Reduced humoral immune response after BNT162b2 coronavirus disease 2019 messenger RNA vaccination in cancer patients under antineoplastic treatment

Immune response of COVID-19 vaccines in solid cancer patients: A meta-analysis

Solid cancer patients, compared to their healthy counterparts, are at a greater risk of contracting and suffering from severe complications and poorer prognosis after COVID-19 infections. They also have different immune responses after doses of COVID-19 vaccination, but limited evidence is available to reveal the effectiveness and help to guide immunization programs for this subpopulation; MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library databases, and clinicaltrials.gov were used to search literature. The pooled seroconversion rate was calculated using a random-effects model and reported with a 95% confidence interval (CI); The review includes 66 studies containing serological responses after COVID-19 vaccination in 13,050 solid cancer patients and 8550 healthy controls. The pooled seropositive rates after the first dose in patients with solid cancer and healthy controls are 55.2% (95% CI 45.9%-64.5% N = 18) and 90.2% (95% CI 80.9%-96.6% N = 13), respectively. The seropositive rates after the second dose in patients with solid cancer and healthy controls are 87.6% (95% CI 84.1%-90.7% N = 50) and 98.9% (95% CI 97.6%-99.7% N = 35), respectively. The seropositive rates after the third dose in patients with solid cancer and healthy controls are 91.4% (95% CI 85.4%-95.9% N = 21) and 99.8% (95% CI 98.1%-100.0% N = 4), respectively. Subgroup analysis finds that study sample size, timing of antibody testing, and vaccine type have influence on the results; Seroconversion rates after COVID-19 vaccination are significantly lower in patients with solid malignancies, especially after the first dose, then shrinking gradually after the following two vaccinations, indicating that subsequent doses or a booster dose should be considered for the effectiveness of this subpopulation.

Long-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic for patients with cancer

INTRODUCTION

Long COVID is defined as the continuation of symptoms, unexplainable by alternative diagnosis, longer than four weeks after SARS-CoV-2 infection. These symptoms might hinder daily activities and overall well-being, ultimately impacting quality of life (QoL). Several studies have reported fatigue as the most common symptom, followed by dyspnoea, headache and myalgia. Although it is assumed that long COVID affects 10-20% of SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals, recently numbers up to 60% were described for patients with cancer. This study uncovers the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on QoL of patients with cancer and how long COVID manifests in this cohort.

METHODS

A group of 96 patients with cancer was followed from March 2022 till March 2023. Online questionnaires assessing symptoms associated with long COVID, anxiety and depression (HADS), quality of life (EORTC-QLQ-C30) and cognitive functioning (CFQ) were sent every three months during this period. Furthermore, a semi-structured focus group was organised for qualitative data collection.

RESULTS

Overall, these patients reported a negative impact of the enforced COVID-19 restrictions on the emotional and psychological wellbeing. Forty nine patients with cancer (51.0%) were infected with SARS-CoV-2 over the course of the study, of which 39 (79.6%) reported long COVID symptoms. The most commonly reported symptoms were myalgia (46.2%), fatigue (38.5%) and disturbed sleep (35.9%) and it was observed that male sex is associated with poor long COVID outcomes.

CONCLUSION

While patients with cancer experience similar long COVID symptoms as healthy controls, the prevalence is remarkably higher possibly due to their compromised immune system and weakened physiological reserve.

Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against severe COVID-19 among patients with cancer in Catalonia, Spain

Patients with cancer were excluded from pivotal randomized clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccine products, and available observational evidence on vaccine effectiveness (VE) focused mostly on mild, and not severe COVID-19, which is the ultimate goal of vaccination for high-risk groups. Here, using primary care electronic health records from Catalonia, Spain (SIDIAP), we built two large cohorts of vaccinated and matched control cancer patients with a primary vaccination scheme (n = 184,744) and a booster (n = 108,534). Most patients received a mRNA-based product in primary (76.2%) and booster vaccination (99.9%). Patients had 51.8% (95% CI 40.3%-61.1%) and 58.4% (95% CI 29.3%-75.5%) protection against COVID-19 hospitalization and COVID-19 death respectively after full vaccination (two-doses) and 77.9% (95% CI 69.2%-84.2%) and 80.2% (95% CI 63.0%-89.4%) after booster. Compared to primary vaccination, the booster dose provided higher peak protection during follow-up. Calibration of VE estimates with negative outcomes, and sensitivity analyses with slight different population and COVID-19 outcomes definitions provided similar results. Our results confirm the role of primary and booster COVID-19 vaccination in preventing COVID-19 severe events in patients with cancer and highlight the need for the additional dose in this population.

Thrombopoietin Receptor Agonists and Other Second-Line Therapies for Immune Thrombocytopenia: A Narrative Review With a Focus on Drug Access in Canada

INTRODUCTION

Immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) is an autoimmune disease characterized by low platelet counts and increased risk of bleeding. After corticosteroids with or without intravenous immune globulin (first-line treatment), second-line treatment options include rituximab, splenectomy, thrombopoietin receptor agonists (TPO-RAs), and fostamatinib. In Canada, the choice of second-line therapy is influenced by access to medications. The goals of this narrative review are to 1) summarize the evidence for the use of TPO-RAs and other second-line therapies in ITP and 2) highlight differences in public funding criteria for TPO-RAs across provinces and territories in Canada.

METHODS

We conducted a literature review of second-line therapies for ITP. We solicited information on public funding programs for TPO-RAs in Canada from health care providers, pharmacists, and provincial ministries of health.

RESULTS

Head-to-head trials involving TPO-RAs, rituximab, splenectomy, and fostamatinib are lacking. There is substantial evidence of effect for TPO-RAs in improving platelet count levels, health-related quality of life, bleeding, and fatigue from placebo-controlled trials and observational studies; however, access to TPO-RAs through provincial funding programs in Canada is variable. Splenectomy failure is a prerequisite for the funding of TPO-RAs in Ontario, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan, but not in Alberta or Quebec. Other provinces either do not have access to public funding or funding is provided on a case-by-case basis.

DISCUSSION

TPO-RAs are effective second-line therapies for the treatment of ITP; however, access is variable across Canada, which results in health disparities and poor uptake of international treatment guidelines.

Comparative Study on the Immunogenicity of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines in Patients Receiving Adjuvant and Palliative Chemotherapy

This study was conducted to investigate potential differences in vaccine efficacy between patients undergoing palliative chemotherapy and receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. Additionally, the study proved the influence of vaccination timing on vaccine efficacy during active chemotherapy. Anti-receptor-binding domain (RBD) IgG binding antibody assays and surrogate neutralizing antibody assays were performed after BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccination in 45 solid cancer patients (23 adjuvant and 22 palliative chemotherapy) and in 24 healthy controls before vaccination (baseline), at every two to four weeks after the first (post-dose 1) and the second vaccination (post-dose 2). The levels of anti-RBD IgG and neutralizing antibodies increased significantly from baseline through post-dose 1 to post-dose 2 in all three groups. At the post-dose 1, the anti-RBD IgG and neutralizing antibody levels were significantly lower in cancer patients than in healthy controls. However, by post-dose 2, the seropositivity of anti-RBD IgG and neutralizing antibodies uniformly reached 100% across all groups, with no significant disparity in antibody levels among the three groups. Moreover, the antibody titers were not significantly different between patients with a vaccine and chemotherapy interval of more than 14 days or those with less than 14 days. This study demonstrated that after second doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, humoral immune responses in patients receiving chemotherapy were comparable to those of healthy controls, regardless of whether the purpose of the anti-cancer treatment was palliative or adjuvant. Furthermore, the timing of vaccination did not affect the level of humoral immunity after the second vaccination.

Infection with alternate frequencies of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine boosting for patients undergoing antineoplastic cancer treatments

Patients undergoing antineoplastic therapies often exhibit reduced immune response to COVID-19 vaccination, necessitating assessment of alternate booster vaccination frequencies. However, data on reinfection risks to guide clinical decision making are limited. Here, we quantified reinfection risks for patients undergoing distinct antineoplastic therapies, given alternative frequencies of boosting with Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2. Integrating antibody data following vaccination with long-term antibody data from other coronaviruses in an evolutionary framework, we estimated infection probabilities based on antibody levels and calculated cumulative probabilities of breakthrough infection for alternate booster schedules over 2 years. Annual boosting reduced risks for targeted or hormonal treatments, immunotherapy, and chemotherapy-immunotherapy combinations similarly to the general population. Patients receiving no treatment or chemotherapy exhibited higher risks, suggesting that accelerated vaccination schedules should be considered. Patients treated with rituximab therapy presented the highest infection risk, suggesting that a combination of frequent boosting and additional interventions may be warranted for mitigating SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Attenuated immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and risk factors in stem cell transplant recipients: a meta-analysis

