Responses of patients with neoplastic diseases to influenza virus vaccine

New theoretical ISM-K2 Bayesian network model for evaluating vaccination effectiveness

Aiming at the difficulty in obtaining a complete Bayesian network (BN) structure directly through search-scoring algorithms, authors attempted to incorporate expert judgment and historical data to construct an interpretive structural model with an ISM-K2 algorithm for evaluating vaccination effectiveness (VE). By analyzing the influenza vaccine data provided by Hunan Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, risk factors influencing VE in each link in the process of "Transportation-Storage-Distribution-Inoculation" were systematically investigated. Subsequently, an evaluation index system of VE and an ISM-K2 BN model were developed. Findings include: (1) The comprehensive quality of the staff handling vaccines has a significant impact on VE; (2) Predictive inference and diagnostic reasoning through the ISM-K2 BN model are stable, effective, and highly interpretable, and consequently, the post-production supervision of vaccines is enhanced. The study provides a theoretical basis for evaluating VE and a scientific tool for tracking the responsibility of adverse events of ineffective vaccines, which has the value of promotion in improving VE and reducing the transmission rate of infectious diseases.

Evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine response in patients with cancer: An interim analysis

Background

Efficacy and safety data of COVID-19 vaccines among cancer populations have been limited; however, preliminary data from recent studies have emerged regarding their immunogenicity and safety in this population. In this review, we examined current peer-reviewed publications containing serological and safety data after COVID-19 vaccination of patients with cancer.

Methods

This analysis examined 21 studies with a total of 5012 patients with cancer, of which 2676 (53%) had haematological malignancies, 2309 (46%) had solid cancers and 739 were healthy controls. Serological responses by anti–SARS-CoV-2 spike protein S1/S2 immunoglobulin G antibody levels and post-vaccination patient questionnaires regarding vaccine-related side-effects after the first and second dose were collected and analysed.

Results

In general, a single dose of the COVID-19 vaccine yields weaker and heterogeneous serological responses in both patients with haematological and solid malignancies. On receiving a second dose, serological response rates indicate a substantial increase in seropositivity to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in all cancer cohorts, but antibody titres remain reduced in comparison with healthy controls. Furthermore, seroconversion in patients with haematological malignancies was significantly lower than that in patients with solid tumours. COVID-19 vaccines are safe and well-tolerated in patients with cancer based on current data of local and systemic effects.

Conclusion

Together, these data support the prioritisation of patients with cancer to receive their first and second doses to minimise the risk of COVID-19 infection and severe complications in this vulnerable population. Additional prophylactic measures must be considered for high-risk patients where current vaccination programs may not mount sufficient protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Implications of mRNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccination for cancer patients

SARS-CoV-2 infection and the resulting COVID-19 have afflicted millions of people in an ongoing worldwide pandemic. Safe and effective vaccination is needed urgently to protect not only the general population but also vulnerable subjects such as patients with cancer. Currently approved mRNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines seem suitable for patients with cancer based on their mode of action, efficacy, and favorable safety profile reported in the general population. Here, we provide an overview of mRNA-based vaccines including their safety and efficacy. Extrapolating from insights gained from a different preventable viral infection, we review existing data on immunity against influenza A and B vaccines in patients with cancer. Finally, we discuss COVID-19 vaccination in light of the challenges specific to patients with cancer, such as factors that may hinder protective SARS-CoV-2 immune responses in the context of compromised immunity and the use of immune-suppressive or immune-modulating drugs.

Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Among Patients With Cancer: A Population-Based Study Using Health Administrative and Laboratory Testing Data From Ontario, Canada

PURPOSE

Seasonal influenza vaccination is recommended for patients with cancer despite concerns of disease or treatment-associated immunosuppression. The objective of this study was to evaluate vaccine effectiveness (VE) against laboratory-confirmed influenza for patients with cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted an observational test-negative design study of previously diagnosed patients with cancer 18 years of age and older who underwent influenza testing during the 2010-2011 to 2015-2016 influenza seasons in Ontario, Canada. We linked individual-level cancer registry, respiratory virus testing, and health administrative data to identify the study population and outcomes. Vaccination status was determined from physician and pharmacist billing claims. We used multivariable logistic regression to estimate VE, adjusting for age, sex, rurality, income quintile, cancer characteristics, chemotherapy exposure, comorbidities, previous health care use, influenza season, and calendar time.

RESULTS

We identified 26,463 patients with cancer who underwent influenza testing, with 4,320 test-positive cases (16%) and 11,783 (45%) vaccinated. Mean age was 70 years, 52% were male, mean time since diagnosis was 6 years, 69% had solid tumor malignancies, and 23% received active chemotherapy. VE against laboratory-confirmed influenza was 21% (95% CI, 15% to 26%), and VE against laboratory-confirmed influenza hospitalization was 20% (95% CI, 13% to 26%). For patients with solid tumor malignancies, VE was 25% (95% CI, 18% to 31%), compared with 8% (95% CI, -5% to 19%) for patients with hematologic malignancies (P = .015). Active chemotherapy usage did not significantly affect VE, especially among patients with solid tumor cancer.

CONCLUSION

Our results support recommendations for influenza vaccination for patients with cancer. VE was decreased for patients with hematologic malignancies, and there was no significant difference in VE among patients with solid tumor cancer receiving active chemotherapy. Strategies to optimize influenza prevention among patients with cancer are warranted.

Immunogenicity of Influenza Vaccination in Patients With Cancer

BACKGROUND

Influenza leads to significant morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer. Patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy may not mount an adequate immune response to the vaccine. We performed this pilot study to evaluate the immunogenicity of influenza vaccination in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

During the 2011 to 2012 influenza season, patients undergoing chemotherapy for solid tumors were given trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine either on the day of chemotherapy (schedule A) or a week before chemotherapy (schedule B) by a single 0.5 mL injection in the deltoid muscle region. This was not a randomized trial. Hemagglutination inhibition assays were performed on blood samples from these patients taken at baseline, and 4 weeks postvaccination. Seroconversion rate (>4-fold increase in titers) and seroprotection rates (postvaccination titers of >1:40) were calculated for each vaccine component: influenza A (H1N1), A (H3N2) and B.

RESULTS

A total of 18 patients received influenza vaccination as part of this pilot study. Of these, 8 patients received the vaccine on schedule A and 10 patients received the vaccine on schedule B. Geometric mean titers against each strain significantly improved after vaccination for both groups, as measured by signed rank test. Seroconversion to at least 1 strain was observed in 75% of patients on schedule A, and 70% of patients vaccinated on schedule B. Seroprotection to at least 1 strain was observed in 100% of patients in the schedule A group, and 60% of patients vaccinated on schedule B. Seroconversion and seroprotection rates against the 3 influenza strains were not significantly different between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with nonhematological malignancies who are receiving chemotherapy mount an immune response to influenza vaccination. Timing of influenza vaccination in relation to chemotherapy does not seem to matter.

