Search

Background: Understanding cellular responses to SARS-CoV-2 immunisations is important for informing vaccine recommendations in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and other vulnerable patients on immunosuppressive therapies. This study investigated the magnitude and quality of T cell responses after multiple SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses and COVID-19 breakthrough infection., Methods: This prospective, observational study included patients with IBD and arthritis on tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) receiving up to four SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses. T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 peptides were measured by flow cytometry before and 2-4 weeks after vaccinations and breakthrough infection to assess the frequency and polyfunctionality of responding cells, along with receptor-binding domain (anti-RBD) antibodies., Findings: Between March 2, 2021, and December 20, 2022, 143 patients (118 IBD, 25 arthritis) and 73 healthy controls were included. In patients with either IBD or arthritis, humoral immunity was attenuated compared to healthy controls (median anti-RBD levels 3391 vs. 6280 BAU/ml, p = 0.008) after three SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses. Patients with IBD had comparable quantities (median CD4 0.11% vs. 0.11%, p = 0.26, CD8 0.031% vs. 0.047%, p = 0.33) and quality (polyfunctionality score: 0.403 vs. 0.371, p = 0.39; 0.105 vs. 0.101, p = 0.87) of spike-specific T cells to healthy controls. Patients with arthritis had lower frequencies but comparable quality of responding T cells to controls. Breakthrough infection increased spike-specific CD8 T cell quality and T cell responses against non-spike peptides., Interpretation: Patients with IBD on TNFi have T cell responses comparable to healthy controls despite attenuated humoral responses following three vaccine doses. Repeated vaccination and breakthrough infection increased the quality of T cell responses. Our study adds evidence that, in the absence of other risk factors, this group may in future be able to follow the general recommendations for COVID-19 vaccines., Funding: South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority, Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Akershus University Hospital, Diakonhjemmet Hospital., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests KHB reports funding from Akershus University Hospital and speaker bureaus for Janssen-Cilag. TKK reports grants from AbbVie, BMS, Galapagos, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, speakers' bureaus from Grünenthal, Janssen, Sandoz, consultant fees from AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, UCB, and participation on advisory board for AbbVie. JJ reports grants from Boehringer-Ingelheim, speakers bureaus from AbbVie/Abbott, Bristol-Myers, Squibb, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Takeda, consultant fees from AbbVie/Abbott, Pfizer, and participation in advisory board for AbbVie/Abbott, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Takeda. LAM reports funding from KG Jebsen foundation, support for infrastructure and biobanking from the university of Oslo and Oslo University Hospital, grants from the Coalition of Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), speakers' bureaus from Incyte, Janssen, and expert testimony for Norwegian Medicines Agency. EAH reports speakers' bureaus from Pfizer, UCB, Novartis, and consulting fees from Abbvie, Pfizer, Eli Lilly. GG reports speaker bureaus from AbbVie/Abbott, Galapagos, Pfizer, UCB, participation in advisory board from AstraZeneca, Janssen, Moderna, Seqirus. and consulting fees from The Norwegian System of Patient Injury Compensation. JTV reports grant from CEPI. FLJ reports funding from South-East Health Authorities in Norway, CEPI and Oslo University Hospital. GLG reports speakers' bureaus from AbbVie/Abbott, Galapagos, Pfizer, UCB, and participation in advisory board from AbbVie/Abbott, Galapagos, Pfizer, UCB, Novartis. KKJ reports speakers’ bureaus from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Janssen, and participation in advisory board for AstraZeneca and IPSEN. SWS reports participation in advisory board for AstraZeneca. ASW reports travel grant of GBP 250 from the British Society of Immunology to support travelling to the BSI Congress 2023 (4–7th Dec 2023) and presenting a poster with some of this data. HSØ, SB, GS, IFK, IJ, UCN, ABK, IEC, SEJ, KPL, AC, ATT, JS, SAP, HK, and SM report nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To explore associations between serum adalimumab level, treatment response and drug survival in order to identify optimal drug levels for therapeutic drug monitoring of adalimumab. Also, to assess the occurrence and risk factors of anti-drug antibody (ADAb) formation., Methods: Non-trough adalimumab and ADAb levels were measured by automated fluorescence assays in serum collected after 3 months of adalimumab treatment in patients with RA, PsA or axial SpA (axSpA) included in the observational NOR-DMARD study. Treatment