Background Immune responses on SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients receiving anti-CD20 therapies are impaired but vary considerably. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine induced humoral and cell-mediated immune response in patients previously treated with anti-CD20 antibodies. Methods We searched PubMed, Embase, Medrxiv and SSRN using variations of search terms ‘anti-CD20’, ‘vaccine’ and ‘COVID’ and included original studies up to 21 August 2021. We excluded studies with missing data on humoral or cell-mediated immune response, unspecified methodology of response testing, unspecified timeframes between vaccination and blood sampling or low number of participants (≤3). We excluded individual patients with prior COVID-19 or incomplete vaccine courses. Primary endpoints were humoral and cell-mediated immune response rates. Subgroup analyses included time since anti-CD20 therapy, B cell depletion and indication for anti-CD20 therapy. We used random-effects models of proportions. Findings Ninety studies were assessed. Inclusion criteria were met by 23 studies comprising 1342 patients. Overall rate of humoral response was 0.40 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.47). Overall rate of cell-mediated immune responses was 0.71 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.87). A time interval >6 months since last anti-CD20 therapy was associated with higher humoral response rates with 0.63 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.72) versus <6 months 0.2 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.43); p=0<01. Similarly, patients with circulating B cells more frequently showed humoral responses. Anti-CD20-treated kidney transplant recipients showed lower humoral response rates than patients with haematological malignancies or autoimmune disease. Interpretation Patients on anti-CD20 therapies can develop humoral and cell-mediated immune responses after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, but subgroups such as kidney transplant recipients or those with very recent therapy and depleted B cell are at high risk for non-seroconversion and should be individually assessed for personalised SARS-CoV-2 vaccination strategies. Potential limitations are small patient numbers and heterogeneity of studies included. Funding This study was funded by Bern University Hospital.

Eosinophils are a subset of granulocytes characterized by a high abundance of specific granules in their cytoplasm. To act as effector cells, eosinophils degranulate and form eosinophil extracellular traps (EETs), which contain double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) co-localized with granule proteins. The exact molecular mechanism of EET formation remains unknown. Although the term “EET release” has been used in scientific reports, it is unclear whether EETs are pre-formed in eosinophils and subsequently released. Moreover, although eosinophil degranulation has been extensively studied, a precise time-course of granule protein release has not been reported until now. In this study, we investigated the time-dependent release of eosinophil peroxidase (EPX) and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) following activation of both human and mouse eosinophils. Unexpectedly, maximal degranulation was already observed within 1 min with no further change upon complement factor 5 (C5a) stimulation of interleukin-5 (IL-5) or granulocyte/macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF)-primed eosinophils. In contrast, bulk mtDNA release in the same eosinophil populations occurred much slower and reached maximal levels between 30 and 60 min. Although no single-cell analyses have been performed, these data suggest that the molecular pathways leading to degranulation and mtDNA release are at least partially different. Moreover, based on these data, it is likely that the association between the mtDNA scaffold and granule proteins in the process of EET formation occurs in the extracellular space.

Background The majority of patients with B-cell-depleting therapies show compromised vaccination-induced immune responses. Herein, we report on the trajectories of anti-SARS-CoV-2 immune responses in patients of the RituxiVac study compared with healthy volunteers and investigate the immunogenicity of a third vaccination in previously humoral non-responding patients. Methods We investigated the humoral and cell-mediated immune response after SARS-CoV-2 messanger RNA vaccination in patients with a history with anti-CD20 therapies. Coprimary outcomes were antispike and SARS-CoV-2-stimulated interferon-γ concentrations in vaccine responders 4.3 months (median; IQR: 3.6–4.8 months) after first evaluation, and humoral and cell-mediated immunity (CMI) after a third vaccine dose in previous humoral non-responders. Immunity decay rates were compared using analysis of covariance in linear regression. Results 5.6 months (IQR: 5.1–6.7) after the second vaccination, we detected antispike IgG in 88% (29/33) and CMI in 44% (14/32) of patients with a humoral response after two-dose vaccination compared with 92% (24/26) healthy volunteers with antispike IgG and 69% (11/16) with CMI 6.8 months after the second vaccination (IQR: 6.0–7.1). Decay rates of antibody concentrations were comparable between patients and controls (p=0.70). In two-dose non-responders, a third SARS-CoV-2 vaccine elicited humoral responses in 19% (6/32) and CMI in 32% (10/31) participants. Conclusion This study reveals comparable immunity decay rates between patients with anti-CD20 treatments and healthy volunteers, but inefficient humoral or CMI after a third SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in most two-dose humoral non-responders calling for individually tailored vaccination strategies in this population. Trial registration number NCT04877496; ClinicalTrials.gov number.