Influenza vaccines in immunosuppressed adults with cancer

BACKGROUND

This is an update of the Cochrane review published in 2013, Issue 10.Immunosuppressed cancer patients are at increased risk of serious influenza-related complications. Guidelines, therefore, recommend influenza vaccination for these patients. However, data on vaccine effectiveness in this population are lacking, and the value of vaccination in this population remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of influenza vaccine in immunosuppressed adults with malignancies. The primary review outcome is all-cause mortality, preferably at the end of the influenza season. Influenza-like illness (ILI, a clinical definition), confirmed influenza, pneumonia, any hospitalisations, influenza-related mortality and immunogenicity were defined as secondary outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS databases up to May 2017. We searched the following conference proceedings: ICAAC, ECCMID, IDSA (infectious disease conferences), ASH, ASBMT, EBMT (haematological), and ASCO (oncological) between the years 2006 to 2017. In addition, we scanned the references of all identified studies and pertinent reviews. We searched the websites of the manufacturers of influenza vaccine. Finally, we searched for ongoing or unpublished trials in clinical trial registry databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), prospective and retrospective cohort studies and case-control studies were considered, comparing inactivated influenza vaccines versus placebo, no vaccination or a different vaccine, in adults (16 years and over) with cancer. We considered solid malignancies treated with chemotherapy, haematological cancer patients treated or not treated with chemotherapy, cancer patients post-autologous (up to six months after transplantation) or allogeneic (at any time) haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data from included studies adhering to Cochrane methodology. Meta-analysis could not be performed because of different outcome and denominator definitions in the included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified six studies with a total of 2275 participants: five studies comparing vaccination with no vaccination, and one comparing adjuvanted vaccine with non-adjuvanted vaccine. Three studies were RCTs, one was a prospective observational cohort study and two were retrospective cohort studies.For the comparison of vaccination with no vaccination we included two RCTs and three observational studies, including 2202 participants. One study reported results in person-years while the others reported results per person. The five studies were performed between 1993 and 2015 and included adults with haematological diseases (three studies), patients following bone marrow transplantation (BMT) (two studies) and solid malignancies (three studies).One RCT and two observational studies reported all-cause mortality; the RCT showed similar mortality rates in both arms (odds ratio (OR) 1.25 (95% CI 0.43 to 3.62; 1 study, 78 participants, low-certainty evidence)); and the observational studies demonstrated a significant association between vaccine receipt and lower risk of death, adjusted hazard ratio 0.88 (95% CI 0.78 to 1; 1 study, 1577 participants, very low-certainty evidence) in one study and OR 0.42 (95% CI 0.24 to 0.75; 1 study, 806 participants, very low-certainty evidence) in the other. One RCT reported a reduction in ILI with vaccination, while no difference was observed in one observational study. Confirmed influenza rates were lower with vaccination in one RCT and the three observational studies, the difference reaching statistical significance in one. Pneumonia was observed significantly less frequently with vaccination in one observational study, but no difference was detected in another or in the RCT. One RCT showed a reduction in hospitalisations following vaccination, while an observational study found no difference. No life-threatening or persistent adverse effects from vaccination were reported. The strength of evidence was limited by the low number of included studies and by their low methodological quality and the certainty of the evidence for the mortality outcome according to GRADE was low to very low.For the comparison of adjuvanted vaccine with non-adjuvanted vaccine, we identified one RCT, including 73 patients. No differences were found for the primary and all secondary outcomes assessed. Mortality risk ratio was 0.54 (95% CI 0.05 to 5.73; low-certainty evidence) in the adjuvanted vaccine group. The quality of evidence was low due to the small sample size and the large confidence intervals for all outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Observational data suggest lower mortality and infection-related outcomes with influenza vaccination. The strength of evidence is limited by the small number of studies and low grade of evidence. It seems that the evidence, although weak, shows that the benefits overweigh the potential risks when vaccinating adults with cancer against influenza. However, additional placebo or no-treatment controlled RCTs of influenza vaccination among adults with cancer is ethically questionable.There is no conclusive evidence regarding the use of adjuvanted versus non-adjuvanted influenza vaccine in this population.

Influenza vaccination in adult patients with solid tumours treated with chemotherapy

Patients with solid tumours receiving chemotherapy are at risk for influenza complications. Yearly influenza vaccination is recommended to patients treated with chemotherapy. However, adherence to vaccination is low, most likely due to lack of data on efficacy, optimal timing and safety of vaccination. There is scarce evidence for the effectiveness of the influenza vaccine in adult patients with solid tumours and chemotherapy on reduction of pneumonia, decreased mortality and fewer interruptions of oncological treatment. A review of 20 non-randomised serological studies in adult patients with different cancer types and chemotherapy provides insight in general trends of response to vaccination. Overall, the magnitude of the antibody response after influenza vaccination (i.e. seroconversion) can be lower than in healthy controls, but the majority of patients with solid tumours is able to mount a timely, protective immunological response (i.e. seroprotection) regardless of chemotherapy schedule, similar to healthy controls. Small sample sizes, patient heterogeneity and lack of comparable study designs limit more specific recommendations related to cancer type and optimal timing of vaccination. The inactivated influenza vaccine is safe to administer to immunosuppressed patients; side-effects are similar to those in healthy individuals. Although vaccination before start of chemotherapy is preferred to ensure optimal protection in adults with solid tumours, also vaccination during chemotherapy can reduce influenza-related complications considering the overall trends in serological response. Given the increased morbidity and mortality of influenza, influenza vaccination should be advocated as an inexpensive and safe preventive measure in patients with solid tumours receiving chemotherapy.

Immunogenicity of a 2009 pandemic influenza virus A H1N1 vaccine, administered simultaneously with the seasonal influenza vaccine, in children receiving chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

No examination of simultaneous vaccination against pandemic H1N1 and the seasonal influenza virus strains, in children with cancer receiving chemotherapy, are yet published. We investigated the immunogenicity of a whole-virion, inactivated, adjuvanted pandemic H1N1, and seasonal influenza vaccines administered simultaneously to children with cancer undergoing chemotherapy.

PROCEDURE

We prospectively enrolled 27 pediatric patients receiving therapy for various types of cancer. All received influenza vaccination once in a seasonal risk period. We checked hemaglutination-inhibition (HAI) antibody titers in the sera of patients before, and 21-28 days after vaccination. Seroprotective titer was defined as an antibody titer ≥ 40, and seroresponse as ≥ 4-fold increase in antibody titers after vaccination.

RESULTS

The pre- and post-vaccination seroprotective rates were H1N1: 33-48%, H3N2: 56-78%, B: 0-15% for seasonal influenza, and for pandemic H1N1: 15-37%. The seroresponse rates for seasonal influenza H1N1, H3N2, and B were 22%, 37%, and 22%, respectively, and 30% for the pandemic H1N1 vaccine.

CONCLUSIONS

Whole-virion, inactivated, adjuvanted vaccine for the pandemic H1N1 Influenza A virus and the seasonal influenza vaccines were found safe and partially immunogenic in children with cancer receiving chemotherapy. The only determinants of responsiveness were lymphocyte count and serum immunoglobulin-G. Only influenza B vaccine elicited significant differences in differences in pre- and post-vaccination seroprotective rates. The response to vaccination for pandemic H1N1 is as effective as other vaccines, however administration of a single vaccine during chemotherapy is more comfortable for pediatric cancer patients.

Influenza vaccination in cancer patients undergoing systemic therapy

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients often experience preventable infections, including influenza A and B. These infections can be a cause of significant morbidity and mortality. The increased risk of infection may be because of either cancer itself or treatment-induced immunosuppression.1 Influenza immunization has been shown to decrease the risk of influenza infection in patients with intact immunity.2 In cancer patients, active immunization has been shown to confer protective immunity against several infections at similar rates to healthy individuals, which has translated into decreased duration and severity of infection and potentially improved morbidity and mortality.3

OBJECTIVES

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE/PubMed database for articles published from 1964 to 2013 using the search terms “cancer,” “adult,” “influenza vaccination,” and “chemotherapy.”

