RÉSUMÉ
Bidirectional interactions between the immune system and the gut microbiota are key contributors to various physiological functions. Immune-associated diseases such as cancer and autoimmunity, and efficacy of immunomodulatory therapies, have been linked to microbiome variation. Although COVID-19 infection has been shown to cause microbial dysbiosis, it remains understudied whether the inflammatory response associated with vaccination also impacts the microbiota. Here, we investigate the temporal impact of COVID-19 vaccination on the gut microbiome in healthy and immuno-compromised individuals; the latter included patients with primary immunodeficiency and cancer patients on immunomodulating therapies. We find that the gut microbiome remained remarkably stable post-vaccination irrespective of diverse immune status, vaccine response, and microbial composition spanned by the cohort. The stability is evident at all evaluated levels including diversity, phylum, species, and functional capacity. Our results indicate the resilience of the gut microbiome to host immune changes triggered by COVID-19 vaccination and suggest minimal, if any, impact on microbiome-mediated processes. These findings encourage vaccine acceptance, particularly when contrasted with the significant microbiome shifts observed during COVID-19 infection.
Sujet(s)
COVID-19 , Microbiome gastro-intestinal , Tumeurs , Humains , Vaccins contre la COVID-19 , COVID-19/prévention et contrôle , VaccinationRÉSUMÉ
Age-associated B cells (ABC) accumulate with age and in individuals with different immunological disorders, including cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint blockade and those with inborn errors of immunity. Here, we investigate whether ABCs from different conditions are similar and how they impact the longitudinal level of the COVID-19 vaccine response. Single-cell RNA sequencing indicates that ABCs with distinct aetiologies have common transcriptional profiles and can be categorised according to their expression of immune genes, such as the autoimmune regulator (AIRE). Furthermore, higher baseline ABC frequency correlates with decreased levels of antigen-specific memory B cells and reduced neutralising capacity against SARS-CoV-2. ABCs express high levels of the inhibitory FcγRIIB receptor and are distinctive in their ability to bind immune complexes, which could contribute to diminish vaccine responses either directly, or indirectly via enhanced clearance of immune complexed-antigen. Expansion of ABCs may, therefore, serve as a biomarker identifying individuals at risk of suboptimal responses to vaccination.
Sujet(s)
COVID-19 , Immunité humorale , Humains , Inhibiteurs de points de contrôle immunitaires , Vaccins contre la COVID-19 , COVID-19/prévention et contrôle , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination , Complexe antigène-anticorps , Anticorps antivirauxRÉSUMÉ
BACKGROUND: Detailed demographic data on people with hereditary angioedema (HAE) and acquired C1 inhibitor deficiency in the United Kingdom are relatively limited. Better demographic data would be beneficial in planning service provision, identifying areas of improvement, and improving care. OBJECTIVE: To obtain more accurate data on the demographics of HAE and acquired C1 inhibitor deficiency in the United Kingdom, including treatment modalities and services available to patients. METHODS: A survey was distributed to all centers in the United Kingdom that look after patients with HAE and acquired C1 inhibitor deficiency to collect these data. RESULTS: The survey identified 1152 patients with HAE-1/2 (58% female and 92% type 1), 22 patients with HAE with normal C1 inhibitor, and 91 patients with acquired C1 inhibitor deficiency. Data were provided by 37 centers across the United Kingdom. This gives a minimum prevalence of 1:59,000 for HAE-1/2 and 1:734,000 for acquired C1 inhibitor deficiency in the United Kingdom. A total of 45% of patients with HAE were on long-term prophylaxis (LTP) with the most used medication being danazol (55% of all patients on LTP). Eighty-two percent of patients with HAE had a home supply of acute treatment with C1 inhibitor or icatibant. A total of 45% of patients had a supply of icatibant and 56% had a supply of C1 inhibitor at home. CONCLUSIONS: Data obtained from the survey provide useful information about the demographics and treatment modalities used in HAE and acquired C1 inhibitor deficiency in the United Kingdom. These data are useful for planning service provision and improving services for these patients.