Immunogenicity of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination is diminished in hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients. To summarize current evidence and identify risk factors for attenuated responses, 5 electronic databases were searched since database inceptions through 12 January 2023 for studies reporting humoral and/or cellular immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in the HSCT population. Using descriptive statistics and random-effects models, extracted numbers of responders and pooled odds ratios (pORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for risk factors of negative immune responses were analyzed (PROSPERO: CRD42021277109). From 61 studies with 5906 HSCT recipients, after 1, 2, and 3 doses of messenger RNA (mRNA) SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, the mean antispike antibody seropositivity rates (95% CI) were 38% (19-62), 81% (77-84), and 80% (75-84); neutralizing antibody seropositivity rates were 52% (40-64), 71% (54-83), and 78% (61-89); and cellular immune response rates were 52% (39-64), 66% (51-79), and 72% (52-86). After 2 vaccine doses, risk factors (pOR; 95% CI) associated with antispike seronegativity were male recipients (0.63; 0.49-0.83), recent rituximab exposure (0.09; 0.03-0.21), haploidentical allografts (0.46; 0.22-0.95), <24 months from HSCT (0.25; 0.07-0.89), lymphopenia (0.18; 0.13-0.24), hypogammaglobulinemia (0.23; 0.10-0.55), concomitant chemotherapy (0.48; 0.29-0.78) and immunosuppression (0.18; 0.13-0.25). Complete remission of underlying hematologic malignancy (2.55; 1.05-6.17) and myeloablative conditioning (1.72; 1.30-2.28) compared with reduced-intensity conditioning were associated with antispike seropositivity. Ongoing immunosuppression (0.31; 0.10-0.99) was associated with poor cellular immunogenicity. In conclusion, attenuated humoral and cellular immune responses to mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccination are associated with several risk factors among HSCT recipients. Optimizing individualized vaccination and developing alternative COVID-19 prevention strategies are warranted.

Responses of patients with cancer to mRNA vaccines depend on the time interval between vaccination and last treatment

BACKGROUND

Personalized mRNA vaccines are promising new therapeutic options for patients with cancer. Because mRNA vaccines are not yet approved for first-line therapy, the vaccines are presently applied to individuals that received prior therapies that can have immunocompromising effects. There is a need to address how prior treatments impact mRNA vaccine outcomes.

METHOD

Therefore, we analyzed the response to BioNTech/Pfizer's anti-SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine in 237 oncology outpatients, which cover a broad spectrum of hematologic malignancies and solid tumors and a variety of treatments. Patients were stratified by the time interval between the last treatment and first vaccination and by the presence or absence of florid tumors and IgG titers and T cell responses were analyzed 14 days after the second vaccination.

RESULTS

Regardless of the last treatment time point, our data indicate that vaccination responses in patients with checkpoint inhibition were comparable to healthy controls. In contrast, patients after chemotherapy or cortisone therapy did not develop an immune response until 6 months after the last systemic therapy and patients after Cht-immune checkpoint inhibitor and tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy only after 12 months.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, our data support that timing of mRNA-based therapy is critical and we suggest that at least a 6-months or 12-months waiting interval should be observed before mRNA vaccination in systemically treated patients.

A modeling-based approach to optimize COVID-19 vaccine dosing schedules for improved protection

While the development of different vaccines slowed the dissemination of SARS-CoV-2, the occurrence of breakthrough infections has continued to fuel the COVID-19 pandemic. To secure at least partial protection in the majority of the population through 1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, delayed administration of boosters has been implemented in many countries. However, waning immunity and emergence of new variants of SARS-CoV-2 suggest that such measures may induce breakthrough infections due to intermittent lapses in protection. Optimizing vaccine dosing schedules to ensure prolonged continuity in protection could thus help control the pandemic. We developed a mechanistic model of immune response to vaccines as an in silico tool for dosing schedule optimization. The model was calibrated with clinical data sets of acquired immunity to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in healthy and immunocompromised participants and showed robust validation by accurately predicting neutralizing antibody kinetics in response to multiple doses of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. Importantly, by estimating population vulnerability to breakthrough infections, we predicted tailored vaccination dosing schedules to minimize breakthrough infections, especially for immunocompromised individuals. We identified that the optimal vaccination schedules vary from CDC-recommended dosing, suggesting that the model is a valuable tool to optimize vaccine efficacy outcomes during future outbreaks.

Expert Consensus: Main Risk Factors for Poor Prognosis in COVID-19 and the Implications for Targeted Measures against SARS-CoV-2

The clinical evolution of patients infected with the Severe Acute Respiratory Coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) depends on the complex interplay between viral and host factors. The evolution to less aggressive but better-transmitted viral variants, and the presence of immune memory responses in a growing number of vaccinated and/or virus-exposed individuals, has caused the pandemic to slowly wane in virulence. However, there are still patients with risk factors or comorbidities that put them at risk of poor outcomes in the event of having the coronavirus infectious disease 2019 (COVID-19). Among the different treatment options for patients with COVID-19, virus-targeted measures include antiviral drugs or monoclonal antibodies that may be provided in the early days of infection. The present expert consensus is based on a review of all the literature published between 1 July 2021 and 15 February 2022 that was carried out to establish the characteristics of patients, in terms of presence of risk factors or comorbidities, that may make them candidates for receiving any of the virus-targeted measures available in order to prevent a fatal outcome, such as severe disease or death. A total of 119 studies were included from the review of the literature and 159 were from the additional independent review carried out by the panelists a posteriori. Conditions found related to strong recommendation of the use of virus-targeted measures in the first days of COVID-19 were age above 80 years, or above 65 years with another risk factor; antineoplastic chemotherapy or active malignancy; HIV infection with CD4+ cell counts < 200/mm³; and treatment with anti-CD20 immunosuppressive drugs. There is also a strong recommendation against using the studied interventions in HIV-infected patients with a CD4+ nadir <200/mm³ or treatment with other immunosuppressants. Indications of therapies against SARS-CoV-2, regardless of vaccination status or history of infection, may still exist for some populations, even after COVID-19 has been declared to no longer be a global health emergency by the WHO.

A Three-Dose mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine Regime Produces Both Suitable Immunogenicity and Satisfactory Efficacy in Patients with Solid Cancers

BACKGROUND

The recommended booster third dose of vaccination against COVID-19 in cancer patients seems reasonable to protect them against a severe disease course. A prospective study was designed to assess the immunogenicity, efficacy, and safety of COVID-19 vaccination in this cohort.

METHODS

Patients with solid malignancies on active treatment were followed up after the primary course and booster third dose of vaccination to assess their anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1 IgG levels, efficacy in the case of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and safety.

RESULTS

Out of 125 patients receiving the primary course of vaccination, 66 patients received a booster third dose of mRNA vaccine, with a 20-fold increase in median anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1 IgG levels compared to Ab levels six months post-primary course of vaccination (p < 0.0001). After the booster third dose, anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1 IgG levels were comparable to healthy controls (p = 0.113). There was a decline in Ab levels 3 (p = 0.0003) and 6 months (p < 0.0001) post-third booster dose. No patients had either a severe disease course or a lethal outcome in the case of SARS-CoV-2 infection after the third booster dose.

CONCLUSION

The third booster vaccination dose against COVID-19 in solid cancer patients triggers substantial immunogenicity and is safe and effective for preventing a severe COVID-19 disease course.

Pandemic Phase-Adjusted Analysis of COVID-19 Outcomes Reveals Reduced Intrinsic Vulnerability and Substantial Vaccine Protection From Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 in Patients With Breast Cancer

PURPOSE

Although representing the majority of newly diagnosed cancers, patients with breast cancer appear less vulnerable to COVID-19 mortality compared with other malignancies. In the absence of patients on active cancer therapy included in vaccination trials, a contemporary real-world evaluation of outcomes during the various pandemic phases, as well as of the impact of vaccination, is needed to better inform clinical practice.

METHODS

We compared COVID-19 morbidity and mortality among patients with breast cancer across prevaccination (February 27, 2020-November 30, 2020), Alpha-Delta (December 1, 2020-December 14, 2021), and Omicron (December 15, 2021-January 31, 2022) phases using OnCovid registry participants (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04393974). Twenty-eight-day case fatality rate (CFR28) and COVID-19 severity were compared in unvaccinated versus double-dosed/boosted patients (vaccinated) with inverse probability of treatment weighting models adjusted for country of origin, age, number of comorbidities, tumor stage, and receipt of systemic anticancer therapy within 1 month of COVID-19 diagnosis.

RESULTS

By the data lock of February 4, 2022, the registry counted 613 eligible patients with breast cancer: 60.1% (n = 312) hormone receptor-positive, 25.2% (n = 131) human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive, and 14.6% (n = 76) triple-negative. The majority (61%; n = 374) had localized/locally advanced disease. Median age was 62 years (interquartile range, 51-74 years). A total of 193 patients (31.5%) presented ≥ 2 comorbidities and 69% (n = 330) were never smokers. In total, 392 (63.9%), 164 (26.8%), and 57 (9.3%) were diagnosed during the prevaccination, Alpha-Delta, and Omicron phases, respectively. Analysis of CFR28 demonstrates comparable estimates of mortality across the three pandemic phases (13.9%, 12.2%, 5.3%, respectively; P = .182). Nevertheless, a significant improvement in outcome measures of COVID-19 severity across the three pandemic time periods was observed. Importantly, when reported separately, unvaccinated patients from the Alpha-Delta and Omicron phases achieved comparable outcomes to those from the prevaccination phase. Of 566 patients eligible for the vaccination analysis, 72 (12.7%) were fully vaccinated and 494 (87.3%) were unvaccinated. We confirmed with inverse probability of treatment weighting multivariable analysis and following a clustered robust correction for participating center that vaccinated patients achieved improved CFR28 (odds ratio [OR], 0.19; 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.40), hospitalization (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.69), COVID-19 complications (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.45), and reduced requirement of COVID-19-specific therapy (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.63) and oxygen therapy (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.67) compared with unvaccinated controls.

