Efficacy of booster doses in augmenting waning immune responses to COVID-19 vaccine in patients with cancer

Immune response of COVID-19 vaccines in solid cancer patients: A meta-analysis

Solid cancer patients, compared to their healthy counterparts, are at a greater risk of contracting and suffering from severe complications and poorer prognosis after COVID-19 infections. They also have different immune responses after doses of COVID-19 vaccination, but limited evidence is available to reveal the effectiveness and help to guide immunization programs for this subpopulation; MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library databases, and clinicaltrials.gov were used to search literature. The pooled seroconversion rate was calculated using a random-effects model and reported with a 95% confidence interval (CI); The review includes 66 studies containing serological responses after COVID-19 vaccination in 13,050 solid cancer patients and 8550 healthy controls. The pooled seropositive rates after the first dose in patients with solid cancer and healthy controls are 55.2% (95% CI 45.9%-64.5% N = 18) and 90.2% (95% CI 80.9%-96.6% N = 13), respectively. The seropositive rates after the second dose in patients with solid cancer and healthy controls are 87.6% (95% CI 84.1%-90.7% N = 50) and 98.9% (95% CI 97.6%-99.7% N = 35), respectively. The seropositive rates after the third dose in patients with solid cancer and healthy controls are 91.4% (95% CI 85.4%-95.9% N = 21) and 99.8% (95% CI 98.1%-100.0% N = 4), respectively. Subgroup analysis finds that study sample size, timing of antibody testing, and vaccine type have influence on the results; Seroconversion rates after COVID-19 vaccination are significantly lower in patients with solid malignancies, especially after the first dose, then shrinking gradually after the following two vaccinations, indicating that subsequent doses or a booster dose should be considered for the effectiveness of this subpopulation.

Immune response against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in cancer patients after COVID-19 vaccination during the Omicron wave: a prospective study

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients often have weakened immune systems, resulting in a lower response to vaccines, especially those receiving immunosuppressive oncological treatment (OT). We aimed to assess the impact of OT on the humoral and T-cell response to the B.1 lineage and Omicron variant following COVID-19 vaccination in patients with solid and hematological neoplasms.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective study on cancer patients, stratified into OT and non-OT groups, who received a two-dose series of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine and a booster six months later. The outcomes measured were the humoral (anti-SARS-CoV-2 S IgG titers and ACE2-S interaction inhibition capacity) and cellular (SARS-CoV-2 S-specific T-cell spots per million PBMCs) responses against the B.1 lineage and Omicron variant. These responses were evaluated four weeks after the second dose (n = 98) and eight weeks after the booster dose (n = 71).

RESULTS

The humoral response after the second vaccine dose against the B.1 lineage and Omicron variant was significantly weaker in the OT group compared to the non-OT group (q-value<0.05). A booster dose of the mRNA-1273 vaccine significantly improved the humoral response in the OT group, making it comparable to the non-OT group. The mRNA-1273 vaccine, designed for the original Wuhan strain, elicited a weaker humoral response against the Omicron variant compared to the B.1 lineage, regardless of oncological treatment or vaccine dose. In contrast, T-cell responses against SARS-CoV-2, including the Omicron variant, were already present after the second vaccine dose and were not significantly affected by oncological treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer patients, particularly those receiving immunosuppressive oncological treatments, should require booster doses and adapted COVID-19 vaccines for new SARS-CoV-2 variants like Omicron. Future studies should evaluate the durability of the immune response and the efficacy of individualized regimens.

Effectiveness of different booster vaccine combinations against SARS-CoV-2 during a six-month follow-up in Mexico and Argentina

Introduction

Given the limited number of patients in Latin America who have received a booster dose against the COVID-19, it remains crucial to comprehend the effectiveness of different vaccine combinations as boosters in real-world scenarios. This study aimed to assess the real-life efficacy of seven different vaccine schemes against COVID-19, including BNT162b2, ChAdOx1-S, Gam-COVID-Vac, and CoronaVac as primary schemes with either BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1-S as booster vaccines.

Methods

In this multicentric longitudinal observational study, participants from Mexico and Argentina were followed for infection and SARS-CoV-2 Spike 1-2 IgG antibodies during their primary vaccination course and for 185 days after the booster dose.

Results

A total of 491 patients were included, and the booster dose led to an overall increase in the humoral response for all groups. Patients who received BNT162b2 exhibited the highest antibody levels after the third dose, while those with primary Gam-COVID-Vac maintained a higher level of antibodies after six months. Infection both before vaccination and after the booster dose, and Gam-COVIDVac + BNT162b2 combination correlated with higher antibody titers.

Discussion

The sole predictor of infection in the six-month follow-up was a prior COVID-19 infection before the vaccination scheme, which decreased the risk of infection, and all booster vaccine combinations conveyed the same amount of protection.

Changes in hospital mortality in patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic (ISARIC-CCP-UK): a prospective, multicentre cohort study

BACKGROUND

Patients with cancer are at greater risk of dying from COVID-19 than many other patient groups. However, how this risk evolved during the pandemic remains unclear. We aimed to determine, on the basis of the UK national pandemic protocol, how factors influencing hospital mortality from COVID-19 could differentially affect patients undergoing cancer treatment. We also examined changes in hospital mortality and escalation of care in patients on cancer treatment during the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study of patients aged older than 19 years and admitted to 306 health-care facilities in the UK with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, who were enrolled in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infections Consortium (ISARIC) WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol (CCP) across the UK from April 23, 2020, to Feb 28, 2022; this analysis included all patients in the complete dataset when the study closed. The primary outcome was 30-day in-hospital mortality, comparing patients on cancer treatment and those without cancer. The study was approved by the South Central-Oxford C Research Ethics Committee in England (Ref: 13/SC/0149) and the Scotland A Research Ethics Committee (Ref 20/SS/0028), and is registered on the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN66726260).

FINDINGS

177 871 eligible adult patients either with no history of cancer (n=171 303) or on cancer treatment (n=6568) were enrolled; 93 205 (52·4%) were male, 84 418 (47·5%) were female, and in 248 (13·9%) sex or gender details were not specified or data were missing. Patients were followed up for a median of 13 (IQR 6-21) days. Of the 6568 patients receiving cancer treatment, 2080 (31·7%) died at 30 days, compared with 30 901 (18·0%) of 171 303 patients without cancer. Patients aged younger than 50 years on cancer treatment had the highest age-adjusted relative risk (hazard ratio [HR] 5·2 [95% CI 4·0-6·6], p<0·0001; vs 50-69 years 2·4 [2·2-2·6], p<0·0001; 70-79 years 1·8 [1·6-2·0], p<0·0001; and >80 years 1·5 [1·3-1·6], p<0·0001) but a lower absolute risk (51 [6·7%] of 763 patients <50 years died compared with 459 [30·2%] of 1522 patients aged >80 years). In-hospital mortality decreased for all patients during the pandemic but was higher for patients on cancer treatment than for those without cancer throughout the study period.

INTERPRETATION

People with cancer have a higher risk of mortality from COVID-19 than those without cancer. Patients younger than 50 years with cancer treatment have the highest relative risk of death. Continued action is needed to mitigate the poor outcomes in patients with cancer, such as through optimising vaccination, long-acting passive immunisation, and early access to therapeutics. These findings underscore the importance of the ISARIC-WHO pandemic preparedness initiative.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research and the Medical Research Council.

Immunogenicity of COVID-19 adsorbed inactivated vaccine (CoronaVac) and additional doses of mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine in immunocompromised adults compared with immunocompetent persons

Inactivated COVID-19 vaccines data in immunocompromised individuals are scarce. This trial assessed the immunogenicity of two CoronaVac doses and additional BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine doses in immunocompromised (IC) and immunocompetent (H) individuals. Adults with solid organ transplant (SOT), hematopoietic stem cell transplant, cancer, inborn immunity errors or rheumatic diseases were included in the IC group. Immunocompetent adults were used as control group for comparison. Participants received two CoronaVac doses within a 28-day interval. IC received two additional BNT162b2 doses and H received a third BNT162b2 dose (booster). Blood samples were collected at baseline, 28 days after each dose, pre-booster and at the trial end. We used three serological tests to detect antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N), trimeric spike (S), and receptor binding domain (RBD). Outcomes included seroconversion rates (SCR), geometric mean titers (GMT) and GMT ratio (GMTR). A total of 241 IC and 100 H adults participated in the study. After two CoronaVac doses, IC had lower SCR than H: anti-N, 33.3% vs 79%; anti-S, 33.8% vs 86%, and anti-RBD, 48.5% vs 85%, respectively. IC also showed lower GMT than H: anti-N, 2.3 vs 15.1; anti-S, 58.8 vs 213.2 BAU/mL; and anti-RBD, 22.4 vs 168.0 U/mL, respectively. After the 3rd and 4th BNT162b2 doses, IC had significant anti-S and anti-RBD seroconversion, but still lower than H after the 3rd dose. After boosting, GMT increased in IC, but remained lower than in the H group. CoronaVac two-dose schedule immunogenicity was lower in IC than in H. BNT162b2 heterologous booster enhanced immune response in both groups.

