2021 update of the AGIHO guideline on evidence-based management of COVID-19 in patients with cancer regarding diagnostics, viral shedding, vaccination and therapy

Survival and safety analysis of COVID-19 vaccine in Chinese patients with non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 disease (COVID-19) has caused a worldwide challenging and threatening pandemic. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) patients.

METHODS

Patient self-reported adverse events related to vaccines were recorded by follow-up through a uniform questionnaire. Survival analysis was performed by Kaplan-Meier method. A multivariate analysis was performed by the Cox proportional hazard regression model to determine the effect of each variable on the survival of lung cancer patients.

RESULTS

A total of 860 patients with NSCLC on treatment were enrolled. Mean age was 57 years in patients with early stage group and 62 years in advanced stage group. The vaccination rate was 71.11% for early-stage patients and 19.48% for advanced-stage patients; most of them (86.5%) received the COVID-19 inactivated virus (Vero cell) vaccine (Coronavac; Sinovac). The most common systemic adverse reaction was weakness. The main reason for vaccine refusal in those unvaccinated patients was concern about the safety of vaccination in the presence of a tumor and undergoing treatment (56.9% and 53.4%). The 1-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate was 100% for vaccinated and 97.4% for unvaccinated early-stage patients. Then we compared the progression-free survival (PFS) of vaccinated (median PFS 9.0 months) and unvaccinated (median PFS 7.0 months) advanced stage patients (p = 0.815). Advanced NSCLC patients continued to be divided into groups receiving radio-chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and targeted therapy, with no statistical difference in PFS between the groups (p > 0.05). The median overall survival (OS) of vaccinated patients was 20.5 months, and that of unvaccinated patients was 19.0 months (p = 0.478) in advanced NSCLC patients.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 vaccination is safe for Chinese NSCLC patients actively receiving different antitumor treatments without increasing the incidence of adverse reactions, and vaccination does not affect cancer patient survival.

Molnupiravir compared to nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for COVID-19 in high-risk patients with haematological malignancy in Europe. A matched-paired analysis from the EPICOVIDEHA registry

INTRODUCTION

Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir are antivirals used to prevent progression to severe SARS-CoV-2 infections and decrease hospitalisation and mortality rates. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was authorised in Europe in December 2021, whereas molnupiravir is not yet licensed in Europe as of February 2022. Molnupiravir may be an alternative to nirmatrelvir/ritonavir because it is associated with fewer drug-drug interactions and contraindications. A caveat for molnupiravir is the mode of action induces viral mutations. Mortality rate reduction with molnupiravir was less pronounced than that with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in patients without haematological malignancy. Little is known about the comparative efficacy of the two drugs in patients with haematological malignancy at high-risk of severe COVID-19. Thus, molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir were compared in a cohort of patients with haematological malignancies.

METHODS

Clinical data from patients treated with molnupiravir or nirmatrelvir/ritonavir monotherapy for COVID-19 were retrieved from the EPICOVIDEHA registry. Patients treated with molnupiravir were matched by sex, age (±10 years), and severity of baseline haematological malignancy to controls treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir.

RESULTS

A total of 116 patients receiving molnupiravir for the clinical management of COVID-19 were matched to an equal number of controls receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. In each of the groups, 68 (59%) patients were male; with a median age of 64 years (interquartile range [IQR] 53-74) for molnupiravir recipients and 64 years (IQR 54-73) for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir recipients; 56.9% (n=66) of the patients had controlled baseline haematological malignancy, 12.9% (n=15) had stable disease, and 30.2% (n=35) had active disease at COVID-19 onset in each group. During COVID-19 infection, one third of patients from each group were admitted to hospital. Although a similar proportion of patients in the two groups were vaccinated (molnupiravir n=77, 66% vs. nirmatrelvir/ritonavir n=87, 75%), more of those treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir had received four vaccine doses (n=27, 23%) compared with those treated with molnupiravir (n=5, 4%) (P<0.001). No differences were detected in COVID-19 severity (P=0.39) or hospitalisation (P=1.0). No statistically significant differences were identified in overall mortality rate (P=0.78) or survival probability (d30 P=0.19, d60 P=0.67, d90 P=0.68, last day of follow up P=0.68). Deaths were either attributed to COVID-19, or the infection was judged by the treating physician to have contributed to death.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospitalisation and mortality rates with molnupiravir were comparable to those with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in high-risk patients with haematological malignancies and COVID-19. Molnupiravir is a plausible alternative to nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for COVID-19 treatment in patients with haematological malignancy.

