Serologic response and clinical efficacy of influenza vaccination in children and young adults on chemotherapy for cancer

Lessons learnt from influenza vaccination in immunocompromised children undergoing treatment for cancer

Influenza infection contributes substantially to global morbidity and mortality, with children undergoing treatment for cancer among the most vulnerable due to immunosuppression associated with disease and treatment. However, influenza remains one of the most common vaccine-preventable diseases. Despite international guidelines recommending inactivated influenza vaccination on the basis of data supporting efficacy and an excellent safety profile in this population, uptake has often been suboptimal due to persisting hesitancy among both patients and oncologists regarding the ability of the vaccine to mount a sufficient immune response, the optimal vaccine schedule and timing, and the best method to assess response in immunocompromised populations. In this Review, we discuss the evidence regarding influenza vaccination in children with cancer, factors that influence response, and highlight strategies to optimise vaccination. Host immune factors play a substantial role, thus principles learnt from influenza vaccination can be broadly applied for the use of inactivated vaccines in children with cancer.

A Review of the Pharmacokinetic Characteristics of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors and Their Clinical Impact Factors

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been shown to be significant in improving the overall survival rate in certain malignancies with poor prognoses. However, only 20-40% of patients achieve long-term benefits, highlighting the relevance of the factors that influence the treatment, which can help clinicians improve their results and guide the development of new immune checkpoint therapies. In this study, the current pharmacokinetic aspects associated with the ICIs and the factors influencing clinical efficacy were characterised, including in terms of drug metabolism, drug clearance, hormonal effects and immunosuppressive effects.

Baseline CD3+CD56+ (NKT-like) Cells and the Outcome of Influenza Vaccination in Children Undergoing Chemotherapy

Background

In children undergoing chemotherapy yearly influenza vaccination is recommended by treatment protocols. We investigated the relationship between cellular immunity and the antibody response to inactivated influenza vaccines.

Methods

25 patients (age: 2-18 years) undergoing chemotherapy for different malignancies participated in our study. Flow cytometric detection of peripheral blood lymphocyte subpopulations together with hemagglutination inhibition antibody titers were measured before and 21-28 days after vaccination. We examined the ratio and total numbers of CD3+, CD4+, CD8+ T cells, activated helper (CD3+CD4+CD25^low), regulatory (CD3+CD4+CD25^high), naive (CD3+CD45RA+) and memory (CD3+CD45RO+) T cells, CD56+NK, and CD3+CD56+ (NKT-like) cells. Relationships between specific antibody responses (seroprotection, seroconversion, geometric mean titer (GMT), geometric mean fold increase (GMFI)) and the ratios and counts of lymphocyte subpopulations were evaluated using one-way ANOVA and the paired sample t test after dichotomization according to age-related reference values.

Results

Patients with CD4+ lymphocyte levels in the normal age-specific range showed significantly better response regarding postvaccination GMT elevation for H1N1 and H3N2 strains (97.52 vs. 19.2, p=0.019, 80 vs. 14.43, p=0.021, respectively). GMFI results were significant only against B strain (2.69-fold vs. 1.23-fold, p=0.046). Prevaccination CD3+CD56+ (NKT-like) cells above predicted values according to age showed significant associations both in postvaccination GMT elevation (H1N1: 75.11 vs. 14.14, p=0.010; H3N2: 62.18 vs. 11.22, p=0.012; B: 22.69 vs. 6.67, p=0.043) and GMFI against all three strains (H1N1: 3.76-fold vs. 1.06-fold, p=0.015; H3N2: 2.74-fold vs. 1, p=0.013; B: 2.57-fold vs. 1, p=0.008). By one-way ANOVA, we found a positive relation between absolute lymphocyte cell count above 1000/µl and the postvaccination GMT elevation against H3N2 (12.81 vs. 56.56, p=0.032), and GMFI regarding H1N1 (1.22-fold vs. 3.48-fold, p=0.044).

Conclusions

In addition to verifying the predictive value of absolute lymphocyte count above 1000/µl, our results suggest an association between NKT-like cell counts and the specific antibody response against all three investigated influenza strains in highly immunosuppressed patients. Furthermore, prevaccination CD4+ lymphocyte levels in the normal age-specific range may influence seroresponse.

Influenza vaccination in immunocompromised populations: Strategies to improve immunogenicity

Immunocompromised individuals are at high risk of severe illness and complications from influenza infection. For this reason, immunization using inactivated influenza vaccines is recommended for transplant patients, individuals receiving immunosuppressant treatments, and other persons with immunodeficiency. However, these immunocompromised populations are more likely to have lower and non-protective responses to annual vaccination with a standard influenza vaccine. Here, we review strategies aimed to improve the immunogenicity of influenza vaccines in immunocompromised populations. The different strategies employed have included adjuvanted vaccines, high-dose vaccines, booster doses, intradermal vaccination, and temporary discontinuation of immunosuppressant treatment regimens. High-dose trivalent, inactivated, split-virus influenza vaccine (IIV3-HD) is so far one of the leading strategies for improving vaccine responses in HIV patients, transplant patients, and persons receiving immunosuppressant therapies for inflammatory diseases. Several studies in these populations have shown stronger humoral responses with IIV3-HD than existing standard-dose trivalent vaccine, and comparable safety. Accordingly, some scientific societies have stated that high-dose influenza vaccine could be a preferred option for immunocompromised patients. However, larger randomized controlled studies are needed to validate relative immunogenicity and safety of IIV3-HD and other enhanced vaccines and vaccination strategies in immunocompromised individuals.