response was evaluated after 3 months and drug survival was evaluated during long-term follow-up., Results: In 340 patients (97 RA, 69 PsA, 174 axSpA), the median adalimumab level was 7.3 mg/l (interquartile range 4.0-10.3). A total of 33 (10%) patients developed ADAbs. Findings were comparable across diagnoses. In RA and PsA, adalimumab levels ≥6.0 mg/l were associated with treatment response [odds ratio (OR) 2.2 (95% CI 1.0, 4.4)] and improved drug survival [hazard ratio 0.49 (95% CI 0.27, 0.80)]. In axSpA, a therapeutic level could not be identified, but higher adalimumab levels were associated with response. Factors associated with ADAb formation were previous bDMARD use, no methotrexate comedication and the use of adalimumab originator compared with GP2017., Conclusion: Higher adalimumab levels were associated with a better response and improved drug survival for all diagnoses, with a suggested lower threshold of 6.0 mg/l for RA/PsA. This finding, the large variability in drug levels among patients receiving standard adalimumab dose and the high proportion of patients developing ADAbs encourages further investigations into the potential role of therapeutic drug monitoring of adalimumab., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology.)

Objectives: To assess incidence, severity and predictors of COVID-19, including protective post-vaccination levels of antibodies to the receptor-binding domain of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (anti-RBD), informing further vaccine strategies for patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) on immunosuppressive medication., Methods: IMIDs on immunosuppressives and healthy controls (HC) receiving SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were included in this prospective observational study. COVID-19 and outcome were registered and anti-RBD antibodies measured 2-5 weeks post-immunisation., Results: Between 15 February 2021 and 15 February 2023, 1729 IMIDs and 350 HC provided blood samples and self-reported COVID-19. The incidence of COVID-19 was 66% in patients and 67% in HC, with re-infection occurring in 12% of patients. Severe COVID-19 was recorded in 22 (2%) patients and no HC. No COVID-19-related deaths occurred. Vaccine-induced immunity gave higher risk of COVID-19 (HR 5.89 (95% CI 4.45 to 7.80)) than hybrid immunity. Post-immunisation anti-RBD levels <6000 binding antibody units/mL were associated with an increased risk of COVID-19 following three (HR 1.37 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.74)) and four doses (HR 1.28 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.62)), and of COVID-19 re-infection (HR 4.47 (95% CI 1.87 to 10.67))., Conclusion: Vaccinated patients with IMID have a low risk of severe COVID-19. Hybrid immunity lowers the risk of infection. High post-immunisation anti-RBD levels protect against COVID-19. These results suggest that knowledge on COVID-19 history, and assessment of antibody levels post-immunisation can help individualise vaccination programme series in high-risk individuals., Trial Registration Number: NCT04798625., Competing Interests: Competing interests: KHB reports funding from Akershus University Hospital and speakers bureau for Janssen-Cilag. TKK reports grants from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Union Chimique Belge; consulting fees from AbbVie, Biogen, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Mylan, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi and speakers bureau from Amgen, Celltrion, Egis, Evapharma, Ewopharma, Hikma, Oktal, Sandoz and Sanofi. GG reports speakers bureau from Pfizer, Bayer, Sanofi, Thermo Fisher, GSK and Vitusapotek, and participation on advisory board for Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen and Seqirus. JJ reports grants from Boehringer Ingelheim; speakers bureau from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz and Takeda; and participation on advisory board for AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz and Takeda. EAH reports consultant fees from AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly and Gilead; and speakers bureau from Pfizer and UCB. LAM reports funding from KG Jebsen foundation, support for infrastructure and biobanking from the University of Oslo and Oslo University Hospital, grants from the Coalition of Epidemic Preparedness Innovations and speakers bureau from Novartis, and Cellgene. JTV reports grants from the Coalition of Epidemic Preparedness Innovations. GLG reports funding from the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority, The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, RCN Covid (312693), a KG Jebsen Foundation (grant 19), Dr Trygve Gythfeldt og frues forskningsfond, Karen Fossum Foundation, the Research Foundation at Diakonhjemmet Hospital and Oslo University Hospital; speakers bureau from AbbVie, Galapagos, Pfizer and Union Chimique Belge; and participation on advisory board of AbbVie, Galapagos, Pfizer and Union Chimique Belge. KKJ reports speakers bureau from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Roche. SWS reported participation