CONCLUSION

Our findings highlight a consistent reduction of COVID-19 severity in patients with breast cancer during the Omicron outbreak in Europe. We also demonstrate that even in this population, a complete severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccination course is a strong determinant of improved morbidity and mortality from COVID-19.

Clinical efficacy of the first two doses of anti-SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines in solid cancer patients

INTRODUCTION

Cancer patients are frail individuals, thus the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection is essential. To date, vaccination is the most effective tool to prevent COVID-19. In a previous study, we evaluated the immunogenicity of two doses of mRNA-based vaccines (BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273) in solid cancer patients. We found that seroconversion rate in cancer patients without a previous exposure to SARS-CoV-2 was lower than in healthy controls (66.7% vs. 95%, p = 0.0020). The present study aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of the vaccination in the same population.

METHODS

This is a single-institution, prospective observational study. Data were collected through a predefined questionnaire through phone call in the period between the second and third vaccine dose. The primary objective was to describe the clinical efficacy of the vaccination, defined as the percentage of vaccinated subjects who did not develop symptomatic COVID-19 within 6 months after the second dose. The secondary objective was to describe the clinical features of patients who developed COVID-19.

RESULTS

From January to June 2021, 195 cancer patients were enrolled. Considering that 7 (3.59%) patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and 5 developed symptomatic disease, the clinical efficacy of the vaccination was 97.4%. COVID-19 disease in most patients was mild and managed at home; only one hospitalization was recorded and no patient required hospitalization in the intensive care unit.

DISCUSSION

Our study suggests that increasing vaccination coverage, including booster doses, could improve the prevention of infection, hospitalization, serious illness, and death in the frail population of cancer patients.

Determinants of humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in solid cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Solid cancer patients following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination are likely to have a lower seroconversion rate than healthy adults. Seroconversion between those with and without cancer is likely to vary moderately or to be restricted to specific subgroups. Therefore, we sought to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify risk factors for diminished humoral immune responses in solid cancer patients.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were used to search literature through May 1, 2022. Prospective or retrospective studies comparing responders with non-responders against SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein receptor-binding domain (RBD) following COVID-19 vaccination were included. Pooled Odds Ratios (pORs) with 95% CIs for binary variables and differences in means (with SDs) for continuous variables were calculated to determine the pooled effect estimates of risk factors for poor antibody response.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies enrolling 3593 patients were included in the analysis. Seroconversion was seen in 84% of the pooled study population. Male gender, age >65 years, and recent chemotherapy were all factors in a poor immune response. Patients under follow-up, those who received immunotherapy or targeted therapy, were more likely to be seropositive. Cancer subtypes, vaccine types, and timing of antibody testing from the 2nd dose of vaccine did not correlate with seroconversion.

CONCLUSION

Cytotoxic therapy for solid cancer may portend poor immune response following 2 doses of COVID-19 vaccines suggesting a need for booster doses in these patients. Immunotherapy and targeted therapy are likely to be associated with seropositive status, and thus can be considered as an alternative to cytotoxic agents in cases where both therapies are equally efficacious.

AGIHO guideline on evidence-based management of COVID-19 in cancer patients: 2022 update on vaccination, pharmacological prophylaxis and therapy in light of the omicron variants

The novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 and the associated infectious disease COVID-19 pose a significant challenge to healthcare systems worldwide. Patients with cancer have been identified as a high-risk population for severe infections, rendering prophylaxis and treatment strategies for these patients particularly important. Rapidly evolving clinical research, resulting in the recent advent of various vaccines and therapeutic agents against COVID-19, offers new options to improve care and protection of cancer patients. However, ongoing epidemiological changes and rise of new virus variants require repeated revisions and adaptations of prophylaxis and treatment strategies to meet these new challenges. Therefore, this guideline provides an update on evidence-based recommendations with regard to vaccination, pharmacological prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19 in cancer patients in light of the currently dominant omicron variants. It was developed by an expert panel of the Infectious Diseases Working Party (AGIHO) of the German Society for Hematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO) based on a critical review of the most recent available data.

Repeated SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: induction of high-avidity anti-RBD neutralizing antibodies

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients are more vulnerable to COVID-19 and are thus given high priority in vaccination campaigns. In solid cancer patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors, we evaluated the amount of anti-RBD and neutralizing antibodies and antibody avidity after two or three doses of the vaccine.

METHODS

Thirty-eight solid cancer patients, 15 untreated hematological patients and 21 healthy subjects were enrolled in the study. Blood was collected before the first dose (T0), 21 days after the second (T2) and in 18 solid cancer patients also 15 days after the third dose of vaccine (T3). IgG, IgM and IgA anti-RBD antibodies were detected by ELISA. Neutralizing antibodies were measured testing the inhibition of RBD binding to ACE2. Antibody avidity was evaluated in 18 patients by a urea avidity ELISA.

RESULTS

IgG anti-RBD antibodies were produced in 65.8% of the cancer patients at T2, and in 60% of hematological patients at levels lower than healthy controls. IgM and IgA anti-RBD antibodies were also produced in 5.3% and 21% cancer patients, respectively. At T3, a significant increase in anti-RBD IgG levels was observed. Neutralizing antibodies were produced in 68.4% of cancer patients as compared with 93% of untreated hematological patients and 100% of controls, at titers lower than in healthy subjects. At T3, neutralizing antibodies and avidity of IgG anti-RBD increased; 6/18 patients negative at T2 developed neutralizing antibodies at T3.

CONCLUSION

The data indicate that in cancer patients mRNA vaccine induces high avidity anti-RBD antibodies and neutralizing antibodies that increase after the third dose. The process of induction and selection of high-affinity antibodies is apparently unaffected by the treatment with anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 antibodies.

Effectiveness and Safety of COVID-19 Vaccination in Patients with Malignant Disease

A novel virus named SARS-CoV-2 has caused a worldwide pandemic, resulting in a disastrous impact to the public health since 2019. The disease is much more lethal among patients with malignant disease. Vaccination plays an important role in the prevention of infection and subsequent severe COVID-19. However, the efficacy and safety of vaccines for cancer patients needs further investigation. Encouragingly, there have been important findings deduced from research so far. In this review, an overview of the immunogenicity, effectiveness, and safeness of COVID-19 vaccines in patients with cancer to date is to be shown. We also highlight important questions to consider and directions that could be followed in future research.

Safety and immunogenicity of the third (booster) dose of inactivated and recombinant protein SARS-CoV-2 vaccine for patients with endocrine-related cancer

Background

Our study aimed to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of the third (booster) dose of the COVID-19 vaccine for patients with endocrine-related cancers.

Methods

This observational study involved 94 breast cancer patients, 92 thyroid cancer patients, and 123 healthy individuals who had received the third (booster) dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. Data on the adverse effects, serum anti-receptor binding domain (RBD)-immunoglobulin (Ig) G, and neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) were collected prospectively.

Results

The serum anti-RBD-IgG and NAb titers were significantly lower for the patients with endocrine-related malignancies than for the healthy controls (3.01 [IQR: 1.11-6.70] vs. 4.19 [1.95-9.11], p = 0.001; 0.23 [0.11-0.52] vs. 0.41 [0.22-0.78], p = 0.001), and the seroconversion rates of anti-RBD-IgG and NAbs showed similar results. The serum antibody titers and seroconversion rates were significantly lower for patients aged ≥65 years with endocrine-related cancers, but there were no significant differences related to gender, vaccine type, or cancer type. Subgroup analysis showed that the antibody titers and seroconversion rates were significantly lower for patients with intermediate to advanced breast cancer, HR-/Her2+ breast cancer, and breast cancer undergoing treatment than for healthy controls. In contrast, breast cancer patients who completed their treatment and those who received endocrine therapy after completing their treatment were not significantly different from healthy controls. The NAbs titers and seroconversion rates were significantly lower for patients with primary thyroid cancer (0.19 [IQR: 0.10-0.46] vs. 0.41 [0.22-0.78], p = 0.003; 55.9 vs. 84.9%, p < 0.001); the seroconversion rates were significantly higher for the patients with combined Hashimoto's thyroiditis than for those without it. Multiple linear regression showed that patients aged ≥65 years who were receiving treatment were at risk of having lower antibody levels.

