Search

Breakthrough COVID-19 (occurring in fully vaccinated people) has been described. Data on its characteristics among immune-mediated rheumatic disease (IMRD) patients are scarce. This study describes breakthrough COVID-19 occurring in IMRD patients participating in the SAFER-study, a Brazilian multicentric cohort evaluating the safety, effectiveness, and immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with autoimmune diseases. A descriptive analysis of the population and a binary logistic regression model were performed to evaluate the predictors of COVID-19-related hospitalization. A p -value < 0.05 was significant. The included 160 patients were predominantly females (83.1%), with a mean (SD) age of 40.23 (13.19) years. The patients received two (19%), three (70%), or four (11%) vaccine doses. The initial two-dose series was mainly with ChAdOx1 (Oxford/AstraZeneca) (58%) or BBIBP-CorV (Sinopharm-Beijing) (34%). The first booster (n = 150) was with BNT162b2 (BioNtech/Fosun Pharma/Pfizer) (63%) or ChAdOx1 (29%). The second booster (n = 112) was with BNT162b2 (40%) or ChAdOx1 (26%). The COVID-19 hospitalization rate was 17.5%. IMRD moderate/high activity (OR: 5.84; CI: 1.9-18.5; p = 0.002) and treatment with corticosteroids (OR: 2.94; CI: 1.02-8.49; p = 0.0043) were associated with higher odds of hospitalization, while increasing the number of vaccine doses was protective (OR: 0.37; CI: 0.15-0.9; p = 0.032). These findings, along with previous reassuring results about the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines, argue in favor of booster vaccination in IMRD patients.

Background: Patients with immune-mediated rheumatic diseases (IMRDs) have been prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination to mitigate the infection severity risks. Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are at a high risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes, especially those under immunosuppression or with associated comorbidities. However, few studies have assessed the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine in patients with RA., Objective: To evaluate the safety of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with RA., Methods: This data are from the study "Safety and Efficacy on COVID-19 Vaccine in Rheumatic Diseases," a Brazilian multicentric prospective phase IV study to evaluate COVID-19 vaccine in IMRDs in Brazil. Adverse events (AEs) in patients with RA of all centers were assessed after two doses of ChAdOx1 (Oxford/AstraZeneca) or CoronaVac (Sinovac/Butantan). Stratification of postvaccination AEs was performed using a diary, filled out daily and returned at the end of 28 days for each dose., Results: A total of 188 patients with RA were include, 90% female. CoronaVac was used in 109 patients and ChAdOx1 in 79. Only mild AEs were observed, mainly after the first dose. The most common AEs after the first dose were pain at the injection (46,7%), headache (39,4%), arthralgia (39,4%), myalgia (30,5%) and fatigue (26,6%), and ChAdOx1 had a higher frequency of pain at the injection (66% vs 32 %, p < 0.001) arthralgia (62% vs 22%, p < 0.001) and myalgia (45% vs 20%, p < 0.001) compared to CoronaVac. The more common AEs after the second dose were pain at the injection (37%), arthralgia (31%), myalgia (23%), headache (21%) and fatigue (18%). Arthralgia (41,4% vs 25%, p = 0.02) and pain at injection (51,4% vs 27%, p = 0.001) were more common with ChAdOx1. No serious AEs were related. With Regard to RA activity level, no significant difference was observed between the three time periods for both COVID-19 vaccines., Conclusion: In the comparison between the two immunizers in patients with RA, local reactions and musculoskeletal symptoms were more frequent with ChAdOx1 than with CoronaVac, especially after the first dose. In summary, the AE occurred mainly after the first dose, and were mild, like previous data from others immunizing agents in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Vaccination did not worsen the degree of disease activity., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

New variants of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have emerged, imposing the need for periodic booster doses. However, whether booster doses should be applied to the entire population or groups, and the booster doses interval, remains unclear. In this study, we evaluated humoral reactivity kinetics from before the first dose to 180 days after the third booster dose in different schedules in a well-controlled health worker cohort. Among the 2,506 employees, the first 500 vaccinated health workers were invited to participate. The third booster dose was administered 8 months after the first dose. Among the invited participants, 470 were included in the study; 258 received inactivated vaccine CoronaVac (VAC group) and 212 received viral vector vaccine ChAdOx1 (AZV group). The groups were homogeneous in terms of age and sex. 347 participants were followed up after the booster dose with AZV or BNT162b2 (Pfizer, BNT group): 63 with VAC/AZV, 117 with VAC/BNT, 72 with the AZV/AZV and 95 with AZV/BNT schedules. Blood samples were collected immediately before, 28 days after each dose and 180 days after the primary vaccination and booster dose. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were measured by chemiluminescence and plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT). Plasma immune mediators were quantified using a multiplex immunoassay. Geometric mean of antibodies increased 28 days after the second dose with 100 % seroconversion rate in both groups and decreased 180 days after the first dose. In the baseline-seropositive VAC group, the levels of plasma immune mediators increased after the second dose. Booster dose was applied at 4-6 months after the primary vaccination. Heterologous booster in VAC or AZV primary vaccinees were effective maintaining the titers of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies even after 6 months of follow-up. The heterologous schedule induced higher and stable antibody reactivity, even after 180 days, protecting to ancestral (Wuhan), Delta, and Omicron variants., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)