Methotrexate Hampers Immunogenicity to BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine in Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Disease

INTRODUCTION

Patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs), have an inherently heightened susceptibility to infection and may thus be considered high risk for developing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Importantly, however, the strength of response to viral vaccines (i.e., influenza and hepatitis B) and their long-lasting protective effects in IMID patients taking conventional-disease modifying anti-rheumatic (cDMARDs), such as methotrexate, or biologic (bDMARDs), such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis), may not be as robust as it is in the general population following immunization.(1-5) Data regarding mRNA COVID-19 vaccines’ safety, immunogenicity and efficacy are rapidly emerging for the immunocompetent adult population,(6) where more than 90% subjects achieve a satisfactory humoral response. However, the ability of IMID patients to adequately respond to these vaccines and the differences in humoral and cellular immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination are not known, leaving a significant gap in knowledge that prevents optimal management of this patient population.

Given the experience with seasonal influenza vaccine immunogenicity,(2, 7) we hypothesized that IMID patients treated chronically with certain csDMARDs (i.e., methotrexate) would have an attenuated response to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines compared to IMID patients receiving anti-cytokine treatment or to non-IMID participants. To achieve this, we obtained pre- and post-immunization peripheral blood monocyte cells (PBMCs) and sera from IMID participants (n=82) in two independent cohorts (SAGA (Serologic Testing And Genomic Analysis of Autoimmune, Immune-Mediated, and Rheumatic Patients with COVID-19) cohort in New York City, USA and Erlangen cohort, Germany) and analyzed SARS-CoV-2-spike-specific antibody titers as compared to non-IMID controls (n=208). Cellular immune responses were further investigated using high-dimensional spectral flow cytometry in the New York City cohort.

METHODS

RESULTS

The New York cohort was comprised of 26 healthy individuals, 25 individuals with IMID receiving methotrexate monotherapy or in combination with other immunomodulatory medications, and 26 individuals with IMID on anti-cytokine therapy and/or other oral immunomodulators (Table 1). Healthy individuals and those with IMID not on methotrexate were similar in age (49.2 +/- 11.9 and 49.1 +/- 14.9 years respectively), while those IMID patients receiving methotrexate were generally older (63.2 +/- 11.9). IMID diagnoses were predominantly psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. The Erlangen cohort consisted of 182 healthy subjects, 11 subjects with IMID receiving TNFi monotherapy, and 20 subjects with IMID on methotrexate monotherapy (Supplementary Table 1). Individuals on methotrexate monotherapy were on average older than healthy individuals and those with IMID not on methotrexate (54.5 +/- 19.2 vs. 40.8+/- 12 .0 and 45.0 +/- 15.5 respectively).

Decreased antibody response to mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in IMID patients on methotrexate

Immunogenicity was characterized by testing IgG antibodies against the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2. In the New York cohort, of the healthy participants, 25 of 26 (96.1%) demonstrated adequate humoral immune response. Patients with IMID not on methotrexate achieved a similar rate of high antibody titers (24/26, 92.3%), while those on methotrexate had a lower rate of adequate humoral response (18/25, 72.0%) (Figure 1A, Table 1). This remains true even after the exclusion of patients who had evidence of previous COVID-19 infection (P= .045). Median titers were 104,354 (range 141-601,185), 113,608 (25-737,310), and 46,901 (25-694,528) for participants who were healthy, IMID not on methotrexate, and IMID on methotrexate, respectively. Similarly, in the Erlangen validation cohort, 179 of 182 (98.3%) of healthy controls, 10 of 11 (90.9%) of patients with IMID receiving no methotrexate, and 10 of 20 (50.0%) receiving methotrexate achieved adequate immunogenicity (Figure 1B). Median ODs for this cohort were 9.4 (range 1.2-14), 7.8 (2.3-11.3), and 5.9 (0.95-13.5) for participants who were healthy, IMID not on methotrexate, and IMID on methotrexate, respectively. Furthermore, when looking at the two cohorts in conjunction (n = 290), 204 of 208 (98.1%) of healthy controls, 34 of 37 (91.9%) of patients with IMID receiving no methotrexate, and 28 of 45 (62.2%) receiving methotrexate achieved adequate immunogenicity (P= < 0.001) (Figure S1).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG levels in cohorts from New York City (A) and Erlangen (B) in healthy participants without immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMID; blue), IMID patients not receiving methotrexate (MTX; green), and IMID patients treated with MTX (yellow). Solid lines represent mean titer of each group. For the New York City cohort (A), adequate response is defined as greater than 5000 units and for the Erlangen cohort (B), adequate response is defined as greater than 5.7 (OD450nm), two standard deviations of the mean of controls. Percentages and group comparisons using chi squared test of independence reflect proportion of those achieving an adequate response within each group.

