Single dose of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 induces high frequency of neutralising antibody and polyfunctional T-cell responses in patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms

Adult Patients with Cancer Have Impaired Humoral Responses to Complete and Booster COVID-19 Vaccination, Especially Those with Hematologic Cancer on Active Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The exclusion of patients with cancer in clinical trials evaluating COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and safety, in combination with the high rate of severe infections, highlights the need for optimizing vaccination strategies. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the published available data from prospective and retrospective cohort studies that included patients with either solid or hematological malignancies according to the PRISMA Guidelines. A literature search was performed in the following databases: Medline (Pubmed), Scopus, Clinicaltrials.gov, EMBASE, CENTRAL and Google Scholar. Overall, 70 studies were included for the first and second vaccine dose and 60 studies for the third dose. The Effect Size (ES) of the seroconversion rate after the first dose was 0.41 (95%CI: 0.33-0.50) for hematological malignancies and 0.56 (95%CI: 0.47-0.64) for solid tumors. The seroconversion rates after the second dose were 0.62 (95%CI: 0.57-0.67) for hematological malignancies and 0.88 (95%CI: 0.82-0.93) for solid tumors. After the third dose, the ES for seroconversion was estimated at 0.63 (95%CI: 0.54-0.72) for hematological cancer and 0.88 (95%CI: 0.75-0.97) for solid tumors. A subgroup analysis was performed to evaluate potential factors affecting immune response. Production of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was found to be more affected in patients with hematological malignancies, which was attributed to the type of malignancy and treatment with monoclonal antibodies according to the subgroup analyses. Overall, this study highlights that patients with cancer present suboptimal humoral responses after COVID-19 vaccination. Several factors including timing of vaccination in relevance with active therapy, type of therapy, and type of cancer should be considered throughout the immunization process.

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.

Ruxolitinib treatment in myelofibrosis and polycythemia vera causes suboptimal humoral immune response following standard and booster vaccination with BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine

Patients affected by myelofibrosis (MF) or polycythemia vera (PV) and treated with ruxolitinib are at high risk for severe coronavirus disease 2019. Now a vaccine against the virus SARS-CoV-2, which is responsible for this disease, is available. However, sensitivity to vaccines is usually lower in these patients. Moreover, fragile patients were not included in large trials investigating the efficacy of vaccines. Thus, little is known about the efficacy of this approach in this group of patients. In this prospective single-center study, we evaluated 43 patients (30 MF patients and 13 with PV) receiving ruxolitinib as a treatment for their myeloproliferative disease. We measured anti-spike and anti-nucleocapsid IgG against SARS-CoV2 15-30 days after the second and the third BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine booster dose. Patients receiving ruxolitinib showed an impaired antibody response to complete vaccination (2 doses), as 32.5% of patients did not develop any response. After the third booster dose with Comirnaty, results slightly improved, as 80% of these patients produced antibodies above the threshold positivity. However, the quantity of produced antibodies was well below that reached than those reported for healthy individuals. PV patients elicited a better response than patients affected by MF. Thus, different strategies should be considered for this high-risk group of patients.

Breakthrough COVID-19 in vaccinated patients with hematologic malignancies: results from the EPICOVIDEHA survey

Limited data are available on breakthrough COVID-19 in patients with hematologic malignancy (HM) after anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination. Adult patients with HM, ≥1 dose of anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, and breakthrough COVID-19 between January 2021 and March 2022 were analyzed. A total of 1548 cases were included, mainly lymphoid malignancies (1181 cases, 76%). After viral sequencing in 753 cases (49%), the Omicron variant was prevalent (517, 68.7%). Most of the patients received ≤2 vaccine doses before COVID-19 (1419, 91%), mostly mRNA-based (1377, 89%). Overall, 906 patients (59%) received COVID-19-specific treatment. After 30-day follow-up from COVID-19 diagnosis, 143 patients (9%) died. The mortality rate in patients with the Omicron variant was 7.9%, comparable to other variants, with a significantly lower 30-day mortality rate than in the prevaccine era (31%). In the univariable analysis, older age (P < .001), active HM (P < .001), and severe and critical COVID-19 (P = .007 and P < .001, respectively) were associated with mortality. Conversely, patients receiving monoclonal antibodies, even for severe or critical COVID-19, had a lower mortality rate (P < .001). In the multivariable model, older age, active disease, critical COVID-19, and 2-3 comorbidities were correlated with a higher mortality, whereas monoclonal antibody administration, alone (P < .001) or combined with antivirals (P = .009), was protective. Although mortality is significantly lower than in the prevaccination era, breakthrough COVID-19 in HM is still associated with considerable mortality. Death rate was lower in patients who received monoclonal antibodies, alone or in combination with antivirals.

