded 24 (5%) false-negative and 90 (18%) false-positive classifications of complicated SAB. Median duration of antibiotic treatment of these 90 patients was 16 days (interquartile range, 14-19), all with favorable clinical outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Risk factors have low to moderate predictive value to identify complicated SAB and their use may lead to unnecessary prolonged antibiotic use.
Subject(s)
Bacteremia , Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus , Staphylococcal Infections , Humans , Methicillin Resistance , Staphylococcus aureus , Prospective Studies , Prevalence , Bacteremia/drug therapy , Bacteremia/epidemiology , Staphylococcal Infections/drug therapy , Staphylococcal Infections/epidemiology , Risk Factors , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Anti-Bacterial Agents/pharmacologyABSTRACT
Patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) have a 29- to 36-fold increased risk of invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) compared to healthy adults. Therefore, most guidelines recommend vaccination with the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugated vaccine (PCV13) followed 2 months later by the 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23). Because both CLL as well as immunosuppressive treatment have been identified as major determinants of immunogenicity, we aimed to assess the vaccination schedule in untreated and treated CLL patients. We quantified pneumococcal IgG concentrations against five serotypes shared across both vaccines, and against four serotypes unique to PPSV23, before and eight weeks after vaccination. In this retrospective cohort study, we included 143 CLL patients, either treated (n = 38) or naive to treatment (n = 105). While antibody concentrations increased significantly after vaccination, the overall serologic response was low (10.5%), defined as a ≥4-fold antibody increase against ≥70% of the measured serotypes, and significantly influenced by treatment status and prior lymphocyte number. The serologic protection rate, defined as an antibody concentration of ≥1.3 µg/mL for ≥70% of serotypes, was 13% in untreated and 3% in treated CLL patients. Future research should focus on vaccine regimens with a higher immunogenic potential, such as multi-dose schedules with higher-valent T cell dependent conjugated vaccines.
ABSTRACT
Background: Patients with haematological malignancies have impaired antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. We aimed to investigate whether a fourth mRNA COVID-19 vaccination improved antibody quantity and quality. Methods: In this cohort study, conducted at 5 sites in the Netherlands, we compared antibody concentrations 28 days after 4 mRNA vaccinations (3-dose primary series plus 1 booster vaccination) in SARS-CoV-2 naive, immunocompromised patients with haematological malignancies to those obtained by age-matched, healthy individuals who had received the standard primary 2-dose mRNA vaccination schedule followed by a first booster mRNA vaccination. Prior to and 4 weeks after each vaccination, peripheral blood samples and data on demographic parameters and medical history were collected. Concentrations of antibodies that bind spike 1 (S1) and nucleocapsid (N) protein of SARS-CoV-2 were quantified in binding antibody units (BAU) per mL according to the WHO International Standard for COVID-19 serological tests. Seroconversion was defined as an S1 IgG concentration >10 BAU/mL and a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection as N IgG >14.3 BAU/mL. Antibody neutralising activity was tested using lentiviral-based pseudoviruses expressing spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 wild-type (D614G), Omicron BA.1, and Omicron BA.4/5 variants. This study is registered with EudraCT, number 2021-001072-41. Findings: Between March 24, 2021 and May 4, 2021, 723 patients with haematological diseases were enrolled, of which 414 fulfilled the inclusion criteria for the current analysis. Although S1 IgG concentrations in patients significantly improved after the fourth dose, they remained significantly lower compared to those obtained by 58 age-matched healthy individuals after their first booster (third) vaccination. The rise in neutralising antibody concentration was most prominent in patients with a recovering B cell compartment, although potent responses were also observed in patients with persistent immunodeficiencies. 