Safety and immunogenicity of one versus two doses of the COVID-19 vaccine BNT162b2 for patients with cancer: interim analysis of a prospective observational study

A multicompartment mathematical model based on host immunity for dissecting COVID-19 heterogeneity

The determinants underlying the heterogeneity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remain to be elucidated. To systemically analyze the immunopathogenesis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, we built a multicompartment mathematical model based on immunological principles and typical COVID-19-related characteristics. This model integrated the trafficking of immune cells and cytokines among the secondary lymphoid organs, peripheral blood and lungs. Our results suggested that early-stage lymphopenia was related to lymphocyte chemotaxis, while prolonged lymphopenia in critically ill patients was associated with myeloid-derived suppressor cells. Furthermore, our model predicted that insufficient SARS-CoV-2-specific naïve T/B cell pools and ineffective activation of antigen-presenting cells (APCs) would cause delayed immunity activation, resulting in elevated viral load, low immunoglobulin level, etc. Overall, we provided a comprehensive view of the dynamics of host immunity after SARS-CoV-2 infection that enabled us to understand COVID-19 heterogeneity from systemic perspective.

Safety and Adverse Events Related to COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines; a Systematic Review

Introduction

Knowledge of vaccine-related adverse events is crucial as they are among the most ‎important factors ‎that cause hesitation in receiving vaccines. Therefore, we aimed to systematically ‎review the adverse events ‎related to the mRNA vaccines reported in the literature.‎.

Method

A systematic literature search was carried out in the databases of Scopus, PubMed, ‎Cochrane, and Web ‎of Science. We selected original studies that explored the side effects of ‎mRNA ‎COVID-19 vaccines using a two-phase (title/abstract and full-text) screening process.‎.

Results

Cardiac ‎complications were the most commonly reported severe adverse events. It appeared that ‎systemic adverse reactions are more ‎common after the second dose of vaccines. The number of ‎adverse effects reported after the Pfizer vaccine was ‎higher than other vaccines, mostly due to its ‎earlier approval and more widespread use throughout the world. Cardiac adverse events had a ‎‎higher prevalence but no significant association has been found between COVID-19 mRNA vaccines ‎and cardiac ‎adverse events except for myopericarditis. ‎.

Conclusion

Vaccines ‎play a crucial role in controlling the COVID-19 pandemic and decreasing ‎mortalities and the results of the present ‎review acknowledge the fact that the benefits outweigh the ‎adverse events of these vaccines.‎.

Safety of two-dose COVID-19 vaccination (BNT162b2 and CoronaVac) in adults with cancer: a territory-wide cohort study

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization has defined a list of adverse events of special interest (AESI) for safety surveillance of vaccines. AESI have not been adequately assessed following COVID-19 vaccination in patients with cancer contributing to vaccine hesitancy in this population. We aimed to evaluate the association between BNT162b2 and CoronaVac vaccines and the risk of AESI in adults with active cancer or a history of cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a territory-wide cohort study using electronic health records managed by the Hong Kong Hospital Authority and vaccination records provided by the Department of Health. Patients with a cancer diagnosis between January 1, 2018, and September 30, 2021, were included and stratified into two cohorts: active cancer and history of cancer. Within each cohort, patients who received two doses of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac were 1:1 matched to unvaccinated patients using the propensity score. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for AESI 28 days after the second vaccine dose.

RESULTS

A total of 74,878 patients with cancer were included (vaccinated: 25,789 [34%]; unvaccinated: 49,089 [66%]). Among patients with active cancer, the incidence of AESI was 0.31 and 1.02 per 10,000 person-days with BNT162b2 versus unvaccinated patients and 0.13 and 0.88 per 10,000 person-days with CoronaVac versus unvaccinated patients. Among patients with history of cancer, the incidence was 0.55 and 0.89 per 10,000 person-days with BNT162b2 versus unvaccinated patients and 0.42 and 0.93 per 10,000 person-days with CoronaVac versus unvaccinated patients. Neither vaccine was associated with a higher risk of AESI for patients with active cancer (BNT162b2: HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.08-1.09; CoronaVac: 0.14, 95% CI 0.02-1.18) or patients with history of cancer (BNT162b2: 0.62, 95% CI 0.30-1.28; CoronaVac: 0.45, 95% CI 0.21-1.00).

CONCLUSIONS

In this territory-wide cohort study of patients with cancer, the incidence of AESI following vaccination with two doses of either BNT162b2 or CoronaVac vaccines was low. The findings of this study can reassure clinicians and patients with cancer about the overall safety of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac in patients with cancer, which could increase the COVID-19 vaccination rate in this vulnerable group of patients.

Myeloid-Derived Suppressor Cells in COVID-19: The Paradox of Good

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the causative agent of the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Viral replication in the respiratory tract induces the death of infected cells and the release of pathogen- associated molecular patterns (PAMPs). PAMPs give rise to local inflammation, increasing the secretion of pro- inflammatory cytokines and chemokines, which attract immune cells from the blood into the infected lung. In most individuals, lung-recruited cells clear the infection, and the immune response retreats. However, in some cases, a dysfunctional immune response occurs, which triggers a cytokine storm in the lung, leading to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Severe COVID-19 is characterized by an impaired innate and adaptive immune response and by a massive expansion of myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs). MDSCs function as protective regulators of the immune response, protecting the host from over-immunoreactivity and hyper-inflammation. However, under certain conditions, such as chronic inflammation and cancer, MDSCs could exert a detrimental role. Accordingly, the early expansion of MDSCs in COVID-19 is able to predict the fatal outcome of the infection. Here, we review recent data on MDSCs during COVID-19, discussing how they can influence the course of the disease and whether they could be considered as biomarker and possible targets for new therapeutic approaches.

Association between history of HBV vaccine response and anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody response to the BioNTech/Pfizer's BNT162b2 mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine among healthcare workers in Japan: A prospective observational study

INTRODUCTION

Inadequate vaccine response is a common concern among healthcare workers at the frontlines of the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to investigate if healthcare workers with history of weak immune response to HBV vaccination are more likely to have weak responses against the BioNTech/Pfizer's BNT162b2 mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.

METHODS

We prospectively tested 954 healthcare workers for the Anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein antibody titers prior to the first and second BNT162b2 vaccination doses and after four weeks after the second dose using Roche's Elecsys® assay. We calculated the percentage of patients who seroconverted after the first and second doses. We estimated the relative risk of non-seroconversion after the first BNT162b2 vaccine (defined as anti-SARS-CoV-2-S titer <15 U/mL) among HBV vaccine non-responders (HBs-Ab titer <10 mIU/mL) and weak responders (≥10 and <100 mIU/mL) compared to normal responders (≥100 mIU/mL).

RESULTS

Among 954 healthcare workers recruited between March 9 and March 24, 2021 at Osaka Medical and Pharmaceutical University, weak and normal HBV vaccine responders had comparable S-protein titers after the first BNT162b2 dose (51.4 [95% confidence interval 25.2-137.0] versus 59.7 [29.8-138.0] U/mL, respectively). HBV vaccine non-responders were more likely than normal responders to not seroconvert after a single dose (age and sex-adjusted relative risk 1.85 95% confidence interval [1.10-3.13]) although nearly all participants seroconverted after the second dose. After limiting the analysis to 382 patients with baseline comorbidity data, the comorbidity-adjusted relative risk of non-seroconversion among HBV vaccine non-responders to normal responders was 1.32 (95% confidence interval [0.59-2.98]).