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies based on systematic sampling with defined clinical criteria irrespective of the vaccination status of cancer patients. Studies measure the serological response or clinical response to compare between the study group and the control group. Studies assessed the inactivated influenza vaccines and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) protective serological reaction and the clinical outcomes after vaccination.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent authors assessed the methodological quality of included studies and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 studies (total number of participants = 1,076). None of the included studies reported clinical outcomes. All included studies reported on influenza immunity and adverse reaction on vaccination. We included 6 solid tumor studies and 10 hematological studies. In 12 studies, the serological response to influenza vaccine was compared in patients receiving chemotherapy (n = 425) versus those not receiving chemotherapy (n = 376). In three studies, the serological responses to influenza vaccination in patients receiving chemotherapy are compared to that in healthy adult. Measures used to assess the serological responses included a four-fold rise increase in antibody titer development of hemagglutination inhibition (HI) titer >40, and pre- and post-vaccination geometric mean titers (GMTs). Immune responses in patients receiving chemotherapy were consistently weaker (four-fold rise of 17–52%) than in those who had completed chemotherapy (50–83%) and healthy patients (67–100%). Concerning adverse effects, oncology patients received influenza vaccine, and the side effects described were mild local reactions and low-grade fever. No life-threatening or persistent adverse effects were reported.

AUTHORS’ CONCLUSION

Patients with solid and some of hematological tumors are able to mount a serological response to influenza vaccine, but it remains unclear how much this response protects them from influenza infection or its complications. Meanwhile, influenza vaccine appears to be safe in these patients. While waiting results of randomized controlled trials to give us more details about the clinical benefits of the influenza vaccination, the clinicians should consider the currently proved benefits of influenza vaccination on management of the cancer patients undergoing systematic chemotherapy such as decrease in the duration and severity of the of the disease, and significant decrease in influenza-associated morbidity and mortality in these high-risk patients.3

Vaccination for seasonal influenza in patients with cancer: recommendations of the Italian Society of Medical Oncology (AIOM)

Background

Influenza virus causes annual epidemics in the winter–spring season with significant morbidity in the general population and important mortality in high-risk groups, including cancer patients. Opinions on the suitability of patients with malignancies not undergoing active treatment and in different phases of antineoplastic therapy, to receive influenza vaccination, vary considerably among oncologists, sometimes even within one center.

Methods

We reviewed available data, including recommendations by national health authorities, on impact of influenza in patients with cancer and their capacity to mount protective immunological responses to vaccination, thus allowing, on behalf of Italian Association of Medical Oncology, to make suitable recommendations for the prevention and treatment of seasonal influenza.

Results and discussion

Patients with cancer often have disease- or treatment-related immunosuppression, and as a consequence, they may have a suboptimal serologic response to influenza vaccination. The protective effect of the different preparations of influenza vaccines in patients with cancer has not been widely investigated, especially in adult patients harboring solid tumors. The optimal timing for administration of influenza vaccines in patients receiving chemotherapy is also not clearly defined. However, since vaccination is the most effective method, along with antiviral drugs in selected patients, for preventing influenza infection, it has to be recommended for cancer patients. Implementing vaccination of close contacts of oncology patients would be an additional tool for enhancing protection in fragile patient populations.

Influenza vaccines in immunosuppressed adults with cancer

BACKGROUND

Immunosuppressed cancer patients are at increased risk of serious influenza-related complications. Guidelines, therefore, recommend influenza vaccination for these patients. However, data on vaccine effectiveness in this population is lacking, and the value of vaccination in this population remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of influenza vaccine in immunosuppressed adults with malignancies. The primary review outcome is all-cause mortality, preferably at the end of the influenza season. Influenza-like illness (ILI, a clinical definition), confirmed influenza, pneumonia, any hospitalization and influenza-related mortality were defined as secondary outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS databases up to August 2013. We searched the following conference proceedings: ICAAC, ECCMID, IDSA (infectious disease conferences), ASH, ASBMT, EBMT (hematological), and ASCO (oncological) between the years 2006 to 2010. In addition, we scanned the references of all identified studies and pertinent reviews. We searched the websites of the manufacturers of influenza vaccine. Finally, we searched for ongoing or unpublished trials in clinical trial registry databases using the website.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective and retrospective cohort studies and case-control studies were considered, comparing inactivated influenza vaccines versus placebo, no vaccination or a different vaccine, in adults (16 years and over) with cancer. We considered solid malignancies treated with chemotherapy, haematological cancer patients treated or not treated with chemotherapy, cancer patients post-autologous (up to six months after transplantation) or allogeneic (at any time) hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data from included studies adhering to Cochrane methodology. Meta-analysis could not be performed because of different outcome and denominator definitions in the included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified four studies: one RCT and three observational studies, including 2124 participants. One study reported results in person-years while the other three reported per person. The studies were performed between 1993 and 2012 and included adults with haematological diseases (two studies), patients following bone marrow transplantation (one study) and solid malignancies (three studies). Only two observational studies reported all-cause mortality; one showing an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0.88 (95% CI 0.77 to 0.99) for death with vaccination and the other reporting an odds ratio (OR) of 0.43 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.71). The RCT reported a statistically significant reduction in ILI with vaccination, while no difference was observed in one observational study. Confirmed influenza rates were lower with vaccination in the three observational studies, the difference reaching statistical significance in one. Pneumonia was observed significantly less frequently with vaccination in one observational study, but no difference was detected in another or in the RCT. The RCT showed a reduction in hospitalizations following vaccination, while an observational study found no difference. No life-threatening or persistent adverse effects from vaccination were reported. The strength of evidence is limited by the low number of included studies and by their low methodological quality (high risk of bias).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Observational data suggests a lower mortality with influenza vaccination. Infection-related outcomes were lower or similar with influenza vaccination. The strength of evidence is limited by the small number of studies and by the fact that only one was a RCT. Influenza vaccination is safe and the evidence, although weak, is in favour of vaccinating adults with cancer receiving chemotherapy.

Influenza vaccination in children being treated with chemotherapy for cancer

BACKGROUND

Influenza infection is a potential cause of severe morbidity in children with cancer; therefore vaccination against influenza is recommended. However, data are conflicting regarding the immune response to influenza vaccination in children with cancer, and the value of vaccination remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

