Evaluation of pretransplant influenza vaccination in hematopoietic SCT: a randomized prospective study

Vaccination of Adults With Cancer: ASCO Guideline

PURPOSE

To guide the vaccination of adults with solid tumors or hematologic malignancies.

METHODS

A systematic literature review identified systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and nonrandomized studies on the efficacy and safety of vaccines used by adults with cancer or their household contacts. This review builds on a 2013 guideline by the Infectious Disease Society of America. PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched from January 1, 2013, to February 16, 2023. ASCO convened an Expert Panel to review the evidence and formulate recommendations.

RESULTS

A total of 102 publications were included in the systematic review: 24 systematic reviews, 14 RCTs, and 64 nonrandomized studies. The largest body of evidence addressed COVID-19 vaccines.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The goal of vaccination is to limit the severity of infection and prevent infection where feasible. Optimizing vaccination status should be considered a key element in the care of patients with cancer. This approach includes the documentation of vaccination status at the time of the first patient visit; timely provision of recommended vaccines; and appropriate revaccination after hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation, chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, or B-cell-depleting therapy. Active interaction and coordination among healthcare providers, including primary care practitioners, pharmacists, and nursing team members, are needed. Vaccination of household contacts will enhance protection for patients with cancer. Some vaccination and revaccination plans for patients with cancer may be affected by the underlying immune status and the anticancer therapy received. As a result, vaccine strategies may differ from the vaccine recommendations for the general healthy adult population vaccine.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.

Robust immunity to influenza vaccination in haematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients following reconstitution of humoral and adaptive immunity

Objectives

Influenza causes significant morbidity and mortality, especially in high-risk populations. Although current vaccination regimens are the best method to combat annual influenza disease, vaccine efficacy can be low in high-risk groups, such as haematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients.

Methods

We comprehensively assessed humoral immunity, antibody landscapes, systems serology and influenza-specific B-cell responses, together with their phenotypes and isotypes, to the inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) in HSCT recipients in comparison to healthy controls.

Results

Inactivated influenza vaccine significantly increased haemagglutination inhibition (HAI) titres in HSCT recipients, similar to healthy controls. Systems serology revealed increased IgG1 and IgG3 antibody levels towards the haemagglutinin (HA) head, but not to neuraminidase, nucleoprotein or HA stem. IIV also increased frequencies of total, IgG class-switched and CD21^loCD27⁺ influenza-specific B cells, determined by HA probes and flow cytometry. Strikingly, 40% of HSCT recipients had markedly higher antibody responses towards A/H3N2 vaccine strain than healthy controls and showed cross-reactivity to antigenically drifted A/H3N2 strains by antibody landscape analysis. These superior humoral responses were associated with a greater time interval after HSCT, while multivariant analyses revealed the importance of pre-existing immune memory. Conversely, in HSCT recipients who did not respond to the first dose, the second IIV dose did not greatly improve their humoral response, although 50% of second-dose patients reached a seroprotective HAI titre for at least one of vaccine strains.

Conclusions

Our study demonstrates efficient, although time-dependent, immune responses to IIV in HSCT recipients, and provides insights into influenza vaccination strategies targeted to immunocompromised high-risk groups.

Cross-protective antibodies against common endemic respiratory viruses

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), human metapneumovirus (HMPV), and human parainfluenza virus types one (HPIV1) and three (HPIV3) can cause severe disease and death in immunocompromised patients, the elderly, and those with underlying lung disease. A protective monoclonal antibody exists for RSV, but clinical use is limited to high-risk infant populations. Hence, therapeutic options for these viruses in vulnerable patient populations are currently limited. Here, we present the discovery, in vitro characterization, and in vivo efficacy testing of two cross-neutralizing monoclonal antibodies, one targeting both HPIV3 and HPIV1 and the other targeting both RSV and HMPV. The 3 × 1 antibody is capable of targeting multiple parainfluenza viruses; the MxR antibody shares features with other previously reported monoclonal antibodies that are capable of neutralizing both RSV and HMPV. We obtained structures using cryo-electron microscopy of these antibodies in complex with their antigens at 3.62 Å resolution for 3 × 1 bound to HPIV3 and at 2.24 Å for MxR bound to RSV, providing a structural basis for in vitro binding and neutralization. Together, a cocktail of 3 × 1 and MxR could have clinical utility in providing broad protection against four of the respiratory viruses that cause significant morbidity and mortality in at-risk individuals.