on advisory board AstraZeneca. All other authors declare no competing interests., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients treated with B cell-depleting drugs induced limited seroconversion but robust cellular response. We aimed to document specific T and B cell immunity in response to vaccine booster doses and breakthrough infection (BTI)., Methods: We included 76 RA patients treated with rituximab who received up to four SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses or three doses plus BTI, in addition to vaccinated healthy donors (HD) and control patients treated with tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi). We quantified anti-SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain (RBD) Spike IgG, anti-nucleocapsid (NC) IgG, 92 circulating inflammatory proteins, Spike-binding B cells, and Spike-specific T cells along with comprehensive high-dimensional phenotyping and functional assays., Findings: The time since the last rituximab infusion, persistent inflammation, and age were associated with the anti-SARS-CoV-2 RBD IgG seroconversion. The vaccine-elicited serological response was accompanied by an incomplete induction of peripheral Spike-specific memory B cells but occurred independently of T cell responses. Vaccine- and BTI-elicited cellular immunity was similar between RA and HD ex vivo in terms of frequency or phenotype of Spike-specific cytotoxic T cells and in vitro in terms of the functionality and differentiation profile of Spike-specific T cells., Interpretation: SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in RA can induce persistent effector T-cell responses that are reactivated by BTI. Paused rituximab medication allowed serological responses after a booster dose (D4), especially in RA with lower inflammation, enabling efficient humoral and cellular immunity after BTI, and contributed overall to the development of potential durable immunity., Competing Interests: JV reports grants from the Coalition of Epidemic Preparedness Innovations. GG reports funding from the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority, Dr. Trygve Gythfeldt og frues forskningsfond, Karin Fossum Foundation, the Research Foundation at Diakonhjemmet Hospital, speakers’ bureaus from AbbVie, Galapagos, Pfizer, and Union Chimique Belge; and participation on advisory board of AbbVie, Galapagos, Pfizer, and Union Chimique Belge. LM reports funding from the KG Jebsen Foundation, support for infrastructure and biobanking from the University of Oslo and Oslo University Hospital, grants from the Coalition of Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, RCN Covid 312693, a KG Jebsen Foundation grant 19, and speakers bureaus from Novartis, and Cellgene. EH reports grants from The Research Council of Norway during the conduct of the study; and for the last 36 months outside of the submitted work: speaker/consultant fees from Pfizer, AbbVie, Gilead, UCB Pharma, Galapagos, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim. KJ reports speaker fees from BMS and Janssen. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Kared, Jyssum, Alirezaylavasani, Egner, The Tran, Tietze, Lund, Tveter, Provan, Ørbo, Haavardsholm, Vaage, Jørgensen, Syversen, Lund-Johansen, Goll and Munthe.)

Objectives: Immune responses following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are not well characterized. The aims of this study were to explore the serological response associated with IBD, and immunosuppressive medications including serum concentrations of biologics and thiopurine metabolites., Materials and Methods: This prospective, observational study included adult patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD), and healthy controls. Antibodies to the receptor-binding domain of SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins, and serum concentrations of ongoing biologic and immunomodulatory medications were assessed prior to, and 2-5 weeks after the second vaccine dose. Serologic response was defined as anti-Spike antibodies ≥70 AU/ml., Results: In 958 IBD patients (380 UC, 578 CD) and 323 healthy controls, the median (Q 1; Q 3 ) anti-Spike antibody level (AU/ml) was lower in patients (618 (192; 4370)) compared to controls (3355 (896; 7849)) ( p  < 0.001). The antibody levels were lower in CD (439 (174; 3304)) compared to UC (1088 (251; 5975)) ( p  < 0.001). No associations were demonstrated between antibody levels and serum drug concentrations for TNF inhibitor (TNFi), vedolizumab and ustekinumab. Patients receiving TNFi + thiopurines with a subtherapeutic 6-thioguanine nucleotide (6-TGN) level had higher response rate (93%) compared to patients with 6-TGN within the therapeutic range (53%) ( p  = 0.003). A diagnosis of UC, mRNA-1273 vaccine, and other treatments than TNFi + thiopurines were associated with humoral response., Conclusions: Patients with CD had an attenuated humoral response to SARS-COV-2 vaccination as compared to patients with UC. The lack of association between serum levels of biologics and serologic response indicates vaccination regardless of proximity to drug administration.

