2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
3 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Platelet trends after Covid‐19 vaccination in patients with chronic or persistent immune thrombocytopenia

      letter

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          To the Editor: The association between immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) and the Covid‐19 vaccine drew national attention when The New York Times reported in January 2021 that a Florida physician died from a hemorrhagic stroke after developing ITP within 2 weeks of vaccination. 1 Shortly thereafter, a review of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System database described 20 cases of Covid‐19 vaccine‐associated thrombocytopenia, including 1 with a prior history of known ITP. 2 These observations raised concerns regarding risks of ITP recrudescence with immunization and furthered hesitancy among patients with chronic ITP. Adherence to vaccinations against influenza and pneumococcus are known to be suboptimal in patients with autoimmune disease, and a recent survey of 1266 patients with autoimmune or inflammatory rheumatic disease reported that only 54.2% were willing to be vaccinated against Covid‐19. 3 In this context, hematologists have been tasked with providing clear messaging regarding benefits of vaccination and guidance on peri‐immunization platelet count monitoring. However, little data exist on platelet counts and rates of ITP exacerbation in the post‐immunization period among those with a history of chronic or persistent ITP. This single‐center retrospective observational study evaluates the platelet trends and clinical outcomes of 34 patients with chronic or persistent ITP after receiving a 2‐dose vaccination series against Covid‐19. Potential subjects were identified among patients evaluated at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, the outpatient hematology site for the University of Washington hospital system, with an ICD‐10 diagnosis code of D69.3 for “Immune thrombocytopenic purpura.” Eligible subjects were ≥ 18 years old with a diagnosis of ITP (established by both the patient's primary hematologist and the clinician performing chart review based on a negative workup for other causes of thrombocytopenia) for at least 3 months and chart documentation of Covid‐19 vaccination. Patients were excluded if no platelet counts were available within the year prior to vaccination, between dose 1 and dose 2 of vaccination, or within 6 weeks after dose 2. Medical records were abstracted for baseline demographics, ITP treatment history, Covid‐19 vaccine manufacturer and administration dates, and clinical events and medication changes occurring within 6 weeks after the second Covid‐19 vaccine dose. Platelet counts from the last check performed before vaccination (baseline) to 6 weeks after completion of the vaccination series were recorded. If multiple post‐vaccination platelet counts were obtained, the lowest value was used for analysis. Subjects were contacted to confirm vaccination details if these were not completely recorded within the electronic medical record. One subject was described in a previously published case report. 4 We also contributed data from this subject and 12 others to a multicenter retrospective observational study 5 ; outcomes in these subjects are described in additional detail and with further follow‐up data here. A total of 34 subjects were included. The average age was 60.3 years and 70.6% were female. The median baseline platelet count was 86 × 109/L [interquartile range (IQR) = 56.8–137.0 × 109/L] and 76.5% were receiving ITP‐directed therapy at the time of vaccination. Patients had been treated with a median of two second‐line therapies (IQR = 1.0–3.8) and 20.6% had a history of splenectomy. All received a 2‐dose vaccination series: 58.8% received Pfizer‐BioNTech Covid‐19 Vaccine and 41.2% received Moderna Covid‐19 Vaccine. On average, patients had their platelet count checked 2.8 times [standard deviation (SD) = 1.7] between dose 1 and dose 2 and 3.6 times (SD = 2.6) in the 6 weeks after dose 2. Following dose 1, there was a trend toward a decrease in platelet count with a median platelet nadir of 60 × 109/L (IQR = 36.0–126.5 × 109/L, p = .09). Platelet counts decreased by 20% or greater from baseline in 47.1%, stayed the same in 41.2%, and increased by 20% or greater in 11.8% (Figure 1A). After dose 2, median platelet nadir was not significantly different from baseline [80.5 × 109/L (IQR = 42.3–118.8 × 109/L), p = .29]. Overall, 44.1% had a decrease, 38.2% had no change, and 17.6% had an increase after dose 2 (Figure 1B). Platelet trends were not significantly different depending on the vaccine manufacturer. FIGURE 1 Waterfall plot of percent change in platelet count following Covid‐19 vaccination. Dotted lines demarcate 20% increase and decrease from baseline. (A) Three patients required intervention for thrombocytopenia occurring after dose 1. *Required rescue therapy with IVIg and increased dosing of avatrombopag and prednisone. #Received increased dosing of TPO‐RA. (B) Four patients required intervention for thrombocytopenia occurring after dose 2. ^ Treated with IVIg, increase in prednisone dose, and addition of second TPO‐RA. †Received anti‐D and increase in prednisone dose. #Received increased dosing of TPO‐RA Fourteen patients had a post‐vaccination platelet decrease resulting in a count of less than 50 × 109/L and four had a count less than 10 × 109/L. Platelet nadir below 50 × 109/L occurred after dose 1 in 50% (7/14), after dose 2 in 28.6% (4/14), and after both doses of vaccine in 21.4% (3/14). Six of the 14 and 3 