AGIHO guideline on evidence-based management of COVID-19 in cancer patients: 2022 update on vaccination, pharmacological prophylaxis and therapy in light of the omicron variants

The novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 and the associated infectious disease COVID-19 pose a significant challenge to healthcare systems worldwide. Patients with cancer have been identified as a high-risk population for severe infections, rendering prophylaxis and treatment strategies for these patients particularly important. Rapidly evolving clinical research, resulting in the recent advent of various vaccines and therapeutic agents against COVID-19, offers new options to improve care and protection of cancer patients. However, ongoing epidemiological changes and rise of new virus variants require repeated revisions and adaptations of prophylaxis and treatment strategies to meet these new challenges. Therefore, this guideline provides an update on evidence-based recommendations with regard to vaccination, pharmacological prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19 in cancer patients in light of the currently dominant omicron variants. It was developed by an expert panel of the Infectious Diseases Working Party (AGIHO) of the German Society for Hematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO) based on a critical review of the most recent available data.

Seroconversion rate after COVID-19 vaccination in patients with solid cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Patients with solid cancer have an increased risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and associated mortality than the general population. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the currently available evidence about the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in patients with solid cancer. We included prospective studies comparing the immunogenicity and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines between patients with solid cancer and healthy individuals. Relative risks of seroconversion after the first and second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine were separately pooled with the use of random effects meta-analysis. Thirty studies with 11,245 subjects met the inclusion criteria. After first vaccine dose, the pooled RR of seroconversion in patients with solid cancer vs healthy individuals was 0.54 (95% CI 0.38-0.78, I² = 94%). After a second dose, the pooled RR of seroconversion in patients with solid cancer vs healthy controls was 0.87 (0.86-0.88, I² = 87%). Our review suggests that, compared with healthy individuals, COVID-19 vaccines show favorable immunogenicity and efficacy in patients with solid cancer. A second dose is associated with significantly improved seroconversion, although it is slightly lower in patients with solid cancer compared with healthy individuals.

COVID-19 Vaccination Campaign in Cancer Patients and Healthcare Workers-Results from a French Prospective Multicenter Cohort (PAPESCO-19)

In this prospective, real-life cohort study, we followed 523 cancer patients (CP) and 579 healthcare workers (HCW) from two cancer centers to evaluate the biological and clinical results of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign. Seventy percent of the CP and 90% of the HCW received an mRNA vaccine or the AZD1222 vaccine. Seropositivity was high after the first vaccine among HCW and poor among CP. The second dose resulted in almost 100% seropositivity in both cohorts. Antibody response was higher after the second injection than the first in both populations. Despite at least two doses, 8 CP (1.5%) and 14 HCW (2.4%) were infected, corresponding either to a weak level of antibody or a new strain of virus (particularly the Omicron variant of concern). Sixteen CP and three HCW were hospitalized but none of them died from COVID-19. To conclude, this study showed that two doses of COVID-19 vaccines were crucially necessary to attain sufficient seropositivity. However, the post-vaccination antibody level declines in individuals from the two cohorts and could not totally prevent new SARS-CoV-2 infections.

The Effects of CoronaVac (Sinovac) and BNT162b2 (BioNTech/Pfizer) Vaccination on Oncologic 18F-FDG PET/CT Studies

Objectives:

BioNTech (Pfizer) and CoronaVac (Sinovac) vaccines are two of the most administered coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) vaccines worldwide. Vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 has caused a diagnostic challenge in oncological ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) studies. The aim of our study was to evaluate the ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT findings of the two most commonly administered vaccines worldwide.

Methods:

Patients over 18 years old who underwent ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT for oncological purposes in our institution between January 13, 2021 and January 31, 2022, who received a single or second dose of the BioNTech or CoronaVac vaccines in the last two months, were included in the study. Descriptive analyses were presented as mean, standard deviation, frequency and ratio. Additionally, chi-square test was used to analyze categorical variables.