19% of patients never seroconverted, despite 4 vaccinations. Patients who received their first 2 vaccinations when they were B cell depleted and the third and fourth vaccination during B cell recovery demonstrated similar antibody induction dynamics as patients with normal B cell numbers during the first 2 vaccinations. However, the neutralising capacity of these antibodies was significantly better than that of patients with normal B cell numbers after two vaccinations. Interpretation: A fourth mRNA COVID-19 vaccination improved S1 IgG concentrations in the majority of patients with a haematological malignancy. Vaccination during B cell depletion may pave the way for better quality of antibody responses after B cell reconstitution. Funding: The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development and Amsterdam UMC.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Bivalent mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines encoding the ancestral and omicron spike (S) protein were developed as a countermeasure against antigenically distinct SARS-CoV-2 variants. We aimed to assess the (variant-specific) immunogenicity and reactogenicity of mRNA-based bivalent omicron (BA.1) vaccines in individuals who were primed with adenovirus-based or mRNA-based vaccines encoding the ancestral spike protein. METHODS: We analysed results of the direct boost group of the SWITCH ON study, an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Health-care workers from four academic hospitals in the Netherlands aged 18-65 years who had completed a primary COVID-19 vaccination regimen and received one booster of an mRNA-based vaccine, given no later than 3 months previously, were eligible. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using computer software in block sizes of 16 and 24 to receive an omicron BA.1 bivalent booster straight away (direct boost group) or a bivalent omicron BA.5 booster, postponed for 90 days (postponed boost group), stratified by priming regimen. The BNT162b2 OMI BA.1 boost was given to participants younger than 45 years, and the mRNA-1273.214 boost was given to participants 45 years or older, as per Dutch guidelines. The direct boost group, whose results are presented here, were divided into four subgroups for analysis: (1) Ad26.COV2.S (Johnson & Johnson) prime and BNT162b2 OMI BA.1 (BioNTech-Pfizer) boost (Ad/P), (2) mRNA-based prime and BNT162b2 OMI BA.1 boost (mRNA/P), (3) Ad26.COV2.S prime and mRNA-1273.214 (Moderna) boost (Ad/M), and (4) mRNA-based prime and mRNA-1273.214 boost (mRNA/M). The primary outcome was fold change in S protein S1 subunit-specific IgG antibodies before and 28 days after booster vaccination. The primary outcome and safety were assessed in all participants except those who withdrew, had a SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection, or had a missing blood sample at day 0 or day 28. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05471440. FINDINGS: Between Sept 2 and Oct 4, 2022, 219 (50%) of 434 eligible participants were randomly assigned to the direct boost group; 187 participants were included in the primary analyses; exclusions were mainly due to SARS-CoV-2 infection between days 0 and 28. From the 187 included participants, 138 (74%) were female and 49 (26%) were male. 42 (22%) of 187 participants received Ad/P and 44 (24%) mRNA/P (those aged <45 years), and 45 (24%) had received Ad/M and 56 (30%) mRNA/M (those aged ≥45 years). S1-specific binding antibody concentrations increased 7 days after bivalent booster vaccination and remained stable over 28 days in all four subgroups (geometric mean ratio [GMR] between day 0 and day 28 was 1·15 [95% CI 1·12-1·19] for the Ad/P group, 1·17 [1·14-1·20] for the mRNA/P group, 1·20 [1·17-1·23] for the Ad/M group, and 1·16 [1·13-1·19] for the mRNA/M group). We observed no significant difference in the GMR between the Ad/P and mRNA/P groups (p=0·51). The GMR appeared to be higher in the Ad/M group than in the mRNA/M group, but was not significant (p=0·073). Most side-effects were mild to moderate in severity and resolved within 48 h in most individuals. INTERPRETATION: Booster vaccination with mRNA-1273.214 or BNT162b2 OMI BA.1 in adult healthcare workers resulted in a rapid recall of humoral and cellular immune responses independent of the priming regimen. Monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 immunity at the population level, and simultaneously antigenic drift at the virus level, remains crucial to assess the necessity and timing of COVID-19 variant-specific booster vaccinations. FUNDING: The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw).
