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

The Protective Effects of Influenza Vaccination in Elderly Patients with Breast Cancer in Taiwan: A Real-World Evidence-Based Study

In elderly patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer, clarity is lacking regarding the effects of influenza vaccines, particularly on clinical outcomes. This study conducted two nationwide, population-based, and propensity score-matched cohorts to estimate and compare the protective effects of influenza vaccine in elderly women and elderly patients with breast cancer. Data were derived from the National Health Insurance Research Database and Cancer Registry Database. Generalized estimating equations (GEEs) were used to compare outcomes between the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) were used to estimate the relative risks, and stratified analyses in the breast cancer cohort were performed to further evaluate elderly breast cancer patients undergoing a variety of adjuvant therapies. The GEE analysis showed that the aORs of death and hospitalization, including for influenza and pneumonia, respiratory diseases, respiratory failure, and heart disease, did not significantly decrease in vaccinated elderly patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer. Conversely, the aORs of all influenza-related clinical outcomes were significantly decreased in elderly women. No protective effects of influenza vaccination were found in the elderly patients with a newly diagnosed breast cancer. More studies focusing on identifying strategies to improve the real-world effectiveness of influenza vaccination to the immunocompromised are needed. Our clinical outcomes will be valuable for future public health policy establishment and shared decision making for influenza vaccine use in elderly patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer. According to our findings, regular influenza vaccine administration for elderly patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer may be reconsidered, with potential contraindications for vaccination. On the other hand, implementing the vaccination of close contacts of patients with breast cancer may be a more important strategy for enhancing protection of those fragile patients.

An Update on the Status of Vaccine Development for SARS-CoV-2 Including Variants. Practical Considerations for COVID-19 Special Populations

The progress in the development of various vaccine platforms against SARS-CoV-2 have been rather remarkable owing to advancement in molecular and biologic sciences. Most of the current vaccines and those in development focus on targeting the viral spike proteins by generating antibodies of varying spectrum. These vaccines represent a variety of platforms including whole virus vaccines, viral vector vaccines, nucleic acid vaccines representing RNA, DNA, and their hybrid forms.The therapeutic efficacy of these vaccines varies owing to their pharmacodynamic individualities. COVID-19 variants are capable of inducing different pathologic responses and some of which may be resistant to antibodies generated by current vaccines. The current clinical use of these vaccines has been through emergency use authorization until recently. Moreover, the efficacy and safety of these vaccines have been tested in substantial numbers of individuals but studies in special populations that better reflect the global population are pending results. These specialized populations include young children, immunocompromised patients, pregnant individuals, and other specialized groups. Combination approaches, molecularly modified vaccination approaches, and vaccines conferring longer periods of immunity are being currently being investigated, as well as pharmacovigilance studies.The continual transformation of SARS-CoV-2 and its variants are of concern along with the breakthrough infections. These considerations pose new challenges for the development of vaccination platforms. For this purpose, booster doses, combination vaccine approaches, and other modalities are being discussed. This review provides an updated account of currently available vaccines and those in advanced development with reference to their composition and mechanisms of action.A discussion on the use of vaccines in special populations including immunocompromised patients, pregnant women and other specialized populations are also included.

Safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in oncologic patients undergoing numerous cancer treatment options: A retrospective single-center study

The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the SARS-CoV2 virus, has infected millions worldwide with cancer patients demonstrating a higher prevalence for severe disease and poorer outcomes. Recently, the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine was released as the primary means to combat COVID-19. The currently reported incidence of local and systemic side effects was 27% in the general public. The safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine has not been studied in patients with an active cancer diagnosis who are either ongoing or plan to undergo oncologic therapy.This single center study reviewed the charts of 210 patients with active cancer diagnoses that received both doses of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. The development of side effects from the vaccine, hospitalizations or exacerbations from various oncologic treatment were documented. Type of oncologic treatment (immunotherapy, chemotherapy, hormonal, biologic, radiation or mixed) was documented to identify if side effects were related to treatment type. The time at which the vaccine was administered in relation to treatment onset (on long term therapy, within 1 month of therapy or prior to therapy) was also documented to identify any relationships.Sixty five (31%) participants experienced side effects from the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, however most were mild to moderate. Treatment protocol was not linked to the development of vaccine related side effects (P = .202), nor was immunotherapy (P = .942). The timing of vaccine administered in relation to treatment onset was also not related to vaccine related side effects (P = .653). Six (2.9%) participants were hospitalized and 4 (2%) died.The incidence of side effects in cancer patients is similar to what has been reported for the general public (31% vs 27%). Therefore, we believe that the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine is safe in oncologic patients undergoing numerous cancer treatments.