Post-Chemotherapy Titer Status and Need for Revaccination After Treatment for Childhood Cancer

Objectives. To evaluate the strategy of checking vaccine titers after completion of chemotherapy. Study Design. Retrospective review of pediatric oncology patients who completed chemotherapy. Demographics, post-chemotherapy titers, and absolute lymphocyte counts (ALCs) were analyzed. Results. Ninety patients met inclusion criteria, and 87% of patients had at least one titer checked. Comparing patients <7 years and those ≥7 years at diagnosis, there was no difference in incidence of negative titers except mumps; those <7 years old were more likely to have negative titers (58% vs 20%, P = .003). Comparing those <13 years old to ≥13 years old, there was no difference in negative titers except mumps (45% vs 19%, P = .02) and tetanus (44% vs 0%, P = .002). No patient maintained all protective titers after completion of chemotherapy. Time to ALC recovery was not predictive of positive titers. Conclusion. Checking titers after chemotherapy is not recommended. Providers should assume loss of immunity.

Immune-mediated adverse events following influenza vaccine in cancer patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors

OBJECTIVES

The emergence of immune checkpoint inhibitors has transformed treatment paradigms for various malignancies. Patients with cancer are at increased risk of complications and hospitalizations from influenza; therefore, it is recommended that they receive inactivated influenza vaccination. However, efficacy and safety of inactivated influenza vaccination in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors is uncertain. The objective of this prospective case series was to evaluate the incidence of immune-mediated adverse events (imAEs) following inactivated influenza vaccination in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors. Changes in cytokine and chemokine levels were also evaluated.

METHODS

Patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors during the 2017-2018 influenza season were eligible for study participation. Peripheral blood samples were collected prior to administration of inactivated influenza vaccine and two post-vaccination time points. Evaluation of new or worsening imAEs occurred via patient questionnaire and review of medical records for 60 days following inactivated influenza vaccination. Baseline imAEs were evaluated from review of medical records for 60 days prior to inactivated influenza vaccination. Serum cytokines and chemokines were measured using a multiplex Luminex assay.

RESULTS

Twenty-four patients were enrolled in this study. Seven patients experienced any grade imAE (one patient having 2) within 60 days following inactivated influenza vaccination. The majority were Grades 1-2, including rash (n = 3), hypothyroidism, myalgia, and colitis (n = 1 each). Two patients experienced severe imAEs (grade 3 nephritis and grade 4 diabetes). No significant changes (p > 0.05) in serum cytokine or chemokine concentrations were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Although small, our study suggests that inactivated influenza vaccine may be safely administered to patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors. The majority of imAEs following inactivated influenza vaccination were Grades 1-2 and did not require changes in immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

Postchemotherapy Immunization Practices for Non-HSCT Pediatric Oncology Patients

Pediatric oncology patients treated with antineoplastic therapy have impaired immune systems that lead to loss of protective antibodies. They require reimmunization to protect against vaccine-preventable diseases. There are a paucity of studies on the clinical practice of pediatric oncologists and the available recommendations are heterogenous. This study describes current reimmunization practices among pediatric oncologists. We surveyed the Children's Oncology Group (COG)-identified principle investigators to capture clinical practices among pediatric oncologists within their institutions regarding reimmunization of non-hematopoietic stem cell transplantation patients. The majority of respondents did not routinely assess vaccine-related immune status; those who did most frequently assessed 6 months after cessation of therapies. Methods of assessment included type of therapy received, vaccine titers, and absolute lymphocyte counts. Providers from smaller institutions were more likely to check vaccine titers than those from larger institutions. More than half of the surveyed institutions did not have standardized guidelines available for practitioners. There are variations in reimmunization practices among pediatric oncologists despite available guidelines on recommended schedules. Further research is needed to identify the safest and most cost-effective way to insure immunity to infectious disease after the treatment of childhood cancer.

Immune response to influenza vaccination in children with cancer

The aim of this study was to evaluate the ability of influenza immunization to evoke a protective immune response among children with cancer. We evaluated 75 children with cancer who received influenza vaccination. Hemagglutination Inhibition Antibody titers were determined before and after vaccination. The protective rates after vaccination were 79% for H1N1, 75% for H3N2 and 59% for influenza B virus whereas the seroconversion rates were 54%, 44% and 43% respectively. The differences pre- and post-vaccination were significant regardless the method which was used: seroprotection changes, seroconversion and geometric mean titers analyses. Variables such as the pre-vaccination antibody titers, the time when the responses were measured after the vaccination, the age and the type of malignancy as well as the absolute lymphocyte count were found to be correlated with the immune response but the findings were different for each vaccine subunit. In conclusion, influenza vaccination provides protection in a remarkable proportion of pediatric cancer patients whereas this protection is more obvious against H1N1 and H3N2 compared to influenza B. The immune response after vaccination is significant and seems to be influenced by a variety of factors.

