1. Introduction
Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is associated with abnormalities in the humoral and cellular immune responses. These changes, associated both with the immunosuppressive therapy needed to control disease manifestations and with active disease itself, are predisposing factors for greater susceptibility to infections and progression to serious outcomes of such infections [1,2]. Several previous studies have shown that infections are the leading cause of both early and late mortality in patients with SLE [3,4].
Individuals with SLE have an approximately sixfold risk of serious infections compared to the general population [5]. Since the emergence of COVID-19, the infection caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus has been a cause of great concern for this vulnerable population. Among immune-mediated rheumatic diseases, SLE is associated with some of the most severe manifestations of SARS-CoV-2 infection and some of the highest hospitalization rates for COVID-19 [6,7]. Data from previous studies during pre-vaccination waves suggest hospitalization rates of around 20%, with one reporting a rate of over 50% [8,9].
Immunization is one of the most effective tools for preventing infections as a public health strategy, contributing to a reduced incidence of serious cases of infectious diseases and, consequently, reducing interpersonal spread [10]. Patients with immune-mediated rheumatic diseases exhibit different degrees of immunosuppression depending on their therapeutic regimen, their level of disease activity, and the manifestations of their disease [11]. Live-attenuated vaccines are generally contraindicated in this patient population due to the risk of the small amount of live virus particles present inducing uncontrolled infection, but they may be considered in selected patients with a lower degree of immunosuppression and a favorable risk–benefit ratio. Conversely, inactivated vaccines are recommended for use in immunosuppressed patients, preferably before starting immunosuppressive therapy [12,13].
Data on vaccine response in SLE are controversial. The immune response to vaccines and their real-world effectiveness are affected by several host factors. Therefore, immunogenicity is hypothesized to be lower in patients with SLE. A previous meta-analysis that evaluated the efficacy of the influenza vaccine demonstrated lower immunogenicity in individuals with SLE when compared to healthy controls, although the level of immunity achieved was still considered protective [14].
Concerns regarding vaccine efficacy in these patients were amplified for SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, which underwent a fast-tracked emergency marketing authorization process and were developed on a wide range of different platforms. Given these uncertainties, the objective of this study was to evaluate the magnitude of the humoral response and the real-world immunogenicity of these vaccines in individuals with SLE.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design and Population
This study evaluated patients with SLE included in the multicenter Study of Safety, Effectiveness and Duration of Immunity after Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in Patients with Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases (SAFER), a Brazilian observational, prospective, phase IV cohort study started in June/2021 and completed in March/2024. Patients were enrolled from June/2021 to September/2021 and followed for 4 weeks post receiving the third vaccine dose. Patients over 18 years of age who met the 2019 American College of Rheumatology/European Alliance of Rheumatology Associations (ACR/EULAR) classification criteria for SLE [15] and who had received any SARS-CoV-2 vaccine as recommended in the Brazilian National Immunization Plan were included. The exclusion criteria were history of previous adverse vaccine reaction, pregnancy, and immunosuppression for any other reason (HIV, organ transplantation, malignancy).
The included patients received a complete vaccination schedule (2-dose regimen plus booster) against SARS-CoV-2 with vaccines approved by the Brazilian Health Surveillance Agency, namely CoronaVac (inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine), ChAdOx-1 (AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK), and BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech, Mainz, Germany). All vaccine doses were administered as indicated by a medical professional under supervision.
Patients were evaluated in person at different time points before and after vaccine exposure (baseline, T1; before the 2nd and 3rd dose, T2 and T3, respectively; four weeks after the 3rd dose, T4; twelve weeks after the 3rd dose, T5; twenty-four weeks after the 3rd dose, T6; and 1 year after the 3rd dose, T7), and by telephone monitoring conducted in the intervals between in-person visits (Figure 1).
2.2. Variables of Interest
Demographic data (age, sex, and race), comorbidities, and history of COVID-19 infection prior to vaccination were recorded at the baseline visit. Disease activity score (SLEDAI-2K)—categorized into remission (SLEDAI-2K = 0), low activity (SLEDAI-2K 1–5), or moderate-to-high activity (SLEDAI 2K > 6)—and degree of immunosuppression were recorded at the baseline and subsequent assessments. The degree of immunosuppression was assessed following the recommendations of the Brazilian Society of Rheumatology, consistent with the risk of infectious events conferred by each medication (Box 1) [16].
Box 1Position of the Brazilian Society of Rheumatology (SBR) regarding the degree of immunosuppressants of immunobiologicals.
Patients considered not immunosuppressed
no drugs
use of sulfasalazine or hydroxychloroquine
using topical, inhaled, intra-articular corticosteroids
Patients considered to be under low degree of immunosuppression
methotrexate ≤ 20 mg/week
leflunomide dose of 20 g daily
Patients considered to be under a high degree of immunosuppression
daily corticosteroids in doses ≥ 10 mg/day of prednisone or equivalent for more than 14 days
pulse therapy with methylprednisolone
mycophenolic acid, cyclosporine, tacrolimus, cyclophosphamide, azathioprine
JAK inhibitors (small molecules)
immunobiologicals
Biological specimens were collected at all visits to measure the serologic response to vaccination, assessed by chemiluminescence methods. The Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S immunoassay (Roche, Basel, Switzerland), validated by the World Health Organization, was used. A cut-off index (COI) ≥ 1.0 U/mL was defined as positive [17].
The surveillance of symptomatic COVID-19 cases was carried out remotely, periodically (every 2 weeks), or reactively. Patients who developed symptoms consistent with COVID-19 for up to 1 month after their last vaccine dose were advised to undergo nasal swab collection for PCR testing; the outcomes were monitored by the study team.
The date of vaccine administration and type of vaccine administered were recorded and categorized by the vaccine platform of the first 2 doses. For cases of COVID-19, clinical presentation, date of symptom onset, and duration and severity of infection were assessed.
Data from all participating centers were entered into a unified electronic platform (REDCap—Research Electronic Data Capture,
2.3. Statistical Analysis
Analyses were performed using Stata (v.17) and R (v.4.2.0) software. For all tests, statistical significance was accepted at the 5% level and 95% confidence intervals were calculated.
We performed a descriptive analysis of demographic data, comorbidities, disease activity score, and degree of immunosuppression (using the definition recommended by the Brazilian Society of Rheumatology), stratified by vaccine platform. For categorical variables, proportions between groups were compared using the chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests. For continuous variables, proportions between groups were expressed as means and standard deviations or medians and interquartile ranges, as appropriate. We analyzed these variables using ANOVA and the Wilcoxon test (2 groups) or Kruskal–Wallis test (>2 groups), respectively.
