Hospital-Based Influenza and Pneumococcal Vaccination for Cancer Patients on Active Treatment and Their Family Members during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Italy: A Single-Center Experience

In patients with cancer, tumor- and treatment-induced immunosuppression are responsible for a four-fold increase in morbidity and mortality caused by influenza and invasive Streptococcus pneumoniae infections compared to the general population. The main oncology societies strongly recommend vaccination in patients with cancer to prevent these infections. However, vaccine hesitancy is a main concern in this population. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of in-hospital vaccination for patients under anticancer treatment and their family members (FMs) against influenza and pneumococcal infections during the COVID-19 pandemic in order to increase vaccine coverage. This was a single-center, prospective, observational study conducted at the Department of Oncology of Luigi Sacco University Hospital (Milan, Italy) between October 2020 and April 2021. The main primary outcome was the incidence of influenza-like illness (ILI) and pneumococcal infections. The main secondary outcome was safety. A total of 341 subjects were enrolled, including 194 patients with cancer and 147 FMs. The incidence of ILI was higher among patients than among FMs (9% vs. 2.7%, OR 3.92, p = 0.02). Moreover, two subjects were diagnosed with pneumococcal pneumonia. The most frequent vaccine-related AEs were pain in the injection site (31%) and fatigue (8.7%). In conclusion, this hospital-based vaccination strategy was feasible during the COVID-19 pandemic, representing a potential model to maximize vaccine coverage during a public health emergency.

Immunogenicity of an adjuvanted broadly active influenza vaccine in immunocompromised and diverse populations

Influenza virus outbreaks are a major burden worldwide each year. Current vaccination strategies are inadequate due to antigenic drift/shift of the virus and the elicitation of low immune responses. The use of computationally optimized broadly reactive antigen (COBRA) hemagglutinin (HA) immunogens subvert the constantly mutating viruses; however, they are poorly immunogenic on their own. To increase the immunogenicity of subunit vaccines such as this, adjuvants can be delivered with the vaccine. For example, agonists of the stimulator of interferon genes (STING) have proven efficacy as vaccine adjuvants. However, their use in high-risk populations most vulnerable to influenza virus infection has not been closely examined. Here, we utilize a vaccine platform consisting of acetalated dextran microparticles loaded with COBRA HA and the STING agonist cyclic GMP-AMP. We examine the immunogenicity of this platform in mouse models of obesity, aging, and chemotherapy-induced immunosuppression. Further, we examine vaccine efficacy in collaborative cross mice, a genetically diverse population that mimics human genetic heterogeneity. Overall, this vaccine platform had variable efficacy in these populations supporting work to better tailor adjuvants to specific populations.

Impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on the overall respiratory viruses' transmission in a cancer care setting

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE

The emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic raised questions about the interaction between severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and other respiratory viruses. The objective of this study is to validate the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and its interventional measures on the respiratory viruses' transmission/infection rates.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted for cancer patients who underwent laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing from January 2018 to June 2022. COVID-19 PCR tests from March 2020 to June 2022 were also included. Joinpoint regression analysis was applied to evaluate trends in respiratory virus rates. Statistical analysis was performed using Statistical Package for Social Science software.

RESULTS

A total of 6298 respiratory virus PCRs and 40,000 COVID-19 PCRs were performed. Data showed a significant decrease in respiratory viruses' positive cases, total respiratory tests, and respiratory viruses' activity during the pandemic period compared with the pre-pandemic period (p = .0209, .026, and .028, respectively). The joinpoint regression analysis showed a significant decrease of 13.85% in the tested positive cases of respiratory viruses between the years 2018 and 2022. Monthly, the analysis indicated a significant decrease in the positive cases by 13.46% from December 2019 to May 2021. Weekly analysis following lockdown initiation showed a reduction in respiratory virus cases.

CONCLUSION

This study provides valuable insights into the interplay between COVID-19 and other respiratory viruses, suggesting that the measures taken for COVID-19 were effective in reducing the spread of viral respiratory infections, aiding future infection control strategies to protect vulnerable populations, including cancer patients, from seasonal respiratory infections.

Effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines in patients with oncological diseases: State-of-the-art

Although the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic was declared to be no longer “a public health emergency of international concern” with its wide range of clinical manifestations and late complications, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection proved to be a serious threat, especially to the elderly and patients with comorbidities. Patients with oncologic diseases are vulnerable to severe infection and death. Indeed, patients with oncohematological diseases have a higher risk of severe COVID-19 and impaired post-vaccination immunity. Unfortunately, cancer patients are usually excluded from vaccine trials and investigations of post-vaccinal immune responses and the effectiveness of the vaccines. We aimed to elucidate to what extent patients with cancer are at increased risk of developing severe COVID-19 and what is their overall case fatality rate. We also present the current concept and evidence on the effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines, including boosters, in oncology patients. In conclusion, despite the considerably higher mortality in the cancer patient group than the general population, countries with high vaccination rates have demonstrated trends toward improved survival of cancer patients early and late in the pandemic.