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

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety profiles of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with cancer is unknown. We aimed to assess the safety and immunogenicity of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine in patients with cancer.

METHODS

For this prospective observational study, we recruited patients with cancer and healthy controls (mostly health-care workers) from three London hospitals between Dec 8, 2020, and Feb 18, 2021. Participants who were vaccinated between Dec 8 and Dec 29, 2020, received two 30 μg doses of BNT162b2 administered intramuscularly 21 days apart; patients vaccinated after this date received only one 30 μg dose with a planned follow-up boost at 12 weeks. Blood samples were taken before vaccination and at 3 weeks and 5 weeks after the first vaccination. Where possible, serial nasopharyngeal real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR) swab tests were done every 10 days or in cases of symptomatic COVID-19. The coprimary endpoints were seroconversion to SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein in patients with cancer following the first vaccination with the BNT162b2 vaccine and the effect of vaccine boosting after 21 days on seroconversion. All participants with available data were included in the safety and immunogenicity analyses. Ongoing follow-up is underway for further blood sampling after the delayed (12-week) vaccine boost. This study is registered with the NHS Health Research Authority and Health and Care Research Wales (REC ID 20/HRA/2031).

FINDINGS

151 patients with cancer (95 patients with solid cancer and 56 patients with haematological cancer) and 54 healthy controls were enrolled. For this interim data analysis of the safety and immunogenicity of vaccinated patients with cancer, samples and data obtained up to March 19, 2021, were analysed. After exclusion of 17 patients who had been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 (detected by either antibody seroconversion or a positive rRT-PCR COVID-19 swab test) from the immunogenicity analysis, the proportion of positive anti-S IgG titres at approximately 21 days following a single vaccine inoculum across the three cohorts were 32 (94%; 95% CI 81-98) of 34 healthy controls; 21 (38%; 26-51) of 56 patients with solid cancer, and eight (18%; 10-32) of 44 patients with haematological cancer. 16 healthy controls, 25 patients with solid cancer, and six patients with haematological cancer received a second dose on day 21. Of the patients with available blood samples 2 weeks following a 21-day vaccine boost, and excluding 17 participants with evidence of previous natural SARS-CoV-2 exposure, 18 (95%; 95% CI 75-99) of 19 patients with solid cancer, 12 (100%; 76-100) of 12 healthy controls, and three (60%; 23-88) of five patients with haematological cancers were seropositive, compared with ten (30%; 17-47) of 33, 18 (86%; 65-95) of 21, and four (11%; 4-25) of 36, respectively, who did not receive a boost. The vaccine was well tolerated; no toxicities were reported in 75 (54%) of 140 patients with cancer following the first dose of BNT162b2, and in 22 (71%) of 31 patients with cancer following the second dose. Similarly, no toxicities were reported in 15 (38%) of 40 healthy controls after the first dose and in five (31%) of 16 after the second dose. Injection-site pain within 7 days following the first dose was the most commonly reported local reaction (23 [35%] of 65 patients with cancer; 12 [48%] of 25 healthy controls). No vaccine-related deaths were reported.

INTERPRETATION

In patients with cancer, one dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine yields poor efficacy. Immunogenicity increased significantly in patients with solid cancer within 2 weeks of a vaccine boost at day 21 after the first dose. These data support prioritisation of patients with cancer for an early (day 21) second dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine.

FUNDING

King's College London, Cancer Research UK, Wellcome Trust, Rosetrees Trust, and Francis Crick Institute.

