Response to anti-SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines in multiple myeloma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients

Examining the immunological responses to COVID-19 vaccination in multiple myeloma patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Impaired immune response in multiple myeloma renders the patients vulnerable to infections, such as COVID-19, and may cause worse response to vaccines. Researchers should analyze this issue to enable the planning for special preventive measures, such as increased booster doses. Therefore, this meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the response and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in patients with multiple myeloma.

METHODS

This meta-analysis followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines, conducting a comprehensive database search using specified keywords. Study selection involved a two-phase title/abstract and full-text screening process. Data extraction was performed by two researchers, and statistical analysis involved meta-analysis, subgroup analysis based on vaccine dosage and study time, random effects meta-regression, and heterogeneity testing using the Q test.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis revealed that patients with multiple myeloma (MM) had a lower likelihood of developing detectable antibodies after COVID-19 vaccination compared to healthy controls (Log odds ratio with 95% CI: -3.34 [-4.08, -2.60]). The analysis of antibody response after different doses showed consistent lower seropositivity in MM patients (after first dose: -2.09, [-3.49, -0.69], second: -3.80, 95%CI [-4.71, -3.01], a booster dose: -3.03, [-5.91, -0.15]). However, there was no significant difference in the mean level of anti-S antibodies between MM patients and controls (Cohen's d -0.72, [-1.86, 0.43]). Evaluation of T-cell responses indicated diminished T-cell-mediated immunity in MM patients compared to controls. Seven studies reported clinical response, with breakthrough infections observed in vaccinated MM patients.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings highlight the impaired humoral and cellular immune responses in MM patients after COVID-19 vaccination, suggesting the need for further investigation and potential interventions.

Bibliometric analysis of RNA vaccines for cancer

Cancer represents a challenging medical problem worldwide. Several exploratory studies have been conducted to overcome these limitations. RNA vaccines play an important role in cancer prevention and treatment. Recent studies have shown that RNA vaccines play an important role in cancer prevention. However, there are currently no relevant bibliometric studies. This study aimed to apply bibliometrics to summarize the knowledge structure and research hotspots regarding the role of RNA vaccines in cancer. Publications related to RNA vaccines in cancer were searched on the web of science core collection (WoSCC) database. VOSviewers, CiteSpace and R package "bibliometrix" were used to conduct this bibliometric analysis. A total of 1399 articles were included, comprising 803 original articles and 596 reviews. The number of studies on RNA vaccines against cancer has been increasing annually. China and the United States were the principal countries of origin of publications. Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, NCI, and Duke University were the main organizations. Frontiers in Immunology is the leading journal in the field. Hot keywords included tumor antigens, lipid nanoparticles, emerging roles, and dendritic cells. This is the bibliometric study to summarize the research trends and development of RNA vaccines for cancer. This information will provide a reference for researchers studying RNA vaccines against cancer.

Humoral and cellular BNT162b2 mRNA-based booster vaccine-induced immunity in patients with multiple myeloma and persistence of neutralising antibodies: results of a prospective single-centre cohort study

BACKGROUND

Currently available messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA)-based vaccines against coronavirus disease (COVID-19) have been shown to be effective even in highly immunocompromised hosts, including patients with multiple myeloma. However, vaccination failure can be observed in all patient groups.

METHODS

This prospective study longitudinally assessed the humoral and cellular responses to a third booster dose of BNT162b2 mRNA-based vaccine in patients with myeloma (n = 59) and healthy controls (n = 22) by measuring the levels of anti-spike (S) antibodies (electro-chemiluminescence immunoassay) including neutralising antibodies and specific T-cells (enzyme-linked immunospot assay) following booster administration.

