Production and persistence of specific antibodies in COVID-19 patients with hematologic malignancies: role of rituximab

Indolent lymphoma care delivery and outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario, Canada

The treatment pattern and outcomes in patients with indolent B-cell lymphoma treated during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic period compared to the prepandemic period are unclear. This was a retrospective population-based study using administrative databases in Ontario, Canada (follow-up to 31 March 2022). The primary outcome was treatment pattern; secondary outcomes were death, toxicities, healthcare utilization (emergency department [ED] visit, hospitalization) and SARS-CoV-2 outcomes. Adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) from Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate associations. We identified 4143 patients (1079 pandemic, 3064 prepandemic), with a median age of 69 years. In both time periods, bendamustine (B) + rituximab (BR) was the most frequently prescribed regimen. During the pandemic, fewer patients received R maintenance or completed the full 2-year course (aHR 0.81, 95% CI 0.71-0.92, p = 0.001). Patients treated during the pandemic had less healthcare utilization (ED visit aHR 0.77, 95% CI 0.68, 0.88, p < 0.0001; hospitalization aHR 0.81, 95% CI 0.70-0.94, p = 0.0067) and complications (infection aHR 0.69, 95% CI 0.57-0.82, p < 0.0001; febrile neutropenia aHR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47-0.94, p = 0.020), with no difference in death. Independent of vaccination, active rituximab use was associated with a higher risk of COVID-19 complications. Despite similar front-line regimen use, healthcare utilization and admissions for infection were less in the pandemic cohort.

Increasing insight in the value of repetitive COVID-19 vaccination in patients with haematological malignancies in the Omicron era

The study by Kevlicius et al. from Lithuania gives further confirmation of the efficacy of booster mRNA COVID-19 vaccination for patients with haemato-oncological malignancies in the Omicron era. The risk of COVID-19 and mortality was considerably reduced when patients received the booster vaccination. The threshold of the humoral response to vaccination that was protective for haemato-oncological patients was defined. In particular, ruxolitinib and anti-CD20 treatments limited the humoral response to the third booster vaccination. These data may influence the clinical management of haemato-oncological patients in future waves of the COVID-19 pandemic, regarding for example the selection of patients for passive immunization against SARS-CoV-2. Commentary on: Kevličius et al. Immunogenicity and clinical effectiveness of mRNA vaccine booster against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron in patients with haematological malignancies: A national prospective cohort study. Br J Haematol 2024;204:497-506.

IgG antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 infection and its influencing factors in lymphoma patients

BACKGROUND

The ability of generating effective humoral immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection has not been clarified in lymphoma patients. The study aimed to investigate the antibody (Ab) production after SARS-Cov-2 infection and clarify the factors affecting the Ab generation in these patients.

PATIENTS & METHODS

80 lymphoma patients and 51 healthy controls were included in this prospective observational study. Clinical factors and treatment regimens affecting Ab positive rate (APR) and Ab levels were analyzed by univariate and multivariate methods.

RESULTS

The anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG APR and Ab levels in lymphoma patients were significantly lower than those in healthy controls. Lymphoma patients with COVID-19 vaccination had significantly higher APR and Ab levels compared with those without vaccination. Additionally, the use of dexamethasone for COVID-19 treatment had a negative impact on Ab levels. For the impact of treatment regimens on the APR and Ab levels, the results showed that patients treated with ≥ 6 times CD20 monoclonal Ab (mAb) and patients treated with autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (ASCT) prior to infection produced a statistically lower APR and Ab levels compared with those treated with 1-5 times CD20 mAb and those treated without ASCT, respectively. Furthermore, multiple regression analysis indicated that the number of anti-CD20 treatment was an independent predictor for both APR and Ab levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection was impaired in lymphoma patients partly due to anti-CD20 and ASCT treatment. COVID-19 vaccination may be more needed for these patients.

Bendamustine impairs humoral but not cellular immunity to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in rituximab-treated B-cell lymphoma-affected patients

Background

Patients with B-cell lymphoma are a fragile category of subjects, particularly exposed to infections and characterized by an impaired vaccination response due to the disease itself and, even more, to the chemotherapy regimen. For this reason, extensive knowledge of the immune response status of these subjects is of fundamental importance to obtain possible indications for a tailored immunization strategy.

Methods

We enrolled two cohorts of patients with B-cell lymphoma under rituximab treatment or 3-24 months after treatment. In all patients, we evaluated both humoral and cellular immunological memory toward SARS-CoV-2, after standard vaccination and upon one booster dose.

