Efficacy of the influenza vaccine in patients with malignant lymphoma

Management of vaccinations in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma

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

Vaccination efficacy in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a disorder of mature malignant B cells with multiple elements of immune dysfunction. Infections are common in CLL patients due to complex immunodeficiency. Vaccines are used as preventative measures for common diseases including influenza, pneumococcus, tetanus/diphtheria and shingles in the general population. Vaccines are utilized to mitigate this risk, although there have been some concerns regarding the efficacy of vaccines in the CLL population due to the inherent complex immune dysfunction associated with the disease. In this review, we describe the clinical and laboratory indicators for efficacy of the vaccines in the CLL population (including COVID-19, influenza, pneumonia, herpes zoster, and tetanus) and discuss immunization recommendations for patients with CLL.

Patients with treated indolent lymphomas immunized with BNT162b2 have reduced anti-spike neutralizing IgG to SARS-CoV-2 variants, but preserved antigen-specific T cell responses

Patients with indolent lymphoma undertaking recurrent or continuous B cell suppression are at risk of severe COVID-19. Patients and healthy controls (HC; N = 13) received two doses of BNT162b2: follicular lymphoma (FL; N = 35) who were treatment naïve (TN; N = 11) or received immunochemotherapy (ICT; N = 23) and Waldenström's macroglobulinemia (WM; N = 37) including TN (N = 9), ICT (N = 14), or treated with Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKi; N = 12). Anti-spike immunoglobulin G (IgG) was determined by a high-sensitivity flow-cytometric assay, in addition to live-virus neutralization. Antigen-specific T cells were identified by coexpression of CD69/CD137 and CD25/CD134 on T cells. A subgroup (N = 29) were assessed for third mRNA vaccine response, including omicron neutralization. One month after second BNT162b2, median anti-spike IgG mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) in FL ICT patients (9977) was 25-fold lower than TN (245 898) and HC (228 255, p = .0002 for both). Anti-spike IgG correlated with lymphocyte count (r = .63; p = .002), and time from treatment (r = .56; p = .007), on univariate analysis, but only with lymphocyte count on multivariate analysis (p = .03). In the WM cohort, median anti-spike IgG MFI in BTKi patients (39 039) was reduced compared to TN (220 645, p = .0008) and HC (p < .0001). Anti-spike IgG correlated with neutralization of the delta variant (r = .62, p < .0001). Median neutralization titer for WM BTKi (0) was lower than HC (40, p < .0001) for early-clade and delta. All cohorts had functional T cell responses. Median anti-spike IgG decreased 4-fold from second to third dose (p = .004). Only 5 of 29 poor initial responders assessed after third vaccination demonstrated seroconversion and improvement in neutralization activity, including to the omicron variant.

An Update on the Status of Vaccine Development for SARS-CoV-2 Including Variants. Practical Considerations for COVID-19 Special Populations

The progress in the development of various vaccine platforms against SARS-CoV-2 have been rather remarkable owing to advancement in molecular and biologic sciences. Most of the current vaccines and those in development focus on targeting the viral spike proteins by generating antibodies of varying spectrum. These vaccines represent a variety of platforms including whole virus vaccines, viral vector vaccines, nucleic acid vaccines representing RNA, DNA, and their hybrid forms.The therapeutic efficacy of these vaccines varies owing to their pharmacodynamic individualities. COVID-19 variants are capable of inducing different pathologic responses and some of which may be resistant to antibodies generated by current vaccines. The current clinical use of these vaccines has been through emergency use authorization until recently. Moreover, the efficacy and safety of these vaccines have been tested in substantial numbers of individuals but studies in special populations that better reflect the global population are pending results. These specialized populations include young children, immunocompromised patients, pregnant individuals, and other specialized groups. Combination approaches, molecularly modified vaccination approaches, and vaccines conferring longer periods of immunity are being currently being investigated, as well as pharmacovigilance studies.The continual transformation of SARS-CoV-2 and its variants are of concern along with the breakthrough infections. These considerations pose new challenges for the development of vaccination platforms. For this purpose, booster doses, combination vaccine approaches, and other modalities are being discussed. This review provides an updated account of currently available vaccines and those in advanced development with reference to their composition and mechanisms of action.A discussion on the use of vaccines in special populations including immunocompromised patients, pregnant women and other specialized populations are also included.

Safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in oncologic patients undergoing numerous cancer treatment options: A retrospective single-center study

The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the SARS-CoV2 virus, has infected millions worldwide with cancer patients demonstrating a higher prevalence for severe disease and poorer outcomes. Recently, the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine was released as the primary means to combat COVID-19. The currently reported incidence of local and systemic side effects was 27% in the general public. The safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine has not been studied in patients with an active cancer diagnosis who are either ongoing or plan to undergo oncologic therapy.This single center study reviewed the charts of 210 patients with active cancer diagnoses that received both doses of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. The development of side effects from the vaccine, hospitalizations or exacerbations from various oncologic treatment were documented. Type of oncologic treatment (immunotherapy, chemotherapy, hormonal, biologic, radiation or mixed) was documented to identify if side effects were related to treatment type. The time at which the vaccine was administered in relation to treatment onset (on long term therapy, within 1 month of therapy or prior to therapy) was also documented to identify any relationships.Sixty five (31%) participants experienced side effects from the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, however most were mild to moderate. Treatment protocol was not linked to the development of vaccine related side effects (P = .202), nor was immunotherapy (P = .942). The timing of vaccine administered in relation to treatment onset was also not related to vaccine related side effects (P = .653). Six (2.9%) participants were hospitalized and 4 (2%) died.The incidence of side effects in cancer patients is similar to what has been reported for the general public (31% vs 27%). Therefore, we believe that the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine is safe in oncologic patients undergoing numerous cancer treatments.