The convergent evolution of influenza A virus: Implications, therapeutic strategies and what we need to know

Influenza virus infection, more commonly known as the 'cold flu', is an etiological agent that gives rise to recurrent annual flu and many pandemics. Dated back to the 1918- Spanish Flu, the influenza infection has caused the loss of many human lives and significantly impacted the economy and daily lives. Influenza virus can be classified into four different genera: influenza A-D, with the former two, influenza A and B, relevant to humans. The capacity of antigenic drift and shift in Influenza A has given rise to many novel variants, rendering vaccines and antiviral therapies useless. In light of the emergence of a novel betacoronavirus, the SARS-CoV-2, unravelling the underpinning mechanisms that support the recurrent influenza epidemics and pandemics is essential. Given the symptom similarities between influenza and covid infection, it is crucial to reiterate what we know about the influenza infection. This review aims to describe the origin and evolution of influenza infection. Apart from that, the risk factors entail the implication of co-infections, especially regarding the COVID-19 pandemic is further discussed. In addition, antiviral strategies, including the potential of drug repositioning, are discussed in this context. The diagnostic approach is also critically discussed in an effort to understand better and prepare for upcoming variants and potential influenza pandemics in the future. Lastly, this review encapsulates the challenges in curbing the influenza spread and provides insights for future directions in influenza management.

Active surveillance for adverse events of influenza vaccine safety in elderly cancer patients using self-controlled tree-temporal scan statistic analysis

Both cancer patients and the elderly are at high risk of developing flu complications, so influenza vaccination is recommended. We aimed to evaluate potential adverse events (AEs) following influenza vaccination in elderly cancer patients using the self-controlled tree-temporal scan statistic method. From a large linked database of Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency vaccination data and the National Health Insurance Service claims data, we identified cancer patients aged over 65 who received flu vaccines during the 2016/2017 and 2017/2018 seasons. We included all the outcomes occurring on 1-84 days post-vaccination and evaluated all temporal risk windows, which started 1-28 days and ended 2-42 days. Patients who were diagnosed with the same disease during a year prior to vaccination were excluded. We used the hierarchy of ICD-10 to identify statistically significant clustering. This study included 431,276 doses of flu vaccine. We detected signals for 1 set: other dorsopathies on 1-15 days (attributable risk 16.5 per 100,000, P = 0.017). Dorsopathy is a known AE of influenza vaccine. No statistically significant clusters were found when analyzed by flu season. Therefore, influenza vaccination is more recommended for elderly patients with cancer and weakened immune systems.

Impact of chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy on neutralizing antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-1237 vaccine in patients with solid tumors

Patients with solid tumors have been a risk group since the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic due to more significant complications, hospitalizations or deaths. The immunosuppressive state of cancer treatments or the tumor itself could influence the development of post-vaccination antibodies. This study prospectively analyzed 89 patients under chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy, who received two doses of the mRNA-1237 vaccine, and were compared with a group of 26 non-cancer individuals. Information on adverse events and neutralizing antibodies against the ancestral strain of SARS-CoV-2 (WH1) have been analyzed. Local reactions accounted for 65%, while systemic reactions accounted for 46% of oncologic individuals/cancer patients. Regarding the response to vaccination, 6.7% of cancer patients developed low neutralizing antibody levels. Lower levels of neutralizing antibodies between cancer and non-cancer groups were significant in individuals without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, but not in previously infected individuals. We also observed that patients receiving chemotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy have significantly lower levels of neutralizing antibodies than non-cancer individuals. In conclusion, our study confirms the importance of prioritizing cancer patients receiving anticancer treatment in SARS-CoV-2 vaccination programs.

Risk of waning humoral responses after inactivated or subunit recombinant SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with chronic diseases: Findings from a prospective observational study in China

Heterogeneity of antibody responses has been reported in SARS-CoV-2 vaccination recipients with underlying diseases. We investigated the impact of the presence of comorbidities on the humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with chronic disease (PWCD) and assessed the effect of the number of comorbidities on the humoral response to vaccination. In this study, neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) and IgG antibodies against the receptor-binding domain (RBD-IgG) were monitored following a full-course vaccination. In total, 1400 PWCD (82.7%, inactivated vaccines; 17.3%, subunit recombinant vaccine) and 245 healthy controls (65.7% inactivated vaccines, 34.3% subunit recombinant vaccine) vaccinated with inactivated or subunit recombinant SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, were included. The seroconversion and antibody levels of the NAbs and RBD-IgG were different in the PWCD group compared with those in the control group. Chronic hepatitis B (odds ratio [OR]: 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.46-0.93), cancer (OR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.42-0.99), and diabetes (OR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.28-0.89) were associated with lower seroconversion of NAbs. Chronic kidney disease (OR: 0.29; 95% CI: 0.11-0.76), cancer (OR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.23-0.62), and diabetes (OR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.20-0.69) were associated with lower seroconversion of RBD-IgG. Only the presence of autoimmune disease showed significantly lower NAbs and RBD-IgG titers. Patients with most types of chronic diseases showed similar responses to the controls, but humoral responses were still significantly associated with the presence of ≥2 coexisting diseases. Our study suggested that humoral responses following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination are impaired in patients with certain chronic diseases.

Booster doses of COVID-19 vaccines for patients with haematological and solid cancer: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Patients with cancer have an increased risk of severe disease and mortality from COVID-19, as the disease and antineoplastic therapy cause reduced vaccine immunogenicity. Booster doses have been proposed to enhance protection, and efficacy data are emerging from several studies.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the proportion of COVID-19 primary vaccination non-responders with cancer who seroconvert after a booster dose.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL and medRxiv were searched from 1st January 2021 to 10th March 2022. Quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal checklist.