COVID-19 vaccines for patients with cancer: benefits likely outweigh risks

Less than a year since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, ten vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 have been approved for at least limited use, with over sixty others in clinical trials. This swift achievement has generated excitement and arrives at a time of great need, as the number of COVID-19 cases worldwide continues to rapidly increase. Two vaccines are currently approved for full use, both built on mRNA and lipid nanotechnology platforms, a success story of mRNA technology 20 years in the making. For patients with cancer, questions arise around the safety and efficacy of these vaccines in the setting of immune alterations engendered by their malignancy and/or therapies. We summarize the current data on leading COVID-19 vaccine candidates and vaccination of patients undergoing immunomodulatory cancer treatments. Most current cancer therapeutics should not prevent the generation of protective immunity. We call for more research in this area and recommend that the majority of patients with cancer receive COVID vaccinations when possible.

COVID-19 vaccines for patients with cancer: benefits likely outweigh risks

Less than a year since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, ten vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 have been approved for at least limited use, with over sixty others in clinical trials. This swift achievement has generated excitement and arrives at a time of great need, as the number of COVID-19 cases worldwide continues to rapidly increase. Two vaccines are currently approved for full use, both built on mRNA and lipid nanotechnology platforms, a success story of mRNA technology 20 years in the making. For patients with cancer, questions arise around the safety and efficacy of these vaccines in the setting of immune alterations engendered by their malignancy and/or therapies. We summarize the current data on leading COVID-19 vaccine candidates and vaccination of patients undergoing immunomodulatory cancer treatments. Most current cancer therapeutics should not prevent the generation of protective immunity. We call for more research in this area and recommend that the majority of patients with cancer receive COVID vaccinations when possible.

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.

Viral Pneumonia in Patients with Hematologic Malignancy or Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation

Viral pneumonias in patients with hematologic malignancies and recipients of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation cause significant morbidity and mortality. Advances in diagnostic techniques have enabled rapid identification of respiratory viral pathogens from upper and lower respiratory tract samples. Lymphopenia, myeloablative and T-cell depleting chemotherapy, graft-versus-host disease, and other factors increase the risk of developing life-threatening viral pneumonia. Chest imaging is often nonspecific but may aid in diagnoses. Bronchoscopy with bronchoalveolar lavage is recommended in those at high risk for viral pneumonia who have new infiltrates on chest imaging.

Influenza and Pneumococcal Vaccination in Hematological Malignancies: a Systematic Review of Efficacy, Effectiveness, and Safety

Background

The risk of getting influenza and pneumococcal disease is higher in cancer patients, and serum antibody levels tend to be lower in patients with hematological malignancy.

Objective

To assess flu and pneumococcal vaccinations efficacy, effectiveness, and safety in onco-hematological patients.

Methods

Two systematic reviews and possible meta-analysis were conducted to summarize the results of all primary study in the scientific literature about the flu and pneumococcal vaccine in onco-hematological patients. Literature searches were performed using Pub-Med and Scopus databases. StatsDirect 2.8.0 was used for the analysis.

Results

22 and 26 studies were collected respectively for flu and pneumococcal vaccinations. Protection rate of booster dose was 30% (95% CI=6–62%) for H1N1. Pooled prevalence protection rate of H3N2 and B was available for meta-analysis only for first dose, 42.6% (95% CI=23.2 – 63.3 %) and 39.6 % (95% CI=26%–54.1%) for H3N2 and B, respectively. Response rate of booster dose resulted 35% (95% CI=19.7–51.2%) for H1N1, 23% (95% CI=16.6–31.5%) for H3N2, 29% (95% CI=21.3–37%) for B.

Conclusion

Despite the low rate of response, flu, and pneumococcal vaccines are worthwhile for patients with hematological malignancies. Patients undergoing chemotherapy in particular rituximab, splenectomy, transplant recipient had lower and impaired response. No serious adverse events were reported for both vaccines.

Improved immunogenicity of high-dose influenza vaccine compared to standard-dose influenza vaccine in adult oncology patients younger than 65 years receiving chemotherapy: A pilot randomized clinical trial

PURPOSE

Patients undergoing chemotherapy often fail to develop robust responses to influenza vaccination. Compared to standard-dose influenza vaccine (SD), high-dose influenza vaccine (HD) has shown improved immunogenicity and protection against influenza illness in adults 65 years and older. This study compared the immunogenicity and tolerability of HD to SD in adults younger than 65 years of age receiving chemotherapy.