Results:

Ipsilateral deltoid muscle hypermetabolism was observed in 6.9% (n=15) and 14.3% (n=22) patients who received CoronaVac and BioNTech vaccines, respectively. Ipsilateral axillary lymph node hypermetabolism was observed in 11% (n=24) and 41.6% (n=64) patients who received CoronaVac and BioNTech vaccines, respectively. Synchronous deltoid muscle and axillary lymph node hypermetabolism was observed in 4.14% (n=9) and 12.33% (n=19) patients who received CoronaVac and BioNTech vaccines, respectively. Significant differences were detected between CoronaVac and BioNTech vaccines in terms of ipsilateral deltoid muscle hypermetabolism, ipsilateral axillary lymph node hypermetabolism and synchronous deltoid muscle and axillary lymph node hypermetabolism (p<0.05).

Conclusion:

COVID-19 vaccination may result in ipsilateral axillary lymph node hypermetabolism, ipsilateral deltoid muscle hypermetabolism, or synchronous deltoid muscle and axillary lymph node hypermetabolism with different frequencies depending on the type of vaccination. Although synchronous deltoid muscle and axillary lymph node hypermetabolism can reduce misinterpretation of ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT, to avoid misinterpretation, it is important to question the vaccination history during ongoing COVID-19 vaccination process.

Cellular and Humoral Immunity against Different SARS-CoV-2 Variants Is Detectable but Reduced in Vaccinated Kidney Transplant Patients

In kidney transplant (KTX) patients, immune responses after booster vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 are inadequately examined. We analyzed these patients a median of four months after a third/fourth vaccination and compared them to healthy controls. Cellular responses were analyzed by interferon-gamma (IFN-γ) and interleukin-2 (IL-2) ELISpot assays. Neutralizing antibody titers were assessed against SARS-CoV-2 D614G (wild type) and the variants alpha, delta, and omicron by a cell culture-based neutralization assay. Humoral immunity was also determined by a competitive fluorescence assay, using 11 different variants of SARS-CoV-2. Antibody ratios were measured by ELISA. KTX patients showed significantly lower SARS-CoV-2-specific IFN-γ responses after booster vaccination than healthy controls. However, SARS-CoV-2-specific IL-2 responses were comparable to the T cell responses of healthy controls. Cell culture-based neutralizing antibody titers were 1.3-fold higher in healthy controls for D614G, alpha, and delta, and 7.8-fold higher for omicron (p < 0.01). Healthy controls had approximately 2-fold higher concentrations of potential neutralizing antibodies against all 11 variants than KTX patients. However, more than 60% of the KTX patients displayed antibodies to variants of SARS-CoV-2. Thus, KTX patients should be partly protected, due to neutralizing antibodies to variants of SARS-CoV-2 or by cross-reactive T cells, especially those producing IL-2.

Prolonged COVID-19 in an Immunocompromised Patient Treated with Obinutuzumab and Bendamustine for Follicular Lymphoma

A patient with follicular lymphoma treated with obinutuzumab and bendamustine experienced prolonged coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). One month after the symptoms transiently improved, the patient experienced exacerbated COVID-19 symptoms. The patient recovered from COVID-19 with remdesivir and dexamethasone and was discharged 77 days after the disease onset. The patient completed a primary series of SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations on day 176, but the anti-spike protein IgG was not detected later. A careful observation to detect any subsequent relapse of COVID-19 symptoms is necessary in immunocompromised patients. Chemotherapy should be based on the disease status and type of lymphoma.

