Efficacy of accelerated hepatitis B vaccination program in patients being actively treated for hematologic malignancies

Non-Myelofibrosis Chronic Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Patients Show Better Seroconversion Rates after SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination Compared to Other Hematologic Diseases: A Multicentric Prospective Study of KroHem

Disease- and treatment-mediated immunodeficiency might render SARS-CoV-2 vaccines less effective in patients with hematologic diseases. We performed a prospective non-interventional study to evaluate humoral response after one and two doses of mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in 118 patients with different malignant or non-malignant hematologic diseases from three Croatian treatment centers. An electrochemiluminescent assay was used to measure total anti-SARS-CoV-2 S-RBD antibody titers. After one vaccine dose, 20/66 (33%) achieved seropositivity with a median antibody titer of 6.1 U/mL. The response rate (58/90, 64.4%) and median antibody titer (>250 U/mL) were higher after two doses. Seropositivity varied with diagnosis (overall p < 0.001), with the lowest rates in lymphoma (34.6%) and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (52.5%). The overall response rate in chronic myeloproliferative neoplasms (CMPN) was 81.3% but reached 100% in chronic myeloid leukemia and other non-myelofibrosis CMPN. At univariable analysis, age > 67 years, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, active treatment, and anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody therapy increased the likelihood of no vaccine response, while hematopoietic stem cell recipients were more likely to respond. Age and anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody therapy remained associated with no response in a multivariable model. Patients with the hematologic disease have attenuated responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, and significant variations in different disease subgroups warrant an individualized approach.

Impaired serological response to COVID-19 vaccination following anti-cancer therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Owing to the high coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19)‐related morbidity and fatality rate among patients with cancer, the introduction of COVID‐19 vaccines is of profound significance in this fragile population. Accumulating data suggested that oncologic patients, especially those with anticancer therapy have an impaired immune response to COVID‐19 vaccination. However, the exact effect of anticancer treatments on postvaccination response has not been elucidated yet. We, therefore, conducted a meta‐analysis to evaluate the impact of treatments on response to COVID‐19 vaccination in patients with cancer. A total of 39 studies were finally included comprising 11 075 oncologic patients. Overall, we found the humoral response was significantly decreased in patients undergoing anticancer treatments (odds ratio [OR] = 2.55, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.04–3.18) compared with those without active treatment. The seroconversion rates were significantly lower in patients with chemotherapy (OR = 3.04, 95% CI: 2.28–4.05), targeted therapy (OR = 4.72, 95% CI: 3.18–7.01) and steroid usage (OR = 2.19, 95% CI: 1.57–3.07), while there was no significant association between immunotherapy or hormonal therapy and seroconversion after vaccination. Subgroup analyses showed therapies with anti‐CD20 antibody (OR = 11.28, 95% CI: 6.40–19.90), B‐cell lymphoma 2 inhibitor (OR = 5.76, 95% CI: 3.64–9.10), and Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (OR = 6.86, 95% CI: 4.23–11.15) were significantly correlated with the risk of negative humoral response to vaccination. In conclusion, our results demonstrated that specific oncologic therapies may significantly affect serological response to COVID‐19 vaccines in patients with cancer. Thus, an adapted vaccination strategy taking the influence of active treatment into account is in need, and further research on the effect of the third dose of vaccine and the role of postvaccination cellular response in oncologic patients is also needed.

BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine is significantly less effective in patients with hematologic malignancies

Patients with hematologic malignancies have an increased risk of severe COVID-19 infection. Vaccination against COVID-19 is especially important in these patients, but whether they develop an immune response following vaccination is unknown. We studied serologic responses to the BNT162b2 vaccine in this population. A lower proportion of patients were seropositive following vaccination (75%) than in a comparison group (99%; p < 0.001), and median (interquartile range [IQR]) antibody titers in patients were lower (90 [12.4-185.5] and 173 [133-232] AU/ml, respectively; p < 0.001). Older age, higher lactate dehydrogenase, and number of treatment lines correlated with lower seropositivity likelihood and antibody titers, while absolute lymphocyte count, globulin level, and time from last treatment to vaccination correlated with higher seropositivity likelihood and antibody titers. Chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients had the lowest seropositivity rate followed by indolent lymphoma. Patients recently treated with chemo-immunotherapy, anti-CD20 antibodies, BCL2, BTK or JAK2 inhibitors had significantly less seropositive responses and lower median (IQR) antibody titers (29%, 1.9 [1.9-12] AU/ml; 0%, 1.9 [1.9-1.9] AU/ml; 25%, 1.9 [1.9-25] AU/ml; 40%, 1.9 [1.9-92.8] AU/ml; and 42%, 10.9 [5.7-66.4] AU/ml, respectively; p < 0.001). Serological response to BNT162b2 vaccine in patients with hematologic malignancies is considerably impaired, and they could remain at risk for severe COVID-19 infection and death.

