Recommendations for influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations in people receiving chemotherapy

Vaccine Immunity in Children After Hematologic Cancer Treatment: A Retrospective Single-center Study

BACKGROUND

Children lose their vaccine-induced protection and are particularly vulnerable to vaccine-preventable diseases after chemotherapy. However, revaccination guidelines are heterogeneous, and there is often a lack of revaccination post-treatment.

AIMS

We conducted a retrospective study of children with hematologic cancer to evaluate vaccine immunity before and after the end of treatment and to determine whether the current institutional revaccination program based on vaccine serology results was followed and effective.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data of all children treated by chemotherapy between April 2015 and July 2021 were extracted from hospital medical records for analysis. Serum antibody levels and time of vaccination were evaluated for diphtheria, tetanus, Streptococcus pneumoniae , Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), measles, varicella, and hepatitis B.

RESULTS

We included 31 patients (median age, 9 years). At cancer diagnosis, 90% of children were protected against tetanus, diphtheria, and measles; 65% to 67% were protected against pneumococcus and varicella; and 25% against hepatitis B. At the end of chemotherapy, 67% to 71% of patients were protected against tetanus, varicella, and measles; 40% remained protected against hepatitis B; and 27% to 33% against pneumococcus and diphtheria. Patients were revaccinated at various times after the end of treatment but not systematically. During the first-year post-treatment, 20% to 25% of children remained unprotected against pneumococcus, measles, and hepatitis B, one third against diphtheria, but all were protected against tetanus and varicella.

CONCLUSIONS

An effective individualized vaccination program post-cancer based on serology results should be accompanied by an appropriate serology tracking method and follow-up to assess if booster doses are necessary. Our study supports vaccinating all children with a dose of the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate at cancer diagnosis and at 3 months post-treatment with the combined diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis/poliomyelitis vaccine/hepatitis B virus plus or minus Hib and 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate and meningococcal vaccine, including measles/mumps/rubella-varicella zoster virus vaccine if good immune reconstitution is present.

Global variability of influenza activity and virus subtype circulation from 2011 to 2023

BACKGROUND

Although decreased influenza activity has been reported in many countries during the COVID-19 pandemic, it remains unknown how global influenza activity has changed. We described the global variability of influenza activity and virus subtype circulation from 2011 to 2023 to prepare for the potential influenza outbreak with the control of the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

Influenza virological surveillance data between 2011 and 2023 were obtained from the WHO-FluNet database. We first calculated and compared the influenza activity before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. For countries whose influenza activity has recovered, we also described changes in the duration of influenza epidemics. We then determined the proportion of influenza cases caused by the different influenza virus types.

RESULTS

In total, 73 countries with 2.17 million influenza cases were included. In the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic, decreased influenza activity was observed in all WHO regions. In 2022 and 2023, rebound in influenza activity was observed in all WHO regions, especially in Western Pacific Region. At the same time, a change in the duration of the influenza epidemic was observed in several Southern Hemisphere countries. Moreover, in all WHO regions, few B/Yamagata viruses were detected during the COVID-19 pandemic.

CONCLUSIONS

Lack of exposure to influenza will diminish population immunity and increase the severity of large epidemics on a future global resurgence. Ongoing monitoring of the changes in the duration of the influenza epidemic and circulation subtypes should be the focus of future work.

Surveillance of the current situation regarding influenza vaccination according to medical oncologists in Japan