DISCUSSION

Long term follow-up studies are needed to understand if protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2 wanes faster among those with history of HBV vaccine non-response and when booster doses are warranted for these healthcare workers.

Thrombosis, cancer, and COVID-19

Cancer and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have unusual similarities: they both result in a markedly elevated risk of thrombosis, exceptionally high D-dimer levels, and the failure of anticoagulation therapy in some cases. Cancer patients are more vulnerable to COVID-19 infection and have a higher mortality rate. Science has uncovered much about SARS-CoV-2, and made extraordinary and unprecedented progress on the development of various treatment strategies and COVID-19 vaccines. In this review, we discuss known data on cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT), SARS-CoV-2 infection, and COVID-19 vaccines and discuss considerations for managing CAT in patients with COVID-19. Cancer patients should be given priority for COVID-19 vaccination; however, they may demonstrate a weaker immune response to COVID-19 vaccines than the general population. Currently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends an additional dose and booster shot of the COVID-19 vaccine after the primary series in patients undergoing active cancer treatment for solid tumors or hematological cancers, recipients of stem cell transplant within the last 2 years, those taking immunosuppressive medications, and those undergoing active treatment with high-dose corticosteroids or other drugs that suppress the immune response. The mainstay of thrombosis treatment in patients with cancer and COVID-19 is anticoagulation therapy.

Seroconversion following COVID-19 vaccination: can we optimize protective response in CD20-treated individuals?

Although there is an ever-increasing number of disease-modifying treatments for relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS), few appear to influence coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) severity. There is concern about the use of anti-CD20-depleting monoclonal antibodies, due to the apparent increased risk of severe disease following severe acute respiratory syndrome corona virus two (SARS-CoV-2) infection and inhibition of protective anti-COVID-19 vaccine responses. These antibodies are given as maintenance infusions/injections and cause persistent depletion of CD20+ B cells, notably memory B-cell populations that may be instrumental in the control of relapsing MS. However, they also continuously deplete immature and mature/naïve B cells that form the precursors for infection-protective antibody responses, thus blunting vaccine responses. Seroconversion and maintained SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody levels provide protection from COVID-19. However, it is evident that poor seroconversion occurs in the majority of individuals following initial and booster COVID-19 vaccinations, based on standard 6 monthly dosing intervals. Seroconversion may be optimized in the anti-CD20-treated population by vaccinating prior to treatment onset or using extended/delayed interval dosing (3-6 month extension to dosing interval) in those established on therapy, with B-cell monitoring until (1-3%) B-cell repopulation occurs prior to vaccination. Some people will take more than a year to replete and therefore protection may depend on either the vaccine-induced T-cell responses that typically occur or may require prophylactic, or rapid post-infection therapeutic, antibody or small-molecule antiviral treatment to optimize protection against COVID-19. Further studies are warranted to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of such approaches and whether or not immunity wanes prematurely as has been observed in the other populations.

Antibody Response to COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines in Oncologic and Hematologic Patients Undergoing Chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Information on immune responses in cancer patients following mRNA COVID-19 vaccines is still insufficient, but generally, patients had impaired serological responses, especially those with hematological malignancies. We evaluated serological response to COVID-19 mRNA vaccine in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy compared with healthy controls.

METHODS

In total, 195 cancer patients and 400 randomly selected controls who had been administered a Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines in two doses were compared. The threshold of positivity was 4.33 BAU/mL. Patients were receiving anticancer treatment after the first and second dose of the vaccines.

RESULTS

a TOTAL OF 169 patients (87%) had solid tumors and 26 hemolymphopoietic diseases. Seropositivity rate was lower in patients than controls (91% vs. 96%), with an age/gender-adjusted rate ratio (RR) of 0.95 (95% CL = 0.89-1.02). Positivity was found in 97% of solid cancers and in 50% of hemolymphopoietic tumors. Both advanced and adjuvant therapy seemed to slightly reduce seropositivity rates in patients when compared to controls (RR = 0.97, 95% CL = 0.89-1.06; RR = 0.94, 95% CL = 0.87-1.01).

CONCLUSIONS

the response to vaccination is similar in patients affected by solid tumors to controls. On the contrary, hemolymphopietic patients show a much lower response than controls.

The Efficacy of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and CoronaVac Vaccines in Patients with Cancer

Although vaccination is efficacious and prevents infection in the general population, there is limited data about Coronavirus disease‐19 (Covid‐19) occurrence after vaccination in cancer patients. It was aimed to evaluate the efficacy of BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNTech) and CoronaVac vaccines against Covid‐19 in patients with cancer. In this single‐center, retrospective, cross‐sectional, and descriptive study, the data of cancer patients referred to the medical oncology clinic of a university hospital were analyzed. The sample of the study consisted of cancer patients who had Covid‐19 or were vaccinated against Covid‐19. A total number of 2578 patients were included in the study. Of the patients, 2000 have never been infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and 578 patients have had a positive reverse‐transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR) for Covid‐19. It was found that 2094 patients (81.2%) were fully vaccinated, and 484 patients (18.8%) did not receive full‐dose vaccination. A statistically significant difference in Covid‐19 occurrence was found between the patients who had full‐dose vaccination or not (p = 0.000). In in‐group comparisons of full‐dose vaccinated patients, while no difference was observed between two doses of BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNTech) and three doses of CoronaVac (p = 0.432), a statistically significant difference was observed between all other groups (p < 0.005). When the data of 578 patients who experienced Covid‐19 was analyzed, a statistically significant difference was observed between the groups who were full‐dose vaccinated and those who were not (p = 0.000). It is recommended that this vulnerable patient group should be prioritized in vaccination programs, and full‐dose vaccination (at least two doses of vaccines) should be completed as soon as possible.

Can Individuals with Suboptimal Antibody Responses to Conventional Antiviral Vaccines Acquire Adequate Antibodies from SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccination?

In Japan, healthcare workers (HCWs) are vaccinated against measles, rubella, chickenpox, mumps, and hepatitis B to prevent nosocomial infection; however, some do not produce sufficient antibodies ("suboptimal responders"). This study compared immune responses to a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2 mRNA) vaccine among HCWs with normal and suboptimal responses to conventional vaccines. In this prospective cohort study, 50 HCWs received two doses of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine 3 weeks apart. SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike antibodies were measured 11 times, starting before the first vaccination and ending 5 months after the second vaccination. Antibody titers of four suboptimal and 46 normal responders were compared. SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody activity was measured twice in suboptimal responders, 1 week/1 month and 5 months after the second vaccination. The SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike antibody was detectable in the samples from suboptimal and normal responders at each timepoint after vaccination. Suboptimal responders exhibited SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody activity 1 week/1 month as well as 5 months after the second vaccination; however, activity was slightly reduced at 5 months. Our findings show that suboptimal responders do acquire adequate SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike and SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies from vaccination to prevent SARS-CoV-2. SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines should thus be recommended for both normal and suboptimal responders to conventional vaccines.