Frequently Asked Questions on Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination for Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation and Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Recipients From the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy and the American Society of Hematology

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), disproportionately affects immunocompromised and elderly patients. Not only are hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell recipients at greater risk for severe COVID-19 and COVID-19-related complications, but they also may experience suboptimal immune responses to currently available COVID-19 vaccines. Optimizing the use, timing, and number of doses of the COVID-19 vaccines in these patients may provide better protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection and better outcomes after infection. To this end, current guidelines for COVID-19 vaccination in HCT and CAR T-cell recipients from the American Society of Transplantation and Cellular Therapy Transplant Infectious Disease Special Interest Group and the American Society of Hematology are provided in a frequently asked questions format.

Influenza vaccination in immunocompromised populations: Strategies to improve immunogenicity

Immunocompromised individuals are at high risk of severe illness and complications from influenza infection. For this reason, immunization using inactivated influenza vaccines is recommended for transplant patients, individuals receiving immunosuppressant treatments, and other persons with immunodeficiency. However, these immunocompromised populations are more likely to have lower and non-protective responses to annual vaccination with a standard influenza vaccine. Here, we review strategies aimed to improve the immunogenicity of influenza vaccines in immunocompromised populations. The different strategies employed have included adjuvanted vaccines, high-dose vaccines, booster doses, intradermal vaccination, and temporary discontinuation of immunosuppressant treatment regimens. High-dose trivalent, inactivated, split-virus influenza vaccine (IIV3-HD) is so far one of the leading strategies for improving vaccine responses in HIV patients, transplant patients, and persons receiving immunosuppressant therapies for inflammatory diseases. Several studies in these populations have shown stronger humoral responses with IIV3-HD than existing standard-dose trivalent vaccine, and comparable safety. Accordingly, some scientific societies have stated that high-dose influenza vaccine could be a preferred option for immunocompromised patients. However, larger randomized controlled studies are needed to validate relative immunogenicity and safety of IIV3-HD and other enhanced vaccines and vaccination strategies in immunocompromised individuals.

A randomised trial of two 2-dose influenza vaccination strategies for patients following autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation

BACKGROUND

Seroprotection and seroconversion rates are not well understood for 2-dose inactivated influenza vaccination (IIV) schedules in autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (autoHCT) patients.

MATERIALS/METHODS

A randomised single-blind controlled trial of IIV in autoHCT patients in their first year post-transplant was conducted. Patients were randomised 1:1 to high dose (HD) IIV followed by standard dose (SD) vaccine (HD-SD arm) or two SD vaccines (SD-SD arm), 4 weeks apart. Haemagglutination inhibition (HI) assay for IIV strains was performed at baseline, 1, 2 and 6 months post-first dose. Evaluable primary outcomes were seroprotection (HI titre ≥40) and seroconversion (4-fold titre rise) rates and secondary outcomes: geometric mean titres (GMT), GMT ratios (GMR), adverse events, influenza-like-illness (ILI) and laboratory-confirmed influenza (LCI) rates and factors associated with seroconversion.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight patients were enrolled (34 per arm) with median age of 61.5 years, majority male (68%) with myeloma (68%). Median time from autoHCT to vaccination was 2.3 months. For HD-SD and SD-SD arms, percentage of patients achieving seroprotection was 75.8% and 79.4% for H1N1, 84.9% and 88.2% for H3N2 (all p>0.05) and 78.8% and 97.1% for influenza-B/Yamagata (p=0.03), respectively. Seroconversion rates, GMT and GMR, number of ILI or LCIs were not significantly different between arms. Adverse event rates were similar. Receipt of concurrent cancer therapy was independently associated with higher odds of seroconversion (OR 4.3, 95% CI 1.2-14.9, p=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

High seroprotection and seroconversion rates against all influenza strains can be achieved with vaccination as early as 2 months post-autoHCT with either two-dose vaccine schedules.