* indicates p value less than .05.

**indicated p value less than .001.

Because of the imbalance in age between groups, we further analyzed immunogenicity based on a cut off age of 55. In both age groups, the response rate for those on methotrexate remained significantly lower (P=< 0.001) (Figure S2). As an added sensitivity analysis, we used a stricter definition of inadequate antibody response (i.e., less than 1000 units for New York cohort and less than 5 OD for the Erlagen cohort). With the use of these more conservative cut off levels, patients with IMID on background methotrexate continued to show significantly decreased antibody response (P< .001) (Figure S3).

Lack of CD8+ T-cell activation in IMID patients on methotrexate following mRNA COVID-19 vaccine

In the New York Cohort, 20 healthy controls, 24 patients with IMID not receiving methotrexate, and 18 patients with IMID who were receiving methotrexate underwent immune cell phenotyping before and after vaccination. The proportions of spike-specific B cells, circulating T follicular helper (cTfh; CD4+ICOS+CD38+ subset) cells, activated CD4+ T cells, and HLA-DR+ CD8+ T cells increased significantly in all groups after immunization (Figures 2A-D). Activated CD8+ T cells, defined as CD8+ T cells expressing Ki67 and CD38, and the granzyme B-producing (GZMB) subset of these activated CD8+ T cells, were induced in healthy adults and participants with IMID not on methotrexate, but not induced in patients receiving methotrexate (Figures 2E-F).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2.

Immune cell populations from the New York City cohort by high-spectral flow in healthy controls (blue, n=20), patients with immune mediate inflammatory disease (IMID) not on methotrexate (MTX; green, n= 24), and patients with IMID on MTX (yellow, n=18), at baseline and post 2^nd dose of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. Pre- and post-vaccination comparisons were performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests. Y-axes presented as a logarithmic scale.

ns indicated no statistical significance

* indicates p value less than .05

** indicates p value less than .01

*** indicates p value less than .0001

DISCUSSION

In two geographically independent cohorts of IMID patients, we found that methotrexate, a widely used immunomodulator for the treatment of several IMIDs, adversely affected humoral and cellular immunogenicity to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.

For humoral immunity, the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccines did not induce adequately elevated SARS-CoV-2-spike-specific-IgG antibody titers in up to a third of the patients on methotrexate, as compared to IMID patients on other DMARDs, whom demonstrated a response as robust as that of healthy controls. This finding was analogous to the previously described effects of methotrexate on influenza vaccine immunogenicity.(5, 12-14) While a recent report has shown no differences in immunogenicity for patients with IMID, none of the included participants were on methotrexate.(15) A second study in patients with self-reported rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases recruited via social media showed that 10 out of 13 participants on background methotrexate had detectable antibody levels after only one dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine,(16) although this was both underpowered and using a semi-quantitative ELISA measuring antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain. Therefore, the findings from our work looking at antibody responses in IMID patients after full vaccination regimen are of potentially high clinical relevance, since it was recently shown that a temporary discontinuation of methotrexate for two weeks significantly improved influenza vaccine immunogenicity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.(2)

Importantly, the use of high-dimensional spectral flow cytometry allowed for the interrogation of specific cellular immune responses before and after immunization. Spike-specific B cells, activated CD4+ T cells and cTfh cells were induced similarly in all groups after mRNA vaccination. In contrast, activated CD8+ T cell responses were notably attenuated in the methotrexate cohort. Moreover, the poor induction of activated CD8+ T cells expressing granzyme B may indicate reduced cytotoxic functionality of these cells. Indeed, CD8+ T cell responses were identified to be a correlate of protection in non-human primate studies of SARS-CoV-2 infection.(17) Thus, reduced induction of cytotoxic CD8+ T cell responses, combined with inconsistent induction of antibody responses, may further impair effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and render IMID patients on methotrexate more at risk of inadequate vaccine response. However, this finding requires a cautious interpretation as it is quite possible that the use of methotrexate may delay (rather than prevent) adequate cellular mediated immunity against SARS-CoV-2. While spike-specific T-cell immunity has been detected as early as 10 days following one dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in healthy individuals,(18) mRNA-1273-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cell responses were most robustly elicited two weeks after the second dose.(19) Therefore, more detailed and comprehensive studies that include longer term characterization of the dynamics of cellular responses to these vaccines will be required to understand the clinical implications of these findings.