This study aimed to clarify the attitude of oncologists toward influenza vaccination and the current situation and issues regarding influenza vaccination for patients on chemotherapy in Japan. A web-based survey of medical oncologists certified by the Japanese Society of Medical Oncology was conducted between November 1 and December 31, 2019. Of the 1369 medical oncologists who were invited to participate, 415 (30.3%) responded to our survey. The questionnaire comprised 4 sections: "oncologist characteristics," "oncologist attitude toward influenza vaccines and the current status of influenza vaccination for cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy," "incidence of influenza infection and associated treatment complications," and "treatment policy for influenza infection." In total, 153 (36.9%) physicians replied that they did not actively encourage influenza vaccination for patients undergoing chemotherapy. The primary reasons given were lack of evidence (48/153, 31.4%) and uncertainty of appropriate timing (46/153, 30.1%). There was diverse variation in the timing of vaccination and in the levels of encouragement based on the cancer location and medication type. Two hundred eighty-three (68.2%) oncologists reported that their cancer patients had experienced influenza infection while undergoing chemotherapy, and 169 (40.7%) responded that their patients had experienced an administration delay or discontinuation of medication because of influenza infection. Our surveillance revealed some oncologists considered evidence regarding the administration of influenza vaccine to cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy (particularly the optimal timing and level of recommendation by cancer location and medication) to be lacking. It also exposed the adverse impact of influenza infection in cancer patients.

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.

Multiple Myeloma Vaccination Patterns in a Large Health System: A Pilot Study

Purpose

Common reasons for hospitalization and death in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) are infections. As patients with MM are living longer and are treated with immunomodulatory drugs, there is a need to immunize against vaccine-preventable diseases and ultimately determine the efficacy of these vaccines. We evaluated vaccination practice patterns in MM patients at our health system using electronic medical records and data analytics.

Methods

This institutional review board-approved study retrospectively reviewed patients with MM who visited the health system from May 2012 to May 2014. Data collected included demographics, influenza vaccination (FV) and pneumonia vaccination (PV) history, hospitalization episodes and associated costs, and duration of survival. Patients were considered PV-positive if vaccinated within 5 years prior to study. FV was defined as optimal (two FV in 2012-2014), suboptimal (one FV in 2012-2014) or none (in 2012-2014).

Results

Of 411 MM patients, 55% were male and 85% Caucasian. Nearly 58% received PV in the past 5 years. FV was 15% optimal, 52% suboptimal and 33% none. A total of 444 hospitalizations involving 204 patients were observed over 2-year follow-up. More than $23 million was incurred from hospitalizations in the 2-year study period. There was no statistically significant difference in all-cause hospitalization and overall survival by FV and PV status.

Conclusions

Despite recommendations of vaccination in multiple myeloma, our cohort had low rates of influenza and pneumonia vaccination. FV and PV status did not show any significant association with additional hospitalization or overall survival in this pilot study. Future prospective studies are needed to ascertain the immunological and clinical efficacy and effectiveness of these vaccines in immunosuppressed patients.

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.

Practices and predictors of 2009 H1N1 vaccination in cancer patients: a nationwide survey in Korea

BACKGROUND

Because patients with cancer are considered to be at high-risk for influenza infection and related complications, annual vaccination is recommended. The emergence of the novel H1N1 influenza virus in 2009 complicated the medical care of patients with cancer. The present study examined H1N1 vaccination practices among patients with cancer during the pandemic season and investigated factors related to the vaccination.

METHODS

A national multicenter cross-sectional survey of patient-doctor dyads was performed; A total of 97 oncologists (response rates of invited participants, 87.4%) and 495 patients (response rates of recruited participants, 86.5%) were included. Patients with cancer provided information concerning vaccination practices and reasons for/against it. Oncologists answered questions about their recommendations and knowledge of H1N1 vaccination. Mixed logistic regression was used to identify patient-level and physician-level predictors of H1N1 vaccination.

RESULTS

Only 34.1% of the patients had received H1N1 vaccination, and 53.5% had not considered the need for vaccination. The H1N1 vaccine was proactively recommended by physicians in only a small fraction of patients (8.3%). Increasing age, higher educational status, longer time since the cancer diagnosis, comorbidities, and greater knowledge of H1N1 vaccination among oncologists were significant predictors of patients being vaccinated.