COVID-19 vaccine development: milestones, lessons and prospects

With the constantly mutating of SARS-CoV-2 and the emergence of Variants of Concern (VOC), the implementation of vaccination is critically important. Existing SARS-CoV-2 vaccines mainly include inactivated, live attenuated, viral vector, protein subunit, RNA, DNA, and virus-like particle (VLP) vaccines. Viral vector vaccines, protein subunit vaccines, and mRNA vaccines may induce additional cellular or humoral immune regulations, including Th cell responses and germinal center responses, and form relevant memory cells, greatly improving their efficiency. However, some viral vector or mRNA vaccines may be associated with complications like thrombocytopenia and myocarditis, raising concerns about the safety of these COVID-19 vaccines. Here, we systemically assess the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, including the possible complications and different effects on pregnant women, the elderly, people with immune diseases and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), transplant recipients, and cancer patients. Based on the current analysis, governments and relevant agencies are recommended to continue to advance the vaccine immunization process. Simultaneously, special attention should be paid to the health status of the vaccines, timely treatment of complications, vaccine development, and ensuring the lives and health of patients. In addition, available measures such as mix-and-match vaccination, developing new vaccines like nanoparticle vaccines, and optimizing immune adjuvant to improve vaccine safety and efficacy could be considered.

ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine elicits monoclonal antibodies with cross-neutralizing activity against SARS-CoV-2 viral variants

Although the antibody response to COVID-19 vaccination has been studied extensively at the polyclonal level using immune sera, little has been reported on the antibody response at the monoclonal level. Here, we isolate a panel of 44 anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) from an individual who received two doses of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine at a 12-week interval. We show that, despite a relatively low serum neutralization titer, Spike-reactive IgG+ B cells are still detectable 9 months post-boost. Furthermore, mAbs with potent neutralizing activity against the current SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (Alpha, Gamma, Beta, Delta, and Omicron) are present. The vaccine-elicited neutralizing mAbs form eight distinct competition groups and bind epitopes overlapping with neutralizing mAbs elicited following SARS-CoV-2 infection. AZD1222-elicited mAbs are more mutated than mAbs isolated from convalescent donors 1-2 months post-infection. These findings provide molecular insights into the AZD1222 vaccine-elicited antibody response.

COVID-19 Vaccination in Patients With Malignancy; A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy and Safety

Background

Data on the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines in patients with malignancy are immature. In this paper, we assessed the literature involving the use of COVID-19 vaccines in cancer patients and reported the seroconversion rates as the main outcome and severity of COVID-19 infection and side effects following COVID-19 vaccination as the secondary outcomes.

Methods

A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed. Searches were conducted in electronic websites, databases, and journals, including Scopus, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science from January 01, 2019, to November 30, 2021. Studies reporting data on the safety and efficacy of COVID vaccine in cancer patients using any human samples were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the NEWCASTLE-OTTAWA scale in the included studies.

Results

A total of 724 articles were identified from databases, out of which 201 articles were duplicates and were discarded. Subsequently, 454 articles were excluded through initial screening of the titles and abstracts. Moreover, 41 studies did not report the precise seroconversion rate either based on the type of cancer or after injection of a second dose of COVID vaccine. Finally, 28 articles met all the inclusion criteria and were included in this systematic review. The overall seroconversion rates after receiving a second dose of COVID-19 vaccine, based on type of cancer were 88% (95% CI, 81%-92%) and 70% (95% CI, 60%-79%) in patients with solid tumors and hematologic malignancies, respectively.

Conclusion

Overall, we conclude that vaccination against COVID-19 in patients with active malignancies using activated and inactivated vaccines is a safe and tolerable procedure that is also accompanied by a high efficacy.

Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness and immune response amongst individuals in clinical risk groups

Background COVID-19 vaccines approved in the UK are highly effective in general population cohorts, however, data on effectiveness amongst individuals with clinical conditions that place them at increased risk of severe disease are limited. Methods We used GP electronic health record data, sentinel virology swabbing and antibody testing within a cohort of 712 general practices across England to estimate vaccine antibody response and vaccine effectiveness against medically attended COVID-19 amongst individuals in clinical risk groups using cohort and test-negative case control designs. Findings There was no reduction in S-antibody positivity in most clinical risk groups, however reduced S-antibody positivity and response was significant in the immunosuppressed group. Reduced vaccine effectiveness against clinical disease was also noted in the immunosuppressed group; after a second dose, effectiveness was moderate (Pfizer: 59.6%, 95%CI 18.0-80.1%; AstraZeneca 60.0%, 95%CI -63.6-90.2%). Interpretation In most clinical risk groups, immune response to primary vaccination was maintained and high levels of vaccine effectiveness were seen. Reduced antibody response and vaccine effectiveness were seen after 1 dose of vaccine amongst a broad immunosuppressed group, and second dose vaccine effectiveness was moderate. These findings support maximising coverage in immunosuppressed individuals and the policy of prioritisation of this group for third doses.

Recent developments in SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: A systematic review of the current studies

Designing and manufacturing efficient vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a major objective. In this systematic review, we aimed to evaluate the most important vaccines under construction worldwide, their efficiencies and clinical results in healthy individuals and in those with specific underlying diseases. We conducted a comprehensive search in PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, and Web of Sciences by 1 December 2021 to identify published research studies. The inclusion criteria were publications that evaluated the immune responses and safety of COVID-19 vaccines in healthy individuals and in those with pre-existing diseases. We also searched the VAERS database to estimate the incidence of adverse events of special interest (AESI) post COVID-19 vaccination. Almost all investigated vaccines were well tolerated and developed good levels of both humoural and cellular responses. A protective and efficient humoural immune response develops after the second or third dose of vaccine and a longer interval (about 28 days) between the first and second injections of vaccine could induce higher antibody responses. The vaccines were less immunogenic in immunocompromised patients, particularly those with haematological malignancies. In addition, we found that venous and arterial thrombotic events, Bell's palsy, and myocarditis/pericarditis were the most common AESI. The results showed the potency of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines to protect subjects against disease. The provision of further effective and safe vaccines is necessary in order to reach a high coverage of immunisation programs across the globe and to provide protection against infection itself.

Low neutralizing antibody responses in WM, CLL and NHL patients after the first dose of the BNT162b2 and AZD1222 vaccine

Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 is considered as the most important preventive strategy against COVID-19, but its efficacy in patients with hematological malignancies is largely unknown. We investigated the development of neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with Waldenstrom Macroglobulinemia (WM), Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) and Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL). After the first dose of the vaccine, on D22, WM/CLL/NHL patients had lower NAb titers compared to controls: the median NAb inhibition titer was 17% (range 0-91%, IQR 8-27%) for WM/CLL/NHL patients versus 32% (range 2-98%, IQR 19-48%) for controls (P < 0.001). Only 8 (14%) patients versus 114 (54%) controls developed NAb titers ≥ 30% on D22 (p < 0.001). Our data indicate that the first dose of both BNT162b2 and AZD1222 leads to lower production of NAbs against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with WM/CLL/NHL compared to controls of similar age and gender and without malignant disease. Even though the response rates were not optimal, vaccination is still considered essential and if possible should be performed before treatment initiation. These patients with suboptimal responses should be considered to be prioritized for booster doses.

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.

Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia and patients with cancer

Vaccines to combat SARS-CoV-2 infection and the COVID-19 pandemic were quickly developed due to significant and combined efforts by the scientific community, government agencies, and private sector pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Following vaccine development, which took less than a year to accomplish, randomized placebo controlled clinical trials enrolled almost 100,000 people, demonstrating efficacy and no major safety signals. Vaccination programs were started, but shortly thereafter a small number of patients with a constellation of findings including thrombosis in unusual locations, thrombocytopenia, elevated D-dimer and often low fibrinogen led another intense and concentrated scientific effort to understand this syndrome. It was recognized that this occurred within a short time following administration of adenoviral vector SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Critical to the rapid understanding of this syndrome was prompt communication among clinicians and scientists and exchange of knowledge. Now known as vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia syndrome (VITT), progress has been made in understanding the pathophysiology of the syndrome, with the development of diagnostic criteria, and most importantly therapeutic strategies needed to effectively treat this rare complication of adenoviral vector vaccination. This review will focus on the current understanding of the pathophysiology of VITT, the findings that affected patients present with, and the rational for therapies, including for patients with cancer, as prompt recognition, diagnosis, and treatment of this syndrome has resulted in a dramatic decrease in associated mortality.

Impact of COVID-19 Disease in Early Breast Cancer Management: A Summary of the Current Evidence

An expert panel on breast cancer and COVID-19 disease was convened to address the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic for early breast cancer (eBC) management.

Acceptance, efficacy, and safety of COVID-19 vaccination in older patients with cancer

Purpose

The COVID-19 vaccination campaign began in December 2020, in France, and primarily targeted the oldest people. Our study aimed to determine the level of acceptance of vaccination in a population of older patients with cancer.

Methods

From January 2021, we offered vaccination with the BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine to all patients 70 years and older referred to our geriatric oncology center in Marseille University Hospital (AP-HM) for geriatric assessment before initiation of an oncological treatment. Objectives were to evaluate acceptance rate of COVID-19 vaccination and to assess vaccine safety, reactogenicity, and efficacy two months after the first dose.

Results

Between January 18, 2021 and May 7, 2021, 150 older patients with cancer were offered vaccination after a geriatric assessment. The majority were men (61.3%), with a mean age of 81 years. The two most frequent primary tumors were digestive (29.4%) and thoracic (18%). The vaccine acceptance rate was 82.6% and the complete vaccination rate (2 doses) reached 75.3%. Among the vaccinated patients, 15.9% reported mild side effects after the first dose and 23.4% after the second dose, mostly arm pain and fatigue. COVID-19 cases were observed in 5.1% of vaccinated patients compared with 16.7% in unvaccinated patients. Of the 22 vaccinated patients who agreed to have their serum tested, 15 had antibodies against the spike protein at day 21 after the first dose.

Conclusion

Our study showed a high acceptance rate of COVID-19 vaccination, with good tolerance in this frail population. These results highlight the benefits of organizing vaccination campaigns at the very beginning of oncological management in older patients.

Clinical trial registration: This study was registered May 23, 2019 in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03960593).

Risk and Outcome of Breakthrough COVID-19 Infections in Vaccinated Patients With Cancer: Real-World Evidence From the National COVID Cohort Collaborative

PURPOSE

To provide real-world evidence on risks and outcomes of breakthrough COVID-19 infections in vaccinated patients with cancer using the largest national cohort of COVID-19 cases and controls.

METHODS

We used the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) to identify breakthrough infections between December 1, 2020, and May 31, 2021. We included patients partially or fully vaccinated with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines with no prior SARS-CoV-2 infection record. Risks for breakthrough infection and severe outcomes were analyzed using logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 6,860 breakthrough cases were identified within the N3C-vaccinated population, among whom 1,460 (21.3%) were patients with cancer. Solid tumors and hematologic malignancies had significantly higher risks for breakthrough infection (odds ratios [ORs] = 1.12, 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.23 and 4.64, 95% CI, 3.98 to 5.38) and severe outcomes (ORs = 1.33, 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.62 and 1.45, 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.95) compared with noncancer patients, adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, smoking status, vaccine type, and vaccination date. Compared with solid tumors, hematologic malignancies were at increased risk for breakthrough infections (adjusted OR ranged from 2.07 for lymphoma to 7.25 for lymphoid leukemia). Breakthrough risk was reduced after the second vaccine dose for all cancers (OR = 0.04; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.05), and for Moderna's mRNA-1273 compared with Pfizer's BNT162b2 vaccine (OR = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.70), particularly in patients with multiple myeloma (OR = 0.35; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.72). Medications with major immunosuppressive effects and bone marrow transplantation were strongly associated with breakthrough risk among the vaccinated population.

CONCLUSION

Real-world evidence shows that patients with cancer, especially hematologic malignancies, are at higher risk for developing breakthrough infections and severe outcomes. Patients with vaccination were at markedly decreased risk for breakthrough infections. Further work is needed to assess boosters and new SARS-CoV-2 variants.

COVID-19 immunization in people with cancer-Is it safe and efficient? What do we know?

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccination of people with cancer or a recent history of cancer was advisable under specific conditions, depending on the type of vaccine (inactivated or live attenuated virus or bacterium), type of cancer, and whether they had undergone treatment for cancer. Some malignancies, especially hematological malignancies, and cancer treatments such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and splenectomy negatively impact the immune response. The clinical trials of currently used vaccines against COVID-19 did not include people with active cancer; thus, there is an important gap in the knowledge of safety and efficiency data for COVID-19 immunization in this population. However, considering the risk of mortality and morbidity due to possible infection with SARS-CoV-2, medical experts recommend immunization on an individual basis. As the worldwide prevalence of malignancies is high, reliable information on COVID-19 vaccination is expected to be revealed in future clinical trials. In this review, we examine the key aspects of cancer that may be affected by COVID-19 and summarize the current literature on COVID-19 immunization.

Predictors of SARS-CoV-2 IgG Spike Antibody Responses on Admission and Clinical Outcomes of COVID-19 Disease in Fully Vaccinated Inpatients: The CoVax Study

BACKGROUND

SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have shown high efficacy in protecting against COVID-19, although the determinants of vaccine effectiveness and breakthrough rates are yet to be determined. We aimed at investigating several factors affecting the SARS-CoV-2 IgG Spike (S) antibody responses on admission and clinical outcomes of COVID-19 disease in fully vaccinated, hospitalized patients.

METHODS

102 subjects were enrolled in the study. Blood serum samples were collected from each patient upon admission for the semiquantitative determination of the SARS-CoV-2 IgG S levels with lateral flow assays. Factors influencing vaccine responses were documented.

RESULTS

27 subjects had a negative antibody test upon hospital admission. Out of the 102 patients admitted to the hospital, 88 were discharged and 14 died. Both the absence of anti-S SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and poor clinical outcomes of COVID-19 disease were associated with older age, lower Ct values, and a shorter period between symptom onset and hospital admission. Ct values and time between symptom onset and hospitalization were independently associated with SARS-CoV-2 IgG S responses upon admission. The PaO2/FiO2 ratio was identified as an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Host- and disease-associated factors can predict SARS-CoV-2 IgG S responses and mortality in hospitalized patients with breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

Safety of Global SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines, a Meta-Analysis

(1) Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines were developed in only a short amount of time and were widely distributed. We conducted this meta-analysis to understand the safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. (2) Methods: We searched the corresponding literature published from 1 January 2020 to 20 October 2021. Information of adverse events (AEs) of each selected work was collected. The quality and bias of studies was evaluated, and meta-analysis was carried out by using Stata 17.0. (3) Results: Totally, 11,451 articles were retrieved, and 53 of them were included for analysis. The incidence rate of AEs was 20.05–94.48%. The incidence rate of vascular events increased after viral vector vaccination, while the incidence rate of vascular events decreased after mRNA vaccination. Viral vector vaccine had a higher AE rate compared to mRNA vaccines and inactivated vaccines. In most circumstances, the incidence of AEs was higher in older people, female and after the second dose. The sensitivity of meta-analysis was acceptable; however, the literature was subject to a certain publication bias. (4) Conclusions: The safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines was acceptable. The incidence of allergic symptoms and cardiovascular and cerebrovascular symptoms was low. Viral vector vaccine had a higher risk of leading to thrombosis events. The understanding of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine AEs should be enhanced, so as to promote the vaccination.

Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Diseases Have Impaired Antibody Production After Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination: Results From a Panhellenic Registry

BACKGROUND

Four EMA-approved vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 are currently available. Data regarding antibody responses to initial vaccination regimens in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) are limited.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, controlled, multicenter study in tertiary Greek IBD centers. Participating patients had completed the initial vaccination regimens (1 or 2 doses, depending on the type of COVID-19 vaccine) at least 2 weeks before study enrolment. Anti-S1 IgG antibody levels were measured. Demographic and adverse events data were collected.

RESULTS

We tested 403 patients (Crohn's disease, 58.9%; male, 53.4%; median age, 45 years) and 124 healthy controls (HCs). Following full vaccination, 98% of patients seroconverted, with mRNA vaccines inducing higher seroconversion rates than viral vector vaccines (P = .021). In total, IBD patients had lower anti-S1 levels than HCs (P < .001). In the multivariate analysis, viral vector vaccines (P < .001), longer time to antibody testing (P < .001), anti-TNFα treatment (P = .013), and age (P = .016) were independently associated with lower anti-S1 titers. Vedolizumab monotherapy was associated with higher antibody levels than anti-TNFα or anti-interleukin-12/IL-23 monotherapy (P = .023 and P = .032). All anti- SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were safe.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with IBD have impaired antibody responses to anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, particularly those receiving viral vector vaccines and those on anti-TNFα treatment. Older age also hampers antibody production after vaccination. For those low-response groups, administration of accelerated or prioritized booster vaccination may be considered.

COVID-19 vaccination in children and adolescents aged 5 years and older undergoing treatment for cancer and non-malignant haematological conditions: Australian and New Zealand Children's Haematology/Oncology Group consensus statement

INTRODUCTION

The Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation and New Zealand Ministry of Health recommend all children aged ≥ 5 years receive either of the two mRNA COVID-19 vaccines: Comirnaty (Pfizer), available in both Australia and New Zealand, or Spikevax (Moderna), available in Australia only. Both vaccines are efficacious and safe in the general population, including children. Children and adolescents undergoing treatment for cancer and immunosuppressive therapy for non-malignant haematological conditions are particularly vulnerable, with an increased risk of severe or fatal COVID-19. There remains a paucity of data regarding the immune response to COVID-19 vaccines in immunosuppressed paediatric populations, with data suggestive of reduced immunogenicity of the vaccine in immunocompromised adults.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Considering the safety profile of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and the increased risk of severe COVID-19 in immunocompromised children and adolescents, COVID-19 vaccination is strongly recommended for this at-risk population. We provide a number of recommendations regarding COVID-19 vaccination in this population where immunosuppressive, chemotherapeutic and/or targeted biological agents are used. These include the timing of vaccination in patients undergoing active treatment, management of specific situations where vaccination is contraindicated or recommended under special precautions, and additional vaccination recommendations for severely immunocompromised patients. Finally, we stress the importance of upcoming clinical trials to identify the safest and most efficacious vaccination regimen for this population.

CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT AS A RESULT OF THIS STATEMENT

This consensus statement provides recommendations for COVID-19 vaccination in children and adolescents aged ≥ 5 years with cancer and immunocompromising non-malignant haematological conditions, based on evidence, national and international guidelines and expert opinion.

ENDORSED BY

The Australian and New Zealand Children's Haematology/Oncology Group.

Parallel evolution and differences in seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibody between patients with cancer and health care workers in a tertiary cancer centre during the first and second wave of COVID-19 pandemic: canSEROcov-II cross-sectional study

Background

Patients with cancer are a population at high risk of severe infection from SARS-CoV-2. Patients with cancer regularly attend specialised healthcare centres for management and treatment, where they are in contact with healthcare workers (HCWs). Numerous recommendations target both patients with cancer and HCWs to minimise the spread of SARS-CoV-2 during these interactions.

Objective

To investigate the parallel evolution of the COVID-19 epidemic in these 2 populations over time, we studied the seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies after both the first and second waves of the pandemic, and in both cancer patients and HCWs from a single specialised anti-cancer centre. Factors associated with seropositivity were identified in both populations.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional study after the second wave of the COVID pandemic in France. All participants were invited to undergo serological testing for SARS-CoV-2 and complete a questionnaire collecting data about their working conditions (for HCWs) or medical management (for patients) during this period. Results after the second wave were compared to those of a previous study among 1011 patients with cancer and 663 HCWs performed in the same centre after the first wave, using the same evaluations.

Findings

We included 502 HCWs and 507 patients with cancer. Seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was higher after the second wave than after the first wave in both HCWs (15.1% versus 1.8%; p < 0.001), and patients (4.1% versus 1.7%; p = 0.038). By multivariate analysis, the factors found to be associated with seropositivity after the second wave for HCWs were: working in direct patient care (p = 0.050); having worked in a dedicated COVID-19 unit (p = 0.0036); contact with a person with COVID-19-positive in the workplace (p = 0.0118) or outside of the workplace (p = 0.0297). Among patients with cancer, only a contact with someone who tested positive for COVID-19 was found to be significantly associated with positive serology. The proportion of reported contacts with individuals with COVID-19-positive was significantly lower among patients with cancer than among HCWs (7.6% versus 40.7%, respectively; p < 0.0001)

Interpretation

Between the first and second waves of the epidemic in France, the seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies increased to a lesser extent among patients with cancer than among their HCWs, possibly due to better self-protection, notably social distancing. The risk factors for infection identified among HCWs plead in favour of numerous intra-hospital contaminations, especially for HCWs in contact with high-risk patients. This underlines the compelling need to pursue efforts to implement strict hygiene and personal protection measures (including vaccination) to protect HCWs and patients with cancer.

Booster or additional vaccination doses in patients vaccinated against COVID-19

Several health organizations, mainly in Western countries, have recently authorized the use of a booster dose of the COVID-19 vaccine for patients previously vaccinated with mRNA vaccines, with criteria that do not always coincide. The COVID Scientific Committee of the Illustrious College of Physicians of Madrid (ICOMEM) has received and asked several questions about this situation, to which the group has tried to give answers, after deliberation and consensus. The efficacy of the vaccines administered so far is beyond doubt and they have managed to reduce, fundamentally, the severe forms of the disease. The duration of this protection is not well known, is different in different individuals and for different variants of the virus and is not easily predictable with laboratory tests. Data on the real impact of a supplementary or "booster" dose in the scientific literature are scarce for the moment and its application in large populations such as those in the state of Israel may be associated with a decrease in the risk of new and severe episodes in the short observation period available. We also lack sufficient data on the safety and potential adverse effects of these supplementary doses and we do not know the ideal time to administer them in different situations. In this state of affairs, it seems prudent to administer supplemental doses to those exposed to a higher risk, such as immunocompromised individuals and the elderly. On the other hand, we consider that this is not the time to accelerate, on the spur of the moment, a massive administration of a third dose to other population groups that are less exposed and at lower risk, without waiting for adequate scientific information, which will undoubtedly arrive gradually. We do not believe that this position is incompatible with the practical and ethical warnings made by the World Health Organization in this respect.