RESULTS

After the eligibility assessment, 22 studies were included in this systematic review and 17 for meta-analysis of seroconversion in non-responders, pooling a total of 849 patients with haematological cancer and 82 patients with solid cancer. Haematological cancer non-responders exhibited lower seroconversion at 44% (95% CI 36-53%) than solid cancer at 80% (95% CI 69-87%). Individual patient data meta-analysis found the odds of having a meaningful rise in antibody titres to be significantly associated with increased duration between the second and third dose (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.00-1.03, P ≤ 0.05), age of patient (OR 0.960, 95% CI 0.934-0.987, P ≤ 0.05) and cancer type. With patients with haematological cancer as a reference, patients with lung cancer had 16.8 times the odds of achieving a meaningful increase in antibody titres (OR 16.8, 95% CI 2.95-318, P ≤ 0.05) and gastrointestinal cancer patients had 25.4 times the odds of achieving a meaningful increase in antibody titres (OR 25.4, 95% CI 5.26-492.21, P ≤ 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

administration of a COVID-19 vaccine booster dose is effective in improving seroconversion and antibody levels. Patients with haematological cancer consistently demonstrate poorer response to booster vaccines than patients with solid cancer.

The Protective Effects of Influenza Vaccination in Elderly Patients with Breast Cancer in Taiwan: A Real-World Evidence-Based Study

In elderly patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer, clarity is lacking regarding the effects of influenza vaccines, particularly on clinical outcomes. This study conducted two nationwide, population-based, and propensity score-matched cohorts to estimate and compare the protective effects of influenza vaccine in elderly women and elderly patients with breast cancer. Data were derived from the National Health Insurance Research Database and Cancer Registry Database. Generalized estimating equations (GEEs) were used to compare outcomes between the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) were used to estimate the relative risks, and stratified analyses in the breast cancer cohort were performed to further evaluate elderly breast cancer patients undergoing a variety of adjuvant therapies. The GEE analysis showed that the aORs of death and hospitalization, including for influenza and pneumonia, respiratory diseases, respiratory failure, and heart disease, did not significantly decrease in vaccinated elderly patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer. Conversely, the aORs of all influenza-related clinical outcomes were significantly decreased in elderly women. No protective effects of influenza vaccination were found in the elderly patients with a newly diagnosed breast cancer. More studies focusing on identifying strategies to improve the real-world effectiveness of influenza vaccination to the immunocompromised are needed. Our clinical outcomes will be valuable for future public health policy establishment and shared decision making for influenza vaccine use in elderly patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer. According to our findings, regular influenza vaccine administration for elderly patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer may be reconsidered, with potential contraindications for vaccination. On the other hand, implementing the vaccination of close contacts of patients with breast cancer may be a more important strategy for enhancing protection of those fragile patients.

Effects of age, sex, serostatus, and underlying comorbidities on humoral response post-SARS-CoV-2 Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccination: a systematic review

With the advent of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, several vaccines have been developed to mitigate its spread and prevent adverse consequences of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). The mRNA technology is an unprecedented vaccine, usually given in two doses to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections. Despite effectiveness and safety, inter-individual immune response heterogeneity has been observed in recipients of mRNA-based vaccines. As a novel disease, the specific immune response mechanism responsible for warding off COVID-19 remains unclear at this point. However, significant evidence suggests that humoral response plays a crucial role in affording immunoprotection and preventing debilitating sequelae from COVID-19. As such, this paper focused on the possible effects of age, sex, serostatus, and comorbidities on humoral response (i.e. total antibodies, IgG, and/or IgA) of different populations post-mRNA-based Pfizer-BioNTech vaccination. A systematic search of literature was performed through PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, Google Scholar, Science Direct, medRxiv, and Research Square. Studies were included if they reported humoral response to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. A total of 32 studies were identified and reviewed, and the percent differences of means of reported antibody levels were calculated for comparison. Findings revealed that older individuals, male sex, seronegativity, and those with more comorbidities mounted less humoral immune response. Given these findings, several recommendations were proposed regarding the current vaccination practices. These include giving additional doses of vaccination for immunocompromised and elderly populations. Another recommendation is conducting clinical trials in giving a combined scheme of mRNA vaccines, protein vaccines, and vector-based vaccines.

Efficacy and safety of BNT162b2 vaccination in patients with solid cancer receiving anticancer therapy - a single centre prospective study

AIM

Patients with cancer are at an increased risk for severe coronavirus disease of 2019, thus data on the safety and efficacy of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines are essential. We conducted this prospective study of patients with cancer vaccinated with BNT162b2 and monitored for antibody response and safety. The aim was to evaluate the rate of seropositivity and define predictors for non-reactive immune response. Furthermore, we evaluated the frequency and the severity of adverse events.

METHODS

The study included patients with solid tumours undergoing anticancer treatment and immunocompetent health-care workers serving as controls. Serum titres of the receptor-binding domain (RBD) immunoglobulin G (IgG) and neutralising antibodies were measured 2-4 weeks after each vaccine dose.

RESULTS

The analysis included 129 patients, of which 70.5% patients were metastatic. Patients were treated with chemotherapy (55%), immunotherapy (34.1%), biological agents (24.8%), hormonal treatment (8.5%) and radiotherapy (4.6%), that were given either alone or in combinations. The seropositivity rate among patients with cancer and controls was 32.4% versus 59.8% (p < 0.0001) after the first dose and 84.1% versus 98.9% (p < 0.0001) after the second dose, respectively. Median RBD-IgG titre was lower among patients than controls (p < 0.0001). Patients who were seronegative after the second dose had significantly more comorbidities than that with patients with seropositivity (77.8% vs 41.1%, respectively, p = 0.0042).