METHODS

This double-blind study randomized patients receiving chemotherapy to vaccination with either SD or HD influenza vaccine. Hemagglutination inhibition assays (HAI) were performed prior to and 4 weeks after vaccination. HAI were summarized as geometric mean titers (GMT), seroconversion rates, and seroprotection rates.

RESULTS

A total of 105 subjects were enrolled in the trial (51 received SD and 54 received HD). Subjects were well matched for demographic and medical conditions. Both vaccines were well tolerated with no SAEs. Of the 100 subjects with evaluable data, seroconversion rates for all 3 influenza antigens & post-vaccination GMTs for H3N2 & B strains were significantly improved with HD compared to SD. Seroprotection was excellent and equivalent in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Trivalent high-dose influenza vaccine can be safely administered to patients receiving chemotherapy with improved immunogenicity and seroconversion compared to standard-dose vaccine. Post-vaccination seroprotection rates were similar in both groups. A larger study is needed to show clinical benefits with HD in this population. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT01666782.

Vaccinations in patients with hematological malignancies

Patients with hematological malignancies are at risk for a number of infections that are potentially preventable by vaccinations such as pneumococcal infections and influenza. Treatment, especially with anti-B-cell antibodies and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), negatively impacts the response to vaccination for several months. It is therefore recommended that patients be vaccinated before initiating immunosuppressive therapy if possible. The risk of side-effects with inactivated vaccines is low, but care has to be taken with live vaccines, such as varicella-zoster virus vaccine, since severe and fatal complications have been reported. HSCT patients require repeated doses of most vaccines to achieve long-lasting immune responses. New therapeutic options for patients with hematological malignancies that are rapidly being introduced into clinical practice will require additional research regarding the efficacy of vaccinations. New vaccines are also in development that will require well-designed studies to ascertain efficacy and safety.

Practical review of immunizations in adult patients with cancer

Compared with the general population, patients with cancer in general are more susceptible to vaccine-preventable infections, either by an increased risk due to the malignancy itself or immunosuppressive treatment. The goal of immunizations in these patients is therefore to provide protection against these infections, and to decrease the number of vulnerable patients who can disseminate these organisms. The proper timing of immunization with cancer treatment is key to achieving better vaccine protection. As the oncology field continues to advance, leading to better quality of life and longer survival, immunization and other aspects of preventive medicine ought to move to the frontline in the care of these patients. Herein, we review the vaccines most clinically relevant to patients with cancer, as well as special cases including vaccines after splenectomy, travel immunization and recommendations for family members.

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

2013 IDSA clinical practice guideline for vaccination of the immunocompromised host

An international panel of experts prepared an evidenced-based guideline for vaccination of immunocompromised adults and children. These guidelines are intended for use by primary care and subspecialty providers who care for immunocompromised patients. Evidence was often limited. Areas that warrant future investigation are highlighted.

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.

Report on influenza A and B viruses: their coinfection in a Saudi leukemia patient

PURPOSE

Influenza A and B viruses are the leading cause of respiratory infections in children worldwide, particularly in developing countries. There is a lack of data on coinfection of influenza A and B viruses circulating in Saudi Arabia. In this study, we aimed to identify the circulation of influenza viruses that contribute to respiratory tract infections in Saudi children.

METHODS

We collected 80 nasopharyngeal aspirates (NPAs) from hospitalized children with acute respiratory illness (ARI) at Riyadh during the period extended from October 2010 till April 2011. Samples were tested for the common respiratory viruses including influenza viruses by RT-PCR.

RESULTS

Overall, 6 samples were found positive for influenza A and/or B viruses. Among these positive clinical samples, only one collected sample from a female one-year-old immunocompromised child with leukemia showed a coinfection with influenza A and B viruses. In present study coinfection was confirmed by inoculation of the clinical specimen in specific pathogenfree embryonating chicken eggs and identification of the virus isolates by hemagglutination and one-step RT-PCR.

CONCLUSION

This study opens the scene for studying the role of influenza virus's coinfection in disease severity and virus evolution. Further studies are required to better understand the clinical importance of viral coinfection.

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.

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.

Graft-versus-host disease is the major determinant of humoral responses to the AS03-adjuvanted influenza A/09/H1N1 vaccine in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Responses to influenza vaccines are poorly characterized in immunocompromised patients. The goal of this study was to assess the efficacy of the AS03-adjuvanted influenza H1N1/A/09 vaccine in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients.

