Search

IntroductionImmunocompromised patients have been shown to have an impaired immune response to COVID-19 vaccines.MethodsHere we compared the B-cell, T-cell and neutralizing antibody response to WT and Omicron BA.2 SARS-CoV-2 virus after the fourth dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in patients with hematological malignancies (HM, n=71), solid tumors (ST, n=39) and immune-rheumatological (IR, n=25) diseases. The humoral and T-cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination were analyzed by quantifying the anti-RBD antibodies, their neutralization activity and the IFN-γ released after spike specific stimulation.ResultsWe show that the T-cell response is similarly boosted by the fourth dose across the different subgroups, while the antibody response is improved only in patients not receiving B-cell targeted therapies, independent on the pathology. However, 9% of patients with anti-RBD antibodies did not have neutralizing antibodies to either virus variants, while an additional 5.7% did not have neutralizing antibodies to Omicron BA.2, making these patients particularly vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 infection. The increment of neutralizing antibodies was very similar towards Omicron BA.2 and WT virus after the third or fourth dose of vaccine, suggesting that there is no preferential skewing towards either virus variant with the booster dose. The only limited step is the amount of antibodies that are elicited after vaccination, thus increasing the probability of developing neutralizing antibodies to both variants of virus.DiscussionThese data support the recommendation of additional booster doses in frail patients to enhance the development of a B-cell response directed against Omicron and/or to enhance the T-cell response in patients treated with anti-CD20.

ObjectivesEmergence of new variants of SARS-CoV-2 might affect vaccine efficacy. Therefore, assessing the capacity of sera to neutralize variants of concern (VOCs) in BSL-2 conditions will help evaluating the immune status of population following vaccination or infection.MethodsPseudotyped viruses bearing SARS-CoV-2 spike protein from Wuhan-Hu-1/D614G strains (wild type, WT), B.1.617.2 (Delta), or B.1.1.529 (Omicron) VOCs were generated to assess the neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) activity by a pseudovirus-based neutralization assay (PVNA). PVNA performance was assessed in comparison to the micro-neutralization test (MNT) based on live viruses. Sera collected from COVID-19 convalescents and vaccinees receiving mRNA (BNT16b2 or mRNA-1273) or viral vector (AZD1222 or Ad26.COV2.S) vaccines were used to measure nAbs elicited by two-dose BNT16b2, mRNA-1273, AZD1222 or one-dose Ad26.CO2.S, at different times from completed vaccination, ~ 1.5 month and ~ 4-6 months. Sera from pre-pandemic and unvaccinated individuals were analyzed as controls. Neutralizing activity following booster vaccinations against VOCs was also determined.ResultsPVNA titers correlated with the gold standard MNT assay, validating the reliability of PVNA. Sera analyzed late from the second dose showed a reduced neutralization activity compared to sera collected earlier. Ad26.CO2.S vaccination led to very low or absent nAbs. Neutralization of Delta and Omicron BA.1 VOCs showed significant reduction of nAbs respect to WT strain. Importantly, booster doses enhanced Omicron BA.1 nAbs, with persistent levels at 3 months from boosting.ConclusionsPVNA is a reliable tool for assessing anti-SARS-CoV-2 nAbs helping the establishment of a correlate of protection and the management of vaccination strategies.

IntroductionImmunocompromised patients with B-cell depletion agents are at risk for persistence and/or severe SARS-COV-2 infection. We describe a case series of 21 COVID-19 patients under B cell depletion therapy, mostly treated with a combined therapy based on intravenous remdesevir (RDV) and steroid associated with SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies against Spike glycoprotein and/or hyper-immune convalescent plasma.MethodsThis is a single-center longitudinal study. We retrospectively enrolled a total number of 21 B-cell depleted consecutive hospitalized patients with COVID-19 at the Lazzaro Spallanzani National Institute for Infectious Diseases, Rome, Italy, from November 2020 to December 2021. Demographic characteristics, medical history, clinical presentation, treatment, adverse drug reactions, and clinical and virological outcome were collected for all patients. In a subgroup, we explore immune T cells activation, T cells specific anti-SARS-COV-2 response, and neutralizing antibodies.ResultsTwenty-one inpatients with B-cell depletion and SARS-COV-2 infection were enrolled. A median of 1 B cells/mm3 was detected. Eighteen patients presented hypogammaglobulinemia. All patients presented interstitial pneumonia treated with intravenous RDV and steroids. Sixteen patients were treated with monoclonal antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein, four patients were treated with SARS-CoV-2 hyper-immune convalescent plasma infusion, and three patients received both treatments. A variable kinetic of T cell activation returning to normal levels at Day 30 after immunotherapy infusion was observed. All treated patients recovered.ConclusionIn COVID-19 immunosuppressed subjects, it is mandatory to establish a prompt, effective, and combined multi-target therapy including oxygen, antiviral, steroid, and antibody-based therapeutics, tailored to the patient’s clinical needs.

