4.7 Article

Tocilizumab-treated convalescent COVID-19 patients retain the cross-neutralization potential against SARS-CoV-2 variants

期刊

ISCIENCE
卷 26, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.isci.2023.106124

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although tocilizumab treatment has shown efficacy in severe COVID-19 patients, its short-term use does not affect B cell sub-populations and cross-neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 variants in convalescent COVID-19 patients. The study found that SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG1 titers were dependent on disease severity rather than tocilizumab treatment. Both treated and non-treated patients had strong neutralizing activity against ancestral and several variants of SARS-CoV-2, but weaker activity against the Gamma and Omicron variants. Overall, tocilizumab therapy did not modify the robustness of cell and IgG responses to Spike antigens.
Although tocilizumab treatment in severe and critical coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients has proven its efficacy at the clinical level, there is little evidence supporting the effect of short-term use of interleukin-6 receptor blocking therapy on the B cell sub-populations and the cross-neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 variants in convalescent COVID-19 patients. We performed immunological profiling of 69 tocilizumab-treated and non-treated convalescent COVID-19 patients in total. We observed that SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG1 titers depended on disease severity but not on tocilizumab treatment. The plasma of both treated and non-treated patients infected with the ancestral variant exhibit strong neutralizing activity against the ancestral virus and the Alpha, Beta, and Delta variants of SARS-CoV-2, whereas the Gamma and Omicron viruses were less sensitive to seroneutralization. Overall, we observed that, despite the clinical benefits of short-term tocilizumab therapy in modifying the cytokine storm associated with COVID-19 infections, there were no modifications in the robustness of cell and IgG responses to Spike antigens.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据