Cellular and Humoral Immunity after the Third Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in Hematopoietic Stem-Cell Transplant Recipients

Protecting vulnerable groups from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is mandatory. Immune responses after a third vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 are insufficiently studied in patients after hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT). We analyzed immune responses before and after a third vaccination in HSCT patients and healthy controls. Cellular immunity was assessed using interferon-gamma (IFN-γ) and interleukin-2 (IL-2) ELISpots. Furthermore, this is the first report on neutralizing antibodies against 11 variants of SARS-CoV-2, analyzed by competitive fluorescence assay. Humoral immunity was also measured by neutralization tests assessing cytopathic effects and by ELISA. Neither HSCT patients nor healthy controls displayed significantly higher SARS-CoV-2-specific IFN-γ or IL-2 responses after the third vaccination. However, after the third vaccination, cellular responses were 2.6-fold higher for IFN-γ and 3.2-fold higher for IL-2 in healthy subjects compared with HSCT patients. After the third vaccination, neutralizing antibodies were significantly higher (p < 0.01) in healthy controls, but not in HSCT patients. Healthy controls vs. HSCT patients had 1.5-fold higher concentrations of neutralizing antibodies against variants and 1.2-fold higher antibody concentrations against wildtype. However, half of the HSCT patients exhibited neutralizing antibodies to variants of SARS-CoV-2, which increased only slightly after a third vaccination.

COVID-19 and Cancer: Special Considerations for Patients Receiving Immunotherapy and Immunosuppressive Cancer Therapies

Patients with cancer generally have a higher risk of adverse outcomes from COVID-19, with higher age, male sex, poor performance status, cancer type, and uncontrolled malignant disease as the main risk factors. However, the influence of specific cancer therapies varies and raises concerns during the pandemic. In patients undergoing cancer immunotherapy or other immunosuppressive cancer treatments, we summarize the evidence on outcomes from COVID-19; address the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccination; and review COVID-19 antiviral therapeutics for the patient with cancer. Despite higher mortality for patients with cancer, treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors does not seem to increase mortality risk based on observational evidence. Inhibitory therapies directed toward B-cell lineages, including monoclonal antibodies against CD20 and CAR T-cell therapies, are associated with poor outcomes in COVID-19; however, the data are sparse. Regarding vaccination in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors, clinical efficacy comparable to that in the general population can be expected. In patients undergoing B-cell-depleting therapy, immunogenicity and clinical efficacy are curtailed, but vaccination is not futile, which is thought to be due to the cellular response. Vaccine reactogenicity and toxicity in all groups of patients with cancer are comparable to that of the general population. Preexposure prophylaxis with monoclonal antibodies directed against the viral spike may provide passive immunity for those not likely to mount an adequate vaccine response. If infected, prompt treatment with monoclonal antibodies or oral small molecule antivirals is beneficial, though with oral antiviral therapies, care must be taken to avoid drug interactions in patients with cancer.

COVID-19 vaccines in patients with cancer: immunogenicity, efficacy and safety

Patients with cancer have a higher risk of severe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and associated mortality than the general population. Owing to this increased risk, patients with cancer have been prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination globally, for both primary and booster vaccinations. However, given that these patients were not included in the pivotal clinical trials, considerable uncertainty remains regarding vaccine efficacy, and the extent of humoral and cellular immune responses in these patients, as well as the risks of vaccine-related adverse events. In this Review, we summarize the current knowledge generated in studies conducted since COVID-19 vaccines first became available. We also highlight critical points that might affect vaccine efficacy in patients with cancer in the future.

Prevention of HBV Reactivation in Hemato-Oncologic Setting during COVID-19

Onco-hematologic patients are highly susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection and, once infected, frequently develop COVID-19 due to the immunosuppression caused by tumor growth, chemotherapy and immunosuppressive therapy. In addition, COVID-19 has also been recognized as a further cause of HBV reactivation, since its treatment includes the administration of corticosteroids and some immunosuppressive drugs. Consequently, onco-hematologic patients should undergo SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and comply with the rules imposed by lockdowns or other forms of social distancing. Furthermore, onco-hematologic facilities should be adapted to new needs and provided with numerically adequate health personnel vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Onco-hematologic patients, both HBsAg-positive and HBsAg-negative/HBcAb-positive, may develop HBV reactivation, made possible by the support of the covalently closed circular DNA (cccDNA) persisting in the hepatocytic nuclei of patients with an ongoing or past HBV infection. This occurrence must be prevented by administering high genetic barrier HBV nucleo(t)side analogues before and throughout the antineoplastic treatment, and then during a long-term post-treatment follow up. The prevention of HBV reactivation during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is the topic of this narrative review.