Background: Serological tests are a powerful tool in the monitoring of infectious diseases and the detection of host immunity. However, manufacturers often provide diagnostic accuracy data generated through biased studies, and the performance in clinical practice is essentially unclear.Objectives: We aimed to determine the diagnostic accuracy of various serological testing strategies for (a) identification of patients with previous coronavirus disease‐2019 (COVID‐19) and (b) prediction of neutralizing antibodies against SARS‐CoV‐2 in real‐life clinical settings.Methods: We prospectively included 2573 consecutive health‐care workers and 1085 inpatients with suspected or possible previous COVID‐19 at a Swiss University Hospital. Various serological immunoassays based on different analytical techniques (enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assays, ELISA; chemiluminescence immunoassay, CLIA; electrochemiluminescence immunoassay, ECLIA; and lateral flow immunoassay, LFI), epitopes of SARS‐CoV‐2 (nucleocapsid, N; receptor‐binding domain, RBD; extended RBD, RBD+; S1 or S2 domain of the spike [S] protein, S1/S2), and antibody subtypes (IgG, pan‐Ig) were conducted. A positive real‐time PCR test from a nasopharyngeal swab was defined as previous COVID‐19. Neutralization assays with live SARS‐CoV‐2 were performed in a subgroup of patients to assess neutralization activity (n = 201).Results: The sensitivity to detect patients with previous COVID‐19 was ≥85% in anti‐N ECLIA (86.8%) and anti‐S1 ELISA (86.2%). Sensitivity was 84.7% in anti‐S1/S2 CLIA, 84.0% in anti‐RBD+LFI, 81.0% in anti‐N CLIA, 79.2% in anti‐RBD ELISA, and 65.6% in anti‐N ELISA. The specificity was 98.4% in anti‐N ECLIA, 98.3% in anti‐N CLIA, 98.2% in anti‐S1 ELISA, 97.7% in anti‐N ELISA, 97.6% in anti‐S1/S2 CLIA, 97.2% in anti‐RBD ELISA, and 96.1% in anti‐RBD+LFI.The sensitivity to detect neutralizing antibodies was ≥85% in anti‐S1 ELISA (92.7%), anti‐N ECLIA (91.7%), anti‐S1/S2 CLIA (90.3%), anti‐RBD+LFI (87.9%), and anti‐RBD ELISA (85.8%). Sensitivity was 84.1% in anti‐N CLIA and 66.2% in anti‐N ELISA. The specificity was ≥97% in anti‐N CLIA (100%), anti‐S1/S2 CLIA (97.7%), and anti‐RBD+LFI (97.9%). Specificity was 95.9% in anti‐RBD ELISA, 93.0% in anti‐N ECLIA, 92% in anti‐S1 ELISA, and 65.3% in anti‐N ELISA. Diagnostic accuracy measures were consistent among subgroups.Conclusions: The diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for SARS‐CoV‐2 antibodies varied remarkably in clinical practice, and the sensitivity to identify patients with previous COVID‐19 deviated substantially from the manufacturer's specifications. The data presented here should be considered when using such tests to estimate the infection burden within a specific population and determine the likelihood of protection against re‐infection.

Although mRNA-based vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 induce a robust immune response and prevent infections and hospitalizations, there are limited data on the antibody response in individuals with humoral immunodeficiency. The aim of this study was to evaluate the humoral immune response after two vaccine doses with BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 in patients with humoral immunodeficiency disease. This cross-sectional study assessed 39 individuals with hypogammaglobulinemia under immunoglobulin replacement therapy. IgG anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein antibodies (anti-S) were measured 4 weeks to 4 months after two doses of an mRNA vaccine against SARS-CoV-2. The proportion of patients, who developed a humoral immune response to the spike protein were evaluated and compared to 19 healthy controls. After vaccination with two vaccine doses, 26/39 patients (66.7%) with humoral immunodeficiency disease and all healthy controls developed anti-S. In subjects with baseline IgG <3 g/l, only 1/5 (20%) showed a humoral immune response. 10 out of 26 with CVID (38.5%) and 7/9 under immunosuppressive drugs (77.8%) developed no immune response (13 subjects with no response) compared to 0/19 in healthy controls. Subgroup analysis in patients without immunosuppressive drugs revealed lower anti-S in patients with moderate to severe humoral immunodeficiency disease: baseline IgG 5 g/l: 151.5 AU/ml (95%CI 109.0–400.0), healthy controls 250.0 AU/ml (95%CI 209.0–358.0), p = 0.007. In most patients with mild to moderate humoral immunodeficiency we found only slightly lower anti-S antibodies compared with healthy controls after two vaccine doses with BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273. However, in patients with a decreased baseline IgG below 3 g/l and/or under immunosuppressive drugs, we found severely impaired humoral immune responses.