Administration of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised patients.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Negahdaripour M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8316069 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately impacted immunocompromised patients. This diverse group is at increased risk for impaired vaccine responses, progression to severe disease, prolonged hospitalizations and deaths. At particular risk are people with deficiencies in lymphocyte number or function such as transplant recipients and those with hematologic malignancies. Such patients' immune responses to vaccination and infection are frequently impaired leaving them more vulnerable to prolonged high viral loads and severe complications of COVID-19. Those in turn, have implications for disease progression and persistence, development of immune escape variants and transmission of infection. Data to guide vaccination and treatment approaches in immunocompromised people are generally lacking and extrapolated from other populations. The large clinical trials leading to authorisation and approval of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and therapeutics included very few immunocompromised participants. While experience is accumulating, studies focused on the special circumstances of immunocompromised patients are needed to inform prevention and treatment approaches.
| S-EPMC10091856 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy of covid-19 vaccines between immunocompromised and immunocompetent people.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, Central Register of Controlled Trials, COVID-19 Open Research Dataset Challenge (CORD-19), and WHO covid-19 databases for studies published between 1 December 2020 and 5 November 2021. ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched in November 2021 to identify registered but as yet unpublished or ongoing studies.Study selectionProspective observational studies comparing the efficacy of covid-19 vaccination in immunocompromised and immunocompetent participants.MethodsA frequentist random effects meta-analysis was used to separately pool relative and absolute risks of seroconversion after the first and second doses of a covid-19 vaccine. Systematic review without meta-analysis of SARS-CoV-2 antibody titre levels was performed after first, second, and third vaccine doses and the seroconversion rate after a third dose. Risk of bias and certainty of evidence were assessed.Results82 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Of these studies, 77 (94%) used mRNA vaccines, 16 (20%) viral vector vaccines, and 4 (5%) inactivated whole virus vaccines. 63 studies were assessed to be at low risk of bias and 19 at moderate risk of bias. After one vaccine dose, seroconversion was about half as likely in patients with haematological cancers (risk ratio 0.40, 95% confidence interval 0.32 to 0.50, I2=80%; absolute risk 0.29, 95% confidence interval 0.20 to 0.40, I2=89%), immune mediated inflammatory disorders (0.53, 0.39 to 0.71, I2=89%; 0.29, 0.11 to 0.58, I2=97%), and solid cancers (0.55, 0.46 to 0.65, I2=78%; 0.44, 0.36 to 0.53, I2=84%) compared with immunocompetent controls, whereas organ transplant recipients were 16 times less likely to seroconvert (0.06, 0.04 to 0.09, I2=0%; 0.06, 0.04 to 0.08, I2=0%). After a second dose, seroconversion remained least likely in transplant recipients (0.39, 0.32 to 0.46, I2=92%; 0.35, 0.26 to 0.46), with only a third achieving seroconversion. Seroconversion was increasingly likely in patients with haematological cancers (0.63, 0.57 to 0.69, I2=88%; 0.62, 0.54 to 0.70, I2=90%), immune mediated inflammatory disorders (0.75, 0.69 to 0.82, I2=92%; 0.77, 0.66 to 0.85, I2=93%), and solid cancers (0.90, 0.88 to 0.93, I2=51%; 0.89, 0.86 to 0.91, I2=49%). Seroconversion was similar between people with HIV and immunocompetent controls (1.00, 0.98 to 1.01, I2=0%; 0.97, 0.83 to 1.00, I2=89%). Systematic review of 11 studies showed that a third dose of a covid-19 mRNA vaccine was associated with seroconversion among vaccine non-responders with solid cancers, haematological cancers, and immune mediated inflammatory disorders, although response was variable in transplant recipients and inadequately studied in people with HIV and those receiving non-mRNA vaccines.ConclusionSeroconversion rates after covid-19 vaccination were significantly lower in immunocompromised patients, especially organ transplant recipients. A second dose was associated with consistently improved seroconversion across all patient groups, albeit at a lower magnitude for organ transplant recipients. Targeted interventions for immunocompromised patients, including a third (booster) dose, should be performed.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42021272088.