Results

We observed no Spike-specific IgG production in patients (n = 25) under anti-CD20 treatment, whereas patients (n = 16) vaccinated after the completion of chemotherapy showed a higher humoral response. Evaluating SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell response, we found that patients in both cohorts had developed robust cellular immunity after vaccination. Of the 21 patients (51%) that experienced a breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection, only six patients developed severe disease. Interestingly, these six patients had all been treated with rituximab plus bendamustine. Notably, we observed that Spike-specific IgG levels in patients treated with rituximab plus bendamustine were absent or lower compared with those in patients treated with rituximab plus other chemotherapy, whereas Spike-specific T-cell response was not different based on chemotherapy regiment.

Discussion

Our results show that, in patients with B-cell lymphoma under rituximab therapy, anti-SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination induces a weak or absent humoral response but a consistent T-cell response. In addition, chemotherapy regimens with bendamustine further reduce patients' ability to mount a Spike-specific humoral response even after a long time period from chemotherapy discontinuation. These results provide evidence that different chemotherapeutics display different immunosuppressive properties that could be taken in to account in the choice of the right drug regimen for the right patient. Moreover, they question whether immunocompromised patients, particularly those treated with bendamustine, need interventions to improve vaccine-induced immune response.

Hemostatic Profile and Serological Response of Patients with Immune Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Purpura after Receiving BNT162b2 Vaccine: A Prospective Study

INTRODUCTION

 Coronavirus disease is a clinical challenge for patients with autoimmune conditions. Patients affected by immune thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (iTTP) are particularly vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Protecting these patients with vaccination is therefore mandatory, although concerns may exist on a possible increased thrombotic risk or risk of disease relapse after vaccine exposure. So far, there is no information on serological response and hemostatic activation in iTTP patients after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 In this study, in April 2021, we enrolled iTTP patients in clinical remission and on regular outpatient follow-up to receive the first and second dose BNT162b2 vaccine as a part of a prospective trial aimed at monitoring for 6 months after vaccination the occurrence of subclinical laboratory signs of clotting activation, as well as overt thrombotic complications or disease relapse. The seroconversion response was monitored in parallel. The results were compared with those of control non-iTTP subjects.

RESULTS

 A moderate decrease of ADAMTS-13 activity was recorded at 3 and 6 months in five patients with normal values at baseline, while an ADAMTS-13 relapse occurred at 6 months in one patient. Abnormalities in the endothelium activation biomarkers postvaccination were observed in iTTP patients compared with controls. The immunological response to vaccine was overall positive. No clinical iTTP relapses or thrombotic events manifested in the 6 month-follow-up after vaccination.

CONCLUSION

 The results of this study are in favor of efficacy and safety of mRNA vaccines in patients with iTTP, and highlight the importance of long-term monitoring of iTTP patients.

Point of care detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and neutralisation capacity-lateral flow immunoassay evaluation compared to commercial assay to inform potential role in therapeutic and surveillance practices

Introduction

As the COVID-19 pandemic moves towards endemic status, testing strategies are being de-escalated. A rapid and effective point of care test (POCT) assessment of SARS-CoV-2 immune responses can inform clinical decision-making and epidemiological monitoring of the disease. This cross-sectional seroprevalence study of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Irish healthcare workers assessed how rapid anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing can be compared to a standard laboratory assay, discusses its effectiveness in neutralisation assessment and its uses into the future of the pandemic.

Methods

A point of care lateral flow immunoassay (LFA) detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike (S)-receptor binding domain (RBD) neutralising antibodies (Healgen SARS-CoV-2 neutralising Antibody Rapid Test Cassette) was compared to the Roche Elecsys/-S anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays and an in vitro surrogate neutralisation assay. A correlation between anti-spike (S), anti-nucleocapsid (N) titres, and in vitro neutralisation was also assessed.

Results

1,777 serology samples were tested using Roche Elecsys/-S anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays to detect total anti-N/S antibodies. 1,562 samples were tested using the POC LFA (including 50 negative controls), and 90 samples were tested using an in vitro ACE2-RBD binding inhibition surrogate neutralisation assay. The POCT demonstrated 97.7% sensitivity, 100% specificity, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 100%, and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 61% in comparison to the commercial assay. Anti-S antibody titres determined by the Roche assay stratified by the POC LFA result groups demonstrated statistically significant differences between the "Positive" and "Negative" LFA groups (p < 0.0001) and the "Weak Positive" and "Positive" LFA groups (p < 0.0001). No statistically significant difference in ACE2-RBD binding inhibition was demonstrated when stratified by the LFA POC results. A positive, statistically significant correlation was demonstrated between the in vitro pseudo-neutralisation assay results and anti-S antibody titres (rho 0.423, p < 0.001) and anti-N antibody titres (rho = 0.55, p < 0.0001).