Severe impairment of T-cell responses to BNT162b2 immunization in patients with multiple myeloma

Three reports address the protection of the vulnerable population of patients with hematologic malignancies in the face of the ongoing COVID pandemic. The reports suggest that some patients who fail to mount a B-cell response to vaccine may nevertheless have protective T cell responses. As a group, these reports suggest that patients should continue to be immunized with additional doses to attempt to improve immune response but that they need to maintain the precautions recommended for the unvaccinated.

T-cell immune response after mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is frequently detected also in the absence of seroconversion in patients with lymphoid malignancies

Patients affected by lymphoid malignancies (LM) are frequently immune‐compromised, suffering increased mortality from COVID‐19. This prospective study evaluated serological and T‐cell responses after complete mRNA vaccination in 263 patients affected by chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, B‐ and T‐cell lymphomas and multiple myeloma. Results were compared with those of 167 healthy subjects matched for age and sex. Overall, patient seroconversion rate was 64·6%: serological response was lower in those receiving anti‐cancer treatments in the 12 months before vaccination: 55% vs 81·9% (P < 0·001). Anti‐CD20 antibody plus chemotherapy treatment was associated with the lowest seroconversion rate: 17·6% vs. 71·2% (P < 0·001). In the multivariate analysis conducted in the subgroup of patients on active treatment, independent predictors for seroconversion were: anti‐CD20 treatment (P < 0·001), aggressive B‐cell lymphoma diagnosis (P = 0·002), and immunoglobulin M levels <40 mg/dl (P = 0·030). The T‐cell response was evaluated in 99 patients and detected in 85 of them (86%). Of note, 74% of seronegative patients had a T‐cell response, but both cellular and humoral responses were absent in 13·1% of cases. Our findings raise some concerns about the protection that patients with LM, particularly those receiving anti‐CD20 antibodies, may gain from vaccination. These patients should strictly maintain all the protective measures.

Reduced humoral immune response after BNT162b2 coronavirus disease 2019 messenger RNA vaccination in cancer patients under antineoplastic treatment

Background

Cancer patients are at a higher risk of developing severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccination in cancer patients undergoing treatment remain unclear.

Patients and methods

In this interventional prospective multicohort study, priming and booster doses of the BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine were administered 21 days apart to solid tumor patients receiving chemotherapy, immunotherapy, targeted or hormonal therapy, and patients with a hematologic malignancy receiving rituximab or after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Vaccine safety and efficacy (until 3 months post-booster) were assessed. Anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) receptor-binding domain (RBD) antibody levels were followed over time (until 28 days after the booster) and in vitro SARS-CoV-2 50% neutralization titers (NT50) toward the wild-type Wuhan strain were analyzed 28 days after the booster.

Results

Local and systemic adverse events (AEs) were mostly mild to moderate (only 1%-3% of patients experienced severe AEs). Local, but not systemic, AEs occurred more frequently after the booster dose. Twenty-eight days after the booster vaccination of 197 cancer patients, RBD-binding antibody titers and NT50 were lower in the chemotherapy group {234.05 IU/ml [95% confidence interval (CI) 122.10-448.66] and 24.54 (95% CI 14.50-41.52), respectively} compared with healthy individuals [1844.93 IU/ml (95% CI 1383.57-2460.14) and 122.63 (95% CI 76.85-195.67), respectively], irrespective of timing of vaccination during chemotherapy cycles. Extremely low antibody responses were seen in hematology patients receiving rituximab; only two patients had RBD-binding antibody titers necessary for 50% protection against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (<200 IU/ml) and only one had NT50 above the limit of detection. During the study period, five cancer patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection, including a case of severe COVID-19 in a patient receiving rituximab, resulting in a 2-week hospital admission.

Conclusion

The BNT162b2 vaccine is well-tolerated in cancer patients under active treatment. However, the antibody response of immunized cancer patients was delayed and diminished, mainly in patients receiving chemotherapy or rituximab, resulting in breakthrough infections.

•

The BNT162b2 vaccine is well-tolerated in cancer patients, including patients under immunotherapy.

•

Full BNT162b2 vaccination results in a blunted humoral immune response in cancer patients under active treatment.

•

The humoral immune response after BNT162b2 vaccination varies between different antineoplastic treatments.

•

Two doses of BNT162b2 vaccination may insufficiently protect patients receiving chemotherapy or rituximab against SARS-CoV-2.