Conclusion

The third (booster) dose of the COVID-19 vaccine is safe and well-tolerated. Our data support a third (booster) dose of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine for breast and thyroid cancer patients. Breast cancer patients aged ≥65 years who are receiving treatment should be more protected, while thyroid cancer and breast cancer patients who have completed their treatment can be vaccinated like the general population.

Infection by SARS-CoV-2 with alternate frequencies of mRNA vaccine boosting

One of the most consequential unknowns of the COVID-19 pandemic is the frequency at which vaccine boosting provides sufficient protection from infection. We quantified the statistical likelihood of breakthrough infections over time following different boosting schedules with messenger RNA (mRNA)-1273 (Moderna) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech). We integrated anti-Spike IgG antibody optical densities with profiles of the waning of antibodies and corresponding probabilities of infection associated with coronavirus endemic transmission. Projecting antibody levels over time given boosting every 6 months, 1, 1.5, 2, or 3 years yielded respective probabilities of fending off infection over a 6-year span of >93%, 75%, 55%, 40%, and 24% (mRNA-1273) and >89%, 69%, 49%, 36%, and 23% (BNT162b2). Delaying the administration of updated boosters has bleak repercussions. It increases the probability of individual infection by SARS-CoV-2, and correspondingly, ongoing disease spread, prevalence, morbidity, hospitalization, and mortality. Instituting regular, population-wide booster vaccination updated to predominant variants has the potential to substantially forestall-and with global, widespread uptake, eliminate-COVID-19.

Humoral and Cellular Immune Responses against SARS-CoV-2 after Third Dose BNT162b2 following Double-Dose Vaccination with BNT162b2 versus ChAdOx1 in Patients with Cancer

PURPOSE

Patients with cancer display reduced humoral responses after double-dose COVID-19 vaccination, whereas their cellular response is more comparable with that in healthy individuals. Recent studies demonstrated that a third vaccination dose boosts these immune responses, both in healthy people and patients with cancer. Because of the availability of many different COVID-19 vaccines, many people have been boosted with a different vaccine from the one used for double-dose vaccination. Data on such alternative vaccination schedules are scarce. This prospective study compares a third dose of BNT162b2 after double-dose BNT162b2 (homologous) versus ChAdOx1 (heterologous) vaccination in patients with cancer.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

A total of 442 subjects (315 patients and 127 healthy) received a third dose of BNT162b2 (230 homologous vs. 212 heterologous). Vaccine-induced adverse events (AE) were captured up to 7 days after vaccination. Humoral immunity was assessed by SARS-CoV-2 anti-S1 IgG antibody levels and SARS-CoV-2 50% neutralization titers (NT50) against Wuhan and BA.1 Omicron strains. Cellular immunity was examined by analyzing CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell responses against SARS-CoV-2-specific S1 and S2 peptides.

RESULTS

Local AEs were more common after heterologous boosting. SARS-CoV-2 anti-S1 IgG antibody levels did not differ significantly between homologous and heterologous boosted subjects [GMT 1,755.90 BAU/mL (95% CI, 1,276.95-2,414.48) vs. 1,495.82 BAU/mL (95% CI, 1,131.48-1,977.46)]. However, homologous-boosted subjects show significantly higher NT50 values against BA.1 Omicron. Subjects receiving heterologous boosting demonstrated increased spike-specific CD8+ T cells, including higher IFNγ and TNFα levels.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with cancer who received double-dose ChAdOx1, a third heterologous dose of BNT162b2 was able to close the gap in antibody response.

Management of patients with lymphoma and COVID-19: Narrative review and evidence-based practical recommendations

Patients with hematologic malignancies can be immunocompromized because of their disease, anti-cancer therapy, and concomitant immunosuppressive treatment. Furthermore, these patients are usually older than 60 years and have comorbidities. For all these reasons they are highly vulnerable to infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) and have an increased risk of developing severe/critical Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) compared to the general population. Although COVID-19 vaccination has proven effective in reducing the incidence of severe/critical disease, vaccinated patients with lymphoma may not be protected as they often fail to develop a sufficient antiviral immune response. There is therefore an urgent need to address the management of patients with lymphoma and COVID-19 in the setting of the ongoing pandemic. Passive immunization with monoclonal antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 is a currently available complementary drug strategy to active vaccination for lymphoma patients, while monoclonal antibodies and antiviral drugs (remdesivir, ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir, and molnupiravir) have proven effective in preventing the progression to severe/critical COVID-19. In this narrative review we present the most recent data documenting the characteristics and outcomes of patients with concomitant lymphoma and COVID-19. Our ultimate goal is to provide practice-oriented guidance in the management of these vulnerable patients from diagnosis to treatment and follow-up of lymphoma. To this purpose, we will first provide an overview of the main data concerning prognostic factors and fatality rate of lymphoma patients who develop COVID-19; the outcomes of COVID-19 vaccination will also be addressed. We will then discuss current COVID-19 prophylaxis and treatment options for lymphoma patients. Finally, based on the literature and our multidisciplinary experience, we will summarize a set of indications on how to manage patients with lymphoma according to COVID-19 exposure, level of disease severity and former history of infection, as typically encountered in clinical practice.

A modeling-based approach to optimize COVID-19 vaccine dosing schedules for improved protection

While the development of different vaccines has slowed the dissemination of SARS-CoV-2, the occurrence of breakthrough infections continues to fuel the pandemic. As a strategy to secure at least partial protection, with a single dose of a given COVID-19 vaccine to maximum possible fraction of the population, delayed administration of subsequent doses (or boosters) has been implemented in many countries. However, waning immunity and emergence of new variants of SARS-CoV-2 suggest that such measures may jeopardize the attainment of herd immunity due to intermittent lapses in protection. Optimizing vaccine dosing schedules could thus make the difference between periodic occurrence of breakthrough infections or effective control of the pandemic. To this end, we have developed a mechanistic mathematical model of adaptive immune response to vaccines and demonstrated its applicability to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines as a proof-of-concept for future outbreaks. The model was thoroughly calibrated against multiple clinical datasets involving immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection and mRNA vaccines in healthy and immunocompromised subjects (cancer patients undergoing therapy); the model showed robust clinical validation by accurately predicting neutralizing antibody kinetics, a correlate of vaccine-induced protection, in response to multiple doses of mRNA vaccines. Importantly, we estimated population vulnerability to breakthrough infections and predicted tailored vaccination dosing schedules to maximize protection and thus minimize breakthrough infections, based on the immune status of a sub-population. We have identified a critical waiting window for cancer patients (or, immunocompromised subjects) to allow recovery of the immune system (particularly CD4+ T-cells) for effective differentiation of B-cells to produce neutralizing antibodies and thus achieve optimal vaccine efficacy against variants of concern, especially between the first and second doses. Also, we have obtained optimized dosing schedules for subsequent doses in healthy and immunocompromised subjects, which vary from the CDC-recommended schedules, to minimize breakthrough infections. The developed modeling tool is based on generalized adaptive immune response to antigens and can thus be leveraged to guide vaccine dosing schedules during future outbreaks.

COVID-19 vaccination and liver disease

Various vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 have been developed in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic, several of which are highly effective in preventing COVID-19 in the general population. Patients with chronic liver diseases (CLDs), particularly those with liver cirrhosis, are considered to be at a high risk for severe COVID-19 and death. Given the increased rates of disease severity and mortality in patients with liver disease, there is an urgent need to understand the efficacy of vaccination in this population. However, the data regarding efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with CLDs is limited. Indeed, several organ-specific or systemic immune-mediated side effects following COVID-19 vaccination, including liver injury similar to autoimmune hepatitis, have been recently reported. Although the number of cases of vaccine-related liver injury is increasing, its frequency, clinical course, and mechanism remain unclear. Here, we review the current findings on COVID-19 vaccination and liver disease, focusing on: (1) The impact of COVID-19 in patients with CLD; (2) The efficacy, safety, and risk-benefit profiles of COVID-19 vaccines in patients with CLD; and (3) Liver injury following COVID-19 vaccination.

Immunogenicity and risks associated with impaired immune responses following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and booster in hematologic malignancy patients: an updated meta-analysis

Patients with hematologic malignancies (HM) have demonstrated impaired immune responses following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Factors associated with poor immunogenicity remain largely undetermined. A literature search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and medRxiv databases to identify studies that reported humoral or cellular immune responses (CIR) following complete SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. The primary aim was to estimate the seroconversion rate (SR) following complete SARS-CoV-2 vaccination across various subtypes of HM diseases and treatments. The secondary aims were to determine the rates of development of neutralizing antibodies (NAb) and CIR following complete vaccination and SR following booster doses. A total of 170 studies were included for qualitative and quantitative analysis of primary and secondary outcomes. A meta-analysis of 150 studies including 20,922 HM patients revealed a pooled SR following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination of 67.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 64.8-70.4%; I² = 94%). Meta-regression analysis showed that patients with lymphoid malignancies, but not myeloid malignancies, had lower seroconversion rates than those with solid cancers (R² = 0.52, P < 0.0001). Patients receiving chimeric antigen receptor T-cells (CART), B-cell targeted therapies or JAK inhibitors were associated with poor seroconversion (R² = 0.39, P < 0.0001). The pooled NAb and CIR rates were 52.8% (95% CI; 45.8-59.7%, I² = 87%) and 66.6% (95% CI, 57.1-74.9%; I² = 86%), respectively. Approximately 20.9% (95% CI, 11.4-35.1%, I² = 90%) of HM patients failed to elicit humoral and cellular immunity. Among non-seroconverted patients after primary vaccination, only 40.5% (95% CI, 33.0-48.4%; I² = 87%) mounted seroconversion after the booster. In conclusion, HM patients, especially those with lymphoid malignancies and/or receiving CART, B-cell targeted therapies, or JAK inhibitors, showed poor SR after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. A minority of patients attained seroconversion after booster vaccination. Strategies to improve immune response in these severely immunosuppressed patients are needed.