Antibody response to three-dose anti-SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-vaccination in treated solid cancer patients

Solid cancer patients are at higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe complications. Moreover, vaccine-induced antibody response is impaired in patients on anticancer treatment. In this retrospective, observational, hypothesis-generating, cohort study, we assessed the antibody response to the third dose of mRNA vaccine in a convenience sample of patients on anticancer treatment, comparing it to that of the primary two-dose cycle. Among 99 patients included, 62.6% were ≥60 years old, 32.3% males, 67.7% with advanced disease. Exactly 40.4% were receiving biological therapy, 16.2% chemotherapy only and 7.1% both treatments. After the third dose, seroconversion rate seems to increase significantly, especially in non-responders to two doses. Heterologous vaccine-type regimen (two-dose mRNA-1273 and subsequent tozinameran or vice versa) results in higher antibody levels. This explorative study suggests that repeated doses of mRNA-vaccines could be associated with a better antibody response in this population. Furthermore, heterologous vaccine-type three-dose vaccination seems more effective in this population. Since this is a hypothesis-generating study, adequately statistically powered studies should validate these results.

Boosting Vaccine Response in Autoimmune Rheumatic Disease Patients With Inadequate Seroconversion: An Analysis of the Immunogenicity of Vector-Based and Inactivated Vaccines

BACKGROUND

An additional dose of COVID-19 vaccine is being offered to vaccinated people, especially those immunocompromised. The most widely available vaccines in India are the adenoviral vector-based AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) and the heat-inactivated (BBV152). This study investigated the efficacy of both vaccines in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRD).

OBJECTIVES

 To compare final anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody titers, neutralization of pseudovirions by these antibodies, and T cell responses between patients of AIRD who had received the third dose of AZD1222 and BBV152 vaccines.

METHODS

Patients with stable AIRD who had completed two doses of COVID-19 vaccination but had a suboptimal response (anti-receptor binding domain (RBD) antibody<212) were randomized (1:1) to receive either AZD1222 or BBV152 as a booster dose. Patients with previous hybrid immunity or those who developed COVID-19 during the trial were excluded. Antibody titers, neutralization of Wuhan and Omicron pseudovirions, and interferon release by T cells (enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot (ELISpot)) in response to the Spike antigen were measured four weeks after this booster dose.

RESULTS

146 were screened, 91 were randomized, and 67 were analyzed per protocol. The third dose improved antibody titers (p<0.001), neutralization of the Wuhan strain (p<0.001), and T cell interferon release (p<0.001) but not neutralization of the Omicron strain (p=0.24). Antibody titers were higher (p<0.005) after ADZ1222 boost (2,414 IU (interquartile range (IQR): 330-10,315)) than BBV1222 (347.7 IU (0.4-973)). Neutralization of the Wuhan stain was better (AZD1222: 76.6%(23.0-95.45) versus BBV152 (32.7% (0-78.9), p=0.03 by ANCOVA). Neutralization of Omicron (0 (0-28.4) vs 0 (0-4.8)) and T cell interferon release (57.0 IU (23.5-95) vs 50.5 IU (13.2-139)) were similar.

CONCLUSION

The third dose improved all parameters of immunogenicity in AIRD patients with previous inadequate responses except Omicron neutralization. The vector-based vaccine exhibits notable efficacy, particularly in antibody titers and neutralizing the Wuhan strain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CTRI/2021/12/038928.

Low uptake of COVID-19 booster doses among elderly cancer patients in China: A multicentre cross-sectional study

Background

Vaccination is a crucial measure to control the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The elderly and cancer populations both are more susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 and have higher mortality. However, the uptake of COVID-19 vaccine booster doses among elderly cancer patients remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence and associates of COVID-19 vaccine booster doses uptake in elderly cancer patients.

Methods

A multi-center cross-sectional survey was conducted in four general populations of China province from April to June 2022. Demographic and clinical characteristics, as well as COVID-19 vaccination status and reasons for not uptake booster doses, were collected through face-to-face interviews and medical records. Multivariable logistic regression models were performed to explore the associates of the first COVID-19 booster dose vaccination uptake of cancer patients.

Results

A total of 893 cancer patients were eventually included in this study, of which 279 (31.24%) were aged 65 or older and 614 (68.76%) were under 65 years old. The proportion of the first COVID-19 vaccine booster dose among cancer patients aged 65 and above was lower than among adults aged 65 (23.66 vs. 31.92%). Factors affecting individual-level variables among the aged 65 and above cancer patients group whether to uptake the first COVID-19 booster dose were negative attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccine booster dose, perceived subjective norm, perceived behavioural control, and other types of chronic disease. There is no significant difference in the incidence of related adverse reactions between the two age groups (P = 0.19).

Conclusions

Low uptake of COVID-19 vaccine booster doses among elderly cancer patients is a significant concern and implies high susceptibility and high fatality when facing the emergence of SARS Cov-2 outbreak. Efforts to improve vaccine education and accessibility, particularly in rural areas, may help increase uptake and reduce the spread of SARS-Cov-2.

Immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination in people with idiopathic CD4 lymphopenia

BACKGROUND

The immunogenicity of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) mRNA vaccines is variable in individuals with different inborn errors of immunity or acquired immune deficiencies and is yet unknown in people with idiopathic CD4 lymphopenia (ICL).

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine the immunogenicity of mRNA vaccines in patients with ICL with a broad range of CD4 T-cell counts.

METHODS

Samples were collected from 25 patients with ICL and 23 age- and sex-matched healthy volunteers (HVs) after their second or third SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine dose. Anti-spike and anti-receptor binding domain antibodies were measured. T-cell receptor sequencing and stimulation assays were performed to quantify SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell responses.

RESULTS

The median age of ICL participants was 51 years, and their median CD4 count was 150 cells/μL; 11 participants had CD4 counts ≤100 cells/μL. Anti-spike IgG antibody levels were greater in HVs than in patients with ICL after 2 and 3 doses of mRNA vaccine. There was no detectable significant difference, however, in anti-S IgG between HVs and participants with ICL and CD4 counts >100 cells/μL. The depth of spike-specific T-cell responses by T-cell receptor sequencing was lower in individuals with ICL. Activation-induced markers and cytokine production of spike-specific CD4 T cells in participants with ICL did not differ significantly compared with HVs after 2 or 3 vaccine doses.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with ICL and CD4 counts >100 cells/μL can mount vigorous humoral and cellular immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination; however, patients with more severe CD4 lymphopenia have blunted vaccine-induced immunity and may require additional vaccine doses and other risk mitigation strategies.

Neutralizing Antibody Response following a Third Dose of the mRNA-1273 Vaccine among Cancer Patients

Cancer patients are at an increased risk of morbidity and mortality from SARS-CoV-2 infection and have a decreased immune response to vaccination. We conducted a study measuring both the neutralizing and total antibodies in cancer patients following a third dose of the mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine. Immune responses were measured with an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and neutralization assays. Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to evaluate the association between patient characteristics and neutralization geometric mean titers (GMTs), and paired t-tests were used to compare the GMTs between different timepoints. Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated to determine the correlation between total antibody and neutralization GMTs. Among 238 adults diagnosed with cancer, a third dose of mRNA-1273 resulted in a 37-fold increase in neutralization GMT 28 days post-vaccination and maintained a 14.6-fold increase at 6 months. Patients with solid tumors or lymphoid cancer had the highest and lowest neutralization GMTs, respectively, at both 28 days and 6 months post-dose 3. While total antibody GMTs in lymphoid patients continued to increase, other cancer types showed decreases in titers between 28 days and 6 months post-dose 3. A strong correlation (p < 0.001) was found between total antibody and neutralization GMTs. The third dose of mRNA-1273 was able to elicit a robust neutralizing antibody response in cancer patients, which remained for 6 months after administration. Lymphoid cancer patients can benefit most from this third dose, as it was shown to continue to increase total antibody GMTs 6 months after vaccination.