CONCLUSION

Adequate antibody response after BNT162b2 vaccination was achieved after two doses but not after one dose, in patients with cancer vaccinated during anticancer therapy.

Immunogenicity and Safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine Among Actively Treated Cancer Patients

Background

Activity and safety of the SARS-CoV-2 BNT162b2 vaccine in actively treated patients with solid tumors is currently unknown.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study of 326 patients with solid tumors treated with anticancer medications to determine the proportion of cancer patients with immunogenicity against SARS-CoV-2 following 2 doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine. The control group comprised 164 vaccinated healthy adults. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S immunoglobulin G antibodies were measured using a level greater than 50 AU/mL as a cutoff for seropositivity. Information on adverse effects was collected using a questionnaire. All statistical tests were 2-sided.

Results

Most patients (205, 62.9%) were treated with chemotherapy either alone or with additional therapy; 55 (16.9%) were treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors and 38 (11.7%) with targeted therapy alone; 28 (8.6%) received other combinations. The vaccine was well tolerated, and no severe side effects were reported. Among patients with cancer, 39 (11.9%) were seronegative compared with 5 (3.0%) of the control group (P = .001). Median immunoglobulin G titers were statistically significantly lower among patients with cancer compared with control (931 AU/mL vs 2817 AU/mL, P = .003). Seronegativity proportions were higher in the chemotherapy-treated group (n = 19; 18.8%) compared with the immune checkpoint inhibitor–treated patients (n = 5; 9.1%) and with those treated with targeted therapy (n = 1; 2.6%) (P = .02). Titers were also statistically significantly different among treatment types (P = .002).

Conclusions

The BNT162b2 vaccine is safe and effective in actively treated patients with cancer. The relatively lower antibody titers and lower proportion of seropositive patients, especially among chemotherapy-treated patients, call for continuing the use of personal protective measures in these patients, even following vaccination.

Evaluation of Seropositivity Following BNT162b2 Messenger RNA Vaccination for SARS-CoV-2 in Patients Undergoing Treatment for Cancer

Importance

Patients with cancer undergoing treatment are at high risk of COVID-19 following SARS-CoV-2 infection; however, their ability to produce an adequate antibody response to messenger RNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is unclear.

Objective

To evaluate rates of antispike (anti-S) antibody response to a BNT162b2 vaccine in patients with cancer who are undergoing systemic treatment vs healthy controls.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This prospective cohort study included 102 adult patients with solid tumors undergoing active intravenous anticancer treatment and 78 controls who received the second dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine at least 12 days before enrollment. The controls were taken from a convenience sample of the patients' family/caregivers who accompanied them to treatment. The study was conducted between February 22, 2021, and March 15, 2021 at Davidoff Cancer Center at Beilinson Hospital (Petah Tikva, Israel).

Interventions

Blood samples were drawn from the study participants. Serum samples were analyzed and the titers of the IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor-binding domain were determined using a commercially available immunoassay. Seropositivity was defined as 50 or greater AU/mL.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the rate of seropositivity. Secondary outcomes included comparisons of IgG titers and identifying factors that were associated with seropositivity using univariate/multivariable analyses.

Results

The analysis included 180 participants, which comprised 102 patients with cancer (median [interquartile range (IQR)] age, 66 [56-72] years; 58 men [57%]) and 78 healthy controls (median [IQR] age, 62 [49-70] years; 25 men [32%]). The most common tumor type was gastrointestinal (29 [28%]). In the patient group, 92 (90%) were seropositive for SARS-CoV 2 antispike IgG antibodies after the second vaccine dose, whereas in the control group, all were seropositive. The median IgG titer in the patients with cancer was significantly lower than that in the controls (1931 [IQR, 509-4386] AU/mL vs 7160 [IQR, 3129-11 241] AU/mL; P < .001). In a multivariable analysis, the only variable that was significantly associated with lower IgG titers was treatment with chemotherapy plus immunotherapy (β, -3.5; 95% CI, -5.6 to -1.5).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study of patients with cancer who were receiving active systemic therapy, 90% of patients exhibited adequate antibody response to the BNT162b2 vaccine, although their antibody titers were significantly lower than those of healthy controls. Further research into the clinical relevance of lower titers and their durability is required. Nonetheless, the data support vaccinating patients with cancer as a high priority, even during therapy.

[COVID-19 Vaccination for Cancer Patients: Progress and Preliminary Recommendations]

The pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has had a serious impact on global health. COVID-19 vaccines may be one of the most effective measure to end the pandemic. High infection risk and higher serious incident and mortality rates have been shown in cancer patients with COVID-19. Therefore, cancer patients should be the priority group for COVID-19 prevention. Until now, data of COVID-19 vaccination for cancer patients is lacking. We review the interim data of safety and immune-efficacy of COVID-19 vaccination in cancer patients based on the latest studies. Due to the complicated immune systems of cancer patients caused by the malignancy and anticancer treatments, we proposed preliminary specific COVID-19 vaccination recommendations for cancer patients with different anticancer treatments and at different stages of the disease. Preventing COVID-19 with vaccinations for cancer patients is crucial, and we call for more large-scale clinical trials and real-world studies, for further COVID-19 vaccination recommendations development.
.