Background: Data on response and safety of repeated vaccinations and hybrid immunity in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases on immunosuppressive therapy is needed to further develop vaccination strategies in this vulnerable population. This study aimed to evaluate hybrid immunity and humoral immune response and safety of four SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases on immunosuppressive therapy., Methods: This prospective observational Norwegian study of vaccine response to COVID-19 (Nor-vaC) included adult patients aged 18 years and older with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis, psoriatic arthritis, Crohn's disease, or ulcerative colitis) on immunosuppressive therapy, who had received four SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses (vaccine group) or three vaccine doses followed by COVID-19 (hybrid group), and healthy controls receiving three vaccine doses (control group). Patients were recruited from the Division of Rheumatology at Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, and the Department of Gastroenterology at Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog. Patients who had COVID-19 before the third vaccine dose, and patients with allergies or intolerances to elements of the vaccine were excluded. Antibodies to the receptor-binding domain of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (anti-RBD antibodies) were assessed 2-4 weeks following vaccination or COVID-19. This study is registered at Clinialtrials.gov, NCT04798625., Findings: Between Nov 12, 2021, and April 19, 2022, 1458 participants with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases provided post-vaccination samples at 2-4 weeks following a third vaccine dose. After 544 participants were excluded, 715 (78%) of the remaining 914 participants received the fourth dose of the vaccine, and of these, 536 (75%) provided post-vaccination samples 2-4 weeks after their fourth vaccination (vaccine group). 199 (22%) of the 914 had COVID-19 after their third dose of the vaccine and of these, 167 (84%) provided samples (hybrid group). 256 of the eligible 703 patients had rheumatoid arthritis, 107 had spondyloarthritis, 115 had psoriatic arthritis, 130 had Crohn's disease, and 95 had ulcerative colitis). Median age was 56 years [IQR 45-65], 398 (57%) were women, and 305 (43%) were men. Patients in the vaccine group had higher anti-RBD antibody concentrations following the fourth vaccine dose (median 6192 BAU/ml [IQR 2878-11 243]) than after the third dose (median 5087 BAU/ml [1250-9081]; p< 0·0001), but lower antibody concentrations than the control group following the third dose (median 7595 BAU/ml [5916-12 001]; p< 0·0001). Antibody concentrations were higher in the patients in the hybrid group (23 548 BAU/ml [IQR 11 440-35 935]) than in the vaccine group (p<0·0001). No difference was found in antibody concentrations between the fourth dose of BNT162b2 (full-dose) and mRNA-1273 (half-dose). Patients and controls had a comparable safety profile after both three and four vaccine doses., Interpretation: Vaccine boosters improve humoral immune responses and are safe in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases on immunosuppressive therapy, and administration should be considered regularly in this patient group. Hybrid immunity with omicron induces a strong humoral response suggesting longer intervals between booster doses in this patient group., Funding: The South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority, The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Akershus University Hospital., Competing Interests: KHB reports funding from Akershus University Hospital and speaker bureaus for Janssen-Cilag. TKK reports grants from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Union Chimique Belge; consulting fees from AbbVie, Biogen, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Mylan, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi; and speakers bureaus from Amgen, Celltrion, Egis, Evapharma, Ewopharma, Hikma, Oktal, Sandoz, and Sanofi. JJ reports grants from Boehringer-Ingelheim; speakers bureaus from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, and Takeda; and participation on advisory board for AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, and Takeda. LAM reports funding from KG Jebsen foundation, support for infrastructure and biobanking from the university of Oslo and Oslo University Hospital, grants from the Coalition of Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, and speakers bureaus from Novartis, and Cellgene. EAH reports