Literature DB >> 34407309

Antibody Response to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Coronavirus-2 Messenger RNA Vaccines in Liver Transplant Recipients.

Alexandra T Strauss1, Andrew M Hallett2, Brian J Boyarsky2, Michael T Ou2, William A Werbel1, Robin K Avery1, Aaron A R Tobian3,4, Allan B Massie2, James P A Hamilton1, Jacqueline M Garonzik-Wang2, Dorry L Segev2,4.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34407309      PMCID: PMC8441851          DOI: 10.1002/lt.26273

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Liver Transpl        ISSN: 1527-6465            Impact factor:   6.112


× No keyword cloud information.
adjusted incident rate ratio body mass index confidence interval dose 1 dose 2 immunoglobulin G interquartile range liver transplantation messenger RNA receptor binding domain severe acute respiratory syndrome‐coronavirus‐2 solid organ transplant recipients subunit 1 TO THE EDITOR: Prior studies have demonstrated a decreased humoral response in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) to severe acute respiratory syndrome‐coronavirus‐2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccination (17% antibody response after dose 1 [D1], 54% after dose 2 [D2]) compared with the general population (100%). However, these studies were dominated by kidney transplant recipients and included only a small percentage of liver transplantation (LT) recipients (19.6%).( , , , ) Because LT recipients often receive milder induction and maintenance immunosuppression, they may have a more robust humoral response. To investigate this, we studied SARS‐CoV‐2 antibody development in a cohort of LT recipients who completed a 2‐dose mRNA vaccine series of either mRNA‐1273 (Moderna, Cambridge, MA) or BNT162b2 (Pfizer‐BioNTech, New York, NY).

Patients and Methods

Inclusion criteria were post‐LT patients with no reported prior positive SARS‐CoV‐2 polymerase chain reaction result. Participants were excluded if they were younger than 18 years old. Participants were recruited via convenience sampling through social media or transplant center advertisements and if they completed a 2‐dose mRNA vaccine course between January 7, 2021, and March 26, 2021 and were followed through April 7, 2021. Data on demographics, body mass index (BMI), prior COVID‐19 diagnosis, hospitalization, transplant information, medications, other immune conditions, and allergies were collected. The study had institutional review board approval, and informed consent was obtained. The blood sampling protocol used 2 SARS‐CoV‐2 spike protein immunoassays (EUROIMMUN [Lubek, Germany] to the subunit 1 [S1] domain and Roche Elecsys [Indianapolis, IN] to the receptor binding domain [RBD] of the SARS‐CoV‐2 spike protein) and has been described elsewhere.( ) We have shown in prior work that the distribution of vaccine responses did not differ when using the anti‐S1 or anti‐RBD assay.( ) The post‐D1 assay was performed as close to D2 as possible, and the post‐D2 assay was collected as close to 28 days as possible. Of note, the Roche assay is artificially truncated at >250 U/mL. Participants were divided into the following 3 categories: priming dose responders (developed antibodies after both D1 and D2), booster responders (antibodies only after D2), and nonresponders (no antibodies after both doses). The proportion of patients who developed a positive antibody response was assessed with exact binomial 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and associations between variables were assessed using modified Poisson regression with a robust variance estimator. All 2‐sided and α‐level 0.05 testing was performed using Stata 16.0 (StataCorp, College Station, TX).

Results and Discussion

Of 225 participants meeting the inclusion criteria, 201 provided blood specimens after D1. Of these, 161 provided specimens after D2, 26 of which were previously reported in an all‐organ summary of antibody responses.( ) In the full cohort of 161 participants, 53% received the BNT162b2 vaccine and 47% received the mRNA‐1273 vaccine (Table 1). Antibody was detectable in 34% (95% CI, 27%‐42%) of participants at a median of 21 days (interquartile range [IQR], 19‐25 days) after D1, and in 81% (95% CI, 74%‐87%) at a median of 30 days (IQR, 28‐31 days) after D2 (Fig. 1); 34% were priming dose responders (D1+/D2+), 47% were booster responders (D1−/D2+), and 19% were nonresponders (Table 2). The median semiquantitative SARS‐CoV‐antispike antibody immunoassay after D2 was >250 U/mL (IQR, >250 U/mL) on Roche Elecsys testing for priming dose responders, 81.9 U/mL (IQR, 12.4‐250 U/mL) for booster responders, and 0 (IQR, 0‐0) for nonresponders. A similar trend was seen for those tested with the EUROIMMUN immunoassays (Table 3). Crossover between immunoassays was minimal (7/161). No participants reported a laboratory‐confirmed diagnosis of COVID‐19 following vaccination by the end of follow‐up.
TABLE 1

Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of LT Recipients Who Completed a SARS‐CoV‐2 mRNA Vaccine Series

Participant CharacteristicsTotal, n = 161
Age, years, median (IQR)64 (48‐69)
Sex, % female57
Non‐White, %8
Hispanic ethnicity, %3
BMI, kg/m2, median (IQR)26.0 (23.0‐30.5)
Years since transplant, median (IQR)6.9 (2.9‐15.0)
Maintenance immunosuppression, %*
Tacrolimus81
Mycophenolate35
Corticosteroids22
Sirolimus11
Cyclosporine8
Azathioprine6
Everolimus3
Vaccine type (manufacturer), %
BNT162b2 (Pfizer‐BioNTech)53
mRNA‐1273 (Moderna)47

Not mutually exclusive.

FIG. 1

D1 and D2 semiquantitative SARS‐CoV‐2 anti‐spike antibody immunoassay results of LT recipients by assay type. The blood sampling protocol used 2 SARS‐CoV‐2 spike protein immunoassays (anti‐RBD and anti‐S1) and has been described elsewhere.( ) Individual priming dose responders (D1+) are represented by blue lines connecting immunoassay results following D1 and D2. Individual booster responders and nonresponders (D1−) are represented by red points indicating immunoassay results following D2. Of 161 participants, 7 were tested using an anti‐RBD assay after D1 and an anti‐S1 assay after D2; these individuals are excluded from this figure. Antibody‐positive cutoffs (determined by the manufacturer and identified in the figure by horizontal red lines) were ≥0.80 U/mL for the anti‐RBD immunoassay (Roche Elecsys) and ≥1.1 arbitrary units for the anti‐S1 immunoassay (EUROIMMUN).

TABLE 2

Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of LT Recipients, Stratified by Antibody Response to a 2‐Dose Course of SARS‐CoV‐2 mRNA Vaccine, and Associations With Developing an Antibody Response

Participant CharacteristicsVaccine Response, n (%) P ValueDose 1 aIRR* (95% CI) P ValueDose 2 aIRR* (95% CI) P Value
Priming Dose Responders, 55 (34)Booster Responders, 75 (47)Nonresponders, 31 (19)
Age group, years
18‐3913 (52)10 (40)2 (8)0.440.93 (0.75‐1.15)0.500.98 (0.90‐1.07)0.65
40‐5916 (38)19 (45)7 (17)
≥6026 (28)46 (49)22 (23)
Sex
Male23 (32)33 (47)14 (20)0.980.90 (0.62‐1.29)0.561.01 (0.88‐1.17)0.86
Female32 (35)42 (46)17 (19)
Race
White48 (33)72 (49)27 (18)0.18
Non‐White7 (50)3 (21)4 (29)
Time since transplant, years
<35 (11)26 (59)13 (30)<0.0011.64 (1.30‐2.07) <0.0011.05 (0.99‐1.11) 0.09
3‐65 (16)18 (58)8 (26)
7‐1114 (42)13 (39)6 (18)
≥1231 (58)18 (34)4 (8)
Immunosuppression
Includes antimetabolite 12 (18)28 (42)26 (39)<0.0010.51 (0.28‐0.91)0.020.67 (0.55‐0.81)<0.001
No antimetabolite43 (45)47 (50)5 (5)
Vaccine type
mRNA‐127337 (49)31 (41)8 (11)<0.0012.07 (1.32‐3.25)0.0011.25 (1.09‐1.43)0.001
BNT16b218 (21)44 (52)23 (27)

Priming dose responders developed positive results after both D1 and D2. Booster responders developed positive results only after D2. Nonresponders maintained negative results after D1 and D2; n = 161.

Model adjusted for age, sex, time since transplant, antimetabolite maintenance immunosuppression, and vaccine type. Comparison of mRNA‐1273 and BNT16b2 was further adjusted for number of days between vaccination and antibody testing.

Comparison of 6 or more years since transplant versus less than 6 years since transplant.

Antimetabolite maintenance immunosuppressive regimens included mycophenolate mofetil, mycophenolic acid, and azathioprine.