SEOM clinical guidelines for the prophylaxis of infectious diseases in cancer patients (2021)

Infections are still a major cause of morbi-mortality in patients with cancer. Some of these infections are preventable through specific measures, such as vaccination or prophylaxis. This guideline aims to summarize the evidence and recommendations for the prevention of infections in cancer patients, devoting special attention to the most prevalent preventable infectious disease. All the evidences will be graded according to The Infectious Diseases Society of America grading system.

Reduced Magnitude and Durability of Humoral Immune Responses to COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines Among Older Adults

BACKGROUND

The magnitude and durability of immune responses to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccines remain incompletely characterized in the elderly.

METHODS

Anti-spike receptor-binding domain (RBD) antibodies, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) competition, and virus neutralizing activities were assessed in plasma from 151 health care workers and older adults (range, 24-98 years of age) 1 month following the first vaccine dose, and 1 and 3 months following the second dose.

RESULTS

Older adults exhibited significantly weaker responses than younger health care workers for all humoral measures evaluated and at all time points tested, except for ACE2 competition activity after 1 vaccine dose. Moreover, older age remained independently associated with weaker responses even after correction for sociodemographic factors, chronic health condition burden, and vaccine-related variables. By 3 months after the second dose, all humoral responses had declined significantly in all participants, and remained significantly lower among older adults, who also displayed reduced binding antibodies and ACE2 competition activity towards the Delta variant.

CONCLUSIONS

Humoral responses to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are significantly weaker in older adults, and antibody-mediated activities in plasma decline universally over time. Older adults may thus remain at elevated risk of infection despite vaccination.

COVID-19 and Lung Cancer: A Comprehensive Overview from Outbreak to Recovery

Lung cancer patients have been associated with an increased risk of COVID-19 infection, pulmonary complications, and worse survival outcomes compared to the general population. The world's leading professional organizations provided new recommendations for the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of lung cancer patients during the pandemic as a guide for prioritizing cancer care issues. Telemedicine was preferred for non-urgent consultations, and screening programs were temporarily suspended, leading to possible diagnostic delays along with an estimated increase in cause-specific mortality. A vaccine campaign has recently emerged as the main weapon to fight the COVID-19 pandemic, inverting this negative trend. This work aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the epidemiology and immune-pathophysiology of SARS-CoV-2 infection in cancer patients, highlighting the most relevant changes in the clinical management of lung cancer patients during the pandemic.

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.

Using Behavioral Science to Address COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Among Cancer Survivors: Communication Strategies and Research Opportunities

Due to cancer survivors’ increased vulnerability to complications from COVID-19, addressing vaccine hesitancy and improving vaccine uptake among this population is a public health priority. However, several factors may complicate efforts to increase vaccine confidence in this population, including the underrepresentation of cancer patients in COVID-19 vaccine trials and distinct recommendations for vaccine administration and timing for certain subgroups of survivors. Evidence suggests vaccine communication efforts targeting survivors could benefit from strategies that consider factors such as social norms, risk perceptions, and trust. However, additional behavioral research is needed to help the clinical and public health community better understand, and more effectively respond to, drivers of vaccine hesitancy among survivors and ensure optimal protection against COVID-19 for this at-risk population. Knowledge generated by this research could also have an impact beyond the current COVID-19 pandemic by informing future vaccination efforts and communication with cancer survivors more broadly.

Longitudinal Humoral and Cellular Immune Responses Following SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination in Patients with Myeloid and Lymphoid Neoplasms Compared to a Reference Cohort: Results of a Prospective Trial of the East German Study Group for Hematology and Oncology (OSHO)

Purpose: To assess humoral responses longitudinally and cellular immunogenicity following SARS-CoV-2-vaccination in patients with hematologic and oncologic malignancies receiving checkpoint-inhibitors. Methods: This prospective multicenter trial of the East-German-Study-Group-for-Hematology-and-Oncology, enrolled 398 adults in a two (patients; n = 262) to one (controls; n = 136) ratio. Pre-vaccination, day 35 (d35), and day 120 (d120) blood samples were analyzed for anti-spike antibodies and d120 IL-2+IFNγ+TNFα+-CD4+- and CD8+-cells. Laboratories were blinded for patients and controls. Results: Patients belonged to the myeloid (n = 131), lymphoid (n = 104), and checkpoint-inhibitor (n = 17) cohorts. While d35 seroconversion was higher in controls (98%) compared to patients (68%) (p < 0.001), d120 seroconversion improved across all patient cohorts [checkpoint-inhibitors (81% to 100%), myeloid (82% to 97%), lymphoid (48% to 66%)]. CD4+- and CovCD8+-cells in the lymphoid (71%/31%) and control (74%/42%) cohorts were comparable but fewer in the myeloid cohort (53%, p = 0.003 /24%, p = 0.03). In patients with hematologic malignancies, no correlation between d120 humoral and cellular responses was found. A sizeable fraction of lymphoid patients demonstrated T-cell responses without detectable spike-specific-IgGs. Conclusions: Evidence of vaccine-elicited humoral and/or cellular immunogenicity in most patients is provided. Both humoral and cellular responses are crucial to determine which patients will generate/maintain immunity. The findings have implications on public health policy regarding recommendations for SARS-CoV-2 booster doses.

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.

Impact of Therapy in Patients with Hematologic Malignancies on Seroconversion Rates After SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination

INTRODUCTION

The leading professional organizations in the field of hematology have recommended severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov-2) vaccination for all patients with hematologic malignancies notwithstanding efficacy concerns. Here we report a systematic literature review regarding the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with hematologic malignancies and its key determinants.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of original articles evaluating the seroconversion rates with SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in hematological malignancies from the PubMed database published between April 1, 2021 and December 4, 2021. Calculated risk differences (RD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) to compare seroconversion rates between patients with hematologic malignancies versus healthy control subjects used the Review Manager software, version 5.3.

RESULTS

In our meta-analysis, we included 26 studies with control arms. After the first dose of vaccination, patients with hematologic malignancies had significantly lower seroconversion rates than controls (33.3% vs 74.9%; RD: -0.48%, 95% CI: -0.60%, -0.36%, P < .001). The seroconversion rates increased after the second dose, although a significant difference remained between these 2 groups (65.3% vs 97.8%; RD: -0.35%, 95% CI: -0.42%, -0.28%, P < .001). This difference in seroconversion rates was particularly pronounced for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) patients (RD: -0.46%, 95% CI: -0.56, -0.37, P < .001), and for patients with B-lineage leukemia/lymphoma treated with anti-CD20 antibodies (RD: -0.70%, 95% CI: -0.88%, -0.51%, P < .001) or Bruton Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors (BTKi; RD: -0.63%, 95% CI: -0.85%, -0.41%, P < .001). The RD was lower for patients under remission (RD: -0.10%, 95% CI: -0.18%, -0.02%, P = .01).