Organisation of cancer care in troubling times: A scoping review of expert guidelines and their implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic

This scoping review mapped the main themes in existing expert guidelines for cancer care issued during the COVID-19 crisis from the period of March 2020-August 2021. The guidelines published during the research period principally relate to the first two waves in Europe and until the beginning of the vaccination campaign. They elaborated recommendations for cancer care reorganisation, in particular triage and quality of care issues. The article highlights the ethical, epistemological, as well as practical reasons that guidelines were not always followed to provide some lessons learned for future crises to enable better guideline development processes. We also elaborate early evidence on the impact of triage decisions and different perspectives on cancer care reorganisation from ethics and social science literature.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

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

Higher mortality of hospitalized hematologic patients with COVID-19 compared to non-haematologic is driven by thrombotic complications and development of ARDS: an age-matched cohorts study

Background and Objectives

The characteristics of COVID-19 in haematologic patients compared to non-haematologic patients have seldom been analyzed. Our aim was to analyze whether there are differences in clinical characteristics and outcome of haematologic patients with COVID-19 as compared to non-haematologic.

Patients and methods

Retrospective cohort study in 2 University hospitals of patients admitted with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 included in the SEMICOVID19 database. The cohort with underlying haematologic disease was compared to a cohort of age and date-of-COVID-19-matched controls without haematologic disease (1:2).

Results

71 cases and 142 controls were included from March-May 2020.

Twenty (28.1%) had received recent chemotherapy. Twelve (16.9%) were stem cell transplant recipients (SCT). Eleven (15.5%) were neutropenic concurrently with COVID-19 diagnosis.

Haematologic patients presented ARDS (58.5 vs 20.7%, p = 0.0001), thrombotic complications (15.7 vs 2.1%, p = 0.002), DIC (5.7 vs 0.0%, p = 0.011), heart failure (14.3 vs 4.9%, p = 0.029) and required ICU admission (15.5 vs 2.8%, p = 0.001), MV (14.1% vs 2.1%, p 0.001), steroid (64.8 vs 33.1%, p = 0.0001), tocilizumab (33.8 vs 8.5%, p = 0.0001) or anakinra treatment (9.9% vs 0%, p = 0.0001) more often. In-hospital mortality was significantly higher (38.0% vs 18.3%, p = 0.002).

Conclusions

Our results suggest COVID-19 has worse outcomes in haematologic patients than in non-haematologic, independently of age, and that the development of ARDS and thrombotic complications drive the higher in-hospital mortality.

Cellular Immune Response after Vaccination in Patients with Cancer—Review on Past and Present Experiences

Patients with cancer are at particular risk for infection but also have diminished vaccine responses, usually quantified by the level of specific antibodies. Nonetheless, vaccines are specifically recommended in this vulnerable patient group. Here, we discuss the cellular part of the vaccine response in patients with cancer. We summarize the experience with vaccines prior to and during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in different subgroups, and we discuss why, especially in patients with cancer, T cells may be the more reliable correlate of protection. Finally, we provide a brief outlook on options to improve the cellular response to vaccines.

Baricitinib combination therapy: a narrative review of repurposed Janus kinase inhibitor against severe SARS-CoV-2 infection

PURPOSE

The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is one of the most devastating global problems. Regarding the lack of disease-specific treatments, repurposing drug therapy is currently considered a promising therapeutic approach in pandemic situations. Recently, the combination therapy of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor baricitinib has been authorized for emergency COVID-19 hospitalized patients; however, this strategy's safety, drug-drug interactions, and cellular signaling pathways remain a tremendous challenge.

METHODS

In this study, we aimed to provide a deep insight into the baricitinib combination therapies in severe COVID-19 patients through reviewing the published literature on PubMed, Scopus, and Google scholar databases. We also focused on cellular and subcellular pathways related to the synergistic effects of baricitinib plus antiviral agents, virus entry, and cytokine storm (CS) induction. The safety and effectiveness of this strategy have also been discussed in moderate to severe forms of COVID-19 infection.

RESULTS

The severity of COVID-19 is commonly associated with a dysregulated immune response and excessive release of pro-inflammatory agents, resulting in CS. It has been shown that baricitinib combined with antiviral agents could modulate the inflammatory response and provide a series of positive therapeutic outcomes in hospitalized adults and pediatric patients (age ≥ two years old).