Sujet(s)
Angio-oedèmes héréditaires , Humains , Femelle , Mâle , Angio-oedèmes héréditaires/épidémiologie , Angio-oedèmes héréditaires/traitement médicamenteux , C1 Inhibiteur/usage thérapeutique , Danazol/usage thérapeutique , Royaume-Uni/épidémiologie , Enquêtes et questionnairesRÉSUMÉ
OBJECTIVE: Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection than the general population. This group is pivotal to healthcare system resilience during the COVID-19, and future, pandemics. We investigated demographic, social, behavioural and occupational risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCWs. DESIGN/SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: HCWs enrolled in a large-scale sero-epidemiological study at a UK university teaching hospital were sent questionnaires spanning a 5-month period from March to July 2020. In a retrospective observational cohort study, univariate logistic regression was used to assess factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. A Least Absolute Shrinkage Selection Operator regression model was used to identify variables to include in a multivariate logistic regression model. RESULTS: Among 2258 HCWs, highest ORs associated with SARS-CoV-2 antibody seropositivity on multivariate analysis were having a household member previously testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (OR 6.94 (95% CI 4.15 to 11.6); p<0.0001) and being of black ethnicity (6.21 (95% CI 2.69 to 14.3); p<0.0001). Occupational factors associated with a higher risk of seropositivity included working as a physiotherapist (OR 2.78 (95% CI 1.21 to 6.36); p=0.015) and working predominantly in acute medicine (OR 2.72 (95% CI 1.57 to 4.69); p<0.0001) or medical subspecialties (not including infectious diseases) (OR 2.33 (95% CI 1.4 to 3.88); p=0.001). Reporting that adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) was 'rarely' available had an OR of 2.83 (95% CI 1.29 to 6.25; p=0.01). Reporting attending a handover where social distancing was not possible had an OR of 1.39 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.9; p=0.038). CONCLUSIONS: The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants and potential vaccine escape continue to threaten stability of healthcare systems worldwide, and sustained vigilance against HCW infection remains a priority. Enhanced risk assessments should be considered for HCWs of black ethnicity, physiotherapists and those working in acute medicine or medical subspecialties. Workplace risk reduction measures include ongoing access to high-quality PPE and effective social distancing measures.
Sujet(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humains , COVID-19/épidémiologie , Études rétrospectives , Personnel de santé , Facteurs de risque , Anticorps antiviraux , Royaume-Uni/épidémiologie , DémographieRÉSUMÉ
OBJECTIVES: To describe the risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection in UK healthcare workers (HCWs). METHODS: We conducted a prospective sero-epidemiological study of HCWs at a major UK teaching hospital using a SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay. Risk factors for seropositivity were analysed using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: 410/5,698 (7·2%) staff tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Seroprevalence was higher in those working in designated COVID-19 areas compared with other areas (9·47% versus 6·16%) Healthcare assistants (aOR 2·06 [95%CI 1·14-3·71]; p=0·016) and domestic and portering staff (aOR 3·45 [95% CI 1·07-11·42]; p=0·039) had significantly higher seroprevalence than other staff groups after adjusting for age, sex, ethnicity and COVID-19 working location. Staff working in acute medicine and medical sub-specialities were also at higher risk (aOR 2·07 [95% CI 1·31-3·25]; p<0·002). Staff from Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) backgrounds had an aOR of 1·65 (95% CI 1·32 - 2·07; p<0·001) compared to white staff; this increased risk was independent of COVID-19 area working. The only symptoms significantly associated with seropositivity in a multivariable model were loss of sense of taste or smell, fever, and myalgia; 31% of staff testing positive reported no prior symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection amongst HCWs is highly heterogeneous and influenced by COVID-19 working location, role, age and ethnicity. Increased risk amongst BAME staff cannot be accounted for solely by occupational factors.