RESULTS

The third booster dose showed a high immunogenicity on the serological level among the patients with multiple myeloma (median anti-S level = 41 binding antibody units [BAUs]/ml pre-booster vs 3902 BAU/ml post-booster, p <0.001; increase in the median neutralising antibody level from 19.8% to 97%, p <0.0001). Four of five (80%) patients with a complete lack of any serological response (anti-S immunoglobulin level <0.8 BAU/ml) after two vaccine doses developed detectable anti-S antibodies after booster vaccination (median anti-S level = 88 BAU/ml post-booster). T-cell responses were largely preserved among the patients with multiple myeloma with no difference from the healthy controls following baseline vaccination (median spot-forming units [SFU]/106 of peripheral blood mononuclear cells = 193 vs 175, p = 0.711); these responses were augmented significantly after booster administration among the patients with multiple myeloma (median SFU/106 of peripheral blood mononuclear cells = 235 vs 443, p <0.001). However, the vaccination responses remained highly heterogeneous and diminished over time, with insufficient serological responses occurring even after booster vaccination in a few patients irrespective of the treatment intensity.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data demonstrate improvements in humoral and cellular immunity following booster vaccination and support the assessment of the humoral vaccine response in patients with multiple myeloma until a threshold for protection against severe COVID-19 is validated. This strategy can allow the identification of patients who might benefit from additional protective measures (e.g. pre-exposure prophylaxis via passive immunisation).

Management of patients with multiple myeloma and COVID-19 in the post pandemic era: a consensus paper from the European Myeloma Network (EMN)

In the post-pandemic COVID-19 period, human activities have returned to normal and COVID-19 cases are usually mild. However, patients with multiple myeloma (MM) present an increased risk for breakthrough infections and severe COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization and death. The European Myeloma Network has provided an expert consensus to guide patient management in this era. Vaccination with variant-specific booster vaccines, such as the bivalent vaccine for the ancestral Wuhan strain and the Omicron BA.4/5 strains, is essential as novel strains emerge and become dominant in the community. Boosters should be administered every 6-12 months after the last vaccine shot or documented COVID-19 infection (hybrid immunity). Booster shots seem to overcome the negative effect of anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies on humoral responses; however, anti-BCMA treatment remains an adverse predictive factor for humoral immune response. Evaluation of the immune response after vaccination may identify a particularly vulnerable subset of patients who may need additional boosters, prophylactic therapies and prevention measures. Pre-exposure prophylaxis with tixagevimab/cilgavimab is not effective against the new dominant variants and thus is no longer recommended. Oral antivirals (nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and molnupiravir) and remdesivir are effective against Omicron subvariants BA.2.12.1, BA.4, BA.5, BQ.1.1 and/or XBB.1.5 and should be administered in MM patients at the time of a positive COVID-19 test or within 5 days post symptoms onset. Convalescent plasma seems to have low value in the post-pandemic era. Prevention measures during SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks, including mask wearing and avoiding crowded places, seem prudent to continue for MM patients.

mRNA Vaccines against SARS-CoV-2: Advantages and Caveats

The application of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infection has constituted a determinant resource to control the COVID-19 pandemic. Since the beginning of 2021, millions of doses have been administered in several countries of North and South America and Europe. Many studies have confirmed the efficacy of these vaccines in a wide range of ages and in vulnerable groups of people against COVID-19. Nevertheless, the emergence and selection of new variants have led to a progressive decay in vaccine efficacy. Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna developed updated bivalent vaccines-Comirnaty and Spikevax-to improve responses against the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variants. Frequent booster doses with monovalent or bivalent mRNA vaccines, the emergence of some rare but serious adverse events and the activation of T-helper 17 responses suggest the need for improved mRNA vaccine formulations or the use of other types of vaccines. In this review, we discuss the advantages and limitations of mRNA vaccines targeting SARS-CoV-2 focusing on the most recent, related publications.