Conclusion

High sensitivity, specificity, and PPV were demonstrated for the POC LFA for the detection of anti-S-RBD antibodies in comparison to the commercial assay. The LFA was not a reliable determinant of the neutralisation capacity of identified antibodies. POC LFA are useful tools in sero-epidemiology settings, pandemic preparedness and may act as supportive tools in treatment decisions through the rapid identification of anti-Spike antibodies.

Advancing Luciferase-Based Antibody Immunoassays to Next-Generation Mix and Read Testing

Antibody measurements play a central role in the diagnosis of many autoimmune and infectious diseases. One antibody detection technology, Luciferase Immunoprecipitation Systems (LIPS), utilizes genetically encoded recombinant luciferase antigen fusion proteins in an immunoglobulin capture format to generate robust antibody measurement with high diagnostic sensitivity and specificity. The LIPS technology has been highly useful in detecting antibodies for research diagnostics and the discovery of new autoantigens. The methodology of the assay requires immunoglobulin binding reagents such as protein A/G beads and washing steps to process the immune complex before antibody levels are measured by light production with a luminometer. Recently, simplified mix and read immunoassays based on split components of the nanoluciferase enzyme in a complementation format have been developed for antibody measurements without requiring immunoglobulin-capturing beads or washing steps. The mix and read immunoassays utilize two or three nanoluciferase fragments which when reconstituted via antigen-specific antibody binding generate a functional enzyme. At present, these split luciferase tests have been developed mainly for detecting SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Here, we describe the traditional LIPS technology and compare it to the new split luciferase methodologies focusing on their technical features, strengths, limitations, and future opportunities for diagnostic research, and clinical applications.

Major Update 2: Antibody Response and Risk for Reinfection After SARS-CoV-2 Infection-Final Update of a Living, Rapid Review

BACKGROUND

The durability of the antibody response after SARS-CoV-2 infection and the role of antibodies in protection against reinfection are unclear.

PURPOSE

To synthesize evidence on the SARS-CoV-2 antibody response and reinfection risk with a focus on gaps identified in our prior reports.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, CINAHL, World Health Organization Research Database, and reference lists from 16 December 2021 through 8 July 2022, with surveillance through 22 August 2022.

STUDY SELECTION

English-language, cohort studies evaluating IgG antibody duration at least 12 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection, the antibody response among immunocompromised adults, predictors of nonseroconversion, and reinfection risk.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two investigators sequentially extracted study data and rated quality.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Most adults had IgG antibodies after SARS-CoV-2 infection at time points greater than 12 months (low strength of evidence [SoE]). Although most immunocompromised adults develop antibodies, the overall proportion with antibodies is lower compared with immunocompetent adults (moderate SoE for organ transplant patients and low SoE for patients with cancer or HIV). Prior infection provided substantial, sustained protection against symptomatic reinfection with the Delta variant (high SoE) and reduced the risk for severe disease due to Omicron variants (moderate SoE). Prior infection was less protective against reinfection with Omicron overall (moderate SoE), but protection from earlier variants waned rapidly (low SoE).

LIMITATION

Single review for abstract screening and sequential review for study selection, data abstraction, and quality assessment.

CONCLUSION

Evidence for a sustained antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 infection is considerable for both Delta and Omicron variants. Prior infection protected against reinfection with both variants, but, for Omicron, protection was weaker and waned rapidly. This information may have limited clinical applicability as new variants emerge.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (PROSPERO: CRD42020207098).

Immunogenicity profile after COVID-19 vaccination in patients with onco-hematological diseases

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the influence of onco-hematological pathologies on seroconversion to COVID-19 vaccines, in addition to the effects of chemotherapy treatment on this response.

METHODS

The present study evaluated the immunogenic response of 76 patients with onco-hematological diseases to multiple vaccine platforms compared to 25 control individuals.

RESULTS

Our results showed positive response rates of 74.02% in patients with onco-hematological diseases and 100% in controls. When analyzed according to etiological group, patients with lymphoproliferative disorders achieved a positive vaccine response rate of 58.7%, whereas those with myeloproliferative diseases achieved a 100% response rate. We also observed that patients previously exposed to COVID-19 presented a 75% increase in their antibody values after vaccination, and these values were 37% higher than those of patients who did not have such exposure. We found that patients who underwent B-lymphocyte-depleting therapy in the last 2 years before vaccination had a worse response rate of 18.75%.

