Antibody-mediated procoagulant platelets in SARS-CoV-2-vaccination associated immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia.

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. To prevent severe infection, mass COVID-19 vaccination campaigns with several vaccine types are currently underway. We report pathological and immunological findings in 8 patients who developed vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) after administration of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. We analyzed patient material using enzyme immune assays, flow cytometry and heparin-induced platelet aggregation assay and performed autopsies on two fatal cases. Eight patients (5 female, 3 male) with a median age of 41.5 years (range, 24 to 53) were referred to us with suspected thrombotic complications 6 to 20 days after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination. All patients had thrombocytopenia at admission. Patients had a median platelet count of 46.5 x109/L (range, 8 to 92). Three had a fatal outcome and 5 were successfully treated. Autopsies showed arterial and venous thromboses in various organs and the occlusion of glomerular capillaries by hyaline thrombi. Sera from VITT patients contain high titer antibodies against platelet factor 4 (PF4) (OD 2.59±0.64). PF4 antibodies in VITT patients induced significant increase in procoagulant markers (P-selectin and phosphatidylserine externalization) compared to healthy volunteers and healthy vaccinated volunteers. The generation of procoagulant platelets was PF4 and heparin dependent. We demonstrate the contribution of antibody-mediated platelet activation in the pathogenesis of VITT.

Subsequent Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 after Vaccine-Induced Immune Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia.

Background: Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) is a rare but severe complication following vaccination with adenovirus vector-based COVID-19 vaccines. Antibodies directed against platelet factor 4 (PF4) are thought to be responsible for platelet activation and subsequent thromboembolic events in these patients. Since a single vaccination does not lead to sufficient immunization, subsequent vaccinations against COVID-19 have been recommended. However, concerns exist regarding the possible development of a new thromboembolic episode after subsequent vaccinations in VITT patients. Methods: We prospectively analyzed follow-up data from four VITT patients (three women and one man; median age, 44 years [range, 22 to 62 years]) who subsequently received additional COVID-19 vaccines. Platelet counts, anti-PF4/heparin antibody level measurements, and a functional platelet activation assay were performed at each follow-up visit. Additionally, we conducted a literature review and summarized similar reports on the outcome of subsequent vaccinations in patients with VITT. Results: The patients had developed thrombocytopenia and thrombosis 4 to 17 days after the first vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. The optical densities (ODs) of anti-PF4/heparin antibodies decreased with time, and three out of four patients tested negative within 4 months. One patient remained positive even after 10 months post first vaccination. All four patients received an mRNA-based vaccine as a second vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. No significant drop in platelet count or new thromboembolic complications were observed during follow-up. We identified seven publications reporting subsequent COVID-19 vaccination in VITT patients. None of the patients developed thrombocytopenia or thrombosis after the subsequent vaccination. Conclusion: Subsequent vaccination with an mRNA vaccine appears to be safe in VITT patients.

Thrombocytopenia and Intracranial Venous Sinus Thrombosis after "COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca" Exposure.

BACKGROUND: As of 8 April 2021, a total of 2.9 million people have died with or from the coronavirus infection causing COVID-19 (Corona Virus Disease 2019). On 29 January 2021, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) approved a COVID-19 vaccine developed by Oxford University and AstraZeneca (AZD1222, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, COVID-19 vaccine AstraZeneca, Vaxzevria, Covishield). While the vaccine prevents severe course of and death from COVID-19, the observation of pulmonary, abdominal, and intracranial venous thromboembolic events has raised concerns. OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinical manifestations and the concerning management of patients with cranial venous sinus thrombosis following first exposure to the "COVID-19 vaccine AstraZeneca". METHODS: Patient files, laboratory findings, and diagnostic imaging results, and endovascular interventions of three concerning patients were evaluated in retrospect. RESULTS: Three women with intracranial venous sinus thrombosis after their first vaccination with "COVID-19 vaccine AstraZeneca" were encountered. Patient #1 was 22 years old and developed headaches four days after the vaccination. On day 7, she experienced a generalized epileptic seizure. Patient #2 was 46 years old. She presented with severe headaches, hemianopia to the right, and mild aphasia 13 days after the vaccination. MRI showed a left occipital intracerebral hemorrhage. Patient #3 was 36 years old and presented 17 days after the vaccination with acute somnolence and right-hand hemiparesis. The three patients were diagnosed with extensive venous sinus thrombosis. They were managed by heparinization and endovascular recanalization of their venous sinuses. They shared similar findings: elevated levels of D-dimers, platelet factor 4 antiplatelet antibodies, corona spike protein antibodies, combined with thrombocytopenia. Under treatment with low-molecular-weight heparin, platelet counts normalized within several days. CONCLUSION: Early observations insinuate that the exposure to the "COVID-19 vaccine AstraZeneca" might trigger the expression of antiplatelet antibodies, resulting in a condition with thrombocytopenia and venous thrombotic events (e.g., intracranial venous sinus thrombosis). These patients' treatment should address the thrombo-embolic manifestations, the coagulation disorder, and the underlying immunological phenomena.

CD26/dipeptidyl peptidase IV: a comparative study of healthy persons and kidney transplant recipients before and early after transplantation.

OBJECTIVES: Human CD26 is co-stimulatory for lymphocytes, circulates in a soluble form in blood (sCD26), and has intrinsic dipeptidyl peptidase IV (DPPIV) activity. Associations between CD26 expression on the surface of T cells (CD26+/CD3+) and acute rejection and between (CD26+/CD3+)/DPPIV and clinical immunosuppression have been reported. These results encouraged the investigation of CD26 as a potential biomarker to optimize immunosuppressive therapy. To better understand the significance of CD26, a comparative study of CD26 expression on CD3+ cells, sCD26 concentration, and DPPIV activity in healthy persons (HP) and kidney transplant recipients (KTR) was performed. DESIGN AND METHODS: Thirty-one HP and 34 KTR were included in the study. CD26+/CD3+ was determined by FACS, sCD26 concentration was determined by ELISA, and DPP activity was determined by spectrophotometry. For KTR, these parameters were studied on the day before transplantation (preTx) and 7±1days after transplantation (postTx). RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the CD26+/CD3+, sCD26, and DPPIV data regarding gender, donor type (16 living donors), delayed graft function (n=8), or presence of ≥4HLA mismatches (n=16). Compared to the HP data, preTx CD26+/CD3+ was 4.5-fold higher, sCD26 was 1.2-fold higher, and DPPIV showed no significant difference. PostTx, CD26+/CD3+ was 3.8-fold higher, and sCD26 and DPPIV decreased significantly, reaching lower values than that observed in HP. Re-transplanted patients (n=5) showed significantly lower preTx CD26+/CD3+ expression than patients receiving their first transplant. Patients with preemptive transplantation (n=7) showed higher postTx CD26+/CD3+ expression than patients on dialysis. CONCLUSIONS: CD26 expression on CD3+ cells was strongly increased in patients with end stage kidney disease compared to HP and remained high early postTx. The differences in sCD26 and DPPIV behavior compared to that of CD26+/CD3+ postTx may reflect a regulatory response to the new immunological situation and the effects of therapy.