COVID-19 vaccines for patients with cancer: benefits likely outweigh risks

Less than a year since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, ten vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 have been approved for at least limited use, with over sixty others in clinical trials. This swift achievement has generated excitement and arrives at a time of great need, as the number of COVID-19 cases worldwide continues to rapidly increase. Two vaccines are currently approved for full use, both built on mRNA and lipid nanotechnology platforms, a success story of mRNA technology 20 years in the making. For patients with cancer, questions arise around the safety and efficacy of these vaccines in the setting of immune alterations engendered by their malignancy and/or therapies. We summarize the current data on leading COVID-19 vaccine candidates and vaccination of patients undergoing immunomodulatory cancer treatments. Most current cancer therapeutics should not prevent the generation of protective immunity. We call for more research in this area and recommend that the majority of patients with cancer receive COVID vaccinations when possible.

COVID-19 vaccines for patients with cancer: benefits likely outweigh risks

Less than a year since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, ten vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 have been approved for at least limited use, with over sixty others in clinical trials. This swift achievement has generated excitement and arrives at a time of great need, as the number of COVID-19 cases worldwide continues to rapidly increase. Two vaccines are currently approved for full use, both built on mRNA and lipid nanotechnology platforms, a success story of mRNA technology 20 years in the making. For patients with cancer, questions arise around the safety and efficacy of these vaccines in the setting of immune alterations engendered by their malignancy and/or therapies. We summarize the current data on leading COVID-19 vaccine candidates and vaccination of patients undergoing immunomodulatory cancer treatments. Most current cancer therapeutics should not prevent the generation of protective immunity. We call for more research in this area and recommend that the majority of patients with cancer receive COVID vaccinations when possible.

Efficacy of influenza vaccine (Fluvax) in cancer patients on treatment: a prospective single arm, open-label study

PURPOSE

Influenza virus infection has significant morbidity and mortality in patients with medical co-morbidities who are also immunosuppressed. The efficacy of the seasonal influenza vaccine has not been well studied in patients receiving chemotherapy. We assessed the efficacy of seasonal influenza vaccine in patients with non-haematological malignancy on active treatment (chemotherapy and targeted therapy).

METHODS

A prospective single arm, open label study with 53 patients with non-haematological cancers recruited during the 2011 and 2012 influenza seasons. Participants had one dose of 2011/2012 trivalent vaccine containing strains A/California/7/2009(H1N1), A/Perth/16/2009 (H3N2) and B/Brisbane/60/2008 (Fluvax) prior to or in-between treatment cycles. Haemagglutination inhibition antibody (HIA) titres in serum were measured at baseline 3, 6 and 24 weeks. Primary endpoint: seroconversion rate (SCR) at 3 weeks. Secondary endpoints: late SCR at 6 weeks. rate of sustained sero-protection titres (SPR) at 24 weeks. Seroconversion was defined as postvaccination ≥ 4-fold increase in HIA titre and sero-protection defined as a HIA ≥ 1:40.

RESULTS

The SCR at 3 weeks were 35%, 30% and 22.5% to the H1N1, H3N2 and B/Bris strains, respectively. There were no new cases of late SC at 6 weeks or 24 weeks. The SPR at 3 weeks were 72.5%, 65% and 40%, respectively, to H1N1, H3N2 and B/Bris. The SPR at 24 weeks to H1N1, H3N2 and B/Bris were 40%, 52.5% and 17.5%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients on various solid tumour treatments achieve sero-protection rate congruent with the general population. The sero-protection HIA titres were not sustained at 24 weeks postvaccination.

Anti-infective vaccination strategies in patients with hematologic malignancies or solid tumors-Guideline of the Infectious Diseases Working Party (AGIHO) of the German Society for Hematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO)

Infectious complications are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with malignancies specifically when receiving anticancer treatments. Prevention of infection through vaccines is an important aspect of clinical care of cancer patients. Immunocompromising effects of the underlying disease as well as of antineoplastic therapies need to be considered when devising vaccination strategies. This guideline provides clinical recommendations on vaccine use in cancer patients including autologous stem cell transplant recipients, while allogeneic stem cell transplantation is subject of a separate guideline. The document was prepared by the Infectious Diseases Working Party (AGIHO) of the German Society for Hematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO) by reviewing currently available data and applying evidence-based medicine criteria.

Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Among Patients With Cancer: A Population-Based Study Using Health Administrative and Laboratory Testing Data From Ontario, Canada

PURPOSE

Seasonal influenza vaccination is recommended for patients with cancer despite concerns of disease or treatment-associated immunosuppression. The objective of this study was to evaluate vaccine effectiveness (VE) against laboratory-confirmed influenza for patients with cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted an observational test-negative design study of previously diagnosed patients with cancer 18 years of age and older who underwent influenza testing during the 2010-2011 to 2015-2016 influenza seasons in Ontario, Canada. We linked individual-level cancer registry, respiratory virus testing, and health administrative data to identify the study population and outcomes. Vaccination status was determined from physician and pharmacist billing claims. We used multivariable logistic regression to estimate VE, adjusting for age, sex, rurality, income quintile, cancer characteristics, chemotherapy exposure, comorbidities, previous health care use, influenza season, and calendar time.