Sujet(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Anticorps antiviraux , COVID-19/épidémiologie , Personnel de santé , Hôpitaux d'enseignement , Humains , Études prospectives , Facteurs de risque , Études séroépidémiologiques , Royaume-Uni/épidémiologieRÉSUMÉ
BACKGROUND: Dialysis patients and immunosuppressed renal patients are at increased risk of COVID-19 and were excluded from vaccine trials. We conducted a prospective multicentre study to assess SARS-CoV-2 vaccine antibody responses in dialysis patients and renal transplant recipients, and patients receiving immunosuppression for autoimmune disease. METHODS: Patients were recruited from three UK centres (ethics:20/EM/0180) and compared to healthy controls (ethics:17/EE/0025). SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies to spike protein were measured using a multiplex Luminex assay, after first and second doses of Pfizer BioNTech BNT162b2(Pfizer) or Oxford-AstraZeneca ChAdOx1nCoV-19(AZ) vaccine. RESULTS: Six hundred ninety-two patients were included (260 dialysis, 209 transplant, 223 autoimmune disease (prior rituximab 128(57%)) and 144 healthy controls. 299(43%) patients received Pfizer vaccine and 379(55%) received AZ. Following two vaccine doses, positive responses occurred in 96% dialysis, 52% transplant, 70% autoimmune patients and 100% of healthy controls. In dialysis patients, higher antibody responses were observed with the Pfizer vaccination. Predictors of poor antibody response were triple immunosuppression (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]0.016;95%CI0.002-0.13;p < 0.001) and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) (aOR0.2;95%CI 0.1-0.42;p < 0.001) in transplant patients; rituximab within 12 months in autoimmune patients (aOR0.29;95%CI 0.008-0.096;p < 0.001) and patients receiving immunosuppression with eGFR 15-29 ml/min (aOR0.031;95%CI 0.11-0.84;p = 0.021). Lower antibody responses were associated with a higher chance of a breakthrough infection. CONCLUSIONS: Amongst dialysis, kidney transplant and autoimmune populations SARS-CoV-2 vaccine antibody responses are reduced compared to healthy controls. A reduced response to vaccination was associated with rituximab, MMF, triple immunosuppression CKD stage 4. Vaccine responses increased after the second dose, suggesting low-responder groups should be prioritised for repeated vaccination. Greater antibody responses were observed with the mRNA Pfizer vaccine compared to adenovirus AZ vaccine in dialysis patients suggesting that Pfizer SARS-CoV-2 vaccine should be the preferred vaccine choice in this sub-group.
Sujet(s)
Maladies auto-immunes , COVID-19 , Vaccins antiviraux , Vaccin BNT162 , COVID-19/prévention et contrôle , Vaccins contre la COVID-19 , Humains , Acide mycophénolique , Dialyse rénale , Rituximab , SARS-CoV-2RÉSUMÉ
INTRODUCTION: In early 2020, at first surge of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, many health care workers (HCW) were re-deployed to critical care environments to support intensive care teams looking after patients with severe COVID-19. There was considerable anxiety of increased risk of COVID-19 for these staff. To determine whether critical care HCW were at increased risk of hospital acquired infection, we explored the relationship between workplace, patient facing role and evidence of immune exposure to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) within a quaternary hospital providing a regional critical care response. Routine viral surveillance was not available at this time. METHODS: We screened over 500 HCW (25% of the total workforce) for history of clinical symptoms of possible COVID19, assigning a symptom severity score, and quantified SARS-CoV-2 serum antibodies as evidence of immune exposure to the virus. RESULTS: Whilst 45% of the cohort reported symptoms that they consider may have represented COVID-19, 14% had evidence of immune exposure. Staffs in patient facing critical care roles were least likely to be seropositive (9%) and staff working in non-patient facing roles most likely to be seropositive (22%). Anosmia and fever were the most discriminating symptoms for seropositive status. Older males presented with more severe symptoms. Of the 12 staff screened positive by nasal swab (10 symptomatic), 3 showed no evidence of seroconversion in convalescence. CONCLUSIONS: Patient facing staff working in critical care do not appear to be at increased risk of hospital acquired infection however the risk of nosocomial infection from non-patient facing staff may be more significant than previous recognised. Most symptoms ascribed to possible COVID-19 were found to have no evidence of immune exposure however seroprevalence may underrepresent infection frequency. Older male staff were at the greatest risk of more severe symptoms.
