| Literature DB >> 35992746 |
Arne Sattler1, Julia Thumfart2, Laura Tóth1, Eva Schrezenmeier3,4,5, Vanessa Proß1, Carolin Stahl1, Janine Siegle1, An He1, Linda Marie Laura Thole1, Carolin Ludwig6,7, Henriette Straub-Hohenbleicher3, Frank Friedersdorff8,9, Bernd Jahrsdörfer6,7, Hubert Schrezenmeier6,7, Philip Bufler2, Katja Kotsch1.
Abstract
Protection of adult kidney transplant recipients against SARS-CoV2 was shown to be strongly impaired owing to low reactogenicity of available vaccines. So far, data on vaccination outcomes in adolescents are scarce due to later vaccination approval for this age group. We therefore comprehensively analyzed vaccination-specific humoral-, T- and B-cell responses in kidney transplanted adolescents aged 12-18 years in comparison to healthy controls 6 weeks after standard two-dose BNT162b2 ("Comirnaty"; Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccination. Importantly, 90% (18/20) of transplanted adolescents showed IgG seroconversion with 75% (15/20) developing neutralizing titers. Still, both features were significantly diminished in magnitude compared to controls. Correspondingly, spike-specific B cells were quantitatively reduced and enriched for non-isotype-class-switched IgD+27+ memory cells in patients. Whereas spike specific CD4+ T cell frequencies were similar in both groups, cytokine production and memory differentiation were significantly impaired in transplant recipients. Although our data identify limitations in all arms of vaccine-specific immunity, the majority of our adolescent patients showed robust humoral responses despite antimetabolite-based treatment being associated with poor vaccination outcomes in adults.Entities:
Keywords: SARS-CoV2; adolescents; immunity; kidney transplantation; vaccination
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35992746 PMCID: PMC9385879 DOI: 10.3389/ti.2022.10677
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Transpl Int ISSN: 0934-0874 Impact factor: 3.842
Detailed characteristics of KTx patients.
| Patient | Gender | Underlying disease | Age (years) | Time since KTx (years) | Current IS | Tac trough level (µg/l) | MPA trough level (mg/l)§ | Former rejection episodes (date) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | F | unknown | 17.5 | 0.9 | Tac, MMF, CS | 5.1 | 3.3 | Yes (2021/2, 2021/3) |
| 2 | F | CAKUT | 13.1 | 9.2 | Tac, MMF | 2.7 | 8.3 | No |
| 3 | M | CAKUT | 12.6 | 9.6 | Tac, MMF | 3.3 | 0.9 | No |
| 4 | M | CAKUT | 12.5 | 10.0 | Tac, MMF | 3.3 | 1.3 | No |
| 5 | M | CAKUT | 13.2 | 7.1 | Tac, MMF | 3.3 | 2.1 | No |
| 6 | M | ARPKD | 12.8 | 1.8 | Tac, MMF | 4.8 | 1.8 | No |
| 7 | M | CAKUT | 14.9 | 13.2 | Tac, MMF | 4.2 | 3.5 | No |
| 8 | M | CAKUT | 15.0 | 8.3 | Tac, MMF | 3.6 | 0.8 | No |
| 9 | F | NS | 14.6 | 10.2 | Tac, MMF | 5 | 2.5 | No |
| 10 | F | NS | 15.1 | 10.2 | Tac, CS | 3.3 | n.a | No |
| 11 | F | NS | 14.1 | 2.6 | Tac, Eve | 5.7 | n.a | Yes (2019/4) |
| 12 | M | HNF1 Beta | 14.9 | 2.1 | Tac, MMF | 4.7 | 1.2 | No |
| 13 | M | NS | 16.1 | 10.6 | Tac, CS | 4.9 | n.a | No |
| 14 | F | Papillorenal syndrome | 13.1 | 1.0 | Tac, MMF | 3.6 | 4.3 | No |
| 15 | M | NS | 15.3 | 7.4 | Rapa, MMF, CS | 4.5 | No | |
| 16 | M | Sartan nephropathy | 14.2 | 10.5 | Tac, CS | 2.8 | n.a | No |
