ABSTRACT
Objective SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations have demonstrated vaccine immunogenicity in healthy volunteers, however, efficacy in immunosuppressed patients is less well characterised. Subsequently, there is an urgent need to address the impact of immunosuppression on vaccine immunogenicity.
Methods Serological, T-cell ELISpot, cytokines and immunophenotyping investigations were used to assess vaccine responses (either BNT162b2 mRNA or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) in double-vaccinated patients receiving immunosuppression for renal transplants or haematological malignancies (n=13). Immunological responses in immunosuppressed patients (VACC-IS) were compared to immunocompetent vaccinated (VACC-IC, n=12), unvaccinated (UNVACC, n=11) and infection-naïve unvaccinated (HC, n=3) cohorts. All participants, except HC, had prior COVID-19 infection.
Results T-cell responses were identical between VACC-IS and VACC-IC (92%) to spike-peptide (S) stimulation. UNVACC had the highest T-cell non-responders (n=3), whereas VACC-IC and VACC-IS both had one T-cell non-responder. No significant differences in humoral responses were observed between VACC-IC and VACC-IS, with 92% (12/13) of VACC-IS patients demonstrating seropositivity. One VACC-IS failed to seroconvert, however had detectable T-cell responses. All VACC-IC participants were seropositive for anti-spike antibodies. Furthermore, both VACC-IS and VACC-IC participants elicited strong Th1 cytokine response with immunodominance towards S-peptide. Differences in T-cell immunophenotyping were seen between VACC-IS and VACC-IC, with lower CD8+ activation and T-effector memory phenotype observed in VACC-IS.
Conclusion SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are immunogenic in patients receiving immunosuppressive therapy, with responses comparable to vaccinated immunocompetent participants. Lower humoral responses were seen in patients treated with B-cell depleting therapeutics, but with preserved T-cell responses. We suggest further work to correlate both protective immunity and longevity of these responses in both healthy and immunosuppressed patients.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Oxford Immunotec and Beckman Coulter provided the study with free of cost evaluation kits.
Both Oxford Immunotec and Beckman Coulter had no other direct involvement in this study. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study received ethical approval from Health Research Authority national ethics committee (London-City and East research ethics committee, IRAS: 291009)
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data available upon request