Predictive model for BNT162b2 vaccine response in cancer patients based on blood cytokines and growth factors

Background

Patients with cancer, especially hematological cancer, are at increased risk for breakthrough COVID-19 infection. So far, a predictive biomarker that can assess compromised vaccine-induced anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunity in cancer patients has not been proposed.

Methods

We employed machine learning approaches to identify a biomarker signature based on blood cytokines, chemokines, and immune- and non-immune-related growth factors linked to vaccine immunogenicity in 199 cancer patients receiving the BNT162b2 vaccine.

Results

C-reactive protein (general marker of inflammation), interleukin (IL)-15 (a pro-inflammatory cytokine), IL-18 (interferon-gamma inducing factor), and placental growth factor (an angiogenic cytokine) correctly classified patients with a diminished vaccine response assessed at day 49 with >80% accuracy. Amongst these, CRP showed the highest predictive value for poor response to vaccine administration. Importantly, this unique signature of vaccine response was present at different studied timepoints both before and after vaccination and was not majorly affected by different anti-cancer treatments.

Conclusion

We propose a blood-based signature of cytokines and growth factors that can be employed in identifying cancer patients at persistent high risk of COVID-19 despite vaccination with BNT162b2. Our data also suggest that such a signature may reflect the inherent immunological constitution of some cancer patients who are refractive to immunotherapy.

Preserved T-cell response in anti-CD20-treated multiple sclerosis patients following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination

Background:

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has tremendous implications for the management of patients with autoimmune conditions such as multiple sclerosis (MS) under immune therapies targeting CD20⁺ B cells (aCD20).

Objectives:

Here, we investigated humoral and cellular immune responses, including anti-spike titers, neutralization against SARS-CoV-2 wild-type (WT), delta, and omicron variant and T cell responses of aCD20-treated relapsing–remitting MS patients following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination compared with healthy controls.

Methods:

Blood samples were collected within 4–8 weeks following the second vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. Sera were analyzed for anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike antibodies and neutralization capacity against pseudovirus for wild-type (WT), delta, and omicron variant. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) were stimulated with a SARS-CoV-2 peptide pool and analyzed via flow cytometry.

Results:

The aCD20-treated MS patients had lower anti-SARS-CoV-2-spike titers, which correlated with B cell repopulation. Sera of aCD20-treated patients had reduced capacity to neutralize WT, delta, and omicron pseudoviruses in vitro. On the contrary, PBMCs of aCD20-treated patients elicited higher frequencies of CD3⁺ T cells and CD4⁺ T cells and comparable response of cytotoxic T cells, while Th1 response was reduced following restimulation with SARS-CoV-2.

Conclusion:

In summary, aCD20-treated patients have a reduced humoral immune response, depending on B cell repopulation, in accordance with preserved cellular immune response, suggesting partial cellular protection against SARS-CoV-2.

The Interplay of Lung Cancer, COVID-19, and Vaccines

Patients with cancer are more susceptible to a higher risk of coronavirus infection and its severe complications than the general population. In addition, these patients were not included in the pivotal clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccines. Therefore, considerable uncertainty remains regarding the management of cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic and the safety of COVID-19 vaccinations in cancer patients. In this review, we summarize the current knowledge generated from the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic on the vulnerability of cancer patients to the coronavirus disease, as well as the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in this population. We also discuss the available data on the effects of anticancer treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors on the immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 in cancer patients. Special attention in this review will be given to patients with lung cancer, as such patients are at an increased risk for severe effects from COVID-19.

Immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with cancer

Transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and its corresponding disease (COVID-19) has been shown to impose a higher burden on cancer patients than on the general population. Approved vaccines for use include new technology mRNA vaccines such as BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna), and nonreplicating viral vector vaccines such as Ad26.COV2.S (Johnson & Johnson) and AZD1222 (AstraZeneca). Impaired or delayed humoral and diminished T-cell responses are evident in patients with cancer, especially in patients with haematological cancers or those under active chemotherapy. Herein we review the current data on vaccine immunogenicity in cancer patients, including recommendations for current practice and future research.

Seroconversion rate after COVID-19 vaccination in patients with solid cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Patients with solid cancer have an increased risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and associated mortality than the general population. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the currently available evidence about the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in patients with solid cancer. We included prospective studies comparing the immunogenicity and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines between patients with solid cancer and healthy individuals. Relative risks of seroconversion after the first and second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine were separately pooled with the use of random effects meta-analysis. Thirty studies with 11,245 subjects met the inclusion criteria. After first vaccine dose, the pooled RR of seroconversion in patients with solid cancer vs healthy individuals was 0.54 (95% CI 0.38-0.78, I² = 94%). After a second dose, the pooled RR of seroconversion in patients with solid cancer vs healthy controls was 0.87 (0.86-0.88, I² = 87%). Our review suggests that, compared with healthy individuals, COVID-19 vaccines show favorable immunogenicity and efficacy in patients with solid cancer. A second dose is associated with significantly improved seroconversion, although it is slightly lower in patients with solid cancer compared with healthy individuals.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccine breakthrough infections: A single metro-based testing network experience

Objectives

Understanding the incidence and characteristics that influence severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine breakthrough infections (VBIs) is imperative for developing public health policies to mitigate the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We examined these factors and post-vaccination mitigation practices in individuals partially and fully vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2.

Materials and methods

Adults >18 years old were voluntarily enrolled from a single metro-based SARS-CoV-2 testing network from January to July 2021. Participants were categorized as asymptomatic or symptomatic, and as unvaccinated, partially vaccinated, or fully vaccinated. All participants had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection based on standard of care (SOC) testing with nasopharyngeal swabs. Variant analysis by rRT-PCR was performed in a subset of time-matched vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. A subgroup of partially and fully vaccinated individuals with a positive SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR was contacted to assess disease severity and post-vaccination mitigation practices.

Results

Participants (n = 1,317) voluntarily underwent testing for SARS-CoV-2 during the enrollment period. A total of 29.5% of the population received at least one SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (n = 389), 12.8% partially vaccinated (n = 169); 16.1% fully vaccinated (n = 213). A total of 21.3% of partially vaccinated individuals tested positive (n = 36) and 9.4% of fully vaccinated individuals tested positive (n = 20) for SARS-CoV-2. Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA-1273 was the predominant vaccine received (1st dose = 66.8%, 2nd dose = 67.9%). Chronic liver disease and immunosuppression were more prevalent in the vaccinated (partially/fully) group compared to the unvaccinated group (p = 0.003, p = 0.021, respectively). There were more asymptomatic individuals in the vaccinated group compared to the unvaccinated group [n = 6 (10.7%), n = 16 (4.1%), p = 0.045]. C_T values were lower for the unvaccinated group (median 24.3, IQR 19.1-30.5) compared to the vaccinated group (29.4, 22.0-33.7, p = 0.004). In the vaccinated group (n = 56), 18 participants were successfully contacted, 7 were lost to follow-up, and 2 were deceased. A total of 50% (n = 9) required hospitalization due to COVID-19 illness. Adherence to nationally endorsed mitigation strategies varied post-vaccination.

Conclusion

The incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at this center was 21.3% in the partially vaccinated group and 9.4% in the fully vaccinated group. Chronic liver disease and immunosuppression were more prevalent in the vaccinated SARS-CoV-2 positive group, suggesting that these may be risk factors for VBIs. Partially and fully vaccinated individuals had a higher incidence of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 and higher C_T values compared to unvaccinated SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals.

