Promising Efficacy of a Third Dose of mRNA SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination in Patients Treated with Anti-CD20 Antibody Who Failed 2-Dose Vaccination

  1. Yohei Funakoshi
  2. Kimikazu Yakushijin
  3. Goh Ohji
  4. Wataru Hojo
  5. Hironori Sakai
  6. Marika Watanabe
  7. Akihito Kitao
  8. Yoshiharu Miyata
  9. Yasuyuki Saito
  10. Shinichiro Kawamoto
  11. Katsuya Yamamoto
  12. Mitsuhiro Ito
  13. Taiji Koyama
  14. Yoshinori Imamura
  15. Naomi Kiyota
  16. Hiroshi Matsuoka
  17. Yasuko Mori
  18. Hironobu Minami

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Anti-CD20 antibodies react with CD20 expressed not only on malignant B cells, but also on normal B cells. It has been reported that patients treated with anti-CD20 antibodies had an insufficient response to two-dose mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. To investigate the efficacy of a third dose in these patients, we investigated serum IgG antibody titers for the S1 protein after a third vaccination in 22 patients treated with the anti-CD20 antibody who failed two-dose vaccination. Results showed that overall, 50% of patients seroconverted. Although no patient who received the third dose within 1 year of the last anti-CD20 antibody administration showed an increase in S1 antibody titer, 69% of patients who received the third dose more than 1 year after the last anti-CD20 antibody administration seroconverted. Our data show that a third dose of vaccination is effective in improving the seroconversion rate in patients treated with the anti-CD20 antibody who failed standard two-dose vaccination.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.3390/vaccines10060965
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.04.28.22274174: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    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: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    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.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    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 10.1101/2022.04.28.22274174v1 on medRxiv