Age, successive waves, immunization, and mortality in elderly COVID-19 hematological patients: EPICOVIDEHA findings

OBJECTIVES

Elderly patients with hematologic malignancies face the highest risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes. The infection's impact on different age groups remains unstudied in detail.

METHODS

We analyzed elderly patients (age groups: 65-70, 71-75, 76-80, and >80 years old) with hematologic malignancies included in the EPICOVIDEHA registry between January 2020 and July 2022. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression models were conducted to identify factors influencing death in COVID-19 patients with hematological malignancy.

RESULTS

The study included data from 3,603 elderly patients (aged 65 or older) with hematological malignancy, with a majority being male (58.1%) and a significant proportion having comorbidities. The patients were divided into four age groups, and the analysis assessed COVID-19 outcomes, vaccination status, and other variables in relation to age and pandemic waves. The 90-day survival rate for patients with COVID-19 was 71.2%, with significant differences between groups. The pandemic waves had varying impacts, with the first wave affecting patients over 80 years old, the second being more severe in 65-70, and the third being the least severe in all age groups. Factors contributing to 90-day mortality included age, comorbidities, lymphopenia, active malignancy, acute leukemia, less than three vaccine doses, severe COVID-19, and using only corticosteroids as treatment.

CONCLUSION

These data underscore the heterogeneity of elderly hematological patients, highlight the different impacts of COVID-19 waves and the pivotal importance of vaccination, and may help in planning future healthcare efforts.

Outcomes of breakthrough COVID-19 infections in patients with hematologic malignancies

Patients with hematologic malignancies have both an increased risk for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections and higher morbidity/mortality. They have lower seroconversion rates after vaccination, potentially leading to inferior coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes, despite vaccination. We consequently evaluated the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 infections in 243 vaccinated and 175 unvaccinated patients with hematologic malignancies. Hospitalization rates were lower in the vaccinated group when compared with the unvaccinated group (31.3% vs 52.6%). However, the rates of COVID-19-associated death were similar at 7.0% and 8.6% in vaccinated and unvaccinated patients, respectively. By univariate logistic regression, females, older patients, and individuals with higher modified Charlson Comorbidity Index scores were at a higher risk of death from COVID-19 infections. To account for the nonrandomized nature of COVID-19 vaccination status, a propensity score weighting approach was used. In the final propensity-weighted model, vaccination status was not significantly associated with the risk of death from COVID-19 infections but was associated with the risk of hospitalization. The predicted benefit of vaccination was an absolute decrease in the probability of death and hospitalization from COVID-19 infections by 2.3% and 22.9%, respectively. In conclusion, COVID-19 vaccination status in patients with hematologic malignancies was associated with a decreased risk of hospitalization but not associated with a decreased risk of death from COVID-19 infections in the pre-Omicron era. Protective strategies, in addition to immunization, are warranted in this vulnerable patient population.

Immune-related adverse events and disease outcomes after the third dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-BNT162b2 vaccine in cancer patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors

BACKGROUND

The clinical implications of the third dose of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors are currently unknown. We performed a prospective analysis of the Vax-On-Third study to investigate the effects of antibody response on immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and disease outcomes.

METHODS

Recipients of the booster dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-BNT162b2 vaccine who had received at least one course of an anti-PD-1/PD-L1 treatment before vaccination for an advanced solid malignancy were eligible.

RESULTS

The current analysis included 56 patients with metastatic disease (median age: 66 years; male: 71%), most of whom had a lung cancer diagnosis and were being treated with pembrolizumab- or nivolumab-based regimens. The optimal cut-point antibody titer of 486 BAU/mL allowed a dichotomization of recipients into low-responders (Low-R, < 486 BAU/mL) or high-responders (High-R, ≥ 486 BAU/mL). After a median follow-up time of 226 days, 21.4% of patients experienced moderate to severe irAEs without any recrudescence of immune toxicities preceding the booster dose. The frequencies of irAE before and after the third dose did not differ, but an increase in the cumulative incidence of immuno-related thyroiditis was observed within the High-R subgroup. On multivariate analysis, an enhanced humoral response correlated with a better outcome in terms of durable clinical benefit, which resulted in a significant reduction in the risk of disease control loss but not mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings would strengthen the recommendation not to change anti-PD-1/PD-L1 treatment plans based on current or future immunization schedules, implying that all these patients should be closely monitored.

Twelve-Month Follow-up of the Immune Response After COVID-19 Vaccination in Patients with Genitourinary Cancers: A Prospective Cohort Analysis

BACKGROUND

Vaccinations against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have had a transformative impact on morbidity and mortality. However, the long-term impact of vaccination on patients with genitourinary cancers is currently unknown.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study aimed to assess seroconversion rates in patients with genitourinary cancers receiving COVID-19 vaccination. Patients with prostate cancer, renal cell carcinoma, or urothelial cancer who had not been vaccinated for COVID-19 were included. Blood samples were obtained at baseline and after 2, 6, and 12 months of one dose of an FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccine. Antibody titer analysis was performed using the SCoV-2 Detect IgG ELISA assay, and the results were reported as immune status ratio (ISR). A paired t-test was used for comparison of ISR values between timepoints. In addition, T-cell receptor (TCR) sequencing was performed to assess for differences in TCR repertoire 2 months after vaccination.

RESULTS

Out of 133 patients enrolled, 98 baseline blood samples were collected. At 2-, 6-, and 12-month time points 98, 70, and 50 samples were collected, respectively. Median age was 67 (IQR, 62-75), with the majority of patients diagnosed with prostate (55.1%) or renal cell carcinoma (41.8%). Compared to baseline (0.24 [95% CI, 0.19-0.31]) a significant increase in the geometric mean ISR values was observed at the 2-month timepoint (5.59 [4.76-6.55]) (P < .001). However, at the 6-month timepoint, a significant decrease in the ISR values was observed (4.66 [95% CI, 4.04-5.38]; P < .0001). Notably, at the 12-month timepoint, the addition of a booster dose resulted in an absolute increase in the ISR values compared to those who did not receive a booster dose (P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS

Only a minority of patients with genitourinary cancers did not ultimately achieve satisfactory seroconversion after receiving commercial COVID-19 vaccination. Cancer type or treatment rendered did not appear to affect the immune response mounted after vaccination.

Longitudinal data on humoral response and neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 and subvariants BA.4/5 and BQ.1.1 after COVID-19 vaccination in cancer patients

PURPOSE

The SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant of concern (VOC) and subvariants like BQ.1.1 demonstrate immune evasive potential. Little is known about the efficacy of booster vaccinations regarding this VOC and subvariants in cancer patients. This study is among the first to provide data on neutralizing antibodies (nAb) against BQ.1.1.

METHODS

Cancer patients at our center were prospectively enrolled between 01/2021 and 02/2022. Medical data and blood samples were collected at enrollment and before and after every SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, at 3 and 6 months.

RESULTS

We analyzed 408 samples from 148 patients (41% female), mainly with solid tumors (85%) on active therapy (92%; 80% chemotherapy). SARS-CoV-2 IgG and nAb titers decreased over time, however, significantly increased following third vaccination (p < 0.0001). NAb (ND50) against Omicron BA.1 was minimal prior and increased significantly after the third vaccination (p < 0.0001). ND50 titers against BQ.1.1 after the third vaccination were significantly lower than against BA.1 and BA.4/5 (p < 0.0001) and undetectable in half of the patients (48%). Factors associated with impaired immune response were hematologic malignancies, B cell depleting therapy and higher age. Choice of vaccine, sex and treatment with chemo-/immunotherapy did not influence antibody response. Patients with breakthrough infections had significantly lower nAb titers after both 6 months (p < 0.001) and the third vaccination (p = 0.018).

CONCLUSION

We present the first data on nAb against BQ.1.1 following the third vaccination in cancer patients. Our results highlight the threat that new emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants pose to cancer patients and support efforts to apply repeated vaccines. Since a considerable number of patients did not display an adequate immune response, continuing to exhibit caution remains reasonable.

