Kinetics of cellular and humoral immunogenicity and effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 booster vaccination in hematologic neoplasms.

Data on the effect of booster SARS-CoV-2 vaccination are mainly focused on humoral immunogenicity, while the kinetics of vaccine-induced cellular response and its correlation with effectiveness in hematologic patients are less explored. Our aim was to evaluate the longitudinal cellular and humoral immunogenicity induced by two and three doses of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in 270 patients with hematologic malignancies, and its relationship with the severity of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection. Results indicate that at 23 weeks after the second dose, the seroconversion rate declined from 68.5% to 59.3%, with a reduction in median anti-S titers from 1577 to 456 BAU/mL, mainly in patients over 65 years of age or chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients undergoing active therapy. Cellular immunogenicity, however, remained positive in 84.4% of cases. A third vaccine dose seroconverted 42.7% (41/96) and triggered cellular response in 36.7% (11/30) of previously negative patients. Notably, only 7.2% (15/209) of patients failed to develop both humoral and cellular response. Active therapy, anti-CD20 antibodies, lymphopenia, hypogammaglobulinemia, and low CD19+ cell count were associated with poor humoral response, while active disease, GvHD immunosuppressive therapy, lymphopenia, and low CD3+ , CD4+ , CD56+ cell count determined an impaired cellular response. After 13.8 months of follow-up, the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was 24.8% (67/270), including 6 (9%) severe/critical cases associated with a weaker cellular (median interferon gamma (IFN-γ) 0.19 vs. 0.35 IU/mL) and humoral response (median anti-S titer <4.81 vs. 788 BAU/mL) than asymptomatic/mild cases. In conclusion, SARS-CoV-2 booster vaccination improves humoral response and COVID-19 severity is associated with impaired vaccine-induced immunogenicity.

Best practices during COVID-19 pandemic in solid organ transplant programs in Spain.

Clinical management of transplant patients abruptly changed during the first months of COVID-19 pandemic (March to May 2020). The new situation led to very significant challenges, such as new forms of relationship between healthcare providers and patients and other professionals, design of protocols to prevent disease transmission and treatment of infected patients, management of waiting lists and of transplant programs during state/city lockdown, relevant reduction of medical training and educational activities, halt or delays of ongoing research, etc. The two main objectives of the current report are: 1) to promote a project of best practices in transplantation taking advantage of the knowledge and experience acquired by professionals during the evolving situation of the COVID-19 pandemic, both in performing their usual care activity, as well as in the adjustments taken to adapt to the clinical context, and 2) to create a document that collects these best practices, thus allowing the creation of a useful compendium for the exchange of knowledge between different Transplant Units. The scientific committee and expert panel finally standardized 30 best practices, including for the pretransplant period (n = 9), peritransplant period (n = 7), postransplant period (n = 8) and training and communication (n = 6). Many aspects of hospitals and units networking, telematic approaches, patient care, value-based medicine, hospitalization, and outpatient visit strategies, training for novelties and communication skills were covered. Massive vaccination has greatly improved the outcomes of the pandemic, with a decrease in severe cases requiring intensive care and a reduction in mortality. However, suboptimal responses to vaccines have been observed in transplant recipients, and health care strategic plans are necessary in these vulnerable populations. The best practices contained in this expert panel report may aid to their broader implementation.

Preparing European Nephrology for the next pandemic: lessons from the ERACODA collaboration.

Owing to the vulnerability of patients with chronic kidney disease to infectious diseases, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been particularly devastating for the nephrology community. Unfortunately, the possibility of future COVID-19 waves or outbreaks of other infectious diseases with pandemic potential cannot be ruled out. The nephrology community made tremendous efforts to contain the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite this, the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted several shortcomings in our response to the pandemic and has taught us important lessons that can be utilized to improve our preparedness for any future health crises of similar nature. In this article we draw lessons from the European Renal Association COVID-19 Database (ERACODA) project, a pan-European collaboration initiated in March 2020 to understand the prognosis of COVID-19 in patients on kidney function replacement therapy. We discuss challenges faced in generating timely and robust evidence for informed management of patients with kidney disease and give recommendations for our preparedness for the next pandemic in Europe. Limited collaboration, the absence of common data architecture, and the sub-optimal quality of available data posed challenges in our response to COVID-19. Aligning different research initiatives, strengthening electronic health records, and involving experts in study design and data analysis will be important in our response to the next pandemic. The European Renal Association may take a leading role in aligning research initiatives via its engagement with other scientific societies, national registries, administrators, and researchers.

