Reduced humoral immune response after BNT162b2 coronavirus disease 2019 messenger RNA vaccination in cancer patients under antineoplastic treatment

Limited T cell response to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine among patients with cancer receiving different cancer treatments

INTRODUCTION

Patients with cancer (PC) are at high risk of acquiring COVID-19 and can develop more serious complications. Deeper understanding of vaccines immunogenicity in this population is crucial for adequately planning vaccines programs. The ONCOVac study aimed to comprehensively assess the immunogenicity of mRNA-1273 vaccine in terms of humoral and cellular response.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, single-center study including patients with solid tumours treated with cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i), immunotherapy (IT) or chemotherapy (CT). Patients were enrolled previously to vaccination with mRNA-1273. We also involved health care workers (HCW) to serve as a control group. We took blood samples before first dose administration (BL), after first dose (1D), and after second dose (2D). The primary objective was to compare the rate and magnitude of T cell response after second dose whereas safety and humoral response were defined as secondary objectives. We also collected patient reported outcomes after both the first and second vaccine dose and a six-month follow-up period to diagnose incident COVID-19 cases was planned.

RESULTS

The rate of specific anti-S serologic positivity (anti-S IgG cut-off point at 7,14 BAU/mL) was significantly higher in HCW compared to PC after 1D (100% versus 83.8%; p = 0.04), but similar after 2D (100% versus 95.8%; p = 0.5). This difference after 1D was driven by PC treated with CT (100% versus 64.5%; p = 0.001). Cellular response after 2D was significantly lower in PC than in HCW for both CD4+ (91.7% versus 59.7%; p = 0.001) and CD8+ (94.4% versus 55.6%; p < 0.001) T cells. We found a difference on pre-existing CD4+ T cell response in HCW comparing to PC (36% and 17%, p = 0.03); without difference in pre-existing CD8+ T cell response (31% and 23%, p = 0.5). After excluding patients with pre-existing T cell response, PC achieved even lower CD4+ (50.9% versus 95.5%, p < 0.001) and CD8+ (45.5% versus 95.5%, p < 0.001) T cell response compared with HCW. Regarding safety, PC reported notably more adverse events than HCW (96.6% versus 69.2%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

We demonstrated that PC showed a similar humoral response but a lower T cell response following two doses of mRNA-1273 vaccination. Further studies are needed to complement our results and determine the implication of low T cell response on clinical protection of PC against COVID-19.

Treatment paradigm in Waldenström macroglobulinemia: frontline therapy and beyond

Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM) is an indolent lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma. Recent strides made in the genomic profiling of patients with WM have led to the identification of many novel therapeutic targets. Patients with WM can present with asymptomatic disease and not all patients require treatment. When criteria for initiating systemic therapy are met, the choice of therapy depends on the tumor genotype (MYD88 and CXCR4 mutation status), patient preference (fixed versus continuous duration therapy, oral versus intravenous route, cost), associated medical comorbidities, and adverse effect profile of the treatment. In the absence of head-to-head comparison between chemoimmunotherapy and Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors in otherwise fit patients with a MYD88^L265P mutation, our preference is fixed duration therapy with four to six cycles of chemoimmunotherapy with bendamustine–rituximab. In this review, we discuss the role of MYD88 and CXCR4 mutation in treatment selection, and current data for frontline and salvage treatment options in patients with WM.

COVID-19 in vaccinated versus unvaccinated hematologic malignancy patients

The effect of vaccination on severity of subsequent COVID-19 in patients with hematologic malignancies (HMs) is unknown. In this single-center retrospective cohort study, we found no difference in severity of COVID-19 disease in vaccinated (n = 16) versus unvaccinated (n = 54) HM patients using an adjusted multiple logistic regression model. Recent anti-B-cell therapy was associated with more severe illness.