Humoral immunogenicity data were evaluated as the seroconversion rate by vaccine group, according to collection time and treatment type. Within each group, we compared the proportions of seroconversion as well as the geometric means of the antibody titers. For the analysis of IgG titers, data were normalized by log10-transformation. The analysis of normalized IgG titers over time was then performed using the nonparametric Wilcoxon/Mann–Whitney test with Bonferroni correction. A multivariate (linear) regression model for IgG titers was adjusted for disease activity and degree of immunosuppression.
2.4. Ethical Aspects
The study was submitted to the National Research Ethics Commission for approval (CAAE 43479221.0.1001.5505) and to the Research Ethics Committees of all participating centers, and was conducted in accordance with the applicable guidelines and standards that regulate research on human subjects. All participants signed an Informed Consent Form (ICF) after being informed of the objective and protocol of the study.
All biosafety guidelines and Good Clinical Laboratory Practices were followed.
3. Results
The present study included a total of 445 patients with SLE, of whom 235 patients over 18 years of age completed a three-dose COVID-19 vaccination schedule (Figure 2).
Of these, 210 (89.3%) were women and 25 (10.6%) were men, with an average age of 38 years. All individuals were Brazilian. Regarding ethnicity/skin color, 109 (46.3%) self-identified as brown and 87 (37%) as white. The median of disease duration was 10 years (interquartile range 5–16 years). In this group, 39.1% of individuals had no other comorbidities. Among patients reporting comorbidities, 27.2% had hypertension and 11.4% had obesity; other comorbidities were hypothyroidism, osteonecrosis, and dyslipidemia. According to the SLEDAI-2K score, most patients (72.4%) were in remission or had low disease activity. Regarding the severity of immunosuppression, 135 (58.1%) had a high degree of immunosuppression and 70 (30.1%) were not immunosuppressed [Table 1]. Concerning pharmacotherapy, 82.5% of patients were on hydroxychloroquine; among immunosuppressants, azathioprine and mycophenolate were equally common (22.98%). Approximately 50% of patients were on oral glucocorticoids, most (48.2%) at doses of up to 5 mg per day (Table 2).
Regarding vaccine platforms and immunization schedules, 116 patients received two doses of CoronaVac followed by one dose of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine, 87 received two doses of ChAdOx1-S (AstraZeneca) followed by one dose of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine, and 32 received three doses of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine.
Considering immunogenicity data, within the 4-week follow-up period after the booster dose of vaccine, there were 22 incident cases of COVID-19 in patients with respiratory symptoms diagnosed more than 15 days after their third dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine: 12 cases (10.34%) with patients that received two doses of CoronaVac followed by one dose of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine, 8 cases (9.20%) with patients that received two doses of ChAdOx1-S (AstraZeneca) followed by one dose of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine, and 2 cases (6.25%) with patients that received three doses of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine. Four cases of COVID-19 were diagnosed 15 days after the first dose of vaccine. No difference in the rate of incident cases was found among the different vaccination schedules (Table 3).
Among patients diagnosed with COVID-19, the majority presented with mild symptoms of fatigue, weakness, changes in smell and taste, cough, and shortness of breath not meeting criteria for severity. Of the 28 infected patients, only 4 sought medical attention; all were seen at urgent care facilities and did not require hospitalization.
The analysis of the immunogenicity data showed an increase in seroconversion rate after the vaccine doses were administered, with no difference between vaccination schedules. Seropositivity was 39.47% at enrollment and 97.57% after the booster dose. Regarding IgG antibody titers (log-transformed), increases in geometric mean IgG titers were seen after each dose in the different vaccination schedules (log 1.86 at enrollment to log 7.06 after the third dose). Antibody titers after the first and the second dose varied between the different vaccine platforms: log 4.37 for CoronaVac, log 6.30 for ChAdOx-1, and log 7.09 for BNT162b2 (p < 0.001), with a statistically significant difference demonstrating the superiority of schedules containing ChAdOx-1 (AstraZeneca) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) over CoronaVac (p < 0.001). However, after the third dose, IgG titers were similar across all vaccination schedules (p = 0.68) (Table 4).
An analysis excluding individuals with prior COVID-19 infection was conducted (N = 138). A seropositivity rate of 96% was observed after the booster dose. No statistically significant differences were found among different vaccine platforms after the first and second doses (p = 0.32). Regarding the geometric mean titer increase in IgG, the increase was independent of the vaccine platform, with a log increase from 0.49 at baseline to 6.72 after the third dose. However, the increase was lower for individuals who initially received the inactivated virus vaccine (CoronaVac) compared to those who received ChAdOx-1 (AstraZeneca) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) after the second dose of the initial vaccine regimen, with log increases of 3.78 (1.93), 5.65 (2.06), and 6.60 (2.26), respectively (p < 0.001) (Figure 3).
Box plots show the distribution of log-transformed IgG titers over time. Y-axis: logarithm of IgG titers (Log10IgG titer); X-axis: vaccination schedule (combination of vaccines); boxes: represent the distribution of IgG titers for each vaccine group (mean and SD); lines (whiskers): minimum and maximum values, excluding outliers.
In the multivariate linear regression model, considering immunogenicity (IgG titer after the third dose of the vaccine) as the outcome variable, there is a tendency for both disease activity and the degree of immunosuppression to be associated with a reduction in IgG titers; however, none of the associations are statistically significant (p > 0.05%). Thus, there was no association between disease activity or degree of immunosuppression and anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG titers after the third (booster) dose of vaccine in patients with SLE (p > 0.05%) (Table 5).
Considering the immunosuppressive drugs most frequently used in these patients, an analysis of seroconversion by specific immunosuppressive drug use at inclusion demonstrated that, after the second and third doses, individuals using mycophenolate had a significantly higher proportion of non-seroconversion (p = 0.005 and p = 0.011, respectively), with a seropositivity rate of 80% after the second dose and 91.8% after the third dose. There was no significant difference in the seroconversion rate between the groups using methotrexate or azathioprine (Table 6).