1. To assess the efficacy of influenza vaccination in stimulating an immunological response in children with cancer during chemotherapy, compared with control groups.2. To assess the efficacy of influenza vaccination in preventing confirmed influenza and influenza-like illness and/or in stimulating immunological response in children with cancer treated with chemotherapy, compared with placebo, no intervention or different dosage schedules.3. To identify the adverse effects associated with influenza vaccines in children with cancer treated with chemotherapy, compared with other control groups.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1966 to 2012) and EMBASE (1980 to 2012) up to August 2012. We also searched reference lists of relevant articles and conference proceedings of the Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (ICAAC), the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) and the International Society of Paediatric Oncology (SIOP).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) in which the serological response to influenza vaccination of children with cancer was compared with that of control groups. We also considered RCTs and CCTs that compared the effects of influenza vaccination on clinical response and/or immunological response in children with cancer being treated with chemotherapy, compared with placebo, no intervention or different dosage schedules.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent review authors assessed the methodological quality of included studies and extracted the data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 1 RCT and 9 CCTs (total number of participants = 770). None of the included studies reported clinical outcomes. All included studies reported on influenza immunity and adverse reactions to vaccination. In five studies, immune responses to influenza vaccine were compared in 272 children receiving chemotherapy and 166 children not receiving chemotherapy. In four studies, responses to influenza vaccine were assessed in 236 children receiving chemotherapy compared with responses in 142 healthy children. Measures used to assess immune responses included a four-fold rise in antibody titre after vaccination, development of a haemagglutination inhibition (HI) titre > 32 and pre- and post-vaccination geometric mean titres (GMTs). Immune responses in children receiving chemotherapy were consistently weaker (four-fold rise of 38% to 65%) than those in children who had completed chemotherapy (50% to 86%) and in healthy children (53% to 89%). In terms of adverse effects, 391 paediatric oncology patients received influenza vaccine, and the adverse effects described included mild local reactions and low-grade fever. No life-threatening or persistent adverse effects were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Paediatric oncology patients receiving chemotherapy are able to generate an immune response to the influenza vaccine, but it remains unclear whether this immune response protects them from influenza infection or its complications. We are awaiting results from well-designed RCTs addressing the clinical benefit of influenza vaccination in these patients.

Modeling dendritic cell vaccination for influenza prophylaxis: potential applications for niche populations

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients can exhibit negligible responses to prophylactic vaccinations, including influenza vaccination. To help address this issue, we developed in vitro and in vivo models of dendritic cell (DC) immunotherapy for the prevention of influenza virus infection.

METHODS

Human cord blood (CB)-derived or mouse splenocyte-derived DCs were loaded with purified recombinant hemagglutinin (rHA). T-cell responses to HA-loaded CB-derived DCs were determined by ELISpot. Protective efficacy was determined by vaccination of BALB/c mice with a single injection of 10(6) autologous DCs. DC migration to peripheral lymphoid organs was verified by carboxyfluorescein succinimidyl ester staining, and HA-specific antibody titers were determined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Mice were then challenged intranasally with BALB/c-adapted A/New Caledonia influenza virus derived from four consecutive lung pool passages. Antigen-presenting cell (APC) dysfunction was modeled using the MAFIA transgenic system, in which the Csf1r promoter conditionally drives AP20178-inducible Fas.

RESULTS

CB-derived human DCs were able to generate de novo T-cell responses against rHA, as determined by a system of rigorous controls. Mice vaccinated intraperitoneally developed HA titers detectable at serum dilutions of >1:1000. HA seroconverters survived virus challenge, whereas unvaccinated controls and vaccinated nonseroconverters lost weight and died. Furthermore, use of a model of APC-specific immunosuppression revealed that DC vaccination could generate HA-specific antibody titers under conditions in which protein vaccination could not.

CONCLUSIONS

The model demonstrates that DC immunotherapy for the prevention of influenza is feasible, and studies are underway to determine whether populations of immunosuppressed individuals might ultimately benefit from the procedure.

Clinical characteristics and outcome associated with pandemic (2009) H1N1 influenza infection in patients with hematologic malignancies: a retrospective cohort study

Pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1) influenza has been associated with a worldwide outbreak of febrile respiratory illness. Although impaired immunity, such as that caused by hematologic malignancy, has been identified as a risk factor for severe infection with this virus, the course of this infection has not been adequately characterized in patients with underlying hematologic malignancy in comparison with immune competent controls. We report our experience with severe pH1N1 infection in patients with hematologic cancers and compare this group to non-immunosuppressed patients. Data were retrospectively collected on all patients admitted to our institution with confirmed pH1N1 infection. Clinical characteristics, treatments and outcomes were compared between patients with hematologic malignancies and non-immunocompromised controls. Fifteen patients with hematologic malignancy and 49 controls were identified. The control group had higher baseline rates of asthma (p = 0.01) and smoking (p = 0.05) at baseline. Clinical features of infection in the two groups were similar, except for a higher prevalence of abnormalities on chest imaging in the group with malignancy (p = 0.05). No statistically significant difference in mortality was observed between the groups. Mean duration of hospitalization (22.1 days vs. 9.2 days, p = 0.04) and duration of antiviral treatment (9.9 days vs. 6.7 days, p < 0.05) were greater in the hematologic malignancy group. Hospitalized patients with hematologic malignancies with pH1N1 infection had greater durations of hospitalization and treatment than non-immunocompromised controls, possibly reflecting decreased clearance of the virus as a consequence of impaired immunity.

Vaccination recommendations for the hematology and oncology and post-stem cell transplant populations

Vaccination is a simple yet important process used to prevent many infections in the general population. For patients with suppressed immune systems, especially those who are undergoing chemotherapy or who have undergone stem cell transplant, repeat vaccination or boosters may be crucial in prolonging and/or extending immunity. The purpose of this review is to examine the need for each vaccine in two separate oncology populations: patients receiving concurrent chemotherapy and post-stem cell transplant patients. In addition, the importance of avoiding live vaccines and criteria for reconsideration at a future time will also be discussed.

Immunogenicity of an inactivated monovalent 2009 influenza A (H1N1) vaccine in patients who have cancer

BACKGROUND

The immune response of patients who have cancer, who may be receiving immunosuppressive therapy, is generally considered to be decreased. This study aimed to evaluate the immune response of cancer patients to the 2009 influenza A (H1N1) vaccine.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a prospective single site study comparing the immune response after H1N1 vaccination of healthy controls (group A), patients who had solid tumors and were taking myelosuppressive chemotherapy (group B), patients who had solid tumors and were taking nonmyelosuppressive or no treatment (group C), and patients who had hematologic malignancies (group D).

RESULTS

At 2-6 weeks after vaccination, seroconversion was observed in 80.0% of group A (95% confidence interval [CI], 65.0%-89.7%), 72.2% of group B (95% CI, 55.9%-84.3%), 87.0% of group C (95% CI, 72.2%-94.7%), and 75.0% of group D (95% CI, 52.8%-89.2%) (p = NS). The geometric mean titer ratio, that is, geometric mean factor increase in antibody titer after vaccination, was 12.6 (95% CI, 7.9-19.9), 12.7 (95% CI, 7.3-22.1), 23.0 (95% CI, 13.9-38.2), and 12.1 (95% CI, 5.3-27.9) (p = NS), and the seroprotection rates were 95.5% (95% CI, 84.0%-99.6%), 79.0% (95% CI, 63.4%-89.2%), 90.5% (95% CI, 77.4%-96.8%), and 90.0% (95% CI, 71%-98.7%) in the corresponding groups (p = NS). Immune responses were robust regardless of malignancy, or time intervals between the use of myelosuppressive or immunosuppressive medications and vaccination. No participants developed clinical H1N1 infection.

CONCLUSION

Cancer patients, whether taking myelosuppressive chemotherapy or not, are able to generate an immune response to the H1N1 vaccine similar to that of healthy controls.

Influenza vaccination for immunocompromised patients: systematic review and meta-analysis from a public health policy perspective

BACKGROUND

Immunocompromised patients are vulnerable to severe or complicated influenza infection. Vaccination is widely recommended for this group. This systematic review and meta-analysis assesses influenza vaccination for immunocompromised patients in terms of preventing influenza-like illness and laboratory confirmed influenza, serological response and adverse events.

METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Electronic databases and grey literature were searched and records were screened against eligibility criteria. Data extraction and risk of bias assessments were performed in duplicate. Results were synthesised narratively and meta-analyses were conducted where feasible. Heterogeneity was assessed using I(2) and publication bias was assessed using Begg's funnel plot and Egger's regression test. Many of the 209 eligible studies included an unclear or high risk of bias. Meta-analyses showed a significant effect of preventing influenza-like illness (odds ratio [OR]=0.23; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.16-0.34; p<0.001) and laboratory confirmed influenza infection (OR=0.15; 95% CI=0.03-0.63; p=0.01) through vaccinating immunocompromised patie nts compared to placebo or unvaccinated controls. We found no difference in the odds of influenza-like illness compared to vaccinated immunocompetent controls. The pooled odds of seroconversion were lower in vaccinated patients compared to immunocompetent controls for seasonal influenza A(H1N1), A(H3N2) and B. A similar trend was identified for seroprotection. Meta-analyses of seroconversion showed higher odds in vaccinated patients compared to placebo or unvaccinated controls, although this reached significance for influenza B only. Publication bias was not detected and narrative synthesis supported our findings. No consistent evidence of safety concerns was identified.

CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE

Infection prevention and control strategies should recommend vaccinating immunocompromised patients. Potential for bias and confounding and the presence of heterogeneity mean the evidence reviewed is generally weak, although the directions of effects are consistent. Areas for further research are identified.

Immune response to 2009 pandemic H1N1 influenza virus A monovalent vaccine in children with cancer

PURPOSE

This study investigated the immune response to 2009 pandemic H1N1 influenza monovalent vaccine in children with cancer receiving chemotherapy.

METHODS

We enrolled 25 pediatric patients. Ten patients younger than 10 years old received two vaccinations and the remaining 15 patients older than 10 years old received one. We checked hemagglutination-inhibition (HAI) antibody titers in sera of patients before and 3-4 weeks after vaccination. Seroprotective titer was defined as HAI antibody titer ≥ 40 and seroresponse as ≥ 4-fold increase in HAI antibody titers after vaccination.

RESULTS

The pre- and post-vaccination seroprotective rates were 52% and 72% (P = 0.24). Sixteen (64%) patients were possibly exposed to 2009 pandemic H1N1 influenza previously, and there was significant association between possible exposure and pre-vaccination seroprotective rate (P = 0.03). Post-vaccination seroresponse rate was 32%, and seroresponse was greater in patients without pre-vaccination seroprotective titer than those with pre-vaccination seroprotective titer (50% vs. 15%, P = 0.07). Children with lymphocyte counts above 1,500/µl during vaccination period had better seroresponse than those with lymphocyte counts below 1,500/µl (P = 0.008). Post-vaccination geometric mean titer (GMT) significantly increased in patients younger than 10 years receiving two vaccinations (pre- and post-vaccination GMT were 21.4 and 60.6, respectively; P = 0.025).

CONCLUSIONS

Monovalent vaccine for the 2009 pandemic H1N1 influenza A was found to be partially immunogenic in children with cancer, as evidenced by 32% of seroresponse rate. Immune response can be improved with vaccinations administered to patients whose absolute lymphocyte counts returned to a level of 1,500/µl or higher.

Vaccines for prophylaxis of viral infections in patients with hematological malignancies

BACKGROUND

Viral infections cause significant morbidity and mortality in patients with hematological malignancies. It remains uncertain whether viral vaccinations in these patients are supported by good evidence.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to determine the effectiveness and safety of viral vaccines in patients with hematological malignancies.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL (June 2010), reference lists of relevant papers, abstracts from scientific meetings and contacted vaccine manufacturers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating viral vaccines in patients with hematological malignancies were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Relative risk (RR) was used for binary data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data. Primary outcome was incidence of infection. Secondary outcomes were mortality, incidence of complications and severe viral infection, hospitalization, immune response and adverse effects. Fixed-effect model was used in meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight RCTs were included, with 305 patients in the intervention groups and 288 in the control groups. They evaluated heat-inactivated varicella zoster virus (VZV) vaccine (two trials), influenza vaccines (five trials) and inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) (one trial). Seven trials had high and one trial had moderate risk of bias.VZV vaccine might reduce herpes zoster compared to no vaccine (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.3 to 1.0, P=0.05), but not statistically significant. Vaccination also demonstrated efficacy in immune response but frequently caused local adverse effects. One trial reported severity score of zoster, which favored vaccination (MD 2.6, 95% CI 0.94 to 4.26, P=0.002).Two RCTs compared inactivated influenza vaccine with no vaccine and reported lower risk of lower respiratory infections (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.78, P=0.008) and hospitalization (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.31, P<0.00001) in vaccine recipients. However, vaccine recipients more frequently experienced irritability and local adverse effects. There was no significant difference in seroconversion between one and two doses of influenza vaccine (one trial), or between recombinant and standard influenza vaccine (one trial), or influenza vaccine given with or without re-induction chemotherapy (one trial).The IPV trial comparing vaccination starting at 6 versus 18 months after stem cell transplant (SCT) found no significant difference in seroconversion.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Inactivated VZV vaccine might reduce zoster severity in adult SCT recipients. Inactivated influenza vaccine might reduce respiratory infections and hospitalization in adults with multiple myeloma or children with leukemia or lymphoma. However, the quality of evidence is low. Local adverse effects occur frequently. Further high-quality RCTs are needed.

Influenza vaccination for terminally ill cancer patients receiving palliative care: a preliminary report

CONTEXT

Cancer patients have impaired humoral and cellular immunity, and are more susceptible to infections; their immunological response is expected to be less effective than that of healthy people.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the immune response to influenza vaccine in terminally ill cancer patients in a home palliative care unit.

METHODS

During the fall of 2000-2001, 2005-2006, and 2006-2007, terminally ill cancer patients treated by our home palliative care unit were vaccinated against influenza with Vaxigrip(®). Blood samples were taken before and four weeks after vaccination. Influenza immunological response parameters accepted in the literature were calculated.

RESULTS

Eighteen terminal cancer patients were vaccinated against influenza strains predicted for that year; 13 completed the study. The other five patients died within less than a month from the time of vaccination. The serum protection rate increased from 15.4% before to 61.5% after vaccination, and the serum response rate was 53.8% for all the three strains of vaccination. Mean-fold increase was 24.9 for influenza A-H1N1, 15.4 for influenza A-H3N2, and 2.8 for influenza B. Geometric mean titer was increased for influenza A-H3N2 from 8.3 before vaccination to 159.4 after vaccination; for influenza A-H1N1 from 5.2 to 124.3, and for influenza B from 5.7 to 44.6.

CONCLUSION

The results indicate that influenza vaccination is probably effective and can be offered to terminally ill cancer patients with a life expectancy of about three months in a home care palliative care unit.

Utility of Influenza Vaccination for Oncology Patients

Every fall and winter, patients with cancer and their families ask oncologists whether they should be vaccinated for influenza. This season, with escalating concerns regarding the novel H1N1 influenza virus and its recently approved vaccine, this question has become more frequent and increasingly urgent. The purpose of this article is to review evidence related to the ability of patients with cancer to mount protective immunological responses to influenza vaccination. The literature on immunogenicity in pediatric and adult patients, those with solid tumors and hematologic malignancies, untreated and actively treated patients, and patients receiving biologic agents is summarized and reviewed. In addition, we report on potential strategies to improve the efficacy of influenza vaccination in patients with cancer, such as the timing of vaccination, use of more than a one-shot series, increasing the antigen dose, and the use of adjuvant therapies. We conclude that there is evidence that patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy are able to respond to influenza vaccination, and because this intervention is safe, inexpensive, and widely available, vaccination for seasonal influenza and the novel H1N1 strain is indicated.