CONCLUSION

Baricitinib plus the standard of care treatment might be a potential strategy in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19.

Misconception contributed to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in patients with lung cancer or ground-glass opacity: a cross-sectional study of 324 Chinese patients

Patients highly vulnerable for COVID-19 infection have been proposed to take priority for vaccination. However, vaccine hesitancy is usually more prevalent in these patients. Investigation around modifiable contributors of vaccine hesitancy plays a pivotal role in the formulation of coping strategies. We aimed to evaluate the impact of vaccine misconception in patients with lung cancer or pulmonary ground-glass opacity (GGO). A web-based questionnaire was constructed based on a qualitative interview with 15 patients and reviewed by a multidisciplinary expert panel. Six Likert five-scale questions were used to generate a score of vaccine misconception (SoVM), which ranged from 0 to 24 points, with a higher score indicating a higher level of misconception. A total of 61.6% (324/526) patients responded to our questionnaire. A higher proportion of low willingness patients (n = 173), compared to high willingness patients (n = 151), disagreed that cancer patients should be prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination (82.1% vs. 50.3%, p < .001) and perceived themselves to have contraindications (45.7% vs. 15.9%, p < .001). The mean SoVM was significantly lower in the high willingness group than the low willingness group (9.9 vs. 13.0, p < .001). Among the unvaccinated patients, the SoVM increased as the willingness to be vaccinated decreased (p < .0001). In multivariable logistic regression, patients with higher SoVM (OR 0.783, 95% CI 0.722-0.848), being female (OR 0.531, 95% CI 0.307-0.918) or diagnosed with lung cancer (OR 0.481, 95% CI 0.284-0.814) were independently associated with a lower willingness to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Receiver operating characteristic curve suggested that a SoVM of 11 yielded the best discrimination for predicting the willingness to receive COVID-19 vaccine (AUC = 0.724). The study findings reveal that patient misconception significantly contributes to vaccine hesitancy and needs to be addressed by evidence-based education tailored to their specific concerns.

The prioritation and gap of preoperative COVID-19 vaccination in cancer surgery of the breast, head and neck, and skin: A cohort study of 367 patients in an Indonesian hospital

Background

Postoperative infection of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been associated with higher risks of mortality and pulmonary complication. Preoperative vaccination could significantly prevent postoperative-related mortality and morbidity particularly for cancer patients.

Methods

Cancer patients who were scheduled for elective major surgery were questioned for status and their willingness to receive COVID-19 vaccination and were prospectively monitored for the presence of postoperative COVID-19 infection and major complications.

Results

During the period of April–July 2021, 367 patients with median age of 49 years were scheduled for cancer surgery. Procedures for breast cancer were the most frequently performed (N = 166, 45.2%). Surgery procedures with potential aerosol generating procedures (AGPs) were performed in total of 104 patients (28.3%). Only 6 of 367 patients (1.6%) were fully vaccinated in the day of surgery and 351 patients (95.6%) were willing to receive COVID-19 vaccination. Fully vaccinated patients were significantly higher among those who were living in urban areas (OR = 22.897, 95%CI:4.022–130.357, P = 0.0001). Willingness to get the COVID-19 vaccination was significantly higher among female patients (OR = 4.661, 95%CI:1.685–12.896, P = 0.003). Postoperative COVID-19 infection was confirmed in 17 patients (4.6%) and major surgical complications were observed in 12 patients (3.3%). None of preoperatively vaccinated patients experienced postoperative COVID-19 infection or the related major complications.

Conclusion

Although prioritizing COVID-19 vaccination in preoperative cancer patients has been recommended to prevent postoperative fatalities, only a small proportion of our patients have been vaccinated. Preoperatively vaccinated patients show advantages in the prevention of postoperative COVID-19 infection and major surgery complications. The slow rollout and disparity in the vaccination progress for patients requiring a major cancer surgery need to be specifically addressed.

•

Only small proportion of preoperative cancer patients have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19.

•

There is rural-urban disparity in the preoperative COVID-19 vaccination of cancer patients.

•

Certain comorbidities are associated with vaccine acceptance among cancer patients.