consultant fees from AbbVie, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Gilead; and speakers bureaus from Pfizer and UCB. GG reports speaker bureaus from Bayer, Sanofi, ThermoFisher, and participation on advisory board for AstraZeneca. JTV reports grants from the Coalition of Epidemic Preparedness Innovations. GLG reports funding from the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority, The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, RCN Covid (312693), a KG Jebsen Foundation (grant 19), Dr Trygve Gythfeldt og frues forskningsfond, Karin Fossum Foundation, the Research Foundation at Diakonhjemmet Hospital, and Oslo University Hospital; speakers bureaus from AbbVie, Galapagos, Pfizer, and Union Chimique Belge; and participation on advisory board of AbbVie, Galapagos, Pfizer, and Union Chimique Belge. KKJ reports speakers bureaus from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Roche. All other authors declare no competing interests., (© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Humoral vaccine responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are impaired and short lasting in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMID) following two vaccine doses. To protect these vulnerable patients against severe COVID-19 disease, a three-dose primary vaccination strategy has been implemented in many countries. The aim of this study was to evaluate humoral response and safety of primary vaccination with three doses in patients with IMID., Methods: Patients with IMID on immunosuppressive therapy and healthy controls receiving three-dose and two-dose primary SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, respectively, were included in this prospective observational cohort study. Anti-Spike antibodies were assessed 2-4 weeks, and 12 weeks following each dose. The main outcome was anti-Spike antibody levels 2-4 weeks following three doses in patients with IMID and two doses in controls. Additional outcomes were the antibody decline rate and adverse events., Results: 1100 patients and 303 controls were included. Following three-dose vaccination, patients achieved median (IQR) antibody levels of 5720 BAU/mL (2138-8732) compared with 4495 (1591-6639) in controls receiving two doses, p=0.27. Anti-Spike antibody levels increased with median 1932 BAU/mL (IQR 150-4978) after the third dose. The interval between the vaccine doses and vaccination with mRNA-1273 or a combination of vaccines were associated with antibody levels following the third dose. Antibody levels had a slower decline-rate following the third than the second vaccine dose, p&lt;0.001. Adverse events were reported by 464 (47%) patients and by 196 (78%) controls. Disease flares were reported by 70 (7%) patients., Conclusions: This study shows that additional vaccine doses to patients with IMID contribute to strong and sustained immune-responses comparable to healthy persons vaccinated twice, and supports repeated vaccination of patients with IMID., Trial Registration Number: NCT04798625., Competing Interests: Competing interests: TKK reports grants from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, consulting fees from AbbVie, Biogen, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Mylan, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi, speakers bureaus Amgen, Celltrion, Egis, Evapharma, Ewopharma, Hikma, Oktal, Sandoz, Sanofi, LM reports funding from KG Jebsen foundation, support for infrastructure and biobanking from the university of Oslo and Oslo University Hospital, grants from the Coalition of Epidemic Preparedness Innovations CEPI, speakers bureaus Novartis, Cellgene, JTV reports grant from the Coalition of Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), KKJ reports speakers bureaus from Roche and BMS, advisory board Celltrion and Norgine, GLG reports funding from The Karin Fossum foundation, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo University Hospital, Akershus University Hospital, Trygve Gydtfeldt og frues Foundation, South-East region Health authority, consulting fees AbbVie and Pfizer, speakers fees AbbVie, Pfizer, Sandoz, Orion Pharma, Novartis and UCB, advisory board Pfizer, AbbVie., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The durability of vaccine-induced humoral immunity against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) on immunosuppressive therapy is not known. The aim of this study was to compare the persistence of anti-Spike antibodies following two-dose SARS-CoV-2 vaccination between IMID patients and healthy controls and to identify factors associated with antibody