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.

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).

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.

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.

Seroconversion following the first, second, and third dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in immunocompromised population: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Immunocompromised (IC) patients are at higher risk of more severe COVID-19 infections than the general population. Special considerations should be dedicated to such patients. We aimed to investigate the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines based on the vaccine type and etiology as well as the necessity of booster dose in this high-risk population.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases for observational studies published between June 1st, 2020, and September 1st, 2021, which investigated the seroconversion after COVID-19 vaccine administration in adult patients with IC conditions. For investigation of sources of heterogeneity, subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were conducted. Statistical analysis was performed using R software.

RESULTS

According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, we included 81 articles in the meta-analysis. The overall crude prevalence of seroconversion after the first (n: 7460), second (n: 13,181), and third (n: 909, all population were transplant patients with mRNA vaccine administration) dose administration was 26.17% (95% CI 19.01%, 33.99%, I² = 97.1%), 57.11% (95% CI: 49.22%, 64.83%, I² = 98.4%), and 48.65% (95% CI: 34.63%, 62.79%, I² = 94.4%). Despite the relatively same immunogenicity of mRNA and vector-based vaccines after the first dose, the mRNA vaccines induced higher immunity after the second dose. Regarding the etiologic factor, transplant patients were less likely to develop immunity after both first and second dose rather than patients with malignancy (17.0% vs 37.0% after first dose, P = 0.02; 38.3% vs 72.1% after second dose, P < 0.001) or autoimmune disease (17.0% vs 36.4%, P = 0.04; 38.3% vs 80.2%, P < 0.001). To evaluate the efficacy of the third dose, we observed an increasing trend in transplant patients after the first (17.0%), second (38.3%), and third (48.6%) dose.

CONCLUSION

The rising pattern of seroconversion after boosting tends to be promising. In this case, more attention should be devoted to transplant patients who possess the lowest response rate.

Patients with treated indolent lymphomas immunized with BNT162b2 have reduced anti-spike neutralizing IgG to SARS-CoV-2 variants, but preserved antigen-specific T cell responses

Patients with indolent lymphoma undertaking recurrent or continuous B cell suppression are at risk of severe COVID-19. Patients and healthy controls (HC; N = 13) received two doses of BNT162b2: follicular lymphoma (FL; N = 35) who were treatment naïve (TN; N = 11) or received immunochemotherapy (ICT; N = 23) and Waldenström's macroglobulinemia (WM; N = 37) including TN (N = 9), ICT (N = 14), or treated with Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKi; N = 12). Anti-spike immunoglobulin G (IgG) was determined by a high-sensitivity flow-cytometric assay, in addition to live-virus neutralization. Antigen-specific T cells were identified by coexpression of CD69/CD137 and CD25/CD134 on T cells. A subgroup (N = 29) were assessed for third mRNA vaccine response, including omicron neutralization. One month after second BNT162b2, median anti-spike IgG mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) in FL ICT patients (9977) was 25-fold lower than TN (245 898) and HC (228 255, p = .0002 for both). Anti-spike IgG correlated with lymphocyte count (r = .63; p = .002), and time from treatment (r = .56; p = .007), on univariate analysis, but only with lymphocyte count on multivariate analysis (p = .03). In the WM cohort, median anti-spike IgG MFI in BTKi patients (39 039) was reduced compared to TN (220 645, p = .0008) and HC (p < .0001). Anti-spike IgG correlated with neutralization of the delta variant (r = .62, p < .0001). Median neutralization titer for WM BTKi (0) was lower than HC (40, p < .0001) for early-clade and delta. All cohorts had functional T cell responses. Median anti-spike IgG decreased 4-fold from second to third dose (p = .004). Only 5 of 29 poor initial responders assessed after third vaccination demonstrated seroconversion and improvement in neutralization activity, including to the omicron variant.