Antibody response after vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in adults with hematological malignancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 have shown remarkable efficacy and thus constitute an important preventive option against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), especially in fragile patients. We aimed to systematically analyze the outcomes of patients with hematological malignancies who received vaccination and to identify specific groups with differences in outcomes. The primary end point was antibody response after full vaccination (2 doses of mRNA or one dose of vector- based vaccines). We identified 49 studies comprising 11,086 individuals. Overall risk of bias was low. The pooled response for hematological malignancies was 64% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 59-69; I²=93%) versus 96% (95% CI: 92-97; I²=44%) for solid cancer and 98% (95% CI: 96-99; I²=55%) for healthy controls (P<0.001). Outcome was different across hematological malignancies (P<0.001). The pooled response was 50% (95% CI: 43-57; I²=84%) for chronic lymphocytic leukemia, 76% (95% CI: 67-83; I²=92%) for multiple myeloma, 83% (95% CI: 69-91; I²=85%) for myeloproliferative neoplasms, 91% (95% CI: 82-96; I²=12%) for Hodgkin lymphoma, and 58% (95% CI: 44-70; I²=84%) for aggressive and 61% (95% CI: 48-72; I²=85%) for indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The pooled response for allogeneic and autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation was 82% and 83%, respectively. Being in remission and prior COVID-19 showed significantly higher responses. Low pooled response was identified for active treatment (35%), anti-CD20 therapy ≤1 year (15%), Bruton kinase inhibition (23%), venetoclax (26%), ruxolitinib (42%), and chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (42%). Studies on timing, value of boosters, and long-term efficacy are needed. This study is registered with PROSPERO (clinicaltrials gov. Identifier: CRD42021279051).

Cancer Patients and the COVID-19 Vaccines: Considerations and Challenges

Few guidelines exist for COVID-19 vaccination amongst cancer patients, fostering uncertainty regarding the immunogenicity, safety, and effects of cancer therapies on vaccination, which this review aims to address. A literature review was conducted to include the latest articles covering the immunogenicity and safety of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with solid and hematologic cancers receiving various treatments. Lower seropositivity following vaccination was associated with malignancy (compared to the general population), and hematologic malignancy (compared to solid cancers). Patients receiving active cancer therapy (unspecified), chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and immunosuppressants generally demonstrated lower seropositivity compared to healthy controls; though checkpoint inhibition, endocrine therapy, and cyclin dependent kinase inhibition did not appear to affect seropositivity. Vaccination appeared safe and well-tolerated in patients with current or past cancer and those undergoing treatment. Adverse events were comparable to the general population, but inflammatory lymphadenopathy following vaccination was commonly reported and may be mistaken for malignant etiology. Additionally, radiation recall phenomenon was sporadically reported in patients who had received radiotherapy. Overall, while seropositivity rates were decreased, cancer patients showed capacity to generate safe and effective immune responses to COVID-19 vaccination, thus vaccination should be encouraged and hesitancy should be addressed in this population.

Efficacy of COVID-19 Booster Vaccines in Patients with Hematologic Malignancies: Experiences in a Real-World Scenario

Background: Two-dose COVID-19 vaccination often results in poor humoral response rates in patients with hematologic malignancies (HMs); yet responses to COVID-19 booster vaccines and the risk of COVID-19 infection post-booster are mostly uncertain. Methods: We included 200 outpatients with HMs and predominantly lymphoid neoplasms (96%, 191/200) in our academic center and reported on the humoral responses, which were assessed by measurement of anti-spike IgG antibodies in peripheral blood as early as 14 days after mRNA-based prime-boost vaccination, as well as factors hampering booster efficacy. Previous basic (double) immunization was applied according to the local recommendations with mRNA- and/or vector-based vaccines. We also report on post-booster COVID-19 breakthrough infections that emerged in the Omicron era and the prophylaxis strategies that were applied to poor and non-responders to booster vaccines. Results: A total of 55% (110/200) of the patients achieved seroconversion (i.e., anti-spike protein IgG antibody titer > 100 AU/mL assessed in median 48 days after prime-boost vaccination) after prime-boost vaccination. Multivariable analyses revealed age, lymphocytopenia, ongoing treatment and prior anti-CD20 B-cell depletion to be independent predictors for booster failure. With each month between anti-CD20-mediated B-cell depletion and booster vaccination, the probability of seroconversion increased by approximately 4% (p < 0.001) and serum−antibody titer (S-AbT) levels increased by 90 AU/mL (p = 0.011). Notably, obinutuzumab treatment was associated with an 85% lower probability for seroconversion after prime-boost vaccination compared to rituximab (p = 0.002). Of poor or non-responders to prime-boost vaccination, 41% (47/114) underwent a second booster and 73% (83/114) underwent passive immunization. COVID-19 breakthrough infections were observed in 15% (29/200) of patients after prime-boost vaccination with predominantly mild courses (93%). Next to seroconversion, passive immunization was associated with a significantly lower risk of COVID-19 breakthrough infections after booster, even in vaccine non-responders (all p < 0.05). In a small proportion of analyzed patients with myeloid neoplasms (9/200), the seroconversion rate was higher compared to those with lymphoid ones (78% vs. 54%, accordingly), while the incidence rate of COVID-19 breakthrough infections was similar (22% vs. 14%, respectively). Following the low frequency of myeloid neoplasms in this study, the results may not be automatically applied to a larger cohort. Conclusions: Patients with HMs are at a high risk of COVID-19 booster vaccine failure; yet COVID-19 breakthrough infections after prime-boost vaccination are predominantly mild. Booster failure can likely be overcome by passive immunization, thereby providing immune protection against COVID-19 and attenuating the severity of COVID-19 courses. Further sophistication of clinical algorithms for preventing post-vaccination COVID-19 breakthrough infections is urgently needed.

Safety and immunogenicity of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in people with gastrointestinal cancer

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of inactivated COVID-19 vaccines in patients with gastrointestinal cancer (GI) cancer. The role of memory B cells (MBCs) in the humoral response to COVID-19 vaccination was also investigated.

METHODS

In this prospective observational study, GI cancer patients and healthy individuals who had received 2 doses of inactivated COVID-19 vaccines were included. The data regarding adverse effects, serum anti-receptor binding domain (RBD)-IgG, neutralizing antibodies (NAbs), and frequencies of MBCs were collected prospectively.

RESULTS

The inactivated COVID-19 vaccines were safe and well tolerated. Serum anti-RBG-IgG and NAbs were lower for cancer patients. Old age, high ASA score, and receiving active chemotherapy were risk factors for lower antibody titers. The frequencies of activated and resting MBCs decreased in (17.45% vs 38.11%, P = 0.002; 16.98% vs 34.13%, P = 0.023), while the frequencies of intermediate and atypical MBCs increased in cancer patients (40.06% vs 19.87%, P = 0.010; 25.47% vs 16.61%, P = 0.025). The serum antibody titer decreased gradually during follow-up but increased when a booster vaccine was given.

CONCLUSION

The inactivated COVID-19 vaccines were well tolerated in patients with GI cancer but with lower immunogenicity. The subpopulations of MBCs were disordered in cancer patients, and a booster vaccine may be prioritized for them.

The evolving scenario of cancer care provision across the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Over the past 2 years, the COVID-19 pandemic has had short-term and long-term effects on the delivery of cancer care. Some European countries faced an unprecedented widespread crisis during the first year of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, only being able afterwards to gradually recover, thanks to the improvement in preventive measures, changes in public health and reactive processes in cancer care and a better understanding of the ongoing heath emergency.

RECENT FINDINGS

The development of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and COVID-19 specific treatments, the growing testing and tracking capability to limit virus diffusion, and research efforts to better define areas of action have all greatly limited the negative impact of the health emergency on routine cancer care.The need to protect those more vulnerable and to ensure continuity of care for oncology patients has been balanced across the pandemic, with the aim to guarantee an optimal standard of care.

SUMMARY

This article aims to provide an overview on the evolving scenario of cancer care throughout the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe, focusing on the particular features that characterized the pandemic course as well as the main differences that were observed across it.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of immune response against first and second doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in adult patients with hematological malignancies

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients particularly those with hematological malignancies are at higher risk of affecting by severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to the immunocompromised nature of the disease and the immunosuppressive treatments, they are more likely to develop less antibody protection; therefore, we aimed to evaluate the immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines in patients with hematological malignancies.

METHODS

A comprehensive systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases, as well as Google scholar search engine as of December 10, 2021. Our primary outcomes of interest comprised of estimating the antibody seropositive rate following COVID-19 vaccination in patients with hematological malignancies and to compare it with those who were affected by solid tumors or healthy subjects. The secondary outcomes were to assess the vaccine's immunogenicity based on different treatments, status of the disease, and type of vaccine. After the two-step screening, the data were extracted and the summary measures were calculated using a random-effect model.

RESULTS

A total of 82 articles recording 13,804 patients with a diagnosis of malignancy were included in the present review. The seropositive rates in patients with hematological malignancies after first and second vaccine doses were 30.0% (95% confidence interval (95%CI): 11.9-52.0) and 62.3% (95%CI 56.0-68.5), respectively. These patients were less likely to develop antibody response as compared to cases with solid tumors (RR 0.73, 95%CI 0.67-0.79) and healthy subjects (RR 0.62, 95%CI 0.54-0.71) following complete immunization. Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients had the lowest response rate among all subtypes of hematological malignancies (first dose: 22.0%, 95%CI 13.5-31.8 and second dose: 47.8%, 95%CI 41.2-54.4). Besides, anti-CD20 therapies (5.7%, 95%CI 2.0-10.6) and bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors (26.8%, 95%CI 16.9-37.8) represented the lowest seropositiveness post first and second doses, respectively. Notably, patients who were in active status of disease showed lower antibody detection rate compared to those on remission status (RR 0.87, 95%CI 0.76-0.99). Furthermore, lower rate of seropositivity was found in patients received BNT162.b2 compared to ones who received mRNA-1273 (RR 0.89, 95%CI 0.79-0.99).