COVID-19 vaccination in cancer patients: a narrative review

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has affected over 220 million individuals worldwide, and has been shown to cause increased disease severity and mortality in patients with active cancer versus healthy individuals. Vaccination is important in reducing COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality. Thus, the aim of this article was to review the existing knowledge on effectiveness, immunogenicity and safety of COVID-19 vaccines in patients with cancer. Fifty-four articles were included following a search of PubMed and Google Scholar databases for studies published between January 2020 and September 2021 that investigated humoral and cell-mediated immune responses following COVID-19 vaccination in patients with cancer. Immunogenicity of vaccines was found to be lower in patients with cancer versus healthy individuals, and humoral immune responses were inferior in those with haematological versus solid cancers. Patient-, disease-, and treatment-related factors associated with poorer vaccine responses should be identified and corrected or mitigated when possible. Consideration should be given to offering patients with cancer second doses of COVID vaccine at shorter intervals than in healthy individuals. Patients with cancer warrant a third vaccine dose and must be prioritized in vaccination schedules. Vaccine adverse effect profiles are comparable between patients with cancer and healthy individuals.

mRNA-COVID19 Vaccination Can Be Considered Safe and Tolerable for Frail Patients

Background

Frail patients are considered at relevant risk of complications due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection and, for this reason, are prioritized candidates for vaccination. As these patients were originally not included in the registration trials, fear related to vaccine adverse events and disease worsening was one of the reasons for vaccine hesitancy. Herein, we report the safety profile of the prospective, multicenter, national VAX4FRAIL study (NCT04848493) to evaluate vaccines in a large trans-disease cohort of patients with solid or hematological malignancies and neurological and rheumatological diseases.

Methods

Between March 3 and September 2, 2021, 566 patients were evaluable for safety endpoint: 105 received the mRNA-1273 vaccine and 461 the BNT162b2 vaccine. Frail patients were defined per protocol as patients under treatment with hematological malignancies (n = 131), solid tumors (n = 191), immune-rheumatological diseases (n = 86), and neurological diseases (n = 158), including multiple sclerosis and generalized myasthenia. The impact of the vaccination on the health status of patients was assessed through a questionnaire focused on the first week after each vaccine dose.

Results

The most frequently reported moderate–severe adverse events were pain at the injection site (60.3% after the first dose, 55.4% after the second), fatigue (30.1%–41.7%), bone pain (27.4%–27.2%), and headache (11.8%–18.9%). Risk factors associated with the occurrence of severe symptoms after vaccine administration were identified through a multivariate logistic regression analysis: age was associated with severe fever presentation (younger patients vs. middle-aged vs. older ones), female individuals presented a higher probability of severe pain at the injection site, fatigue, headache, and bone pain; and the mRNA-1237 vaccine was associated with a higher probability of severe pain at the injection site and fever. After the first dose, patients presenting a severe symptom were at a relevant risk of recurrence of the same severe symptom after the second one. Overall, 11 patients (1.9%) after the first dose and 7 (1.2%) after the second one required postponement or suspension of the disease-specific treatment. Finally, two fatal events occurred among our 566 patients. These two events were considered unrelated to the vaccine.

Conclusions

Our study reports that mRNA-COVID-19 vaccination is safe also in frail patients; as expected, side effects were manageable and had a minimum impact on patient care path.

Efficacy of covid-19 vaccines in immunocompromised patients: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of covid-19 vaccines between immunocompromised and immunocompetent people.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase, Central Register of Controlled Trials, COVID-19 Open Research Dataset Challenge (CORD-19), and WHO covid-19 databases for studies published between 1 December 2020 and 5 November 2021. ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched in November 2021 to identify registered but as yet unpublished or ongoing studies.

STUDY SELECTION

Prospective observational studies comparing the efficacy of covid-19 vaccination in immunocompromised and immunocompetent participants.

METHODS

A frequentist random effects meta-analysis was used to separately pool relative and absolute risks of seroconversion after the first and second doses of a covid-19 vaccine. Systematic review without meta-analysis of SARS-CoV-2 antibody titre levels was performed after first, second, and third vaccine doses and the seroconversion rate after a third dose. Risk of bias and certainty of evidence were assessed.