Immune Response to COVID-19 and mRNA Vaccination in Immunocompromised Individuals: A Narrative Review

Immunocompromised individuals are at high risk of poor coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes and demonstrate a lower immune response to COVID-19 vaccines, including to the novel mRNA vaccines that have been shown to elicit high neutralizing antibody levels. This review synthesized available data on the immune response to COVID-19 and critically assessed mRNA COVID-19 vaccine immunogenicity in this vulnerable subpopulation. Patients with various immunocompromising conditions exhibit diverse responses to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and COVID-19 severity and mortality, and available vaccines elicit lower immune responses, particularly in solid organ transplant recipients. Strategies to improve vaccine responses in immunocompromised individuals are being implemented in vaccine recommendations, including the use of a third and fourth vaccine dose beyond the two-dose series. Additional doses may enhance vaccine effectiveness and help provide broad coverage against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants. Continued investigation of vaccines and dosing regimens will help refine approaches to help protect this vulnerable subpopulation from COVID-19.

mRNA-based therapeutics: powerful and versatile tools to combat diseases

The therapeutic use of messenger RNA (mRNA) has fueled great hope to combat a wide range of incurable diseases. Recent rapid advances in biotechnology and molecular medicine have enabled the production of almost any functional protein/peptide in the human body by introducing mRNA as a vaccine or therapeutic agent. This represents a rising precision medicine field with great promise for preventing and treating many intractable or genetic diseases. In addition, in vitro transcribed mRNA has achieved programmed production, which is more effective, faster in design and production, as well as more flexible and cost-effective than conventional approaches that may offer. Based on these extraordinary advantages, mRNA vaccines have the characteristics of the swiftest response to large-scale outbreaks of infectious diseases, such as the currently devastating pandemic COVID-19. It has always been the scientists’ desire to improve the stability, immunogenicity, translation efficiency, and delivery system to achieve efficient and safe delivery of mRNA. Excitingly, these scientific dreams have gradually been realized with the rapid, amazing achievements of molecular biology, RNA technology, vaccinology, and nanotechnology. In this review, we comprehensively describe mRNA-based therapeutics, including their principles, manufacture, application, effects, and shortcomings. We also highlight the importance of mRNA optimization and delivery systems in successful mRNA therapeutics and discuss the key challenges and opportunities in developing these tools into powerful and versatile tools to combat many genetic, infectious, cancer, and other refractory diseases.

Early Cellular and Humoral Responses Developed in Oncohematological Patients after Vaccination with One Dose against COVID-19

Individuals with oncohematological diseases (OHD) may develop an impaired immune response against vaccines due to the characteristics of the disease or to its treatment. Humoral response against SARS-CoV-2 has been described to be suboptimal in these patients, but the quality and efficiency of the cellular immune response has not been yet completely characterized. In this study, we analyzed the early humoral and cellular immune responses in individuals with different OHD after receiving one dose of an authorized vaccine against SARS-CoV-2. Humoral response, determined by antibodies titers and neutralizing capacity, was overall impaired in individuals with OHD, except for the cohort of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), which showed higher levels of specific IgGs than healthy donors. Conversely, the specific direct cytotoxic cellular immunity response (DCC) against SARS-CoV-2, appeared to be enhanced, especially in individuals with CML and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). This increased cellular immune response, developed earlier than in healthy donors, showed a modest cytotoxic activity that was compensated by significantly increased numbers, likely due to the disease or its treatment. The analysis of the immune response through subsequent vaccine doses will help establish the real efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in individuals with OHD.

Recent developments in SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: A systematic review of the current studies

Designing and manufacturing efficient vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a major objective. In this systematic review, we aimed to evaluate the most important vaccines under construction worldwide, their efficiencies and clinical results in healthy individuals and in those with specific underlying diseases. We conducted a comprehensive search in PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, and Web of Sciences by 1 December 2021 to identify published research studies. The inclusion criteria were publications that evaluated the immune responses and safety of COVID-19 vaccines in healthy individuals and in those with pre-existing diseases. We also searched the VAERS database to estimate the incidence of adverse events of special interest (AESI) post COVID-19 vaccination. Almost all investigated vaccines were well tolerated and developed good levels of both humoural and cellular responses. A protective and efficient humoural immune response develops after the second or third dose of vaccine and a longer interval (about 28 days) between the first and second injections of vaccine could induce higher antibody responses. The vaccines were less immunogenic in immunocompromised patients, particularly those with haematological malignancies. In addition, we found that venous and arterial thrombotic events, Bell's palsy, and myocarditis/pericarditis were the most common AESI. The results showed the potency of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines to protect subjects against disease. The provision of further effective and safe vaccines is necessary in order to reach a high coverage of immunisation programs across the globe and to provide protection against infection itself.