Clinical practice guidelines 2019: Indian consensus-based recommendations on influenza vaccination in adults

Influenza, a common cause of acute respiratory infections, is an important health problem worldwide, including in India. Influenza is associated with several complications; people with comorbidities and the elderly are at a higher risk for such complications. Moreover, the influenza virus constantly changes genetically, thereby worsening therapeutic outcomes. Vaccination is an effective measure for the prevention of influenza. Despite the availability of global guidelines on influenza vaccination in adults, country-specific guidelines based on regional variation in disease burden are required for better disease management in India. With this aim, the Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians of India jointly conducted an expert meeting in January 2019. The discussion was aimed at delineating evidence-based recommendations on adult influenza vaccination in India. The present article discusses expert recommendations on clinical practice guidelines to be followed in India for adult influenza vaccination, for better management of the disease burden.

Vaccination of the Stem Cell Transplant Recipient and the Hematologic Malignancy Patient

Patients with hematologic malignancy or those who undergo hematopoietic stem cell transplantation experience variable degrees of immunosuppression, dependent on underlying disease, therapy received, time since transplant, and complications, such as graft-versus-host disease. Vaccination is an important strategy to mitigate onset and severity of certain vaccine-preventable illnesses, such as influenza, pneumococcal disease, or varicella zoster infection, among others. This article highlights vaccines that should and should not be used in this patient population and includes general guidelines for timing of vaccination administration and special considerations in the context of newer therapies, recent vaccine developments, travel, and considerations for household contacts.

Revisiting Role of Vaccinations in Donors, Transplant Recipients, Immunocompromised Hosts, Travelers, and Household Contacts of Stem Cell Transplant Recipients

Vaccination is an effective strategy to prevent infections in immunocompromised hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients. Pretransplant vaccination of influenza, pneumococcus, Haemophilus influenza type b, diphtheria, tetanus, and hepatitis B, both in donors and transplant recipients, produces high antibody titers in patients compared with recipient vaccination only. Because transplant recipients are immunocompromised, live vaccines should be avoided with few exceptions. Transplant recipients should get inactive vaccinations when possible to prevent infection. This includes vaccination against influenza, pneumococcus, H. influenza type b, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, meningococcus, measles, mumps, rubella, polio, hepatitis A, human papillomavirus, and hepatitis B. Close contacts of transplant recipients can safely get vaccinations (inactive and few live vaccines) as per their need and schedule. Transplant recipients who wish to travel may need to get vaccinated against endemic diseases that are prevalent in such areas. There is paucity of data on the role of vaccinations for patients receiving novel immunotherapy such as bispecific antibodies and chimeric antigen receptor T cells despite data on prolonged B cell depletion and higher risk of opportunistic infections.

Respiratory Virus Infections of the Stem Cell Transplant Recipient and the Hematologic Malignancy Patient

Respiratory virus infections in hematologic stem cell transplant recipients and patients with hematologic malignancies are increasingly recognized as a cause of significant morbidity and mortality. The often overlapping clinical presentation makes molecular diagnostic strategies imperative for rapid diagnosis and to inform understanding of the changing epidemiology of each of the respiratory viruses. Most respiratory virus infections are managed with supportive therapy, although there is effective antiviral therapy for influenza. The primary focus should remain on primary prevention infection control procedures and isolation precautions, avoidance of ill contacts, and vaccination for influenza.

