Replacing Mycophenolate Mofetil by Everolimus in Kidney Transplant Recipients to Increase Vaccine Immunogenicity: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial.
A Lianne Messchendorp,Luca M Zaeck,Pim Bouwmans,Dennis A J van den Broek,Sophie C Frölke,Daryl Geers,Céline Imhof,S Reshwan K Malahe,Katharina S Schmitz,Julian Reinders,Frederique E Visscher,Carla C Baan,Frederike J Bemelman,Ron T Gansevoort,Corine H GeurtsvanKessel,Marc H Hemmelder,Luuk B Hilbrands,Hanna Källmark,Meliha C Kapetanovic,Marcia M L Kho,Aiko P J de Vries,Arjan D van Zuilen,Marlies E Reinders,Debbie van Baarle,Rory D de Vries,Jan-Stephan F Sanders,
{"title":"Replacing Mycophenolate Mofetil by Everolimus in Kidney Transplant Recipients to Increase Vaccine Immunogenicity: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial.","authors":"A Lianne Messchendorp,Luca M Zaeck,Pim Bouwmans,Dennis A J van den Broek,Sophie C Frölke,Daryl Geers,Céline Imhof,S Reshwan K Malahe,Katharina S Schmitz,Julian Reinders,Frederique E Visscher,Carla C Baan,Frederike J Bemelman,Ron T Gansevoort,Corine H GeurtsvanKessel,Marc H Hemmelder,Luuk B Hilbrands,Hanna Källmark,Meliha C Kapetanovic,Marcia M L Kho,Aiko P J de Vries,Arjan D van Zuilen,Marlies E Reinders,Debbie van Baarle,Rory D de Vries,Jan-Stephan F Sanders,","doi":"10.1093/cid/ciaf107","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\r\nVaccine immunogenicity is reduced in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs), especially in those using mycophenolate mofetil (MMF). Whether replacement of MMF by everolimus improves vaccine immunogenicity is unknown.\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nKTRs were randomized 1:1 to continue MMF or switch to everolimus. Participants received one coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) booster vaccination and two herpes zoster (HZ) vaccinations at 6, 10 and 14 weeks postrandomization. Primary outcome was the neutralizing antibody response 28 days after COVID-19 vaccination. Secondary outcomes included antibody and T-cell responses 28 days after COVID-19 and HZ vaccination, and safety.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nIn 110 KTRs, COVID-19 vaccination resulted in comparable Omicron XBB.1.5 neutralizing antibody titers in the everolimus versus MMF group (308 [74.4-1314] vs 327 [115-897]; P = .83), whereas severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) Spike-specific T-cell responses were slightly lower with everolimus (118 [32.1-243] vs 228 [113-381] spot-forming cells [SFCs]/106 peripheral blood mononuclear cells [PBMCs]; P = .02). HZ vaccination led to higher varicella zoster virus (VZV) glycoprotein E (gE)-specific immunoglobulin G titers with everolimus (2192 [888-4523] vs 1101 [440-2078] 50% endpoint titer; P = .004), while VZV gE-specific T-cell responses were similar (85.0 [27.5-155] vs 115 [50.0-258] SFCs/106 PBMCs; P = .24). Besides known side effects, everolimus led to more bacterial infections (27.3% vs 11.1%; P = .03).\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nSix weeks' replacement of MMF by everolimus in KTRs does not improve COVID-19 booster vaccine immunogenicity, whereas 10 weeks' replacement enhances humoral HZ vaccine immunogenicity. While replacing MMF by everolimus may improve vaccine responses, its timing and potential risks require careful consideration.","PeriodicalId":10463,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Infectious Diseases","volume":"27 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Infectious Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaf107","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Vaccine immunogenicity is reduced in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs), especially in those using mycophenolate mofetil (MMF). Whether replacement of MMF by everolimus improves vaccine immunogenicity is unknown.
METHODS
KTRs were randomized 1:1 to continue MMF or switch to everolimus. Participants received one coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) booster vaccination and two herpes zoster (HZ) vaccinations at 6, 10 and 14 weeks postrandomization. Primary outcome was the neutralizing antibody response 28 days after COVID-19 vaccination. Secondary outcomes included antibody and T-cell responses 28 days after COVID-19 and HZ vaccination, and safety.
RESULTS
In 110 KTRs, COVID-19 vaccination resulted in comparable Omicron XBB.1.5 neutralizing antibody titers in the everolimus versus MMF group (308 [74.4-1314] vs 327 [115-897]; P = .83), whereas severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) Spike-specific T-cell responses were slightly lower with everolimus (118 [32.1-243] vs 228 [113-381] spot-forming cells [SFCs]/106 peripheral blood mononuclear cells [PBMCs]; P = .02). HZ vaccination led to higher varicella zoster virus (VZV) glycoprotein E (gE)-specific immunoglobulin G titers with everolimus (2192 [888-4523] vs 1101 [440-2078] 50% endpoint titer; P = .004), while VZV gE-specific T-cell responses were similar (85.0 [27.5-155] vs 115 [50.0-258] SFCs/106 PBMCs; P = .24). Besides known side effects, everolimus led to more bacterial infections (27.3% vs 11.1%; P = .03).
CONCLUSIONS
Six weeks' replacement of MMF by everolimus in KTRs does not improve COVID-19 booster vaccine immunogenicity, whereas 10 weeks' replacement enhances humoral HZ vaccine immunogenicity. While replacing MMF by everolimus may improve vaccine responses, its timing and potential risks require careful consideration.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Infectious Diseases (CID) is dedicated to publishing original research, reviews, guidelines, and perspectives with the potential to reshape clinical practice, providing clinicians with valuable insights for patient care. CID comprehensively addresses the clinical presentation, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of a wide spectrum of infectious diseases. The journal places a high priority on the assessment of current and innovative treatments, microbiology, immunology, and policies, ensuring relevance to patient care in its commitment to advancing the field of infectious diseases.