of the 4 with platelet counts less than 50 × 109/L and 10 × 109/L, respectively, received intervention for post‐vaccination thrombocytopenia. The eight patients who did not receive intervention had a significantly lower median baseline compared to the overall cohort (50.5 × 109/L vs 86.0 × 109/L, p = .01) and platelet counts at last follow up remained stable from baseline at a median of 53 × 109/L (IQR 41.0–104.8 × 109/L). The patient who did not receive intervention for platelet count less than 10 × 109/L after vaccination had pre‐vaccination counts consistently in the single digits, with a baseline count of 5 × 109/L. Six subjects required adjustment of their existing ITP therapy or addition of new therapy because of post‐vaccination thrombocytopenia. Two patients had received dose‐reduction of their ITP therapy within 3 weeks prior to platelet nadir while the other four had been on stable dosing for several months. There were no significant differences in demographic or clinical characteristics between patients who required intervention and the overall cohort. The median time to platelet nadir was 5 days (IQR = 3.0–19.0 days). Two subjects developed World Health Organization Grade 1 mucocutaneous bleeding at platelet counts of 3 × 109/L and 15 × 109/L, respectively. None of the other patients noted symptoms and none were hospitalized during the study period. All were treated with increased intensity of existing ITP therapy: 4/6 received increase in thrombopoietin receptor agonist (TPO‐RA) dosing and 3/6 received increase in corticosteroid dosing (Figure 1A,B). In addition, one received intravenous immune globulin (IVIg), one received anti‐D, and one received IVIg with introduction of a second TPO‐RA. After a median follow‐up of 113.5 days from vaccination, two patients have returned to pre‐vaccination dosing, three are receiving their prior ITP‐directed therapy at slightly increased intensity, and one is receiving less intense therapy. Five patients required dose decreases during the study period: four underwent dose reduction of TPO‐RA and one was tapered off romiplostim. With the advent of widespread Covid‐19 vaccination, sporadic cases of immunization‐related ITP recrudescence raised safety concerns among those with a history of ITP. We report that among a cohort of patients managed at a tertiary care center for chronic or persistent ITP, half had a decrease in platelet count of 20% or more from baseline while half had no change or an increase. There was a trend toward a decrease in platelet count following dose 1 and no difference in platelet count following dose 2. Six patients (17.6%) required intervention, but for two of the six, worsening thrombocytopenia may have been related to recent dose adjustments. Nearly the same number received a reduction in the intensity of their ITP therapy during the study period. No patients experienced severe adverse events or required hospitalization during the study period. The study was limited by sample size given the rarity of ITP and the small number of patients (typically of older age) who had access to Covid‐19 vaccination in early 2021 and received post‐vaccination platelet count monitoring. In addition, this cohort consisted primarily of patients with active ITP and the close monitoring may have led to prompt intervention for post‐vaccination thrombocytopenia and curtailed the rate of adverse events. Little is known regarding the effect of vaccination in those with a history of ITP. Case reports and anecdotal accounts of vaccine‐associated ITP flare have been reported and are thought to result from an augmentation of a prior immune response. 4 A subset of 13 patients in this cohort were included in a multicenter retrospective observational study evaluating platelet trends following Covid‐19 immunization among those with a history of ITP. 5 Here, we corroborate findings that approximately half had a drop in platelet count following vaccination, but that intervention was required in a minority of cases. Further, with additional follow‐up data, our study demonstrates that adverse events were rare and platelet decreases were mostly transient. All six patients who received intervention in this study were successfully managed through a combination of increased intensity of existing ITP therapy and rescue therapy; half have returned to pre‐vaccination dosing or less intense therapy, while half are receiving prior ITP‐directed therapy at a slightly increased intensity. Among eight patients with moderate to severe baseline thrombocytopenia who experienced platelet decreases to a nadir below 50 × 109/L, all were successfully managed with close monitoring and had a median post‐vaccination platelet count that returned to baseline. CONFLICT OF INTEREST TG has received honoraria from Amgen, Dova Pharmaceuticals, and Novartis; has acted as a consultant for the Platelet Disorder Support Association, Amgen, Dova Pharmaceuticals, Biogen, Momenta, Sanofi, Vertex, Cellphire, Fujifilm, Rigel, Shionogi, and Principia; and has received research support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Principia, Rigel, and Cellphire. DJ, AJP, AW, and DG have no conflicts of interest to disclose. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS Data extraction was performed by Debbie Jiang and Amanda Weatherford. All authors contributed to the study design and interpretation of results. Debbie Jiang was responsible for drafting the manuscript and data analysis. Andrew Jay Portuguese, Amanda Weatherford, David Garcia, and Terry Gernsheimer contributed to critical revision. FUNDING INFORMATION National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, T32 HL007093.