CONCLUSION

Our findings highlight the substantially low rate of seroprotection in patients with hematological malignancies with a wide range of rates among disease subgroups and different treatments; further highlighting the fact that booster doses might be acquired for these patients to improve immunity against SARS-CoV-2.

COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine in Patients With Lymphoid Malignancy or Anti-CD20 Antibody Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The humoral response to vaccination in individuals with lymphoid malignancies or those undergoing anti-CD20 antibody therapy is impaired, but details of the response to mRNA vaccines to protect against COVID-19 remain unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to characterize the response to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in patients with lymphoid malignancies or those undergoing anti-CD20 antibody therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature search retrieved 52 relevant articles, and random-effect models were used to analyze humoral and cellular responses.

RESULTS

Lymphoid malignancies and anti-CD20 antibody therapy for non-malignancies were significantly associated with lower seropositivity rates (risk ratio 0.60 [95% CI 0.53-0.69]; risk ratio 0.45 [95% CI 0.39-0.52], respectively). Some subtypes (chronic lymphocytic leukemia, treatment-naïve chronic lymphocytic leukemia, myeloma, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma) exhibited impaired humoral response. Anti-CD20 antibody therapy within 6 months of vaccination decreased humoral response; moreover, therapy > 12 months before vaccination still impaired the humoral response. However, anti-CD20 antibody therapy in non-malignant patients did not attenuate T cell responses.

CONCLUSION

These data suggest that patients with lymphoid malignancies or those undergoing anti-CD20 antibody therapy experience an impaired humoral response, but cellular response can be detected independent of anti-CD20 antibody therapy. Studies with long-term follow-up of vaccine effectiveness are warranted (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021265780).

Humoral and cellular responses to mRNA-based COVID-19 booster vaccinations in patients with solid neoplasms under active treatment

Background

Patients with cancer are at high risk for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. Knowledge regarding the efficacy of the messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines in actively treated cancer patients is limited as they had been excluded from the pivotal studies of these vaccines. We evaluated humoral and cellular immune responses in cancer patients after double vaccination and a booster dose and identified disease- and treatment-related factors associated with a reduced immune response. We also documented the number and outcome of breakthrough infections.

Patients and methods

Patients with metastatic solid malignancies undergoing active treatment were included if they had received two doses of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 mRNA vaccines BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 and a booster dose. Other causes of immunosuppression and previous COVID-19 infections (positive anti-nucleocapsid titers) were exclusion criteria. Anti-spike antibodies, neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) and T-cell responses were assessed about 6 months after the two-dose vaccination and 4 weeks after the booster.

Results

Fifty-one patients had pre-booster and 46 post-booster measurements. Anti-spike titers after two vaccine doses were highly variable and significantly lower in older patients, during treatment with chemotherapy compared to targeted and endocrine treatments and in patients with low CD4+ or CD19+ cell counts. The booster dose led to a significant increase in anti-spike antibodies and nAbs, achieving almost uniformly high titers, irrespective of baseline and treatment factors. The cellular immune response was also significantly increased by the booster, however generally more stable and not influenced by baseline factors and treatment type. Seventeen patients (33%) experienced breakthrough infections, but none required hospital care or died from COVID-19.

Conclusions

An mRNA vaccine booster dose is able to increase humoral and cellular immune responses and to overcome the immunosuppressive influence of baseline and treatment factors in cancer patients. Breakthrough infections were uniformly mild in this vaccinated high-risk population.

•

We provide data on humoral and cellular immunity after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination in actively treated cancer patients.

•

We found highly variable anti-S titers after two doses; titers were influenced by several baseline and treatment factors.

•

The booster achieved uniformly higher anti-S titers; the influence of baseline factors could be overcome by the booster.

•

Spike-specific T-cell immunity was more stable and not influenced by baseline factors.

•

Even though many breakthrough infections were recorded during the Omicron wave, they were uniformly mild.

Brief Research Report: Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Immunity in Long Lasting Responders to Cancer Immunotherapy Through mRNA-Based COVID-19 Vaccination

Cancer patients (CPs) have been identified as particularly vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 infection, and therefore are a priority group for receiving COVID-19 vaccination. From the patients with advanced solid tumors, about 20% respond very efficiently to immunotherapy with anti-PD1/PD-L1 antibodies and achieve long lasting cancer responses. It is unclear whether an efficient cancer-specific immune response may also correlate with an efficient response upon COVID-19 vaccination. Here, we explored the antiviral immune response to the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine BNT162b2 in a group of 11 long-lasting cancer immunotherapy responders. We analysed the development of SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG serum antibodies, virus neutralizing capacities and T cell responses. Control groups included patients treated with adjuvant cancer immunotherapy (IMT, cohort B), CPs not treated with immunotherapy (no-IMT, cohort C) and healthy controls (cohort A). The median ELISA IgG titers significantly increased after the prime-boost COVID vaccine regimen in all cohorts (Cohort A: pre-vaccine = 900 (100-2700), 3 weeks (w) post-boost = 24300 (2700-72900); Cohort B: pre-vaccine = 300 (100-2700), 3 w post-boost = 8100 (300-72900); Cohort C: pre-vaccine = 500 (100-2700), 3 w post-boost = 24300 (300-72900)). However, at the 3 w post-prime time-point, only the healthy control group showed a statistically significant increase in antibody levels (Cohort A = 8100 (900-8100); Cohort B = 900 (300-8100); Cohort C = 900 (300-8100)) (P < 0.05). Strikingly, while all healthy controls generated high-level antibody responses after the complete prime-boost regimen (Cohort A = 15/15 (100%), not all CPs behaved alike [Cohort B= 12/14 (84'6%); Cohort C= 5/6 (83%)]. Their responses, including those of the long-lasting immunotherapy responders, were more variable (Cohort A: 3 w post-boost (median nAb titers = 95.32 (84.09-96.93), median Spike-specific IFN-γ response = 64 (24-150); Cohort B: 3 w post-boost (median nAb titers = 85.62 (8.22-97.19), median Spike-specific IFN-γ response (28 (1-372); Cohort C: 3 w post-boost (median nAb titers = 95.87 (11.8-97.3), median Spike-specific IFN-γ response = 67 (20-84)). Two long-lasting cancer responders did not respond properly to the prime-boost vaccination and did not generate S-specific IgGs, neutralizing antibodies or virus-specific T cells, although their cancer immune control persisted for years. Thus, although mRNA-based vaccines can induce both antibody and T cell responses in CPs, the immune response to COVID vaccination is independent of the capacity to develop an efficient anti-cancer immune response to anti PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies.

SARS-CoV-2 vaccine safety and immunogenicity in patients with hematologic malignancies, transplantation, and cellular therapies

Individuals with hematological malignancies and hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HCT) recipients are immunologically heterogenous groups with varying degrees of immunosuppression at increased risk of severe disease and mortality from SARS-CoV-2 infection. SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are key interventions to preventing severe COVID-19 and its complications. While these individuals were excluded from initial vaccine trials, there is now a growing body of acceptable safety and immunogenicity data among these individuals. A consistent signal for new or worsening graft versus host disease in allogeneic HCT recipients has not been demonstrated post-vaccination. Immunogenicity in these populations is variable depending on disease and treatment factors. However, serological responses may not accurately reflect vaccine protection as correlates of protection within these populations are not yet established. Large-scale studies powered to identify rare serious events, resolve differences in vaccine responses between different vaccination strategies, and identify immune correlates of protection within these populations are needed.

Solid cancer patients achieve adequate immunogenicity and low rate of severe adverse events after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination

Background: SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in cancer patients is crucial to prevent severe COVID-19 disease course. Methods: This study assessed immunogenicity of cancer patients on active treatment receiving mRNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccine by detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1 IgG antibodies in serum, before, after the first and second doses and 3 months after a complete primary course of vaccination. Results were compared with healthy controls. Results: Of 112 patients, the seroconversion rate was 96%. A significant reduction in antibody levels was observed 3 months after vaccination in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors versus control participants (p < 0.001). Adverse events were mostly mild. Conclusion: Immunogenicity after mRNA-based vaccine in cancer patients is adequate but influenced by the type of anticancer therapy. Antibody levels decline after 3 months, and thus a third vaccination is warranted.