Influenza vaccination of cancer patients during PD-1 blockade induces serological protection but may raise the risk for immune-related adverse events

Background

Immune checkpoint inhibiting antibodies were introduced into routine clinical practice for cancer patients. Checkpoint blockade has led to durable remissions in some patients, but may also induce immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Lung cancer patients show an increased risk for complications, when infected with influenza viruses. Therefore, vaccination is recommended. However, the efficacy and safety of influenza vaccination during checkpoint blockade and its influence on irAEs is unclear. Similarly, the influence of vaccinations on T cell-mediated immune reactions in patients during PD-1 blockade remains poorly defined.

Methods

We vaccinated 23 lung cancer patients and 11 age-matched healthy controls using a trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine to investigate vaccine-induced immunity and safety during checkpoint blockade.

Results

We did not observe significant differences between patients and healthy controls in vaccine-induced antibody titers against all three viral antigens. Influenza vaccination resulted in protective titers in more than 60% of patients/participants. In cancer patients, the post-vaccine frequency of irAEs was 52.2% with a median time to occurrence of 3.2 months after vaccination. Six of 23 patients (26.1%) showed severe grade 3/4 irAEs. This frequency of irAEs might be higher than the rate previously published in the literature and the rate observed in a non-study population at our institution (all grades 25.5%, grade 3/4 9.8%).

Conclusions

Although this is a non-randomized trial with a limited number of patients, the increased rate of immunological toxicity is concerning. This finding should be studied in a larger patient population.

Seasonal influenza vaccine in immunocompromised persons

Immunocompromised persons are at high risk of complications from influenza infection. This population includes those with solid organ transplants, hematopoietic stem cell transplants, solid cancers and hematologic malignancy as well as those with autoimmune conditions receiving biologic therapies. In this review, we discuss the impact of influenza infection and evidence for vaccine effectiveness and immunogenicity. Overall, lower respiratory disease from influenza is common; however, vaccine immunogenicity is low. Despite this, in some populations, influenza vaccine has demonstrated effectiveness in reducing severe disease. Various strategies to improve influenza vaccine immunogenicity have been attempted including two vaccine doses in the same influenza season, intradermal, adjuvanted, and high-dose vaccines. The timing of influenza vaccine is also important to achieve optimal immunogenicity. Given the suboptimal immunogenicity, family members and healthcare professionals involved in the care of these populations should be vaccinated. Health care professional recommendation for vaccination is an important factor in vaccine coverage.

2015/16 seasonal vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation with influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and B among elderly people in Europe: results from the I-MOVE+ project

We conducted a multicentre test-negative case-control study in 27 hospitals of 11 European countries to measure 2015/16 influenza vaccine effectiveness (IVE) against hospitalised influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and B among people aged ≥ 65 years. Patients swabbed within 7 days after onset of symptoms compatible with severe acute respiratory infection were included. Information on demographics, vaccination and underlying conditions was collected. Using logistic regression, we measured IVE adjusted for potential confounders. We included 355 influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 cases, 110 influenza B cases, and 1,274 controls. Adjusted IVE against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 was 42% (95% confidence interval (CI): 22 to 57). It was 59% (95% CI: 23 to 78), 48% (95% CI: 5 to 71), 43% (95% CI: 8 to 65) and 39% (95% CI: 7 to 60) in patients with diabetes mellitus, cancer, lung and heart disease, respectively. Adjusted IVE against influenza B was 52% (95% CI: 24 to 70). It was 62% (95% CI: 5 to 85), 60% (95% CI: 18 to 80) and 36% (95% CI: -23 to 67) in patients with diabetes mellitus, lung and heart disease, respectively. 2015/16 IVE estimates against hospitalised influenza in elderly people was moderate against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and B, including among those with diabetes mellitus, cancer, lung or heart diseases.

The Effectiveness of Trivalent Inactivated Influenza Vaccine in Children with Acute Leukemia

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness of trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) for the prevention of laboratory-confirmed influenza and influenza-like illnesses (ILI) among children and adolescents receiving therapy for acute leukemia.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective review of the demographic and clinical characteristics of 498 patients at a pediatric cancer center who received therapy for acute leukemia during 3 successive influenza seasons (2010-2011 through 2012-2013).

RESULTS

In 498 patient seasons with a known immunization history (median age, 6 years; range, 1-21), 354 patients (71.1%) were immunized with TIV and 98 (19.7%) received a booster dose of vaccine. Vaccinated and unvaccinated patients had generally similar demographic characteristics. There were no differences in the overall rates of influenza or ILI between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients overall, or in any individual season. There was no difference in the rates of influenza or ILI between patients who received 1 dose of vaccine and those who received 2 doses. Time to first influenza infection and time to first ILI in vaccinated and unvaccinated patients were not different.

CONCLUSION

TIV did not protect children and adolescents with acute leukemia against laboratory-confirmed influenza or ILI. Future prospective studies should assess TIV effectiveness in high-risk subpopulations and alternative strategies to prevent influenza should be considered in this population.