•

Preoperative COVID-19 vaccination is potentially beneficial to prevent infection and complication.

Emerging nanomaterials applied for tackling the COVID-19 cytokine storm

During the global outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a hyperinflammatory state called the cytokine storm was recognized as a major contributor to multiple organ failure and mortality. However, to date, the diagnosis and treatment of the cytokine storm remain major challenges for the clinical prognosis of COVID-19. In this review, we outline various nanomaterial-based strategies for preventing the COVID-19 cytokine storm. We highlight the contribution of nanomaterials to directly inhibit cytokine release. We then discuss how nanomaterials can be used to deliver anti-inflammatory drugs to calm the cytokine storm. Nanomaterials also play crucial roles in diagnostics. Nanomaterial-based biosensors with improved sensitivity and specificity can be used to detect cytokines. In summary, emerging nanomaterials offer platforms and tools for the detection and treatment of the COVID-19 cytokine storm and future pandemic.

COVID-19 in Immunocompromised Cancer Patients: A Case Series and Review of the Literature

The global pandemic of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has presented newfound challenges to the oncology community regarding management of disease progression in immunocompromised and cancer patients. Further, the large influx of COVID-19 patients has overwhelmed healthcare facilities, limited access to intensive care unit beds and ventilators, and canceled elective surgeries causing disruptions to the cancer care continuum and re-organization of oncological care. While it is known that the potential threat of infection is greatest in elderly patients (>60 years of age) and patients with underlying comorbidities, there is still insufficient data to determine the risk of COVID-19 in cancer patients. Given the immunosuppressive status in cancer patients arising from chemotherapy and other comorbidities, management of COVID-19 in this patient population carries a unique set of challenges. We report three cases of COVID-19 in immunocompromised cancer patients and discuss the challenges in preventing, diagnosing, and treating this vulnerable group.

Cancer or COVID-19? A Review of Recommendations for COVID-19 Vaccination in Cancer Patients

While emergency use is authorized for numerous COVID-19 vaccines and the high-risk population including cancer patients or those with immunosuppression due to disease or therapy is prioritized, data on this group’s specific safety and efficacy of these vaccines remains limited. Safety data from clinical trials and population data may be extrapolated, and these vaccines may be used for cancer patients. However, concerns of efficacy due to the variable immune response in patients with active cancers undergoing active therapy and cancer survivors with chronic immunosuppression remain. The authors aim to discuss the current recommendations for use of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with cancer.

Coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination in transplant recipients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination is considered one of the most promising and socioeconomically sustainable strategy to help control the pandemic and several vaccines are currently being distributed in nationwide mass immunization campaigns. Very limited data are available on benefits and risks of COVID-19 vaccination in immunocompromised patients and in particular in solid organ or hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients as they were excluded from phase III trials. This review summarizes current knowledge, international guidelines and controversies regarding COVID-19 vaccination in these vulnerable populations.

RECENT FINDINGS

Various COVID-19 vaccine platforms showed good efficacy in phase III trials in the immunocompetent and there are data arising on the safety and immunogenicity of these vaccines in the immunocompromised population.

SUMMARY

Transplant recipients could benefit significantly from COVID-19 vaccination, both through active immunization provided they elicit protective vaccine responses, and probably through cocooning by immunization of caregivers and healthcare personnel and thus reducing the risk of SARS-coronavirus-2 exposure. Although awaiting more data on the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines to inform potential adaptations of vaccine regimens, we strongly recommend prioritizing COVID-19 vaccination of solid and hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients to decrease COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality.

Administration of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised patients

Since the beginning of vaccination programs against COVID-19 in different countries, several populations such as patients with specific immunological conditions have been considered as the priorities for immunization. In this regard, patients with autoimmune diseases or those receiving immunosuppressive agents and anti-cancer therapies, need special attention. However, no confirmed data is presently available regarding COVID-19 vaccines in these populations due to exclusion from the conducted clinical trials. Given the probable suppression or over-activation of the immune system in such patients, reaching a consensus for their vaccination is critical, besides gathering data and conducting trials, which could probably clarify this matter in the future. In this review, besides a brief on the available COVID-19 vaccines, considerations and available knowledge about administering similar vaccines in patients with cancer, hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, solid organ transplantation, multiple sclerosis (MS), inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and rheumatologic and dermatologic autoimmune disorders are summarized to help in decision making. As discussed, live-attenuated viruses, which should be avoided in these groups, are not employed in the present COVID-19 vaccines. Thus, the main concern regarding efficacy could be met using a potent COVID-19 vaccine. Moreover, the vaccination timing for maximum efficacy could be decided according to the patient’s condition, indicated medications, and the guides provided here. Post-vaccination monitoring is also advised to ensure an adequate immune response. Further studies in this area are urgently warranted.

