Influence of vaccination and surgery on HLA-DR expression in patients with upper aerodigestive tract cancer

De Novo Biopsy-Proven Glomerular Disease Following COVID-19 Vaccination

Background: There is still no consensus about the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine-associated glomerular disease (CVAGD). Given the large number of vaccinations administered and the variations in glomerulopathy observed across different countries and regional environments, CVAGD remains an important area of concern. Aim of study: We aimed to elucidate the findings of CVAGD within a Taiwanese cohort using biopsy data. Additionally, we endeavored to clarify the presentation of CVAGD. Methods: We collected data from patients who underwent renal biopsy from June 2021 to October 2022 at Taichung Veterans General Hospital. Two independent nephrologists meticulously reviewed the charts to exclude cases unrelated to vaccination. Results: Initially, a total of 286 patients underwent renal biopsy at our institute. Ultimately, we identified 14 patients with highly suspected CVAGD. All 14 patients exhibited proteinuria and hematuria. The urinary protein-to-creatinine ratio was elevated (median of 2012.1 mg/g; interquartile range (IQR) 25%-IQR 75%: 941.85-3884.1 mg/g) with a median serum creatinine level of 1.71 mg/dL (0.79-5.35). The majority of CVAGD cases were diagnosed as immunoglobulin A (IgA) nephropathy (n = 5, 35.7%), followed by antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-related rapidly progressive glomerulonephritis (RPGN) (n = 4, 28.6%). There were only three cases of minimal change disease each: one case of focal segmental glomerulosclerosis, one of membranous glomerulonephritis, and one of lupus nephritis. The culprit of COVID-19 vaccinations was 35.7% (n = 5) of Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1-S), 42.9% (n = 6) of Moderna, and 21.4% (n = 3) of BNT162b2. Most patients experienced improvements in renal function. Only two cases of P-ANCA RPGN and one case of IgA nephropathy did not recover. Eighty percent of IgA nephropathy cases had favorable outcomes, but none of the patients with P-ANCA RPGN achieved full recovery. Conclusions: IgA nephropathy and ANCA-related RPGN were the most common CVAGD, and all types of COVID-19 vaccines posed a risk for CVAGD. However, further studies are required to confirm causality.

Dual-Positive MPO- and PR3-ANCA-Associated Vasculitis Following SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Booster Vaccination: A Case Report and Systematic Review

As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is ongoing, and new variants of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are emerging, vaccines are needed to protect individuals at high risk of complications and to potentially control disease outbreaks by herd immunity. After SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV) presenting with a pulmonary hemorrhage has been described. Previous studies suggested that monocytes upregulate major histocompatibility complex (MHC) II cell surface receptor human leukocyte antigen receptor (HLA-DR) molecules in granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) patients with proteinase 3 (PR3)- and myeloperoxidase (MPO)-ANCA seropositivity. Here, we present a case of new-onset AAV after booster vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine. Moreover, we provide evidence that the majority of monocytes express HLA-DR in AAV after SARS-CoV-2 booster vaccination. It is possible that the enhanced immune response after booster vaccination and presence of HLA-DR⁺ monocytes could be responsible for triggering the production of the observed MPO- and PR3-ANCA autoantibodies. Additionally, we conducted a systematic review of de novo AAV after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination describing their clinical manifestations in temporal association with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, ANCA subtype, and treatment regimens. In light of a hundred million individuals being booster vaccinated for SARS-CoV-2 worldwide, a potential causal association with AAV may result in a considerable subset of cases with potential severe complications.

Influenza vaccines in immunosuppressed adults with cancer

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Influence of Granulocyte-Macrophage Colony-Stimulating Factor or Influenza Vaccination on HLA-DR, Infection and Delirium Days in Immunosuppressed Surgical Patients: Double Blind, Randomised Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

Surgical patients are at high risk for developing infectious complications and postoperative delirium. Prolonged infections and delirium result in worse outcome. Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) and influenza vaccination are known to increase HLA-DR on monocytes and improve immune reactivity. This study aimed to investigate whether GM-CSF or vaccination reverses monocyte deactivation. Secondary aims were whether it decreases infection and delirium days after esophageal or pancreatic resection over time.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, double dummy trial setting on an interdisciplinary ICU of a university hospital 61 patients with immunosuppression (monocytic HLA-DR [mHLA-DR] <10,000 monoclonal antibodies [mAb] per cell) on the first day after esophageal or pancreatic resection were treated with either GM-CSF (250 μg/m2/d), influenza vaccination (Mutagrip 0.5 ml/d) or placebo for a maximum of 3 consecutive days if mHLA-DR remained below 10,000 mAb per cell. HLA-DR on monocytes was measured daily until day 5 after surgery. Infections and delirium were followed up for 9 days after surgery. Primary outcome was HLA-DR on monocytes, and secondary outcomes were duration of infection and delirium.

RESULTS

mHLA-DR was significantly increased compared to placebo (p < 0.001) and influenza vaccination (p < 0.001) on the second postoperative day. Compared with placebo, GM-CSF-treated patients revealed shorter duration of infection (p < 0.001); the duration of delirium was increased after vaccination (p = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

Treatment with GM-CSF in patients with postoperative immune suppression was safe and effective in restoring monocytic immune competence. Furthermore, therapy with GM-CSF reduced duration of infection in immune compromised patients. However, influenza vaccination increased duration of delirium after major surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.controlled-trials.com ISRCTN27114642.