| S-EPMC8889026 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThere are limited comparative data on the durability of neutralizing antibody (nAb) responses elicited by messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines against the SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOCs) in immunocompromised patients and healthy controls.ObjectiveTo assess the humoral responses after vaccination with BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccines.Design, setting, and participantsIn this prospective, longitudinal monocentric comparative effectiveness study conducted at the Lausanne University Hospital, binding IgG anti-spike antibody and nAb levels were measured at 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months after vaccination with mRNA-1273 (24.6% of participants) or BNT162b2 (75.3% of participants).InterventionsAll participants received 2 doses of either mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2 vaccines 4 to 6 weeks apart.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome of the study was the persistence of nAb responses against the original, nonvariant SARS-CoV-2 (2019-nCoV) and different VOCs at 6 months after vaccination. Key secondary outcomes were associations of the type of mRNA vaccine, the underlying disease, and the treatment with the response to vaccination.ResultsAmong the 841 participants enrolled between January 14 and August 8, 2021, the patient population comprised 637 participants (mean [SD] age, 61.8 [13.7] years; 386 [60.6%] female), and the healthy control population comprised 204 participants (mean [SD] age, 45.9 [12.0] years; 144 [70.6%] female). There were 399 patients with solid cancers, 101 with hematologic cancers, 38 with solid organ transplants, 99 with autoimmune diseases, and 204 healthy controls. More than 15 000 nAb determinations were performed against the original, nonvariant 2019-nCoV and the Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and Delta variants. The proportions of nAbs and their titers decreased in all study groups at 6 months after vaccination, with the greatest decreases for the Beta and Delta variants. For Beta, the proportion decreased to a median (SE) of 39.2% (5.5%) in those with hematologic cancers, 44.8% (2.7%) in those with solid cancers, 23.1% (8.3%) in those with solid organ transplants, and 22.7% (4.8%) in those with autoimmune diseases compared with 52.1% (4.2%) in healthy controls. For Delta, the proportions decreased to 41.8% (5.6%) in participants with hematologic cancer, 51.9% (2.7%) in those with solid cancers, 26.9% (8.7%) in those with solid organ transplants, and 30.7% (5.3%) in those with autoimmune diseases compared with 56.9% (4.1%) healthy controls. Neutralizing antibody titers decreased 3.5- to 5-fold between month 1 and month 6, and the estimated duration of response was greater and more durable among those participants vaccinated with mRNA-1273. In participants with solid cancers, the estimated duration of nAbs against the Beta variant was 221 days with mRNA-1273 and 146 days with BNT162b2, and against the Delta variant, it was 226 days with mRNA-1273 and 161 with BNT162b2. The estimated duration of nAbs in participants with hematologic cancers was 113 and 127 days against Beta and Delta variants, respectively.Conclusions and relevanceThis comparative effectiveness study suggests that approximately half of patients with hematologic cancers and solid cancers, about 70% of patients with solid organ transplants or autoimmune diseases, and 40% of healthy controls have lost nAbs against the circulating VOCs at 6 months after vaccination. These findings may be helpful for developing the best boosting vaccination schedule especially in immunocompromised patients.
| S-EPMC8914885 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundImmunocompromised (IC) patients are at higher risk of severe SARS-CoV-2 infection, morbidity, and mortality compared to the general population. They should be prioritized for primary prevention through vaccination. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in IC patients through a systematic review and meta-analysis approach.MethodPubMed-MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for original articles reporting the immunogenicity of two doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in adult patients with IC condition between June 1, 2020 and September 1, 2021. Meta-analysis was performed using either random or fixed effect according to the heterogeneity of the studies. Subgroup analysis was performed to identify potential sources of heterogeneity.ResultsA total of 26 studies on 3207 IC patients and 1726 healthy individuals were included. The risk of seroconversion in IC patients was 48% lower than those in controls (RR = 0.52 [0.42, 0.65]). IC patients with autoimmune conditions were 54%, and patients with malignancy were 42% more likely to have positive seroconversion than transplant recipients (P < 0.01). Subgroup meta-analysis based on the type of malignancy, revealed significantly higher proportion of positive seroconversion in solid organ compared to hematologic malignancies (RR = 0.88 [0.85, 0.92] vs. 0.61 [0.44, 0.86], P = 0.03). Subgroup meta-analysis based on type of transplantation (kidney vs. others) showed no statistically significant between-group difference of seroconversion (P = 0.55).ConclusionsIC patients, especially transplant recipients, developed lower immunogenicity with two-dose of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. Among patients with IC, those with autoimmune conditions and solid organ malignancies are mostly benefited from COVID-19 vaccination. Findings from this meta-analysis could aid healthcare policymakers in making decisions regarding the importance of the booster dose or more strict personal protections in the IC patients.