Clinical and Serological Follow-Up of 216 Patients with Hematological Malignancies after Vaccination with Pfizer-BioNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 in a Real-World Study

Hematological malignancies (HMs) have heterogeneous serological responses after vaccination due to disease or treatment. The aim of this real-world study was to analyze it after Pfizer-BioNT162b2 mRNA vaccination in 216 patients followed up for 1 year. The first 43 patients had an initial follow-up by a telemedicine (TM) system with no major events reported. The anti-spike IgG antibodies were checked 3–4 weeks post-first vaccination and every 3–4 months, by two standard bioassays and a rapid serological test (RST). Vaccine boosts were given when the level was <7 BAU/mL. Patients who did not seroconvert after 3–4 doses received tixagevimab/cilgavimab (TC). Fifteen results were discordant between two standard bioassays. Good agreement was observed between the standard and RST in 97 samples. After two doses, 68% were seroconverted (median = 59 BAU/mL) with a median of 162 BAU/mL and 9 BAU/mL, respectively, in untreated and treated patients (p < 0.001), particularly for patients receiving rituximab. Patients with gammaglobulin levels < 5 g/L had reduced seroconversion compared to higher levels (p = 0.019). The median levels were 228 BAU/mL post-second dose if seroconverted post-first and second, or if seroconverted only post-second dose. A total of 68% of post-second dose negative patients were post-third dose positive. A total of 16% received TC, six with non-severe symptomatic COVID-19 within 15–40 days. Personalized serological follow-up should apply particularly to patients with HMs.

Low Spike Antibody Levels and Impaired BA.4/5 Neutralization in Patients with Multiple Myeloma or Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia after BNT162b2 Booster Vaccination

Patients with symptomatic monoclonal gammopathies have impaired humoral responses to COVID-19 vaccination. Their ability to recognize SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variants is of concern. We compared the response to BNT162b2 mRNA vaccinations of patients with multiple myeloma (MM, n = 60) or Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia (WM, n = 20) with healthy vaccine recipients (n = 37). Patient cohorts on active therapy affecting B cell development had impaired binding and neutralizing antibody (NAb) response rate and magnitude, including several patients lacking responses, even after a 3rd vaccine dose, whereas non-B cell depleting therapies had a lesser effect. In contrast, MM and WM cohorts off-therapy showed increased NAb with a broad response range. ELISA Spike-Receptor Binding Domain (RBD) Ab titers in healthy vaccine recipients and patient cohorts were good predictors of the ability to neutralize not only the original WA1 but also the most divergent Omicron variants BA.4/5. Compared to WA1, significantly lower NAb responses to BA.4/5 were found in all patient cohorts on-therapy. In contrast, the MM and WM cohorts off-therapy showed a higher probability to neutralize BA.4/5 after the 3rd vaccination. Overall, the boost in NAb after the 3rd dose suggests that repeat vaccination of MM and WM patients is beneficial even under active therapy.

Divergent SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell responses in intensive care unit workers following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination

The cellular immune response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in response to full mRNA COVID-19 vaccination could be variable among healthy individuals. Studies based only in specific antibody levels could show an erroneous immune protection at long times. For that, we analyze the antibody levels specific to the S protein and the presence of SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells by ELISpot and AIM assays in intensive care unit (ICU) workers with no antecedents of COVID-19 and vaccinated with two doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. All individuals were seronegative for the SARS-CoV-2 protein S before vaccination (Pre-v), but 34.1% (14/41) of them showed pre-existing T lymphocytes specific for some viral proteins (S, M and N). One month after receiving two doses of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine (Post-v1), all cases showed seroconversion with high levels of total and neutralizing antibodies to the spike protein, but six of them (14.6%) had no T cells reactive to the S protein. Specifically, they lack of specific CD8+ T cells, but maintain the contribution of CD4+ T cells. Analysis of the immune response against SARS-CoV-2 at 10 months after full vaccination (Post-v10), exhibited a significant reduction in the antibody levels (p&lt;0.0001) and protein S-reactive T cells (p=0.0073) in all analyzed individuals, although none of the individuals become seronegative and 77% of them maintained a competent immune response. Thus, we can suggest that the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 elicited by the mRNA vaccines was highly variable among ICU workers. A non-negligible proportion of individuals did not develop a specific T cell response mediated by CD8+ T cells after vaccination, that may condition the susceptibility to further viral infections with SARS-CoV-2. By contrast, around 77% of individuals developed strong humoral and cellular immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 that persisted even after 10 months. Analysis of the cellular immune response is highly recommended for providing exact information about immune protection against SARS-CoV-2.