4. Discussion
The present study demonstrated high immunogenicity against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with SLE after a complete vaccination schedule (two doses + one booster dose), regardless of the vaccine platform administered. This is one of the first studies to evaluate the response to different immunization schemes—CoronaVac (inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine), ChAdOx-1 (AstraZeneca), and BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech)—with an added booster dose in this patient population. Among the 235 patients with SLE included, an increase in antibody titers was observed after vaccination, with a seropositivity rate of 97.57% following a complete vaccination schedule, demonstrating a greater induction of humoral immunity when compared to a one- or two-dose homologous vaccination schedules. Furthermore, this prospective longitudinal study was also able to demonstrate the medium-term real-life effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in patients with an immune-mediated rheumatic disease.
Vaccination is a public health strategy to reduce mortality from infectious diseases at the population level. Before a vaccine can be recommended, its efficacy and effectiveness must be assessed; however, the measurement of these parameters in many population subgroups, including patients with immune-mediated rheumatic diseases, is severely limited by their exclusion from phase III trials [7]. Studies evaluating the incidence of hospitalization due to COVID-19 in patients with SLE demonstrated a risk approximately three times higher compared to the general population [18]. Our prospective cohort found 28 incident cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection, with a higher number of cases observed among patients who initially received CoronaVac, but without a statistically significant difference compared to other vaccine platforms; however, all were mild respiratory tract infections, with no hospitalizations or deaths, demonstrating a change from the pre-vaccination scenario in which a higher risk of unfavorable outcomes and mortality was observed in patients with SLE [19]. This was also reported in cohort studies comparing the outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated SLE patients relative to the general population [20]. Therefore, our findings corroborate the existing data on the protective effect of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and provide further evidence of the importance of vaccination in patients with SLE. Regarding the still high number of cases, we point out that this increase evidenced after the third vaccine dose (booster dose) coincided with the period of circulation of the Delta variant in Brazil, a strain that is known to have greater infectivity compared to the original strain [21,22].
The immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with immune-mediated diseases has been the object of several studies since the first stages of development of the different COVID-19 vaccine platforms. However, the recommendation for the vaccination of patients with SLE was initially empirical [23]. A recent meta-analysis demonstrated a seropositivity rate of 81.1% in SLE patients who were vaccinated against COVID-19, a lower rate than that found in our study, in which seropositivity rose from 39.47% at enrollment to 97.57% after the completion of any vaccination schedule. This apparent superiority is mainly attributable to the studies included in the meta-analysis, which mostly evaluated outcomes after two doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine; only two studies involving a booster-dose schedule were included [24].
On comparing the different vaccine platforms, we observed a smaller increase in IgG titers in patients who received the CoronaVac vaccine after the first and second doses. This finding is in line with previous studies of live inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine platforms, in which a seroconversion rate of 70.4% was found in patients with immune-mediated diseases (versus 95.5% in the control group), as well as a lower increase in IgG titers [25].
The degree of immunosuppression in patients with SLE and their degree of disease activity are factors that may be related to the blunting of the vaccine response in these individuals. However, we found no such association after multivariate analysis. This is in contrast with data from previous studies in which immunosuppression was found to have an impact on the vaccine response, especially in patients receiving mycophenolic acid, glucocorticoids, and rituximab [26,27]. On analysis of these findings, we believe that the lack of difference in vaccine response in relation to the degree of immunosuppression is attributable to the fact that our study analyzed patients after they had received a booster dose, unlike previous studies that conducted outcome assessments after a two-dose schedule. The significant increase in humoral immunity in patients with an otherwise suboptimal response due to their degree of immunosuppression was also observed in another cohort that evaluated the effect of a booster dose in patients with immune-mediated disease who had received a homologous vaccination schedule with an inactivated virus or adenovirus vector vaccine [28]. On the other hand, when we analyzed seropositivity rates by the specific drug used at inclusion, we found that individuals who used mycophenolate had a significantly higher proportion of non-seroconversion. The results of this study suggest that the use of mycophenolate may be associated with a lower seroconversion rate, indicating a possible interference with the immune response, similar to findings previously described in the literature [29].
Our study has some limitations inherent to observational cohort designs. Although cases of COVID-19 infection were recorded before the vaccination period, some asymptomatic cases may have occurred during the intervals between vaccine doses, thus contributing to an increase in seropositivity in these patients. In an attempt to mitigate this effect, participants were contacted periodically by telephone so that they would not underestimate mild symptoms and thus fail to undergo confirmatory diagnostic testing.
Other important limitations of our study are related to the absence of a control group of a healthy population to compare the difference in the humoral response in patients with lupus in relation to the general population. Furthermore, our study only evaluated humoral immunity and did not extend to evaluating the impact on cellular immunity, which appears to play an important role in viral infections. Finally, as another limitation, we point out that this study only evaluated seropositivity based on IgG serology and not through neutralizing antibodies.
The strengths of this study are several, and include the number of participants enrolled, the length of follow-up, and the real-world setting; as it was conducted following the recommendations of health agencies during the pandemic, it provides an accurate picture of the response to a boosted vaccination schedule, as was recommended at the time for high-risk subgroups.
5. Conclusions
In conclusion, this study demonstrated the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus receiving immunosuppressive therapy, confirming the importance of a complete (two-dose) vaccination schedule followed by a booster dose, which was associated with a significant increase in humoral immunity—especially for patients who received initial vaccination with a live inactivated vaccine.