Impaired Humoral Immunity to SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination in Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and CLL Patients

Patients with hematologic malignancies are a high priority for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, yet the benefit they will derive is uncertain. We investigated the humoral response to vaccination in 53 non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), or CLL patients. Peripheral blood was obtained 2 weeks after first vaccination and 6 weeks after second vaccination for antibody profiling using the multiplex bead-binding assay. Serum IgG, IgA, and IgM antibody levels to the spike specific receptor binding domain (RBD) were evaluated as a measure of response. Subsequently, antibody-positive serum were assayed for neutralization capacity against authentic SARS-CoV-2. Histology was 68% lymphoma and 32% CLL; groups were: patients receiving anti-CD20-based therapy (45%), monitored with disease (28%), receiving BTK inhibitors (19%), or chemotherapy (all HL) (8%). SARS-CoV-2 specific RBD IgG antibody response was decreased across all NHL and CLL groups: 25%, 73%, and 40%, respectively. Antibody IgG titers were significantly reduced (p < 0.001) for CD20 treated and targeted therapy patients, and (p = 0.003) for monitored patients. In 94% of patients evaluated after first and second vaccination, antibody titers did not significantly boost after second vaccination. Only 13% of CD20 treated and 13% of monitored patients generated neutralizing antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 with ICD50s 135 to 1767, and 445 and > 10240. This data has profound implications given the current guidance relaxing masking restrictions and for timing of vaccinations. Unless immunity is confirmed with laboratory testing, these patients should continue to mask, socially distance, and to avoid close contact with non-vaccinated individuals.

Statement of Translational Relevance

Non Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and Chronic Lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients who are treated with anti-CD20 antibody therapy, BTK inhibitor therapy, or who are monitored with active disease, have decreased antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and decreased antibody titers compared to healthy controls. Antibody titers do not boost following second vaccination, and very few patients generate neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. This data is of particular importance, given the recent guidance from the CDC that vaccinated patients no longer need to be masked indoors as well as outdoors. Patients with NHL or CLL who fall into these categories should not consider their immunity from vaccination to be assured. If infected with SARS-CoV-2, they should be a high priority for monoclonal antibody directed therapy. Unless immune response to vaccination is confirmed with laboratory testing, they should continue to mask, socially distance, and to avoid close contact with non-vaccinated individuals.

Implications of mRNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccination for cancer patients

SARS-CoV-2 infection and the resulting COVID-19 have afflicted millions of people in an ongoing worldwide pandemic. Safe and effective vaccination is needed urgently to protect not only the general population but also vulnerable subjects such as patients with cancer. Currently approved mRNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines seem suitable for patients with cancer based on their mode of action, efficacy, and favorable safety profile reported in the general population. Here, we provide an overview of mRNA-based vaccines including their safety and efficacy. Extrapolating from insights gained from a different preventable viral infection, we review existing data on immunity against influenza A and B vaccines in patients with cancer. Finally, we discuss COVID-19 vaccination in light of the challenges specific to patients with cancer, such as factors that may hinder protective SARS-CoV-2 immune responses in the context of compromised immunity and the use of immune-suppressive or immune-modulating drugs.

Safety and immunogenicity of one versus two doses of the COVID-19 vaccine BNT162b2 for patients with cancer: interim analysis of a prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety profiles of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with cancer is unknown. We aimed to assess the safety and immunogenicity of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine in patients with cancer.

METHODS

For this prospective observational study, we recruited patients with cancer and healthy controls (mostly health-care workers) from three London hospitals between Dec 8, 2020, and Feb 18, 2021. Participants who were vaccinated between Dec 8 and Dec 29, 2020, received two 30 μg doses of BNT162b2 administered intramuscularly 21 days apart; patients vaccinated after this date received only one 30 μg dose with a planned follow-up boost at 12 weeks. Blood samples were taken before vaccination and at 3 weeks and 5 weeks after the first vaccination. Where possible, serial nasopharyngeal real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR) swab tests were done every 10 days or in cases of symptomatic COVID-19. The coprimary endpoints were seroconversion to SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein in patients with cancer following the first vaccination with the BNT162b2 vaccine and the effect of vaccine boosting after 21 days on seroconversion. All participants with available data were included in the safety and immunogenicity analyses. Ongoing follow-up is underway for further blood sampling after the delayed (12-week) vaccine boost. This study is registered with the NHS Health Research Authority and Health and Care Research Wales (REC ID 20/HRA/2031).

FINDINGS

151 patients with cancer (95 patients with solid cancer and 56 patients with haematological cancer) and 54 healthy controls were enrolled. For this interim data analysis of the safety and immunogenicity of vaccinated patients with cancer, samples and data obtained up to March 19, 2021, were analysed. After exclusion of 17 patients who had been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 (detected by either antibody seroconversion or a positive rRT-PCR COVID-19 swab test) from the immunogenicity analysis, the proportion of positive anti-S IgG titres at approximately 21 days following a single vaccine inoculum across the three cohorts were 32 (94%; 95% CI 81-98) of 34 healthy controls; 21 (38%; 26-51) of 56 patients with solid cancer, and eight (18%; 10-32) of 44 patients with haematological cancer. 16 healthy controls, 25 patients with solid cancer, and six patients with haematological cancer received a second dose on day 21. Of the patients with available blood samples 2 weeks following a 21-day vaccine boost, and excluding 17 participants with evidence of previous natural SARS-CoV-2 exposure, 18 (95%; 95% CI 75-99) of 19 patients with solid cancer, 12 (100%; 76-100) of 12 healthy controls, and three (60%; 23-88) of five patients with haematological cancers were seropositive, compared with ten (30%; 17-47) of 33, 18 (86%; 65-95) of 21, and four (11%; 4-25) of 36, respectively, who did not receive a boost. The vaccine was well tolerated; no toxicities were reported in 75 (54%) of 140 patients with cancer following the first dose of BNT162b2, and in 22 (71%) of 31 patients with cancer following the second dose. Similarly, no toxicities were reported in 15 (38%) of 40 healthy controls after the first dose and in five (31%) of 16 after the second dose. Injection-site pain within 7 days following the first dose was the most commonly reported local reaction (23 [35%] of 65 patients with cancer; 12 [48%] of 25 healthy controls). No vaccine-related deaths were reported.

