Search

Contains fulltext : 251784.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) BACKGROUND: Concerns have been raised regarding the risks of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections in vaccinated patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases treated with immunosuppressants, but clinical data on breakthrough infections are still scarce. The primary objective of this study was to compare the incidence and severity of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections between patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases using immunosuppressants, and controls (patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases not taking immunosuppressants and healthy controls) who had received full COVID-19 vaccinations. The secondary objective was to explore determinants of breakthrough infections of the delta (B.1.617.2) variant of SARS-CoV-2, including humoral immune responses after vaccination. METHODS: In this substudy, we pooled data collected in two large ongoing prospective multicentre cohort studies conducted in the Netherlands (Target to-B! [T2B!] study and Amsterdam Rheumatology Center COVID [ARC-COVID] study). Both studies recruited adult patients (age ≥18 years) with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases and healthy controls. We sourced clinical data from standardised electronic case record forms, digital questionnaires, and medical files. We only included individuals who were vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. For T2B!, participants were recruited between Feb 2 and Aug 1, 2021, and for ARC-COVID, participants were recruited between April 26, 2020, and March 1, 2021. In this study we assessed data on breakthrough infections collected between July 1 and Dec 15, 2021, a period in which the delta SARS-CoV-2 variant was the dominant variant in the Netherlands. We defined a SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection as a PCR-confirmed or antigen test-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection that occurred at least 14 days after vaccination. All breakthrough infections during this period were assumed to be due to the delta variant due to its dominance during the study period. We analysed post-vaccination serum samples for anti-receptor binding domain (RBD) antibodies to assess the humoral vaccination response (T2B! study only) and anti-nucleocapsid antibodies to identify asymptomatic breakthrough infections (ARC-COVID study only). We used multivariable logistic regression analyses to explore potential clinical and humoral determinants associated with the odds of breakthrough infections. The T2B! study is registered with the Dutch Trial Register, Trial ID NL8900, and the ARC-COVID study is registered with Dutch Trial Register, trial ID NL8513. FINDINGS: We included 3207 patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases who receive immunosuppressants, and 1807 controls (985 patients with immune-mediated inflammatory disease not on immunosuppressants and 822 healthy controls). Among patients receiving immunosuppressants, mean age was 53 years (SD 14), 2042 (64%) of 3207 were female and 1165 (36%) were male; among patients not receiving immunosuppressants, mean age was 54 years (SD 14), 598 (61%) of 985 were female and 387 (39%) were male; and among healthy controls, mean age was 57 years (SD 13), 549 (67%) of 822 were female and 273 (33%) were male. The cumulative incidence of PCR-test or antigen-test confirmed SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections was similar in patients on immunosuppressants (148 of 3207; 4·6% [95% CI 3·9-5·4]), patients not on immunosuppressants (52 of 985; 5·3% [95% CI 4·0-6·9]), and healthy controls (33 of 822; 4·0% [95% CI 2·8-5·6]). There was no difference in the odds of breakthrough infection for patients with immune-mediate inflammatory disease on immunosuppressants versus combined controls (ie, patients not on immunosuppressants and healthy controls; adjusted odds ratio 0·88 [95% CI 0·66-1·18]). Seroconversion after vaccination (odds ratio 0·58 [95% CI 0·34-0·98]; T2B! cohort only) and SARS-CoV-2 infection before vaccination (0·34 [0·18-0·56]) were associated with a lower odds of breakthrough infections. INTERPRETATION: The incidence and severity of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases on immunosuppressants was similar to that in controls. However, caution might still be warranted for those on anti-CD20 therapy and those with traditional risk factors. FUNDING: ZonMw (the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development) and Reade foundation.

The non-pathogenic TH17 subset of helper T cells clears fungal infections, whereas pathogenic TH17 cells cause inflammation and tissue damage; however, the mechanisms controlling these distinct responses remain unclear. Here we found that fungi sensing by the C-type lectin dectin-1 in human dendritic cells (DCs) directed the polarization of non-pathogenic TH17 cells. Dectin-1 signaling triggered transient and intermediate expression of interferon (IFN)-β in DCs, which was mediated by the opposed activities of transcription factors IRF1 and IRF5. IFN-β-induced signaling led to integrin αvβ8 expression directly and to the release of the active form of the cytokine transforming growth factor (TGF)-β indirectly. Uncontrolled IFN-β responses as a result of IRF1 deficiency induced high expression of the IFN-stimulated gene BST2 in DCs and restrained TGF-β activation. Active TGF-β was required for polarization of non-pathogenic TH17 cells, whereas pathogenic TH17 cells developed in the absence of active TGF-β. Thus, dectin-1-mediated modulation of type I IFN responses allowed TGF-β activation and non-pathogenic TH17 cell development during fungal infections in humans.