COVID-19 Vaccination in Patients With Cancer and Patients Receiving HSCT or CAR-T Therapy: Immune Response, Real-World Effectiveness, and Implications for the Future

Patients with cancer demonstrate an increased vulnerability for infection and severe disease by SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of COVID-19. Risk factors for severe COVID-19 include comorbidities, uncontrolled disease, and current line of treatment. Although COVID-19 vaccines have afforded some level of protection against infection and severe disease among patients with solid tumors and hematologic malignancies, decreased immunogenicity and real-world effectiveness have been observed among this population compared with healthy individuals. Characterizing and understanding the immune response to increasing doses or differing schedules of COVID-19 vaccines among patients with cancer is important to inform clinical and public health practices. In this article, we review SARS-CoV-2 susceptibility and immune responses to COVID-19 vaccination in patients with solid tumors, hematologic malignancies, and those receiving hematopoietic stem cell transplant or chimeric-antigen receptor T-cell therapy.

A population-scale temporal case-control evaluation of COVID-19 disease phenotype and related outcome rates in patients with cancer in England (UKCCP)

Patients with cancer are at increased risk of hospitalisation and mortality following severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. However, the SARS-CoV-2 phenotype evolution in patients with cancer since 2020 has not previously been described. We therefore evaluated SARS-CoV-2 on a UK populationscale from 01/11/2020-31/08/2022, assessing case-outcome rates of hospital assessment(s), intensive care admission and mortality. We observed that the SARS-CoV-2 disease phenotype has become less severe in patients with cancer and the non-cancer population. Case-hospitalisation rates for patients with cancer dropped from 30.58% in early 2021 to 7.45% in 2022 while case-mortality rates decreased from 20.53% to 3.25%. However, the risk of hospitalisation and mortality remains 2.10x and 2.54x higher in patients with cancer, respectively. Overall, the SARS-CoV-2 disease phenotype is less severe in 2022 compared to 2020 but patients with cancer remain at higher risk than the non-cancer population. Patients with cancer must therefore be empowered to live more normal lives, to see loved ones and families, while also being safeguarded with expanded measures to reduce the risk of transmission.

Safety and immunogenicity of a third dose of mRNA-1273 vaccine among cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Compared to the general population, cancer patients are at higher risk of morbidity and mortality following SARS-CoV-2 infection. The immune response to a two-dose regimen of mRNA vaccines in cancer patients is generally lower than in immunocompetent individuals. Booster doses may meaningfully augment immune response in this population. We conducted an observational study with the primary objective of determining the immunogenicity of vaccine dose three (100 μg) of mRNA-1273 among cancer patients and a secondary objective of evaluating safety at 14 and 28 days.

METHODS

The mRNA-1273 vaccine was administered ∼7 to 9 months after administering two vaccine doses (i.e., the primary series). Immune responses (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay [ELISA]) were assessed 28 days post-dose three. Adverse events were collected at days 14 (± 5) and 28 (+5) post-dose three. Fisher exact or X² tests were used to compare SARS-CoV-2 antibody positivity rates, and paired t-tests were used to compare SARS-CoV-2 antibody geometric mean titers (GMTs) across different time intervals.

RESULTS

Among 284 adults diagnosed with solid tumors or hematologic malignancies, dose three of mRNA-1273 increased the percentage of patients seropositive for SARS-CoV-2 antibody from 81.7% pre-dose three to 94.4% 28 days post-dose three. GMTs increased 19.0-fold (15.8-22.8). Patients with lymphoid cancers or solid tumors had the lowest and highest antibody titers post-dose three, respectively. Antibody responses after dose three were reduced among those who received anti-CD20 antibody treatment, had lower total lymphocyte counts and received anticancer therapy within 3 months. Among patients seronegative for SARS-CoV-2 antibody pre-dose three, 69.2% seroconverted after dose three. A majority (70.4%) experienced mostly mild, transient adverse reactions within 14 days of dose three, whereas severe treatment-emergent events within 28 days were very rare (<2%).

CONCLUSION

Dose three of the mRNA-1273 vaccine was well-tolerated and augmented SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity in cancer patients, especially those who did not seroconvert post-dose two or whose GMTs significantly waned post-dose two. Lymphoid cancer patients experienced lower humoral responses to dose three of the mRNA-1273 vaccine, suggesting that timely access to boosters is important for this population.

COVID-19 Infection and Vaccination and Its Relation to Amyloidosis: What Do We Know Currently?

Amyloidosis is a complex disorder characterized by deposited insoluble fibrillar proteins which misfold into β-pleated sheets. The pathogenesis of amyloidosis can vary but can be the result of immune dysregulation that occurs from sustained high inflammatory states, often known as AA amyloidosis. Multi-organ involvement including hepatic, gastrointestinal, renal, cardiac and immunological pathological manifestations has been observed amongst individuals presenting with amyloidosis. The recent global pandemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, also referred to as coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19), has been shown to be associated with multiple health complications, many of which are similar to those seen in amyloidosis. Though COVID-19 is recognized primarily as a respiratory disease, it has since been found to have a range of extra-pulmonary manifestations, many of which are observed in patients with amyloidosis. These include features of oxidative stress, chronic inflammation and thrombotic risks. It is well known that viral illnesses have been associated with the triggering of autoimmune conditions of which amyloidosis is no different. Over the recent months, reports of new-onset and relapsed disease following COVID-19 infection and vaccination have been published. Despite this, the exact pathophysiological associations of COVID-19 and amyloidosis remain unclear. We present a scoping review based on our systematic search of available evidence relating to amyloidosis, COVID-19 infection and COVID-19 vaccination, evaluating current perspectives and providing insight into knowledge gaps that still needs to be addressed going forward.

A Three-Dose mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine Regime Produces Both Suitable Immunogenicity and Satisfactory Efficacy in Patients with Solid Cancers

BACKGROUND

The recommended booster third dose of vaccination against COVID-19 in cancer patients seems reasonable to protect them against a severe disease course. A prospective study was designed to assess the immunogenicity, efficacy, and safety of COVID-19 vaccination in this cohort.

METHODS

Patients with solid malignancies on active treatment were followed up after the primary course and booster third dose of vaccination to assess their anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1 IgG levels, efficacy in the case of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and safety.

RESULTS

Out of 125 patients receiving the primary course of vaccination, 66 patients received a booster third dose of mRNA vaccine, with a 20-fold increase in median anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1 IgG levels compared to Ab levels six months post-primary course of vaccination (p < 0.0001). After the booster third dose, anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1 IgG levels were comparable to healthy controls (p = 0.113). There was a decline in Ab levels 3 (p = 0.0003) and 6 months (p < 0.0001) post-third booster dose. No patients had either a severe disease course or a lethal outcome in the case of SARS-CoV-2 infection after the third booster dose.

CONCLUSION

The third booster vaccination dose against COVID-19 in solid cancer patients triggers substantial immunogenicity and is safe and effective for preventing a severe COVID-19 disease course.

COVID-19 in cancer patients: update from the joint analysis of the ESMO-CoCARE, BSMO, and PSMO international databases

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 has significantly affected patients with cancer and revealed unanticipated challenges in securing optimal cancer care across different disciplines. The European Society for Medical Oncology COVID-19 and CAncer REgistry (ESMO-CoCARE) is an international, real-world database, collecting data on the natural history, management, and outcomes of patients with cancer and SARS-CoV-2 infection.

METHODS

This is the 2nd CoCARE analysis, jointly with Belgian (Belgian Society of Medical Oncology, BSMO) and Portuguese (Portuguese Society of Medical Oncology, PSMO) registries, with data from January 2020 to December 2021. The aim is to identify significant prognostic factors for COVID-19 hospitalization and mortality (primary outcomes), as well as intensive care unit admission and overall survival (OS) (secondary outcomes). Subgroup analyses by pandemic phase and vaccination status were carried out.

RESULTS

The cohort includes 3294 patients (CoCARE: 2049; BSMO: 928, all hospitalized by eligibility criteria; PSMO: 317), diagnosed in four distinct pandemic phases (January to May 2020: 36%; June to September 2020: 9%; October 2020 to February 2021: 41%; March to December 2021: 12%). COVID-19 hospitalization rate was 54% (CoCARE/PSMO), ICU admission 14%, and COVID-19 mortality 22% (all data). At a 6-month median follow-up, 1013 deaths were recorded with 73% 3-month OS rate. No significant change was observed in COVID-19 mortality among hospitalized patients across the four pandemic phases (30%-33%). Hospitalizations and ICU admission decreased significantly (from 78% to 34% and 16% to 10%, respectively). Among 1522 patients with known vaccination status at COVID-19 diagnosis, 70% were non-vaccinated, 24% had incomplete vaccination, and 7% complete vaccination. Complete vaccination had a protective effect on hospitalization (odds ratio = 0.24; 95% confidence interval [0.14-0.38]), ICU admission (odds ratio = 0.29 [0.09-0.94]), and OS (hazard ratio = 0.39 [0.20-0.76]). In multivariable analyses, COVID-19 hospitalization was associated with patient/cancer characteristics, the first pandemic phase, the presence of COVID-19-related symptoms or inflammatory biomarkers, whereas COVID-19 mortality was significantly higher in symptomatic patients, males, older age, ethnicity other than Asian/Caucasian, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥2, body mass index <25, hematological malignancy, progressive disease versus no evident disease, and advanced cancer stage.