INTERPRETATION

In patients with cancer, one dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine yields poor efficacy. Immunogenicity increased significantly in patients with solid cancer within 2 weeks of a vaccine boost at day 21 after the first dose. These data support prioritisation of patients with cancer for an early (day 21) second dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine.

FUNDING

King's College London, Cancer Research UK, Wellcome Trust, Rosetrees Trust, and Francis Crick Institute.

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

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

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

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

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

Soluble expression, rapid purification, biological identification of chicken interferon-alpha using a thioredoxin fusion system in E. coli and its antiviral effects to H9N2 avian influenza virus

In this paper, we report a soluble expression based on Escherichia coli and two-step purification of a novel thioredoxin-tagged chicken interferon-α fusion protein (Trx-rChIFN-α) by using pET32a(+) expression system. The mature ChIFN-α gene was amplified by Reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and subcloned into pET-32a (+) vector prior to transformation into Rosetta (DE3) competent cells. After IPTG induction, the recombinant fusion protein was expressed efficiently in the soluble fraction. The protein purification was performed by nickel affinity chromatography and DEAE anion exchange chromatography. The purified product has a purity of 95% with a yield of 47.3 mg/L of culture. The specific activity of the fusion protein reaches to 2.0 × 10⁷ IU/mg as determined in the CEF/VSV titration system. After excision of the Trx tag by enterokinase, the remaining solo protein was confirmed as rChIFN-α protein by SDS-PAGE, N-terminal sequencing and mass spectrometry. The effects of this Trx-rChIFN-α fusion protein against H9N2 influenza virus infection were also evaluated in ovo. The results showed that the Trx-rChIFN-α protein could significantly reduce the hemagglutination titer of H9N2 virus, and the H9N2 viruses HA gene copy numbers. These findings will enable us to produce large amount and bio-active rChIFN-α protein for future applications.

Vaccination of patients with haematological malignancies who did not have transplantations: guidelines from the 2017 European Conference on Infections in Leukaemia (ECIL 7)

Patients with haematological malignancies are at high risk of infection because of various mechanisms of humoral and cell-mediated immune deficiencies, which mainly depend on underlying disease and specific therapies. Some of these infections are vaccine preventable. However, these malignancies are different from each other, and the treatment approaches are diverse and rapidly evolving, so it is difficult to have a common programme for vaccination in a haematology ward. Additionally, because of insufficient training about the topic, vaccination is an area often neglected by haematologists, and influenced by cultural differences, even among health-care workers, in compliance to vaccines. Several issues are encountered when addressing vaccination in haematology: the small size of the cohorts that makes it difficult to show the clinical benefits of vaccination, the subsequent need to rely on biological parameters, their clinical pertinence not being established in immunocompromised patients, scarcity of clarity on the optimal timing of vaccination in complex treatment schedules, and the scarcity of data on long-term protection in patients receiving treatments. Moreover, the risk of vaccine-induced disease with live-attenuated vaccines strongly limits their use. Here we summarise guidelines for patients without transplantations, and address the issue by the haematological group-myeloid and lymphoid-of diseases, with a special consideration for children with acute leukaemia.

Influenza vaccines in immunosuppressed adults with cancer

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Viral Pneumonia in Patients with Hematologic Malignancy or Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation

Viral pneumonias in patients with hematologic malignancies and recipients of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation cause significant morbidity and mortality. Advances in diagnostic techniques have enabled rapid identification of respiratory viral pathogens from upper and lower respiratory tract samples. Lymphopenia, myeloablative and T-cell depleting chemotherapy, graft-versus-host disease, and other factors increase the risk of developing life-threatening viral pneumonia. Chest imaging is often nonspecific but may aid in diagnoses. Bronchoscopy with bronchoalveolar lavage is recommended in those at high risk for viral pneumonia who have new infiltrates on chest imaging.

Immunogenicity of trivalent influenza vaccine in patients with lung cancer undergoing anticancer chemotherapy

Lung cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related death, and patients with lung cancer are a priority group for influenza vaccination. However, few studies have assessed the immunogenicity of the influenza vaccine in these patients. Here, we performed a prospective study to evaluate the immunogenicity of the influenza vaccine in patients with lung cancer undergoing anticancer chemotherapy. Twenty-five patients with lung cancer undergoing anticancer chemotherapy and 26 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) as controls were enrolled. A trivalent influenza vaccine containing inactivated A/California/7/2009 (H1N1) pdm09, A/Texas/50/2012 (H3N2), and B/Massachusetts/2/2012 was administered as a single subcutaneous injection. Serum samples were collected before vaccination, and at 4-6 weeks after vaccination. Levels of serum antibody to hemagglutinin were measured. Among patients with lung cancer, the seroprotection rate (postvaccination titer > 1:40) was 84% for both A(H1N1) and A(H3N2), similar to the levels observed in patients with COPD. However, the seroprotection rate for the B strain was significantly lower in patients with lung cancer than in patients with COPD (64% versus 92%). Even after adjustment for potential confounders, patients with lung cancer had a significantly lower odds ratio for seroprotection against the B strain than patients with COPD. Moreover, in patients with lung cancer, those receiving the platinum doublet treatment tended to exhibit a lower seroprotection rate than those receiving a single agent. Thus, patients with lung cancer undergoing anticancer chemotherapy showed acceptable immune responses to a trivalent influenza vaccine, supporting the recommendation for annual influenza vaccination in these patients.