Kidney transplantation during mass disasters - from COVID-19 to other catastrophes A Consensus Statement by the DESCARTES Working Group and Ethics Committee of the ERA.

Mass disasters are characterized by a disparity between health care demand and supply, which hampers complex therapies like kidney transplantation. Considering scarcity of publications on previous disasters, we reviewed transplantation practice during the recent COVID-19 pandemic, and dwelled upon this experience for guiding transplantation strategies in the future pandemic and non-pandemic catastrophes. We strongly suggest continuing transplantation programs during mass disasters, if medical and logistic operational circumstances are appropriate. Postponing transplantations from living donors and referral of urgent cases to safe regions or hospitals are justified. Specific preventative measures in anticipated disasters (such as vaccination programs during pandemics or evacuation in case of hurricanes or wars) may be useful to minimize risks. Immunosuppressive therapies should consider stratifying risk status and avoiding heavy immune suppression in patients with a low probability of therapeutic success. Discharging patients at the earliest convenience is justified during pandemics, whereas delaying discharge is reasonable in other disasters, if infrastructural damage results in unhygienic living environments for the patients. In the outpatient setting, telemedicine is a useful approach to reduce the patient load to hospitals, to minimize the risk of nosocomial transmission in pandemics and the need for transport in destructive disasters. If it comes down to save as many lives as possible, some ethical principles may vary in function of disaster circumstances, but elementary ethical rules are non-negotiable. Patient education is essential to minimize disaster-related complications and to allow for an efficient use of health care resources.

COVID-19 in transplant recipients: The Spanish experience

We report the nationwide experience with solid organ transplant (SOT) and hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Spain until 13 July 2020. We compiled information for 778 (423 kidney, 113 HSCT, 110 liver, 69 heart, 54 lung, 8 pancreas, 1 multivisceral) recipients. Median age at diagnosis was 61 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 52-70), and 66% were male. The incidence of COVID-19 in SOT recipients was two-fold higher compared to the Spanish general population. The median interval from transplantation was 59 months (IQR: 18-131). Infection was hospital-acquired in 13% of cases. No donor-derived COVID-19 was suspected. Most patients (89%) were admitted to the hospital. Therapies included hydroxychloroquine (84%), azithromycin (53%), protease inhibitors (37%), and interferon-β (5%), whereas immunomodulation was based on corticosteroids (41%) and tocilizumab (21%). Adjustment of immunosuppression was performed in 85% of patients. At the time of analysis, complete follow-up was available from 652 patients. Acute respiratory distress syndrome occurred in 35% of patients. Ultimately, 174 (27%) patients died. In univariate analysis, risk factors for death were lung transplantation (odds ratio [OR]: 2.5;95% CI: 1.4-4.6), age >60 years (OR: 3.7;95% CI: 2.5-5.5), and hospital-acquired COVID-19 (OR: 3.0;95% CI: 1.9-4.9).

Best practices during COVID-19 pandemic in solid organ transplant programs in Spain

Clinical management of transplant patients abruptly changed during the first months of COVID-19 pandemic (March to May 2020). The new situation led to very significant challenges, such as new forms of relationship between healthcare providers and patients and other professionals, design of protocols to prevent disease transmission and treatment of infected patients, management of waiting lists and of transplant programs during state/city lockdown, relevant reduction of medical training and educational activities, halt or delays of ongoing research, etc. The two main objectives of the current report are: 1) to promote a project of best practices in transplantation taking advantage of the knowledge and experience acquired by professionals during the evolving situation of the COVID-19 pandemic, both in performing their usual care activity, as well as in the adjustments taken to adapt to the clinical context, and 2) to create a document that collects these best practices, thus allowing the creation of a useful compendium for the exchange of knowledge between different Transplant Units. The scientific committee and expert panel finally standardized 30 best practices, including for the pretransplant period (n = 9), peritransplant period (n = 7), postransplant period (n = 8) and training and communication (n = 6). Many aspects of hospitals and units networking, telematic approaches, patient care, value-based medicine, hospitalization, and outpatient visit strategies, training for novelties and communication skills were covered. Massive vaccination has greatly improved the outcomes of the pandemic, with a decrease in severe cases requiring intensive care and a reduction in mortality. However, suboptimal responses to vaccines have been observed in transplant recipients, and health care strategic plans are necessary in these vulnerable populations. The best practices contained in this expert panel report may aid to their broader implementation.