DESIGN AND METHODS

We enrolled 65 patients and 138 controls in an open prospective study. Controls received one dose and patients 2 doses of the AS03-adjuvanted influenza H1N1/A/09 vaccine at a 3-week interval. Geometric mean titers and seroprotection/seroconversion rates were determined by hemagglutination inhibition before and four weeks after the last immunization. Clinical and biological markers, including immunoglobulins, CD3+, CD4+, CD8+ and naïve CD4+ T-cell counts were assessed in all patients.

RESULTS

Baseline seroprotection rates were low in patients (6.6%) and controls (14.8%). After 2 doses, patients (n=57, 92.3%) achieved similar seroprotection rates (84% vs. 87%, P=0.65) and antibody titers (305 vs. 340, P=0.88) as controls (n=131, 93.9%) after one dose. In univariate analysis, transplant-to-vaccination interval less than 12 months, active graft-versus-host disease, immunosuppressive drugs, hemoglobin less than 12 g/L, lymphopenia less than 1 G/L, IgG less than 4 g/L, IgA less than 0.5 g/L, IgM less than 0.5 g/L and naive CD4+ T cells less than 150/μL were significantly associated with weaker responses. Multivariate analysis identified transplant-to-vaccination interval and active graft-versus-host disease as the most powerful negative predictors of antibody responses (P=0.04 and P=0.002, respectively). Vaccination was well tolerated in both cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

In allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients, 2 doses of an adjuvanted influenza vaccine elicited comparable responses to a single dose in healthy individuals. However, vaccine responses remained poor in patients with ongoing graft-versus-host disease, supporting the need for additional strategies in this high-risk patient population. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01022905).

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.

Common Viral Pneumonia

Common respiratory viruses are now recognised as true opportunistic respiratory pathogens in patients with haematological malignancies. The epidemiology of these viruses has not been extensively studied in immunocompromised hosts, but is probably closely related to viral activity in immunocompetent hosts, who constitute the virus reservoir for immunocompromised patients. In these patients, common respiratory viruses may cause severe infections with higher rates of progression to pneumonia and mortality compared to immunocompetent individuals. Prolonged high-titre viral shedding is common in patients with haematological malignancies and may enhance not only viral transmission, but also the selection of resistant strains. Influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infections have been particularly well studied. They are associated with pneumonia rates of about one-third for influenza and 30–40% for RSV. Both viruses are responsible for mortality rates ranging from 15% to 30%. The exact mechanisms of pneumonia related to these viruses remains unknown, but bacterial and fungal co-infections are frequent and must be carefully investigated. Parainfluenza viruses (PIV) and RSV have also been linked to late airflow obstruction in haematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients. Neuraminidase inhibitor therapy has been suggested for influenza, ribavirin for RSV, and cidofovir for adenovirus infections. However, there is no evidence supporting the use of these drugs, and randomised controlled trials are urgently needed to better define the optimal management of common viral pneumonia in patients with haematological malignancies. The absence of proven effective treatments highlights the critical importance of prevention. Viral transmission may be interrupted by contact isolation with droplet precautions for infected patients and by having patients and health care workers with suspected infection, and their relatives, refrain from visits and work. Immunisation remains the cornerstone of influenza prevention and is recommended for patients with haematological malignancies, their relatives, and health care workers.

Repeated vaccination is required to optimize seroprotection against H1N1 in the immunocompromised host

BACKGROUND

In 2009 the declaration by the World Health Organization of a global pandemic of influenza-H1N1 virus led to a vaccination campaign to ensure protection for immunocompromised patients. The goal of this study was to determine the efficacy of the 2009 H1N1 vaccine in patients with hematologic malignancies.

DESIGN AND METHODS

We evaluated humoral and cellular immune responses to 2009 H1N1 vaccine in 97 adults with hematologic malignancies and compared these responses with those in 25 adult controls. Patients received two injections of vaccine 21 days apart and the controls received one dose. Antibody titers were measured using a hemagglutination-inhibition assay on days 0, 21 and 49 after injection of the first dose. Cellular immune responses to H1N1 were determined on days 0 and 49.