Influenza vaccination among individuals with cancer and their family members

BACKGROUND

Influenza vaccination for family members of patients with cancer lowers patients' risk of influenza and related complications.

PURPOSE

This study aims to examine the utilization of influenza vaccination among such families.

METHODS

Individuals directly or indirectly affected by cancer and a cancer-free control group were identified from the 2005 and 2006 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey: current patients (CURR-I) and their family members (CURR-F); previous patients (PREV-I) and family members (PREV-F); and individuals in families not affected by cancer (I-F). Logistic regressions with appropriate weighting algorithms for survey data were performed to compare utilization among these five groups, while controlling for confounding factors (e.g., demographics, SES).

RESULTS

The proportion of those vaccinated was substantially higher among patients with cancer. It was 58.7%, 54.7%, 43.83%, 39.73%, and 29.3% for CURR-I, PREV-I, CURR-F, PREV-F, and I-F, respectively. A similar pattern was observed in analyses stratified by age groups (18-49, 50-64, and > or =65 years). Results from logistic regressions indicated that the CURR-I group was significantly more likely to have influenza vaccine than I-F (OR [CI]=1.62 [1.10, 2.36]; 1.50 [1.11, 2.02]; and 1.42 [1.06, 1.92] for those aged 18-49, 50-64, and > or =65 years, respectively), but the differences between family members of patients with cancer and the control were not significant after controlling for the confounders. A significant difference between PREV-I and I-F was observed for only those aged > or =65 years (OR [CI]=1.47 [1.09, 1.99]).

CONCLUSIONS

Influenza vaccination was underutilized (<45%) among family members of patients with cancer. To reduce health risks for cancer survivors, prevention efforts should be extended to their family members.

Influenza vaccination in children being treated with chemotherapy for cancer

BACKGROUND

Influenza infection is a potential cause of severe morbidity in children with cancer, therefore vaccination against influenza is recommended. However, there are conflicting data concerning the immune response to influenza vaccination in children with cancer and the value of vaccination remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

1. To assess the efficacy of influenza vaccination in stimulating immunological response in children with cancer during chemotherapy, compared to control groups. 2. To assess the efficacy of influenza vaccination in preventing confirmed influenza and influenza-like illness and/or stimulating immunological response in children with cancer treated with chemotherapy, compared to placebo, no intervention or different dosage schedules. 3. To determine the adverse effects associated with influenza vaccination in children with cancer.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (1966 to 2007) and EMBASE (1980 to 2007) up to February 2007. We also searched reference lists of relevant articles and conference proceedings of ICAAC, IDSA, MASCC and SIOP.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) in which the serologic response to influenza vaccination of children with cancer was compared to other control groups. We also considered RCTs and CCTs comparing the effects of influenza vaccination on clinical response and/or immunological response in children with cancer, with placebo, no intervention or different dosage schedules.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent authors assessed the methodological quality of included studies and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 1 RCT and 8 CCTs ( total number of participants=708). None of the included studies reported on clinical outcome. All included studies reported on influenza immunity and adverse reactions to vaccination. In five studies, immune responses to influenza vaccine were compared in 272 children on chemotherapy with 166 children not on chemotherapy. In three studies, responses to influenza vaccine were assessed in 204 children on chemotherapy compared with responses in 112 healthy children. The measures used to assess immune responses were: a four-fold rise in antibody titre after vaccination, development of haemagglutination inhibition (HI) titre > 32, and pre- and post-vaccination geometric mean titres (GMT). Immune responses in children receiving chemotherapy were consistently weaker (four-fold rise of 25% to 52%) than in those children who had completed chemotherapy (50% to 86%) and in healthy children (71% to 89%). Concerning adverse effects, 359 paediatric oncology patients received influenza vaccine and the side effects described were mild local reactions and low grade fever. No life-threatening or persistent adverse effects were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Paediatric oncology patients receiving chemotherapy are able to generate an immune response to the influenza vaccine, but it remains unclear whether this immune response protects them from influenza infection or its complications. We are awaiting results from well-designed RCTs addressing the clinical benefit of influenza vaccination in these patients.

Assessment of the immune response to trivalent split influenza vaccine in children with solid tumors

PURPOSE

To assess the immune response to influenza vaccine in children with solid tumors receiving chemotherapy or under the influence of chemotherapy.

METHODS

Forty-five children (aged 1-18) with solid tumors on chemotherapy or within 6 months of completion of chemotherapy were included in the study. The children received two doses of intramuscular trivalent split influenza vaccine with 1 month apart in November-December 2003 (children <4 age 0.25 ml; >4 age 0.5 ml). Antibody titer was detected in the pre-vaccination and 4-week post-vaccination sera by hemagglutination inhibition (HI) method. Immune responses were measured as protective, geometric mean titers (GMT), and fourfold rises in HI titers.

RESULTS

We revealed that the post-vaccination GMT for each of the three antigens in patients with solid tumors has increased significantly (P < 0.05). A fourfold rise in the percentage of post-vaccination antibody titers has been detected as 84.4% for H(1)N(1), 77.8% for H(3)N(2), 60% for B. Stratification of patients as on active chemotherapy or being within 6 months of completion of chemotherapy in terms of fourfold rise in antibody titers exposed a statistically significant difference for only B (P = 0.34). Post-vaccination protective rates were between 86 and 97%.

CONCLUSIONS

Due to the interruptions in treatment caused by influenza infections, and economic benefits of the vaccine, we suggest that inactivated influenza vaccine should be applied as two doses annually in patients with solid tumor.

Evaluation of vaccine dosing in patients with solid tumors receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy

OBJECTIVE

To provide oncology healthcare providers with information on current vaccine recommendations and discuss the proper timing of vaccination in relation to chemotherapy, to allow for an adequate, protective antibody response.

DATA SOURCES

In this review, we have attempted to include all available literature as well as the current recommendations. The National Library of Medicine, PubMed online database was searched using the keywords: chemotherapy, influenza, vaccine, cancer, immunosuppression. In addition, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines were reviewed and incorporated into the recommendations.

DATA SYNTHESIS

There were several limitations to the literature available. To date, most of the literature was completed in the 1970s and 1980s, and definitions of protective immunity regarding influenza vaccines have changed over time, as well as improved study design. These studies have also been completed in a variety of disease states, hence, it is difficult to make comparisons between trials. The recommendations in this review are consistent with the current CDC Guidelines and, until further clinical trials are carried out, are the most conservative recommendations in favor of patient safety, health care costs, and resource utilization.

CONCLUSION

Patients on cancer chemotherapy should receive vaccination at least 2 weeks before initiation of treatment. Providers should avoid administering vaccination during chemotherapy or active radiation treatment because of suboptimal responses to vaccines. Active immunization has been shown to confer protective immunity to several infections in cancer patients at similar rates to healthy individuals.