CONCLUSION

Despite the immunosuppression of patients with onco-hematological diseases, caused by the biology of their diseases and treatment, benefit and safety in vaccinating these patients are observed, in view of the important recall immune response and incidence of adverse effects similar to those of the healthy population.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the diagnosis and treatment of onco-hematologic patients: a discussion paper

We do not know the precise figure for solid organ tumors diagnosed each year in Spain and it is therefore difficult to calculate whether there has been a decrease in cancer diagnoses as a consequence of the pandemic. Some indirect data suggest that the pandemic has worsened the stage at which some non-hematological neoplasms are diagnosed. Despite the lack of robust evidence, oncology patients seem more likely to have a poor outcome when they contract COVID-19. The antibody response to infection in cancer patients will be fundamentally conditioned by the type of neoplasia present, the treatment received and the time of its administration. In patients with hematological malignancies, the incidence of infection is probably similar or lower than in the general population, due to the better protective measures adopted by the patients and their environment. The severity and mortality of COVID-19 in patients with hematologic malignancies is clearly higher than the general population. Since the immune response to vaccination in hematologic patients is generally worse than in comparable populations, alternative methods of prevention must be established in these patients, as well as actions for earlier diagnosis and treatment. Campaigns for the early diagnosis of malignant neoplasms must be urgently resumed, post-COVID manifestations should be monitored, collaboration with patient associations is indisputable and it is urgent to draw the right conclusions to improve our preparedness to fight against possible future catastrophes.

Persistent SARS-CoV-2 infection in immunocompromised patients facilitates rapid viral evolution: Retrospective cohort study and literature review

Background

Most patients with SARS-CoV-2 are non-infectious within 2 weeks, though viral RNA may remain detectable for weeks. However there are reports of persistent SARS-CoV-2 infection, with viable virus and ongoing infectivity months after initial detection. Beyond individuals, viral evolution during persistent infections may be accelerated, driving emergence of mutations associated with viral variants of concern. These patients often do not meet inclusion criteria for clinical trials, meaning clinical and virologic characteristics, and optimal management strategies are poorly evidence-based.

Methods

We analysed cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection from a regional testing laboratory in South-West England between March 2020 and December 2021, with at least two SARS-CoV-2 positive samples separated by ≥ 56 days were identified. Excluding those with confirmed or likely re-infection, we identified patients with persistent infection, characterised by an ongoing clinical syndrome consistent with COVID-19 alongside monophyletic viral lineage of SARS-CoV-2. We examined clinical and virologic characteristics, treatment, and outcome. We further performed a literature review investigating cases of persistent SARS-CoV-2 infection, reviewing patient characteristics and treatment.

Results

We identified six patients with persistent SARS-CoV-2 infection. All were hypogammaglobulinaemic and had underlying haematological malignancy, with four having received B-cell depleting therapy. Evidence of viral evolution, including accrual of mutations associated with variants of concern, was demonstrated in five cases. Four patients ultimately cleared SARS-CoV-2. In two patients, clearance followed treatment with casirivimab/imdevimab. Both survived beyond thirty days following viral clearance, having experienced infections of 305- and 269-days duration respectively, after failed attempts at clearance with alternative therapies. We found 60 cases of confirmed persistent infection in the literature, with a further 31 probable cases. Of those, 80% of patients treated with monoclonal antibodies cleared SARS-CoV-2, and none died.

Conclusion

Haematological malignancy and patients receiving B-cell depleting therapies represent key groups at risk of persistent SARS-CoV-2 infection. Throughout persistent infection, SARS-CoV-2 can evolve rapidly, giving rise to significant mutations, including those implicated in variants of concern. Monoclonal antibodies appear to be a promising therapeutic option, potentially in combination with antivirals, crucial for individuals, and for public health.

Antibody response and intra-host viral evolution after plasma therapy in COVID-19 patients pre-exposed or not to B-cell-depleting agents

Administration of plasma therapy may contribute to viral control and survival of COVID-19 patients receiving B-cell-depleting agents that impair humoral immunity. However, little is known on the impact of anti-CD20 pre-exposition on the kinetics of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies. Here, we evaluated the relationship between anti-spike immunoglobulin G (IgG) kinetics and the clinical status or intra-host viral evolution after plasma therapy in 36 eligible hospitalized COVID-19 patients, pre-exposed or not to B-cell-depleting treatments. The majority of anti-CD20 pre-exposed patients (14/17) showed progressive declines of anti-spike IgG titres following plasma therapy, contrasting with the 4/19 patients who had not received B-cell-depleting agents (p = 0.0006). Patients with antibody decay also depicted prolonged clinical symptoms according to the World Health Organization (WHO) severity classification (p = 0.0267) and SARS-CoV-2 viral loads (p = 0.0032) before complete virus clearance. Moreover, they had higher mutation rates than patients able to mount an endogenous humoral response (p = 0.015), including three patients with one to four spike mutations, potentially associated with immune escape. No relevant differences were observed between patients treated with plasma from convalescent and/or mRNA-vaccinated donors. Our study emphasizes the need for an individualized clinical care and follow-up in the management of COVID-19 patients with B-cell lymphopenia.

Reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 in a patient undergoing chemotherapy for lymphoma: Case report

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 is usually a time-limited disease. However, prolonged infections and reinfections can occur among immunocompromised patients. It can be difficult to distinguish a prolonged infection from a new one, especially when reinfection occurs early.

METHODS

We report the case of a 57-year-old man infected with SARS-CoV-2 while undergoing chemotherapy for follicular lymphoma. He experienced prolonged symptomatic infection for 3 months despite a 5-day course of remdesivir and eventually deteriorated and died.

RESULTS

Viral genome sequencing showed that his final deterioration was most likely due to reinfection. Serologic studies confirmed that the patient did not seroconvert.

CONCLUSIONS

This case report highlights that reinfection can occur rapidly (62-67 d) among immunocompromised patients after a prolonged disease. We provide substantial proof of prolonged infection through repeated nucleic acid amplification tests and positive viral culture at day 56 of the disease course, and we put forward evidence of reinfection with viral genome sequencing.

Observed protection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfection following a primary infection: A Danish cohort study among unvaccinated using two years of nationwide PCR-test data

Background

The level of protection after a SARS-CoV-2 infection against reinfection and COVID-19 disease remains important with much of the world still unvaccinated.

Methods

Analysing nationwide, individually referable, Danish register data including RT-PCR-test results, we conducted a cohort study using Cox regression to compare SARS-CoV-2 infection rates before and after a primary infection among still unvaccinated individuals, adjusting for sex, age, comorbidity and residency region. Estimates of protection against infection were calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio. Estimates of protection against symptomatic infections and infections leading to hospitalisation were also calculated. The prevalence of infections classified as symptomatic or asymptomatic was compared for primary infections and reinfections. The study also assessed protection against each of the main viral variants after a primary infection with an earlier variant by restricting follow-up time to distinct, mutually exclusive periods during which each variant dominated.

Findings

Until 1 July 2021 the estimated protection against reinfection was 83.4% (95%CI: 82.2-84.6%); but lower for the 65+ year-olds (72.2%; 95%CI: 53.2-81.0%). Moderately higher estimates were found for protection against symptomatic disease, 88.3% overall (95%CI: 85.9-90.3%). First-time cases who reported no symptoms were more likely to experience a reinfection (odds ratio: 1.48; 95%CI: 1.35-1.62). By autumn 2021, when infections were almost exclusively caused by the Delta variant, the estimated protection following a recent first infection was 91.3% (95%CI: 89.7-92.7%) compared to 71.4% (95%CI: 66.9-75.3%) after a first infection over a year earlier. With Omicron, a first infection with an earlier variant in the past 3-6 months gave an estimated 51.0% (95%CI: 50.1-52.0%) protection, whereas a first infection longer than 12 months earlier provided only 19.0% (95%CI: 17.2-20.5%) protection. Protection by an earlier variant-infection against hospitalisation due to a new infection was estimated at: 86.6% (95%CI: 46.3-96.7%) for Alpha, 97.2% (95%CI: 89.0-99.3%) for Delta, and 69.8% (95%CI: 51.5-81.2%) for the Omicron variant.

Interpretation

SARS-CoV-2 infection offered a high level of sustained protection against reinfection, comparable with that offered by vaccines, but decreased with the introduction of new main virus variants; dramatically so when Omicron appeared. Protection was lower among the elderly but appeared more pronounced following symptomatic compared to asymptomatic infections. The level of estimated protection against serious disease was somewhat higher than that against infection and possibly longer lasting. Decreases in protection against reinfection, seemed primarily to be driven by viral evolution.

Funding

None.

Real-World Third COVID-19 Vaccine Dosing and Antibody Response in Patients With Hematologic Malignancies

Purpose

This study sought to describe the changes in immune response to a third dose of either Pfizer's or Moderna's COVID-19 mRNA vaccine (3V) among patients with hematologic malignancies, as well as associated characteristics.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study analyzed pre-3V and post-3V data on 493 patients diagnosed with hematologic malignancies across a large Midwestern health system between August 28, 2021, and November 1, 2021. For antibody testing, S1 spike antigen of the SARS-CoV-2 virus titer was used to determine serostatus.