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

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

Immunogenicity of a monovalent influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccine in patients with hematological malignancies

Patients with hematological malignancies have high risk for morbidity and mortality from influenza. This study was conducted to evaluate the immunogenicity and reactogenicity of an influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccine among such subjects. Fifty subjects were vaccinated twice during the 2009-2010 season. The antibody response was expressed in terms of mean fold rise (MFR) of geometric mean titer, seroresponse proportion (sR), and seroprotection proportion (sP). The first vaccination induced only a small response, and additional antibody was acquired after the second dose (MFR 2.3 and 3.9, sR 32% and 54%, and sP 30% and 48% after the first and the second vaccination, respectively). Rituximab treatment showed an especially inhibitory effect (MFR 1.3, sR 9% and sP 0%). When analyzed using logistic regression models, only rituximab was found to have an independent effect; the adjusted odds ratio for sR was 0.09 (P = 0.05). Influenza vaccination of patients with hematological malignancies resulted in adepuate response, and the second vaccination induced additional antibody. It is therefore recommended to vaccinate this group twice.

Influenza vaccination in cancer patients undergoing systemic therapy

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients often experience preventable infections, including influenza A and B. These infections can be a cause of significant morbidity and mortality. The increased risk of infection may be because of either cancer itself or treatment-induced immunosuppression.1 Influenza immunization has been shown to decrease the risk of influenza infection in patients with intact immunity.2 In cancer patients, active immunization has been shown to confer protective immunity against several infections at similar rates to healthy individuals, which has translated into decreased duration and severity of infection and potentially improved morbidity and mortality.3

OBJECTIVES

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE/PubMed database for articles published from 1964 to 2013 using the search terms “cancer,” “adult,” “influenza vaccination,” and “chemotherapy.”

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies based on systematic sampling with defined clinical criteria irrespective of the vaccination status of cancer patients. Studies measure the serological response or clinical response to compare between the study group and the control group. Studies assessed the inactivated influenza vaccines and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) protective serological reaction and the clinical outcomes after vaccination.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent authors assessed the methodological quality of included studies and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 studies (total number of participants = 1,076). None of the included studies reported clinical outcomes. All included studies reported on influenza immunity and adverse reaction on vaccination. We included 6 solid tumor studies and 10 hematological studies. In 12 studies, the serological response to influenza vaccine was compared in patients receiving chemotherapy (n = 425) versus those not receiving chemotherapy (n = 376). In three studies, the serological responses to influenza vaccination in patients receiving chemotherapy are compared to that in healthy adult. Measures used to assess the serological responses included a four-fold rise increase in antibody titer development of hemagglutination inhibition (HI) titer >40, and pre- and post-vaccination geometric mean titers (GMTs). Immune responses in patients receiving chemotherapy were consistently weaker (four-fold rise of 17–52%) than in those who had completed chemotherapy (50–83%) and healthy patients (67–100%). Concerning adverse effects, oncology patients received influenza vaccine, and the side effects described were mild local reactions and low-grade fever. No life-threatening or persistent adverse effects were reported.

AUTHORS’ CONCLUSION

Patients with solid and some of hematological tumors are able to mount a serological response to influenza vaccine, but it remains unclear how much this response protects them from influenza infection or its complications. Meanwhile, influenza vaccine appears to be safe in these patients. While waiting results of randomized controlled trials to give us more details about the clinical benefits of the influenza vaccination, the clinicians should consider the currently proved benefits of influenza vaccination on management of the cancer patients undergoing systematic chemotherapy such as decrease in the duration and severity of the of the disease, and significant decrease in influenza-associated morbidity and mortality in these high-risk patients.3

Immunogenicity of influenza vaccine in colorectal cancer patients

Purpose

Although influenza is regarded as a major cause of morbidity and mortality in immunocompromised patients, vaccine coverage remains poor. We evaluated the immunogenicity of influenza vaccines in colorectal cancer patients.

Materials and Methods

In this study, 40 colorectal cancer patients who received an influenza vaccine at the Korea Cancer Center Hospital during the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 influenza seasons were analyzed. The blood samples were collected at prevaccination and 30 days post vaccination, and antibody titers were measured using the hemagglutination-inhibition tests.

Results

In the 2009-2011 season, the seroprotection rate for H1N1 (94.7%) was significantly higher than that for H3N2 (42.1%) and B (47.3%). The seroconversion rate was 52.6%, 26.3%, and 36.8% for H1N1, H3N2, and B, respectively. Fold increase of geometric mean titer (MFI) was 3.86, 1.49, and 3.33 for H1N1, H3N2, and B, respectively. In the 2010-2011 season, the seroprotection rate for H1N1 (57.1%) was significantly higher than that for H3N2 (52.4%) and B (38.1%). The seroconversion rate was 52.4%, 47.6% and 33.3% for H1N1, H3N2, and B, respectively. MFI was 12.29, 3.62 and 4.27 for H1N1, H3N2, and B, respectively.