RESULTS

By day 21 post-vaccination, protective antibody titers of 1:32 or more were seen in 100% of controls compared to 39% of patients with B-cell malignancies (P<0.001), 46% of allogeneic stem cell transplant recipients (P<0.001) and 85% of patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (P=0.086). After a second dose, seroprotection rates increased to 68%, (P=0.008), 73%, (P=0.031), and 95% (P=0.5) in patients with B-cell malignancies, after allogeneic stem cell transplantation and with chronic myeloid leukemia, respectively. On the other hand, T-cell responses to H1N1 vaccine were not significantly different between patients and controls.

CONCLUSIONS

These data demonstrate the efficacy of H1N1 vaccine in most patients with hematologic malignancies and support the recommendation for the administration of two doses of vaccine in immunocompromised patients. These results may contribute towards the development of evidence-based guidelines for influenza vaccination in such patients in the future.

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.

Serological immune responses to influenza vaccine in patients with colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The immune responses to influenza vaccination in patients with colorectal cancer on surveillance or active chemotherapy have not been previously reported. We conducted a prospective influenza vaccination study to determine the serological immune response rate in patients with colorectal cancer.

METHODS

During the 2006-2007 influenza season, patients with colorectal cancer treated at Roswell Park Cancer Institute were offered vaccination with the trivalent influenza vaccine (Fluzone, 2006-2007). Blood samples for hemagglutination inhibition (HI) assay titers were collected before and 3 months after vaccination. Response to vaccination was determined using an endpoint of ≥ 1:40 HI titer ratio or a fourfold HI increase at 3 months from vaccination. A response in HI to at least one of the 3 strains was considered an immune response.

RESULTS

Eighty-five patients with colorectal cancer participated in the study. The immune response in the overall population was 70.6%. No differences in response were noted between the 58 patients on active chemotherapy and the 27 patients on surveillance [Odds Ratio (OR) = 0.78; P = 0.8]. The odds of response did not vary by chemotherapy regimen or by chemotherapy-vaccination timing. HI response in all 3 titers concurrently were low in both the chemotherapy (12.1%) and surveillance groups (11.1%) (OR = 1.10; P = 1).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with colorectal cancer mount an immune response to influenza vaccination irrespective of their chemotherapy regimen or timing. However, concurrent responses to all three strains in the individual patient with colorectal cancer are uncommon. The investigation of a booster vaccine in this population is warranted.

Influenza vaccines: from surveillance through production to protection

Influenza is an important contributor to population and individual morbidity and mortality. The current influenza pandemic with novel H1N1 has highlighted the need for health care professionals to better understand the processes involved in creating influenza vaccines, both for pandemic as well as for seasonal influenza. This review presents an overview of influenza-related topics to help meet this need and includes a discussion of the burden of disease, virology, epidemiology, viral surveillance, and vaccine strain selection. We then present an overview of influenza vaccine-related topics, including vaccine production, vaccine efficacy and effectiveness, influenza vaccine misperceptions, and populations that are recommended to receive vaccination. English-language articles in PubMed published between January 1, 1970, and October 7, 2009, were searched using key words human influenza, influenza vaccines, influenza A, and influenza B.

Influenza in immunosuppressed populations: a review of infection frequency, morbidity, mortality, and vaccine responses

Patients that are immunosuppressed might be at risk of serious influenza-associated complications. As a result, multiple guidelines recommend influenza vaccination for patients infected with HIV, who have received solid-organ transplants, who have received haemopoietic stem-cell transplants, and patients on haemodialysis. However, immunosuppression might also limit vaccine responses. To better inform policy, we reviewed the published work relevant to incidence, outcomes, and prevention of influenza infection in these patients, and in patients being treated chemotherapy and with systemic corticosteroids. Available data suggest that most immunosuppressed populations are indeed at higher risk of influenza-associated complications, have a general trend toward impaired humoral vaccine responses (although these data are mixed), and can be safely vaccinated--although longitudinal data are largely lacking. Randomised clinical trial data were limited to one study of HIV-infected patients with high vaccine efficacy. Better trial data would inform vaccination recommendations on the basis of efficacy and cost in these at-risk populations.

