Pausing methotrexate improves immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with rheumatic diseases

Study design and participants

This report depicts results of the VACCIMMUN Study, which is a retrospective cohort study among patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRD) at Charité Medical Clinic for Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology. Clinical characterisation and blood sampling took place between June and September 2021. In addition, stored blood samples collected in April and May 2021 were used. Participants had to meet the following inclusion criteria: age 18 years or older, AIRD diagnosis and vaccination with a COVID-19 vaccine authorised for use in Germany. For this analysis, AIRD patients under MTX therapy were considered, receiving either only MTX or MTX combined with low dose prednisolone (defined as ≤ 5 mg/d), TNFα-Inhibitors, hydroxychloroquine, leflunomide, IL-17 or IL-12/23 inhibitors, since these immunosuppressive comedications are not known to have a remarkable impact on the immune response during vaccination ¹³. Additionally, AIRD patients who were vaccinated under no immunosuppressive therapy served as controls. Information regarding medical history, including COVID-19 vaccination status and immunosuppressive therapy were provided directly by patients or retrieved from medical records. Patients who reported to have changed their MTX-intake schedule resulting in an MTX-interval longer than 7 days during first or second vaccination were compared to patients who continued MTX therapy throughout both vaccinations. This study was ethically approved by the Regional Office for Health and Social Affairs Berlin, Germany (21/0098-IV E 13). All patients provided written informed consent.

Laboratory analyses

Antibody response was measured predominantly about two weeks after the second dose of vaccination with maximum range from 11 to 112 days (Median 20, IQR 15, 47). Neutralising antibody levels were assessed using a surrogate virus neutralisation test (cPass Neutralisation, Medac GmbH, Wedel, Germany)¹⁴. Following the manufacturer’s protocol, patients who reached inhibition rates greater than or equal to 30 % were considered to have demonstrated a SARS-CoV-2 specific humoral response and are further defined as responders, while patients with inhibition rates <30 % are defined as non-responders. Additionally, IgG antibodies against nucleocapsid, receptor binding domain (RBD), full spike and the S1 domain of the spike protein were tested using SeraSpot® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG microarray-based immunoassay (Seramun Diagnostica GmbH, Heidesee, Germany) and served here for further validation purposes. Hence, all calculations were additionally performed using anti-RBD-IgG levels and can be found in the supplements. The threshold for reactivity for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG levels was set at >1.00 Signal/Cut-off (S/CO) in accordance with manufacturer’s protocol.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics included median with interquartile range and absolute and relative frequencies. Fisher’s exact test and Chi² test were applied for categorical data and the Mann-Whitney U test for continuously distributed variables to perform hypotheses tests for group differences, as appropriate. The likelihood of being a responder was modelled by a multivariable logistic regression model including the covariates age, body mass index (BMI), gender, MTX monotherapy and MTX-hold. These covariates were selected based on the theoretical assumption that they could affect vaccination success. The association between timing and duration of MTX-hold at the two vaccinations and neutralisation results were estimated by linear regression analyses (anti-RBD-IgG concentrations or neutralizing antibody levels by neutralisation result) and logistic regression analyses (anti-RBD-IgG concentration >1 S/CO or neutralization capacity ≥30%)adequate neutralisation result) adjusted for duration between blood sampling and second vaccination and considering the clustering of the two vaccinations within a patient. The standardized beta coefficient was calculated for linear regression analyses to compare the strengths of association between parameters. The strength of association according to the standardized beta can be categorized into small (<0.1), medium (0.1 to 0.3), and large (>0.3) for continuously distributed variables and small (<0.3), medium (0.3 to 0.8), and large (>0.8) for categorical variables. The area under curve was calculated after fitting a logistic regression model to provide a measure of strengths of association for dichotomous outcomes. The Youden index was used to estimate thresholds for age and time of MTX break before and after vaccination from receiver-operating characteristics. Statistical analyses were performed using Graphpad Prism 9.2.0 and STATA 12.1.