Conclusion

Our study cohort showed an acceptable immune response to an influenza vaccine without significant adverse effects, supporting the recommendation for annual influenza vaccination in colorectal cancer patients.

2013 IDSA clinical practice guideline for vaccination of the immunocompromised host

An international panel of experts prepared an evidenced-based guideline for vaccination of immunocompromised adults and children. These guidelines are intended for use by primary care and subspecialty providers who care for immunocompromised patients. Evidence was often limited. Areas that warrant future investigation are highlighted.

Influenza vaccines in immunosuppressed adults with cancer

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Vaccination of immunocompromised patients

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

Influenza vaccination for immunocompromised patients: systematic review and meta-analysis by etiology

Many national guidelines recommend annual influenza vaccination of immunocompromised patients, although the decision to vaccinate is usually at clinical discretion. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses to assess the evidence for influenza vaccination in this group, and we report our results by etiology. Meta-analyses showed significantly lower odds of influenza-like illness after vaccination in patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, patients with cancer, and transplant recipients and of laboratory-confirmed influenza in HIV-positive patients, compared with patients receiving placebo or no vaccination. Pooled odds of seroconversion and seroprotection were typically lower in HIV-positive patients, patients with cancer, and transplant recipients, compared with immunocompetent controls. Vaccination was generally well tolerated, with variation in mild adverse events between etiological groups. Limited evidence of a transient increase in viremia and a decrease in the percentage of CD4(+) cells in HIV-positive patients was found although not accompanied by worsening of clinical symptoms. Clinical judgment remains important when discussing the benefits and safety profile with immunocompromised patients.

Practices and predictors of 2009 H1N1 vaccination in cancer patients: a nationwide survey in Korea

BACKGROUND

Because patients with cancer are considered to be at high-risk for influenza infection and related complications, annual vaccination is recommended. The emergence of the novel H1N1 influenza virus in 2009 complicated the medical care of patients with cancer. The present study examined H1N1 vaccination practices among patients with cancer during the pandemic season and investigated factors related to the vaccination.

METHODS

A national multicenter cross-sectional survey of patient-doctor dyads was performed; A total of 97 oncologists (response rates of invited participants, 87.4%) and 495 patients (response rates of recruited participants, 86.5%) were included. Patients with cancer provided information concerning vaccination practices and reasons for/against it. Oncologists answered questions about their recommendations and knowledge of H1N1 vaccination. Mixed logistic regression was used to identify patient-level and physician-level predictors of H1N1 vaccination.

RESULTS

Only 34.1% of the patients had received H1N1 vaccination, and 53.5% had not considered the need for vaccination. The H1N1 vaccine was proactively recommended by physicians in only a small fraction of patients (8.3%). Increasing age, higher educational status, longer time since the cancer diagnosis, comorbidities, and greater knowledge of H1N1 vaccination among oncologists were significant predictors of patients being vaccinated.

CONCLUSIONS

The present results showed low levels of utilization and poor interaction between patients and physicians with regard to the need for vaccination. In addition, the oncologist's level of knowledge affected the adoption of preventive services. Intervention strategies are needed to maximize the rapid adoption of preventive methods to confront future pandemic threats in the cancer patient population.

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

PURPOSE

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Immunogenicity of an inactivated monovalent 2009 influenza A (H1N1) vaccine in patients who have cancer

BACKGROUND

The immune response of patients who have cancer, who may be receiving immunosuppressive therapy, is generally considered to be decreased. This study aimed to evaluate the immune response of cancer patients to the 2009 influenza A (H1N1) vaccine.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a prospective single site study comparing the immune response after H1N1 vaccination of healthy controls (group A), patients who had solid tumors and were taking myelosuppressive chemotherapy (group B), patients who had solid tumors and were taking nonmyelosuppressive or no treatment (group C), and patients who had hematologic malignancies (group D).

RESULTS

At 2-6 weeks after vaccination, seroconversion was observed in 80.0% of group A (95% confidence interval [CI], 65.0%-89.7%), 72.2% of group B (95% CI, 55.9%-84.3%), 87.0% of group C (95% CI, 72.2%-94.7%), and 75.0% of group D (95% CI, 52.8%-89.2%) (p = NS). The geometric mean titer ratio, that is, geometric mean factor increase in antibody titer after vaccination, was 12.6 (95% CI, 7.9-19.9), 12.7 (95% CI, 7.3-22.1), 23.0 (95% CI, 13.9-38.2), and 12.1 (95% CI, 5.3-27.9) (p = NS), and the seroprotection rates were 95.5% (95% CI, 84.0%-99.6%), 79.0% (95% CI, 63.4%-89.2%), 90.5% (95% CI, 77.4%-96.8%), and 90.0% (95% CI, 71%-98.7%) in the corresponding groups (p = NS). Immune responses were robust regardless of malignancy, or time intervals between the use of myelosuppressive or immunosuppressive medications and vaccination. No participants developed clinical H1N1 infection.