TABLE 3

Median Semiquantitative SARS‐CoV‐2 Antispike Antibody Immunoassay Results of LT Recipients by Antibody Response

Type of ResponderD1D2
Roche ElecsysEUROIMMUNRoche ElecsysEUROIMMUN
U/mL (IQR), n = 126Arbitrary Unit (IQR), n = 35U/mL (IQR), n = 119Arbitrary Unit (IQR), n = 42
Priming dose responders17.4 (3.4‐63.2)5.2 (3.5‐5.7)250 (250‐250)8.9 (8.2‐9.8)
Booster responders0 (0‐0)0.1 (0.1‐0.6)81.9 (12.4‐250)5.6 (4.4‐8.1)
Nonresponders0 (0‐0)0.1 (0.02‐0.2)0 (0‐0)0.1 (0.1‐0.2)

Anti‐RBD immunoassay (Roche Elecsys) results are reported as a concentration of IgG against the target protein with a measurement range of 0.4 to 250 U/mL; results ≥250 U/mL are reported as 250 U/mL. Anti‐S1 immunoassay (EUROIMMUN) results are reported as an arbitrary unit (a sample‐to‐control ratio of optical density). Antibody‐positive cutoffs (determined by the manufacturer) were ≥0.80 U/mL for the former and ≥1.1 AU for the latter. Priming dose responders developed positive results after both D1 and D2. Booster responders developed positive results only after D2. Nonresponders maintained negative results after D1 and D2.

Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of LT Recipients Who Completed a SARS‐CoV‐2 mRNA Vaccine Series Not mutually exclusive. D1 and D2 semiquantitative SARS‐CoV‐2 anti‐spike antibody immunoassay results of LT recipients by assay type. The blood sampling protocol used 2 SARS‐CoV‐2 spike protein immunoassays (anti‐RBD and anti‐S1) and has been described elsewhere.( ) Individual priming dose responders (D1+) are represented by blue lines connecting immunoassay results following D1 and D2. Individual booster responders and nonresponders (D1−) are represented by red points indicating immunoassay results following D2. Of 161 participants, 7 were tested using an anti‐RBD assay after D1 and an anti‐S1 assay after D2; these individuals are excluded from this figure. Antibody‐positive cutoffs (determined by the manufacturer and identified in the figure by horizontal red lines) were ≥0.80 U/mL for the anti‐RBD immunoassay (Roche Elecsys) and ≥1.1 arbitrary units for the anti‐S1 immunoassay (EUROIMMUN). Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of LT Recipients, Stratified by Antibody Response to a 2‐Dose Course of SARS‐CoV‐2 mRNA Vaccine, and Associations With Developing an Antibody Response Priming dose responders developed positive results after both D1 and D2. Booster responders developed positive results only after D2. Nonresponders maintained negative results after D1 and D2; n = 161. Model adjusted for age, sex, time since transplant, antimetabolite maintenance immunosuppression, and vaccine type. Comparison of mRNA‐1273 and BNT16b2 was further adjusted for number of days between vaccination and antibody testing. Comparison of 6 or more years since transplant versus less than 6 years since transplant. Antimetabolite maintenance immunosuppressive regimens included mycophenolate mofetil, mycophenolic acid, and azathioprine. Median Semiquantitative SARS‐CoV‐2 Antispike Antibody Immunoassay Results of LT Recipients by Antibody Response Anti‐RBD immunoassay (Roche Elecsys) results are reported as a concentration of IgG against the target protein with a measurement range of 0.4 to 250 U/mL; results ≥250 U/mL are reported as 250 U/mL. Anti‐S1 immunoassay (EUROIMMUN) results are reported as an arbitrary unit (a sample‐to‐control ratio of optical density). Antibody‐positive cutoffs (determined by the manufacturer) were ≥0.80 U/mL for the former and ≥1.1 AU for the latter. Priming dose responders developed positive results after both D1 and D2. Booster responders developed positive results only after D2. Nonresponders maintained negative results after D1 and D2. Of 66 LT recipients on an antimetabolite, 18% were priming dose responders, 42% were booster responders, and 39% were nonresponders (Table 2). Among the 95 participants not on an antimetabolite, 45% were priming dose responders, 50% booster responders, and 5% nonresponders. Patients on antimetabolites were much less likely to develop an antibody response to D1 (adjusted incident rate ratio [aIRR], 0.51; 95% CI, 0.28‐0.91; P = 0.02) or D2 (aIRR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.55‐0.81; P < 0.001). Participants ≥6 years from LT were more likely to be priming dose responders (P < 0.001). The mRNA‐1273 vaccine recipients were more likely to develop an antibody response to D1 (aIRR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.32‐3.25; P = 0.001) and D2 (aIRR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.09‐1.43; P = 0.001). Our findings of a robust immune response of 81% are in contrast to an Israeli cohort of 80 LT recipients who had received 2 doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine and demonstrated an antibody response of only 47.5%.( ) This difference may be attributed to a different assay or other population factors such as age or antimetabolite use. Our study augments these findings to a larger sample size and patients who received the mRNA‐1273 vaccine as well. Differences in antibody response between the mRNA vaccine types may be related to dosing, timing, or drug delivery formulations. The mRNA‐1273 vaccine series is 2 100‐mg doses separated by 28 days, and the BNT162b2 vaccine series is 2 30‐mg doses 21 days apart.( ) The greater antibody response to the higher dosed mRNA‐1273 vaccine might suggest a dose–response relationship. Differences between the effects of different vaccine dosing may be less apparent in the general population because both are so highly immunogenic in immunocompetent people, but an immunocompromised population may “unmask” these potential differences. Limitations include selection bias resulting from convenience sampling, which contributed to sociodemographic homogeneity. Because race has not been found to be associated with antibody response, the difference in target population representation likely does not largely affect external validity. There was no immunocompetent comparator group; this makes direct comparisons difficult, but the robust 100% response rate seen in the general population studies is a notable benchmark.( ) Future immunologic response investigations could include comorbidities and immunosuppression doses and drug levels, which were not collected in our study, as well as outcomes of interest such as B cell/T cell responses, SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, hospitalizations, and mortality. We used 2 serological assays to assess antibody response, but this was to enable us to study as many LT recipients as possible. As explained previously (see the Patients and Methods section), there is very high correlation between anti‐S1 and anti‐RBD assays, so the use of 2 assays likely did not lead to substantial measurement error. Despite these limitations, this nationwide sample of patients during a rapidly evolving clinical climate provides the transplantation community and primary care providers with immunogenicity data using readily available commercial assays for this unique population. In conclusion, LT recipients who received 2 doses of SARS‐CoV‐2 mRNA vaccines have a much more robust antibody response compared with other SOTRs. Those vaccinated within 6 years from transplant, on antimetabolite immunosuppression, or vaccinated with BNT162b2 are more likely to have a diminished response. LT recipients may have different clinical factors contributing to a more robust response, compared to other SOTR, and important considerations for antimetabolite treatment before vaccination may be necessary. Therefore, guidelines should be tailored in this population. Supplementary Material Click here for additional data file.
  5 in total