Patient and public involvement

This study aimed to provide evidence for future recommendations due to questions asked regarding MTX intake by patients and physicians. However, patients and the public were not directly involved in process of designing.

Patient characteristics

Of 73 eligible patients receiving MTX, nine were excluded due to immunosuppressive comedication, irregular medication regimens and unclassifiable MTX-hold. The final cohort consisted of 64 AIRD patients taking MTX (median age 63.0 years, 70.3 % women) and 21 rheumatic patients who did not receive any kind of immunosuppressive therapy as a control group (median age 62, 90.5 % women). Detailed clinical characterisation is given in supplementary table 1. There were no significant differences between MTX therapy and the no-therapy group regarding age, BMI, distribution of sex, vaccination regimes, time between second vaccination and antibody measurements and comedications.

Of 64 MTX patients, 31 patients reported to have held MTX for at least one vaccination (MTX-hold) while 33 patients had continued their MTX therapy without any interruption (MTX continued, table 2). Blood sampling occurred slightly earlier in the MTX-hold group than in the MTX continued group. There were no other significant differences between these two groups regarding age, BMI, distribution of sex, vaccination regimes, diagnoses and immunosuppressive comedications.

MTX reduces vaccination response

AIRD patients without immunosuppressive therapy showed a significantly higher neutralising capacity (median 95.9 %, IQR: 93.0, 96.6) than AIRD patients taking MTX (median= 82.5 %, IQR: 55.5, 95.6, p< 0.001, figure 1, supplementary figure 1 for anti-RBD-IgG). None of the patients without immunosuppressive therapy were classified as non-responders (defined by neutralisation activity < 30 %), compared to 14.1 % (n=9) among MTX patients. Taking patients without immunosuppressive therapy in our cohort as a reference group for a typical antibody response after vaccination, the threshold for a not-altered inhibition rate could be set at 87.64 % (AUC 0.75, Youden index 49.9). Accordingly, 38 of 64 MTX patients (59.4 %) demonstrated a lower antibody response after two vaccinations compared to an untreated group of AIRD patients.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1: Comparison of neutralising capacity in AIRD patients without immunosuppression and with MTX therapy.

Neutralising capacity measured using surrogate virus neutralisation test after second vaccination in MTX-patients (n=64) represented by red dots vs. AIRD patients who were under no immunosuppressive therapy during both vaccinations (n=21) represented by green dots.

Factors influencing antibody response in MTX patients

To identify factors influencing the antibody response under MTX we compared COVID-19vaccination responders (n=55, 85.9 %) and non-responders (n=9, 14.1 %) defined by neutralisation activity. Both groups were similar in BMI, vaccine type, MTX application form, additional prednisolone intake, time of blood draw and immunosuppressive comedication (table 1). Dosage of MTX was not significantly associated with vaccination success (Spearman rank test, r=-0.02, p value=0.867). However, a higher neutralization capacity was significantly associated with young age, MTX-hold and female gender in univariate analysis (table 1) and multivariable analysis (table 3). If classification into responders and non-responders was based on anti-RBD-IgG results, 13 patients fall into the non-responder group. While the effect of age and MTX-hold were still significant using anti-RBD-IgG levels, this was not the case for gender (supplementary table 2). Thus, we only analysed the effect of age and MTX-hold in more detail.

Effect of MTX-hold and age

Patients who had changed their MTX intake schedule for at least one vaccination showed a significantly higher antibody response than patients who continued their MTX intake (p=0.003, figure 2A, supplementary figure 2A for anti-RBD-IgG). Median neutralisation was 68.8 % for patients who continued their therapy and 92.7 % for patients who held MTX (table 2). There was only one non-responder (3.2 %) in the MTX-hold group, while there were eight non-responders (24.2 %) in the MTX continued group.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2: Comparison of AIRD patients who continued or held their MTX during the COVID-19 vaccination.