Although our analysis was limited in sample size, followed participants with biosampling for a relatively short period of time without standardized disease activity status metrics, and was restricted to one type of mRNA immunization, our findings were validated in an independent cohort and revealed that methotrexate, which is widely used for many indications, adversely affected the humoral and cellular immunogenicity to COVID-19 mRNA vaccination.

Furthermore, because of the inclusion of patients with prior COVID-19 infection, it is possible that results could be biased in favor of those not on methotrexate. However, when excluding all patients with prior infection, the results remained similar. We also acknowledge that there may have been participants with asymptomatic COVID-19 infection that we have not captured.

While immunosenescence may reduce the level of antibody responses to immunizations,(20) recent studies on COVID-19 mRNA vaccines have not shown differences in clinical outcomes for the older population.(6) In our study, IMID patients on methotrexate were generally older which may potentially explain some differences in immunogenicity. However, even when looking at participants younger than 55, decreased rates of humoral response were still significant. Further validation in even larger cohorts that address efficacy will be required to understand the interaction between age and methotrexate in the context of COVID-19 vaccination.

Importantly, it is not yet clear what level of immunogenicity is representative of vaccine efficacy (and this includes the arbitrary cut offs chosen for our measurements). We recognize that the definition of adequate cellular and humoral immune response may need to be refined in the future when correlation with efficacy becomes available. However, even after applying more conservative cut offs, the hampering effects of methotrexate on immunogenicity are still evident.

Taken together, our results suggest that the optimal protection of patients with IMID against COVID-19 will require further studies to determine whether additional doses of vaccine, dose modification of methotrexate, or even temporary discontinuation of this drug can boost immune response as has been demonstrated for other viral vaccines in this patient population.(7)

Competing interests

J.U.S. declares that he has served as a consultant for Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi and UCB, Abbvie and has received funding for investigator-initiated studies from Novartis, Sanofi, Pfizer and Janssen. G.S. has served as a consultant for Abbvie, BMS, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK Novartis, Janssen and Roche and has received funding for investigator-initiated studies from BMS, Eli Lilly, GSK, Novartis and UCB. M.J.M. declares grants from the Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Sanofi and personal fees from Meissa Vaccines. P.I. has received consulting fees from GSK and Momenta/Janssen. R.H.H. has received consulting from Janssen. S.A. reports grant support from Johnson and Johnson. G.S. declares consulting fees from AbbVie.

Funding Sources

The New York-based studies were funded by NIH/NIAMS (R01AR074500 to Scher T32-AR-069515 to Haberman), NIH/NIAID (UM1AI148574 to Mulligan), Rheumatology Research Foundation (Scientist Development Award to Haberman), Bloomberg Philanthropies COVID-19 Initiative, Pfizer COVID-19 Competitive Grant Program, The Beatrice Snyder Foundation, and The Riley Family Foundation. The Erlangen-based studies were supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG-FOR2886 PANDORA and the CRC1181 Checkpoints for Resolution of Inflammation). Additional funding was received by the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF; project MASCARA), the Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Wissenschaft und Kunst, the ERC Synergy grant 4D Nanoscope, the IMI funded project RTCure, the Emerging Fields Initiative MIRACLE of the Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, and the Else Kröner-Memorial Scholarship (DS, no. 2019_EKMS.27).

Contributorship

R.H.H. and J.U.S designed the New York study, designed the data collection tools, analyzed and cleaned the data, and drafted and revised the paper. R.S.H, M.S., and M.J.M designed the New York study, designed, and performed the cellular analysis, and revised the paper. S.B. A. designed the New York Study and revised the paper. R.B.B. designed the New York study, acquired data, and revised the draft. D.S., R.A., K.T, M.N. and G.S. designed the Erlangen study, designed the data collection tools, analyzed and cleaned the data, and revised the paper. S.A. aided in original design, statistical analysis, and revised the paper. M.T, S.B.K., J.R.A., and A.R.C analyzed data and revised the draft. R.C., P.R., G. S., N.A, P.R., P.I., J.S., B.G., and S.R. helped accrue data and revised the draft.

Ethical Approval

New York University IRB 20-01078, University Clinic of Erlangen IRB 157_20B

Data sharing statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information. Further de-identified data can be made available upon request. Jose.scher{at}nyulangone.org