Cellular and humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and booster dose in immunosuppressed patients: An observational cohort study

  1. Lu M. Yang
  2. Cristina Costales
  3. Muthukumar Ramanathan
  4. Philip L. Bulterys
  5. Kanagavel Murugesan
  6. Joseph Schroers-Martin
  7. Ash A. Alizadeh
  8. Scott D. Boyd
  9. Janice M. Brown
  10. Kari C. Nadeau
  11. Sruti S. Nadimpalli
  12. Aileen X. Wang
  13. Stephan Busque
  14. Benjamin A. Pinsky
  15. Niaz Banaei

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1016/j.jcv.2022.105217
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.01.04.22268750: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: Ethics Statement: This study was approved by the Stanford University Institutional Review Board (IRB-60171 and IRB-57519).
    Consent: Informed consent was obtained from volunteer healthcare workers before blood collection.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    We also recorded available anti-S1 IgG antibody results.
    anti-S1 IgG
    suggested: None
    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Statistical analysis: Statistical analyses and graphing were performed in Python version 3.8.5 using the packages pandas, matplotlib, seaborn, numpy, scipy, and statsmodels.
    Python
    suggested: (IPython, RRID:SCR_001658)
    matplotlib
    suggested: (MatPlotLib, RRID:SCR_008624)
    numpy
    suggested: (NumPy, RRID:SCR_008633)
    scipy
    suggested: (SciPy, RRID:SCR_008058)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Although this study was strengthened by evaluating vaccine responses in a large heterogeneous cohort of immunosuppressed patients, limitations include the small sample size of certain patient disease and ISMT categories, and a lack of information on drug dosages and history of prior therapy. Additionally, there were no pediatric patients included in NISP cohort. As the COVID-19 pandemic ensues and new SARS-CoV-2 variants arise, our findings provide an evidence-based framework for clinicians to determine optimal vaccination strategy in immunosuppressed patients. While numerous studies have examined humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in particular immunosuppressed subgroups, relatively few have examined concurrent cellular response. This study shows that immunosuppressive conditions differentially impact humoral and cellular responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, with 20% of patients only developing a cellular response following initial vaccination. The importance of cellular response in anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunity is supported by several reports8,31–35 and a recent study showed that emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants that escape humoral immunity in vaccinees may not escape cellular immunity36. Humoral and cellular responses, therefore, provide complementary protection against SARS-CoV-2 in immunosuppressed patients. This emphasizes the importance of monitoring both humoral and cellular responses to vaccination, especially in immunosuppressed patients, and the utility of performing c...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a protocol registration statement.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2022.01.04.22268750v1 on medRxiv