CONCLUSION

Cancer patients, whether taking myelosuppressive chemotherapy or not, are able to generate an immune response to the H1N1 vaccine similar to that of healthy controls.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

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

CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE

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

Pharmacodynamic effects of steady-state fingolimod on antibody response in healthy volunteers: a 4-week, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multiple-dose study

Fingolimod, a first-in-class oral sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor (S1PR) modulator, is approved in many countries for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, at a once-daily 0.5-mg dose. A reduction in peripheral lymphocyte count is an expected consequence of the fingolimod mechanism of S1PR modulation. The authors investigated if this pharmacodynamic effect impacts humoral and cellular immunogenicity. In this double-blind, parallel-group, 4-week study, 72 healthy volunteers were randomized to steady state, fingolimod 0.5 mg, 1.25 mg, or to placebo. The authors compared T-cell dependent and independent responses to the neoantigens, keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH), and pneumococcal polysaccharides vaccine (PPV-23), respectively, and additionally recall antigen response (tetanus toxoid [TT]) and delayed-type hypersensitivity (DTH) to KLH, TT, and Candida albicans. Fingolimod caused mild to moderate decreases in anti-KLH and anti-PPV-23 IgG and IgM levels versus placebo. Responder rates were identical between placebo and 0.5-mg groups for anti-KLH IgG (both > 90%) and comparable for anti-PPV-23 IgG (55% and 41%, respectively). Fingolimod did not affect anti-TT immunogenicity, and DTH response did not differ between placebo and fingolimod 0.5-mg groups. Expectedly, lymphocyte count reduced substantially in the fingolimod groups versus placebo but reversed by study end. Fingolimod was well tolerated, and the observed safety profile was consistent with previous reports.

Immunization in the adult immunocompromised host

The number of patients with impaired immune response has been steadily increasing within the last years, not only with the onset of the AIDS epidemic, but also due to increasing numbers of subjects on immunosuppressive therapies. These patients are at an increased risk for infections, many of which are preventable by immunization. Inactivated vaccines are generally safe in subjects with underlying immunosuppression. However, immune response and protection may be hampered, depending on the extent of immunosuppression. In contrast, live vaccines such as yellow fever, measles, rubella, herpes zoster, and cholera may lead to severe reactions in immunocompromised patients and have been shown to deteriorate some immune-mediated diseases such as multiple sclerosis. Data on the efficacy of vaccines in biological therapies is scarce. Where necessary vaccines should be updated before immunosuppressive therapies are started. To improve the vaccination status several guidelines exist for immunosuppressed patients at risk such as those with rheumatic diseases, asplenia or solid organ and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

Vaccines for prophylaxis of viral infections in patients with hematological malignancies

BACKGROUND

Viral infections cause significant morbidity and mortality in patients with hematological malignancies. It remains uncertain whether viral vaccinations in these patients are supported by good evidence.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to determine the effectiveness and safety of viral vaccines in patients with hematological malignancies.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL (June 2010), reference lists of relevant papers, abstracts from scientific meetings and contacted vaccine manufacturers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating viral vaccines in patients with hematological malignancies were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Relative risk (RR) was used for binary data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data. Primary outcome was incidence of infection. Secondary outcomes were mortality, incidence of complications and severe viral infection, hospitalization, immune response and adverse effects. Fixed-effect model was used in meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight RCTs were included, with 305 patients in the intervention groups and 288 in the control groups. They evaluated heat-inactivated varicella zoster virus (VZV) vaccine (two trials), influenza vaccines (five trials) and inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) (one trial). Seven trials had high and one trial had moderate risk of bias.VZV vaccine might reduce herpes zoster compared to no vaccine (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.3 to 1.0, P=0.05), but not statistically significant. Vaccination also demonstrated efficacy in immune response but frequently caused local adverse effects. One trial reported severity score of zoster, which favored vaccination (MD 2.6, 95% CI 0.94 to 4.26, P=0.002).Two RCTs compared inactivated influenza vaccine with no vaccine and reported lower risk of lower respiratory infections (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.78, P=0.008) and hospitalization (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.31, P<0.00001) in vaccine recipients. However, vaccine recipients more frequently experienced irritability and local adverse effects. There was no significant difference in seroconversion between one and two doses of influenza vaccine (one trial), or between recombinant and standard influenza vaccine (one trial), or influenza vaccine given with or without re-induction chemotherapy (one trial).The IPV trial comparing vaccination starting at 6 versus 18 months after stem cell transplant (SCT) found no significant difference in seroconversion.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Inactivated VZV vaccine might reduce zoster severity in adult SCT recipients. Inactivated influenza vaccine might reduce respiratory infections and hospitalization in adults with multiple myeloma or children with leukemia or lymphoma. However, the quality of evidence is low. Local adverse effects occur frequently. Further high-quality RCTs are needed.

Influenza vaccination for terminally ill cancer patients receiving palliative care: a preliminary report

CONTEXT

Cancer patients have impaired humoral and cellular immunity, and are more susceptible to infections; their immunological response is expected to be less effective than that of healthy people.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the immune response to influenza vaccine in terminally ill cancer patients in a home palliative care unit.

METHODS

During the fall of 2000-2001, 2005-2006, and 2006-2007, terminally ill cancer patients treated by our home palliative care unit were vaccinated against influenza with Vaxigrip(®). Blood samples were taken before and four weeks after vaccination. Influenza immunological response parameters accepted in the literature were calculated.

RESULTS

Eighteen terminal cancer patients were vaccinated against influenza strains predicted for that year; 13 completed the study. The other five patients died within less than a month from the time of vaccination. The serum protection rate increased from 15.4% before to 61.5% after vaccination, and the serum response rate was 53.8% for all the three strains of vaccination. Mean-fold increase was 24.9 for influenza A-H1N1, 15.4 for influenza A-H3N2, and 2.8 for influenza B. Geometric mean titer was increased for influenza A-H3N2 from 8.3 before vaccination to 159.4 after vaccination; for influenza A-H1N1 from 5.2 to 124.3, and for influenza B from 5.7 to 44.6.