CONCLUSION

The seroconversion rates following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with hematologic malignancies, especially in CLL patients and patients treated with anti-CD20 antibodies or BTKi, were significantly lower than the seroconversion rates in healthy control subjects. Effective strategies capable of improving vaccine efficacy in these vulnerable patient populations are urgently needed.

Effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination on SARS-CoV-2 Infection and COVID-19 in Sicily over an Eight-Month Period

In order to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection and the burden of disease, since 27 December 2020, Sicily has introduced a regional COVID-19 vaccination campaign. This study aimed at estimating the effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines on SARS-CoV-2 infections and COVID-19. A retrospective cohort study was carried out on 3,966,976 Sicilian adults aged 18 years or more, who were followed-up from 1 January 2021 to 30 September 2021. The risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, severe COVID-19, and COVID-19 death or intubation during the study period was compared among vaccinated with two mRNA doses and unvaccinated individuals. Cox regression, adjusted for age and sex, and a joint-point analysis on rate trends were performed. Overall, 2,469,320 (62.2%) subjects have been vaccinated and a total of 103,078 (2.6% of the entire population) SARS-CoV-2-positive subjects have been observed including 4693 (0.12%) severe COVID-19, 277 (0.01%) intubated, and 2649 (0.07%) deaths. After two months from vaccination, adjusted vaccine effectiveness was 81.3% against SARS-CoV-2 infection, 96.1% against severe COVID-19, and 93.4% against intubation/death. During the eight-month follow-up, statistically significant decreasing effectiveness trends were observed for all the evaluated outcomes (-4.76% per month against SARS-CoV-2 infection; -2.27% per month against severe COVID-19 and -2.26% per month against COVID-19 intubation/death). The study results confirm that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines have high real-world effectiveness, especially in the first months after vaccination. The vaccine effectiveness decreases over time and, even if the decrease is relatively small against severe outcomes, the increasing protection wane suggests the need for booster vaccination campaigns.

The SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody combination, AZD7442, is protective in nonhuman primates and has an extended half-life in humans

Despite the success of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines, there remains a need for more prevention and treatment options for individuals remaining at risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) against the viral spike protein have potential to both prevent and treat COVID-19 and reduce the risk of severe disease and death. Here, we describe AZD7442, a combination of two mAbs, AZD8895 (tixagevimab) and AZD1061 (cilgavimab), that simultaneously bind to distinct, nonoverlapping epitopes on the spike protein receptor binding domain to neutralize SARS-CoV-2. Initially isolated from individuals with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, the two mAbs were designed to extend their half-lives and reduce effector functions. The AZD7442 mAbs individually prevent the spike protein from binding to angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor, blocking virus cell entry, and neutralize all tested SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. In a nonhuman primate model of SARS-CoV-2 infection, prophylactic AZD7442 administration prevented infection, whereas therapeutic administration accelerated virus clearance from the lung. In an ongoing phase 1 study in healthy participants (NCT04507256), a 300-mg intramuscular injection of AZD7442 provided SARS-CoV-2 serum geometric mean neutralizing titers greater than 10-fold above those of convalescent serum for at least 3 months, which remained threefold above those of convalescent serum at 9 months after AZD7442 administration. About 1 to 2% of serum AZD7442 was detected in nasal mucosa, a site of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Extrapolation of the time course of serum AZD7442 concentration suggests AZD7442 may provide up to 12 months of protection and benefit individuals at high-risk of COVID-19.

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.

Long-term immunologic effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection: leveraging translational research methodology to address emerging questions

The current era of COVID-19 is characterized by emerging variants of concern, waning vaccine- and natural infection-induced immunity, debate over the timing and necessity of vaccine boosting, and the emergence of post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection. As a result, there is an ongoing need for research to promote understanding of the immunology of both natural infection and prevention, especially as SARS-CoV-2 immunology is a rapidly changing field, with new questions arising as the pandemic continues to grow in complexity. The next phase of COVID-19 immunology research will need focus on clearer characterization of the immune processes defining acute illness, development of a better understanding of the immunologic processes driving protracted symptoms and prolonged recovery (ie, post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection), and a growing focus on the impact of therapeutic and prophylactic interventions on the long-term consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection. In this review, we address what is known about the long-term immune consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection and propose how experience studying the translational immunology of other infections might inform the approach to some of the key questions that remain.

COVID-19 vaccination and breakthrough infections in patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Vaccination is an important preventive health measure to protect against symptomatic and severe COVID-19. Impaired immunity secondary to an underlying malignancy or recent receipt of antineoplastic systemic therapies can result in less robust antibody titers following vaccination and possible risk of breakthrough infection. As clinical trials evaluating COVID-19 vaccines largely excluded patients with a history of cancer and those on active immunosuppression (including chemotherapy), limited evidence is available to inform the clinical efficacy of COVID-19 vaccination across the spectrum of patients with cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We describe the clinical features of patients with cancer who developed symptomatic COVID-19 following vaccination and compare weighted outcomes with those of contemporary unvaccinated patients, after adjustment for confounders, using data from the multi-institutional COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19).

RESULTS

Patients with cancer who develop COVID-19 following vaccination have substantial comorbidities and can present with severe and even lethal infection. Patients harboring hematologic malignancies are over-represented among vaccinated patients with cancer who develop symptomatic COVID-19.

CONCLUSIONS

Vaccination against COVID-19 remains an essential strategy in protecting vulnerable populations, including patients with cancer. Patients with cancer who develop breakthrough infection despite full vaccination, however, remain at risk of severe outcomes. A multilayered public health mitigation approach that includes vaccination of close contacts, boosters, social distancing, and mask-wearing should be continued for the foreseeable future.

Cancer and the risk of coronavirus disease 2019 diagnosis, hospitalisation and death: A population-based multistate cohort study including 4 618 377 adults in Catalonia, Spain

The relationship between cancer and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection and severity remains poorly understood. We conducted a population-based cohort study between 1 March and 6 May 2020 describing the associations between cancer and risk of COVID-19 diagnosis, hospitalisation and COVID-19-related death. Data were obtained from the Information System for Research in Primary Care (SIDIAP) database, including primary care electronic health records from ~80% of the population in Catalonia, Spain. Cancer was defined as any primary invasive malignancy excluding non-melanoma skin cancer. We estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for the risk of COVID-19 (outpatient) clinical diagnosis, hospitalisation (with or without a prior COVID-19 diagnosis) and COVID-19-related death using Cox proportional hazard regressions. Models were estimated for the overall cancer population and by years since cancer diagnosis (<1 year, 1-5 years and ≥5 years), sex, age and cancer type; and adjusted for age, sex, smoking status, deprivation and comorbidities. We included 4 618 377 adults, of which 260 667 (5.6%) had a history of cancer. A total of 98 951 individuals (5.5% with cancer) were diagnosed, and 6355 (16.4% with cancer) were directly hospitalised with COVID-19. Of those diagnosed, 6851 were subsequently hospitalised (10.7% with cancer), and 3227 died without being hospitalised (18.5% with cancer). Among those hospitalised, 1963 (22.5% with cancer) died. Cancer was associated with an increased risk of COVID-19 diagnosis (aHR: 1.08; 95% confidence interval [1.05-1.11]), direct COVID-19 hospitalisation (1.33 [1.24-1.43]) and death following hospitalisation (1.12 [1.01-1.25]). These associations were stronger for patients recently diagnosed with cancer, aged <70 years, and with haematological cancers. These patients should be prioritised in COVID-19 vaccination campaigns and continued non-pharmaceutical interventions.