Dynamics of Humoral and Cellular Responses in Renal Transplant Recipients Receiving 3 Doses of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccine.

BACKGROUND: The original SARS-CoV-2 vaccination regimen (2 doses) induces insufficient short-term response in kidney transplant (KT) recipients. This study assessed the response to a third dose and the long-term immunogenicity after 2 doses in KT. METHODS: We analyzed the dynamics of the humoral and cellular response by monitoring SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies against the Spike-protein (IgG-Spike) and QuantiFERON SARS-CoV-2 IFN-γ release assay 6 mo after the second dose (T2) and 28 d after the third dose of mRNA vaccines (T3) to KT and controls (dialysis patients and healthy individuals). RESULTS: At T2, the percentage of IgG-Spike+ KT and dialysis patients decreased (KT 65.8%-52.6%, hemodialysis 92.6-81.5%, and peritoneal dialysis 100%-90%), whereas 100% of healthy controls remained positive. About the cellular response, the percentage of responders decreased in all groups, especially in KT (22.4%-9.2%, P = 0.081). At T3, 92% of KT, 94%-98% of dialysis patients, and 100% of healthy controls were IgG-Spike+. In terms of antibody titers, patients and controls showed a reduction between T2 and T3 and about 80% of dialysis patients and 100% of controls achieved high titers after the third dose (>1479.5 Binding Antibody Units/mL), whereas this percentage was only 50% in KT. With respect to the cellular response, only KT displayed a significant rise after the third dose. CONCLUSIONS: The third dose of mRNA vaccine improves both humoral and cellular responses, but less effectively in KT compared with dialysis patients and healthy controls.

Treatment with sotrovimab for SARS-CoV-2 infection in a cohort of high-risk kidney transplant recipients.

Background: Sotrovimab is a neutralizing monoclonal antibody (mAb) that seems to remain active against recent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants. The evidence on its use in kidney transplant (KT) recipients, however, is limited. Methods: We performed a multicenter, retrospective cohort study of 82 KT patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection {coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]} treated with sotrovimab. Results: Median age was 63 years. Diabetes was present in 43.9% of patients, and obesity in 32.9% of patients; 48.8% of patients had an estimated glomerular filtration rate under 30 mL/minute/1.73 m2. Additional anti-COVID-19 therapies were administered to 56 patients, especially intravenous steroids (65.9%). Sotrovimab was administered early (<5 days from the onset of the symptoms) in 46 patients (56%). Early-treated patients showed less likely progression to severe COVID-19 than those treated later, represented as a lower need for ventilator support (2.2% vs 36.1%; P < .001) or intensive care admission (2.2% vs 25%; P = .002) and COVID-19-related mortality (2.2% vs 16.7%; P = .020). In the multivariable analysis, controlling for baseline risk factors to severe COVID-19 in KT recipients, early use of sotrovimab remained as a protective factor for a composite outcome, including need for ventilator support, intensive care, and COVID-19-related mortality. No anaphylactic reactions, acute rejection episodes, impaired kidney function events, or non-kidney side effects related to sotrovimab were observed. Conclusions: Sotrovimab had an excellent safety profile, even in high-comorbidity patients and advanced chronic kidney disease stages. Earlier administration could prevent progression to severe disease, while clinical outcomes were poor in patients treated later. Larger controlled studies enrolling KT recipients are warranted to elucidate the true efficacy of monoclonal antibody therapies.