Subject(s)
Ad26COVS1 , COVID-19 , Adult , Humans , Female , Male , BNT162 Vaccine , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Netherlands , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Health Personnel , Antibodies, Viral , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , Vaccination , Antibodies, NeutralizingABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) reduces the need for intubation in patients with hypoxaemic acute respiratory failure (ARF), but its added value in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and a do-not-intubate (DNI) order is unknown. We aimed to assess (variables associated with) survival in these patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We described a multicentre retrospective observational cohort study in five hospitals in the Netherlands and assessed the survival in COVID-19 patients with severe acute respiratory failure and a DNI order who were treated with high flow nasal cannula. We also studied variables associated with survival. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: One-third of patients survived after 30 days. Survival was 43.9% in the subgroup of patients with a good WHO performance status and only 16.1% in patients with a poor WHO performance status. Patients who were admitted to the hospital for a longer period prior to HFNC initiation were less likely to survive. HFNC resulted in an increase in ROX values, reflective of improved oxygenation and/or decreased respiratory rate. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that a trial of HFNC could be considered to increase chances of survival in patients with ARF due to COVID-19 pneumonitis and a DNI order, especially in those with a good WHO performance status.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Noninvasive Ventilation , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Respiratory Insufficiency , Humans , Cannula , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/therapy , Retrospective Studies , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Survival Analysis , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Oxygen Inhalation TherapyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: For immunocompromised patients (ICPs), administration of rabies immunoglobulins (RIG) after exposure is still recommended regardless of prior vaccination, due to a lack of data. We aimed to assess the 1-year boostability of a three-dose rabies pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) schedule in individuals using immunosuppressive monotherapy. METHODS: In this prospective study, individuals on immunosuppressive monotherapy with a conventional immunomodulator (cIM) or a TNF-alpha inhibitor (TNFi) for a chronic inflammatory disease received a three-dose intramuscular PrEP schedule (days 0,7,21-28) with 1 mL Rabipur®, followed by a two-dose simulated post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) schedule (days 0,3) after 12 months. Rabies neutralizing antibodies were assessed at baseline, on day 21-28 (before the third PrEP dose), day 60, month 12 and month 12 + 7 days. The primary outcome was 1-year boostability, defined as the proportion of patients with a neutralizing antibody titre of ≥ 0.5 IU/mL at month 12 + 7 days. Secondary outcomes were geometric mean titres (GMTs) and factors associated with the primary endpoint. RESULTS: We included 56 individuals, of whom 52 completed the study. The 1-year boostability was 90% (47/52) with a GMT of 6.16 (95% CI 3.83-9.91). All participants seroconverted at some point in the study. Early response to PrEP (at day 21-28) was significantly associated with 100% boostability (Odds Ratio 51; 95% confidence interval [5.0-6956], P < 0.01). The vaccination schedule was safe and well tolerated. No vaccine-related serious adverse events occurred. CONCLUSION: In patients using immunosuppressive monotherapy, a three-dose rabies PrEP schedule followed by a two-dose PEP schedule is immunogenic, with all patients seroconverting at some point in the study. Although boostability 7 days after PEP was not 100%, nobody would wrongly be denied RIG when only administered to those who responded early to PrEP while reducing the administration of RIG by 73%.
Subject(s)
Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis , Rabies Vaccines , Rabies , Humans , Adult , Rabies/prevention & control , Prospective Studies , Antibodies, Viral , Antibodies, Neutralizing , Immunosuppressive Agents , Post-Exposure Prophylaxis , Immunization ScheduleABSTRACT
The emergence of novel SARS-CoV-2 variants led to the recommendation of booster vaccinations after Ad26.COV2.S priming. It was previously shown that heterologous booster vaccination induces high antibody levels, but how heterologous boosters affect other functional aspects of the immune response remained unknown. Here, we performed immunological profiling of Ad26.COV2.S-primed individuals before and after homologous or heterologous (mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2) booster. Booster vaccinations increased functional antibodies targeting ancestral SARS-CoV-2 and emerging variants. Especially heterologous booster vaccinations induced high levels of functional antibodies. In contrast, T-cell responses were similar in magnitude following homologous or heterologous booster vaccination and retained cross-reactivity towards variants. Booster vaccination led to a minimal expansion of SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell clones and no increase in the breadth of the T-cell repertoire. In conclusion, we show that Ad26.COV2.S priming vaccination provided a solid immunological base for heterologous boosting, increasing humoral and cellular responses targeting emerging variants of concern.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The aim of this randomized, controlled trial is to determine whether antisevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 hyperimmune globulin (COVIG) protects against severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in severely immunocompromised, hospitalized, COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive COVIG or intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) without SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. RESULTS: Severe COVID-19 was observed in 2 of 10 (20%) patients treated with COVIG compared to 7 of 8 (88%) in the IVIG control group (P = .015, Fisher's exact test). CONCLUSIONS: Antisevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 hyperimmune globulin may be a valuable treatment in severely immunocompromised, hospitalized, COVID-19 patients and should be considered when no monoclonal antibody therapies are available.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Immunoglobulins, Intravenous/therapeutic use , Treatment Outcome , COVID-19 Serotherapy , Immunization, Passive/adverse effectsABSTRACT
The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants raised questions regarding the durability of immune responses after homologous or heterologous boosters after Ad26.COV2.S-priming. We found that SARS-CoV-2-specific binding antibodies, neutralizing antibodies, and T cells are detectable 5 months after boosting, although waning of antibodies and limited cross-reactivity with Omicron BA.1 was observed.