CONCLUSION

The results indicate that influenza vaccination is probably effective and can be offered to terminally ill cancer patients with a life expectancy of about three months in a home care palliative care unit.

The efficacy of influenza vaccination in a pediatric oncology population

There is little known about the impact of the timing of influenza vaccine administration on seroconversion in patients on chemotherapy. Recommendations for other vaccines state that the vaccines should be readministered several months after the completion of chemotherapy outside of the stem cell transplant setting. This is not often possible with the influenza vaccine because of its seasonal nature. To examine whether certain times during chemotherapy are more favorable for seroconversion, we examined vaccine responses in a cohort of children on chemotherapy. Pediatric patients on chemotherapy were recruited over the 2006 to 2008 influenza vaccine seasons. Sixty-eight acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), 3 acute myeloid leukemia, and 18 sarcoma patients were evaluated. Clinical and laboratory features were recorded. The hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) assay was used to define serotype-specific responses. Seroconversion rates varied according to the type of chemotherapy during the vaccination period. In some cases, there was a late rise in titer, suggesting that a wild-type infection had occurred, leading to an estimate of vulnerability of this population. In patients with ALL, responses to the vaccine were greater when it was given early in the course of treatment. We conclude that seroconversion rates are well below the rates cited for the general population. The 3 acute myeloid leukemia patients had a particularly poor response to the vaccine. In the case of ALL patients, it may be possible to adjust the timing of the vaccine to optimize the response.

Utility of Influenza Vaccination for Oncology Patients

Every fall and winter, patients with cancer and their families ask oncologists whether they should be vaccinated for influenza. This season, with escalating concerns regarding the novel H1N1 influenza virus and its recently approved vaccine, this question has become more frequent and increasingly urgent. The purpose of this article is to review evidence related to the ability of patients with cancer to mount protective immunological responses to influenza vaccination. The literature on immunogenicity in pediatric and adult patients, those with solid tumors and hematologic malignancies, untreated and actively treated patients, and patients receiving biologic agents is summarized and reviewed. In addition, we report on potential strategies to improve the efficacy of influenza vaccination in patients with cancer, such as the timing of vaccination, use of more than a one-shot series, increasing the antigen dose, and the use of adjuvant therapies. We conclude that there is evidence that patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy are able to respond to influenza vaccination, and because this intervention is safe, inexpensive, and widely available, vaccination for seasonal influenza and the novel H1N1 strain is indicated.

H1N1 novel influenza A in pregnant and immunocompromised patients

OBJECTIVE

To describe the increased risk of severe disease and the appropriate management of patients at high risk such as pregnant women and immunosuppressed patients who acquire novel influenza A (H1N1).

DESIGN

Review of the literature regarding influenza A in these patient groups, and review of published and unpublished data with regard to novel influenza A (H1N1).

MAIN RESULTS

Pregnant women are at increased risk for severe pneumonitis and respiratory failure from influenza infection, particularly during pandemics, including the current pandemic. Fetal morbidity is significant, usually resulting from maternal fever and severe hypoxemia. Early antiviral therapy using oseltamivir may be beneficial, and intensive care unit support should target adequate oxygenation at all times. Immunosuppressed patients are at increased risk for influenza, as well as at risk for more severe or prolonged infection. Patients after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, after lung transplantation, and those receiving chemotherapy for leukemia are at highest risk, whereas the risk for human immunodeficiency virus-infected individuals appears relatively low. Treatment with antiviral therapy may be beneficial, even after the usual cut-off of 48 hrs after symptom onset.

CONCLUSIONS

Optimal management of these patients is preventive by influenza vaccination, but the neuraminidase inhibitor antiviral agents provide effective treatment.

Serological immune responses to influenza vaccine in patients with colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The immune responses to influenza vaccination in patients with colorectal cancer on surveillance or active chemotherapy have not been previously reported. We conducted a prospective influenza vaccination study to determine the serological immune response rate in patients with colorectal cancer.

METHODS

During the 2006-2007 influenza season, patients with colorectal cancer treated at Roswell Park Cancer Institute were offered vaccination with the trivalent influenza vaccine (Fluzone, 2006-2007). Blood samples for hemagglutination inhibition (HI) assay titers were collected before and 3 months after vaccination. Response to vaccination was determined using an endpoint of ≥ 1:40 HI titer ratio or a fourfold HI increase at 3 months from vaccination. A response in HI to at least one of the 3 strains was considered an immune response.

RESULTS

Eighty-five patients with colorectal cancer participated in the study. The immune response in the overall population was 70.6%. No differences in response were noted between the 58 patients on active chemotherapy and the 27 patients on surveillance [Odds Ratio (OR) = 0.78; P = 0.8]. The odds of response did not vary by chemotherapy regimen or by chemotherapy-vaccination timing. HI response in all 3 titers concurrently were low in both the chemotherapy (12.1%) and surveillance groups (11.1%) (OR = 1.10; P = 1).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with colorectal cancer mount an immune response to influenza vaccination irrespective of their chemotherapy regimen or timing. However, concurrent responses to all three strains in the individual patient with colorectal cancer are uncommon. The investigation of a booster vaccine in this population is warranted.