1.  Immunogenicity of a Single Dose of SARS-CoV-2 Messenger RNA Vaccine in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients.

Authors:  Brian J Boyarsky; William A Werbel; Robin K Avery; Aaron A R Tobian; Allan B Massie; Dorry L Segev; Jacqueline M Garonzik-Wang
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2021-05-04       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Antibody Response to 2-Dose SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccine Series in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients.

Authors:  Brian J Boyarsky; William A Werbel; Robin K Avery; Aaron A R Tobian; Allan B Massie; Dorry L Segev; Jacqueline M Garonzik-Wang
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2021-06-01       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Safety of the First Dose of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients.

Authors:  Brian J Boyarsky; Michael T Ou; Ross S Greenberg; Aura T Teles; William A Werbel; Robin K Avery; Allan B Massie; Dorry L Segev; Jacqueline M Garonzik-Wang
Journal:  Transplantation       Date:  2021-05-01       Impact factor: 4.939

4.  Low immunogenicity to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination among liver transplant recipients.

Authors:  Liane Rabinowich; Ayelet Grupper; Roni Baruch; Merav Ben-Yehoyada; Tami Halperin; Dan Turner; Eugene Katchman; Sharon Levi; Inbal Houri; Nir Lubezky; Oren Shibolet; Helena Katchman
Journal:  J Hepatol       Date:  2021-04-21       Impact factor: 25.083

5.  Safety and Immunogenicity of Two RNA-Based Covid-19 Vaccine Candidates.

Authors:  Edward E Walsh; Robert W Frenck; Ann R Falsey; Nicholas Kitchin; Judith Absalon; Alejandra Gurtman; Stephen Lockhart; Kathleen Neuzil; Mark J Mulligan; Ruth Bailey; Kena A Swanson; Ping Li; Kenneth Koury; Warren Kalina; David Cooper; Camila Fontes-Garfias; Pei-Yong Shi; Özlem Türeci; Kristin R Tompkins; Kirsten E Lyke; Vanessa Raabe; Philip R Dormitzer; Kathrin U Jansen; Uğur Şahin; William C Gruber
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2020-10-14       Impact factor: 91.245

  5 in total
  21 in total

1.  Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 antibody response to a third dose of homologous messenger RNA vaccination in liver transplantation recipients.