Vaccination of haemopoietic stem cell transplant recipients: guidelines of the 2017 European Conference on Infections in Leukaemia (ECIL 7)

Infection is a main concern after haemopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) and a major cause of transplant-related mortality. Some of these infections are preventable by vaccination. Most HSCT recipients lose their immunity to various pathogens as soon as the first months after transplant, irrespective of the pre-transplant donor or recipient vaccinations. Vaccination with inactivated vaccines is safe after transplantation and is an effective way to reinstate protection from various pathogens (eg, influenza virus and Streptococcus pneumoniae), especially for pathogens whose risk of infection is increased by the transplant procedure. The response to vaccines in patients with transplants is usually lower than that in healthy individuals of the same age during the first months or years after transplant, but it improves over time to become close to normal 2-3 years after the procedure. However, because immunogenic vaccines have been found to induce a response in a substantial proportion of the patients as early as 3 months after transplant, we recommend to start crucial vaccinations with inactivated vaccines from 3 months after transplant, irrespectively of whether the patient has or has not developed graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) or received immunosuppressants. Patients with GvHD have higher risk of infection and are likely to benefit from vaccination. Another challenge is to provide HSCT recipients the same level of vaccine protection as healthy individuals of the same age in a given country. The use of live attenuated vaccines should be limited to specific situations because of the risk of vaccine-induced disease.

A comparison of viral microneutralization and haemagglutination inhibition assays as measures of seasonal inactivated influenza vaccine immunogenicity in the first year after reduced intensity conditioning, lymphocyte depleted allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplant

Traditionally, immune response to influenza vaccines has been measured using the haemagglutination inhibition (HAI) assay. A broader repertoire of techniques including the sensitive viral microneutralization (VMN) assay is now recommended by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Comparing HAI and VMN, we determined immune response to a trivalent 2015-2016 seasonal inactivated influenza vaccine (SIIV) administered to 28 recipients of allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT). Vaccination was within the first-year post-transplant at a median of 78.5 (24-363) days. The proportion of patients with baseline and post-vaccination HAI titres ≥ 1:40 were 28.6% and 25% for A(H1N1)pdm09, 14.3% at both timepoints for A(H3N2), and 32.1% and 25% for B(Phuket). Pre and Post-vaccination geometric mean titres(GMT) were higher by VMN than HAI for A(H1N1)pdm09 and A(H3N2), but lower for B(Phuket)(p=<0.05). Geometric mean ratios(GMR) of baseline and post-vaccination titres were similar by HAI and VMN(p > 0.05) for all components. A single seroconversion to A(H1N1) was detected by ELISA-VMN. None of patient age, lymphocyte count, days from transplant to vaccination, donor type, or graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) or immunosuppressive therapy (IST) at vaccination correlated with baseline or post-vaccination titres by either assay. This absence of seroresponse to SIIV in the first-year post HSCT highlights the need for novel immunogenic vaccination formulations and schedules in this high-risk population.

Vaccinating donors for hematopoietic cell transplantation: A systematic review and future perspectives

Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (Allo-HCT) recipients are at an increased risk of infectious complications, which is a major cause of morbidity and mortality post-transplant. Vaccination of donors is one of the strategies that has been studied to improve immune reconstitution post-transplant, however the efficacy and safety of this strategy is not well reviewed in the literature. In this systematic review we sought to evaluate the current strategies of donor vaccination along with their immunogenicity, effectiveness and safety. Utilizing strict selection criteria with defined MeSH terminology, an electronic search was conducted from the following databases: Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Scopus. Abstracts of various professional society meetings were also screened and hand searching of various reviews and guideline articles was carried out. The full text of 52 articles were reviewed, from which 5 articles satisfied the inclusion/exclusion criteria for effectiveness and immunogenicity trials and 1 article was included for safety data. Jadad score was used to assess the quality of included studies. The results of the included studies were inconsistent, and the studies were generally of suboptimal methodological quality. Most of the included studies (n = 3) investigated the use of more than one vaccine, however not all commonly used vaccines in HCT were investigated. None of the studies reported any long-term benefits for HCT recipients of vaccinated donors. Only one study reported safety data of using vaccination in donors. Given the suboptimal quality of the studies, and questionable effectiveness, donor vaccination cannot be recommended for all. Prospective high-quality vaccine trials in HCT donors are needed.