De novo T-lymphocyte responses against baculovirus-derived recombinant influenzavirus hemagglutinin generated by a naive umbilical cord blood model of dendritic cell vaccination

Cancer patients and recipients of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation exhibit a negligible response to influenza vaccine. Toward the goal of addressing this issue, we developed an in vitro model of dendritic cell (DC) immunotherapy utilizing DCs generated from naïve umbilical cord blood (UCB). UCB DCs were loaded with purified rHA protein and used to stimulate autologous T-lymphocytes. Upon recall with HA-loaded autologous DC, a 4-10-fold increase in the number of IFN-gamma producing T-lymphocytes was observed in comparison to T-cells stimulated with control DCs. Antigen-specific T-cell functionality was determined by (51)Cr lytic assay. Using a peptide library of predicted HA binding epitopes, we mapped an HA-specific, DR15-restricted CD4 T-cell epitope and observed tetramer positive cells. This model demonstrates that HA-specific immune responses might possibly be generated in a de novo fashion and suggests that dendritic cell immunotherapy for the prevention of influenza in populations of immunosuppressed individuals could be feasible.

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.

Baculovirus-expressed influenza vaccine. A novel technology for safe and expeditious vaccine production for human use

Effectiveness of the influenza vaccine in persons with high-risk conditions needs to be improved. In this paper, the authors review various vaccination strategies, including repeated doses of the vaccine or the use of higher hemagglutinin (HA) content vaccines that have been shown to result in improved immunogenicity. A recombinant HA vaccine produced in insect cells using the baculovirus vectors system presents the possibility for safe and expeditious vaccine production. The high purity of the antigen enables administration at much higher doses without a significant increase in side effects in human subjects. An overview of the use of this production system for the development of alternative influenza vaccine targets is also provided, such as neuraminidase and possibly M2. However, the role of M2 may be more appropriate as an adjuvant vaccine in combination with standard HA vaccine supplement and needs further evaluation. The conclusion that the insect cell-baculovirus production technology is a modern solution for rapid viral or parasitic antigen production is made and that this technology is particularly suitable for influenza where annual adjustment of the vaccine is required. In addition, a highly purified recombinant protein vaccine results in an improved influenza vaccine response in those with high-risk medical conditions.

Cell-mediated immune responses to influenza vaccination in healthy volunteers and allogeneic stem cell transplant recipients

Influenza is one of the most common respiratory diseases in humans. The response to vaccination is frequently poor in immunosuppressed individuals. The aim of the present study was to develop an enzyme-linked immunospot (ELISPOT) assay for measuring of the specific T-cell response to influenza vaccination. In all, 18 healthy subjects and six stem cell transplantation (SCT) patients tested before and 4 weeks after influenza vaccination were included in the present study. Peripheral blood lymphocytes were stimulated with four influenza peptides; three based on sequences from the hemagglutinin and one from the M1 protein. The ELISPOT assay and the measurement of intracellular IFN-gamma production were used to determine the cell-mediated responses after stimulation with the peptides. Influenza vaccination elicited strong cell-mediated immune responses in the healthy controls to all four peptides with 3.2-6.9-fold increases in the number of IFN-gamma producing spots/10(6) cells. By intracellular staining, it was suggested that CD4+ cells mediated the responses to the hemagglutinin peptides. In contrast, there was no increase in the number of IFN-gamma producing cells response after vaccination in the six SCT patients. In conclusion, our results suggest that the ELISPOT assay might be used as a complement to serology for monitoring of future influenza vaccine studies in SCT patients.

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.

Epidemiology and outcomes of serious influenza-related infections in the cancer population

BACKGROUND

Although patients with cancer generally respond favorably to vaccination, they may not receive annual influenza vaccinations. The current population-based study described the epidemiology and outcomes of potentially preventable, serious influenza-related infections in patients with cancer.

METHODS

From the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, the authors created a subsample that included discharges with any International Classification of Diseases, ninth revision, diagnosis code for cancer and principal diagnosis code for influenza, bronchopneumonia, or pneumonia caused by an unspecified organism. From the latter two diagnosis codes, the authors estimated excess cases during the influenza season for each year and stratum, then selected a random sample from fall and winter discharges. Subset analyses included weighted sample means, frequencies, and analysis of variance values. The authors converted charges to costs using cost-to-charge ratios and inflated these to 2003 U.S. dollars. Hospitalization and mortality rates were calculated using 5-year cancer prevalence estimates.