Cost-effectiveness of influenza vaccination in working-age cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Despite recommendations to immunize all patients at an increased risk of influenza complications, the vaccine utilization among high-risk nonelderly adults remains low and its cost-effectiveness is unclear. In the current study, the authors analyzed the cost-effectiveness of influenza vaccination in working-age (ages 20-64 years) cancer patients.

METHODS

The authors developed a decision-analytic model, from the societal perspective, using epidemiologic, vaccine effectiveness, resource utilization, cost, survival, and utility data from published sources, supplemented with data collected from the authors' own institutional accounting system. Two strategies were compared: influenza vaccination of working-age cancer patients and no vaccination. The base-case patient was assumed to be a 51-year-old cancer patient (the mean age for the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results [SEER] population of working-age patients within 5 years of cancer diagnosis).

RESULTS

The effectiveness of the influenza vaccine was 6.02 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at a cost of $30.10. The effectiveness of the no vaccination strategy was 6.01 QALYs at a cost of $27.86. Compared with the no vaccination strategy, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of vaccinating working-age cancer patients would be $224.00 per QALY gained. Using the benchmark of $50,000 per QALY, the model was only sensitive to changes in cancer survival (threshold of 2.8 months).

CONCLUSIONS

The influenza vaccine is cost-effective for working-age cancer patients with a life expectancy of >or=3 months. All working-age cancer patients who are within 5 years of cancer diagnosis and have a life expectancy of at least 3 months should be vaccinated against influenza.

Efficacy of the influenza vaccine in patients with malignant lymphoma

BACKGROUND

The benefits and efficacy of the influenza vaccine have been controversial and have had mixed reviews in the recent literature. Immunosuppressed patients and those receiving chemotherapy are particularly at risk for infectious complications and are therefore given high priority to receiving prophylactic vaccines.

METHOD

We administered the influenza vaccine to 29 patients with malignant lymphoma who were receiving chemotherapy or had recently completed therapy during the flu season of 2003-2004. An aged-matched control group received the same vaccine during the same period. The ability of both groups to mount a protective titer of antibodies to the antigens in the vaccine was measured.

RESULTS

Three of 29 patients (10%) in the lymphoma group were able to mount a 4-fold titer to at least one of the influenza A antigens. One patient developed a protective titer to both influenza A and B antigens and 3 of 29 responded to the influenza B antigen. In the control group 13 of 29 (45%) responded to an influenza A antigen and 14 of 29 (48%) had a 4-fold response to the B antigen. Seven of 29 controls (24%) had a 4-fold increase in their titers to both the A and B antigens.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirmed the low incidence of response or efficacy to the influenza vaccine reported in previous studies. Only a small percentage (10%) of immunosuppressed patients with malignant lymphoma responded with a 4-fold increase in their antibody titer to the major antigens of the 2003 influenza vaccine. Most interestingly, less than 50% of the aged-matched control population studied responded with a 4-fold increase in their antibody titer. Additional studies are needed to determine methods for improving the efficacy of the vaccine and the effectiveness of the influenza vaccination program in preventing influenza infections in the United States.

Immune responses to influenza immunization in children receiving maintenance chemotherapy for acute lymphoblastic leukemia

PURPOSE

To compare the immune responses to influenza vaccine in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) receiving maintenance chemotherapy with those in healthy children.

METHODS

Hemagglutinin-inhibition (HAI) antibody titers were determined before and after influenza vaccination in children with ALL and healthy controls. Immune responses were measured as geometric mean titers (GMT) and 4-fold rises in HAI titers.

RESULTS

Although post-immunization GMT were lower in children with ALL compared to healthy children for the H1N1 antigen (P<0.001), the H3N2 antigen (P=0.03), and for the influenza B antigen (P=0.003), at least 60% of children with ALL had at least a 4-fold rise in HAI titers to each of the influenza antigens.

CONCLUSIONS

While the GMT after trivalent influenza immunization in children with ALL were significantly lower than those seen in healthy children, the majority of children with ALL had 4-fold rises in HAI titers. Children receiving maintenance chemotherapy for ALL should receive yearly influenza vaccine.

Influenza vaccine in chronic lymphoproliferative disorders and multiple myeloma

OBJECTIVE

Vaccination against influenza in patients with chronic lymphoproliferative disorders (CLPD) and multiple myeloma (MM) is still a matter of clinical uncertainty. The aim of this study was to determine the safety, immunogenicity and clinical response to a commercially available vaccine against influenza in a group of such patients.

METHODS

Thirty-four patients with CLPD and MM and 34 immunologically normal subjects were vaccinated with the same vaccine against influenza. Patients were observed during the epidemic season from October 1999 to April 2000, and monitored for side-effects of the vaccine, seroprotection and seroconversion after vaccination. The prevaccination level of immunoglobulins was also determined. Occurrence of influenza episodes was demonstrated with the positive isolation of a viral strain from a pharyngeal swab.

RESULTS

No patient had untoward reactions to the vaccine used. Seroconversion and seroprotection were up to the standard established by the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products. Only one patient developed influenza during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Influenza vaccine is effective and well tolerated in patients with CLPD and MM. No contraindications exist for its use, and it should become a routine practice, in order to prevent serious complications during the influenza epidemic season.

Influenza vaccination in elderly patients with advanced colorectal cancer

PURPOSE

To examine influenza vaccination use in patients undergoing chemotherapy for advanced cancer.

METHODS

All Medicare patients treated for stage IV colorectal cancer between 1993 and 1998 while living in one of the regions monitored by the Survival, Epidemiology, and End Results Program who were alive in the fall months and who survived at least 4 months with their cancer were considered eligible to have received vaccination. Their medical bills were analyzed to determine receipt of influenza vaccination and subsequent outcomes.

RESULTS

Eligibility criteria were met by 1,225 patients who were undergoing chemotherapy during 1,577 person-years of observation. Overall, 39.7% of patients received influenza vaccination, increasing from 26% in 1993 to 43% in 1998. When vaccination was administered, it was provided by primary care physicians 68% of the time. Vaccinated patients were more likely to be white, of higher socioeconomic status, and to have more comorbidity. Fewer diagnoses of influenza and pneumonia infections were made in vaccinated patients while undergoing treatment. Those patients who were immunized also had fewer chemotherapy interruptions and were more likely to survive through to the beginning of the next fall (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.77 to 0.99). There was a trend toward decreased resource use among immunized patients.

CONCLUSION

This study observed outcomes associated with influenza vaccination that are similar to those reported for patients without cancer. However, rates of immunization are relatively low, and disparities exist for vulnerable populations. As part of delivering high-quality care, oncologists should promote influenza vaccination for their patients who are undergoing treatment for advanced cancer.

Influenza immunization practices among pediatric oncologists

PURPOSE

To describe the opinions of pediatric oncologists regarding the use of influenza vaccine in children with cancer and to identify factors that influence practitioners' recommendations about influenza vaccine.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A survey was sent to members of the Children's Oncology Group to inquire about their clinical experience and practice setting, opinions regarding the use of the influenza vaccine in children with cancer, and factors that influence their recommendations.

RESULTS

Of 803 pediatric oncologists identified, 434 (54%) responded. Depending on the type of tumor, 65% to 69% of pediatric oncologists indicated that they routinely recommend influenza vaccine for children being treated for cancer. Respondents were much more likely to recommend influenza vaccine for children with various types of cancer if they indicated that: 1) their practice has guidelines regarding the use of influenza vaccine (odds ratios ranging from 7.2 to 11.7); 2) influenza infection is very significant (odds ratios ranging from 1.4 to 3.7); and 3) influenza vaccine is effective (odds ratios ranging from 7.2 to 14.9).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of pediatric oncologists routinely recommend influenza vaccine for children being treated for cancer; however, a significant number of pediatric oncologists do not. Clarification of the benefit of influenza vaccine for children with cancer and the institution of practice guidelines may increase the use of the influenza vaccine among pediatric oncologists.

