Inactivated Sinovac-CoronaVac vaccine (Sinovac Life Sciences, Beijing) for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been used in many countries. However, its immunogenicity profile in immunosuppressed dermatological patients is lacking. This prospective observational case-control study compared the humoral immune response between adult dermatological patients receiving systemic immunosuppressive therapies (n = 14) and those who did not (n = 18); excluding patients with HIV infection, cancer, non-dermatological autoimmune conditions, previous COVID-19 infection, and positive anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) IgG prior to vaccination. The subjects were advised to withhold methotrexate for 1 week after each vaccine dose while continuing other therapies unadjusted. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody, surrogate neutralizing antibody (sNAb), and seroconversion rates (calculated from the percentages of participants in the group with positive sNAb) were used to assess immunogenicity. We found that participants using azathioprine, cyclosporin, mycophenolate mofetil, or prednisolone ≥ 10 mg/day had a lower level of serum anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody and sNAb than those received methotrexate ≤ 10 mg/week, prednisolone < 10 mg/day, or biologics (i.e., secukinumab, ixekizumab, omalizumab). Patients who received methotrexate ≤ 10 mg/week, prednisolone < 10 mg/day or the biologics had a similar immunogenicity profile to those without immunosuppressive therapies. Despite the lack of statistical significance, a reduction of humoral immune response was observed among the study participants who used ≥2 immunosuppressants or pemphigus patients. Our findings suggest that a subset of patients with immune-mediated skin conditions respond poorly to the vaccine despite having low-level immunosuppression. These patients could benefit from vaccines that trigger a greater level of immunogenicity or booster doses.

Sepsis is one of the well-established diseases with specific patterns of neutrophil dysfunctions. Previous studies demonstrated sepsis-related neutrophil dysfunctions in comparison with subjects without infection. Since sepsis and infection are recently recognized as distinctive processes, whether these neutrophil dysfunctions are associated with sepsis or infection are not known. Therefore, we longitudinally compared neutrophil functions, widely-cited as exhibiting sepsis-related changes, between patients with septic shock and infection. The surface level of cluster of differentiation 64 (CD64), C-C motif chemokine receptor 2 (CCR2), C-X-C motif chemokine receptor 2 (CXCR2); apoptosis; and NETosis were measured from peripheral blood neutrophils for seven consecutive days using flow cytometry. The between-group comparisons of neutrophil functions were made both on a day-by-day basis and as linear regression between time and measured neutrophil functions (sepsis status included as model predictors). Our study found that, among neutrophil functions studied, only CXCR2 surface level is associated with sepsis. At disease onset, CXCR2 level decrease, with a dose-response relationship with clinical severity. Its level reverts to resemble infected patients by the end of the week. The relationship between CD64 surface level, CCR2 surface level, NETosis, and sepsis are mediated through the effect of infection. Apoptosis activity between these groups are similar, hence, not sepsis-related.

Background Immunogenicity and reactogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines have been established in various groups of immunosuppressed patients; however, studies involving patients with immune-mediated dermatological diseases (IMDDs) are scarce. Objectives To investigate the influence of IMDDs on the development of SARS-CoV-2-specific immunity and side-effects following ChAdOx1-S[recombinant] vaccination. Methods This prospective cohort study included 127 patients with IMDDs and 97 participants without immune-mediated diseases who received ChAdOx1-S[recombinant]. SARS-CoV-2-specific immunity and side-effect profiles were assessed at 1 month postvaccination and compared between groups. Immunological (primary) outcomes were the percentages of participants who tested positive for neutralizing antibodies [seroconversion rate (SR)] and those who developed T-cell-mediated immunity demonstrated by an interferon-γ-releasing assay (IGRA) [positive IGRA rate (+IGRA)]. Reactogenicity-related (secondary) outcomes were the unsolicited adverse reactions and worsening of IMDD activity reflected by the uptitration of immunosuppressants during and within 1 month of vaccination. Results Overall, the SR for the IMDD group was similar to that of participants without immune-mediated conditions (75·6 vs. 84·5, P = 0·101), whereas + IGRA was lower (72·4 vs. 88·7, P = 0·003). Reactogenicity was similar between groups. No severe adverse reaction was reported. By stratifying the participants in the IMDD group according to individual disease, the immunogenicity of the vaccine was lowest in patients with autoimmune bullous diseases (AIBD) (SR 64·5%, +IGRA 62·9%) and highest in patients with psoriasis (SR 87·7%, +IGRA 80·7%). The reverse trend was found for vaccine-related reactions. Immunosuppressants were uptitrated in 15·8% of cases; 75% of these were patients with AIBD. Conclusions Among participants with IMDDs, ChAdOx1-S[recombinant] showed good immunogenicity among patients with psoriasis, but demonstrated lower levels of immunogenicity for patients with AIBD. Some patients, especially patients with AIBD, should be closely monitored as they may require treatment escalation within 1 month postvaccination.

BackgroundBy depleting circulating B lymphocytes, rituximab time-dependently suppresses coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines’ humoral immunogenicity for a prolonged period. The optimal time to vaccinate rituximab-exposed immune-mediated dermatologic disease (IMDD) patients is currently unclear.ObjectiveTo estimate the vaccination timeframe that equalized the occurrence of humoral immunogenicity outcomes between rituximab-exposed and rituximab-naïve IMDD patients.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study recruited rituximab-exposed and age-matched rituximab-naïve subjects tested for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific immunity post-vaccination. Baseline clinical and immunological data (i.e., immunoglobulin levels, lymphocyte immunophenotyping) and SARS-CoV-2-specific immunity levels were extracted. The outcomes compared were the percentages of subjects who produced neutralizing antibodies (seroconversion rates, SR) and SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG levels among seroconverters. The outcomes were first analyzed using multiple regressions adjusted for the effects of corticosteroid use, steroid-spearing agents, and pre-vaccination immunological status (i.e., IgM levels, the percentages of the total, naïve, and memory B lymphocytes) to identify rituximab-related immunogenicity outcomes. The rituximab-related outcome differences with a 95% confidence interval (CI) between groups were calculated, starting by including every subject and then narrowing down to those with longer rituximab-to-vaccination intervals (≥3, ≥6, ≥9, ≥12 months). The desirable cut-off performances were <25% outcome inferiority observed among rituximab-exposed subgroups compared to rituximab-naïve subjects, and the positive likelihood ratio (LR+) for the corresponding outcomes ≥2.FindingsForty-five rituximab-exposed and 90 rituximab-naive subjects were included. The regression analysis demonstrated a negative association between rituximab exposure status and SR but not with SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG levels. Nine-month rituximab-to-vaccination cut-off fulfilled our prespecified diagnostic performance (SR difference between rituximab-exposed and rituximab-naïve group [95%CI]: -2.6 [-23.3, 18.1], LR+: 2.6) and coincided with the repopulation of naïve B lymphocytes in these patients.ConclusionsNine months of rituximab-to-vaccination interval maximize the immunological benefits of COVID-19 vaccines while avoiding unnecessary delay in vaccination and rituximab treatment for IMDD patients.