CONCLUSIONS

The present results showed low levels of utilization and poor interaction between patients and physicians with regard to the need for vaccination. In addition, the oncologist's level of knowledge affected the adoption of preventive services. Intervention strategies are needed to maximize the rapid adoption of preventive methods to confront future pandemic threats in the cancer patient population.

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.

Immunization in special populations

In summary, immunizations in special populations require understanding the underlying disease and how it might affect the immune system's ability to mount an antibody response to vaccines or predispose certain patient populations to developing certain serious infections. There is still a great need for research on the optimal timing of vaccines after transplants, how to assess protection and development of a protective antibody response after immunization, and whether certain groups (eg, HIV) need to be revaccinated after a certain amount of time if their antibody levels decline. In addition, there are limited data on efficacy of the newer vaccines in these special patient populations, which also requires further investigation.

Immunization in the adult immunocompromised host

The number of patients with impaired immune response has been steadily increasing within the last years, not only with the onset of the AIDS epidemic, but also due to increasing numbers of subjects on immunosuppressive therapies. These patients are at an increased risk for infections, many of which are preventable by immunization. Inactivated vaccines are generally safe in subjects with underlying immunosuppression. However, immune response and protection may be hampered, depending on the extent of immunosuppression. In contrast, live vaccines such as yellow fever, measles, rubella, herpes zoster, and cholera may lead to severe reactions in immunocompromised patients and have been shown to deteriorate some immune-mediated diseases such as multiple sclerosis. Data on the efficacy of vaccines in biological therapies is scarce. Where necessary vaccines should be updated before immunosuppressive therapies are started. To improve the vaccination status several guidelines exist for immunosuppressed patients at risk such as those with rheumatic diseases, asplenia or solid organ and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

Differential response of human and mouse dendritic cells to VEGF determines interspecies discrepancies in tumor-mediated TH1/TH2 polarity shift

PURPOSE

Metastatic cancer patients exhibit systemic dysregulation of immune polarity and are biased toward Th-2 immune responses. This is due, at least in part, to effects of VEGF on antigen presenting cell (APC) function. We therefore compared immune polarity changes in mouse models of cancer with those seen in human patients.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

We measured plasma levels of vascular growth factors and multiple cytokines via ELISA and multiplex analysis in mice with transplantable and spontaneous tumors. We compared immune cell subsets in naive and vaccinated mice with and without tumors. We assessed cytokine immune responses by multiplex analysis. Finally, we assessed gene expression and receptor surface expression in response to VEGF in mouse and human APCs.

RESULTS

Although human patients have elevated plasma cytokines and altered immune polarity in response to antigen, mice have minimal immune abnormalities. Mouse VEGF does not mediate immune repolarization in vitro. Human but not mouse APCs upregulate VEGFR2 and downregulate interleukin (IL)-12β in response to VEGF.

CONCLUSIONS

Whereas humans with metastatic cancer demonstrate dysregulated immune polarity in response to excess plasma VEGF, tumor mice do not. This appears to be due to differences in APC responses to VEGF stimulation. Differential immune effects of VEGF may represent a key species difference in the context of translation of preclinical cancer immunotherapeutics into early clinical testing.

Vaccinations in children with cancer

Children with cancer may be immunocompromised as a result of their primary underlying disease and/or the use of prolonged and intensive chemotherapy administered with or without irradiation. The damage to the immune system varies with the age of the patient, the type of cancer, and the intensity of the chemotherapy used to treat it. This review analyses the data regarding the immunogenicity, efficacy, safety and tolerability of the vaccines usually recommended in the first years of life in order to help pediatricians choose the best immunisation programme against vaccine-preventable disease in children with cancer receiving standard-dose chemotherapy. Areas for future research are highlighted because new data are required to be able to draw up evidence-based recommendations that will ensure adequate protection against infectious diseases in such high-risk children.

Influenza vaccination among individuals with cancer and their family members

BACKGROUND

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Influenza 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.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DATA SOURCES

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

DATA SYNTHESIS

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

CONCLUSION

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