Results

Among 493 participants, 274 (55.6%) were seropositive both pre- and post-3V (+/+) while 115 (23.3%) seroconverted to positive from prior negative following the third dose (-/+). The remaining 104 (21.1%) were seronegative both before and after 3V (-/-). No participant was seropositive pre-3V and seronegative post-3V (+/-). Results showed a statistically significant increase in the proportion of seropositivity after receiving a third COVID-19 vaccine (P<0.00001). Response to 3V was significantly associated with the 3V vaccine type (P=0.0006), previous COVID-19 infection (P=0.0453), and malignancy diagnosis (P<0.0001). Likelihood of seroconversion (-/+) after 3V was higher in the group of patients with multiple myeloma or related disorders compared to patients with lymphoid leukemias (odds ratio: 8.22, 95% CI: 2.12-31.79; P=0.0008).

Conclusions

A third COVID-19 vaccination is effective in producing measurable seroconversion in many patients with hematologic malignancies. Oncologists should actively encourage all their patients, especially those with multiple myeloma, to receive a 3V, given the high likelihood of seroconversion.

Efficacy and safety profile of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine in patients with hematological malignancies: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Patient populations, including those with hematological malignancies, have different responses to COVID-19 vaccines. This study aimed to quantitatively analyze the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in patients with hematological malignancies. Studies reporting on the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in cohorts with hematological malignancies compared to healthy controls were systematically searched in four databases. Meta-analysis and subgroup analyses were performed to generate quantitative synthesis. Fifteen studies with 2,055 cohorts with hematological malignancies and 1,105 healthy subjects as control were included. After two doses of COVID-19 vaccination, only 60% of cohorts with hematological malignancies were seroconverted compared to healthy controls (RR 0.60; 95%CI 0.50–0.71). A single dose of the vaccine resulted in a significantly lower seroconversion rate (RR 0.30; 95%CI 0.16–0.54). Non-Hodgkin lymphoma cohorts had the lowest rate of seroconversion (RR 0.5; 95%CI 0.35–0.71) and those who received active treatments had lower immunological responses (RR 0.59; 95%CI 0.46–0.75). Antibody titers were lower in cohorts with hematological malignancies without any differences in adverse effects in both groups. In conclusion, cohorts with hematological malignancies showed a lower seroconversion rate and antibody titers after receiving COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. The type of malignancy and the status of treatment had a significant impact on the response to vaccination. The vaccines were shown to be safe for both patients with hematological malignancies and healthy controls. Booster doses and stricter health protocols might be beneficial for patient populations.

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody response after 2 and 3 doses of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine in patients with lymphoid malignancies

OBJECTIVES

COVID-19 patients affected by haematological malignancies have a more severe course of the disease and higher mortality, prompting for effective prophylaxis. The present study aims to evaluate the humoral response after mRNA vaccination as well as the impact of a third vaccine dose in patients with lymphoid malignancies.

METHODS

We conducted a single-centre study, evaluating the serological responses of mRNA vaccination amongst a cohort of 200 patients affected by lymphoid malignancies after two or three doses using an industrial SARS-CoV-2 serology assay for anti-receptor binding domain (RBD) Spike IgG detection and quantification.

RESULTS

Among patients with plasma cell disorders, 59 of 96 (61%) had seroconversion (anti-RBD >50 AU/mL), and recent anti-CD38 therapies were associated with lower serological anti-RBD IgG concentrations (median IgG concentration 137 (IQR 0-512) AU/mL vs. 543 (IQR 35-3496) AU/mL; p < 0.001). Patients with B-cell malignancies had a lower seroconversion rate (20/84, 24%) mainly due to the broad usage of anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies; only 2 of 53 (4%) patients treated by anti-CD20 antibodies during the last 12 months experienced a seroconversion. A total of 78 patients (44 with plasma cell disorders, 27 with B-cell malignancies, and 7 with other lymphomas) received a third dose of vaccine. The seroconversion rate and antibody concentrations increased significantly, especially in patients with plasma cell disorders, where an increment of anti-RBD IgG concentrations was observed in 31 of 44 (70%) patients, with an anti-RBD concentration median-fold increase of 10.6 (IQR 2.4-25.5). Its benefit in B-cell malignancies is uncertain, with only 2 of 25 (8%) patients having seroconverted after the vaccine booster, without increased median antibody concentration.

DISCUSSION

A third mRNA vaccine dose significantly improved humoral responses among patients with plasma cell disorders, whereas the effect was limited among patients with B-cell malignancies.