CONCLUSIONS

The updated CoCARE analysis, jointly with BSMO and PSMO, highlights factors that significantly affect COVID-19 outcomes, providing actionable clues for further reducing mortality.

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.

Persistence of Immune Response Elicited by Three Doses of mRNA Vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 in a Cohort of Patients with Solid Tumors: A One-Year Follow-Up

The role and durability of the immunogenicity of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine against severe acute respiratory virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), in cancer patients one year after receiving the third dose have to be elucidated. We have prospectively evaluated the long-term immunogenicity of the third dose of the SARS-CoV-2 BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine in 55 patients undergoing active treatment. Neutralizing antibody (NT Ab) titers against Omicron variants and total anti-trimeric S IgG levels were measured one year after the third dose. Heparinized whole-blood samples were used for the assessment of the SARS-CoV-2 interferon-γ release assay (IGRA). Thirty-seven patients (67.3%) showed positive total anti-trimeric S IgG one year after the third dose. Looking at the T-cell response against the spike protein, the frequency of responder patients did not decrease significantly between six and twelve months after the third dose. Finally, less than 20% of cancer patients showed an undetectable NT Ab titer against BA.1 and BA.5 variants of concern (VOCs). Underlying therapies seem to not affect the magnitude or frequency of the immune response. Our work underlines the persistence of humoral and cellular immune responses against BNT162b2 in a cohort of cancer patients one year after receiving the third dose, regardless of the type of underlying therapy.

Vaccination for seasonal flu, pneumococcal infection, and SARS-CoV-2 in patients with solid tumors: recommendations of the Associazione Italiana di Oncologia Medica (AIOM)

Patients with cancer have a well-known and higher risk of vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs). VPDs may cause severe complications in this setting due to the immune system impairment, malnutrition and oncological treatments. Despite this evidence, vaccination rates are inadequate. The Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM) has been involved in vaccination awareness since 2014. Based on a careful review of the available data about the immunogenicity, effectiveness and safety of flu, pneumococcal and anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, we report the recommendations of the Associazione Italiana di Oncologia Medica about these vaccinations in adult patients with solid tumors. AIOM recommends comprehensive education on the issue of VPDs. We believe that a multidisciplinary care model may improve the vaccination coverage in immunocompromised patients. Continued surveillance, implementation of preventive practices and future well-designed immunological prospective studies are essential for a better management of our patients with cancer.

Clinical outcome of SARS-CoV-2 infections occurring in multiple myeloma patients after vaccination and prophylaxis with tixagevimab/cilgavimab

Introduction

Patients with multiple myeloma (MM) frequently reported immune impairment with an increased risk for infection-related mortality. We aimed to evaluate the immune response in MM patients vaccinated for SARS-CoV-2 during active treatment.

Methods

We enrolled 158 patients affected by active MM or smoldering MM (SMM) and 40 healthy subjects. All subjects received 2 or 3 doses of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccine, and the anti-spike IgG values were evaluated after every dose. We applied the Propensity Score Matching (PSM) as a consequence of the limited sample size and its heterogeneity to adjust for differences in baseline clinical variables between MM patients who achieved or not a vaccine response after 2 or 3 doses.

Results

At 30 days from the second dose, the median antibodies level in MM was 25.2 AU/mL, lower than in SMM and in the control group. The same results were confirmed after the third dose, with lower median anti-spike IgG levels in MM, compared to SMM and control group. Following PSM, lack of response to SARS-CoV-2 complete vaccination plus boost was associated with age more than 70 years old and use of high-dose of steroids. We failed to identify an association between specific treatment types and reduced vaccine response. The use of prophylaxis with tixagevimab/cilgavimab for 40 non-responder patients after 3 doses of vaccine has proven to be an effective and safe approach in reducing the risk of serious illness in the event of a breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection, faced with a mild symptomatic course, and in providing protection instead of long-term humoral immune vaccine responses. Following PSM, only the high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities were associated with an increased risk of developing a breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Conclusion

Monitoring the immune response is fundamental in MM patients that remain highly vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 despite the vaccine. The use of prophylaxis with tixagevimab/cilgavimab can guarantee better protection from the severe form of the disease.

Cancer, more than a “COVID-19 co-morbidity”

Patients with cancer represent a particularly vulnerable population at risk of adverse outcomes related to COVID-19. Collectively, the initial studies, including patients with and without cancer, confirmed that patients with cancer had a higher risk of complications and death related to COVID-19. Subsequent studies on patients with COVID-19 and cancer investigated patient and disease-related factors associated with COVID-19 severity and morality. Multiple interconnected factors include demographics, comorbidities, cancer-associated variables, treatment side effects, and other parameters. However, there is a lack of clarity on the contributions of any one factor. In this commentary, we deconvolute the data of specific risk factors associated with worse outcomes due to COVID-19 in cancer patients and focus on understanding the recommended guidelines to mitigate COVID-19 risk in this vulnerable population. In the first section, we highlight the key parameters, including age and race, cancer status, type of malignancy, cancer therapy, smoking status and comorbidities that impact outcomes for cancer patients with COVID-19. Next, we discuss efforts made at the patient, health system, and population levels to mitigate the effects of the ongoing outbreak for patients with cancer, including (1) screening, barrier and isolation strategies (2), Masking/PPE (3), vaccination, and (4) systemic therapies (e.g., evusheld) to prevent disease onset in patients. In the last section, we discuss optimal treatment strategies for COVID-19, including additional therapies for patients with COVID-19 and cancer. Overall, this commentary focuses on articles with high yield and impact on understanding the evolving evidence of risk factors and management guidelines in detail. We also emphasize the ongoing collaboration between clinicians, researchers, health system administrators and policymakers and how its role will be important in optimizing care delivery strategies for patients with cancer. Creative patient-centered solutions will be critical in the coming years, post the pandemic.

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.

Understanding the Impact of COVID-19 on Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) Caregiving and Related Resource Needs

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) caregivers play a central role in disease management-a role that has been heightened during the COVID-19 pandemic given the healthcare system's reliance on frontline family caregivers and CLL patients' increased risk of infection and mortality. Using a mixed-method design, we investigated the impact of the pandemic on CLL caregivers (Aim 1) and their perceived resource needs (Aim 2): 575 CLL caregivers responded to an online survey; 12 spousal CLL caregivers were interviewed. Two open-ended survey items were thematically analyzed and compared with interview findings. Aim 1 results showed that two years into the pandemic, CLL caregivers continue to struggle with coping with distress, living in isolation, and losing in-person care opportunities. Caregivers described experiencing increasing caregiving burden, realizing the vaccine may not work or didn't work for their loved one with CLL, feeling cautiously hopeful about EVUSHELD, and dealing with unsupportive/skeptical individuals. Aim 2 results indicate that CLL caregivers needed reliable, ongoing information about COVID-19 risk, information about and access to vaccination, safety/precautionary measures, and monoclonal infusions. Findings illustrate ongoing challenges facing CLL caregivers and provide an agenda to better support the caregivers of this vulnerable population during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 and risk of hospital admission and death among infected cancer patients: A population-based study in northern Italy

BACKGROUND

The risks of hospital admission for COVID-19-related conditions and all-cause death of SARS-CoV-2 infected cancer patients were investigated according to vaccination status.

METHODS

A population-based cohort study was carried out on 9754 infected cancer patients enrolled from January 1, 2021 to June 30, 2022. Subdistribution hazard ratio (SHRs) or hazard ratios (HRs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI), adjusted for sex, age, comorbidity index, and time since cancer incidence, were computed to assess the risk of COVID-19 hospital admission or death of unvaccinated vs. patients with at least one dose of vaccine (i.e., vaccinated).