Sociodemographic and psychological determinants of influenza vaccine intention among recipients of autologous and allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplant: a cross-sectional survey of UK transplant recipients using a modified health belief model

OBJECTIVES

Studies exploring vaccination rates among haematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients have focused on physician factors that limit uptake. Understanding the patient factors that determine vaccination intention is crucial to delivering a successful vaccination programme. Using a modified health belief model (mHBM), we conducted a cross-sectional survey with the objective of exploring the sociodemographic and psychological factors that determined autologous and allogeneic HSCT recipients' intention to receive the seasonal inactivated influenza vaccine (SIIV) during the 2015-2016 influenza season.

SETTING

The setting of our study was three tertiary level, UK National Health Service (NHS) autologous and allogeneic HSCT centres.

PARTICIPANTS

Eligible patients were aged 16 years or over and recipients of autologous or allogeneic HSCT for any disease indication, with no absolute contraindication to receiving the SIIV during the next influenza season, and having not received the SIIV since transplant. 93 participants from 3 UK NHS HSCT centres completed an anonymous study-specific questionnaire. 78.5% were recipients of allogeneic and 21.5% autologous HSCT.

RESULTS

23.7% of participants expressed low intent to receive the SIIV. Patients aged over 65 (OR 0.02, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.57, p=0.02) and those who had not received the SIIV prior to HSCT (OR 0.04, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.56, p=0.02) were less likely to have high intent. A multivariate logistic regression model incorporating constructs of the mHBM was statistically significant (p<0.001) and explained 74.7% of variation in SIIV intention. More patients felt that a recommendation from their HSCT team than their general practitioner would prompt them to receive the SIIV, and this was most pronounced in those who had low intent.

CONCLUSIONS

The mHBM may provide a useful structure for addressing low vaccine intent among HSCT recipients and further interventional studies are warranted. We would encourage HSCT and general practitioners to discuss SIIV intention as a routine part of care.

Epstein-Barr virus- and cytomegalovirus-specific immune response in patients with brain cancer

Background

Patients with brain tumor or pancreatic cancer exhibit the poorest prognosis, while immune fitness and cellular immune exhaustion impacts their survival immensely. This work identifies differences in the immune reactivity to the common human pathogens cytomegalovirus (CMV) and Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) between patients with brain tumor in comparison to those with pancreatic cancer and healthy individuals.

Methods

We characterized the humoral and cellular immune responses of patients with brain tumor or pancreatic cancer to cytomegalovirus structural protein pp65 (CMV-pp65) as well as Epstein–Barr nuclear antigen-1 (EBNA-1) by whole-blood assay and ELISA.

Results

Anti-CMV-pp65 plasma immunoglobulin gamma (IgG) titers were significantly lower in patients with brain tumor compared to healthy donors and patients with pancreatic cancer. Among the responding patients with GBM, those with a weak anti-CMV IgG response also had a decreased median overall survival (p = 0.017, 667 vs 419 days) while patients with brain tumor showed a generally suppressed anti-CMV immune-reactivity. Patients with brain tumor exhibited a significantly lower interferon gamma (IFNγ) response to EBNA-1 and CMV-pp65 compared to patients with pancreatic cancer or healthy donors. This antigen-specific response was further amplified in patients with brain tumor upon conditioning of whole blood with IL-2/IL-15/IL-21. Exclusively in this setting, among the responding patients with GBM, those exhibiting a EBV-specific cellular immune response above the median also displayed an increased median overall survival pattern compared to weak responders (753 vs 370 days, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