Clinical Implication of the Effect of the Production of Neutralizing Antibodies Against SARS-Cov-2 for Chronic Immune Thrombocytopenia Flare-Up Associated with COVID-19 Infection: A Case Report and the Review of Literature

Previous studies have demonstrated that the appropriate production of serum anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov-2) neutralizing antibody (nAb) plays a critical role in the recovery from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); however, the role of nAb production in the recovery from a flare-up of chronic immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) has been unknown. We here report the first retrospectively investigated case of serum anti-SARS-Cov-2 nAb production during chronic ITP flare-up triggered by COVID-19. A 79-year-old woman with a history of corticosteroid-refractory ITP visited our hospital complaining of fever, cough, and sore throat for 4 days. Although chronic ITP was controlled by 12.5 mg of eltrombopag (EPAG) every other day, laboratory tests showed a decreased peripheral blood platelet count of 15.0 × 109/L, which indicated worsening thrombocytopenia. Meanwhile, PCR testing of a nasopharyngeal swab revealed that the patient was positive for SARS-Cov-2, and a computed tomography scan revealed bilateral pneumonia. On the basis of the flare-up of chronic ITP associated with COVID-19 pneumonia which was determined as a moderately severe status according to the WHO clinical progression scale, intravenous immunoglobulin therapy for 5 days (days 0-4) and antiviral therapy were added on top of EPAG, which only resulted in a transient increase in the platelet count for several days. After decreasing to 8.0 × 109/L on day 13, the platelet count increased from day 16, coinciding with a positive detection for serum nAb against SARS-Cov-2. Although the increased dose up to 50 mg/day of EPAG was challenged during the clinical course, rapid dose reduction did not cause another relapse. In addition, no thrombotic or bleeding event was seen. These collectively suggest the vital role of the production of anti-SARS-Cov-2 nAb and improvement of clinical symptoms for recovery from a flare-up of chronic ITP in our case.

COVID-19 in patients with hematologic malignancy

The coronavirus infectious disease (COVID-19) shows a remarkable symptomatic heterogeneity. Several risk factors including advanced age, previous illnesses and a compromised immune system contribute to an unfavorable outcome. In patients with hematologic malignancy, the immune response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is significantly reduced explaining why the mortality rate of hematologic patients hospitalized for a SARS-CoV-2 infection is about 34%. Active immunization is an essential pillar to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections in patients with hematologic malignancy. However, the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines may be significantly impaired, as only half of patients with hematologic malignancy develop a measurable anti-viral antibody response. The subtype of hematologic malignancy and B-cell depleting treatment predict a poor immune response to vaccination. Recently, antiviral drugs and monoclonal antibodies for pre-exposure or post-exposure prophylaxis and for early treatment of COVID-19 have become available. These therapies should be offered to patients at high risk for severe COVID-19 and vaccine non-responder. Importantly, as the virus evolves, some therapies may lose their clinical efficacy against new variants. Therefore, the ongoing pandemic will remain a major challenge for patients with hematologic malignancy and their caregivers who need to constantly monitor the scientific progress in this area.

Strong Cellular Immune Response, but Not Humoral, against SARS-CoV-2 in Oncohematological Patients with Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation after Natural Infection

Oncohematological patients show a low immune response against SARS-CoV-2, both to natural infection and after vaccination. Most studies are focused on the analysis of the humoral response; therefore, the information available about the cellular immune response is limited. In this study, we analyzed the humoral and cellular immune responses in nine individuals who received chemotherapy for their oncohematological diseases, as well as consolidation with autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), after being naturally infected with SARS-CoV-2. All individuals had asymptomatic or mild COVID-19 and were not vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. These results were compared with matched healthy individuals who also had mild COVID-19. The humoral response against SARS-CoV-2 was not detected in 6 of 9 oncohematological individuals prior to ASCT. The levels of antibodies and their neutralization capacity decreased after ASCT. Conversely, an enhanced cytotoxic activity against SARS-CoV-2-infected cells was observed after chemotherapy plus ASCT, mostly based on high levels of NK, NKT, and CD8+TCRγδ+ cell populations that were able to produce IFNγ and TNFα. These results highlight the importance of performing analyses not only to evaluate the levels of IgGs against SARS-CoV-2, but also to determine the quality of the cellular immune response developed during the immune reconstitution after ASCT.

