Search

BackgroundHumoral and cellular immune responses are known to be crucial for patients to recover from COVID-19 and to protect them against SARS-CoV-2 reinfection once infected or vaccinated.ObjectivesThis study aimed to investigate humoral and T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with autoimmune diseases after the second and third vaccine doses while on rituximab and their potential protective role against reinfection.MethodsTen COVID-19-naïve patients were included. Three time points were used for monitoring cellular and humoral responses: pre-vaccine to exclude virus exposure (time point 1) and post-second and post-third vaccine (time points 2 and 3). Specific IgG antibodies were monitored by Luminex and T cells against SARS-CoV-2 spike-protein by ELISpot and CoVITEST. All episodes of symptomatic COVID-19 were recorded.ResultsNine patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis and one with an undifferentiated autoimmune disease were included. Nine patients received mRNA vaccines. The last rituximab infusion was administered for a mean (SD) of 15 (10) weeks before the first vaccine and six patients were CD19-B cell-depleted. After a mean (SD) of 19 (10) and 16 (2) days from the second and third vaccine dose, IgG anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were detected in six (60%) and eight (80%) patients, respectively. All patients developed specific T cell responses by ELISpot and CoVITEST in time points 2 and 3. Previous B cell depletion correlated with anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG levels. Nine (90%) patients developed mild COVID-19 after a median of 7 months of the third dose.ConclusionRituximab in patients with autoimmune diseases reduces humoral responses but does not avoid the development of T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, which remain present after a booster dose. A steady cellular immunity appears to be protective against subsequent reinfections.

PurposeTo describe SARS-CoV-2 infection outcome in unvaccinated children and young adults with inborn errors of immunity (IEI) and to compare their specific acute and long-term immune responses with a sex-, age-, and severity-matched healthy population (HC).MethodsUnvaccinated IEI patients up to 22 years old infected with SARS-CoV-2 were recruited along with a cohort of HC. SARS-CoV-2 serology and ELISpot were performed in the acute phase of infection (up to 6 weeks) and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months.ResultsTwenty-five IEI patients (median age 14.3 years, min.-max. range 4.5-22.8; 15/25 males; syndromic combined immunodeficiencies: 48.0%, antibody deficiencies: 16.0%) and 17 HC (median age 15.3 years, min.-max. range 5.4-20.0; 6/17 males, 35.3%) were included. Pneumonia occurred in 4/25 IEI patients. In the acute phase SARS-CoV-2 specific immunoglobulins were positive in all HC but in only half of IEI in whom it could be measured (n=17/25): IgG+ 58.8% (10/17) (p=0.009); IgM+ 41.2% (7/17)(p

Cellular and humoral immune responses are essential for COVID-19 recovery and protection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfection. To date, the evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 immune protection has mainly focused on antibody detection, generally disregarding the cellular response, or placing it in a secondary position. This phenomenon may be explained by the complex nature of the assays needed to analyze cellular immunity compared with the technically simple and automated detection of antibodies. Nevertheless, a large body of evidence supports the relevance of the T cell’s role in protection against SARS-CoV-2, especially in vulnerable individuals with a weakened immune system (such as the population over 65 and patients with immunodeficiencies). Here we propose to use CoVITEST (Covid19 anti-Viral Immunity based on T cells for Evaluation in a Simple Test), a fast, affordable and accessible in-house assay that, together with a diagnostic matrix, allows us to determine those patients who might be protected with SARS-CoV-2-reactive T cells. The method was established using healthy SARS-CoV-2-naïve donors pre- and post-vaccination (n=30), and further validated with convalescent COVID-19 donors (n=51) in a side-by-side comparison with the gold standard IFN-γ ELISpot. We demonstrated that our CoVITEST presented reliable and comparable results to those obtained with the ELISpot technique in a considerably shorter time (less than 8 hours). In conclusion, we present a simple but reliable assay to determine cellular immunity against SARS-CoV-2 that can be used routinely during this pandemic to monitor the immune status in vulnerable patients and thereby adjust their therapeutic approaches. This method might indeed help to optimize and improve decision-making protocols for re-vaccination against SARS-CoV-2, at least for some population subsets.

Antibodies to phospholipids (aPL) and associated proteins are a hallmark in the diagnosis of anti-phospholipid syndrome (APS). Those included in the classification criteria are the lupus anticoagulant (LA) and the IgG and IgM isotypes of anticardiolipin (aCL) and anti-beta-2 glycoprotein I (β2GPI) antibodies. Non-classification criteria markers such as autoantibodies that recognize the phosphatidylserine/prothrombin (aPS/PT) complex have been proposed as biomarkers for APS. Studies of aPS/PT antibodies have shown a strong correlation to clinical manifestations and LA. We aimed to study the value and the persistence of aPS/PT IgG and IgM antibodies in a cohort of consecutive patients with clinical suspicion of APS and their utility as thrombotic risk markers. Our study, with 103 patients, demonstrates that persistently positive results for aPS/PT IgG antibodies were significantly associated with APS classification, thrombosis, triple aPL positivity, LA positive result, and the Global APS Score (GAPSS) > than 9 points (p < 0.01, for each condition). On the other hand, no association was seen with pregnancy morbidity (p = 0.56) and SLE (p = 0.07). Persistence of aPS/PT antibodies, defined according to the current laboratory classification criteria, likely improves the diagnosis and clinical assessment of patients with APS.

The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), has generated a significant repercussion on the administration of adoptive cell therapies, including chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cells. The closing of borders, the reduction of people transit and the confinement of the population has affected the supply chains of these life-saving medical products. The aim of this mini-review is to focus on how the COVID-19 pandemic has affected CAR T-cell therapy and taking into consideration the differences between the large-scale centralized productions for the pharmaceutical industry versus product manufacturing in the academic/hospital environment. We also review different aspects of CAR T-cell therapy and our managerial experience of patient selection, resource prioritization and some practical aspects to consider for safe administration. Although hospitals have been forced to change their usual workflows to cope with the saturation of health services by hospitalized patients, we recommend centers to continue offering this potentially curative treatment for patients with relapsed/refractory hematologic malignancies. Consequently, we propose appropriate selection criteria, early intervention to attenuate neurotoxicity or cytokine release syndrome with tocilizumab and prophylactic/preventive strategies to prevent infection. These considerations may apply to other emerging adoptive cell treatments and the corresponding manufacturing processes.

Mast cells (MCs) are currently recognized as effector cells in many settings of the immune response, including host defense, immune regulation, allergy, chronic inflammation and autoimmune diseases. MC pleiotropic functions reflect their ability to secrete a wide spectrum of preformed or newly synthesized biologically active products with pro-inflammatory, anti-inflammatory and/or immunosuppressive properties, in response to multiple signals. Moreover, the modulation of MC effector phenotypes relies on the interaction of a wide variety of membrane molecules involved in cell-cell or cell-extracellular-matrix interaction. The delivery of co-stimulatory signals allow MC to specifically communicate with immune cells belonging to both innate and acquired immunity, as well as with non-immune tissue-specific cell types. This article reviews and discuss the evidence that MC membrane-expressed molecules play a central role in regulating MC priming and activation and in modulation of innate and adaptive immune response not only against host injury, but also in peripheral tolerance and tumor-surveillance or -escape. The complex expression of MC surface molecules may be regarded as a measure of connectivity, with altered patterns of cell-cell interaction representing functionally distinct MC state. We will focalize our attention on role and functions of recently discovered molecules involved in the cross-talk of MCs with other immune partners.