          Related collections

          Most cited references5

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found

          Thrombocytopenia following Pfizer and Moderna SARS‐CoV ‐2 vaccination

          1 Cases of apparent secondary immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) after SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccination with both the Pfizer and Moderna versions have been reported and reached public attention. Public alarm was heightened following the death of the first identified patient from an intracranial hemorrhage, which was reported on the Internet, then in USA Today 1 and then in The New York Times. 2 Described below, we have collected a series of cases of very low platelet counts occurring within 2 weeks of vaccination in order to enhance our understanding of the possible relationship, if any, between SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccination and development of ITP with implications for surveillance and management. Twenty case reports of patients with thrombocytopenia following vaccination, 17 without pre‐existing thrombocytopenia and 14 with reported bleeding symptoms prior to hospitalization were identified upon review of data available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), agencies of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), published reports, 3 , 4 and via direct communication with patients and treating providers. These cases were investigated as suspicious for new onset, post‐vaccination secondary ITP; we could not exclude exacerbation of clinically undetected ITP. Search terms relating to “decreased platelet count”, “immune thrombocytopenia”, “hemorrhage”, “petechiae”, and “contusion” were utilized to identify cases reported in VAERS. The reports describing 19 of 20 patients included age (range 22–73 years old; median 41 years) and gender (11 females and 8 males). Nine received the Pfizer vaccine and 11 received the Moderna vaccine. All 20 patients were hospitalized and most patients presented with petechiae, bruising or mucosal bleeding (gingival, vaginal, epistaxis) with onset of symptoms between 1–23 days (median 5 days) post vaccination. Platelet counts at presentation were available for all 20 cases with the majority being at or below 10 × 109/L (range 1–36 × 109/L; median 2 × 109/L). One patient had known ITP in remission; another had mild–moderate thrombocytopenia in 2019 with note of positive anti‐platelet antibodies, a third had previous mild thrombocytopenia (145 × 109/L) while a fourth had inherited thrombocytopenia with baseline platelet counts of 40–60 × 109/L. Three other patients had known autoimmune conditions including hypothyroidism, Crohns disease, or positive tests for anti‐thyroglobulin antibodies. Treatment for suspected ITP was described in 15 of the cases, including corticosteroids n = 14, intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) n = 12, platelet transfusions n = 8, rituximab n = 2, romiplostim = 1, vincristine = 1, and aminocaproic acid (Amicar) n = 1; combination therapy was used in most patients. Initial outcomes were reported in 16 cases. An improvement in the platelet count was described in patients treated with platelet transfusion alone (n = 1), corticosteroids alone (n = 1), corticosteroids + platelet transfusion (n = 3), corticosteroids + IVIG (n = 3), corticosteroids + IVIG + platelet transfusion (n = 5), corticosteroids +IVIG + rituximab + vincristine + romiplostim (n = 1). The index patient passed away after a cerebral hemorrhage, as mentioned, notwithstanding having received emergent treatment with IVIG, steroids, rituximab and platelet transfusions. Another patient had no improvement in platelet counts after 3 days, but treatment details are not specified. Five additional patients with ”thrombocytopenia” or ”immune thrombocytopenia” post vaccination were identified in VAERS (last accessed 2/5/21), but either available information is insufficient for inclusion or the clinical scenarios suggest alternative processes contributing to thrombocytopenia. One 59 year‐old man was identified with ”thrombocytopenia” at an unspecified time after receiving the Pfizer vaccine without additional details regarding platelet count, clinical course, or treatment. A 44 year‐old woman was hospitalized for nausea, vomiting and chest pain on the day that she received the Pfizer vaccine. Her laboratory values included a platelet count of 85 × 109/L and a peak troponin level of 4 ng/mL (normal < = 0.04 ng/mL). The patient was diagnosed with myocarditis but did not require treatment for thrombocytopenia. Her platelets were 61 × 109/L on discharge, but subsequent platelet counts were not reported. The third is a patient without age or gender reported who was found to have thrombocytopenia, neutropenia and a pulmonary embolism at an unspecified time following the Pfizer vaccine. This patient was hospitalized and passed away; no additional details were available. A fourth patient, a 37‐year‐old man, had ”thrombocytopenia requiring hospitalization, meds and platelet infusion” 4 days following the Moderna vaccine with no details regarding presenting symptoms, platelet count, treatment or outcome. The last patient is an 80 year‐old man with multiple medical problems including recent transcatheter aortic valve replacement, hypothyroidism, and diverticulosis who presented 6 days after the Pfizer vaccine with bloody diarrhea, hemoglobin 8.7 g/dL and platelets 60 × 109/L. He received several units of packed red blood cells and two units of platelets with improvement to 101 × 109/L and was discharged 5 days later. There were a handful of reports with minimal additional details alluding to a male who passed away in December from brain hemorrhage following the Pfizer vaccine – these could be describing the index patient. We did not attempt to obtain information on patients with pre‐existing active ITP who received a SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccine for this report. We identified additional reports of post‐vaccination bruising or bleeding unrelated to the injection site, but no mention of platelet counts, or thrombocytopenia, was provided. Note, VAERS was last accessed on January 29, 2021 for this search. Fourteen patients reported ”petechiae”/”bruising” of whom three were evaluated in the office and one presented to the emergency room. There have been 51 reports of” bleeding”/”hemorrhage” (vaginal n = 11, conjunctival n = 13, cerebral n = 6, gingival n = 2, gastrointestinal n = 5, epistaxis n = 12, and cutaneous n = 2). There