The efficacy of accelerated, multiple, double-dose hepatitis B vaccine against hepatitis B virus infection in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy

Hepatitis B Vaccination in Children With Ongoing Cancer Treatment: A Safety and Efficacy Study of Super-Accelerated Vaccination Scheme

OBJECTIVE

Children with cancer have an increased risk for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infections due to chemotherapy-induced secondary immunodeficiency and frequent blood transfusions. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of hepatitis B vaccination during the intensive induction chemotherapy in children with cancer found to be seronegative for hepatitis B on admission.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Children newly diagnosed with cancer were evaluated for the presence of hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and antibody on admission. The children negative for both were included in the study. A super-accelerated vaccination scheme (3 booster doses at days 1-5, 8-12, and 28-33) was administered to these seronegative children concurrently with induction chemotherapy. Antibody response was checked 4-8 weeks after the last vaccination and 6 months after the end of the treatment.

RESULTS

Eleven out of 122 children were seronegative for hepatitis B on admission (9%). Acute lymphoblastic leukemia, lymphoma, and solid tumors were diagnosed in 5, 4, and 2 children, respectively. Complete seroconversion was achieved in 4-8 weeks after the last vaccination with high titers of anti-HBs antibody, and all patients remained antibody-positive until 6 months after the completion of chemotherapy.

CONCLUSION

The risk of transfusion-related infections increases with a number of transfused products and donor exposures, and it is more significant for immunosuppressed children with hematologic and oncologic malignancies. Hepatitis B vaccination could safely be applied with brisk and sustained responses in this vulnerable population, based on the local epidemiological data.

Immunological and clinical efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised populations: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Available data show that COVID-19 vaccines may be less effective in immunocompromised populations, who are at increased risk of severe COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES

We conducted a systematic review of literature to assess immunogenicity, efficacy and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised populations.

DATA SOURCES

We searched Medline and Embase databases.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PATIENTS, INTERVENTIONS

We included studies of COVID-19 vaccines after complete vaccination in immunocompromised patients until 31 August 2021. Studies with <10 patients, safety data only and case series of breakthrough infections were excluded.

METHODS

Risk of bias was assessed via the tool developed by the National Institutes of Health on interventional and observational studies. Immunogenicity was assessed through non-response rate defined as no anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein antibodies, efficacy and effectiveness by the relative reduction in risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19. We collected factors associated with the risk of non-response. We presented collected data by immunosuppression type.

RESULTS

We screened 5917 results, included 162 studies. There were 157 on immunogenicity in 25 209 participants, including 7835 cancer or haematological malignancy patients (31.1%), 6302 patients on dialysis (25.0%), 5974 solid organ transplant recipients (23.7%) and 4680 immune-mediated disease patients (18.6%). Proportion of non-responders seemed higher among solid organ transplant recipients (range 18-100%) and patients with haematological malignancy (range 14-61%), and lower in patients with cancer (range 2-36%) and patients on dialysis (range 2-30%). Risk factors for non-response included older age, use of corticosteroids, immunosuppressive or anti-CD20 agent. Ten studies evaluated immunogenicity of an additional dose. Five studies evaluated vaccine efficacy or effectiveness: three on SARS-CoV-2 infection (range 71-81%), one on COVID-19-related hospitalization (62.9%), one had a too small sample size.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review highlights the risk of low immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised populations, especially solid organ transplant recipients and patients with haematological malignancy. Despite lack of vaccine effectiveness data, enhanced vaccine regimens may be necessary.

Seroconversion rate after vaccination against COVID-19 in patients with cancer-a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has affected >210 million people worldwide. An optimal therapeutic approach for COVID-19 remains uncertain, to date. Since the history of cancer was linked to higher mortality rates due to COVID-19, the establishment of a safe and effective vaccine coverage is crucial in these patients. However, patients with cancer (PsC) were mostly excluded from vaccine candidates' clinical trials. This systematic review aims to investigate the current available evidence about the immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines in PsC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All prospective studies that evaluated the safety and efficacy of vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) were included, with immunogenicity after the first and the second dose as the primary endpoint, when available.

RESULTS

Vaccination against COVID-19 for PsC seems overall safe and immunogenic after well-conducted vaccination schedules. Yet the seroconversion rate remains lower, lagged or both compared to the general population. Patients with hematologic malignancies, especially those receiving B-cell-depleting agents in the past 12 months, are the most at risk of poor seroconversion.

CONCLUSION

A tailored approach to vaccination may be proposed to PsC, especially on the basis of the type of malignancy and of the specific oncologic treatments received.

COVID-19 vaccine development from the perspective of cancer patients

Currently, many companies around the world are actively developing COVID-19 vaccines. Fourteen vaccines with reliable safety and effectiveness are being successfully distributed to the public. However, there is no specific clinical trial data of the vaccines currently on the market on cancer patients at various stages, so the safety and effectiveness on cancer patients is unknown. This mini-review aims to discuss the impact of COVID-19 on cancer patients, and the urgent need of COVID-19 vaccines for cancer patients. In this review, we described the current status of the COVID-19 vaccine usages in cancer patients, as well as discussed potential problems in the use of vaccine. In addition, we included an original survey of the acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccines in 209 cancer patients and their family members. COVID-19 vaccine can provide cancer patients with social and medical benefits; therefore, clinical trials of vaccines on cancer patients are in great need.