Methodology, N.S.S., O.A.M.-F., V.P.-M., V.V., E.I.S., A.T.-C., V.A.d.S., G.A.F., E.T.d.R.-N., M.d.M.P., R.M.X., G.S.P. and O.A.M.; Validation, A.T.-C. and O.A.M.; Formal analysis, G.S.P.; Investigation, N.S.S., K.L.L.L.M., S.T.M., F.Z.P., M.d.P.G.G., Y.G.P.d.O., V.G.d.S., F.F., A.P.N.B., K.R.L.T., A.C.S.M., L.L.G., P.d.S.A., H.d.S.C., S.d.S.R., F.M.M.M.C.P., P.D.C.R., V.d.O.M., M.F.d.A., E.B., C.K., A.W.S.d.S., C.H.d.M.C., J.B., S.L.E.R., S.H.O.d.S., C.P.M., J.W.d.S.R., M.M.S.D., B.G.D., C.M.P.F.T., S.E.B.D., A.A.G., V.H., R.P.V.d.R., K.L.B., R.C.G., A.K.G.d.M., V.B.d.S., V.A.C., J.R., R.M.R.d.A.V., A.S.R.V., A.M.K., A.C.F.M.G.T., V.D.P.C., R.H.d.A., V.F.A., O.A.M.-F., V.P.-M., V.V., E.I.S., A.T.-C., V.A.d.S., G.A.F., E.T.d.R.-N., M.d.M.P., R.M.X. and O.A.M.; Resources, V.V., V.A.d.S., R.M.X. and G.S.P.; Writing—original draft, N.S.S., K.L.L.L.M., S.T.M., F.Z.P., M.d.P.G.G., Y.G.P.d.O., V.G.d.S., F.F., A.P.N.B., K.R.L.T., A.C.S.M., L.L.G., P.d.S.A., H.d.S.C., S.d.S.R., F.M.M.M.C.P., P.D.C.R., V.d.O.M., M.F.d.A., E.B., C.K., A.W.S.d.S., C.H.d.M.C., J.B., S.L.E.R., S.H.O.d.S., C.P.M., J.W.d.S.R., M.M.S.D., B.G.D., C.M.P.F.T., S.E.B.D., A.A.G., V.H., R.P.V.d.R., K.L.B., R.C.G., A.K.G.d.M., V.B.d.S., V.A.C., J.R., R.M.R.d.A.V., A.S.R.V., A.M.K., A.C.F.M.G.T., V.D.P.C., R.H.d.A., V.F.A., O.A.M.-F., V.P.-M., V.V., E.I.S., A.T.-C., V.A.d.S., G.A.F., E.T.d.R.-N., M.d.M.P. and R.M.X.; Writing—review & editing, N.S.S., V.A.d.S., G.A.F., G.S.P., K.L.L.L.M., S.T.M., F.Z.P., M.d.P.G.G., Y.G.P.d.O., V.G.d.S., F.F., A.P.N.B., K.R.L.T., A.C.S.M., L.L.G., P.d.S.A., H.d.S.C., S.d.S.R., F.M.M.M.C.P., P.D.C.R., V.d.O.M., M.F.d.A., E.B., C.K., A.W.S.d.S., C.H.d.M.C., J.B., S.L.E.R., S.H.O.d.S., C.P.M., J.W.d.S.R., M.M.S.D., B.G.D., C.M.P.F.T., S.E.B.D., A.A.G., V.H., R.P.V.d.R., K.L.B., R.C.G., A.K.G.d.M., V.B.d.S., V.A.C., J.R., R.M.R.d.A.V., A.S.R.V., A.M.K., A.C.F.M.G.T., V.D.P.C., R.H.d.A., V.F.A., O.A.M., V.P.-M., V.V., E.I.S., A.T.-C., V.A.d.S., G.A.F., E.T.d.R.-N., M.d.M.P., R.M.X. and O.A.M.; Supervision, O.A.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The study was reviewed and approved by the coordinating center’s ethics committee (CAAE: 43479221.0.1001.5505) and the independent ethics committee of all participating centers.
Informed consent was obtained from each participant.
The data are not publicly available due to privacy restrictions and are only available upon request to the corresponding author at
The authors thank the Network of Observational Studies for monitoring the effectiveness and safety of vaccination against COVID-19 in Brazil and the natural history of the disease in children and teenagers, affiliated with the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (Fiocruz), and the Department of Medical Affairs, Clinical Trials, and Postmarketing Surveillance at Bio-Manguinhos/Fiocruz for their technical and operational support. To the volunteer patients from all the participating centers. To the collaborating researchers integrating the SAFER-study task force. To the support and dedication of the board and committees of the Brazilian Society of Rheumatology. SAFER-Study Group Task Force: Ketty L. L. L. Machado, Ana Paula N. Burian, Olindo A. Martins-Filho, José G. Mill, Lunara B. Ferreira, Karina R. L. Tapia, Anna Carolina S. Moulin, Isac R. Moulaz, Laís P. Pasti, Laissa F. Albertino, Mariana de O. Macabú, Pietra Z. Lorencini, Laiza H. Dias, Carolina S. E. Gadelha, Marina D. de Lima, Antonio L. Boechat, Tâmara S. Melo, Aline T. de Landa, Maria Cecília D. Corrêa, José G. Mill, Danielle Cristina F. A. Batista, Rebeca S. M. da Fraga, Regiane Lima, Andrese Gasparin, Nicole P. B. Andrade., Priscila D. C. Ribeiro, Vanessa de O. Magalhães, Erika Biegelmeyer, Flávia Maria M. M. C. Peixoto, Sandra Lúcia E. Ribeiro, Camila Maria P. F. Telles, Juliana Bühring, Natalia S. Sartori, Vanessa Hax, Rodrigo P. V. de Rezende, Katia L. Baptista, Ana Karla G. de Melo, Vitor A. Cruz, Rejane Maria R. A. Vieira, Renata H. de Azevedo, Valderilio F. Azevedo, Marcelo M. Pinheiro, Edgard T. Dos Reis Neto, Andréa T. Carvalho, Ricardo M. Xavier, Emilia I. Sato, Viviane A. de Souza, Gilda A. Ferreira, Gecilmara S. Pileggi, Valeria Valim, Odirlei A. Monticielo.
Author Valderilio Feijó Azevedo was employed by the company Edumed—Educação em Saúde S/S Ltd. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Demographic and clinical characteristics of patients at inclusion.