RESULTS

82 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Of these studies, 77 (94%) used mRNA vaccines, 16 (20%) viral vector vaccines, and 4 (5%) inactivated whole virus vaccines. 63 studies were assessed to be at low risk of bias and 19 at moderate risk of bias. After one vaccine dose, seroconversion was about half as likely in patients with haematological cancers (risk ratio 0.40, 95% confidence interval 0.32 to 0.50, I²=80%; absolute risk 0.29, 95% confidence interval 0.20 to 0.40, I²=89%), immune mediated inflammatory disorders (0.53, 0.39 to 0.71, I²=89%; 0.29, 0.11 to 0.58, I²=97%), and solid cancers (0.55, 0.46 to 0.65, I²=78%; 0.44, 0.36 to 0.53, I²=84%) compared with immunocompetent controls, whereas organ transplant recipients were 16 times less likely to seroconvert (0.06, 0.04 to 0.09, I²=0%; 0.06, 0.04 to 0.08, I²=0%). After a second dose, seroconversion remained least likely in transplant recipients (0.39, 0.32 to 0.46, I²=92%; 0.35, 0.26 to 0.46), with only a third achieving seroconversion. Seroconversion was increasingly likely in patients with haematological cancers (0.63, 0.57 to 0.69, I²=88%; 0.62, 0.54 to 0.70, I²=90%), immune mediated inflammatory disorders (0.75, 0.69 to 0.82, I²=92%; 0.77, 0.66 to 0.85, I²=93%), and solid cancers (0.90, 0.88 to 0.93, I²=51%; 0.89, 0.86 to 0.91, I²=49%). Seroconversion was similar between people with HIV and immunocompetent controls (1.00, 0.98 to 1.01, I²=0%; 0.97, 0.83 to 1.00, I²=89%). Systematic review of 11 studies showed that a third dose of a covid-19 mRNA vaccine was associated with seroconversion among vaccine non-responders with solid cancers, haematological cancers, and immune mediated inflammatory disorders, although response was variable in transplant recipients and inadequately studied in people with HIV and those receiving non-mRNA vaccines.

CONCLUSION

Seroconversion rates after covid-19 vaccination were significantly lower in immunocompromised patients, especially organ transplant recipients. A second dose was associated with consistently improved seroconversion across all patient groups, albeit at a lower magnitude for organ transplant recipients. Targeted interventions for immunocompromised patients, including a third (booster) dose, should be performed.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021272088.

Fighting the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic requires a global approach to understanding the heterogeneity of vaccine responses

Host genetic and environmental factors including age, biological sex, diet, geographical location, microbiome composition and metabolites converge to influence innate and adaptive immune responses to vaccines. Failure to understand and account for these factors when investigating severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine efficacy may impair the development of the next generation of vaccines. Most studies aimed at identifying mechanisms of vaccine-mediated immune protection have focused on adaptive immune responses. It is well established, however, that mobilization of the innate immune response is essential to the development of effective cellular and humoral immunity. A comprehensive understanding of the innate immune response and environmental factors that contribute to the development of broad and durable cellular and humoral immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 and other vaccines requires a holistic and unbiased approach. Along with optimization of the immunogen and vectors, the development of adjuvants based on our evolving understanding of how the innate immune system shapes vaccine responses will be essential. Defining the innate immune mechanisms underlying the establishment of long-lived plasma cells and memory T cells could lead to a universal vaccine for coronaviruses, a key biomedical priority.

Efficacy of mRNA anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and dynamics of humoral immune response in patients with solid tumors: results from the institutional registry of an Italian tertiary cancer center

Background:

Systemic immunosuppression characterizing cancer patients represents a concern regarding the efficacy of anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination, and real-world evidence is needed to define the efficacy and the dynamics of humoral immune response to mRNA-based anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines.

Methods:

We conducted an observational study that included patients with solid tumors who were candidates for mRNA anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination at the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy. The primary objective was to monitor the immunologic response to the mRNA anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in terms of anti-spike antibody levels. All the patients received two doses of the mRNA-1273 vaccine or the BNT162b2 vaccine. Healthcare workers served as a control group of healthy subjects.

Results:

Among the 243 patients included in the present analysis, 208 (85.60%) and 238 (97.94%) resulted seroconverted after the first and the second dose of vaccine, respectively. Only five patients (2.06%) had a negative titer after the second dose. No significant differences in the rate of seroconversion after two vaccine doses were observed in patients as compared with the control group of healthy subjects. Age and anticancer treatment class had an independent impact on the antibody titer after the second dose of vaccination. In a subgroup of 171 patients with available data about the third timepoint, patients receiving immunotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors seem to have a higher peak of antibodies soon after the second dose (3 weeks after), but a more pronounced decrease at a late timepoint (3 months after).

Conclusions:

The systemic immunosuppression characterizing cancer patients did not seem to dramatically affect the humoral response to anti-SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines in our population of patients with solid tumors. Further investigation is needed to dissect the interplay between immunotherapy and longitudinal dynamics of humoral response to mRNA vaccines, as well as to analyze the cellular response to mRNA vaccines in cancer patients.

