| Literature DB >> 35335079 |
Béatrice Clémenceau1, Thierry Guillaume1,2, Marianne Coste-Burel3, Pierre Peterlin2, Alice Garnier2, Amandine Le Bourgeois2, Maxime Jullien2, Jocelyn Ollier1, Audrey Grain1, Marie C Béné1,4, Henri Vié1, Patrice Chevallier1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: At variance to humoral responses, cellular immunity after anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines has been poorly explored in recipients of allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (Allo-HSCT), especially within the first post-transplant years where immunosuppression is more profound and harmful.Entities:
Keywords: BNT162b2; CD4+ T cells; CD8+ T cells; COVID 19; IFNγ; SARS-CoV-2 mRNA; TNFα; allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation; cellular immunity; humoral immunity; vaccine
Year: 2022 PMID: 35335079 PMCID: PMC8950166 DOI: 10.3390/vaccines10030448
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Vaccines (Basel) ISSN: 2076-393X
Vaccinated individuals’ characteristics.
| Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem-Cell Recipients | Healthy Controls | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Antibody response after two doses of BNT162b2 vaccination | Yes (HR) a | No (NHR) b | Yes | ||
| T-cell response after two doses of BNT162b2 vaccination | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes |
| Median time from transplant to vaccination (days) | 1026 | 523 | 236 | 237 | NA |
| Range | (126–3796) | (471–914) | (208–384) | (112–372) | |
| Median time from first to second vaccination (days) | 21 | 28 | 23 | 21 | 24 |
| Range | (19–35) | (21–29) | (16–29) | (21–29) | (18–32) |
| Median time from second vaccination to T cells response analyses (days) | 32 | 36 | 62 | 45 | 58 |
| Range | (22–67) | (25–69) | (56–70) | (26–56) | (32–70) |
| Median time from first vaccination to T cells response analyses (days) | 56 | 64 | 85 | 66 | 81 |
| Range | (43–95) | (52–90) | (85–86) | (47–85) | (62–91) |
| Underlying disease | 18 AML | 4 MDS | 3 AML | 5 AML | NA |
| Median age: years | 62 | 58 | 66 | 57 | 52 |
| (range) | (30–75) | (49–72) | (41–70) | (44–66) | (37–63) |
| Gender | |||||
| Male | 18 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 3 |
| Female | 13 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 13 |
| Donor type | |||||
| Geno-identical | 6 | 1 | 1 | 0 | NA |
| MUD | 15 | 2 | 0 | 2 | |
| Haploidentical | 9 | 1 | 3 | 4 | |
| 9/10 mis-MUD | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Conditioning | |||||
| Myeloablative | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | NA |
| Reduced-intensity | 29 | 4 | 4 | 6 | |
| Sequential | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| GVHD prophylaxis | |||||
| CsA + MMF + ATG | 15 | 1 | 0 | 1 | NA |
| CsA + MMF + PTCY | 7 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
| PTCY only | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Previous GVHD | |||||
| Yes | 19 (61%) | 2 (50%) | 2 (50%) | 3 (50%) | NA |
| No | 12 (39%) | 2 (50%) | 2 (50%) | 3 (50%) | |
| Ongoing treatment * | |||||
| No | 26 (84%) | 4 (100%) | 3 (75%) | 3 (50%) | NA |
| Yes | 5 (16%) | 0 | 1 (25%) | 3 (50%) | |
a: Humoral Responders. b: Non Humoral Responders. AML: acute myeloid leukemia; MDS: myelodysplastic syndrome; MUD: matched unrelated donor; GVHD: graft-versus-host disease; CsA: cyclosporine; MMF: mycophenolate mofetyl; PTCY: post-transplant Cyclophosphamide; NA: not applicable. *: immunosuppressive drugs or chemotherapy.
Figure 1Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Spike T-cells analysis in 45 Allo-HSCT recipients (AML n = 26, MDS n = 19) with humoral (HRP n = 35) or no humoral (NHRP n = 10) response and healthy controls (n = 16) after two injections of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. Panel (A) shows the number of IFNγ spots per 100 CD3+ T cells after stimulation of PBMC stimulated with Spike or EBV-consensus peptide; (B) PBMC phenotype analysis used for the ELISpot assay. Results show population frequencies among viable CD45+ cells. Horizontal lines indicate median values.
Figure 2Features of specific CD3+, CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell responses against SARS-CoV-2 Spike and EBV peptides according to INFγ and TNFα production in Allo-HSCT recipients (n = 17: 2 NHRP, 15 HRP and 12 healthy donors (HD)) after two injections of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. PBMC were stimulated with Spike, EBV peptides, Cytostim (positive control) or not stimulated (NS). (A) Gating strategy and representative flow cytometry plots for one patient. (B) Dot plots representing the frequencies of CD3+, CD4+, and CD8+ T-cells producing IFN-γ, TNF-α, or both. Each dot represents one subject. For this group of patients, the magnitude of the INFγ+ CD3+ T-cell response correlated with that obtained by the INF-γ ELISPOT assay (data not shown). (C) Bar graphs showing the expression of INFγ and TNFα among SARS-CoV-2 Spike- and EBV-specific CD3+, CD4+ and CD8+ T cells in Allo-HSCT recipients (n = 19 [P] and 12 healthy donors [HD]). Data are shown as means of the percentage of T-cell responders.
Figure 3Anti-Spike T-cell response according to the time interval between transplantation and vaccination. (A) Anti-Spike T-cell responses according to the time interval between transplantation and vaccination for non-humoral responder patients (NHRP, n = 10) and humoral responder patients (HRP, n = 35). (B) Anti-Spike T-cell responses according to the time interval between transplantation and vaccination for patients under immunosuppressive therapy (IS, n = 9) or not (n = 36, 80%) at the time of vaccination. Patients were under treatment including 5 for active chronic GVHD (cyclosporine n = 2, cyclosporine + corticosteroids n = 3), while one patient was under corticosteroids for a chronic rheumatic disease and another one received 5′ azacytidine for relapse prevention. Two early patients were on their way to stop cyclosporine. None of the patients had acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) at the time of analysis.