Subject(s)
Ad26COVS1 , COVID-19 , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Antibodies, Neutralizing , Antibodies, Viral , Health Personnel , ImmunityABSTRACT
Vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has contributed greatly to providing protection against severe disease, thereby reducing hospital admissions and deaths. Several studies have reported reduction in vaccine effectiveness over time against the Omicron sub-lineages. However, the willingness to receive regular booster doses in the general population is declining. To determine the need for repeated booster vaccinations in healthy individuals and to aid policymakers in future public health interventions for COVID-19, we aim to gain insight into the immunogenicity of the additional bivalent booster vaccination in a representative sample of the healthy Dutch population. The SWITCH ON study was initiated to investigate three main topics: i) immunogenicity of bivalent vaccines after priming with adenovirus- or mRNA-based vaccines, ii) immunological recall responses and reactivity with relevant variants after booster vaccination, and iii) the necessity of booster vaccinations for the healthy population in the future. Clinical trial registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/, identifier NCT05471440.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , COVID-19/prevention & control , Health Personnel , Vaccination , Health Status , Public HealthABSTRACT
Importance: It has become common practice to offer immunocompromised patients with hematologic cancers a third COVID-19 vaccination dose, but data substantiating this are scarce. Objective: To assess whether a third mRNA-1273 vaccination is associated with increased neutralizing antibody concentrations in immunocompromised patients with hematologic cancers comparable to levels obtained in healthy individuals after the standard 2-dose mRNA-1273 vaccination schedule. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective observational cohort study was conducted at 4 university hospitals in the Netherlands and included 584 evaluable patients spanning the spectrum of hematologic cancers and 44 randomly selected age-matched adults without malignant or immunodeficient comorbidities. Exposures: One additional mRNA-1273 vaccination 5 months after completion of the standard 2-dose mRNA-1273 vaccination schedule. Main Outcomes and Measures: Serum immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies to spike subunit 1 (S1) antigens prior to and 4 weeks after a third mRNA-1273 vaccination, and antibody neutralization capacity of wild-type, Delta, and Omicron variants in a subgroup of patients. Results: In this cohort of 584 immunocompromised patients with hematologic cancers (mean [SD] age, 60 [11.2] years; 216 [37.0%] women), a third mRNA-1273 vaccination was associated with median S1-IgG concentrations comparable to concentrations obtained by healthy individuals after the 2-dose mRNA-1273 schedule. The rise in S1-IgG concentration after the third vaccination was most pronounced in patients with a recovering immune system, but potent responses were also observed in patients with persistent immunodeficiencies. Specifically, patients with myeloid cancers or multiple myeloma and recipients of autologous or allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) reached median S1-IgG concentrations similar to those obtained by healthy individuals after a 2-dose schedule. Patients receiving or shortly after completing anti-CD20 therapy, CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy recipients, and patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia receiving ibrutinib were less responsive or unresponsive to the third vaccination. In the 27 patients who received cell therapy between the second and third vaccination, S1 antibodies were preserved, but a third mRNA-1273 vaccination was not associated with significantly enhanced S1-IgG concentrations except for patients with multiple myeloma receiving autologous HCT. A third vaccination was associated with significantly improved neutralization capacity per antibody. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this cohort study support that the primary schedule for immunocompromised patients with hematologic cancers should be supplemented with a delayed third vaccination. Patients with B-cell lymphoma and allogeneic HCT recipients need to be revaccinated after treatment or transplantation. Trial Registration: EudraCT Identifier: 2021-001072-41.