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

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

Screening, monitoring, prevention, prophylaxis and therapy for hepatitis B virus reactivation in patients with haematologic malignancies and patients who underwent haematologic stem cell transplantation: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The growth of new therapeutic options and practices increases the risk of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation in patients with haematologic malignancies and/or patients undergoing haematologic stem cell transplantation (HSCT).

OBJECTIVES

To provide a systematic review supporting recommendations for prevention, monitoring, prophylaxis and therapy of HBV reactivation in patients with haematologic malignancies and HSCT.

DATA SOURCES

The systematic review was based on a strategy using PubMed and the Cochrane Library searching literature published from 1991 to December 31, 2016. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines were followed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized control trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies.

RISK-OF-BIAS ASSESSMENT

Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and Newcastle Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale.

RESULTS

Forty-two studies of fair or good quality were included in this systematic review. The following main results were obtained: haematologic patients should be screened for HBV before chemotherapy; HBV DNA levels should be monthly monitored in all HBV-positive patients not receiving prophylaxis; hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)-positive haematologic patients and patients undergoing HSCT should receive prophylaxis and third-generation HBV drugs should be provided; and anti-hepatitis B core protein-positive lymphoma patients and patients who underwent HSCT should receive antiviral prophylaxis.

CONCLUSIONS

A higher quality of evidence is needed. However, the level of evidence was sufficient to support the recommendations published in this issue of the journal.

A Randomized Study Comparing the Efficacy of Three Hepatitis B Vaccine Induction Regimens in Adult Patients with Hematological Malignancies

Objective:

Non-responsiveness to hepatitis B virus (HBV) vaccines is not rare in hemato-oncological patients due to disease-associated or treatment-induced immune suppression. Although different strategies have been employed to improve the response rates, to date there is not an approved schedule for HBV immunization in patients with hematological malignancies. We designed a prospective randomized study to evaluate the efficacy of 3 different induction regimens for HBV vaccination.

Materials and Methods:

In the standard-dose (SD) group, total vaccine dose delivered was 40 µg and patients were vaccinated with 20 µg at weeks 0 and 4. In the high-dose dose-intensive (HDDI) group, total vaccine dose delivered was 80 µg and patients were vaccinated with 40 µg at weeks 0 and 4. In the high-dose time-intensive (HDTI) group, total vaccine dose delivered was 80 µg and patients were vaccinated with 20 µg at weeks 0, 2, 4, and 6.

Results:

In a cohort of 114 patients, 38.6% responded to HBV vaccination. The response rate in the SD arm, HDDI arm, and HDTI arm was 26.2%, 29.7%, and 44.4%, respectively (p>0.05). Age was the only variable identified as having a negative impact on response.

Conclusion:

Short of achieving statistical significance, a higher response rate was observed in the HDTI arm. Therefore, this study supports a high-dose, time-intensive HBV vaccine induction regimen in patients with hematological malignancies who are not on chemotherapy.

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

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy carries high morbidity and mortality. Conventional hepatitis B vaccination with three doses at 0, 1, and 6 months apart is ineffective in prevention of HBV infection.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of accelerated, multiple, double-dose HB vaccine with conventional HB vaccine in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy (CT).

METHODS

Patients of cancer who were planned for CT were screened for HBV markers (HBsAg, total anti-HB core, anti-HBs antibody and HBV DNA). Patients with negative HBV serum markers received HB vaccine in two groups. Group A received three double doses (40 μg) of recombinant HB vaccine at 0, 1, and 3 weeks before CT and additional three double doses post CT. Group B received HB vaccine (20 μg) at 0, 1, and 6 months. Efficacy of vaccine in the two groups was compared by anti-HBs titers achieved at 3, 6, and 9 months and by HBsAg positivity following CT at 1 year follow up.

RESULTS

Protective anti-HBs titers (>10 mIU/mL) at 3, 6, and 9 months in group A and B was 41.1 %, 66.2 %, and 76% and 26 %, 37.7 %, and 49% respectively (p = 0.001). Seven of 454 (1.5%) patients in group A became HBsAg positive after vaccination compared to 19/472 (4.0%) in group B (p = 0.022).

CONCLUSION

Accelerated, multiple, double-dose HB vaccine increases seroprotection and is more effective than conventional HB vaccine in preventing HBV infection.

2013 IDSA clinical practice guideline for vaccination of the immunocompromised host

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