| S-EPMC8840778 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesWe aimed to assess the short-term effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines among immunocompromised patients to prevent laboratory-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 infection.MethodsSystematic review and meta-analysis. We calculated the pooled diagnostic odds ratio [DOR] (95% CI) for COVID-19 infection between immunocompromised patients and healthy people or those with stable chronic medical conditions. VE was estimated as 100% x (1-DOR). We also investigated the rates of developing anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein IgG between the 2 groups.ResultsTwenty studies evaluating COVID-19 vaccine response, and four studies evaluating VE were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled DOR for symptomatic COVID-19 infection in immunocompromised patients was 0.296 (95% CI: 0.108-0.811) with an estimated VE of 70.4% (95% CI: 18.9%- 89.2%). When stratified by diagnosis, IgG antibody levels were much higher in the control group compared to immunocompromised patients with solid organ transplant (pOR 232.3; 95% Cl: 66.98-806.03), malignant diseases (pOR 42.0, 95% Cl: 11.68-151.03), and inflammatory rheumatic diseases (pOR 19.06; 95% Cl: 5.00-72.62).ConclusionsWe found COVID-19 mRNA vaccines were effective against symptomatic COVID-19 among the immunocompromised patients but had lower VE compared to the controls. Further research is needed to understand the discordance between antibody production and protection against symptomatic COVID-19 infection.
| S-EPMC8720049 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundData on allergic reactions after the administration of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccines are limited. Our aim is to analyze reports of allergic reactions after COVID-19 vaccine administration.MethodsThe Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System database was searched for reported allergic reactions after the administration of any of the COVID-19 vaccines from December 2020 to June 2021. After data mapping, the demographic and clinical characteristics of the reported cases were analyzed. Potential factors associated with anaphylaxis were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression models.ResultsIn total, 14,611 cases were reported. Most cases of allergic reactions comprised women (84.6%) and occurred after the first dose of the vaccine (63.6%). Patients who experienced anaphylaxis were younger (mean age 45.11 ± 5.6 vs. 47.01 ± 6.3 years, P < 0.001) and had a higher prevalence of a history of allergies, allergic rhinitis, asthma, and anaphylaxis than those who did not (P < 0.05). A history of allergies (odds ratio (OR) 1.632, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.467-1.816, P < 0.001), asthma (OR 1.908, 95%CI 1.677-2.172, P < 0.001), and anaphylaxis (OR 7.164, 95%CI 3.504-14.646, P < 0.001) were potential risk factors for anaphylaxis. Among the 8,232 patients with reported outcomes, 16 died.ConclusionsFemale predominance in allergic reaction cases after the receipt of COVID-19 vaccines was observed. Previous histories of allergies, asthma, or anaphylaxis were risk factors for anaphylaxis post-vaccination. People with these risk factors should be monitored more strictly after COVID-19 vaccination.