RESULTS

2485 unvaccinated patients (25.5 %) were at a 2.57 elevated risk of hospital admission (95 % CI: 2.13-2.87) and at a 3.50 elevated risk of death (95 % CI: 3.19-3.85), as compared to vaccinated patients. Significantly elevated hospitalizations and death risks emerged for both sexes, across all age groups and time elapsed since cancer diagnosis. For unvaccinated patients, SHRs for hospitalization were particularly elevated in those with solid tumors (SHR = 2.69 vs. 1.66 in patients with hematologic tumors) while HRs for the risk of death were homogeneously distributed. As compared to boosted patients, SHRs for hospitalization and HRs for death increased with decreasing number of doses.

CONCLUSIONS

Study findings stress the importance of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines to reduce hospital admission and death risk in cancer patients.

Management of patients with lymphoma and COVID-19: Narrative review and evidence-based practical recommendations

Patients with hematologic malignancies can be immunocompromized because of their disease, anti-cancer therapy, and concomitant immunosuppressive treatment. Furthermore, these patients are usually older than 60 years and have comorbidities. For all these reasons they are highly vulnerable to infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) and have an increased risk of developing severe/critical Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) compared to the general population. Although COVID-19 vaccination has proven effective in reducing the incidence of severe/critical disease, vaccinated patients with lymphoma may not be protected as they often fail to develop a sufficient antiviral immune response. There is therefore an urgent need to address the management of patients with lymphoma and COVID-19 in the setting of the ongoing pandemic. Passive immunization with monoclonal antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 is a currently available complementary drug strategy to active vaccination for lymphoma patients, while monoclonal antibodies and antiviral drugs (remdesivir, ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir, and molnupiravir) have proven effective in preventing the progression to severe/critical COVID-19. In this narrative review we present the most recent data documenting the characteristics and outcomes of patients with concomitant lymphoma and COVID-19. Our ultimate goal is to provide practice-oriented guidance in the management of these vulnerable patients from diagnosis to treatment and follow-up of lymphoma. To this purpose, we will first provide an overview of the main data concerning prognostic factors and fatality rate of lymphoma patients who develop COVID-19; the outcomes of COVID-19 vaccination will also be addressed. We will then discuss current COVID-19 prophylaxis and treatment options for lymphoma patients. Finally, based on the literature and our multidisciplinary experience, we will summarize a set of indications on how to manage patients with lymphoma according to COVID-19 exposure, level of disease severity and former history of infection, as typically encountered in clinical practice.

Mechanistic model for booster doses effectiveness in healthy, cancer, and immunosuppressed patients infected with SARS-CoV-2

SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are effective at limiting disease severity, but effectiveness is lower among patients with cancer or immunosuppression. Effectiveness wanes with time and varies by vaccine type. Moreover, previously prescribed vaccines were based on the ancestral SARS-CoV-2 spike-protein that emerging variants may evade. Here, we describe a mechanistic mathematical model for vaccination-induced immunity. We validate it with available clinical data and use it to simulate the effectiveness of vaccines against viral variants with lower antigenicity, increased virulence, or enhanced cell binding for various vaccine platforms. The analysis includes the omicron variant as well as hypothetical future variants with even greater immune evasion of vaccine-induced antibodies and addresses the potential benefits of the new bivalent vaccines. We further account for concurrent cancer or underlying immunosuppression. The model confirms enhanced immunogenicity following booster vaccination in immunosuppressed patients but predicts ongoing booster requirements for these individuals to maintain protection. We further studied the impact of variants on immunosuppressed individuals as a function of the interval between multiple booster doses. Our model suggests possible strategies for future vaccinations and suggests tailored strategies for high-risk groups.

Antibody response to different COVID-19 vaccines among the migrant workers of Bangladesh

Background

Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, various host countries such as Singapore, imposed entry requirements for migrant workers including pre-departure COVID-19 seroconversion proof. To combat COVID-19 worldwide, several vaccines have acquired conditional approval. This study sought to assess antibody levels after immunization with different COVID-19 vaccines among the migrant workers of Bangladesh.

Methods

Venous blood samples were collected from migrant workers who were vaccinated with different COVID-19 vaccines (n=675). Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (S) and nucleocapsid protein (N) were determined using Roche Elecsys^® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S and N immunoassay, respectively.

Results

All participants receiving COVID-19 vaccines showed antibodies to S-protein, while 91.36% were positive for N-specific antibodies. The highest anti-S antibody titers were found among the workers who completed booster doses (13327 U/mL), received mRNA vaccines Moderna/Spikevax (9459 U/mL) or Pfizer-BioNTech/Comirnaty (9181 U/mL), and reported SARS-CoV-2 infection in the last six months (8849 U/mL). The median anti-S antibody titers in the first month since the last vaccination was 8184 U/mL, which declined to 5094 U/mL at the end of six months. A strong correlation of anti-S antibodies was found with past SARS-CoV-2 infection (p < 0.001) and the type of vaccines received (p <0.001) in the workers.Conclusion: Bangladeshi migrant workers receiving booster doses of vaccine, vaccinated with mRNA vaccines, and having past SARS-CoV-2 infection, mounted higher antibody responses. However, antibody levels waned with time. These findings suggest a need for further booster doses, preferably with mRNA vaccines for migrant workers before reaching host countries.

Potent high-avidity neutralizing antibodies and T cell responses after COVID-19 vaccination in individuals with B cell lymphoma and multiple myeloma

Individuals with hematologic malignancies are at increased risk for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), yet profound analyses of COVID-19 vaccine-induced immunity are scarce. Here we present an observational study with expanded methodological analysis of a longitudinal, primarily BNT162b2 mRNA-vaccinated cohort of 60 infection-naive individuals with B cell lymphomas and multiple myeloma. We show that many of these individuals, despite markedly lower anti-spike IgG titers, rapidly develop potent infection neutralization capacities against several severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 variants of concern (VoCs). The observed increased neutralization capacity per anti-spike antibody unit was paralleled by an early step increase in antibody avidity between the second and third vaccination. All individuals with hematologic malignancies, including those depleted of B cells and individuals with multiple myeloma, exhibited a robust T cell response to peptides derived from the spike protein of VoCs Delta and Omicron (BA.1). Consistently, breakthrough infections were mainly of mild to moderate severity. We conclude that COVID-19 vaccination can induce broad antiviral immunity including ultrapotent neutralizing antibodies with high avidity in different hematologic malignancies.

Humoral Effect of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination with booster dose in solid tumor patients with different anticancer treatments

Introduction

Cancer patients are at risk for serious complications in case of SARS-CoV-2 infection. In these patients SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is strongly recommended, with the preferential use of mRNA vaccines. The antibody response in cancer patients is variable, depending on the type of cancer and antitumoral treatment. In solid tumor patients an antibody response similar to healthy subjects has been confirmed after the second dose. Only few studies explored the duration of immunization after the two doses and the effect of the third dose.

Methods

In our study we explored a cohort of 273 solid tumor patients at different stages and treated with different anticancer therapies.

Results and Discussion

Our analysis demonstrated that the persistence of the neutralizing antibody and the humoral response after the booster dose of vaccine was not dependent on either the tumor type, the stage or type of anticancer treatment.

Third dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine for patients with multiple myeloma

We have reported that IgG antibody responses following two mRNA COVID-19 vaccinations are impaired among patients with multiple myeloma (MM). In the current study, sixty-seven patients with MM were tested for anti-spike IgG antibodies 0-60 days prior to their first vaccination, 14-28 days following the second dose, and both before and 14-28 days after their third dose of the mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2 vaccines. After the first two doses, most patients' (93 %) antibody levels declined to ineffective levels (<250 BAU/mL) prior to their third dose (D3). D3 elicited responses in 84 % of patients (61 % full response and 22 % partial response). The third vaccination increased antibody levels (average = 370.4 BAU/mL; range, 1.0-8977.3 BAU/mL) relative to just prior to D3 (average = 25.0 BAU/mL; range, 1.0-683.8 BAU/mL) and achieved higher levels than peak levels after the first two doses (average = 144.8 BAU/mL; range, 1.0-4,284.1 BAU/mL). D3 response positively correlated with mRNA-1273, a > 10-fold change from baseline for the two-dose series, switching from BNT162b2 to mRNA-1273 for D3, and treatment with elotuzumab and an immunomodulatory agent. Lower antibody levels prior to D3, poorer overall response to first two doses, and ruxolitinib or anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody treatment negatively correlated with D3 response. Our results show encouraging activity of the third vaccine, even among patients who failed to respond to the first two vaccinations. The finding of specific factors that predict COVID-19 antibody levels will help advise patients and healthcare professionals on the likelihood of responses to further vaccinations.