were 31 patients who did not seek additional evaluation, seven were seen via office visits, while 13 presented to the emergency room or were hospitalized. Two patients passed away in the hospital. No additional details are available. Are these case of primary ITP coincident with or secondary ITP as a result of vaccination? In either case, the clinical presentations and the favorable response to “ITP‐directed” therapies in most of the treated patients, such as corticosteroids and IVIG suggest an antibody‐mediated platelet clearance mechanism that is operative in ITP. Is the relationship between vaccination and thrombocytopenia coincident or causal? It is not surprising that 17 possible de novo cases would be detected among the well over 20 million people who have received at least one dose of these two vaccines in the United States as of February 2, 2021. This would be less than one case in a million vaccinated persons, consistent with the absence of cases seen in the more than 70 000 subjects enrolled in the combined Pfizer and Moderna vaccine trials. 5 , 6 If we assume that these reports identify 17 cases of secondary ITP that developed following vaccination, this extrapolates to 17 ×  6 (because only cases that occurred during the first 2 months [December 2020 – January 2021] following vaccine rollout are captured) × 15 to cover the fraction of the population that has been vaccinated [20 million of the 300+ million total US population]) = approximately 1500 cases of post‐vaccine secondary ITP/year. There are approximately 50 000 adults who are diagnosed with ITP in the US each year. If we explored the temporal relationship of the 17 cases occurring within 1‐2 weeks of vaccination, then we could extrapolate by multiplying by 26 or 52 weeks to look at the rate of ITP per year if the cases are totally ‘coincidental’. This would be approximately 39,000 to 78,000 cases of ITP per year which is not far from the estimated total baseline incidence per year. Thus, the incidence of an immune‐mediated thrombocytopenia post SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccination appears either less than or roughly comparable to what would be seen if the cases were coincidental following vaccination, perhaps enhanced somewhat by heightened surveillance of symptomatic patients. These estimates are very rough so this information should be considered very preliminary. It also assumes that all cases of clinically significant ITP are reported. The incidence of secondary ITP following other types of vaccines provides an inconsistent picture. It is estimated that approximately 1:40 000 children develop secondary ITP after receiving measles‐mumps‐rubella (MMR) vaccine. 7 Well‐documented cases of acquired immune thrombocytopenia have been reported after varicella and other vaccinations as well, including one described in this issue of the American Journal of Hematology following Shingrix recombinant Zoster vaccine. 8 , 9 , 10 On the other hand, the only case–controlled study of adult recipients of all vaccines published 10 years ago was interpreted as indicating no discernable increase in ITP within 1 year post vaccination. 11 In the absence of pre‐vaccination platelet counts and given the variable time post vaccination to discovery of thrombocytopenia, it is impossible to precisely estimate the incidence of secondary ITP post SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccination at this time. However, it is notable that all but one of the cases identified thus far occurred after the initial dose of SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccine. One would assume that if the vaccination was unrelated to development of ITP, case occurrences would divide more evenly between the two doses. It is also likely that the actual incidence of thrombocytopenia, including mild asymptomatic cases, may be higher and go unreported. Even in view of the uncertain relationship between SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccination and secondary ITP, it is worth considering possible mechanisms by which this might occur. Thrombocytopenia has been reported after treatment with some anti‐sense oligonucleotides, 12 , 13 but it would seem that a far higher, sustained level of RNA reaching dendritic cells in lymph nodes and elsewhere would be required to generate an immune response than is likely seen based on a single intramuscular injection. This is also inconsistent with the very rapid onset of thrombocytopenia in the index and additional cases. Another possibility is that some individuals may have pre‐formed antibodies, including those directed against poly‐ethylene‐glycol or to other components of the outer lipid layer of the nanoparticles. This presumes that antibodies directed against a novel antigen formed by attachment of vaccine particles on a small number of platelets trigger a reaction involving “all” platelets, which seems unlikely. Recent articles identified antibodies detected post Covid‐19 infection that activated platelets 14 and an ITP‐like syndrome following natural infection 15 , 16 ; both findings require confirmation and the relationship to the post vaccination ITP cases reported here is uncertain. Third, some patients may have had mild “compensated” thrombocytopenia of diverse causes, for example, pre‐existing ITP or hereditary thrombocytopenia. For example, one of the patients reported in this issue of the American Journal of Hematology had a documented borderline platelet count (145 × 109/L) 2 months prior to receipt of the vaccine raising the question of pre‐existing subclinical ITP. 3 The other patient reported in this issue of the American Journal of Hematology had chronic, hereditary thrombocytopenia, with a last known exacerbation 12 years prior to the present episode. 4 An additional patient identified in VAERS had platelets of 55–115 × 109/L in 2019. Severe thrombocytopenia in these patients or others may have been induced by enhancement of macrophage‐mediated clearance or impaired platelet production as part of a systemic inflammatory response to vaccination. 