ObjectivesComparative analysis between different monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) against SARS-CoV-2 are lacking. We present an emulation trial from observational data to compare effectiveness of Bamlanivimab/Etesevimab (BAM/ETE) and Casirivimab/Imdevimab (CAS/IMD) in outpatients with early mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in a real-world scenario of variants of concern (VoCs) from Alpha to Delta.MethodsAllocation to treatment was subject to mAbs availability, and the measured factors were not used to determine which combination to use. Patients were followed through day 30. Viral load was measured by cycle threshold (CT) on D1 (baseline) and D7.Primary outcome was time to COVID-19-related hospitalization or death from any cause over days 0-30. Weighted pooled logistic regression and marginal structural Cox model by inverse probability weights were used to compare BAM/ETE vs. CAS/IMD. ANCOVA was used to compare mean D7 CT values by intervention. Models were adjusted for calendar month, MASS score and VoCs. We evaluated effect measure modification by VoCs, vaccination, D1 CT levels and enrolment period.ResultsCOVID19-related hospitalization or death from any cause occurred in 15 of 237 patients in the BAM/ETE group (6.3%) and in 4 of 196 patients in the CAS/IMD group (2.0%) (relative risk reduction [1 minus the relative risk] 72%; p=0.024). Subset analysis carried no evidence that the effect of the intervention was different across stratification factors. There was no evidence in viral load reduction from baseline through day 7 across the two groups (+0.17, 95% -1.41;+1.74, p=0.83). Among patients who experienced primary outcome, none showed a negative RT-PCR test in nasopharyngeal swab (p=0.009) and 82.4% showed still high viral load (p

Except for specific vaccines and monoclonal antibodies, effective prophylactic or post-exposure therapeutic treatments are currently limited for COVID-19. Propolis, a honeybee’s product, has been suggested as a potential candidate for treatment of COVID-19 for its immunomodulatory properties and for its powerful activity against various types of viruses, including common coronaviruses. However, direct evidence regarding the antiviral activities of this product still remains poorly documented. VERO E6 and CALU3 cell lines were infected with SARS-CoV-2 and cultured in the presence of 12.5 or 25 μg/ml of a standardized Hydroalcoholic Extract acronym (sHEP) of Eurasian poplar type propolis and analyzed for viral RNA transcription, for cell damage by optical and electron microscopy, and for virus infectivity by viral titration at 2, 24, 48, and 72 h post-infection. The three main components of sHEP, caffeic acid phenethyl ester, galangin, and pinocembrin, were tested for the antiviral power, either alone or in combination. On both cell lines, sHEP showed significant effects mainly on CALU3 up to 48 h, i.e., some protection from cytopathic effects and consistent reduction of infected cell number, fewer viral particles inside cellular vesicles, reduction of viral titration in supernatants, dramatic drop of N gene negative sense RNA synthesis, and lower concentration of E gene RNA in cell extracts. Interestingly, pre-treatment of cells with sHEP before virus inoculation induced these same effects described previously and was not able to block virus entry. When used in combination, the three main constituents of sHEP showed antiviral activity at the same levels of sHEP. sHEP has a remarkable ability to hinder the replication of SARS-CoV-2, to limit new cycles of infection, and to protect host cells against the cytopathic effect, albeit with rather variable results. However, sHEP do not block the virus entry into the cells. The antiviral activity observed with the three main components of sHEP used in combination highlights that the mechanism underlying the antiviral activity of sHEP is probably the result of a synergistic effect. These data add further emphasis on the possible therapeutic role of this special honeybee’s product as an adjuvant to official treatments of COVID-19 patients for its direct antiviral activity.