RÉSUMÉ
The response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been hampered by lack of an effective severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antiviral therapy. Here we report the use of remdesivir in a patient with COVID-19 and the prototypic genetic antibody deficiency X-linked agammaglobulinaemia (XLA). Despite evidence of complement activation and a robust T cell response, the patient developed persistent SARS-CoV-2 pneumonitis, without progressing to multi-organ involvement. This unusual clinical course is consistent with a contribution of antibodies to both viral clearance and progression to severe disease. In the absence of these confounders, we take an experimental medicine approach to examine the in vivo utility of remdesivir. Over two independent courses of treatment, we observe a temporally correlated clinical and virological response, leading to clinical resolution and viral clearance, with no evidence of acquired drug resistance. We therefore provide evidence for the antiviral efficacy of remdesivir in vivo, and its potential benefit in selected patients.
Sujet(s)
AMP/analogues et dérivés , Alanine/analogues et dérivés , Immunité humorale/effets des médicaments et des substances chimiques , SARS-CoV-2/effets des médicaments et des substances chimiques , AMP/usage thérapeutique , Adulte , Alanine/usage thérapeutique , Antiviraux/usage thérapeutique , COVID-19/virologie , Fièvre/prévention et contrôle , Humains , Immunité humorale/immunologie , Numération des lymphocytes , Mâle , SARS-CoV-2/immunologie , SARS-CoV-2/physiologie , Résultat thérapeutiqueSujet(s)
Facteur D du complément/composition chimique , Facteur D du complément/déficit , Facteur D du complément/génétique , Voie alterne d'activation du complément , Déficits immunitaires/génétique , Femelle , Déficits héréditaires en complément , Humains , Mâle , Mutation , Pedigree , Conformation des protéines , Jeune adulteRÉSUMÉ
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Blood-based studies have demonstrated the potential of immunological assays to detect tuberculosis. However lung fluid sampling may prove superior as it enables simultaneous microbiological detection of mycobacteria to be performed. Until now this has only been possible using the expensive and invasive technique of broncho-alveolar lavage. We sought to evaluate an immunoassay using non-invasive induced-sputum to diagnose active tuberculosis. METHODS AND RESULTS: Prospective cohort study of forty-two spontaneous sputum smear-negative or sputum non-producing adults under investigation for tuberculosis. CD4 lymphocytes specific to purified-protein-derivative of Mycobacterium tuberculosis actively synthesising interferon-gamma were measured by flow cytometry and final diagnosis compared to immunoassay using a cut-off of 0.5%. Sixteen subjects (38%) were HIV-infected (median CD4 count [range] = 332 cells/microl [103-748]). Thirty-eight (90%) were BCG-vaccinated. In 27 subjects diagnosed with active tuberculosis, the median [range] percentage of interferon-gamma synthetic CD4+ lymphocytes was 2.77% [0-23.93%] versus 0% [0-2.10%] in 15 negative for active infection (p<0.0001). Sensitivity and specificity of the immunoassay versus final diagnosis of active tuberculosis were 89% (24 of 27) and 80% (12 of 15) respectively. The 3 positive assays in the latter group occurred in subjects diagnosed with quiescent/latent tuberculosis. Assay performance was unaffected by HIV-status, BCG-vaccination or disease site. Combining this approach with traditional microbiological methods increased the diagnostic yield to 93% (25 of 27) alongside acid-fast bacilli smear and 96% (26 of 27) alongside tuberculosis culture. CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate for the first time that a rapid immunological assay to diagnose active tuberculosis can be performed successfully in combination with microbiological methods on a single induced-sputum sample.