Immunization recommendations for adults with cancer

OBJECTIVE

To review the published literature on immunizing nonbone marrow transplant adult cancer patients, summarize the findings, and make recommendations for the use of vaccines in this population.

DATA SOURCE

A search of MEDLINE and CancerLit was conducted (1966-June 2001) to find English-language clinical studies and review articles pertaining to immunization, vaccines, and cancer in humans. Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices were used extensively. References of each identified article were subsequently reviewed for additional relevant articles.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Representative epidemiologic reports, clinical trials, and recommendations of expert panels are summarized in this report. Relevant information was selected to describe the epidemiology of vaccine-preventable diseases, efficacy of the vaccines, and recommendations specific to adults with cancer.

DATA SYNTHESIS

In general, adults with cancer are at least at the same risk of infection with vaccine-preventable diseases as are healthy populations. Because of their compromised immune function, many patients who have undergone cancer treatment are specifically at increased risk of morbidity and mortality associated with measles and varicella infections. Asplenic patients with lymphoma are at increased risk of fulminant bacterial infections. Influenza infection is associated with significant morbidity in cancer patients. Although the protection conferred by immunization is lower in immunosuppressed patients with cancer, immunization with inactivated vaccines is indicated. Live vaccines should not be used except in very rare instances.

CONCLUSIONS

Immunization of adults with cancer is a critical component of their care. Although additional research is necessary, following established recommendations may protect individuals with malignancies from significant morbidity and mortality associated with vaccine-preventable diseases.

Influenza virus vaccination and booster in B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukaemia patients

Background: Influenza vaccination is recommended for patients with B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL). Because response rates are often low, we decided to evaluate antibody response to single and booster vaccinations with influenza A and B virus vaccine in these patients. Methods: Twenty patients with B-CLL received two subunit virus vaccine injections 21 days apart. Antibody titres were determined before and 21 days after the single and booster vaccinations. The serological response was expressed using the following criteria: (1) response rate, i.e. the proportion of subjects with at least a 4-fold titre increase; (2) the protection rate, i.e. the proportion of subjects exceeding the threshold of 100 (influenza A) or 200 (influenza B); and (3) the mean fold increase (MFI), i.e. the difference between the log-adjusted geometric mean titres of pre- and post-vaccination sera. Results: Response rates were 5% for influenza A and 15% for B after the single vaccination and 15% for A and 30% for B after the booster vaccination. Protection rates were 0% for influenza A and 25% for B after the single vaccination; they were 5% (H1N1) and 10% (H3N2) for influenza A and 30% for B after the booster. The MFI+/-S.D. (range) after the booster vaccination was 0.26+/-0.33 (0-1.00), 0.17+/-0.34 (0-1.00) and 0.35+/-0.34 (0-1.20) for H1N1, H3N2 and influenza B, respectively. Conclusion: In this study with B-CLL patients, immune response to influenza vaccination was poor. Thus, single and booster vaccinations with influenza virus vaccine do not appear to be of great value to patients with B-cell CLL.

Use of licensed vaccines for active immunization of the immunocompromised host

The latter part of the 20th century has witnessed an unprecedented rise in the number of individuals with impaired immunity. This is primarily attributable to the increased development and use of antineoplastic therapy for malignancies, organ and bone marrow transplantation, and the AIDS epidemic. Individuals with impaired immunity are often at increased risk for infections, and they can experience more severe and complicated courses of infection. The lack of therapy for a variety of viruses and the rise in antimicrobial resistance of many pathogens have focused attention on vaccination to prevent infectious diseases. The efficacy of most licensed vaccines has been established in immunocompetent hosts. However, there is also considerable experience with most vaccines in those with impaired immunity. We reviewed the use of licensed live, inactivated, and polysaccharide vaccines in this group, and several themes emerged: (i) most vaccines are less immunogenic in those with impaired immunity than in normal individuals; (ii) live vaccines are generally contraindicated in this group; and (iii) the efficacy of many commonly used vaccines has not been established in people with impaired immunity. This review suggests that for most vaccines there are little or no efficacy data in those with impaired immunity but their use in this patient group is generally safe.

Antibody response to a two-dose influenza vaccine regimen in adult lymphoma patients on chemotherapy

A study was conducted to determine if a two-dose regimen of influenza vaccine would enhance the immunologic response of 41 patients with lymphoma receiving chemotherapy. Hemagglutinin-inhibiting antibody responses to influenza A/H1N1, A/H3N2 and B virus occurred in 32%, 24% and 20% of patients following one dose, and in 49%, 41% and 46% of patients following two doses, respectively. Responses to one or more vaccine components occurred in 42% of patients after one dose and in 71% after two doses. Fifty percent of the patients who did not respond after one dose responded after two doses. A two-dose regimen of influenza immunization may significantly enhance the response rate of cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.

Prevention and control of influenza. Role of vaccine

A major component in the prevention and control of influenza should be the use of killed influenza vaccines. These vaccines became possible after the first discovery of human strains of influenza virus in the 1930s. The ensuing decades have seen marked improvement in the available inactivated vaccines. Current vaccines have excellent reliability and assured potency, and they contain the proper antigens to match the frequent changes in circulating influenza viruses. Killed vaccines work by inducing serum antibodies against the hemagglutinin and neuraminidase of the vaccine strains, with sufficient antibodies ensuring protection against infection. The antibody responses to current vaccines appear to be adequate in all age groups. Although antibody responses are depressed in patients receiving chemotherapy or immunosuppressants, current vaccines do provide protection for most populations. Vaccines prevent the manifestations of disease by about 30 to 70 percent in all populations, and they reduce deaths in high-risk individuals by about 60 to 87 percent. Local adverse reactions to vaccine are quite common, but not severe. Fever, also somewhat common, usually does not last beyond 48 hours. Neurologic complications have not been observed since the use of the swine influenza vaccine of 1976. Killed vaccines should be given annually in the fall, but they can be given up to and during an outbreak. Target groups for vaccines have been defined by the Centers for Disease Control. In recent years, these groups have included physicians and nurses who give care to patients at risk for complications of influenza.

Antibody response to pneumococcal vaccine in patients with solid tumors and lymphomas

Ninety patients with solid tumors or lymphomas were immunized with a polyvalent pneumococcal vaccine. Pre- and postimmunization antibody titers were determined by radioimmunoassay. Treated patients with lymphoma had poor antibody response whether on or off chemotherapy. Patient with chronic lymphocytic leukemia had the lowest antibody titers of all patients groups. Patients with solid tumors had antibody responses which were similar to those of the control population. Those patients who received sequential chemotherapy and immunization had a tendency for higher postimmunization titers than those patients who received simultaneous chemotherapy and immunization, but the difference was not significant. This study suggests that patients with solid tumors would be expected to benefit from pneumococcal immunization, whereas patients with lymphoma immunized after receiving treatment initially would not be expected to develop protective antibody levels. Recovery of antibody formation in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, which may occur in patients with Hodgkin disease, remains to be determined.