RESULTS

We identified 26,463 patients with cancer who underwent influenza testing, with 4,320 test-positive cases (16%) and 11,783 (45%) vaccinated. Mean age was 70 years, 52% were male, mean time since diagnosis was 6 years, 69% had solid tumor malignancies, and 23% received active chemotherapy. VE against laboratory-confirmed influenza was 21% (95% CI, 15% to 26%), and VE against laboratory-confirmed influenza hospitalization was 20% (95% CI, 13% to 26%). For patients with solid tumor malignancies, VE was 25% (95% CI, 18% to 31%), compared with 8% (95% CI, -5% to 19%) for patients with hematologic malignancies (P = .015). Active chemotherapy usage did not significantly affect VE, especially among patients with solid tumor cancer.

CONCLUSION

Our results support recommendations for influenza vaccination for patients with cancer. VE was decreased for patients with hematologic malignancies, and there was no significant difference in VE among patients with solid tumor cancer receiving active chemotherapy. Strategies to optimize influenza prevention among patients with cancer are warranted.

Influenza vaccination in adult patients with solid tumours treated with chemotherapy

Patients with solid tumours receiving chemotherapy are at risk for influenza complications. Yearly influenza vaccination is recommended to patients treated with chemotherapy. However, adherence to vaccination is low, most likely due to lack of data on efficacy, optimal timing and safety of vaccination. There is scarce evidence for the effectiveness of the influenza vaccine in adult patients with solid tumours and chemotherapy on reduction of pneumonia, decreased mortality and fewer interruptions of oncological treatment. A review of 20 non-randomised serological studies in adult patients with different cancer types and chemotherapy provides insight in general trends of response to vaccination. Overall, the magnitude of the antibody response after influenza vaccination (i.e. seroconversion) can be lower than in healthy controls, but the majority of patients with solid tumours is able to mount a timely, protective immunological response (i.e. seroprotection) regardless of chemotherapy schedule, similar to healthy controls. Small sample sizes, patient heterogeneity and lack of comparable study designs limit more specific recommendations related to cancer type and optimal timing of vaccination. The inactivated influenza vaccine is safe to administer to immunosuppressed patients; side-effects are similar to those in healthy individuals. Although vaccination before start of chemotherapy is preferred to ensure optimal protection in adults with solid tumours, also vaccination during chemotherapy can reduce influenza-related complications considering the overall trends in serological response. Given the increased morbidity and mortality of influenza, influenza vaccination should be advocated as an inexpensive and safe preventive measure in patients with solid tumours receiving chemotherapy.

Microarray profile of the humoral immune response to influenza vaccination in breast cancer patients treated with chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Patients treated with chemotherapy have an impaired response to influenza virus vaccination compared to healthy controls. Little is known about the broadness of the antibody response in these patients.

METHODS

Breast cancer patients on FEC (5-fluorouracil, epirubicin and cyclophosphamide) chemotherapy regimens were vaccinated with influenza virus vaccine. Sera were obtained before and three weeks after vaccination. In addition to the determination of virus-specific antibody titres by hemagglutination inhibition assay, the broadness of the response was assessed by the use of a protein microarray and baseline titres were compared with an age-matched reference group.

RESULTS

We included 38 breast cancer patients and found a wide variety in serum antibody response after vaccination. Patients with a history of influenza vaccination had higher pre-vaccination titres, which were comparable to the reference group. Increasing number of cycles of chemotherapy did not have a negative effect on influenza array antibody levels, nor on the HI antibody response.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall there was a broad serum antibody response to the influenza virus vaccine in patients treated with chemotherapy for breast cancer.

[Guidelines for vaccination of immunocompromised individuals]

Immunosuppression of various origins is associated with an increased risk of infection; therefore the prevention of infectious diseases by vaccination is especially important in immunocompromised patients. However, the response to vaccinations is often reduced in these risk groups and the application of live vaccines is contraindicated during immunosuppression.In the following expert statement, recommendations for vaccination were created on the basis of current evidence and theoretical/immunological considerations. A first, general part elaborates on efficacy and safety of vaccinations during immunosuppression, modes of action of immunosuppressive medications and recommended time intervals between immunosuppressive treatments and vaccinations. A core piece of this part is a graduation of immunosuppression into three stages, i. e. no relevant immunosuppression, mild to moderate and severe immunosuppression and the assignment of various medications (including biologicals) to one of those stages; this is followed by an overview of possible and necessary vaccinations in each of those stages.The second part gives detailed vaccination guidelines for common diseases and therapies associated with immunosuppression. Primary immune deficiencies, chronic kidney disease, diabetes mellitus, solid and hematological tumors, hematopoetic stem cell transplantation, transplantation of solid organs, aspenia, rheumatological-, gastroenterologic-, dermatologic-, neurologic diseases, biologicals during pregnancy and HIV infection are dealt with.These vaccination guidelines, compiled for the first time in Austria, aim to be of practical help for physicians to facilitate and improve vaccination coverage in immunocompromised patients and their household members and contact persons.

Seasonal influenza vaccination of high-risk adults

INTRODUCTION

Adults at a high risk of severe influenza, because of their age and/or underlying health disorders, should receive seasonal influenza vaccination in order to reduce the incidence of severe illness and premature death. However, because current influenza vaccines are perceived to have suboptimal efficacy, vaccine coverage is below the recommended level in this population. Areas covered: This review examines, for each high-risk group, available data on influenza infection, vaccine efficacy and safety, and vaccine coverage. We conducted a literature search in the PubMed database to identify randomized controlled trials, observational studies and reviews published from 2000 through 2015 on both seasonal and pandemic influenza. Only studies published in English were considered. While the topic of this review is seasonal influenza, data on pandemics are included when relevant. Expert Commentary: Current seasonal influenza vaccines are only moderately protective, and vaccines eliciting broader and more durable immunity are therefore needed. Research on the use of higher doses, adjuvants, and a universal influenza vaccine is ongoing. Influenza vaccine coverage needs to be increased. Vaccination of contacts of high-risk individuals, including healthcare workers, should be encouraged.