Low neutralizing antibody responses in WM, CLL and NHL patients after the first dose of the BNT162b2 and AZD1222 vaccine

Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 is considered as the most important preventive strategy against COVID-19, but its efficacy in patients with hematological malignancies is largely unknown. We investigated the development of neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with Waldenstrom Macroglobulinemia (WM), Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) and Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL). After the first dose of the vaccine, on D22, WM/CLL/NHL patients had lower NAb titers compared to controls: the median NAb inhibition titer was 17% (range 0-91%, IQR 8-27%) for WM/CLL/NHL patients versus 32% (range 2-98%, IQR 19-48%) for controls (P < 0.001). Only 8 (14%) patients versus 114 (54%) controls developed NAb titers ≥ 30% on D22 (p < 0.001). Our data indicate that the first dose of both BNT162b2 and AZD1222 leads to lower production of NAbs against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with WM/CLL/NHL compared to controls of similar age and gender and without malignant disease. Even though the response rates were not optimal, vaccination is still considered essential and if possible should be performed before treatment initiation. These patients with suboptimal responses should be considered to be prioritized for booster doses.

Impaired Antibody Response Following the Second Dose of the BNT162b2 Vaccine in Patients With Myeloproliferative Neoplasms Receiving Ruxolitinib

Data on the effect of ruxolitinib on antibody response to severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination in patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) is lacking. We prospectively evaluated anti-spike-receptor binding domain antibody (anti-S Ab) levels after the second dose of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine in MPN patients. A total of 74 patients with MPN and 81 healthy controls who were vaccinated were enrolled in the study. Of the MPN patients, 27% received ruxolitinib at the time of vaccination. Notably, MPN patients receiving ruxolitinib had a 30-fold lower median anti-S Ab level than those not receiving ruxolitinib (p < 0.001). Further, the anti-S Ab levels in MPN patients not receiving ruxolitinib were significantly lower than those in healthy controls (p < 0.001). Regarding a clinical protective titre that has been shown to correlate with preventing symptomatic infection, only 10% of the MPN patients receiving ruxolitinib had the protective value. Univariate analysis revealed that ruxolitinib, myelofibrosis, and longer time from diagnosis to vaccination had a significantly negative impact on achieving the protective value (p = 0.001, 0.021, and 0.019, respectively). In subgroup analysis, lower numbers of CD3⁺ and CD4⁺ lymphocytes were significantly correlated with a lower probability of obtaining the protective value (p = 0.011 and 0.001, respectively). In conclusion, our results highlight ruxolitinib-induced impaired vaccine response and the necessity of booster immunisation in MPN patients. Moreover, T-cell mediated immunity may have an important role in the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine response in patients with MPN, though further studies are warranted.

Managing hematological cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: an ESMO-EHA Interdisciplinary Expert Consensus

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has created enormous challenges for the clinical management of patients with hematological malignancies (HMs), raising questions about the optimal care of this patient group.

METHODS

This consensus manuscript aims at discussing clinical evidence and providing expert advice on statements related to the management of HMs in the COVID-19 pandemic. For this purpose, an international consortium was established including a steering committee, which prepared six working packages addressing significant clinical questions from the COVID-19 diagnosis, treatment, and mitigation strategies to specific HMs management in the pandemic. During a virtual consensus meeting, including global experts and lead by the European Society for Medical Oncology and the European Hematology Association, statements were discussed and voted upon. When a consensus could not be reached, the panel revised statements to develop consensual clinical guidance.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

The expert panel agreed on 33 statements, reflecting a consensus, which will guide clinical decision making for patients with hematological neoplasms during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Longitudinal Humoral and Cellular Immune Responses Following SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination in Patients with Myeloid and Lymphoid Neoplasms Compared to a Reference Cohort: Results of a Prospective Trial of the East German Study Group for Hematology and Oncology (OSHO)