Background: Disease-specific studies have reported impaired humoral responses after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory disorders treated with specific immunosuppressants. Disease-overarching studies, and data on recall responses and third vaccinations are scarce. Our primary objective was to investigate the effects of immunosuppressive monotherapies on the humoral immune response after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with prevalent immune-mediated inflammatory disorders.Methods: We did a cohort study in participants treated in outpatient clinics in seven university hospitals and one rheumatology treatment centre in the Netherlands as well as participants included in two national cohort studies on COVID-19-related disease severity. We included patients aged older than 18 years, diagnosed with any of the prespecified immune-mediated inflammatory disorders, who were able to understand and complete questionnaires in Dutch. Participants with immune-mediated inflammatory disorders who were not on systemic immunosuppressants and healthy participants were included as controls. Anti-receptor binding domain IgG responses and neutralisation capacity were monitored following standard vaccination regimens and a three-vaccination regimen in subgroups. Hybrid immune responses-ie, vaccination after previous SARS-CoV-2 infection-were studied as a proxy for recall responses.Findings: Between Feb 2 and Aug 1, 2021, we included 3222 participants in our cohort. Sera from 2339 participants, 1869 without and 470 participants with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection were analysed (mean age 49·9 years [SD 13·7]; 1470 [62·8%] females and 869 [37·2%] males). Humoral responses did not differ between disorders. Anti-CD20 therapy, sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor (S1P) modulators, and mycophenolate mofetil combined with corticosteroids were associated with lower relative risks for reaching seroconversion following standard vaccination (0·32 [95% CI 0·19-0·49] for anti-CD20 therapy, 0·35 [0·21-0·55] for S1P modulators, and 0·61 [0·40-0·90] for mycophenolate mofetil combined with corticosteroids). A third vaccination increased seroconversion for mycophenolate mofetil combination treatments (from 52·6% after the second vaccination to 89·5% after the third) but not significantly for anti-CD20 therapies (from 36·8% to 45·6%) and S1P modulators (from 35·5% to 48·4%). Most other immunosuppressant groups showed moderately reduced antibody titres after standard vaccination that did not increase after a third vaccination, although seroconversion rates and neutralisation capacity were unaffected. In participants with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were boosted after vaccination, regardless of immunosuppressive treatment.Interpretation: Humoral responses following vaccination are impaired by specific immunosuppressants. After standard vaccination regimens, patients with immune-mediated inflammatory disorders taking most immunosuppressants show similar seroconversion to controls, although antibody titres might be moderately reduced. As neutralisation capacity and recall responses are also preserved in these patients, this is not likely to translate to loss of (short-term) protection. In patients on immunosuppressants showing poor humoral responses after standard vaccination regimens, a third vaccination resulted in additional seroconversion in patients taking mycophenolate mofetil combination treatments, whereas the effect of a third vaccination in patients on anti-CD20 therapy and S1P modulators was limited.Funding: ZonMw (The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development).

Background It has been suggested that eosinophils may be a prognostic marker of disease outcome in ulcerative colitis (UC), but conflicting data exist. The objective was to investigate the extent of mucosal eosinophils and peripheral blood eosinophil count in newly diagnosed UC patients and to investigate its predictive value in short- and long-term disease outcomes. Methods The degree of eosinophilia in baseline colonic biopsies and blood of newly diagnosed UC patients was retrospectively analyzed. It was investigated if tissue and blood eosinophilia could be a marker of a severe phenotype of UC, defined as the need for corticosteroids or immunomodulators in the first year or treatment with therapeutic monoclonal antibodies or colectomy during follow-up. Time to therapeutic monoclonal antibodies and time to colectomy were also evaluated as outcomes. Results There were 103 UC patients (median age 26 years) included. Median tissue peak eosinophil count (PEC) was 70.0 and median peripheral blood eosinophil count was 0.3 × 109/L at diagnosis. Tissue PEC (r = -0.161, P = .104) and blood eosinophil count (r = 0.022, P = .877) were not correlated with the severity of histologic inflammation. Logistic regression analyses did not identify PEC and blood eosinophil count as predictors of more severe disease outcomes. Tissue PEC and peripheral blood eosinophil count did not predict the time the initiation of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies or colectomy. Conclusion Baseline tissue or peripheral blood eosinophils are not markers of disease activity and cannot be used as a predictor of severe disease outcomes in both adults and children with UC.

Background: Previously published short-term results (week 16) of this trial showed a significant improvement in clinical, radiologic and biochemical outcomes in Crohn's disease patients with therapy-refractory perianal fistulas after treatment with hyperbaric oxygen therapy. Objective: To assess the long-term (week 60) efficacy, safety and feasibility of hyperbaric oxygen therapy in perianal fistula in Crohn's disease. Methods: Crohn's disease patients with high perianal fistula(s) failing conventional treatment >6 months were included. Exclusion criteria were presence of a stoma, rectovaginal fistula(s) and recent changes in treatment regimens. Patients received 40 hyperbaric oxygen sessions and outcomes were assessed at week 16 and week 60. Results: Twenty patients were included (median age 34 years). At week 16, median scores of the perianal disease activity index and modified Van Assche index (co-primary outcomes) decreased from 7.5 (95% CI 6–9) to 4 (95% CI 3–6, p