Antibody response after vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in adults with hematological malignancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 have shown remarkable efficacy and thus constitute an important preventive option against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), especially in fragile patients. We aimed to systematically analyze the outcomes of patients with hematological malignancies who received vaccination and to identify specific groups with differences in outcomes. The primary end point was antibody response after full vaccination (2 doses of mRNA or one dose of vectorbased vaccines). We identified 49 studies comprising 11,086 individuals. Overall risk of bias was low. The pooled response for hematological malignancies was 64% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 59-69; I²=93%) versus 96% (95% CI: 92-97; I²=44%) for solid cancer and 98% (95% CI: 96-99; I²=55%) for healthy controls (P<0.001). Outcome was different across hematological malignancies (P<0.001). The pooled response was 50% (95% CI: 43-57; I²=84%) for chronic lymphocytic leukemia, 76% (95% CI: 67-83; I²=92%) for multiple myeloma, 83% (95% CI: 69-91; I²=85%) for myeloproliferative neoplasms, 91% (95% CI: 82-96; I²=12%) for Hodgkin lymphoma, and 58% (95% CI: 44-70; I²=84%) for aggressive and 61% (95% CI: 48-72; I²=85%) for indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The pooled response for allogeneic and autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation was 82% and 83%, respectively. Being in remission and prior COVID-19 showed significantly higher responses. Low pooled response was identified for active treatment (35%), anti-CD20 therapy ≤1 year (15%), Bruton kinase inhibition (23%), venetoclax (26%), ruxolitinib (42%), and chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (42%). Studies on timing, value of boosters, and long-term efficacy are needed. This study is registered with PROSPERO (clinicaltrials gov. Identifier: CRD42021279051).

Analysis of the humoral and cellular immune response after a full course of BNT162b2 anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in cancer patients treated with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors with or without chemotherapy: an update after 6 months of follow-up

Background

The durability of immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in cancer patients remains to be elucidated. We prospectively evaluated the immunogenicity of the vaccine in triggering both the humoral and the cell-mediated immune response in cancer patients treated with anti-programmed cell death protein 1/programmed death-ligand 1 with or without chemotherapy 6 months after BNT162b2 vaccine.

Patients and methods

In the previous study, 88 patients were enrolled, whereas the analyses below refer to the 60 patients still on immunotherapy at the time of the follow-up. According to previous SARS-CoV-2 exposure, patients were classified as SARS-CoV-2-naive (without previous SARS-CoV-2 exposure) and SARS-CoV-2-experienced (with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection). Neutralizing antibody (NT Ab) titer against the B.1.1 strain and total anti-spike immunoglobulin G concentration were quantified in serum samples. The enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot assay was used for quantification of anti-spike interferon-γ (IFN-γ)-producing cells/10⁶ peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Fifty patients (83.0%) were on immunotherapy alone, whereas 10 patients (7%) were on chemo-immunotherapy. We analyzed separately patients on immunotherapy and patients on chemo-immunotherapy.

Results

The median T-cell response at 6 months was significantly lower than that measured at 3 weeks after vaccination [50 interquartile range (IQR) 20-118.8 versus 175 IQR 67.5-371.3 IFN-γ-producing cells/10⁶ peripheral blood mononuclear cells; P < 0.0001]. The median reduction of immunoglobulin G concentration was 88% in SARS-CoV-2-naive subjects and 2.1% in SARS-CoV-2-experienced subjects. SARS-CoV-2 NT Ab titer was maintained in SARS-CoV-2-experienced subjects, whereas a significant decrease was observed in SARS-CoV-2-naive subjects (from median 1 : 160, IQR 1 : 40-1 : 640 to median 1 : 20, IQR 1 : 10-1 : 40; P < 0.0001). A weak correlation was observed between SARS-CoV-2 NT Ab titer and spike-specific IFN-γ-producing cells at both 6 months and 3 weeks after vaccination (r = 0.467; P = 0.0002 and r = 0.428; P = 0.0006, respectively).

Conclusions

Our work highlights a reduction in the immune response in cancer patients, particularly in SARS-CoV-2-naive subjects. Our data support administering a third dose of COVID-19 vaccine to cancer patients treated with programmed cell death protein 1/programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitors.

•

Median spike-specific T-cell response at 6 months was lower compared with 3 weeks after vaccine in SARS-CoV-2-naive subjects.

•

Median reduction of SARS-CoV-2-specific immunoglobulin G concentration was 88% in SARS-CoV-2-naive subjects.

•

The SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing activity was maintained stable in subjects with previous COVID-19.

•

No COVID-19 cases were documented throughout the period of study.