Purpose: To assess humoral responses longitudinally and cellular immunogenicity following SARS-CoV-2-vaccination in patients with hematologic and oncologic malignancies receiving checkpoint-inhibitors. Methods: This prospective multicenter trial of the East-German-Study-Group-for-Hematology-and-Oncology, enrolled 398 adults in a two (patients; n = 262) to one (controls; n = 136) ratio. Pre-vaccination, day 35 (d35), and day 120 (d120) blood samples were analyzed for anti-spike antibodies and d120 IL-2+IFNγ+TNFα+-CD4+- and CD8+-cells. Laboratories were blinded for patients and controls. Results: Patients belonged to the myeloid (n = 131), lymphoid (n = 104), and checkpoint-inhibitor (n = 17) cohorts. While d35 seroconversion was higher in controls (98%) compared to patients (68%) (p < 0.001), d120 seroconversion improved across all patient cohorts [checkpoint-inhibitors (81% to 100%), myeloid (82% to 97%), lymphoid (48% to 66%)]. CD4+- and CovCD8+-cells in the lymphoid (71%/31%) and control (74%/42%) cohorts were comparable but fewer in the myeloid cohort (53%, p = 0.003 /24%, p = 0.03). In patients with hematologic malignancies, no correlation between d120 humoral and cellular responses was found. A sizeable fraction of lymphoid patients demonstrated T-cell responses without detectable spike-specific-IgGs. Conclusions: Evidence of vaccine-elicited humoral and/or cellular immunogenicity in most patients is provided. Both humoral and cellular responses are crucial to determine which patients will generate/maintain immunity. The findings have implications on public health policy regarding recommendations for SARS-CoV-2 booster doses.

Impact of Therapy in Patients with Hematologic Malignancies on Seroconversion Rates After SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination

INTRODUCTION

The leading professional organizations in the field of hematology have recommended severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov-2) vaccination for all patients with hematologic malignancies notwithstanding efficacy concerns. Here we report a systematic literature review regarding the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with hematologic malignancies and its key determinants.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of original articles evaluating the seroconversion rates with SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in hematological malignancies from the PubMed database published between April 1, 2021 and December 4, 2021. Calculated risk differences (RD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) to compare seroconversion rates between patients with hematologic malignancies versus healthy control subjects used the Review Manager software, version 5.3.

RESULTS

In our meta-analysis, we included 26 studies with control arms. After the first dose of vaccination, patients with hematologic malignancies had significantly lower seroconversion rates than controls (33.3% vs 74.9%; RD: -0.48%, 95% CI: -0.60%, -0.36%, P < .001). The seroconversion rates increased after the second dose, although a significant difference remained between these 2 groups (65.3% vs 97.8%; RD: -0.35%, 95% CI: -0.42%, -0.28%, P < .001). This difference in seroconversion rates was particularly pronounced for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) patients (RD: -0.46%, 95% CI: -0.56, -0.37, P < .001), and for patients with B-lineage leukemia/lymphoma treated with anti-CD20 antibodies (RD: -0.70%, 95% CI: -0.88%, -0.51%, P < .001) or Bruton Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors (BTKi; RD: -0.63%, 95% CI: -0.85%, -0.41%, P < .001). The RD was lower for patients under remission (RD: -0.10%, 95% CI: -0.18%, -0.02%, P = .01).

CONCLUSION

The seroconversion rates following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with hematologic malignancies, especially in CLL patients and patients treated with anti-CD20 antibodies or BTKi, were significantly lower than the seroconversion rates in healthy control subjects. Effective strategies capable of improving vaccine efficacy in these vulnerable patient populations are urgently needed.

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

BACKGROUND

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Patterns of neutralizing humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 infection among hematologic malignancy patients reveal a robust immune response in anti-cancer therapy-naive patients

Understanding antibody-based SARS-CoV-2 immunity in hematologic malignancy (HM) patients following infection is crucial to inform vaccination strategies for this highly vulnerable population. This cross-sectional study documents the anti-SARS-CoV-2 humoral response and serum neutralizing activity in 189 HM patients recovering from a PCR-confirmed infection. The overall seroconversion rate was 85.7%, with the lowest values in patients with lymphoid malignancies or undergoing chemotherapy. Therapy-naive patients in the "watch and wait" status were more likely to seroconvert and display increased anti-s IgG titers. Enhanced serum neutralizing activity was observed in the following SARS-CoV-2-infected HM patient groups: (i) males; (ii) severe COVID-19; and (iii) "watch and wait" or "complete/partial response". The geometric mean (GeoMean) ID50 neutralization titers in patients analyzed before or after 6 months post-infection were 299.1 and 306.3, respectively, indicating that >50% of the patients in either group had a neutralization titer sufficient to provide 50% protection from symptomatic COVID-19. Altogether, our findings suggest that therapy-naive HM patients mount a far more robust immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection vs. patients receiving anti-cancer treatment, raising the important question as to whether HM patients should be vaccinated before therapy and/or receive vaccine formats capable of better recapitulating the natural infection.