Cellular and humoral responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in immunosuppressed patients

OBJECTIVE

SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations have demonstrated vaccine-immunogenicity in healthy volunteers, however, efficacy in immunosuppressed patients is less well characterised. There is an urgent need to address the impact of immunosuppression on vaccine immunogenicity.

METHODS

Serological, T-cell ELISpot, cytokines and immunophenotyping were used to assess vaccine responses (either BNT162b2 mRNA or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) in double-vaccinated patients receiving immunosuppression for renal transplants or haematological malignancies (n = 13). Immunological responses in immunosuppressed patients (VACC-IS) were compared to immunocompetent vaccinated (VACC-IC, n = 12), unvaccinated (UNVACC, n = 11) and infection-naïve unvaccinated (HC, n = 3) cohorts.

RESULTS

No significant different differences in T-cell responses were observed between VACC-IS and VACC-IC (92%) to spike-peptide (S) stimulation. UNVACC had the highest T-cell non-responders (n = 3), whereas VACC-IC and VACC-IS both had one T-cell non-responder. No significant differences in humoral responses were observed between VACC-IC and VACC-IS, with 92% (12/13) of VACC-IS patients demonstrating seropositivity. One VACC-IS failed to seroconvert, however had detectable T-cell responses. All VACC-IC participants were seropositive for anti-spike antibodies. VACC-IS and VACC-IC participants elicited strong Th1 cytokine response with immunodominance towards S-peptide. Differences in T-cell immunophenotyping were seen between VACC-IS and VACC-IC, with lower CD8⁺ activation and T-effector memory phenotype observed in VACC-IS.

CONCLUSION

SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are immunogenic in patients receiving immunosuppressive therapy, with responses comparable to vaccinated immunocompetent participants. Lower humoral responses were seen in patients treated with B-cell depleting therapeutics, but with preserved T-cell responses. We suggest further work to correlate both protective immunity and longevity of these responses in both healthy and immunosuppressed patients.

Short-term effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised patients: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to assess the short-term effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines among immunocompromised patients to prevent laboratory-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 infection.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis. We calculated the pooled diagnostic odds ratio [DOR] (95% CI) for COVID-19 infection between immunocompromised patients and healthy people or those with stable chronic medical conditions. VE was estimated as 100% x (1-DOR). We also investigated the rates of developing anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein IgG between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

Twenty studies evaluating COVID-19 vaccine response, and four studies evaluating VE were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled DOR for symptomatic COVID-19 infection in immunocompromised patients was 0.296 (95% CI: 0.108-0.811) with an estimated VE of 70.4% (95% CI: 18.9%- 89.2%). When stratified by diagnosis, IgG antibody levels were much higher in the control group compared to immunocompromised patients with solid organ transplant (pOR 232.3; 95% Cl: 66.98-806.03), malignant diseases (pOR 42.0, 95% Cl: 11.68-151.03), and inflammatory rheumatic diseases (pOR 19.06; 95% Cl: 5.00-72.62).

CONCLUSIONS

We found COVID-19 mRNA vaccines were effective against symptomatic COVID-19 among the immunocompromised patients but had lower VE compared to the controls. Further research is needed to understand the discordance between antibody production and protection against symptomatic COVID-19 infection.

Humoral immune responses to COVID-19 vaccination in people living with HIV receiving suppressive antiretroviral therapy

Humoral responses to COVID-19 vaccines in people living with HIV (PLWH) remain incompletely characterized. We measured circulating antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein receptor-binding domain (RBD), ACE2 displacement and viral neutralization activities one month following the first and second COVID-19 vaccine doses, and again 3 months following the second dose, in 100 adult PLWH and 152 controls. All PLWH were receiving suppressive antiretroviral therapy, with median CD4+ T-cell counts of 710 (IQR 525-935) cells/mm3, though nadir CD4+ T-cell counts ranged as low as <10 cells/mm3. After adjustment for sociodemographic, health and vaccine-related variables, HIV infection was associated with lower anti-RBD antibody concentrations and ACE2 displacement activity after one vaccine dose. Following two doses however, HIV was not significantly associated with the magnitude of any humoral response after multivariable adjustment. Rather, older age, a higher burden of chronic health conditions, and dual ChAdOx1 vaccination were associated with lower responses after two vaccine doses. No significant correlation was observed between recent or nadir CD4+ T-cell counts and responses to two vaccine doses in PLWH. These results indicate that PLWH with well-controlled viral loads and CD4+ T-cell counts in a healthy range generally mount strong initial humoral responses to dual COVID-19 vaccination. Factors including age, co-morbidities, vaccine brand, response durability and the rise of new SARS-CoV-2 variants will influence when PLWH will benefit from additional doses. Further studies of PLWH who are not receiving antiretroviral treatment or who have low CD4+ T-cell counts are needed, as are longer-term assessments of response durability.

Older Adults Mount Less Durable Humoral Responses to a Two-dose COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Regimen, but Strong Initial Responses to a Third Dose

BACKGROUND

Third COVID-19 vaccine doses are broadly recommended, but immunogenicity data remain limited, particularly in older adults.

METHODS

We measured circulating antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein receptor-binding domain, ACE2 displacement, and virus neutralization against ancestral and Omicron (BA.1) strains from pre-vaccine up to one month following the third dose, in 151 adults aged 24-98 years who received COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.

RESULTS

Following two vaccine doses, humoral immunity was weaker, less functional and less durable in older adults, where a higher number of chronic health conditions was a key correlate of weaker responses and poorer durability. Third doses boosted antibody binding and function to higher levels than second-doses, and induced responses in older adults that were comparable in magnitude to those in younger adults. Humoral responses against Omicron were universally weaker than against the ancestral strain after both second and third doses; nevertheless, after three doses, anti-Omicron responses in older adults reached equivalence to those in younger adults. After three vaccine doses, the number of chronic health conditions, but not age per se, was the strongest consistent correlate of weaker humoral responses.

CONCLUSION

Results underscore the immune benefits of third COVID-19 vaccine doses, particularly in older adults.

The Kinetics of COVID-19 Vaccine Response in a Community-Vaccinated Population

We used a noninvasive electrochemical quantitative assay for IgG Abs to SARS-CoV-2 S1 Ag in saliva to investigate the kinetics of Ab response in a community-based population that had received either the Pfizer or Moderna mRNA-based vaccine. Samples were received from a total of 97 individuals, including a subset of 42 individuals who collected samples twice weekly for 3 mo or longer. In all, >840 samples were collected and analyzed. In all individuals, salivary SARS-CoV-2 S1 IgG Ab levels rose sharply in the 2-wk period after their second vaccination, with peak Ab levels seen at 10-20 d after vaccination. We observed that 20%, 10%, and 2.4% of individuals providing serial samples had a 90%, 95%, and 99% drop, respectively, from peak levels during the duration of monitoring, and in two patients, Abs fell to prevaccination levels (5%). The use of noninvasive quantitative salivary Ab measurement can allow widespread, cost-effective monitoring of vaccine response.