Do immunosuppressive treatments influence immune responses against adenovirus-based COVID-19 vaccines in patients with multiple sclerosis? An Argentine multicenter study

IntroductionThere are no reports in LATAM related to longitudinal humoral and cellular response to adenovirus based COVID-19 vaccines in people with Multiple Sclerosis (pwMS) under different disease modifying therapies (DMTs) and neutralization of the Omicron and Wuhan variants of SARS-COV-2.MethodsIgG anti- SARS-COV-2 spike titer were measured in a cohort of 101 pwMS under fingolimod, dimethyl fumarate, cladribine and antiCD20, as well as 28 healthy controls (HC) were measured 6 weeks after vaccination with 2nd dose (Sputnik V or AZD1222) and 3nd dose (homologous or heterologous schedule). Neutralizing capacity was against Omicron (BA.1) and Wuhan (D614G) variants and pseudotyped particles and Cellular response were analyzed.ResultsMultivariate regression analysis showed anti-cd20 (β= -,349, 95% CI: -3655.6 - -369.01, p=0.017) and fingolimod (β=-,399, 95% CI: -3363.8 - -250.9, p=0.023) treatments as an independent factor associated with low antibody response (r2 adjusted=0.157). After the 2nd dose we found a correlation between total and neutralizing titers against D614G (rho=0.6; p<0.001; slope 0.8, 95%CI:0.4-1.3), with no differences between DMTs. Neutralization capacity was lower for BA.1 (slope 0.3, 95%CI:0.1-0.4). After the 3rd dose, neutralization of BA.1 improved (slope: 0.9 95%CI:0.6-1.2), without differences between DMTs. A fraction of pwMS generated anti-Spike CD4+ and CD8+ T cell response. In contrast, pwMS under antiCD20 generated CD8+TNF+IL2+ response without differences with HC, even in the absence of humoral response. The 3rd dose significantly increased the neutralization against the Omicron, as observed in the immunocompetent population.DiscussionFindings regarding humoral and cellular response are consistent with previous reports

Do people with multiple sclerosis want to discuss their long-term prognosis? A nationwide study in Argentina

Background: Demographics, clinical and imaging prognostic factors have been reported in large series of people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS). However, personalized long-term prognosis (LTP) is varied and uncertain in each particular case. Currently, there is limited evidence on how PwMS feel about prognosis communication and their coping strategies. Therefore, we aimed to assess the prognosis communication experiences and preferences of PwMS. In addition, we investigated whether demographic, clinical and neuropsychological factors are associated with prognosis information preferences. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey that included 301 PwMS from Argentina was carried out. Data on self-administered surveys including prognosis in MS questionnaire (PIMS study, evaluating prognosis communication experiences, attitudes and preferences), MS impact scale (MSIS-29), Brief Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced (COPE-28) inventory, Fatigue Severity Scale and Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) were evaluated. A logistic regression model was performed. Results: 21.5% of responders never had discussed LTP with their neurologist and 47.1% lacked clarity about their LTP. PwMS had similar preference for LTP information at diagnosis, survey (current) or in the future (72.4%, 71.7%, 73.4%, respectively). Most participants (94.3%) wanted to be informed about LTP tool availability, and 61.7% wanted to know more about conversion to SPMS. Older age (p = 0.03) and lower fatigue (p = 0.04), and COPE denial (p &lt; 0.01), humour (p = 0.03), self-blame (p &lt; 0.01) and venting (p = 0.02) were associated with lower LTP information preference. Trends were observed for higher MS duration (p = 0.06), physical (p = 0.07) and psychological (p = 0.08) impact. Fatigue and COPE denial were predictors of higher LTP information preference in a multivariate model. Conclusion: PwMS from Argentina want more discussion and clarification about their LTP. Several physical and neuropsychological factors predict LTP information preference.</p