Better response with conjugate vaccine than with polysaccaride vaccine 12 months after rituximab treatment in lymphoma patients

Management of vaccinations in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma

Vaccinations are fundamental tools in preventing infectious diseases, especially in immunocompromised patients like those affected by non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHLs). The COVID-19 pandemic made clinicians increasingly aware of the importance of vaccinations in preventing potential life-threatening SARS-CoV-2-related complications in NHL patients. However, several studies have confirmed a significant reduction in vaccine-induced immune responses after anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody treatment, thus underscoring the need for refined immunization strategies in NHL patients. In this review, we summarize the existing data about COVID-19 and other vaccine's efficacy in patients with NHL and propose multidisciplinary team-based recommendations for the management of vaccines in this specific group of patients.

Optimal time for COVID-19 vaccination in rituximab-treated dermatologic patients

Background

By depleting circulating B lymphocytes, rituximab time-dependently suppresses coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines’ humoral immunogenicity for a prolonged period. The optimal time to vaccinate rituximab-exposed immune-mediated dermatologic disease (IMDD) patients is currently unclear.

Objective

To estimate the vaccination timeframe that equalized the occurrence of humoral immunogenicity outcomes between rituximab-exposed and rituximab-naïve IMDD patients.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study recruited rituximab-exposed and age-matched rituximab-naïve subjects tested for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific immunity post-vaccination. Baseline clinical and immunological data (i.e., immunoglobulin levels, lymphocyte immunophenotyping) and SARS-CoV-2-specific immunity levels were extracted. The outcomes compared were the percentages of subjects who produced neutralizing antibodies (seroconversion rates, SR) and SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG levels among seroconverters. The outcomes were first analyzed using multiple regressions adjusted for the effects of corticosteroid use, steroid-spearing agents, and pre-vaccination immunological status (i.e., IgM levels, the percentages of the total, naïve, and memory B lymphocytes) to identify rituximab-related immunogenicity outcomes. The rituximab-related outcome differences with a 95% confidence interval (CI) between groups were calculated, starting by including every subject and then narrowing down to those with longer rituximab-to-vaccination intervals (≥3, ≥6, ≥9, ≥12 months). The desirable cut-off performances were <25% outcome inferiority observed among rituximab-exposed subgroups compared to rituximab-naïve subjects, and the positive likelihood ratio (LR+) for the corresponding outcomes ≥2.

Findings

Forty-five rituximab-exposed and 90 rituximab-naive subjects were included. The regression analysis demonstrated a negative association between rituximab exposure status and SR but not with SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG levels. Nine-month rituximab-to-vaccination cut-off fulfilled our prespecified diagnostic performance (SR difference between rituximab-exposed and rituximab-naïve group [95%CI]: -2.6 [-23.3, 18.1], LR+: 2.6) and coincided with the repopulation of naïve B lymphocytes in these patients.

Conclusions

Nine months of rituximab-to-vaccination interval maximize the immunological benefits of COVID-19 vaccines while avoiding unnecessary delay in vaccination and rituximab treatment for IMDD patients.

Prophylactic immunoglobulin therapy in secondary immune deficiency - an expert opinion

INTRODUCTION

In primary immunodeficiency (PID), immunoglobulin replacement therapy (IgRT) for infection prevention is well-established and supported by a wealth of clinical data. On the contrary, very little evidence-based data is available on the challenges surrounding the use of IgRT in secondary immune deficiencies (SID), and most published guidelines are mere extrapolations from the experience in PID.

AREAS COVERED

In this article, four European experts provide their consolidated opinion on open questions surrounding the prophylactic use of IgRT in SID, based on their clinical experience. The main topics are IgRT initiation, route of administration, dose optimization, and therapy discontinuation. The authors hope this discussion will be of assistance to practicing physicians in their daily decision-making. Expert commentary: Although growing experience indicates that IgRT could play an important role in the management of SID, very little robust evidence is available to guide clinical practice. The authors stress the urgent need for new studies in the field and discuss points they find of importance to design them adequately.

Vaccinations in patients with hematological malignancies

Patients with hematological malignancies are at risk for a number of infections that are potentially preventable by vaccinations such as pneumococcal infections and influenza. Treatment, especially with anti-B-cell antibodies and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), negatively impacts the response to vaccination for several months. It is therefore recommended that patients be vaccinated before initiating immunosuppressive therapy if possible. The risk of side-effects with inactivated vaccines is low, but care has to be taken with live vaccines, such as varicella-zoster virus vaccine, since severe and fatal complications have been reported. HSCT patients require repeated doses of most vaccines to achieve long-lasting immune responses. New therapeutic options for patients with hematological malignancies that are rapidly being introduced into clinical practice will require additional research regarding the efficacy of vaccinations. New vaccines are also in development that will require well-designed studies to ascertain efficacy and safety.

Bacterial Infections Following Splenectomy for Malignant and Nonmalignant Hematologic Diseases

Splenectomy, while often necessary in otherwise healthy patients after major trauma, finds its primary indication for patients with underlying malignant or nonmalignant hematologic diseases. Indications of splenectomy for hematologic diseases have been reducing in the last few years, due to improved diagnostic and therapeutic tools. In high-income countries, there is a clear decrease over calendar time in the incidence of all indication splenectomy except nonmalignant hematologic diseases. However, splenectomy, even if with different modalities including laparoscopic splenectomy and partial splenectomy, continue to be a current surgical practice both in nonmalignant hematologic diseases, such as Immune Thrombocytopenic Purpura (ITP), Autoimmune Hemolytic Anemia (AIHA), Congenital Hemolytic Anemia such as Spherocytosis, Sickle Cell Anemia and Thalassemia and Malignant Hematological Disease, such as lymphoma. Today millions of people in the world are splenectomized. Splenectomy, independently of its cause, induces an early and late increase in the incidence of venous thromboembolism and infections. Infections remain the most dangerous complication of splenectomy. After splenectomy, the levels of antibody are preserved but there is a loss of memory B cells against pneumococcus and tetanus, and the loss of marginal zone monocytes deputed to immunological defense from capsulated bacteria. Commonly, the infections strictly correlated to the absence of the spleen or a decreased or absent splenic function are due to encapsulated bacteria that are the most virulent pathogens in this set of patients. Vaccination with polysaccharide and conjugate vaccines again Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, and Neisseria meningitidis should be performed before the splenectomy. This practice reduces but does not eliminate the occurrence of overwhelming infections due to capsulated bacteria. At present, most of infections found in splenectomized patients are due to Gram-negative (G-) bacteria. The underlying disease is the most important factor in determining the frequency and severity of infections. So, splenectomy for malignant diseases has the major risk of infections.