Breakthrough infections after COVID-19 vaccination: Insights, perspectives and challenges

Vaccination programs against SARS-CoV-2 constitute the mainstay of public health interventions against the global COVID-19 pandemic. Currently available vaccines have shown 90% or better rates of protection against severe disease and mortality. Barely a year after vaccines became available, the Omicron variant and its unprecedented speed of transmission has posed a new challenge. Overall, Omicron presents increased immune escape, transmissibility, and decreased pathogenicity. Vaccines do not offer a full protection against SARS-CoV-2 acquisition, since "breakthrough" infections may occur in fully vaccinated individuals, who may in turn spread the virus to others. Breakthrough infections may be causally related to the viral profile (viral variant and load, incubation period, transmissibility, pathogenicity, immune evasion), immunity characteristics (mucosal versus systemic immunity, duration of immunity, etc.), host determinants (age, comorbidities, immune status, immunosuppressive drugs) and vaccination properties (platform, antigen dose, dose number, dose interval, route of administration). Determining the rate of breakthrough infections may be challenging and necessitates the conduction of population-based studies regarding vaccine effectiveness as well as neutralizing antibody testing, a surrogate of immune protection. In this review, we analyze the causes of breakthrough infections, their clinical consequences (severity of infection and transmission), methods of determining their incidence as well as challenges and perspectives. Long COVID as well as multi-inflammatory syndrome in adolescents may be significantly reduced in breakthrough infections. The need for universal pancoranavirus vaccines that would aim at protecting against a plethora of SARS-CoV-2 variants as well as emerging variants is discussed. Finally, novel vaccine strategies, such as nasal vaccines, may confer robust mucosal and systemic protection, reducing efficiently transmission.

COVID-19 vaccines in patients with cancer: immunogenicity, efficacy and safety

Patients with cancer have a higher risk of severe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and associated mortality than the general population. Owing to this increased risk, patients with cancer have been prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination globally, for both primary and booster vaccinations. However, given that these patients were not included in the pivotal clinical trials, considerable uncertainty remains regarding vaccine efficacy, and the extent of humoral and cellular immune responses in these patients, as well as the risks of vaccine-related adverse events. In this Review, we summarize the current knowledge generated in studies conducted since COVID-19 vaccines first became available. We also highlight critical points that might affect vaccine efficacy in patients with cancer in the future.

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody response after 2 and 3 doses of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine in patients with lymphoid malignancies

OBJECTIVES

COVID-19 patients affected by haematological malignancies have a more severe course of the disease and higher mortality, prompting for effective prophylaxis. The present study aims to evaluate the humoral response after mRNA vaccination as well as the impact of a third vaccine dose in patients with lymphoid malignancies.

METHODS

We conducted a single-centre study, evaluating the serological responses of mRNA vaccination amongst a cohort of 200 patients affected by lymphoid malignancies after two or three doses using an industrial SARS-CoV-2 serology assay for anti-receptor binding domain (RBD) Spike IgG detection and quantification.

RESULTS

Among patients with plasma cell disorders, 59 of 96 (61%) had seroconversion (anti-RBD >50 AU/mL), and recent anti-CD38 therapies were associated with lower serological anti-RBD IgG concentrations (median IgG concentration 137 (IQR 0-512) AU/mL vs. 543 (IQR 35-3496) AU/mL; p < 0.001). Patients with B-cell malignancies had a lower seroconversion rate (20/84, 24%) mainly due to the broad usage of anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies; only 2 of 53 (4%) patients treated by anti-CD20 antibodies during the last 12 months experienced a seroconversion. A total of 78 patients (44 with plasma cell disorders, 27 with B-cell malignancies, and 7 with other lymphomas) received a third dose of vaccine. The seroconversion rate and antibody concentrations increased significantly, especially in patients with plasma cell disorders, where an increment of anti-RBD IgG concentrations was observed in 31 of 44 (70%) patients, with an anti-RBD concentration median-fold increase of 10.6 (IQR 2.4-25.5). Its benefit in B-cell malignancies is uncertain, with only 2 of 25 (8%) patients having seroconverted after the vaccine booster, without increased median antibody concentration.

DISCUSSION

A third mRNA vaccine dose significantly improved humoral responses among patients with plasma cell disorders, whereas the effect was limited among patients with B-cell malignancies.

Effectiveness, immunogenicity, and safety of COVID-19 vaccines for individuals with hematological malignancies: a systematic review

The efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with hematological malignancies (HM) appears limited due to disease and treatment-associated immune impairment. We conducted a systematic review of prospective studies published from 10/12/2021 onwards in medical databases to assess clinical efficacy parameters, humoral and cellular immunogenicity and adverse events (AE) following two doses of COVID-19 approved vaccines. In 57 eligible studies reporting 7393 patients, clinical outcomes were rarely reported and rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection (range 0–11.9%), symptomatic disease (0–2.7%), hospital admission (0–2.8%), or death (0–0.5%) were low. Seroconversion rates ranged from 38.1–99.1% across studies with the highest response rate in myeloproliferative diseases and the lowest in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Patients with B-cell depleting treatment had lower seroconversion rates as compared to other targeted treatments or chemotherapy. The vaccine-induced T-cell response was rarely and heterogeneously reported (26.5–85.9%). Similarly, AEs were rarely reported (0–50.9% ≥1 AE, 0–7.5% ≥1 serious AE). In conclusion, HM patients present impaired humoral and cellular immune response to COVID-19 vaccination with disease and treatment specific response patterns. In light of the ongoing pandemic with the easing of mitigation strategies, new approaches to avert severe infection are urgently needed for this vulnerable patient population that responds poorly to current COVID-19 vaccine regimens.

Risk of SARS-CoV-2 Breakthrough Infection in Vaccinated Cancer Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Although messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines have established efficacy for prevention of severe SARS-CoV2 infection in the general population, their effectiveness in patients with malignancy, especially those on anti-neoplastic therapies, remains an area of open research. In order to better understand the risk of developing breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection and the outcomes associated with breakthrough infection for cancer patients, individual patient data from a curated outcomes database at the University of Kansas were retrospectively reviewed to determine the rate of breakthrough infection during an 8-month period encompassing the height of the delta variant surge. Although the rate of breakthrough infection in cancer patients after two doses of an mRNA vaccine remained low at 1.1%, hospitalization and death rates were 27 and 5%, respectively. Patients with hematologic malignancies, especially multiple myeloma, and those on anti-neoplastic therapy at the time of vaccination were found to be at higher risk for developing breakthrough infection.

SARS-CoV-2-mRNA Booster Vaccination Reverses Non-Responsiveness and Early Antibody Waning in Immunocompromised Patients – A Phase Four Study Comparing Immune Responses in Patients With Solid Cancers, Multiple Myeloma and Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Background

Individuals with secondary immunodeficiencies belong to the most vulnerable groups to succumb to COVID-19 and thus are prioritized for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. However, knowledge about the persistence and anamnestic responses following SARS-CoV-2-mRNA vaccinations is limited in these patients.

Methods

In a prospective, open-label, phase four trial we analyzed S1-specific IgG, neutralizing antibodies and cytokine responses in previously non-infected patients with cancer or autoimmune disease during primary mRNA vaccination and up to one month after booster.

Results

263 patients with solid tumors (SOT, n=63), multiple myeloma (MM, n=70), inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD, n=130) and 66 controls were analyzed. One month after the two-dose primary vaccination the highest non-responder rate was associated with lower CD19+ B-cell counts and was found in MM patients (17%). S1-specific IgG levels correlated with IL-2 and IFN-γ responses in controls and IBD patients, but not in cancer patients. Six months after the second dose, 18% of patients with MM, 10% with SOT and 4% with IBD became seronegative; no one from the control group became negative. However, in IBD patients treated with TNF-α inhibitors, antibody levels declined more rapidly than in controls. Overall, vaccination with mRNA-1273 led to higher antibody levels than with BNT162b2. Importantly, booster vaccination increased antibody levels &gt;8-fold in seroresponders and induced anamnestic responses even in those with undetectable pre-booster antibody levels. Nevertheless, in IBD patients with TNF-α inhibitors even after booster vaccination, antibody levels were lower than in untreated IBD patients and controls.

Conclusion

Immunomonitoring of vaccine-specific antibody and cellular responses seems advisable to identify vaccination failures and consequently establishing personalized vaccination schedules, including shorter booster intervals, and helps to improve vaccine effectiveness in all patients with secondary immunodeficiencies.

Trial registration

EudraCT Number: 2021-000291-11

COVID-19 in patients with hematologic malignancy

The coronavirus infectious disease (COVID-19) shows a remarkable symptomatic heterogeneity. Several risk factors including advanced age, previous illnesses and a compromised immune system contribute to an unfavorable outcome. In patients with hematologic malignancy, the immune response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is significantly reduced explaining why the mortality rate of hematologic patients hospitalized for a SARS-CoV-2 infection is about 34%. Active immunization is an essential pillar to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections in patients with hematologic malignancy. However, the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines may be significantly impaired, as only half of patients with hematologic malignancy develop a measurable anti-viral antibody response. The subtype of hematologic malignancy and B-cell depleting treatment predict a poor immune response to vaccination. Recently, antiviral drugs and monoclonal antibodies for pre-exposure or post-exposure prophylaxis and for early treatment of COVID-19 have become available. These therapies should be offered to patients at high risk for severe COVID-19 and vaccine non-responder. Importantly, as the virus evolves, some therapies may lose their clinical efficacy against new variants. Therefore, the ongoing pandemic will remain a major challenge for patients with hematologic malignancy and their caregivers who need to constantly monitor the scientific progress in this area.