| S-EPMC9152252 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAvailable data show that COVID-19 vaccines may be less effective in immunocompromised populations, who are at increased risk of severe COVID-19.ObjectivesWe conducted a systematic review of literature to assess immunogenicity, efficacy and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised populations.Data sourcesWe searched Medline and Embase databases.Study eligibility criteria, patients, interventionsWe included studies of COVID-19 vaccines after complete vaccination in immunocompromised patients until 31 August 2021. Studies with <10 patients, safety data only and case series of breakthrough infections were excluded.MethodsRisk of bias was assessed via the tool developed by the National Institutes of Health on interventional and observational studies. Immunogenicity was assessed through non-response rate defined as no anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein antibodies, efficacy and effectiveness by the relative reduction in risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19. We collected factors associated with the risk of non-response. We presented collected data by immunosuppression type.ResultsWe screened 5917 results, included 162 studies. There were 157 on immunogenicity in 25 209 participants, including 7835 cancer or haematological malignancy patients (31.1%), 6302 patients on dialysis (25.0%), 5974 solid organ transplant recipients (23.7%) and 4680 immune-mediated disease patients (18.6%). Proportion of non-responders seemed higher among solid organ transplant recipients (range 18-100%) and patients with haematological malignancy (range 14-61%), and lower in patients with cancer (range 2-36%) and patients on dialysis (range 2-30%). Risk factors for non-response included older age, use of corticosteroids, immunosuppressive or anti-CD20 agent. Ten studies evaluated immunogenicity of an additional dose. Five studies evaluated vaccine efficacy or effectiveness: three on SARS-CoV-2 infection (range 71-81%), one on COVID-19-related hospitalization (62.9%), one had a too small sample size.ConclusionsThis systematic review highlights the risk of low immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised populations, especially solid organ transplant recipients and patients with haematological malignancy. Despite lack of vaccine effectiveness data, enhanced vaccine regimens may be necessary.
| S-EPMC8595936 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Due to rare but major adverse reactions to the AstraZeneca adenoviral ChAdOx1-S-nCoV-19 vaccine (ChAd), German health authorities recommended adults under 60 who received one dose of ChAd, to receive a second dose of the BioNTech mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine (BNT) as a booster. Studies in the general population suggest an enhanced efficacy of the heterologous (ChAd-BNT) compared to the homologous (BNT-BNT) vaccination regimen. However, an analysis of the efficacy in patient populations with a high risk of severe COVID-19 due to acquired immunodeficiency is still missing. We therefore compared both vaccination regimens in healthy controls, patients with gynecological tumors after chemotherapy, patients on dialysis and patients with rheumatic diseases concerning the humoral and cellular immune response. The humoral and cellular immune response differed substantially in healthy controls compared to patients with acquired immunodeficiency. Overall, the most significant differences between the two immunization regimens were found in neutralizing antibodies. These were always higher after a heterologous immunization. Healthy controls responded well to both vaccination regimens. However, the formation of neutralizing antibodies was more pronounced after a heterologous immunization. Dialysis patients, on the other hand, only developed an adequate humoral and particularly cellular immune response after a heterologous immunization. Tumor and rheumatic patients also - to a weaker extent compared to dialysis patients - benefited from a heterologous immunization. In conclusion, the heterologous COVID-19 vaccination regimens (ChAd-BNT) seem to have an advantage over the homologous vaccination regimens, especially in immunocompromised patients such as patients with end-stage kidney disease treated with hemodialysis.
| S-EPMC10291065 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AbstractThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic poses a great threat to public health. Individuals who are immunocompromised because of the progression of the primary disease or receiving immunosuppressive medications are prone to severe COVID-19 complications and poor outcomes. Abundant data have shown that many COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective in large-scale populations; however, these clinical trials have excluded immunocompromised populations. Available evidence indicates that immunocompromised populations have a blunted immune response to other vaccines, raising concerns regarding the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccination in these populations. Thus, there is an urgent need to delineate the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in these vulnerable populations. Here, we review the characteristics of specific humoral and cellular responses to COVID-19 vaccination in immunocompromised populations, including HIV-infected patients and those receiving immunosuppressive treatment, especially solid organ transplant recipients and those undergoing anti-CD20 treatment. We also addressed the challenges that immunocompromised populations will face in the future pandemic and the need for basic and clinical translational studies to highlight the best vaccination strategies for these populations.
| S-EPMC9945070 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8318407 | biostudies-literature