decline., Methods: IMID patients on immunosuppressive medication enrolled in the prospective observational Nor-vaC study were included. Participants received two-dose SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Serum collected at two time points following vaccination (first assessment within 6-48 days, second within 49-123 days) were analyzed for antibodies binding the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein. Multivariable regression models estimated percent reduction in anti-RBD over 30 days and factors associated with reduction., Results: A total of 1108 patients (403 rheumatoid arthritis, 195 psoriatic arthritis, 195 spondyloarthritis, 124 ulcerative colitis, 191 Crohn's disease) and 134 controls provided blood samples within the defined intervals (median 19 days [IQR 15-24] and 97 days [87-105] after second vaccine dose). Antibody levels were lower in patients compared to controls at both time points, with median anti-RBD 2806 BAU/ml [IQR 1018-6068] in patients and 6187 BAU/ml [4105-7496] in controls (p<0.001) at first assessment, and 608 BAU/ml [IQR 58-1053] in patients and 1520 BAU/ml [979-3766] in controls (p<0.001) at second assessment. At second assessment, low anti-RBD antibody levels (defined as <200 BAU/ml) were found in 449 (41%) patients, and 6 (5%) controls (p<0.001). The change was - 83% in patients and - 66% in controls (p<0.001). Patients had a greater estimated 30 days percent reduction in anti-RBD levels compared to controls - 4.9 (95% CI - 7.4 to - 2.4), (p<0.05). Among therapies, mono- or combination treatment with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors was associated with the greatest decline., Conclusions: Within 4 months after vaccination, antibody levels declined considerably in both IMID patients and controls. Patients had lower initial antibody levels and a more pronounced decline compared to healthy controls and were therefore more likely to decline to low antibody levels. These results support that IMID patients need additional vaccine doses at an earlier stage than healthy individuals., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Objective: Immunogenicity and safety following receipt of the standard SARS-CoV-2 vaccination regimen in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) are poorly characterized, and data after receipt of the third vaccine dose are lacking. The aim of the study was to evaluate serologic responses and adverse events following the standard 2-dose regimen and a third dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in IMID patients receiving immunosuppressive therapy., Methods: Adult patients receiving immunosuppressive therapy for rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis, psoriatic arthritis, Crohn's disease, or ulcerative colitis, as well as healthy adult controls, who received the standard 2-dose SARS-CoV-2 vaccination regimen were included in this prospective observational study. Analyses of antibodies to the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein were performed prior to and 2-4 weeks after vaccination. Patients with a weak serologic response, defined as an IgG antibody titer of ≤100 arbitrary units per milliliter (AU/ml) against the receptor-binding domain of the full-length SARS-Cov-2 spike protein, were allotted a third vaccine dose., Results: A total of 1,505 patients (91%) and 1,096 healthy controls (98%) had a serologic response to the standard regimen (P < 0.001). Anti-RBD antibody levels were lower in patients (median 619 AU/ml interquartile range [IQR] 192-4,191) than in controls (median 3,355 AU/ml [IQR 896-7,849]) (P < 0.001). The proportion of responders was lowest among patients receiving tumor necrosis factor inhibitor combination therapy, JAK inhibitors, or abatacept. Younger age and receipt of messenger RNA-1273 vaccine were predictors of serologic response. Of 153 patients who had a weak response to the standard regimen and received a third dose, 129 (84%) became responders. The vaccine safety profile among patients and controls was comparable., Conclusion: IMID patients had an attenuated response to the standard vaccination regimen as compared to healthy controls. A third vaccine dose was safe and resulted in serologic response in most patients. These data facilitate identification of patient groups at risk of an attenuated vaccine response, and they support administering a third vaccine dose to IMID patients with a weak serologic response to the standard regimen., (© 2022 The Authors. Arthritis & Rheumatology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American College of Rheumatology.)