ObjectiveTo assess the kinetics of the humoral and cell-mediated responses after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients treated with different immunosuppressive therapies.MethodsFollowing vaccine completed schedule, health care workers (HCWs, n = 49) and RA patients (n = 35) were enrolled at 5 weeks (T1) and 6 months (T6) after the first dose of BNT162b2-mRNA vaccination. Serological response was assessed by quantifying anti-receptor-binding domain (RBD)-specific immunoglobulin G (IgG) and SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies, while cell-mediated response was assessed by a whole-blood test quantifying the interferon (IFN)-γ response to spike peptides. B-cell phenotype and IFN-γ-specific T-cell responses were evaluated by flow cytometry.ResultsAfter 6 months, anti-RBD antibodies were still detectable in 91.4% of RA patients, although we observed a significant reduction of the titer in patients under Cytotoxic T-Lymphocyte Antigen 4 (CTLA-4)-Ig [median: 16.4 binding antibody units (BAU)/ml, interquartile range (IQR): 11.3–44.3, p < 0.0001] or tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α inhibitors (median: 26.5 BAU/ml, IQR: 14.9–108.8, p = 0.0034) compared to controls (median: 152.7 BAU/ml, IQR: 89.3–260.3). All peripheral memory B-cell (MBC) subpopulations, in particular, the switched IgG+ MBCs (CD19+CD27+IgD-IgM-IgG+), were significantly reduced in RA subjects under CTLA-4-Ig compared to those in HCWs (p = 0.0012). In RA patients, a significantly reduced anti-RBD IgG titer was observed at T6 vs. T1, mainly in those treated with CTLA-4-Ig (p = 0.002), interleukin (IL)-6 inhibitors (p = 0.015), and disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) ± corticosteroids (CCSs) (p = 0.015). In contrast, a weak nonsignificant reduction of the T-cell response was reported at T6 vs. T1. T-cell response was found in 65.7% of the RA patients at T6, with lower significant magnitude in patients under CTLA-4-Ig compared to HCWs (p < 0.0001). The SARS-CoV-2 IFN-γ-S-specific T-cell response was mainly detected in the CD4+ T-cell compartment.ConclusionsIn this study, in RA patients after 6 months from COVID-19 vaccination, we show the kinetics, waning, and impairment of the humoral and, to a less extent, of the T-cell response. Similarly, a reduction of the specific response was also observed in the controls. Therefore, based on these results, a booster dose of the vaccine is crucial to increase the specific immune response regardless of the immunosuppressive therapy.

BackgroundVaccines for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are proving to be very effective in preventing severe illness; however, although rare, post-vaccine infections have been reported. The present study focuses on virological and serological features of 94 infections that occurred in Lazio Region (Central Italy) between 27 December 2020, and 30 March 2021, after one or two doses of mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine.MethodsWe evaluated clinical features, virological (viral load; viral infectiousness; genomic characterisation), and serological (anti-nucleoprotein Ig; anti-Spike RBD IgG; neutralising antibodies, nAb) characteristics of 94 post-vaccine infections at the time of diagnosis. Nasopharyngeal swabs (NPSs) and serum samples were collected in the framework of the surveillance activities on SARS-CoV-2 variants established in Lazio Region (Central Italy) and analysed at the National Institute for Infectious Diseases “L. Spallanzani” in Rome.ResultsThe majority (92.6%) of the post-vaccine infections showed pauci/asymptomatic or mild clinical course, with symptoms and hospitalisation rate significantly less frequent in patients infected after full vaccination course as compared to patients who received a single dose vaccine. Although differences were not statistically significant, viral loads and isolation rates were lower in NPSs from patients infected after receiving two vaccine doses as compared to patients with one dose. Most cases (84%) had nAb in serum at the time of infection diagnosis, which is a sub-group of vaccinees, were found similarly able to neutralise Alpha and Gamma variants. Asymptomatic individuals showed higher nAb titres as compared to symptomatic cases (median titre: 1:120 vs. 1:40, respectively). Finally, the proportion of post-vaccine infections attributed either to Alpha and Gamma variants was similar to the proportion observed in the contemporary unvaccinated population in the Lazio region, and mutational analysis did not reveal enrichment of a defined set of Spike protein substitutions depending on the vaccination status.ConclusionOur study conducted using real-life data, emphasised the importance of monitoring vaccine breakthrough infections, through the characterisation of virological, immunological, and clinical features associated with these events, in order to tune prevention measures in the next phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.