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hematologic Neoplasms , Multiple Myeloma , Receptors, Chimeric Antigen , Humans , Adult , Female , Middle Aged , Male , Antibody Formation , 2019-nCoV Vaccine mRNA-1273 , COVID-19/prevention & control , Prospective Studies , Cohort Studies , COVID-19 Vaccines , SARS-CoV-2 , Hematologic Neoplasms/therapy , Immunocompromised Host , Antibodies, Neutralizing , Immunoglobulin GABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Before April 2022, monkeypox virus infection in humans was seldom reported outside African regions where it is endemic. Currently, cases are occurring worldwide. Transmission, risk factors, clinical presentation, and outcomes of infection are poorly defined. METHODS: We formed an international collaborative group of clinicians who contributed to an international case series to describe the presentation, clinical course, and outcomes of polymerase-chain-reaction-confirmed monkeypox virus infections. RESULTS: We report 528 infections diagnosed between April 27 and June 24, 2022, at 43 sites in 16 countries. Overall, 98% of the persons with infection were gay or bisexual men, 75% were White, and 41% had human immunodeficiency virus infection; the median age was 38 years. Transmission was suspected to have occurred through sexual activity in 95% of the persons with infection. In this case series, 95% of the persons presented with a rash (with 64% having ≤10 lesions), 73% had anogenital lesions, and 41% had mucosal lesions (with 54 having a single genital lesion). Common systemic features preceding the rash included fever (62%), lethargy (41%), myalgia (31%), and headache (27%); lymphadenopathy was also common (reported in 56%). Concomitant sexually transmitted infections were reported in 109 of 377 persons (29%) who were tested. Among the 23 persons with a clear exposure history, the median incubation period was 7 days (range, 3 to 20). Monkeypox virus DNA was detected in 29 of the 32 persons in whom seminal fluid was analyzed. Antiviral treatment was given to 5% of the persons overall, and 70 (13%) were hospitalized; the reasons for hospitalization were pain management, mostly for severe anorectal pain (21 persons); soft-tissue superinfection (18); pharyngitis limiting oral intake (5); eye lesions (2); acute kidney injury (2); myocarditis (2); and infection-control purposes (13). No deaths were reported. CONCLUSIONS: In this case series, monkeypox manifested with a variety of dermatologic and systemic clinical findings. The simultaneous identification of cases outside areas where monkeypox has traditionally been endemic highlights the need for rapid identification and diagnosis of cases to contain further community spread.
Subject(s)
Global Health , Mpox (monkeypox) , Adult , Exanthema/etiology , Female , Fever/etiology , Global Health/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Male , Mpox (monkeypox)/epidemiology , Mpox (monkeypox)/therapy , Monkeypox virusABSTRACT
People living with HIV (PLWH) are at increased risk of pneumococcal infections compared with the general population. The objective of this study was to investigate the immunogenicity of the combined pneumococcal vaccination schedule in PLWH. In this prospective cohort study, adult PLWH on antiretroviral therapy and HIV-negative controls received the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) at baseline followed by the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) at Month 2. Serotype-specific IgG levels of 24 vaccine serotypes were measured at Months 0, 2, 4, 6 and 12. The primary outcome was seroprotection at Month 4, defined as the proportion of patients with a post-immunisation IgG concentration of ≥1.3 µg/mL for ≥70% (17/24) of vaccine serotypes. Samples of 120 patients were analysed. Seroprotection at Month 4 was 49% (39/80) for PLWH and 82% (28/34) in controls. At Month 12, seroprotection had decreased to 23% (18/79) and 63% (22/35), respectively. Nadir CD4 count ≥200 cells/mm3, preserved kidney function and co-administration of the diphtheria-tetanus-polio (DTP) vaccine were associated with better seroprotection among PLWH. IgG levels both of PLWH and controls (all 24 vaccine serotypes) were significantly higher compared with baseline at all timepoints. Although IgG levels of all 24 vaccine serotypes increased significantly both in PLWH and controls, only a minority of PLWH achieved seroprotection after PCV13 followed by PPSV23. In addition, protective immunity waned rapidly. Further research into alternative vaccinations strategies for PLWH is needed, such as vaccination schedules with higher-valent pneumococcal vaccines. The DTP vaccine may augment pneumococcal vaccination responses.