Postoperative immunosuppression after open and laparoscopic liver resection: assessment of cellular immune function and monocytic HLA-DR expression

In an experimental setting, the authors demonstrated a trend toward improved preservation of the immune system after laparoscopic hepatic resection compared with open surgery.

Background and Objectives:

Major abdominal procedures are strongly associated with postoperative immunosuppression and subsequent increased patient morbidity. It is believed that laparoscopic surgery causes less depletion of the systemic immune function because of the reduced tissue trauma. Various cytokines and monocytic HLA-DR expression have been successfully implemented to assess postoperative immune function. The aim of our study was to show the difference in immunologic profiles after minimally invasive versus conventional liver resection.

Methods:

Ten animals underwent either laparoscopic or conventional open left lateral liver resection. Flow cytometric characteristics of HLA-DR expression on monocytes and lipopolysaccharide-stimulated cellular secretion of tumor necrosis factor α, interferon γ, interleukin 6, and interleukin 8 were measured and analyzed in ex vivo whole blood samples. Intraoperative and postoperative clinical outcome parameters were also documented and evaluated.

Results:

All animals survived the procedures. Postoperative complications were fever (n = 3), wound infections (n = 2), and biloma (n = 1). Open surgery showed a morbidity rate of 80% compared with 40% after laparoscopic surgery. Laparoscopic liver resection showed no postoperative immunoparalysis. Major histocompatibility complex class II expression in this group was elevated, whereas the open surgery group showed decreased major histocompatibility complex class II expression on postoperative day 1. Postoperative secretion of tumor necrosis factor α, interleukin 6, and interferon γ was lower in the open surgery group. Elevated transaminase levels after laparoscopy might have resulted from an ischemia/reperfusion injury caused by the capnoperitoneum.

Conclusion:

Major immunoparalysis depression was not observed in either group. Laparoscopic surgery shows a tendency to improve immunologic recovery after liver resection.

Influenza vaccines in immunosuppressed adults with cancer

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS databases up to August 2013. We searched the following conference proceedings: ICAAC, ECCMID, IDSA (infectious disease conferences), ASH, ASBMT, EBMT (hematological), and ASCO (oncological) between the years 2006 to 2010. In addition, we scanned the references of all identified studies and pertinent reviews. We searched the websites of the manufacturers of influenza vaccine. Finally, we searched for ongoing or unpublished trials in clinical trial registry databases using the website.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

We identified four studies: one RCT and three observational studies, including 2124 participants. One study reported results in person-years while the other three reported per person. The studies were performed between 1993 and 2012 and included adults with haematological diseases (two studies), patients following bone marrow transplantation (one study) and solid malignancies (three studies). Only two observational studies reported all-cause mortality; one showing an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0.88 (95% CI 0.77 to 0.99) for death with vaccination and the other reporting an odds ratio (OR) of 0.43 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.71). The RCT reported a statistically significant reduction in ILI with vaccination, while no difference was observed in one observational study. Confirmed influenza rates were lower with vaccination in the three observational studies, the difference reaching statistical significance in one. Pneumonia was observed significantly less frequently with vaccination in one observational study, but no difference was detected in another or in the RCT. The RCT showed a reduction in hospitalizations following vaccination, while an observational study found no difference. No life-threatening or persistent adverse effects from vaccination were reported. The strength of evidence is limited by the low number of included studies and by their low methodological quality (high risk of bias).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Observational data suggests a lower mortality with influenza vaccination. Infection-related outcomes were lower or similar with influenza vaccination. The strength of evidence is limited by the small number of studies and by the fact that only one was a RCT. Influenza vaccination is safe and the evidence, although weak, is in favour of vaccinating adults with cancer receiving chemotherapy.

Influenza vaccination for immunocompromised patients: systematic review and meta-analysis from a public health policy perspective

BACKGROUND

Immunocompromised patients are vulnerable to severe or complicated influenza infection. Vaccination is widely recommended for this group. This systematic review and meta-analysis assesses influenza vaccination for immunocompromised patients in terms of preventing influenza-like illness and laboratory confirmed influenza, serological response and adverse events.

METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Electronic databases and grey literature were searched and records were screened against eligibility criteria. Data extraction and risk of bias assessments were performed in duplicate. Results were synthesised narratively and meta-analyses were conducted where feasible. Heterogeneity was assessed using I(2) and publication bias was assessed using Begg's funnel plot and Egger's regression test. Many of the 209 eligible studies included an unclear or high risk of bias. Meta-analyses showed a significant effect of preventing influenza-like illness (odds ratio [OR]=0.23; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.16-0.34; p<0.001) and laboratory confirmed influenza infection (OR=0.15; 95% CI=0.03-0.63; p=0.01) through vaccinating immunocompromised patie nts compared to placebo or unvaccinated controls. We found no difference in the odds of influenza-like illness compared to vaccinated immunocompetent controls. The pooled odds of seroconversion were lower in vaccinated patients compared to immunocompetent controls for seasonal influenza A(H1N1), A(H3N2) and B. A similar trend was identified for seroprotection. Meta-analyses of seroconversion showed higher odds in vaccinated patients compared to placebo or unvaccinated controls, although this reached significance for influenza B only. Publication bias was not detected and narrative synthesis supported our findings. No consistent evidence of safety concerns was identified.

CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE

Infection prevention and control strategies should recommend vaccinating immunocompromised patients. Potential for bias and confounding and the presence of heterogeneity mean the evidence reviewed is generally weak, although the directions of effects are consistent. Areas for further research are identified.