Immunogenicity and risk of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection after Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in patients with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients with cancer are considered a priority group for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination given their high risk of contracting severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, limited data exist regarding the efficacy of immunisation in this population. In this study, we assess the immunologic response after COVID-19 vaccination of cancer versus non-cancer population.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Web of Science databases were searched from 01st March 2020 through 12th August 12 2021. Primary end-points were anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (S) immunoglobulin G (IgG) seroconversion rates, T-cell response, and documented SARS-CoV-2 infection after COVID-19 immunisation. Data were extracted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Overall effects were pooled using random-effects models.

RESULTS

This systematic review and meta-analysis included 35 original studies. Overall, 51% (95% confidence interval [CI], 41-62) and 73% (95% CI, 64-81) of patients with cancer developed anti-S IgG above the threshold level after partial and complete immunisation, respectively. Patients with haematologic malignancies had a significantly lower seroconversion rate than those with solid tumours after complete immunisation (65% vs 94%; P < 0.0001). Compared with non-cancer controls, oncological patients were less likely to attain seroconversion after incomplete (risk ratio [RR] 0.45 [95% CI 0.35-0.58]) and complete (RR 0.69 [95% CI 0.56-0.84]) COVID-19 immunisation schemes. Patients with cancer had a higher likelihood of having a documented SARS-CoV-2 infection after partial (RR 3.21; 95% CI 0.35-29.04) and complete (RR 2.04; 95% CI 0.38-11.10) immunisation.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with cancer have an impaired immune response to COVID-19 vaccination compared with controls. Strategies that endorse the completion of vaccination schemes are warranted. Future studies should aim to evaluate different approaches that enhance oncological patients' immune response.

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 vectorbased 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).

MPN and thrombosis was hard enough . . . now there's COVID-19 thrombosis too

Both myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are characterized by an intrinsic thrombotic risk. Little is known about the incidence and the outcome of thrombotic events in patients with MPN infected by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), but common mechanisms of coagulation activation, typical of both disorders, suggest that these patients can be at particularly high risk. To define the best thromboprophylaxis and treatment regimens in both MPN and COVID-19, individual- and disease-specific thrombotic risk factors, bleeding risk, and concomitant specific treatments need to be considered. In this case-based review, an individualized approach is presented in a case of SARS-CoV-2 infection occurring in a man with polycythemia vera (PV). A primary anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis strategy and adjustment of his PV treatment were implemented. However, during the hospital stay, he experienced pulmonary embolism and therapeutic anticoagulation had to be set. Then his condition improved, and discharge was planned. Postdischarge decisions had to be made about the type and duration of venous thromboembolism treatment as well as the management of PV-specific drugs. The steps of our decisions and recommendations are presented.

Immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines in patients with hematological malignancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The objectives of this study were to assess the immunogenicity and safety of COVID-19 vaccines in patients with hematologic malignancies. A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies of immune responses to COVID-19 vaccination stratified by underlying malignancy and published from January 1, 2021, to August 31, 2021, was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL. Primary outcome was the rate of seropositivity after 2 doses of COVID-19 vaccine with rates of seropositivity after 1 dose, rates of positive neutralizing antibodies, cellular responses, and adverse events as secondary outcomes. Rates were pooled from single-arm studies while rates of seropositivity were compared against the rate in healthy controls for comparator studies using a random effects model and expressed as a pooled odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Forty-four studies (16 mixed group, 28 disease specific) with 7064 patients were included in the analysis (2331 after first dose, 4733 after second dose). Overall seropositivity rates were 62% to 66% after 2 doses of COVID-19 vaccine and 37% to 51% after 1 dose. The lowest seropositivity rate was 51% in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia and was highest in patients with acute leukemia (93%). After 2 doses, neutralizing antibody response rates were 57% to 60%, and cellular response rates were 40% to 75%. Active treatment, ongoing or recent treatment with targeted and CD-20 monoclonal antibody therapies within 12 months were associated with poor immune responses to COVID-19 vaccine. New approaches to prevention are urgently required to reduce COVID-19 infection morbidity and mortality in high-risk patient groups that respond poorly to COVID-19 vaccination.

Evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine response in patients with cancer: An interim analysis

BACKGROUND

Efficacy and safety data of COVID-19 vaccines among cancer populations have been limited; however, preliminary data from recent studies have emerged regarding their immunogenicity and safety in this population. In this review, we examined current peer-reviewed publications containing serological and safety data after COVID-19 vaccination of patients with cancer.