Subject(s)
HIV Infections , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , Pneumococcal Infections , Pneumococcal Vaccines , Adult , Antibodies, Bacterial , Antiretroviral Therapy, Highly Active , HIV Infections/complications , HIV Infections/drug therapy , Humans , Immunoglobulin G , Pneumococcal Infections/prevention & control , Pneumococcal Vaccines/immunology , Prospective Studies , Vaccines, Conjugate/immunologyABSTRACT
Immunosuppressive therapy increases the risk of pneumococcal disease. This risk can be mitigated by pneumococcal vaccination. The objective of this study was to investigate the immunogenicity of the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13), followed by the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23), in adults with and without immunosuppressive therapy. We performed a prospective cohort study among adults using conventional immunomodulators (cIM), biological immunomodulators (bIM), combination therapy, and controls during 12 months. The primary outcome was seroprotection, defined as the proportion of patients with a postimmunization IgG concentration of ≥1.3 µg/mL for at least 70% (17/24) of the serotypes of PCV13 + PPSV23. We included 214 participants. For all 24 vaccine serotypes, IgG levels increased significantly in both treatment subgroups and controls, with peak seroprotection rates of 44% (combination therapy), 58% (cIM), 57% (bIM), and 82% (controls). By month 12, seroprotection had decreased to 24%, 48%, 39%, and 63%, respectively. Although pneumococcal vaccination with PCV13 + PPSV23 was immunogenic in all treatment groups, impaired vaccination responses were observed in patients using immunosuppressive medication. Apart from the obvious recommendation to administer vaccines before such medication is started, alternative vaccination strategies, such as additional PCV13 doses or higher-valent pneumococcal vaccines, should be investigated.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Patients with hematological cancers (HC) are at high risk of infections, in particular community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Recent data on incidence and predictors of CAP among patients with HC are scarce. METHODS: We performed a cohort study (2016-2019) in 2 hospitals in the Netherlands among adults with HC to calculate incidence rates (IRs) of CAP. In addition, we performed a nested case-control study to identify predictors of CAP. RESULTS: We identified 275 CAP cases during 6264 patient-years of follow-up. The IR of CAP was 4390/100 000 patient-years of follow-up. Compared with the general population, IR ratios ranged from 5.4 to 55.3 for the different HCs. The case fatality and intensive care unit (ICU) admission rates were 5.5% and 9.8%, respectively. Predictors for CAP in patients with HC were male sex, anemia, lymphocytopenia, chronic kidney disease, cardiovascular disease, autologous and allogeneic stem cell transplantation, treatment with immunosuppressive medication for graft-vs-host disease, treatment with rituximab in the past year, and treatment with immunomodulators (lenalidomide, thalidomide, pomalidomide and/or methotrexate) in the past month. Independent predictors of a severe disease course (death or ICU admission) included neutropenia (odds ratio, 4.14 [95% confidence interval, 1.63-10.2]), pneumococcal pneumonia (10.24 [3.48-30.1]), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (6.90 [2.07-23.0]), and the use of antibacterial prophylaxis (2.53 [1.05-6.08]). CONCLUSIONS: The burden of CAP in patients with HC is high, with significant morbidity and mortality rates. Therefore, vaccination against respiratory pathogens early in the disease course is recommended, in particular before starting certain immunosuppressive therapies.
Subject(s)
Community-Acquired Infections , Hematologic Neoplasms , Pneumonia, Pneumococcal , Pneumonia , Adult , Anti-Bacterial Agents , Case-Control Studies , Cohort Studies , Community-Acquired Infections/epidemiology , Disease Progression , Female , Hematologic Neoplasms/complications , Hematologic Neoplasms/epidemiology , Hospitalization , Humans , Incidence , Lenalidomide , Male , Methotrexate , Pneumonia, Pneumococcal/epidemiology , Rituximab , ThalidomideABSTRACT
The optimal schedule of pneumococcal vaccination after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) remains controversial. The objective of this study was to investigate the immunogenicity of a 5-dose pneumococcal vaccination schedule in adult allo-HSCT recipients with and without immunosuppressive therapy. In this prospective cohort study, allo-HSCT recipients received four doses of the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) and one dose of the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) starting 4-6 months after allo-HSCT. PCV13 was administered at T0, T1, T2, and T8 (T = months from enrollment) and PPSV23 at T10. Serum was collected at T0, T4, T8, T10, and T12, and IgG levels were measured for all 24 vaccine serotypes by immunoassay. The primary outcome was overall seroprotection at T12 defined as an IgG concentration ≥1.3 µg/ml for 17/24 vaccine serotypes in allo-HCST recipients with and without immunosuppressive therapy at baseline. Secondary outcomes were serotype-specific seroprotection and dynamics of IgG levels. We included 89 allo-HSCT recipients in the final analysis. Overall seroprotection was 47% (15/32) for patients without immunosuppressive therapy at baseline versus 24% (11/46) for patients with immunosuppressive therapy (p = .03). Seroprotection was higher for PCV13 serotypes (78% and 54% respectively; p = .03) and lower for PPSV23-unique serotypes (28% and 13% respectively; p = .1). IgG concentrations increased significantly over time for all 24 serotypes. Concluding, although immunogenicity of PCV13 serotypes was reasonable, the poor response to PPSV23 serotypes resulted in an insufficient overall response to pneumococcal vaccination for allo-HSCT recipients. Research into vaccination strategies with higher-valent T-cell-dependent pneumococcal vaccines is needed.