| Total N = 235 | CoronaVac + BNT162b2 | ChadOx-1+ BNT162b2 | BNT162b2 + BNT162b2 | p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | 0.540 | ||||
| Female | 210 (89.36) | 101 (87.07) | 79 (90.80) | 30 (93.75) | |
| Age, mean (SD) | 38.0 (29.0–46.0) | 35.5 (28.0–45.0) | 40.0 (31.0–47.0) | 37.5 (32.0–46.0) | 0.095 |
| Skin color | 0.300 | ||||
| White | 87 (37.02) | 51 (43.97) | 27 (31.03) | 9 (28.13) | |
| Black | 33 (14.04) | 15 (12.93) | 14 (16.09) | 4 (12.50) | |
| Brown | 109 (46.38) | 46 (39.66) | 45 (51.72) | 18 (56.25) | |
| Disease in years, median (IQR) | 10 (5–16) | 8 (4–15) | 12 (7–18) | 7.7 (4–14) | 0.006 |
| Smoking | 15 (6.38) | 11 (9.48) | 4 (4.60) | 0 (0.00) | 0.130 |
| No comorbidities | 92 (39.15) | 59 (50.86) | 23 (26.44) | 10 (31.25) | 0.001 |
| Heart disease | 10 (4.26) | 5 (4.31) | 2 (2.30) | 3 (9.38) | 0.220 |
| Diabetes | 11 (4.68) | 6 (5.17) | 4 (4.60) | 1 (3.13) | 1.000 |
| Lung disease | 7 (2.98) | 1 (0.86) | 2 (2.30) | 4 (12.50) | 0.007 |
| Kidney disease | 4 (1.70) | 2 (1.72) | 2 (2.30) | 0 (0.00) | 1.000 |
| Hypertension | 64 (27.23) | 26 (22.41) | 29 (33.33) | 9 (28.13) | 0.220 |
| Obesity | 27 (11.49) | 12 (10.34) | 10 (11.49) | 5 (15.63) | 0.710 |
| Other comorbidities * | 95 (40.43) | 37 (31.90) | 44 (50.57) | 14 (43.75) | 0.025 |
| APS | 19 (8.09) | 11 (9.48) | 6 (6.90) | 2 (6.25) | 0.800 |
| Previous thrombosis | 32 (13.62) | 14 (12.07) | 11 (12.64) | 7 (21.88) | 0.340 |
| Disease activity | 0.056 | ||||
| Remission | 90/225 (40) | 45/109 (41.28) | 30/84 (35.71) | 15/32 (46.88) | |
| Low activity | 73/225 (32.44) | 28/109 (25.69) | 37/84 (44.05) | 8/32 (25.00) | |
| Moderate-to-high activity | 62/225 (27.56) | 36/109 (33.03) | 17/84 (20.24) | 9/32 (28.13) | |
| Degree of Immunosuppression | 0.160 | ||||
| No immunosuppression | 70/232 (30.17) | 40/115 (34.78) | 25/86 (29.07) | 5/31 (16.13) | |
| Low grade | 27/232 (11.64) | 9/115 (7.83) | 12/86 (13.95) | 6/31 (19.35) | |
| High grade | 135/232 (58.19) | 66/115 (57.39) | 49/86 (56.98) | 20/31 (64.52) |
Values are expressed as N (%) or N/N (%) for categorical variables and mean ± standard deviation (SD) or median (interquartile range [IQR]) for continuous variables; p-value < 0.05 was considered significant; APS, antiphospholipid syndrome; * hypothyroidism, osteonecrosis, dyslipidemia, osteoporosis, fibromyalgia.
Medications in use at inclusion according to the vaccination schedule.
| Total | CoronaVac + BNT162b2 | ChadOx-1 | BNT162b2 | p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Azathioprine | 54/235 (22.98) | 27/116 (23.28) | 17/87 (19.54) | 10/32 (31.25) | 0.400 |
| Oral corticosteroid | 112/235 (47.66) | 60/116 (51.72) | 38/87 (43.68) | 14/32 (43.75) | 0.470 |
| Oral corticosteroid dose | 0.007 | ||||
| Up to 5 mg/day | 54/112 (48.21) | 24/60 (40.00) | 25/38 (65.79) | 5/14 (35.71) | |
| ≥6 a 10 mg/day | 27/112 (24.11) | 14/60 (23.33) | 7/38 (18.42) | 6/14 (42.86) | |
| ≥11 a 20 mg/day | 19/112 (16.96) | 10/60 (16.67) | 6/38 (15.79) | 3/14 (21.43) | |
| >20 mg/day | 12/112 (10.71) | 12/60 (20.00) | 0/38 (0.00) | 0/14 (0.00) | |
| Hydroxychloroquine | 194/235 (82.55) | 98/116 (84.48) | 68/87 (78.16) | 28/32 (87.50) | 0.370 |
| Mycophenolate | 54/235 (22.98) | 22/116 (18.97) | 25/87 (28.74) | 7/32 (21.88) | 0.260 |
| Methotrexate | 32/235 (13.62) | 12/116 (10.34) | 14/87 (16.09) | 6/32 (18.75) | 0.330 |
| Methotrexate dose | 0.880 | ||||
| ≤20 mg/week | 23/32 (71.88) | 8/12 (66.67) | 10/14 (71.43) | 5/6 (83.33) | |
| >20 mg/week | 9/32 (28.13) | 4/12 (33.33) | 4/14 (28.57) | 1/6 (16.67) | |
| Rituximab (regular use) | 7/235 (2.98) | 2/116 (1.72) | 5/87 (5.75) | 0/32 (0.00) | 0.170 |
Values are expressed as N (%) or N/N (%); p-value < 0.05 was considered significant.
Number (%) of cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection after vaccination throughout follow-up.
| COVID-19 Infection Cases | Total | CoronaVac + BNT162b2 | ChadOx-1 | BNT162b2 | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive cases of SARS-CoV-2 more than 15 days after the 1st dose | 4/235 (1.70) | 3/116 (2.59) | 1/87 (1.15) | 0/32 (0.00) | 0.800 |
| Positive cases of SARS-CoV-2 more than 15 days after the 2nd dose | 6/235 (2.55) | 5/116 (4.31) | 1/87 (1.15) | 0/32 (0.00) | 0.360 |
| Positive cases of SARS-CoV-2 more than 15 days after the 3rd dose | 22/235 (9.36) | 12/116 (10.34) | 8/87 (9.20) | 2/32 (6.25) | 0.860 |
Values are expressed as N (%) or N/N (%); p-value < 0.05 was considered significant.
Number (%) of seropositive patients and value of antibody titers according to different vaccine schedules and at different follow-up timepoints.
| Total | CoronaVac + BNT162b2 | ChadOx-1 | BNT162b2 | p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Serology | |||||
| Inclusion | 90/228 (39.47) | 47/114 (41.23) | 30/84 (35.71) | 13/30 (43.33) | 0.660 |
| 28 days after the 1st dose | 162/219 (73.97) | 79/114 (69.30) | 62/78 (79.49) | 21/27 (77.78) | 0.260 |
| 28 days after 2nd dose | 200/219 (91.32) | 98/110 (89.09) | 74/79 (93.67) | 28/30 (93.33) | 0.500 |
| After 3rd dose | 201/206 (97.57) | 99/103 (96.12) | 73/74 (98.65) | 29/29 (100.00) | 0.370 |
| IgG titer (Log10) | |||||
| Inclusion, mean (SD) | 1.86 (1.89) | 2.00 (1.88) | 1.70 (1.90) | 1.81 (1.94) | 0.540 |
| After 1st dose, mean (SD) | 4.10 (2.49) | 3.45 (2.04) | 4.72 (2.71) | 5.11 (2.82) | <0.001 |
| After 2nd dose, mean (SD) | 5.44 (2.17) | 4.37 (1.80) | 6.30 (1.98) | 7.09 (1.86) | <0.001 |
| After 3rd dose, mean (SD) | 7.06 (1.80) | 6.95 (1.95) | 7.17 (1.65) | 7.17 (1.59) | 0.680 |
Values are expressed as N (%) or N/N (%) for categorical variables and mean ± standard deviation (SD) or median (interquartile range [IQR]) for continuous variables; p-value < 0.05 was considered significant. Seroconversion rates were evaluated in patients who underwent blood collection within a 30-day window (±7 days) post-vaccination. Participants with blood draws occurring outside this specified time period were excluded from the analysis.