Current perspectives for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination efficacy improvement in patients with active treatment against cancer

A higher risk of death from coronavirus disease 19 has been shown for patients with solid cancers or haematological malignancies (HM). Thanks to the accelerated development of anti–SARS-SoV-2 vaccines in less than a year since the start of the global pandemic, patients with cancer were quickly prioritised in early 2021 for vaccination, however dependent on the very unequal availability at the global level. Impaired immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines in immunocompromised patients was rapidly reported as early as April 2021, although the vaccination fortunately appears to be generally effective without increasing the spacing. Worryingly, the humoral response of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is, however, considered insufficient in patients followed for HM, in particular when they are on anti-CD20 treatment.

Thus, improving vaccination coverage by strengthening immune stimulation should be evaluated in patients under active treatment against cancer. Here, we discuss three different approaches: a third dose of early vaccine (repeated immune stimulation), heterologous prime-boost vaccination (multimodal immune stimulation) and a double-dose strategy (maximisation of immune response). Dedicated therapeutic trials, currently almost non-existent, seem rapidly necessary.

Casting a wider protective net: Anti-infective vaccine strategies for patients with hematologic malignancy and blood and marrow transplantation

Patients who have hematologic malignancies are at high risk for infections but vaccinations may be effective prophylaxis. The increased infection risk derives from immune defects secondary to malignancy, the classic example being CLL, and chemotherapies and immunotherapy used to treat the malignancies. Therapy of hematologic malignancies is being revolutionized by introduction of novel targeted agents and immunomodulatory medications, improving the survival of patients. At the same time those agents uniquely change the infection risk and response to immunizations. This review will summarize current vaccine recommendations for patients with hematologic malignancies including patients who undergo hematopoietic cell transplant.

Precision immunization: a new trend in human vaccination

Vaccination has been one of the major revolutions in the history of human health. Vaccination programs have targeted entire populations such as infants or elderly subjects as a matter of being efficient with time and resources. These general populations are heterogeneous in terms of factors such as ethnicity, health status, and socio-economics. Thus, there have been variations in the safety and effectiveness profiles of certain vaccinations according to current population-wide strategies. As the concept of precision medicine has been raised in recent years, many researchers have suggested that vaccines could be administered more precisely in terms of particular target populations, vaccine formulations, regimens, and dosage levels. This review addresses the concept and framework of precision immunization, summarizes recent and representative clinical trials of among specific populations, mentions important factors to be addressed in customizing vaccinations, and provides suggestions on the establishment of precision immunization with the goal of maximizing the effectiveness of vaccines in general.

Entecavir is Safe and Effective in Long Term for the Treatment of Hepatitis B in Immunocompromised Children

OBJECTIVE

Hepatitis B infection is common in patients with cancer, and prompt treatment is necessary; otherwise, it can result in life-threatening complications. The objective of this study was to assess the long-term safety and efficacy of entecavir in immunocompromised children with hepatitis B.

METHODS

This single-center prospective study was conducted on children with different malignancies referred to our department with evidence of hepatitis B infection. Only those children were included in the study who had HBsAg positive and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) more than 2 times the upper limit of normal and whose hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA was more than 20,000IU/ml. These children were put on entecavir and prospectively observed upto 192 weeks. Primary efficacy end point was the proportion of patients who achieved undetectable HBV DNA at 48 weeks of treatment. Other efficacy end points were the proportion of patients with HBeAg seroconversion, undetectable HBV DNA, and ALT normalization at weeks 48 and 96 weeks.

RESULTS

A total of 41 children met the inclusion criteria, of which 5 children died because of malignancy and 5 were lost to follow-up. Mean log DNA was 7.67 at the start which after starting entecavir reduced to 4.1, 2.8, 1.19, 1.09, and 0.84 at 12, 24, 48, 72, and 96 weeks, respectively (P value < 0.0001). Mean ALT decreased from 332.5 which reduced to 190, 115, 63, and 46 at 4, 12, 24, and 48 weeks, respectively (P < 0.0001). 67.7% achieved the primary outcome and had undetectable DNA at 48 weeks which increased to 26 (83.9%) at 96 weeks. At 48 weeks, 80.6% patients achieved ALT normalization. Thirty percent developed HBeAg seroconversion. Two patients developed virological breakthrough, one at 96 weeks and another at 192 weeks. No significant adverse effects were observed.

CONCLUSION

Entecavir is safe and effective in long term for the treatment of hepatitis B in immunocompromised children.

Vaccination of patients with haematological malignancies who did not have transplantations: guidelines from the 2017 European Conference on Infections in Leukaemia (ECIL 7)

Patients with haematological malignancies are at high risk of infection because of various mechanisms of humoral and cell-mediated immune deficiencies, which mainly depend on underlying disease and specific therapies. Some of these infections are vaccine preventable. However, these malignancies are different from each other, and the treatment approaches are diverse and rapidly evolving, so it is difficult to have a common programme for vaccination in a haematology ward. Additionally, because of insufficient training about the topic, vaccination is an area often neglected by haematologists, and influenced by cultural differences, even among health-care workers, in compliance to vaccines. Several issues are encountered when addressing vaccination in haematology: the small size of the cohorts that makes it difficult to show the clinical benefits of vaccination, the subsequent need to rely on biological parameters, their clinical pertinence not being established in immunocompromised patients, scarcity of clarity on the optimal timing of vaccination in complex treatment schedules, and the scarcity of data on long-term protection in patients receiving treatments. Moreover, the risk of vaccine-induced disease with live-attenuated vaccines strongly limits their use. Here we summarise guidelines for patients without transplantations, and address the issue by the haematological group-myeloid and lymphoid-of diseases, with a special consideration for children with acute leukaemia.