Immunogenicity and risks associated with impaired immune responses following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and booster in hematologic malignancy patients: an updated meta-analysis

Patients with hematologic malignancies (HM) have demonstrated impaired immune responses following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Factors associated with poor immunogenicity remain largely undetermined. A literature search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and medRxiv databases to identify studies that reported humoral or cellular immune responses (CIR) following complete SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. The primary aim was to estimate the seroconversion rate (SR) following complete SARS-CoV-2 vaccination across various subtypes of HM diseases and treatments. The secondary aims were to determine the rates of development of neutralizing antibodies (NAb) and CIR following complete vaccination and SR following booster doses. A total of 170 studies were included for qualitative and quantitative analysis of primary and secondary outcomes. A meta-analysis of 150 studies including 20,922 HM patients revealed a pooled SR following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination of 67.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 64.8-70.4%; I² = 94%). Meta-regression analysis showed that patients with lymphoid malignancies, but not myeloid malignancies, had lower seroconversion rates than those with solid cancers (R² = 0.52, P < 0.0001). Patients receiving chimeric antigen receptor T-cells (CART), B-cell targeted therapies or JAK inhibitors were associated with poor seroconversion (R² = 0.39, P < 0.0001). The pooled NAb and CIR rates were 52.8% (95% CI; 45.8-59.7%, I² = 87%) and 66.6% (95% CI, 57.1-74.9%; I² = 86%), respectively. Approximately 20.9% (95% CI, 11.4-35.1%, I² = 90%) of HM patients failed to elicit humoral and cellular immunity. Among non-seroconverted patients after primary vaccination, only 40.5% (95% CI, 33.0-48.4%; I² = 87%) mounted seroconversion after the booster. In conclusion, HM patients, especially those with lymphoid malignancies and/or receiving CART, B-cell targeted therapies, or JAK inhibitors, showed poor SR after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. A minority of patients attained seroconversion after booster vaccination. Strategies to improve immune response in these severely immunosuppressed patients are needed.

Single Center Experience Using Monoclonal COVID-19 Antibodies in the Management of Immunocompromised Patients with COVID-19

The medical care of immunocompromised patients with COVID-19 infection causes major hurdles in the management of these patients in clinical practice. However, poor responses to vaccinations in patients with oncological or autoimmune diseases require rapid action and effective care in this fragile patient population. Monoclonal antibodies (mAb) offer an effective therapeutic option with a favorable toxicity profile. We have retrospectively reviewed the first 100 patients treated with mAb in our clinic and assessed the individual vaccine response, side effects of mAb, hospitalization rate and mortality. None of the outpatients treated with mAb had to be hospitalized. In particular, the third SARS-CoV-2 vaccination had a significant effect on the seroconversion (37.5% vs. 77.8% positive patients) in the entire group of patients studied. No side effects of 3°/4° were observed following mAb administration; the mortality in the entire cohort was 7%. Our data and experience show good effectiveness and a favorable tolerability profile of mAb, supporting the feasibility of this therapy in everyday clinical practice. Of note, in immunocompromised patients, both the vaccination status and success need to be recorded in a systematic manner and taken into account in terms of therapeutic intervention using mAb in case of a SARS-CoV-2 infection.

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.

Cancer Patients and the COVID-19 Vaccines: Considerations and Challenges

Few guidelines exist for COVID-19 vaccination amongst cancer patients, fostering uncertainty regarding the immunogenicity, safety, and effects of cancer therapies on vaccination, which this review aims to address. A literature review was conducted to include the latest articles covering the immunogenicity and safety of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with solid and hematologic cancers receiving various treatments. Lower seropositivity following vaccination was associated with malignancy (compared to the general population), and hematologic malignancy (compared to solid cancers). Patients receiving active cancer therapy (unspecified), chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and immunosuppressants generally demonstrated lower seropositivity compared to healthy controls; though checkpoint inhibition, endocrine therapy, and cyclin dependent kinase inhibition did not appear to affect seropositivity. Vaccination appeared safe and well-tolerated in patients with current or past cancer and those undergoing treatment. Adverse events were comparable to the general population, but inflammatory lymphadenopathy following vaccination was commonly reported and may be mistaken for malignant etiology. Additionally, radiation recall phenomenon was sporadically reported in patients who had received radiotherapy. Overall, while seropositivity rates were decreased, cancer patients showed capacity to generate safe and effective immune responses to COVID-19 vaccination, thus vaccination should be encouraged and hesitancy should be addressed in this population.

The Four Ws of the Fourth Dose COVID-19 Vaccines: Why, Who, When and What

With the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants, vaccine breakthrough is a major public health concern. With evidence of reduced neutralizing antibody activity against Omicron variants and fading antibody level after the third-dose booster vaccine, there are suggestions of a fourth-dose booster vaccine. In this review, the benefits of a fourth-dose booster is evaluated from four perspectives, including the effectiveness of the booster dose against virus variants (Why), susceptible groups of individuals who may benefit from additional booster dose (Who), selection of vaccine platforms to better enhance immunity (What) and appropriate intervals between the third and fourth booster dose (When). In summary, a fourth dose can temporarily boost the immune response against SARS-CoV-2 variants and can be considered for specific groups of individuals. A heterologous vaccine strategy using mRNA vaccine in individuals primed with inactivated vaccine may boost immunity against variants. The timing of the fourth dose should be individualized but an interval of 4 months after the third-dose booster is appropriate. A universal fourth booster dose is not necessary.

Strong Humoral but Not Cellular Immune Responses against SARS-CoV-2 in Individuals with Oncohematological Disease Who Were Treated with Rituximab before Receiving a Vaccine Booster

The humoral immune response developed after receiving the full vaccination schedule against COVID-19 is impaired in individuals who received anti-CD20 therapy 6-9 months before vaccination. However, there is little information about the cellular immune responses elicited in these individuals. In this study, we analyzed the humoral and cellular immune responses in 18 individuals with hematological disease who received the last dose of rituximab 13.8 months (IQR 9.4-19) before the booster dose. One month after receiving the booster dose, the seroconversion rate in the rituximab-treated cohort increased from 83.3% to 88.9% and titers of specific IgGs against SARS-CoV-2 increased 1.53-fold (p = 0.0098), while the levels of neutralizing antibodies increased 3.03-fold (p = 0.0381). However, the cytotoxic activity of peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) from rituximab-treated individuals remained unchanged, and both antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC) and direct cellular cytotoxicity (CDD) were reduced 1.7-fold (p = 0.0047) and 2.0-fold (p = 0.0086), respectively, in comparison with healthy donors. Breakthrough infections rate was higher in our cohort of rituximab-treated individuals (33.33%), although most of the infected patients (83.4%) developed a mild form of COVID-19. In conclusion, our findings confirm a benefit in the humoral, but not in the cellular, immune response in rituximab-treated individuals after receiving a booster dose of an mRNA-based vaccine against COVID-19.

Efficacy of COVID-19 Booster Vaccines in Patients with Hematologic Malignancies: Experiences in a Real-World Scenario

Background: Two-dose COVID-19 vaccination often results in poor humoral response rates in patients with hematologic malignancies (HMs); yet responses to COVID-19 booster vaccines and the risk of COVID-19 infection post-booster are mostly uncertain. Methods: We included 200 outpatients with HMs and predominantly lymphoid neoplasms (96%, 191/200) in our academic center and reported on the humoral responses, which were assessed by measurement of anti-spike IgG antibodies in peripheral blood as early as 14 days after mRNA-based prime-boost vaccination, as well as factors hampering booster efficacy. Previous basic (double) immunization was applied according to the local recommendations with mRNA- and/or vector-based vaccines. We also report on post-booster COVID-19 breakthrough infections that emerged in the Omicron era and the prophylaxis strategies that were applied to poor and non-responders to booster vaccines. Results: A total of 55% (110/200) of the patients achieved seroconversion (i.e., anti-spike protein IgG antibody titer > 100 AU/mL assessed in median 48 days after prime-boost vaccination) after prime-boost vaccination. Multivariable analyses revealed age, lymphocytopenia, ongoing treatment and prior anti-CD20 B-cell depletion to be independent predictors for booster failure. With each month between anti-CD20-mediated B-cell depletion and booster vaccination, the probability of seroconversion increased by approximately 4% (p < 0.001) and serum−antibody titer (S-AbT) levels increased by 90 AU/mL (p = 0.011). Notably, obinutuzumab treatment was associated with an 85% lower probability for seroconversion after prime-boost vaccination compared to rituximab (p = 0.002). Of poor or non-responders to prime-boost vaccination, 41% (47/114) underwent a second booster and 73% (83/114) underwent passive immunization. COVID-19 breakthrough infections were observed in 15% (29/200) of patients after prime-boost vaccination with predominantly mild courses (93%). Next to seroconversion, passive immunization was associated with a significantly lower risk of COVID-19 breakthrough infections after booster, even in vaccine non-responders (all p < 0.05). In a small proportion of analyzed patients with myeloid neoplasms (9/200), the seroconversion rate was higher compared to those with lymphoid ones (78% vs. 54%, accordingly), while the incidence rate of COVID-19 breakthrough infections was similar (22% vs. 14%, respectively). Following the low frequency of myeloid neoplasms in this study, the results may not be automatically applied to a larger cohort. Conclusions: Patients with HMs are at a high risk of COVID-19 booster vaccine failure; yet COVID-19 breakthrough infections after prime-boost vaccination are predominantly mild. Booster failure can likely be overcome by passive immunization, thereby providing immune protection against COVID-19 and attenuating the severity of COVID-19 courses. Further sophistication of clinical algorithms for preventing post-vaccination COVID-19 breakthrough infections is urgently needed.