This report provides (i) a fast and easy assay using common viral antigens and cytokine stimulation to screen for immune fitness/exhaustion of patients with brain tumor in comparison to pancreatic cancer and healthy individuals and (ii) EBV/CMV-induced IFNγ production as a potential marker of survival in patients with brain tumor.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12967-018-1557-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Seasonal influenza vaccine in immunocompromised persons

Immunocompromised persons are at high risk of complications from influenza infection. This population includes those with solid organ transplants, hematopoietic stem cell transplants, solid cancers and hematologic malignancy as well as those with autoimmune conditions receiving biologic therapies. In this review, we discuss the impact of influenza infection and evidence for vaccine effectiveness and immunogenicity. Overall, lower respiratory disease from influenza is common; however, vaccine immunogenicity is low. Despite this, in some populations, influenza vaccine has demonstrated effectiveness in reducing severe disease. Various strategies to improve influenza vaccine immunogenicity have been attempted including two vaccine doses in the same influenza season, intradermal, adjuvanted, and high-dose vaccines. The timing of influenza vaccine is also important to achieve optimal immunogenicity. Given the suboptimal immunogenicity, family members and healthcare professionals involved in the care of these populations should be vaccinated. Health care professional recommendation for vaccination is an important factor in vaccine coverage.

Influenza vaccines in immunosuppressed adults with cancer

BACKGROUND

This is an update of the Cochrane review published in 2013, Issue 10.Immunosuppressed cancer patients are at increased risk of serious influenza-related complications. Guidelines, therefore, recommend influenza vaccination for these patients. However, data on vaccine effectiveness in this population are lacking, and the value of vaccination in this population remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of influenza vaccine in immunosuppressed adults with malignancies. The primary review outcome is all-cause mortality, preferably at the end of the influenza season. Influenza-like illness (ILI, a clinical definition), confirmed influenza, pneumonia, any hospitalisations, influenza-related mortality and immunogenicity were defined as secondary outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS databases up to May 2017. We searched the following conference proceedings: ICAAC, ECCMID, IDSA (infectious disease conferences), ASH, ASBMT, EBMT (haematological), and ASCO (oncological) between the years 2006 to 2017. In addition, we scanned the references of all identified studies and pertinent reviews. We searched the websites of the manufacturers of influenza vaccine. Finally, we searched for ongoing or unpublished trials in clinical trial registry databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), prospective and retrospective cohort studies and case-control studies were considered, comparing inactivated influenza vaccines versus placebo, no vaccination or a different vaccine, in adults (16 years and over) with cancer. We considered solid malignancies treated with chemotherapy, haematological cancer patients treated or not treated with chemotherapy, cancer patients post-autologous (up to six months after transplantation) or allogeneic (at any time) haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data from included studies adhering to Cochrane methodology. Meta-analysis could not be performed because of different outcome and denominator definitions in the included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified six studies with a total of 2275 participants: five studies comparing vaccination with no vaccination, and one comparing adjuvanted vaccine with non-adjuvanted vaccine. Three studies were RCTs, one was a prospective observational cohort study and two were retrospective cohort studies.For the comparison of vaccination with no vaccination we included two RCTs and three observational studies, including 2202 participants. One study reported results in person-years while the others reported results per person. The five studies were performed between 1993 and 2015 and included adults with haematological diseases (three studies), patients following bone marrow transplantation (BMT) (two studies) and solid malignancies (three studies).One RCT and two observational studies reported all-cause mortality; the RCT showed similar mortality rates in both arms (odds ratio (OR) 1.25 (95% CI 0.43 to 3.62; 1 study, 78 participants, low-certainty evidence)); and the observational studies demonstrated a significant association between vaccine receipt and lower risk of death, adjusted hazard ratio 0.88 (95% CI 0.78 to 1; 1 study, 1577 participants, very low-certainty evidence) in one study and OR 0.42 (95% CI 0.24 to 0.75; 1 study, 806 participants, very low-certainty evidence) in the other. One RCT reported a reduction in ILI with vaccination, while no difference was observed in one observational study. Confirmed influenza rates were lower with vaccination in one RCT and the three observational studies, the difference reaching statistical significance in one. Pneumonia was observed significantly less frequently with vaccination in one observational study, but no difference was detected in another or in the RCT. One RCT showed a reduction in hospitalisations following vaccination, while an observational study found no difference. No life-threatening or persistent adverse effects from vaccination were reported. The strength of evidence was limited by the low number of included studies and by their low methodological quality and the certainty of the evidence for the mortality outcome according to GRADE was low to very low.For the comparison of adjuvanted vaccine with non-adjuvanted vaccine, we identified one RCT, including 73 patients. No differences were found for the primary and all secondary outcomes assessed. Mortality risk ratio was 0.54 (95% CI 0.05 to 5.73; low-certainty evidence) in the adjuvanted vaccine group. The quality of evidence was low due to the small sample size and the large confidence intervals for all outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Observational data suggest lower mortality and infection-related outcomes with influenza vaccination. The strength of evidence is limited by the small number of studies and low grade of evidence. It seems that the evidence, although weak, shows that the benefits overweigh the potential risks when vaccinating adults with cancer against influenza. However, additional placebo or no-treatment controlled RCTs of influenza vaccination among adults with cancer is ethically questionable.There is no conclusive evidence regarding the use of adjuvanted versus non-adjuvanted influenza vaccine in this population.