Association between SLE activity or degree of immunosuppression and immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines, as assessed by anti-SARS-CoV2 antibody titers.
| Multivariate Linear Regression | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coefficient | CI [95%] | p | ||
| Disease activity | ||||
| Remission | - | - | - | - |
| Low activity | −0.503 | −1.624 | 0.617 | 0.373 |
| Moderate-to-high activity | −1.060 | −2.134 | 0.013 | 0.053 |
| Immunosuppression | ||||
| Without immunosuppression | - | - | - | - |
| Low degree of immunosuppression | −1.596 | −3.744 | 0.551 | 0.143 |
| High degree of immunosuppression | −0.692 | −1.650 | 0.266 | 0.154 |
Coefficient represents the change in the outcome variable for an increase in the independent variable, holding other variables constant; CI, confidence interval; p-value < 0.05 was considered significant.
Seropositivity rate after vaccination in patients using different immunosuppressive drugs.
| Serology after 1st | ||||
| Total | Seronegative | Seropositive | p | |
| Mycophenolate | 48 (21.62) | 16 (16.23) | 32 (19.88) | 0.300 |
| Methotrexate | 31 (13.96) | 10 (16.39) | 21 (13.04) | 0.520 |
| Azathioprine | 51 (22..97) | 17 (27.87) | 34 (21.12) | 0.290 |
| Serology after 2nd | ||||
| Total | Seronegative | Seropositive | p | |
| Mycophenolate | 51 (22.97) | 10 (47.62) | 41 (20.40) | 0.005 |
| Methotrexate | 28 (12.61) | 3 (14.29) | 25 (12.44) | 0.730 |
| Azathioprine | 49 (22.07) | 4 (19.05) | 45 (22.39) | 1.000 |
| Serology after 3rd | ||||
| Total | Seronegative | Seropositive | p | |
| Mycophenolate | 49 (23.11) | 4 (80.00) | 45 (21.74) | 0.011 |
| Methotrexate | 29 (13.68) | 0 (0.00) | 29 (14.01) | 1.000 |
| Azathioprine | 46 (21.70) | 1 (20.00) | 45 (21.74) | 1.000 |
Values are expressed as (N) %; p-value < 0.05 was considered significant.
References
1. Danza, A.; Ruiz-Irastorza, G. Infection risk in systemic lupus erythematosus patients: Susceptibility factors and preventive strategies. Lupus; 2013; 22, pp. 1286-1294. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0961203313493032]
2. Rao, M.; Mikdashi, J. A Framework to Overcome Challenges in the Management of Infections in Patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus. Open Access Rheumatol.; 2023; 15, pp. 125-137.
3. Urowitz, M.B.; Bookman, A.A.; Koehler, B.E.; Gordon, D.A.; Smythe, H.A.; Ogryzlo, M.A. The bimodal mortality pattern of systemic lupus erythematosus. Am. J. Med.; 1976; 60, pp. 221-225. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0002-9343(76)90431-9] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1251849]
4. E Moss, K.; Ioannou, Y.; Sultan, S.M.; Haq, I.; A Isenberg, D. Outcome of a cohort of 300 patients with systemic lupus erythematosus attending a dedicated clinic for over two decades. Ann. Rheum. Dis.; 2002; 61, pp. 409-413. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11959764]
5. Herrinton, L.J.; Liu, L.; Goldfien, R.; Michaels, M.A.; Tran, T.N. Risk of Serious Infection for Patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Starting Glucocorticoids with or without Antimalarials. J. Rheumatol.; 2016; 43, pp. 1503-1509. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.150671] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27370880]
6. Fu, X.-L.; Qian, Y.; Jin, X.-H.; Yu, H.-R.; Du, L.; Wu, H.; Chen, H.-L.; Shi, Y.-Q. COVID-19 in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: A systematic review. Lupus; 2022; 31, pp. 684-696.
7. Gianfrancesco, M.; Hyrich, K.L.; Al-Adely, S.; Carmona, L.; Danila, M.I.; Gossec, L.; Izadi, Z.; Jacobsohn, L.; Katz, P.; Lawson-Tovey, S. et al. Characteristics associated with hospitalisation for COVID-19 in people with rheumatic disease: Data from the COVID-19 global rheumatology alliance physician- reported registry. Ann. Rheum. Dis; 2020; 79, pp. 859-866. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-217871] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32471903]
8. Marques, C.D.L.; Kakehasi, A.M.; Pinheiro, M.M.; Mota, L.M.H.; Albuquerque, C.P.; Silva, C.R.; Santos, G.P.J.; Reis-Neto, E.T.; Matos, P.; Devide, G. et al. High levels of immunosuppression are related to unfavourable outcomes in hospitalised patients with rheumatic diseases and COVID-19: First results of ReumaCoV Brasil registry. RMD Open; 2021; 7, e001461.Erratum in RMD Open 2021, 7, e001461corr1 [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33510041]
9. Fernandez-Ruiz, R.; Masson, M.; Kim, M.Y.; Myers, B.; Haberman, R.H.; Castillo, R.; Scher, J.U.; Guttmann, A.; Carlucci, P.M.; Deonaraine, K.K. et al. Leveraging the United States Epicenter to Provide Insights on COVID-19 in Patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus. Arthritis Rheumatol.; 2020; 72, pp. 1971-1980.