METHODS

This analysis examined 21 studies with a total of 5012 patients with cancer, of which 2676 (53%) had haematological malignancies, 2309 (46%) had solid cancers and 739 were healthy controls. Serological responses by anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein S1/S2 immunoglobulin G antibody levels and post-vaccination patient questionnaires regarding vaccine-related side-effects after the first and second dose were collected and analysed.

RESULTS

In general, a single dose of the COVID-19 vaccine yields weaker and heterogeneous serological responses in both patients with haematological and solid malignancies. On receiving a second dose, serological response rates indicate a substantial increase in seropositivity to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in all cancer cohorts, but antibody titres remain reduced in comparison with healthy controls. Furthermore, seroconversion in patients with haematological malignancies was significantly lower than that in patients with solid tumours. COVID-19 vaccines are safe and well-tolerated in patients with cancer based on current data of local and systemic effects.

CONCLUSION

Together, these data support the prioritisation of patients with cancer to receive their first and second doses to minimise the risk of COVID-19 infection and severe complications in this vulnerable population. Additional prophylactic measures must be considered for high-risk patients where current vaccination programs may not mount sufficient protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Antibody Responses to COVID-19 Vaccination in Cancer: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

After the results of phase III vaccine studies became available, the leading oncology societies recommended two doses of COVID-19 vaccination to all patients with cancer with no specific recommendation for tumor type and active treatments. However, the data on the COVID-19 vaccine efficacy in cancer patients is limited due to exclusion of cancer patients from most vaccine clinical trials. Therefore, we systemically reviewed the available evidence evaluating the antibody responses in cancer patients.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search from the Pubmed database and calculated risk differences (RD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) to compare seroconversion rates between cancer patients and controls using the Review Manager software, version 5.3.

RESULTS

Our systematic search retrieved a total 27 studies and we included 17 studies with control arms in the analyses. Cancer patients had significantly lower seroconversion rates (37.3%) than controls (74.1%) (RD: -0.44, 95% CI: -0.52, -0.35, p<0.001) with first vaccine dose. After two doses, the seroconversion rates were 99.6% in control arm and 78.3% in cancer patients (RD: -0.19, 95% CI: -0.28, -0.10, p<0.001). The difference in seroconversion rates was more pronounced patients with hematologic malignancies (72.6%) (RD: -0.25, 95% CI: -0.27, -0.22, p<0.001) than patients with solid tumors (91.6%) (RD: -0.09, 95% CI: -0.13, -0.04, p<0.003) and patients in remission (RD: -0.10, 95% CI: -0.14, -0.06, p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, COVID-19 vaccine seroconversion rates were significantly lower in patients with hematological malignancies and patients under active treatment. Further research focusing on the approaches to improve vaccine efficacy and exploration of novel treatment options is urgently needed for these patients.

The Slower Antibody Response in Myelofibrosis Patients after Two Doses of mRNA SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Calls for a Third Dose

Immunization with mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines has been highly recommended and prioritized in fragile subjects, including patients with myelofibrosis (MF). Available data on the vaccine immune response developed by MF patients and the impact of ruxolitinib treatment are still too fragmented to support an informed decision on a third dose for this category of subjects. Here, we show that 76% of MF patients develop spike-specific IgG after the second mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose, but the response has a slower kinetics compared to healthy subjects, suggesting a reduced capability of their immune system to promptly react to vaccination. A reduced ACE2/RBD binding inhibition activity of spike-specific antibodies was also observed, especially in ruxolitinib-treated patients. Our results, showing slow kinetics of antibody responses in MF patients following vaccination with mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, support the need for a third vaccine dose.

Philadelphia-Negative Chronic Myeloproliferative Neoplasms during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Challenges and Future Scenarios

An outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) started in December 2019 in China and then become pandemic in February 2020. Several publications investigated the possible increased rate of COVID-19 infection in hematological malignancies. Based on the published data, strategies for the management of chronic Philadelphia-negative chronic myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) are provided. The risk of severe COVID-19 seems high in MPN, particularly in patients with essential thrombocythemia, but not negligible in myelofibrosis. MPN patients are at high risk of both thrombotic and hemorrhagic complications and this must be accounted in the case of COVID-19 deciding on a case-by-case basis. There are currently no data to suggest that hydroxyurea or interferon may influence the risk or severity of COVID-19 infection. Conversely, while the immunosuppressive activity of ruxolitinib might pose increased risk of infection, its abrupt discontinuation during COVID-19 syndrome is associated with worse outcome. All MPN patients should receive vaccine against COVID-19; reassuring data are available on efficacy of mRNA vaccines in MPNs.