| 17 | M | CAKUT | 14.0 | 11.7 | Tac, MMF | 4.1 | 0.4 | Yes (2012/10) |
| 18 | F | NS | 14.3 | 9.2 | Tac, MMF, CS | 5.7 | 1.7 | Yes (2014/9, 2014/12) |
| 19 | M | Cystinosis | 12.6 | 2.1 | Tac, Eve | 1.8 | n.a | No |
| 20 | M | CAKUT | 13.4 | 3.3 | Tac, MMF | 3.7 | 1.8 | No |
| Mean ± SD | 14.2 ± 1.3 | 7.0 ± 4.1 | 4.0 ± 1.1 | 1.8 ± 2.0 |
(K)Tx, (Kidney) Transplantation; IS, immunosuppression; Tac-Tacrolimus; MPA-Mycophenolic Acid; CS-Corticosteroids; Eve-Everolimus; Rapa-Rapamycin; CAKUT, congenital anomalies of kidney and urinary tract; NS, nephrotic syndrome; ARPKD-Autosomal recessive polycystic kidney disease; SD, standard deviation; n.a., not applicable.
Patient 1 had received her 2nd transplant with induction therapy (basiliximab).
At time of humoral and cellular analysis.
Basic characteristics of KTx patients and healthy controls.
| Variable | KTx ( | HC ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (mean yrs ±SD) | 14.17 (1.31) | 13.99 (1.99) | 0.7595 |
| Females (n, %) | 7 (35.00) | 5 (38.46) | >0.9999 |
| Caucasians (n, %) | 16 (80.00) | 12 (92.00) | 0.6253 |
| Time since 2nd vaccination dose (mean days±SD) | 39.30 (11.06) | 44.54 (16.87) | 0.2306 |
(K)Tx, (Kidney) Transplantation; HC, healthy control.
FIGURE 1Humoral immune responses and vaccination-specific B cell immunity. (A) Humoral vaccine-specific immune responses were assessed for anti-spike protein S1 domain specific IgG, IgA and virus neutralization capacity in healthy controls (HC) and KTx patients around 6 weeks after administration of the second standard BNT162b2 dose. Thresholds defining a positive response are indicated by dotted lines. (B) Relative frequencies of RBD-specific CD19+ B cells identified by FACS in HC vs KTx (left) and in KTx that were stratified according to responders (+) and non-responders (−) regarding neutralizing capacity above threshold (right). (C) Memory-type of spike-RBD-specific B-cells according to IgD and CD27 expression (left) and portions of class-switched IgG+ cells (right). In all analyses, n = 20 KTx and n = 13 HC were enrolled. Mann-Whitney test was applied throughout based on non-normal distribution of values. Graphs show means ± SD. Patients receiving triple immunosuppressive (IS) therapy are depicted in red, those under Everolimus-containing IS in blue.
FIGURE 2Assessment of spike-specific T cell responses. PBMC were stimulated with spike peptide mix or left unstimulated. Specific CD4+ T cells were detected by flow cytometry according to co-expression of CD154 and CD137. (A) Depicts responder rates (left) and portions of spike-specific CD4+ T cells in HC vs. KTx after unstimulated control background substraction (right), (B) frequencies of cytokine producers as indicated within the antigen-specific population. (C) Quantifies IFNγ+TNFα+IL-2+ “triple+” polyfunctional (left) and cytokine-non-producing (right) cells. (D) Analysis of effector and effector/memory-type differentiation of antigen-specific CD4+ T cells. (E) Portions of specific, recently in vivo activated PD-1+ T cells. N in all experiments as in Figure 1. Mann-Whitney test was applied throughout based on non-normal distribution of values. Graphs show means ± SD. Patients receiving triple immunosuppressive therapy are depicted in red, those under Everolimus-containing IS in blue.