Authors:  Alexandra T Strauss; Amy Chang; Jennifer L Alejo; Teresa P-Y Chiang; Nicole F Hernandez; Laura B Zeiser; Brian J Boyarsky; Robin K Avery; Aaron A R Tobian; Macey L Levan; Daniel S Warren; Allan B Massie; Jacqueline M Garonzik-Wang; Dorry L Segev; William A Werbel
Journal:  Liver Transpl       Date:  2022-05-09       Impact factor: 6.112

Review 2.  Vaccination in Chronic Liver Disease: An Update.

Authors:  Joseph J Alukal; Haider A Naqvi; Paul J Thuluvath
Journal:  J Clin Exp Hepatol       Date:  2021-12-08

Review 3.  SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines: Safety and Immunogenicity in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients and Strategies for Improving Vaccine Responses.

Authors:  Ayelet Grupper; Helena Katchman
Journal:  Curr Transplant Rep       Date:  2022-01-22

4.  Coronavirus Disease 2019 Messenger RNA Vaccine and Liver Transplant Recipients.

Authors:  Rujittika Mungmunpuntipantip; Viroj Wiwanitkit
Journal:  Liver Transpl       Date:  2021-09-25       Impact factor: 6.112

5.  Decline in Antibody Concentration 6 Months After Two Doses of SARS-CoV-2 BNT162b2 Vaccine in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients and Healthy Controls.

Authors:  Sebastian Rask Hamm; Dina Leth Møller; Laura Pérez-Alós; Cecilie Bo Hansen; Mia Marie Pries-Heje; Line Dam Heftdal; Rasmus Bo Hasselbalch; Kamille Fogh; Johannes Roth Madsen; Jose Juan Almagro Armenteros; Andreas Dehlbæk Knudsen; Johan Runge Poulsen; Ruth Frikke-Schmidt; Linda Maria Hilsted; Erik Sørensen; Sisse Rye Ostrowski; Zitta Barrella Harboe; Michael Perch; Søren Schwartz Sørensen; Allan Rasmussen; Henning Bundgaard; Peter Garred; Kasper Iversen; Susanne Dam Nielsen
Journal:  Front Immunol       Date:  2022-02-23       Impact factor: 7.561

6.  Past COVID-19 and immunosuppressive regimens affect the long-term response to anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in liver transplant recipients.

Authors:  Pierluigi Toniutto; Edmondo Falleti; Sara Cmet; Annarosa Cussigh; Laura Veneto; Davide Bitetto; Ezio Fornasiere; Elisa Fumolo; Carlo Fabris; Assunta Sartor; Roberto Peressutti; Francesco Curcio; Laura Regattin; Lucrezia Grillone
Journal:  J Hepatol       Date:  2022-03-10       Impact factor: 30.083

7.  Antibody Response in Immunocompromised Patients After the Administration of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Vaccine BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Benjamin Speich; Frédérique Chammartin; Irene A Abela; Patrizia Amico; Marcel P Stoeckle; Anna L Eichenberger; Barbara Hasse; Dominique L Braun; Macé M Schuurmans; Thomas F Müller; Michael Tamm; Annette Audigé; Nicolas J Mueller; Andri Rauch; Huldrych F Günthard; Michael T Koller; Alexandra Trkola; Matthias Briel; Katharina Kusejko; Heiner C Bucher
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2022-08-24       Impact factor: 20.999

8.  Involvement of the Liver in COVID-19: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Jayani C Kariyawasam; Umesh Jayarajah; Visula Abeysuriya; Rishdha Riza; Suranjith L Seneviratne
Journal:  Am J Trop Med Hyg       Date:  2022-02-24       Impact factor: 2.345

9.  Shared and Data-Driven Decision-Making with Transplant Recipients About COVID-19 Vaccination Is Crucial.

Authors:  Alexandra T Strauss; Dorry L Segev; William A Werbel
Journal:  Liver Transpl       Date:  2022-03-05       Impact factor: 6.112

10.  Low Immunoglobulin G Antibody Levels Against Severe Acute Respiratory Disease Coronavirus 2 After 2-Dose Vaccination Among Liver Transplantation Recipients.

Authors:  Jimena Prieto; Florencia Rammauro; Martín López; Romina Rey; Ana Fernández; Sergio Bianchi; Solange Gerona; Julio Medina; Otto Pritsch
Journal:  Liver Transpl       Date:  2022-01-18       Impact factor: 5.799

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.