8 , 17 This is compatible with patients in whom severe thrombocytopenia was first noted 1–3 days post‐vaccination. Transient drops in platelet counts post vaccinations for influenza and other viruses is a not uncommon observation in patients with ITP and other causes of thrombocytopenia. Lastly, post‐vaccination ITP remains possible, especially in those with onset 1‐2 weeks after exposure. One patient in our series had a normal platelet count documented in the week prior to receipt of the vaccine and only developed symptomatology 13 days post vaccination compatible with vaccine related secondary ITP. The reported cases also provide insight into diagnosis and treatment. Most of the patients responded to treatment with corticosteroids and IVIG but showed little benefit from platelet transfusion, a pattern consistent with that of ITP. There was no response in the two patients treated with rituximab but they were only evaluable for up to 2 weeks; in addition, rituximab would impair the response to vaccination, if given within days to 2 weeks of the vaccination and for at least 4‐6 months subsequently. The first of two patients (with sufficient information available) continued to have a platelet count of 1–2 × 109/L and died of intracranial bleeding 16 days post vaccination and 13 days post presentation of ITP despite receiving platelet transfusions, steroids, IVIG, and rituximab. The second patient presented 1 day after vaccination and still had a count of 1 × 109/L 7 days later despite receiving the same combination of the four ITP treatments; however, she responded following addition of vincristine and romiplostim. The suggestion might be (from this very limited information) to give IVIG and high dose steroids as initial treatment. If this does not work and the platelet count remains very low, it would seem appropriate to institute other treatments within the first week including a thrombopoietic agent perhaps starting above the lowest dose often recommended to initate therapy and potentially vinca alkaloids depending upon response. Excluding rituximab from initial treatment seems appropriate in most cases given that response can take up to 8 weeks 18 and response to vaccination can be impaired. Once a platelet response is seen, patients could be managed as if they were typical cases of primary ITP. Whether such cases will prove to be self‐limiting or persist and lead to chronic ITP remains uncertain. In summary, we cannot exclude the possibility that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines have the potential to trigger de novo ITP (including clinically undiagnosed cases), albeit very rarely. Distinguishing vaccine‐induced ITP from coincidental ITP presenting soon after vaccination is impossible at this time. Additional surveillance is needed to determine the true incidence of thrombocytopenia post vaccination. If the incidence of thrombocytopenia post vaccination is higher than that based on available case reports, we anticipate that many more cases will be reported in the coming weeks as a higher proportion of the population is vaccinated. It may be worthwhile to see whether exacerbations of other conditions considered to have an autoimmune pathophysiology occur as well to gain a better understanding of host response to vaccination. Notwithstanding these concerns, the incidence of symptomatic thrombocytopenia post vaccination is well below the risk of death and morbidity from SARS‐CoV‐2 infection as also described on the Platelet Disorder Support Association (PDSA) website in the statement from the Medical Advisory Board. We echo recommendations from the PDSA and the American Society of Hematology that strongly encourage reporting this and other potential complications through VAERS and in any other way deemed appropriate. Finally, we recommend immediately checking a platelet count in anyone who reports abnormal bleeding or bruising following vaccination and consulting a hematologist. Management of vaccination in patients with pre‐existing ITP is complex and is not explored here. The opinion of the Medical Advisory Board of PDSA is that in most, but not necessarily all, patients the benefit of vaccination exceeds the risk of exacerbating ITP. At this time, for patients with ITP it appears reasonable to obtain a baseline count before vaccination and then obtain additional platelet count(s) following vaccination based on patient clinical and treatment history. In patients who present with severe thrombocytopenia soon after vaccination in the absence of other likely causes, we believe it would be appropriate to pursue aggressive treatment for presumed ITP. Whether to administer a second dose of vaccine or whether a change to a different vaccine is warranted in patients who develop thrombocytopenia or substantial worsening of pre‐existing thrombocytopenia with the initial dose requires further study. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS Eun‐Ju Lee, James B Bussel, and Douglas B Cines contributed to the data acquisition, interpretation of data and wrote the manuscript. Terry Gernsheimer, Craig Kessler, Marc Michel, Michael D Tarantino, John W Semple, Donald M Arnold, Bertrand Godeau, Michele P Lambert provided input on the manuscript and approved the final version for submission. 2 CONFLICT OF INTEREST E.L., and J.W.S. declare no conflict of interest. D.B.C. has received relevant research support from Alexion and Aplagon, and served as a consultant to Rigel, Dova, and CSL Behring. T.G. has received honoraria from Amgen; has acted as a consultant for Amgen, Dova Pharmaceuticals, Biogen, Cellphire, Fujifilm, Rigel, Shionogi, and Principia; and has received research support from Principia. C.K. has served on advisory boards for Novartis, Rigel, Dova, Pfizer. M.M. has received research support from GSK, and received fees from LFB. M.D.T. has received research funding from Grifols and Novo Nordisk; is on advisory boards for Biogen, Grifols, Kedrion, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Takeda; is a speaker for Amgen, Grifols, Octapharma, and Takeda; and reviews grants for Pfizer. D.M.A. has received research funding from Novartis, Bristol‐Myers Squibb, and Rigel and has acted as a consultant for Novartis, Principia, and Rigel. B.G. served as an expert for Amgen, Novartis, LFB and Roche; has received research support from Amgen and Roche. M.P.L. has served on advisory boards for Octapharma and Shionogi, has acted as a consultant for Amgen, Novartis, Shionogi, Dova, Principia, Argenx, Rigel and Bayer, and has received research funding from Sysmex, Novartis, Rigel and Astra Zeneca. J.B.B. has served on advisory boards and/or consulted for Amgen, Novartis, Dova, Rigel, UCB, Argenx, Momenta, Regeneron, RallyBio, and CSL‐Behring. FUNDING INFORMATION None. 3 Supporting information Table S1: Patients with reported thrombocytopenia post SARS/CoV‐2 vaccination Click here for additional data file.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Vaccination against COVID-19: Expectations and concerns of patients with autoimmune and rheumatic diseases