COVID-19: Third dose booster vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough coronavirus infection, hospitalisations and death in patients with cancer: A population-based study

PURPOSE

People living with cancer and haematological malignancies are at an increased risk of hospitalisation and death following infection with acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Coronavirus third dose vaccine boosters are proposed to boost waning immune responses in immunocompromised individuals and increase coronavirus protection; however, their effectiveness has not yet been systematically evaluated.

METHODS

This study is a population-scale real-world evaluation of the United Kingdom's third dose vaccine booster programme for cancer patients from 8th December 2020 to 7th December 2021. The cancer cohort comprises individuals from Public Health England's national cancer dataset, excluding individuals less than 18 years. A test-negative case-control design was used to assess the third dose booster vaccine effectiveness. Multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to compare risk in the cancer cohort relative to the general population.

RESULTS

The cancer cohort comprised of 2,258,553 tests from 361,098 individuals. Third dose boosters were evaluated by reference to 87,039,743 polymerase chain reaction coronavirus tests. Vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough infections, symptomatic infections, coronavirus hospitalisation and death in cancer patients were 59.1%, 62.8%, 80.5% and 94.5%, respectively. Lower vaccine effectiveness was associated with a cancer diagnosis within 12 months, lymphoma, recent systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT) or radiotherapy. Patients with lymphoma had low levels of protection from symptomatic disease. In spite of third dose boosters, following multivariable adjustment, individuals with cancer remain at an increased risk of coronavirus hospitalisation and death compared to the population control (OR 3.38, 3.01, respectively. p < 0.001 for both).

CONCLUSIONS

Third dose boosters are effective for most individuals with cancer, increasing protection from coronavirus. However, their effectiveness is heterogenous and lower than the general population. Many patients with cancer will remain at the increased risk of coronavirus infections even after 3 doses. In the case of patients with lymphoma, there is a particularly strong disparity of vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough infection and severe disease. Breakthrough infections will disrupt cancer care and treatment with potentially adverse consequences on survival outcomes. The data support the role of vaccine boosters in preventing severe disease, and further pharmacological intervention to prevent transmission and aid viral clearance to limit the disruption of cancer care as the delivery of care continues to evolve during the coronavirus pandemic.

SARS-Cov-2 infection in cancer patients, susceptibility, outcome and care

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to many problems in cancer patients, which in part are due to insufficient knowledge of the exact implications of the virus on these individuals. Perceptions based on known facts about previous pandemics and coronaviruses might not agree with actual real-life experience and objective findings. We present a compilation of scientific facts and actual observations on different aspects of SARS-CoV-2 infection in cancer patients. These patients are at increased risk of viral contraction and have higher chances of severe disease/mortality. The latter is impacted by other factors and is still debated. In contrast to preliminary impressions, the benefits of anti-cancer treatments outweigh their risks and should be continued. Cancer patients generate antibodies in response to vaccination but in lower amounts than healthy people, especially those with hematologic cancers. Boosters, including third doses, have shown increased immune-responses in most patients. Vaccination should be prioritized in these individuals.

Functional immune responses against SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern after fourth COVID-19 vaccine dose or infection in patients with blood cancer

Patients with blood cancer continue to have a greater risk of inadequate immune responses following three COVID-19 vaccine doses and risk of severe COVID-19 disease. In the context of the CAPTURE study (NCT03226886), we report immune responses in 80 patients with blood cancer who received a fourth dose of BNT162b2. We measured neutralizing antibody titers (NAbTs) using a live virus microneutralization assay against wild-type (WT), Delta, and Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 and T cell responses against WT and Omicron BA.1 using an activation-induced marker (AIM) assay. The proportion of patients with detectable NAb titers and T cell responses after the fourth vaccine dose increased compared with that after the third vaccine dose. Patients who received B cell-depleting therapies within the 12 months before vaccination have the greatest risk of not having detectable NAbT. In addition, we report immune responses in 57 patients with breakthrough infections after vaccination.

COVID-19 vaccine update: vaccine effectiveness, SARS-CoV-2 variants, boosters, adverse effects, and immune correlates of protection

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been the most severe public health challenge in this century. Two years after its emergence, the rapid development and deployment of effective COVID-19 vaccines have successfully controlled this pandemic and greatly reduced the risk of severe illness and death associated with COVID-19. However, due to its ability to rapidly evolve, the SARS-CoV-2 virus may never be eradicated, and there are many important new topics to work on if we need to live with this virus for a long time. To this end, we hope to provide essential knowledge for researchers who work on the improvement of future COVID-19 vaccines. In this review, we provided an up-to-date summary for current COVID-19 vaccines, discussed the biological basis and clinical impact of SARS-CoV-2 variants and subvariants, and analyzed the effectiveness of various vaccine booster regimens against different SARS-CoV-2 strains. Additionally, we reviewed potential mechanisms of vaccine-induced severe adverse events, summarized current studies regarding immune correlates of protection, and finally, discussed the development of next-generation vaccines.

Antibody response to a third booster dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in adults with haematological and solid cancer: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Patients living with cancer are at a significantly increased risk of morbidity and mortality after infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). This systematic review aims to investigate the current available evidence about the immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 booster vaccines in patients living with cancer.

METHODS

A systematic search was undertaken for studies published until March 1, 2022. A systematic narrative review was undertaken to include all studies that evaluated the efficacy of booster vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with cancer.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies encompassing 1205 patients with cancer were included. We found that a booster vaccine dose induced a higher response in patients with solid cancer as compared to haematological malignancies. Recent systemic anticancer therapy does not appear to affect seroconversion in solid organ malignancies, however, there is an association between B-cell depleting therapies and poor seroconversion in haematological patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Third booster vaccination induces an improved antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 in adults with haematological and solid cancer, relative to patients who only receive two doses. Access to vaccination boosters should be made available to patients at risk of poor immunological responses, and the provision of fourth doses may be of benefit to this vulnerable population.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO number CRD42021270420.

Influence of the COVID-19 pandemic in the gastrointestinal oncology setting: An overview

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has been impacting healthcare in various ways worldwide and cancer patients are greatly affected by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The reorganization of the health facilities in order to supply the high demand resulting from the aforementioned infection as well as the social isolation measures led to impairments for the diagnosis and follow-up of patients with gastrointestinal cancers, which has had an impact on the prognosis of the oncologic patients. In that context, health authorities and organizations have elaborated new guidelines with specific recommendations for the management of individuals with gastrointestinal neoplasms during the pandemic. Of note, oncologic populations seem to be more susceptible to unfavorable outcomes when exposed to SARS-CoV-2 infection and some interactions involving virus, tumor, host immune system and anticancer therapies are probably related to the poorer prognosis observed in those COVID-19 patients. Moreover, vaccination stands out as the main prevention method against severe SARS-CoV-2 infection and some particularities have been observed regarding the seroconversion of vaccinated oncologic patients including those with gastrointestinal malignancies. In this minireview, we gather updated information regarding the influence of the pandemic in the diagnosis of gastrointestinal neoplasms, new recommendations for the management of gastrointestinal cancer patients, the occurrence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in those individuals and the scenario of the vaccination against the virus in that population.