RESULTS

The estimated mean annual hospital discharges of patients with cancer with potentially preventable, serious influenza-related infections numbered 16,000. The average length and cost per stay were 6 days and > USD 6300, respectively. Approximately 9% of patients died in the hospital and 31% needed further skilled care. The estimated age-specific rates for hospitalization and death per 100,000 in the prevalent cancer population were 219 and 17.4, respectively, for patients age < 65 years and 623 and 59.4, respectively, for those age > or = 65 years. Hospitalization costs averaged USD 1300 more for patients age < 65 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Death from influenza-related infections occurred in an estimated 9% of patients with cancer hospitalized for such. Using recommended vaccination schedules for patients with cancer and their contacts reduced hospitalizations, treatment delays, and deaths in this highly susceptible population.

Vaccination of patients with haematological malignancies with one or two doses of influenza vaccine: a randomised study

An open, randomised study was performed to determine whether two doses of influenza vaccine were more effective than one to elicit an immune response in 70 patients with haematological malignancies. The responses were not improved by two doses compared with one (influenza A virus serotypes H1/N1 18% vs. 22% and H3/N2 26% vs. 14%; influenza B 25% vs. 22%). The results were similar in patients with ongoing and discontinued therapy. Patients treated with monoclonal antibodies for lymphoma had very poor responses. We conclude that two doses of influenza vaccine do not improve the antibody response in patients with haematological malignancies.

Randomized trial of influenza vaccine with granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor or placebo in cancer patients

PURPOSE

To determine whether granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) would improve response to influenza vaccination in cancer patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In a randomized, patient-blinded, placebo-controlled trial carried out in 1997 to 2000, 133 patients were stratified into five groups of treatment and disease. Single doses of standard split trivalent influenza vaccine and either placebo or 250 micro g of GM-CSF were administered at the same time. Hemagglutination inhibition assay titers were measured before and 4 weeks after vaccination.

RESULTS

Standard analyses, which define response as at least a four-fold increase in titers, detect no effect of GM-CSF for any of the three influenza subtypes in the trivalent vaccines (P >or=.12). Analysis that includes the magnitude of the change in titers and combines responses of the subtypes suggests that the placebo group had the greater response (P =.051), thus indicating that GM-CSF does not improve response. Ancillary analyses show that response declines both with increasing age and with higher initial titers. The fraction of patients with at least a four-fold increase in titers was 0.36 (95% confidence interval, 0.29 to 0.42)

CONCLUSION

A single 250- micro g dose of GM-CSF administered with the influenza vaccine does not improve response to vaccination. Response in cancer patients is low and declines as age and initial titer increase.

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.

Antiviral therapy of influenza

The prevention of influenza virus infections by the use of vaccines remains the most cost-effective and practical method of influenza virus control, but the use of antiviral prophylaxis and treatment in certain populations or high-risk individuals is also possible. Four antiviral drugs are currently licensed in the United States for the treatment and/or prevention of influenza virus infection in children. The M2 blockers, (amantadine and rimantadine) have been licensed for the prophylaxis and treatment of influenza in diverse high-risk populations, including children, for years. Advantages of these agents include the low cost, high oral bioavailability, and relative tolerability of one of these agents (rimantadine) in children. Disadvantages include efficacy against influenza A viruses only (not type B), the relative rapid development of resistance, and adverse effects associated with amantadine in particular (especially in the elderly and those with decreased renal function). Two agents in a new antiviral class, the neuraminidase inhibitors, have been licensed recently for the treatment and prophylaxis of influenza in the United States. Oseltamivir is licensed for the treatment of influenza in children older than 1 year and for the prophylaxis in children older than 13 years. This drug is safe and well-tolerated, and is available in capsules or a liquid suspension. Another neuraminidase inhibitor, zanamivir, is administered as an inhaled powder via a special inhaler device and is licensed for the treatment of influenza in children older than 7 years. Both neuraminidase inhibitors appear to be similarly effective and are not associated with the development of antiviral resistance. No direct comparisons of any of these antiviral agents has been performed; all result in clinical improvement approximately 1 to 2 days earlier in otherwise healthy children when therapy is initiated within 48 hours of onset of symptoms.