Quality of and Recommendations for Relevant Clinical Practice Guidelines for COVID-19 Management: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal

Background: The morbidity and mortality of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are still increasing. This study aimed to assess the quality of relevant COVID-19 clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and to compare the similarities and differences between recommendations. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted using electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science) and representative guidelines repositories from December 1, 2019, to August 11, 2020 (updated to April 5, 2021), to obtain eligible CPGs. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool was used to evaluate the quality of CPGs. Four authors extracted relevant information and completed data extraction forms. All data were analyzed using R version 3.6.0 software. Results: In total, 39 CPGs were identified and the quality was not encouragingly high. The median score (interquartile range, IQR) of every domain from AGREE II for evidence-based CPGs (EB-CPGs) versus (vs.) consensus-based CPG (CB-CPGs) was 81.94% (75.00-84.72) vs. 58.33% (52.78-68.06) in scope and purpose, 59.72% (38.89-75.00) vs. 36.11% (33.33-36.11) in stakeholder involvement, 64.58% (32.29-71.88) vs. 22.92% (16.67-26.56) in rigor of development, 75.00% (52.78-86.81) vs. 52.78% (50.00-63.89) in clarity of presentation, 40.63% (22.40-62.50) vs. 20.83% (13.54-25.00) in applicability, and 58.33% (50.00-100.00) vs. 50.00% (50.00-77.08) in editorial independence, respectively. The methodological quality of EB-CPGs were significantly superior to the CB-CPGs in the majority of domains (P < 0.05). There was no agreement on diagnosis criteria of COVID-19. But a few guidelines show Remdesivir may be beneficial for the patients, hydroxychloroquine +/- azithromycin may not, and there were more consistent suggestions regarding discharge management. For instance, after discharge, isolation management and health status monitoring may be continued. Conclusions: In general, the methodological quality of EB-CPGs is greater than CB-CPGs. However, it is still required to be further improved. Besides, the consistency of COVID-19 recommendations on topics such as diagnosis criteria is different. Of them, hydroxychloroquine +/- azithromycin may be not beneficial to treat patients with COVID-19, but remdesivir may be a favorable risk-benefit in severe COVID-19 infection; isolation management and health status monitoring after discharge may be still necessary. Chemoprophylaxis, including SARS-CoV 2 vaccines and antiviral drugs of COVID-19, still require more trials to confirm this.

COVID-19 Vaccination in Patients with Classic Kaposi's Sarcoma

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has represented an overwhelming challenge for worldwide health systems. Patients with cancer are considered at higher risk for severe COVID-19 and increased mortality in case of infection. Although data on the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination in patients with cancer are limited, there is enough evidence supporting anti-infective vaccination in general in patients with active cancer, or with history of previous malignancy. Subjects with classic Kaposi's sarcoma (KS) represent a small subset of cancer patients, which should be considered at heightened risk for infections due to several factors including age, and impaired immune function status. Several cases of human herpesviruses reactivation among critically ill COVID-19 patients have been described. Moreover, in case of severe infection and treatment with immunomodulating agents, patients with CKS are exposed at significant risk of viral reactivation and disease progression. Considering the baseline clinical risk factors of patients with CKS, and the complex interplay of the two viral agents, SARS-CoV-2 vaccination should be strongly recommended among patients with KS. KS represents an interesting field to study the interactions among chronic viral infections, SARS-CoV-2 and the host's immune system. Prospective observational studies are needed to provide more insights on vaccine activity and safety among patients with cancer, optimal vaccine schedules, potential interactions with antineoplastic therapies, and other comorbidities including chronic viral infections.