Rituximab-treated lymphoma patients develop strong CD8 T-cell responses following COVID-19 vaccination

B‐cell depletion induced by anti‐cluster of differentiation 20 (CD20) monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapy of patients with lymphoma is expected to impair humoral responses to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus‐2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) vaccination, but effects on CD8 T‐cell responses are unknown. Here, we investigated humoral and CD8 T‐cell responses following two vaccinations in patients with lymphoma undergoing anti‐CD20‐mAb therapy as single agent or in combination with chemotherapy or other anti‐neoplastic agents during the last 9 months prior to inclusion, and in healthy age‐matched blood donors. Antibody measurements showed that seven of 110 patients had antibodies to the receptor‐binding domain of the SARS‐CoV‐2 Spike protein 3–6 weeks after the second dose of vaccination. Peripheral blood CD8 T‐cell responses against prevalent human leucocyte antigen (HLA) class I SARS‐CoV‐2 epitopes were determined by peptide‐HLA multimer analysis. Strong CD8 T‐cell responses were observed in samples from 20/29 patients (69%) and 12/16 (75%) controls, with similar median response magnitudes in the groups and some of the strongest responses observed in patients. We conclude that despite the absence of humoral immune responses in fully SARS‐CoV‐2‐vaccinated, anti‐CD20‐treated patients with lymphoma, their CD8 T‐cell responses reach similar frequencies and magnitudes as for controls. Patients with lymphoma on B‐cell depleting therapies are thus likely to benefit from current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) vaccines, and development of vaccines aimed at eliciting T‐cell responses to non‐Spike epitopes might provide improved protection.

The antibody response of haematological malignancies to COVID-19 infection and vaccination

Cancer patients with COVID-19 have reduced survival. While most cancer patients, like the general population, have an almost 100% rate of seroconversion after COVID-19 infection or vaccination, patients with haematological malignancies have lower seroconversion rates and are far less likely to gain adequate protection. This raises the concern that patients with haematological malignancies, especially those receiving immunosuppressive therapies, may still develop the fatal disease when infected with COVID-19 after vaccination. There is an urgent need to develop Guidelines to help direct vaccination schedules and protective measures in oncology patients, differentiating those with haematological malignancies and those in an immunocompromised state.

Severe COVID pneumonia and undetectable B cells after vaccination in patients previously treated with rituximab: a case series

INTRODUCTION

The risk of developing severe COVID-19 illness despite completing vaccination for patients who have previously received immunosuppressive therapy is unclear.

CASE PRESENTATION

We present three patients who received rituximab for treatment of autoimmune disorders who subsequently developed severe COVID-19 pneumonia post-vaccination requiring intensive care unit admission and found to have undetectable B cells.

DISCUSSION

While there have been concerns about the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in this patient cohort, this is the first case series to report development of severe COVID-19 illness after completing vaccination in those who previously received rituximab. Guidelines for the optimal timing of COVID-19 vaccination in relation to immunosuppressive therapy have been recently published, albeit after many patients in this subpopulation have already been vaccinated.

CONCLUSION

This case series brings attention to the limited humoral response to vaccines in patients treated with rituximab, highlights existing guidelines and their limitations, and raises future considerations about the potential benefits to testing vaccine responsiveness.

Recurrent COVID-19 infection in a case of rituximab-induced hypogammaglobulinaemia

Patients with immunodeficiency are at an increased risk of recurrent COVID-19 infection. They may lack the natural immune response that usually confers long-lasting immunity. Here, we present our experience managing one such patient, who had a COVID-19 infection twice, 5 months apart. He had a positive SARS-CoV-2 real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and computed tomography (CT) thorax with classical findings of COVID-19 on both occasions. He had multiple negative RT-PCR tests and two CT scans without COVID-19 features between these two infections. While the antibody response to the first infection was not detectable, the response to the second infection was robust. Live attenuated vaccines are contraindicated in patients with immunodeficiency, and other vaccines may not elicit an adequate immune response. A high index of suspicion for recurrent COVID-19 is warranted in this group of patients.

Recovery from severe persistent COVID-19 without evidence of an anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody response in a man with mantle cell lymphoma treated with rituximab

Lymphoma has been reported to worsen the prognosis of COVID-19 partly because it disturbs the normal production of antibodies. We treated a man with mantle cell lymphoma treated with rituximab, who developed severe COVID-19 with viral shedding that lasted for 78 days. He stayed in the intensive care unit for 28 days and did not respond to any treatment against COVID-19. His increased oxygen demand at rest eventually resolved despite the absence of anti-SARS-CoV-2-IgG. This case illustrates that recovery from COVID-19 can occur without antibody production, and that even patients with an inability to produce antibodies can recover from severe COVID-19. It also illustrates that lymphoma patients who develop severe COVID-19 while on rituximab therapy can recover from a prolonged viral shedding state if the acute lung injury can be overcome.