10. Luz, K.R.; da Souza, D.C.C.; de Ciconelli, R.M. Vacinação em pacientes imunossuprimidos e com doenças reumatológicas auto-imunes. Rev. Bras. Reumatol.; 2007; 47, pp. 106-113. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0482-50042007000200005]
11. Avery, R.K. Vaccination of the immunosuppressed adult patient with rheumatologic disease. Rheum. Dis. Clin. N. Am.; 1999; 25, pp. 567-584, viii. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10467629][DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0889-857X(05)70087-9]
12. van Assen, S.; Agmon-Levin, N.; Elkayam, O.; Cervera, R.; Doran, M.F.; Dougados, M.; Emery, P.; Geborek, P.; Ioannidis, J.P.; Jayne, D.R. et al. Update of EULAR recommendations for vaccination in adult patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases. Ann. Rheum. Dis.; 2020; 79, pp. 39-52.
13. Garg, M.; Mufti, N.; Palmore, T.N.; Hasni, S.A. Recommendations and barriers to vaccination in systemic lupus erythematosus. Autoimmun. Rev.; 2018; 17, pp. 990-1001.
14. Liao, Z.; Tang, H.; Xu, X.; Liang, Y.; Xiong, Y.; Ni, J. Immunogenicity and Safety of Influenza Vaccination in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Patients Compared with Healthy Controls: A Meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE; 2016; 11, e0147856. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147856]
15. Aringer, M.; Costenbader, K.; Daikh, D.; Brinks, R.; Mosca, M.; Ramsey-Goldman, R.; Smolen, J.S.; Wofsy, D.; Boumpas, D.T.; Kamen, D.L. et al. European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology Classification Criteria for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus. Arthritis Rheumatol.; 2019; 71, pp. 1400-1412. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31385462]
16. Pileggi, G.S.; Da Mota, L.M.H.; Kakehasi, A.M.; De Souza, A.W.; Rocha, A.; de Melo, A.K.G.; da Fonte, C.A.M.; Bortoletto, C.; Brenol, C.V.; Marques, C.D.L. et al. Brazilian recommendations on the safety and effectiveness of the yellow fever vaccination in patients with chronic immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. AdvRheumatol; 2019; 59, 17. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s42358-019-0056-x]
17. Jochum, S.; Kirste, I.; Hortsch, S.; Grunert, V.P.; Legault, H.; Eichenlaub, U.; Basel, K.; Pajon, R. Clinical utility of Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S assay in COVID-19 vaccination: An exploratory analysis of the mRNA-1273 phase 1 trial. medRxiv; 2021; 12, 798117.Update in Front. Immunol. 2022, 12, 798117 [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34642699]
18. Westra, J.; Rondaan, C.; van Assen, S.; Bijl, M. Vaccination of patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases. Nat. Rev. Rheumatol.; 2015; 11, pp. 135-145. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrrheum.2014.206] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25486980]
19. Cordtz, R.; Kristensen, S.; Dalgaard, L.P.H.; Westermann, R.; Duch, K.; Lindhardsen, J.; Torp-Pedersen, C.; Dreyer, L. Incidence of COVID-19 Hospitalisation in Patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: A Nationwide Cohort Study from Denmark. J. Clin. Med.; 2021; 10, 3842. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10173842] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34501290]
20. Jiang, X.; Sparks, J.; Wallace, Z.; Deng, X.; Li, H.; Lu, N.; Xie, D.; Wang, Y.; Zeng, C.; Lei, G. et al. Risk of COVID-19 among unvaccinated and vaccinated patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: A general population study. RMD Open; 2023; 9, e002839.
21. Alquraan, L.; Alzoubi, K.H.; Rababa’h, S.Y. Mutations of SARS-CoV-2 and their impact on disease diagnosis and severity. Inform. Med. Unlocked; 2023; 39, 101256. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37131549]
22. BRASIL. Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. COVID-19: Boletim Epidemiológico 71; Semana Epidemiológica 27 (4/7 a 10/7) BRASIL: Brasília, Brasil, 2021.
23. Bijlsma, J.W. EULAR December 2020 view points on SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with RMDs. Ann. Rheum. Dis.; 2021; 80, pp. 411-412. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-219773] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33563595]
24. Tan, S.Y.S.; Yee, A.M.; Sim, J.J.L.; Lim, C.C. COVID-19 vaccination in systemic lupus erythematosus: A systematic review of its effectiveness, immunogenicity, flares and acceptance. Rheumatology; 2023; 62, pp. 1757-1772.
25. Medeiros-Ribeiro, A.C.; Aikawa, N.E.; Saad, C.G.S.; Yuki, E.F.N.; Pedrosa, T.; Fusco, S.R.G.; Rojo, P.T.; Pereira, R.M.R.; Shinjo, S.K.; Andrade, D.C.O. et al. Immunogenicity and safety of the CoronaVac inactivated vaccine in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases: A phase 4 trial. Nat. Med.; 2021; 27, pp. 1744-1751. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41591-021-01469-5]
26. Yuki, E.F.N.; Borba, E.F.; Pasoto, S.G.; Seguro, L.P.; Lopes, M.; Saad, C.G.S.; Medeiros-Ribeiro, A.C.; Silva, C.A.; de Andrade, D.C.O.; Kupa, L.d.V.K. et al. Impact of Distinct Therapies on Antibody Response to SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus. Arthritis Care Res.; 2022; 74, pp. 562-571. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34806342]
27. Izmirly, P.M.; Kim, M.Y.; Samanovic, M.; Fernandez-Ruiz, R.; Ohana, S.; Deonaraine, K.K.; Engel, A.J.; Masson, M.; Xie, X.; Cornelius, A.R. et al. Evaluation of Immune Response and Disease Status in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Patients Following SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination. Arthritis Rheumatol.; 2022; 74, pp. 284-294.