            Vaccination is an important and effective tool to prevent infections in the general population, as well as in patients with autoimmune and inflammatory rheumatic diseases. It has been well established that influenza and pneumococcal vaccination rates do not reach recommended levels in this target population, despite specific guidelines.1, 2 Vaccine uptake has been negatively associated with low knowledge of vaccines and unfavorable attitudes towards vaccination in general. 2 We did an international study (VAccinations against COVid-19 [VAXICOV]) to explore the feelings of patients and health-care professionals regarding COVID-19 vaccination. Our main objective was to describe the expectations and potential concerns related to COVID-19 vaccination of patients with systemic autoimmune or inflammatory rheumatic diseases and health-care professionals. The study consisted of 57 web-based questions that addressed epidemiological, socio-demographic, and therapeutic elements associated with expectations and potential concerns regarding COVID-19 vaccination. The study targeted patients with a self-reported diagnosis of systemic autoimmune or inflammatory rheumatic diseases and health-care professionals. Health-care professionals were the control group and had no systemic autoimmune or inflammatory rheumatic diseases. Dissemination of the study was ensured through social media and mailings via patient associations and various medical societies (not only limited to rheumatologists) between Dec 12 and Dec 21, 2020. The study was approved by the ethics review board of Strasbourg (#CE-2020–199), and respondents gave their consent to participate to the study. Full methods are detailed in the appendix (p 4–5). The study included 1531 participants (1291 [84·3%] women vs 240 [15·7%] men; median age 53 [40–64] years for men vs 48 [38-59] years for women), from 56 countries (appendix pp 1–2). Among the participants, 1266 (82·7%) were patients with systemic autoimmune or inflammatory rheumatic diseases and 265 (17·3%) were health-care professionals (including, 203 physicians). The most common inflammatory or autoimmune conditions were systemic lupus erythematosus (492 [38·9%] of 1266), spondyloarthritis (176 [13·9%]), and rheumatoid arthritis (160 [12·6%]; appendix p 1). On a 0 (not at all in agreement) to 10 (full agreement) scale, patients reported being afraid to get infected by SARS-CoV-2 with a median score of 8 (IQR 6–10) and to develop severe COVID-19 with a median score of 9 (7–10) whereas health-care professionals had median scores of 5 (3–8) and 5 (1–8), respectively (appendix p 1). The proportion of patients with systemic autoimmune or inflammatory rheumatic diseases willing to get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 was 54·2% (686/1266; uncertainty was reported in 32·2% [408/1266] and unwillingness to get vaccinated in 13·6% [172/1266]; appendix p 1). Patients with systemic autoimmune or inflammatory rheumatic diseases reported wanting to get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 to protect themselves (850 [67·1%] of 1266 patients), their relatives (686 [54·2%] of 1266), and the general population (791 [62·5%] of 1266) in priority. The willingness to get vaccinated was slightly lower in women than in men (89 [71.2%] of 125 men vs 597 (52.3%) of 1141 women; relative risk [RR] 0·93 [95%CI 0·89–0·98], p=0·02) and increased significantly with age (p<0·0001). Also, vaccine willingness was strongly associated with the fear of being infected by SARS-CoV-2 (p<0·0001) and the fear to get severe COVID-19 (p<0·0001). The most trusted health-care professional regarding the recommendation to get vaccinated against COVID-19 for 855 (67·5%) of 1266 patients was their specialist (eg, rheumatologist or internist) and for 244 (19·3%) of 1266 patients was their general practitioner. The willingness to get vaccinated increased to 62·8% (795/1266; with uncertainty declining to 28·4% [360/1266] and unwillingness to 8·8% [111/1266]) when vaccination was recommended by a physician. Importantly, the willingness to get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 was significantly higher in those who had been vaccinated against influenza at least once in the last 3 years than those who had not (593 [88·8%] of 668 for vaccination and 93 [48·9%] of 190 against vaccination; RR 1·98 [95%CI 1·67–2·36]; p<0·0001) or had received the pneumococcal vaccine in the last 5 years than those who had not (339 [84·8%] of 400 for vaccination and 289 [74·1%] of 390 against vaccination; RR 1·43 [1·16–1·77]; p=0·0002), but not with the presence of comorbidities additional to age and systemic autoimmune or inflammatory rheumatic diseases (330 [80·5%] of 410 for patients with at least an additional comorbidity vs 