Lower response to BNT162b2 vaccine in patients with myelofibrosis compared to polycythemia vera and essential thrombocythemia

In a population of 42 Philadelphia negative myeloproliferative neoplasm patients, all on systemic active treatment, the likelihood of responding to anti-SARS-CoV-2 BNT162b2 vaccine at 2 weeks after the second dose was significantly lower in the ten patients with myelofibrosis compared to the 32 with essential thrombocythemia (n = 17) and polycythemia vera (n = 15) grouped together, both in terms of neutralizing anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG titers and seroprotection rates (32.47 AU/mL vs 217.97 AU/mL, p = 0.003 and 60% vs 93.8%, p = 0.021, respectively). Ruxolitinib, which was the ongoing treatment in five patients with myelofibrosis and three with polycythemia vera, may be implicated in reducing vaccine immunogenicity (p = 0.076), though large prospective study is needed to address this issue.

Immunogenicity of the BNT162b2 COVID-19 mRNA vaccine and early clinical outcomes in patients with haematological malignancies in Lithuania: a national prospective cohort study

Background

Haematological malignancies and their treatments are likely to affect SARS-CoV-2 vaccine efficacy. We aimed to evaluate serological response to BNT162b2 vaccine in patients with haematological malignancies by type of treatment.

Methods

Our national prospective cohort study was done in Lithuania and assessed serological response to one and two BNT162b2 (Comirnaty, Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine doses in healthy health-care workers and in patients with haematological malignancies. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, had received both vaccine doses, and had available biobanked blood samples from before vaccination and after the second dose. Biobanked samples and health data were obtained from Vilnius University Hospital Santaros Klinikos Biobank. Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG Quant II chemiluminescent microparticle assay was used to quantify serum anti-SARS-CoV-2-S1 IgG antibody (anti-S1 IgG antibody) concentrations 0–10 days before the first BNT162b2 vaccine, on the day of second immunisation (around day 21), and 7 to 21 days after the second immunisation. Adverse events were assessed by a standardised questionnaire. Breakthrough infections were characterised clinically and by SARS-CoV-2 genotyping whenever possible. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04871165.

Findings

Between Jan 8 and April 21, 2021, 885 participants with haematological malignancies were included in the study. 857 patients were anti-S1 IgG seronegative at timepoint 0 and constituted the main analysis cohort. The age-matched comparison was made between 315 patients with haematological malignancies who were aged 18–60 years and 67 healthy health-care workers in the same age group. Patients aged 18–60 years with haematological malignancies had lower median anti-S1 IgG antibody responses after two BNT162b2 vaccine doses than did health-care workers of the same age group (median 6961 AU/mL [IQR 1292–20 672] vs 21 395 AU/mL [14 831–33 553]; p<0·0001). Compared with untreated patients with haematological malignancies (n=53; median 5761 AU/mL [629–16 141]), patients actively treated with Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKIs; n=44; 0 AU/mL [0–7]; p<0·0001), ruxolitinib (n=16; 10 AU/mL [0–45]; p<0·0001), venetoclax (n=10; 4 AU/mL [0–1218]; p=0·0005), or anti-CD20 antibody therapy (n=87; 17 AU/mL [1–2319]; p<0·0001) showed particularly poor anti-S1 IgG antibody responses following two BNT162b2 doses. Patients being treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (n=41; 10 537 AU/mL [IQR 2335–19 388]) or patients who received autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT; n=192; 6203 AU/mL [1451–16 834]) or allogeneic HSCT (n=122; 6304 AU/mL [1120–16 913]) were among the subgroups with the highest numerical responses. Nine SARS-CoV-2 infections and three COVID-19 deaths were observed among fully vaccinated patients with haematological malignancies.

Interpretation

Patients with haematological malignancies mount blunted and heterogeneous antibody responses to the full course of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination. Patients who are actively treated with BTKIs, ruxolitinib, venetoclax, or anti-CD20 antibody therapies seem to be the most negatively affected and might be left unprotected from SARS-CoV-2 infection. Breakthrough severe SARS-CoV-2 infections in fully vaccinated patients with haematological malignancies emphasise the importance of ongoing strict adherence to non-pharmacological interventions and household vaccination while SARS-CoV-2 is circulating in the community.

Funding

Vilnius University Hospital Santaros Klinikos.

Translation

For the Lithuanian translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.