The non-pathogenic T

Background Sphingosine 1-phosphate (S1P) receptor modulators are being developed to treat autoimmune-mediated diseases, including ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD). Amiselimod (AMS), a second-generation S1P receptor modulator, was developed to reduce bradycardia associated with other S1P receptor modulators, including fingolimod. Methods This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel group, placebo (PBO)-controlled (DBPC) phase 2a clinical trial in adults with moderate to severe active CD evaluated the safety and efficacy of oral AMS 0.4 mg/d for 14 wks, followed by open-label extension (OLE) of AMS for ≤36 wks. Patients were required to have used corticosteroids, immunosuppressants, or anti-TNF-α agents for CD treatment. The primary efficacy endpoint was a 100-point drop at wk 12 in the Crohn’s Disease Activity Index. Results Of the 78 patients randomized 1:1 to receive AMS (n=40) or PBO (n=38), 78% [n=61] completed the DBPC phase. Of those continuing into the OLE, 26 (AMS/AMS [n=14]; PBO/AMS [n=12]) completed it. AMS 0.4 mg for 12 wks did not have a significant effect on clinical disease activity (CDA) in CD. At least 1 treatment-related adverse event (TRAE) was reported by 31% receiving AMS and 24% receiving PBO; the most frequently reported TREAs for AMS were skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders (10%), infections and infestations, musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders, nervous system disorders, and cardiac disorders (all 8%). Five serious AEs (SAEs) led to treatment discontinuation (1 in the PBO group; 4 in the AMS group). In the OLE, more PBO/AMS patients (40%) vs AMS/AMS (33%) reported TRAEs; most frequent TRAEs for AMS/AMS were blood and lymphatic system disorders (14%) and investigations (14%). Of 13 SAEs reported by 9 patients, 2 treatment-related SAEs (1 in the PBO/AMS group) led to treatment discontinuation. In the DBPC study, cardiac disorders, all mild, were reported in 3 in the AMS group vs 1 in the PBO group; in the OLE, cardiac disorders were reported by 1 in the AMS group and 1 in the PBO group. There were no clinically significant reports of bradycardia, ventricular tachycardia, or atrioventricular block in the AMS group in either study. In the DBPC study, macular edema (ME) was confirmed in 1 AMS patient (mild/nonserious); none were reported in the OLE. There were no deaths, opportunistic infections, clinically significant negative laboratory or abnormal ECG findings after AMS treatment. Conclusions Oral AMS 0.4 mg was generally well tolerated, with no new safety concerns identified. Other than 1 patient with mild ME, there were no other findings related to the known AMS risk profile. While AMS did not have an effect on CDA in previously treated CD, this favorable safety profile, including no clinically significant reports of bradycardia, is promising for treatment of other autoimmune-mediated diseases, including UC.

Background Anti-TNF agents are an established treatment modality for ulcerative colitis (UC); however, as many as 30% of patients do not respond to anti-TNF agents, and almost 50% of responders lose clinical benefits after a year of treatment. Furthermore, numerous safety concerns are associated with long-term use of anti-TNF agents. An alternative treatment in development for autoimmune-mediated diseases, including Crohn’s disease (CD) and UC, are sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor modulators such as amiselimod (AMS). Methods The safety and efficacy of oral AMS 0.4 mg/d in adults with moderate to severe active CD over 14 wks were evaluated in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo (PBO)-controlled (DBPC), phase 2a clinical trial, followed by an open-label extension (OLE) study with AMS for up to 36 wks. Patients had previously used anti-TNF-α agents, immunosuppressants, or corticosteroids. Safety data (adverse events [AEs]) were stratified by patients with and without prior anti-TNF treatment. Results Of the 78 patients randomized 1:1 to receive AMS (n=40) or PBO (n=38), 78% (n=61) completed the DBPC treatment phase. Of those patients continuing into the OLE, 26 patients (AMS/AMS [n=14]; PBO/AMS [n=12]) completed it. Oral AMS 0.4 mg for 12 wks did not have a significant effect on clinical disease activity in CD. Patients previously treated with anti-TNF agents had more serious AEs (SAEs) (27% AMS [n=22]; 4% PBO [n=25]) than did patients without prior anti-TNF treatment (0 AMS and 0 PBO patients). Relative numbers of treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) were similar between groups receiving prior anti-TNF agents (68% AMS [n=22]; 68% PBO [n=25]) and no prior treatment (65% AMS [n=17]; 31% PBO [n=13]). There was a trend toward more mild TEAEs and less severe AEs in patients not previously treated with anti-TNF agents compared to those previously treated. Conversely, in the OLE, patients not previously treated with anti-TNF agents had more AEs (100% AMS/AMS [n=11]; 67% PBO/AMS [n=9]) than those with prior treatment (60% AMS/AMS [n=10]; 87% PBO/AMS [n=16]). All of these TEAEs were mild or moderate. In the OLE, only 1 patient receiving AMS/AMS with no prior anti-TNF treatment had an SAE versus no patients with prior treatment. Conclusions Previous treatment with anti-TNF agents did not significantly affect the TEAEs associated with AMS. While SAEs appeared to be more common in previously treated patients in the DBPC, patients had fewer AEs during the OLE. This analysis suggests that previous treatment with anti-TNF agents should be considered when assessing the AE profile of AMS in future trials.