Antiviral prophylaxis in patients with solid tumours and haematological malignancies--update of the Guidelines of the Infectious Diseases Working Party (AGIHO) of the German Society for Hematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO)

Reactivation of viral infections is common in patients with solid tumour or haematological malignancy. Incidence and severity depend on the extent of cellular immunosuppression. Antiviral prophylaxis may be effective to prevent viral reactivation. In 2006, the Infectious Diseases Working Party of German Society for Hematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO) published guidelines for antiviral prophylaxis in these patient populations. Here, we present an update of these guidelines for patients with solid and haematological malignancies undergoing antineoplastic treatment but not allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Relevant literature for reactivation of different viruses (herpes simplex virus (HSV), varicella zoster virus (VZV), hepatitis B virus (HBV) and respiratory viruses) is discussed to provide evidence-based recommendations for clinicians taking care of this patient population. We recommend a risk-adapted approach with (val)acyclovir against HSV and VZV in patients treated with alemtuzumab, bortezomib or purine analogues. Seasonal vaccination against influenza is recommended for all patients with solid or haematological malignancies regardless of antineoplastic therapy. Hepatitis B screening is recommended in lymphoproliferative disorders, acute leukaemia, and breast cancer, and during treatment with monoclonal anti-B-cell antibodies, anthracyclines, steroids and in autologous stem cell transplantation. In those with a history of hepatitis B prophylactic lamivudine, entecavir or nucleotide analogues as adefovir are recommended to prevent reactivation.

Practical review of immunizations in adult patients with cancer

Compared with the general population, patients with cancer in general are more susceptible to vaccine-preventable infections, either by an increased risk due to the malignancy itself or immunosuppressive treatment. The goal of immunizations in these patients is therefore to provide protection against these infections, and to decrease the number of vulnerable patients who can disseminate these organisms. The proper timing of immunization with cancer treatment is key to achieving better vaccine protection. As the oncology field continues to advance, leading to better quality of life and longer survival, immunization and other aspects of preventive medicine ought to move to the frontline in the care of these patients. Herein, we review the vaccines most clinically relevant to patients with cancer, as well as special cases including vaccines after splenectomy, travel immunization and recommendations for family members.

The response to vaccination against influenza A(H1N1) 2009, seasonal influenza and Streptococcus pneumoniae in adult outpatients with ongoing treatment for cancer with and without rituximab

It is debated whether cancer patients treated with chemotherapy can mount an adequate response to vaccination.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Ninety-six adult outpatients with cancer, who were undergoing chemotherapy and/or monoclonal antibody, tyrosine kinase inhibitor, irradiation or corticosteroid treatments, were studied. Two doses of the pandemic influenza A(H1N1)/09 AS03-adjuvanted split virion vaccine, one dose of the seasonal influenza vaccine and one dose of the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine were given. Serum haemagglutination inhibition (HI) assays were used to determine antibody titres against the influenza strains. For the pneumococcal vaccine 14 different serotype-specific anti-capsular antibodies were measured by bead assay xMAP(®).

RESULTS

Patients treated with rituximab did not respond to vaccination. For patients without rituximab treatment 4% had putatively protective antibodies before vaccination (HI ≥ 40) to the pandemic-like strain A/California7/2009HINI. After the first and second dose of vaccine, seroprotection rates (SPR) were 62% and 87%, and seroconversion rates (SCR) 62% and 84%, respectively. Before seasonal flu vaccination SPR against influenza A/Brisbane/59/2007H1N1 and A/Uruguay/10/2007H3N2 were 19% and 17%, respectively. After vaccination, SPR were 70% and 59% and SCR 42% and 50%, respectively. For the pneumococcal vaccine protective antibodies were found to 40% of the 14 strains before and to 68% after vaccination. The mean response to pneumococcal vaccination was to 44% of the 14 serotypes. A response to at least 50% of the 14 serotypes was found in 49% of the patients. No serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

A substantial number of adult cancer patients with ongoing chemotherapy treatment could mount an adequate serological response to influenza and pneumococcal vaccination without severe adverse events. Thus, vaccination should be recommended. Adjuvanted vaccines may improve the vaccine response among this patient group. Patients recently treated with rituximab do not respond to vaccination.

Vaccination for seasonal influenza in patients with cancer: recommendations of the Italian Society of Medical Oncology (AIOM)

Background

Influenza virus causes annual epidemics in the winter–spring season with significant morbidity in the general population and important mortality in high-risk groups, including cancer patients. Opinions on the suitability of patients with malignancies not undergoing active treatment and in different phases of antineoplastic therapy, to receive influenza vaccination, vary considerably among oncologists, sometimes even within one center.

Methods

We reviewed available data, including recommendations by national health authorities, on impact of influenza in patients with cancer and their capacity to mount protective immunological responses to vaccination, thus allowing, on behalf of Italian Association of Medical Oncology, to make suitable recommendations for the prevention and treatment of seasonal influenza.