Background: In rituximab-treated patients with rheumatoid arthritis, humoral and cellular immune responses after two or three doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are not well characterised. We aimed to address this knowledge gap., Methods: This prospective, cohort study (Nor-vaC) was done at two hospitals in Norway. For this sub-study, we enrolled patients with rheumatoid arthritis on rituximab treatment and healthy controls who received SARS-CoV-2 vaccines according to the Norwegian national vaccination programme. Patients with insufficient serological responses to two doses (antibody to the receptor-binding domain [RBD] of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein concentration <100 arbitrary units [AU]/mL) were allotted a third vaccine dose. Antibodies to the RBD of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein were measured in serum 2-4 weeks after the second and third doses. Vaccine-elicited T-cell responses were assessed in vitro using blood samples taken before and 7-10 days after the second dose and 3 weeks after the third dose from a subset of patients by stimulating cryopreserved peripheral blood mononuclear cells with spike protein peptides. The main outcomes were the proportions of participants with serological responses (anti-RBD antibody concentrations of ≥70 AU/mL) and T-cell responses to spike peptides following two and three doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04798625, and is ongoing., Findings: Between Feb 9, 2021, and May 27, 2021, 90 patients were enrolled, 87 of whom donated serum and were included in our analyses (69 [79·3%] women and 18 [20·7%] men). 1114 healthy controls were included (854 [76·7%] women and 260 [23·3%] men). 49 patients were allotted a third vaccine dose. 19 (21·8%) of 87 patients, compared with 1096 (98·4%) of 1114 healthy controls, had a serological response after two doses (p<0·0001). Time since last rituximab infusion (median 267 days [IQR 222-324] in responders vs 107 days [80-152] in non-responders) and vaccine type (mRNA-1273 vs BNT162b2) were significantly associated with serological response (adjusting for age and sex). After two doses, 10 (53%) of 19 patients had CD4 + T-cell responses and 14 (74%) had CD8 + T-cell responses. A third vaccine dose induced serological responses in eight (16·3%) of 49 patients, but induced CD4 + and CD8 + T-cell responses in all patients assessed (n=12), including responses to the SARS-CoV-2 delta variant (B.1.617.2). Adverse events were reported in 32 (48%) of 67 patients and in 191 (78%) of 244 healthy controls after two doses, with the frequency not increasing after the third dose. There were no serious adverse events or deaths., Interpretation: This study provides important insight into the divergent humoral and cellular responses to two and three doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in rituximab-treated patients with rheumatoid arthritis. A third vaccine dose given 6-9 months after a rituximab infusion might not induce a serological response, but could be considered to boost the cellular immune response., Funding: The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Research Council of Norway Covid, the KG Jebsen Foundation, Oslo University Hospital, the University of Oslo, the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority, Dr Trygve Gythfeldt og frues forskningsfond, the Karin Fossum Foundation, and the Research Foundation at Diakonhjemmet Hospital., Competing Interests: KKJ reports speakers bureaus from Roche and BMS and advisory board participation for Celltrion and Norgine. JJ reports grants from Abbvie, Pharmacosmos, and Ferring; consulting fees from Abbvie, Boerhinger Ingelheim, BMS, Celltrion, Ferring, Glihead, Janssen Cilag, MSD, Napp Pharma, Novartis, Orion Pharma, Pfeizer, Pharmacosmos, Takeda, Sandoz, and Unimedic Pharma; and speakers bureaus from Abbvie, Astro Pharma, Boerhinger Ingelheim, BMS, Celltrion, Ferring, Glihead, Hikma, Janssen Cilag, Meda, MSD, Napp Pharma, Novartis, Oriuon Pharma, Pfeizer, Pharmacosmos, Roche, Takeda, and Sandoz. TKK reports grants from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB; consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Mylan, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, and Sanofi; speakers bureaus from Amgen, Celltrion, Egis, Evapharma, Ewopharma, Hikma, Oktal, Sandoz, and Sanofi; and participation on a data safety monitoring board for AbbVie. LAM reports funding from the KG Jebsen foundation; support for infrastructure and biobanking from the University of Oslo and Oslo University Hospital; grants from the Coalition of Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI); and speakers bureaus from Novartis and Cellgene. GG reports consulting fees from the Norwegian System of Compensation to Patients and AstraZeneca, and speakers bureaus from Bayer, Sanofi Pasteur, and Thermo Fisher. JTV reports grant from the CEPI. FL-J reports grants from the CEPI and the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority. GLG reports funding from the Karin Fossum foundation, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo University Hospital, Akershus University Hospital, the Dr Trygve Gydtfeldt og frues Foundation, and the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority; consulting fees from AbbVie and Pfizer; speakers fees from AbbVie, Pfizer, Sandoz, Orion Pharma, Novartis, and UCB; and advisory board participation for Pfizer and AbbVie. All other authors declare no competing interests., (© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)