(A) Neutralising capacity measured using surrogate virus neutralisation test compared between patients who held MTX during vaccination (n=33) and patients who continued MTX-therapy (n=31). (B) Neutralising capacity differentiated by age groups <60 years and ≥60 years. P values were calculated using the non-parametric Mann Whitney U test. Dotted line marks the cut-off value following manufacturer’s protocol (≥30 %). Yellow squares represent patients who continued MTX-therapy, purple dots represent patients who held MTX for at least one vaccination.

Vaccination response correlated significantly with age (Spearman rank test, −0.49, p<0.001, figure 3, supplementary figure 3 for anti-RBD-IgG). No patient younger than 60 years was classified a non-responder which is why we further distinguished the MTX hold and continue groups into patients older and younger than 60 years of age (figure 2B, supplementary figure 2B for anti-RBD-IgG). Considering only patients who continued their MTX intake, patients ≥ 60 years of age (median 55.5 %) had a 32.1 percentage points lower median inhibition rate than patients < 60 years (median 87.6 %). Vice versa, neutralisation levels were 31.8 percentage points higher in patients older than 60 years who held MTX (median 87.4 %) compared to those who continued MTX (median 55.5 %). In contrast, when regarding patients under 60 years there were no significant differences in neutralisation rates between patients who held or continued MTX therapy.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3: Correlation of Age and neutralising capacity measured using surrogate virus neutralisation test.

Purple dots represent patients who held MTX during vaccination (n=31), yellow squares represent patients who continued MTX-therapy (n=33). Neutralising antibodies were measured using a surrogate virus neutralisation test. Dotted lines mark the cut-off value following manufacturer’s protocol (≥30 %) and the cut-off age used for further analysis at 60 years. P value and correlation coefficient were calculated using the Spearman Rank test.

Effect of timing and duration of MTX-hold

Due to the observational design of this study, patients were not instructed to hold MTX in a certain pattern, which resulted in a wide distribution of MTX intake regimens.

In the following we considered all 64 patients and analysed the MTX-interval at the time of vaccination, which was defined by the time between last MTX intake and vaccination (time before vaccination = T_BV) and the time between vaccination and re-intake of MTX (time after vaccination = T_AV, figure 4). One patient could not recall on which day MTX was taken and was therefore not considered for calculations of T_BV and T_AV. We found that the duration of the MTX-interval (T_BV + T_AV) significantly correlates with neutralising capacity (Spearman rank test, r = 0.47, p< 0.001). We further analysed which of these time periods is most likely to determine antibody response. By using linear regression analysis, we found T_AV to be highly significant for adequate neutralisation rate and anti-RBD-IgG concentration in the elderly, but not for younger patients (table 4). Here, ten days between vaccination and MTX re-intake (T_AV) were determined as the critical cut-off based on the Youden index from receiver operating characteristic curve. T_BV was only significant when regarding neutralisation capacity (table 4). In addition, the standardized beta value was higher for T_AV (beta_st 0.40) than for T_BV (beta_st 0.07).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4: Visualization of analysed time intervals.

Time between MTX-intakes and COVID-19 vaccinations were assessed for each vaccination and added together to receive the total time before vaccinations (TBV=TBV1+TBV2) and after vaccinations (TAV=TAV1+TAV2). The MTX-interval was defined as the total durations between two MTX intakes at the time of vaccination (TAV+TBV).

What is already known about this subject?

• Patients receiving methotrexate (MTX) have a reduced immune response after COVID-19 vaccination and holding MTX has shown to increase the immunogenicity after influenza vaccination.

• Yet, no previous studies have analysed the effect of MTX-hold for COVID-19 vaccination.

What does this study add?

• This study identified old age (≥ 60 years) and MTX continuation as critical factors for an inadequate antibody response.

• We found a minimum of 10 days between vaccination and re-intake of MTX as the critical threshold to increase immunogenicity for patients ≥ 60 years of age.

How might this impact on clinical practise or future developments?

• In regard of upcoming booster vaccination campaigns, our data suggest that especially older MTX patients should hold MTX for at least 10 days after receiving a COVID-19 vaccination, if possible.