356 [79·5%] of 448 for those without additional comorbidity; RR 1·03 [0·87–1·24]; p=0·71) nor with the immunocompromised status (417 [80·0%] of 521 for immunocompromised patients vs 269 [79·8%] of 337 for non-immunocompromised patients; RR 1·01 [0·88–1·15]; p=0.94). Additional associations are shown in appendix (p 3). The proportion of health-care professionals willing to get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 was 74·0% (196/265; uncertainty was reported in 18·1% [48/265] and unwillingness to get vaccinated in 7·9% [21/265]). Vaccine hesitancy was observed in 22·3% (59/265; appendix p 1). Health-care professionals willing to get vaccinated reported that they wanted to protect themselves (128 [48·3%] of 265) and people at-risk (110 [41·5%] of 265), but more importantly to protect their relatives (160 [60·4%] 265) and the general population (161 [60·8%] of 265). The willingness to get vaccinated was significantly lower in women than in men (98 [86·0%] in 114 women vs 98 [95·1%] in 103 men; RR 0·66 [95%CI 0·50–0·87]; p=0·02) and increased significantly with age. Vaccine willingness in health-care professionals was associated with the fear of getting severe COVID-19 (p=0·02), but not with fear of being infected by SARS-CoV-2 (p=0·25) and was significantly increased in health-care professionals who had been vaccinated against influenza at least once in the last 3 years (177 [92·2%] of 192 for vaccination vs 19 [76·0%] of 25 against vaccination; RR 1·26 [0·96–1·66]; p=0·01). One of the main findings of the VAXICOV study is that the proportion of patients with systemic autoimmune or inflammatory rheumatic diseases willing to get vaccinated against COVID-19 was moderate in a generally at-risk population. Of note, uncertainty was reported by 402 (31·8%) of 1266 patients, which suggests that vaccine willingness could be increased using appropriate measures. Vaccine willingness increased significantly with age and was significantly associated with the fear, but not with the presence of additional comorbidities or with the immunocompromised status. These results show that a significant proportion of patients with systemic autoimmune or inflammatory rheumatic diseases who are at risk of severe COVID-19 3 do not perceive themselves as such, and highlight the importance of increasing patient education in this context. Among the main concerns reported by patients were the scarcity of experience and background information regarding new COVID-19 vaccines, the use of a new technology (eg, mRNA vaccines) that has never been used before, the possible induction of a flare of their disease, and the risk to develop a local reaction or side-effects (appendix p 3). Importantly, the willingness to get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 increased when vaccination was recommended by a physician, and the most trusted health-care professionals was the specialist physician. These data show the crucial and timely role of rheumatologists in vaccination uptake. Although there could be a selection bias with regard to people who would be more likely to respond to such a questionnaire, overall the participation of more than 1200 patients worldwide is probably a reasonable reflection of the state of mind of patients with systemic autoimmune or inflammatory rheumatic diseases. Another important finding of the VAXICOV study is that vaccine unwillingness was low among health-care professionals. Although patients with systemic autoimmune or inflammatory rheumatic diseases would like to get vaccinated primarily to protect themselves against COVID-19 before any other reason, health-care professionals would like to get vaccinated to protect the general population. Among the main concerns reported by health-care professionals was the scarcity of experience and background information regarding new COVID-19 vaccines suggesting the importance of communicating, largely about the results of ongoing phase 3 vaccine studies. The completion of this study in less than 2 weeks confirms the feasibility of using social media for sampling large cohorts of patients with systemic autoimmune or inflammatory rheumatic diseases and real-time assessment of behaviours associated with important health issues in specific populations. Data from the VAXICOV study are crucial to understand the main expectations and concerns regarding COVID-19 vaccination in patients with systemic autoimmune or inflammatory rheumatic diseases and health-care workers and to allow the identification of valuable strategies to increase vaccine coverage in those populations.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Autoimmune- and complement-mediated hematologic condition recrudescence following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination

              A variety of autoimmune disorders have been reported after viral illnesses and specific vaccinations. Cases of de novo immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) have been reported after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, although its effect on preexisting ITP has not been well characterized. In addition, although COVID-19 has been associated with complement dysregulation, the effect of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination on preexisting complementopathies is poorly understood. We sought to better understand SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-induced recurrence of autoimmune- and complement-mediated hematologic conditions. Three illustrative cases were identified at the University of Washington Medical Center and the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance from January through March 2021. We describe the recrudescence of 2 autoimmune conditions (ITP and acquired von Willebrand Disease [AvWD]/acquired hemophilia A) and 1 complementopathy (paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria [PNH]). We report the first known case of AvWD/acquired hemophilia A, and describe the first PNH exacerbation in the absence of complement inhibition after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Although SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-induced ITP is a known concern, our case clearly depicts how thrombocytopenia in the setting of preexisting ITP can sequentially worsen with each vaccine dose. Based on our experiences and these examples, we provide considerations for how to monitor and assess risk in patients with underlying autoimmune- and complement-mediated hematologic conditions. • Severe exacerbation of underlying hematologic conditions can occur within 1 to 4 days after dose 2 of a 2-dose SARS-CoV-2 vaccine series. • A mild exacerbation after dose 1 and/or a history of vaccine-related adverse events may portend a more serious event after dose 2.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                dcjiang@uw.edu
                Journal
                Am J Hematol
                Am J Hematol
                10.1002/(ISSN)1096-8652
                AJH
                American Journal of Hematology
                John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (Hoboken, USA )
                0361-8609
                1096-8652
                19 October 2021
                01 December 2021
                19 October 2021
                : 96
                : 12 ( doiID: 10.1002/ajh.v96.12 )
                : E472-E474
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Division of Hematology University of Washington Seattle Washington USA
                [ 2 ] Seattle Cancer Care Alliance Seattle Washington USA
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Debbie Jiang, 1100 Fairview Ave N, D5‐100, Seattle, WA 98109, USA.

                Email: dcjiang@ 123456uw.edu

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2978-3585
                Article
                AJH26366
                10.1002/ajh.26366
                8616807
                34619804
                64587894-16d4-469c-9d78-7d374d540207
                © 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.

                This article is being made freely available through PubMed Central as part of the COVID-19 public health emergency response. It can be used for unrestricted research re-use and analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source, for the duration of the public health emergency.

                History
                : 27 September 2021
                : 08 September 2021
                : 04 October 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 0, Pages: 31, Words: 1948
                Funding
                Funded by: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute , doi 10.13039/100000050;
                Award ID: T32 HL007093
                Categories
                Correspondence
                Correspondences
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                1 December 2021
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.0.9 mode:remove_FC converted:06.12.2021

                Hematology
                Hematology

                Comments

                Comment on this article