A pilot randomized trial of adjuvanted influenza vaccine in adult allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients

The annual influenza vaccine is recommended for hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) patients although studies have shown suboptimal immunogenicity. Influenza vaccine containing an oil-in-water emulsion adjuvant (MF59) may lead to greater immunogenicity in HSCT recipients. We randomized adult allogeneic HSCT patients to receive the 2015-2016 influenza vaccine with or without MF59 adjuvant. Preimmunization and 4-week post-immunization sera underwent strain-specific hemagglutination inhibition assay. We randomized 73 patients and 67 (35 adjuvanted; 32 non-adjuvanted) had paired samples available at follow-up. Median age was 54 years (range 22-74) and time from transplant was 380 days (range 85-8107). Concurrent graft-versus-host disease was seen in 42/73 (57.5%). Geometric mean titers increased significantly after vaccination in both groups. Seroconversion to at least one of three influenza antigens was present in 62.9% vs 53.1% in adjuvanted vs non-adjuvanted vaccine (P=0.42). Factors associated with lower seroconversion rates were use of calcineurin inhibitors (P<0.001) and shorter duration from transplantation (P=0.001). Seroconversion rates were greater in patients who got previous year influenza vaccination (82.6% vs 45.5%, P=0.03). Adjuvanted vaccine demonstrated similar immunogenicity to non-adjuvanted vaccine in the HSCT population and may be an option for some patients.

How I treat respiratory viral infections in the setting of intensive chemotherapy or hematopoietic cell transplantation

The widespread use of multiplex molecular diagnostics has led to a significant increase in the detection of respiratory viruses in patients undergoing cytotoxic chemotherapy and hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). Respiratory viruses initially infect the upper respiratory tract and then progress to lower respiratory tract disease in a subset of patients. Lower respiratory tract disease can manifest itself as airflow obstruction or viral pneumonia, which can be fatal. Infection in HCT candidates may require delay of transplantation. The risk of progression differs between viruses and immunosuppressive regimens. Risk factors for progression and severity scores have been described, which may allow targeting treatment to high-risk patients. Ribavirin is the only antiviral treatment option for noninfluenza respiratory viruses; however, high-quality data demonstrating its efficacy and relative advantages of the aerosolized versus oral form are lacking. There are significant unmet needs, including data defining the virologic characteristics and clinical significance of human rhinoviruses, human coronaviruses, human metapneumovirus, and human bocavirus, as well as the need for new treatment and preventative options.