Results and discussion

Patients with cancer often have disease- or treatment-related immunosuppression, and as a consequence, they may have a suboptimal serologic response to influenza vaccination. The protective effect of the different preparations of influenza vaccines in patients with cancer has not been widely investigated, especially in adult patients harboring solid tumors. The optimal timing for administration of influenza vaccines in patients receiving chemotherapy is also not clearly defined. However, since vaccination is the most effective method, along with antiviral drugs in selected patients, for preventing influenza infection, it has to be recommended for cancer patients. Implementing vaccination of close contacts of oncology patients would be an additional tool for enhancing protection in fragile patient populations.

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.

Pathogenicity of pandemic H1N1 influenza A virus in immunocompromised cynomolgus macaques

Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 influenza virus spread throughout the world since most people did not have immunity against the virus. In the post pandemic phase when many humans might possess immunity against the pandemic virus, one of the concerns is infection in immunocompromised people. Therefore, we used an immunosuppressed macaque model to examine pathogenicity of the pandemic (H1N1) 2009 virus under an immunocompromised condition. The virus in nasal samples of immunosuppressed macaques infected with the pandemic (H1N1) 2009 virus was detected longer after infection than was the virus in nasal samples of immunocompetent macaques. As expected, not only virus amounts but also virus propagation sites in the immunosuppressed macaques were larger than those in lungs of the immunocompetent macaques when they were infected with the pandemic virus. Immunosuppressed macaques possessed low levels of immune cells producing cytokines and chemokines, but levels of inflammatory cytokines/chemokine interleukin (IL)-6, IL-18, and monocyte chemotactic protein (MCP)-1 in lungs of the immunosuppressed macaques were higher than those in lungs of the immunocompetent macaques, though the differences were not statistically significant. Therefore, under an immunosuppressive condition, the pandemic influenza (H1N1) 2009 virus might cause more severe morbidity with high cytokine/chemokine production by the host innate immune system than that seen in macaques under the immunocompetent condition.

Vaccination of immunocompromised patients

Vaccination of immunocompromised patients is challenging both regarding efficacy and safety. True efficacy data are lacking so existing recommendations are based on immune responses and safety data. Inactivated vaccines can generally be used without risk but the patients who are most at risk for infectious morbidity and mortality as a result of their severely immunosuppressed state are also those least likely to respond to vaccination. However, vaccination against pneumococci, Haemophilus influenzae and influenza are generally recommended. Live vaccines must be used with care because the risk for vaccine-associated disease exists.

Protecting pediatric oncology patients from influenza

Influenza is a common respiratory pathogen. Its severity can be unpredictable, but people with chronic illness are at increased risk of severe infection, complications, and death from influenza. This review examines evidence to support various strategies to protect pediatric oncology patients from influenza-related morbidity. Influenza vaccination should be considered standard. Additional evidence-supported measures include antiviral treatment, antiviral prophylaxis, cohorting of patients, and hospital infection control measures. Data from other high-risk populations support the vaccination of family members, double-dose or high-dose vaccination, and the use of barrier methods. These measures have the potential to optimize patient outcomes because there will be fewer treatment interruptions for acute illness. These strategies can also protect patients from prolonged hospitalizations and morbidity related to influenza.

A prospective study of the factors shaping antibody responses to the AS03-adjuvanted influenza A/H1N1 vaccine in cancer outpatients

PURPOSE

To identify the determinants of antibody responses to adjuvanted influenza A/H1N1/09 vaccines in a cohort of cancer outpatients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with cancer and controls were enrolled in a prospective single-center field study. Two doses of AS03-adjuvanted pandemic influenza vaccine were administered to patients and one dose was administered to controls. Antibody responses were measured using hemagglutination inhibition and confirmed by microneutralization. Geometric mean titers (GMTs) and seroprotection rates (defined as GMTs ≥40) were compared.

RESULTS

Immunizations were safe and well tolerated in 197 cancer patients (lymphoma, 57; glioma, 26; lung or head and neck, 37; gastrointestinal, 41; breast, 36) and 138 controls. Similar seroprotection rates (82.3% versus 87%) and GMTs (336.9 versus 329.9) were achieved after two doses of adjuvanted vaccine in cancer patients and one dose in controls. Univariate analyses identified older age, prior immunization against seasonal influenza, lymphoma, CD4 count, active chemotherapy, and rituximab and steroid treatments as being associated with weaker antibody responses. However, only age and chemotherapy plus rituximab remained independent determinants of vaccine responses in multivariate analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Two doses of AS03-adjuvanted influenza vaccine elicited potent antibody responses in most cancer patients despite ongoing chemotherapy, with the exception of rituximab-induced B-cell depletion. Oncology patients treated in an outpatient setting benefit from preventive vaccination against influenza with adjuvanted vaccines.

Exploitation of the propulsive force of chemotherapy for improving the response to cancer immunotherapy

Since the early clinical studies of cancer immunotherapy, the question arose as to whether it was possible to combine it with standard cancer treatments, mostly chemotherapy. The answer, now, is past history. The combined use of immunotherapy and chemotherapy is not only possible but, in certain cases, can be advantageous, depending on the drug, the dose and the combination modalities. In order to find the best synergisms between the two treatments and to turn weak immunotherapeutic interventions into potent anticancer instruments, it is mandatory to understand the complex mechanisms responsible for the positive interactions between chemotherapy and immunotherapy. In this article, we review the current knowledge on mechanisms involved in the immunostimulating activity of chemotherapy and summarize the main studies in both mouse models and patients aimed at exploiting such mechanisms for enhancing the response to cancer immunotherapy.