28. Assawasaksakul, T.; Sathitratanacheewin, S.; Vichaiwattana, P.; Wanlapakorn, N.; Poovorawan, Y.; Avihingsanon, Y.; Assawasaksakul, N.; Kittanamongkolchai, W. Immunogenicity of the third and fourth BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 boosters and factors associated with immune response in patients with SLE and rheumatoid arthritis. Lupus Sci. Med.; 2022; 9, e000726. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35902168]
29. Furer, V.; Eviatar, T.; Zisman, D.; Peleg, H.; Paran, D.; Levartovsky, D.; Zisapel, M.; Elalouf, O.; Kaufman, I.; Meidan, R. et al. Immunogenicity and safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in adult patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases and in the general population: A multicentre study. Ann. Rheum. Dis.; 2021; 80, pp. 1330-1338. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-220647] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34127481]
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the humoral response to and impact of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus in a multicenter cohort design. Methods: Data for this analysis were obtained from the Study of Safety, Effectiveness and Duration of Immunity after Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in Patients with Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases (SAFER), a prospective, multicenter, phase IV, real-world study conducted across different regions of Brazil from June/2021 to March/2024. Patients aged >18 years with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who received any one of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines approved by the Brazilian health regulatory agency (CoronaVac [inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine], ChAdOx-1 [AstraZeneca], or BNT162b2 [Pfizer-BioNTech]) were included. Immunogenicity was assessed in pre- and post-vaccination blood samples, and patients were monitored in person and remotely for the occurrence and severity of COVID-19. Results: Two hundred and thirty-five patients with SLE who had completed their vaccination schedules (two doses + booster dose) were included in this study. Most patients were female (89.3%) and had low disease activity or were in remission (72.4%); the majority were also on some form of immunosuppressive therapy (58.1%). One hundred and sixteen patients received two doses of CoronaVac followed by one dose of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine, eighty-seven received two doses of ChAdOx1-S (AstraZeneca) followed by one dose of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine, and thirty-two received three doses of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine. Twenty-eight cases of COVID-19, none meeting criteria for severe COVID-19, were recorded in patients with respiratory symptoms after the second dose of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Regarding immunogenicity, an increase in seroconversion rate was observed following consecutive vaccine doses, with no difference between vaccination schedules, reaching 97.57% seropositivity after a booster dose. The geometric mean IgG titers differed between the different vaccination schedules after the first and the second vaccine dose, being lowest for the CoronaVac-based schedule, but titers were similar after the administration of a booster dose. Conclusion: In patients with SLE, SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are immunogenic, inducing a robust humoral response. No severe outcomes associated with death or hospitalization were found in the evaluated patient sample. Complete vaccination schedules including a booster dose induced higher humoral responses than incomplete schedules, especially in patients initially immunized with an inactivated virus vaccine schedule and those with a suboptimal humoral response.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
; Ketty Lysie Libardi Lira Machado 2 ; Miyamoto, Samira Tatiyama 2 ; Flávia Zon Pretti 2 ; Maria da Penha Gomes Gouveia 2
; Yasmin Gurtler Pinheiro de Oliveira 2
; Vanezia Gonçalves da Silva 2 ; Faé, Filipe 2 ; Ana Paula Neves Burian 3
; Karina Rosemarie Lallemand Tapia 2
; Simões Moulin, Anna Carolina 2 ; Luiza Lorenzoni Grillo 2 ; Paula dos Santos Athayde 2 ; Helena da Silva Corona 2 ; de Souza Ramos, Sabrina 2
; Flávia Maria Matos Melo Campos Peixoto 4 ; Priscila Dias Cardoso Ribeiro 4 ; de Oliveira Magalhães, Vanessa 4
; Mariana Freitas de Aguiar 4
; Biegelmeyer, Erika 4
; Kayser, Cristiane 4
; Alexandre Wagner Silva de Souza 4 ; Charlles Heldan de Moura Castro 4
; Bühring, Juliana 5 ; Sandra Lúcia Euzébio Ribeiro 5 ; Sérgio Henrique Oliveira dos Santos 5 ; Clara Pinheiro Martins 5
; Jonathan Willian da Silva Rodrigues 5 ; Marcos Mavignier Sousa Dias 5 ; Bruna Guimarães Dutra 5 ; Camila Maria Paiva França Telles 5 ; Samuel Elias Basualto Dias 5 ; Rodrigo Poubel Vieira de Rezende 6 ; Katia Lino Baptista 6
; Rodrigo Cutrim Gaudio 6 ; Ana Karla Guedes de Melo 7
; Valéria Bezerra da Silva 7 ; Vitor Alves Cruz 8 ; Rêgo, Jozelia 8 ; Rejane Maria Rodrigues de Abreu Vieira 9
; Adah Sophia Rodrigues Vieira 9
; Kakehasi, Adriana Maria 10
; Anna Carolina Faria Moreira Gomes Tavares 10 ; Victória Dornelas Paz Carvalho 11 ; Renata Henriques de Azevedo 11 ; Azevedo, Valderilio Feijó 12
; Olindo Assis Martins-Filho 13 ; Peruhype-Magalhães, Vanessa 13 ; Andrese, Aline Gasparin 1
; Hax, Vanessa 1
; Valim, Valéria 2 ; Gilda Aparecida Ferreira 14 ; Teixeira-Carvalho, Andréa 13 ; Edgard Torres dos Reis-Neto 4
; Emília Inoue Sato 4
; Marcelo de Medeiros Pinheiro 4
; de Souza, Viviane Angelina 15
; Ricardo Machado Xavier 1
; Pileggi, Gecilmara Salviato 4
; Odirlei, André Monticielo 1
1 Serviço de Reumatologia, Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Porto Alegre 90010-150, RS, Brazil;
2 Hospital Universitário Cassiano Antônio Moraes (HUCAM), Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo (UFES), Vitória 29041-295, ES, Brazil;
3 Centro de Referências para Imunobiológicos Especiais (CRIE) da Secretaria de Saúde do Estado do Espírito Santo, Vitória 29050-710, ES, Brazil;
4 Escola Paulista de Medicina (EPM), Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), São Paulo 04023-062, SP, Brazil;
5 Department of Rheumatology, Universidade Federal do Amazonas (UFAM), Manaus 69080-900, AM, Brazil;
6 Department of Rheumatology, Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF), Niterói 24220-900, RJ, Brazil;
7 Hospital Universitário Lauro Wanderley, Universidade Federal da Paraíba (UFPB), João Pessoa 58050-585, PB, Brazil;
8 Department of Rheumatology, Universidade Federal de Goiás (UFG), Goiânia 74690-900, GO, Brazil;
9 Department of Rheumatology, Universidade de Fortaleza (UNIFOR), Fortaleza 60811-905, CE, Brazil;
10 Hospital das Clínicas da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte 31270-901, MG, Brazil;
11 Department of Rheumatology, Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora (UFJF), Juiz de Fora 36036-900, MG, Brazil;
12 Edumed—Educação em Saúde S/S Ltd., Curitiba 80440-080, PR, Brazil;
13 Instituto Renè Rachou, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ-Minas), Belo Horizonte 30190-002, MG, Brazil;
14 Locomotor System Department, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte 30130-100, MG, Brazil;
15 Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora 36036-900, MG, Brazil;