Treatment with sotrovimab for SARS-CoV-2 infection in a cohort of high-risk kidney transplant recipients

Background Sotrovimab is a neutralizing monoclonal antibody (MAB) which seems to remain active against recent SARS-CoV-2 variants. However, the evidence on its use in kidney transplant (KT) recipients is limited. Methods We performed a multicenter retrospective cohort study of 82 KT patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) treated with sotrovimab. Results Median age was 63 years. Diabetes was present in 43.9%, obesity in 32.9% and 48.8% of patients had an estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate <30 mL/min/1.73m2. Additional anti-COVID-19 therapies were administered in 56 patients, especially intravenous steroids (65.9%). Sotrovimab was administered early (<5 days from the onset of the symptoms) in 46 patients (56%). Early-treated patients showed less likely progression to severe COVID-19 than those treated later, represented as a lower need for ventilator support (2.2% vs. 36.1%, P<0.001) or intensive care admission (2.2% vs. 25%;P = 0.002) and COVID-19-related mortality (2.2% vs. 16.7%;P = 0.020). In the multivariable analysis, controlling for baseline risk factors to severe COVID-19 in KT recipients, early use of sotrovimab remained as a protective factor for a composite outcome including need for ventilator support, intensive care and/or COVID-19-related mortality. No anaphylactic reactions, acute rejection episodes, impaired renal function events or non-renal side effects related to sotrovimab were observed. Conclusions Sotrovimab had an excellent safety profile even in high-comorbidity patients and advanced chronic kidney disease stages. Earlier administration could prevent progression to severe disease while clinical outcomes were poor in patients treated later. Larger controlled studies enrolling KT recipients are warranted to elucidate the true efficacy of MAB therapies. Graphical Graphical

Impact of DE Novo Immunosuppression in The Covid-19 Serological Status at Kidney Transplantation

BACKGROUND AND AIMS COVID-19 infection has heavily impacted our national health system since March-2020. Although the kidney transplant (KT) activity was strongly reduced initially, nowadays it is partially recovered by using ‘COVID-clean’ pathways and vaccination of KT candidates since February-2021. However, scarce information is available regarding how de novo KT immunosuppression influences the serological status of vaccinated recipients. METHOD We reviewed the course of 38 de novo KT recipients transplanted between March-September 2021 fully vaccinated before KT. SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies against Spike (IgG-S) before and after KT (median: 32 days) were quantified with a serological assay (positive ≥13.0 AU/mL). RESULTS Of 38 recipients, 35 showed positive IgG-S at KT (92%). We exclude from the analysis, 4 recipients with COVID infection which interfered the analysis and 5 with inappropriate samples. The remaining 26 recipients had received the second dose of the mRNA vaccine a median time of 48 days before the pre-KT IgG determination. All patients maintained IgG-S over the cut-off after KT, but we observed that half de novo recipients (53.8%) showed a 50% reduction in the level of IgG-S at 1 month: 12/20 (60%) of those who received induction with basiliximab and 2/6 (33%) who received thymoglobulin. Regarding the impact of maintenance immunosuppression under induction with basiliximab, the IgG-S levels halved in 50% of those with tacrolimus-mycophenolate and 67% with tacrolimus-everolimus. The restricted analysis of IgG-S levels excluding five outliers before KT (>800 AU/mL) showed the most intense reduction in three KT recipients who received thymoglobulin-tacrolimus- mycophenolate (263.8 versus 68.8, 74%) compared with seven basiliximab-tacrolimus-mycophenolate cases (494.4 versus 359.8, 27%) and eleven basiliximab-tacrolimus-everolimus (344.0 versus 306.4, 11%) KT recipients. CONCLUSION Immunosuppression in de novo KT recipients reduces significantly the seroprotective levels of antibodies anti-Spike induced by COVID m-RNA vaccines in more than half the recipients. In our experience, the combination of thymoglobulin, tacrolimus and mycophenolate produces a more intense reduction than the combination of basiliximab with tacrolimus and mycophenolate or everolimus.

Covid-19 Infection After Kidney Transplantation in Spain: Comparable Impact Throughout Six Epidemic Waves

BACKGROUND AND AIMS The successive COVID-19 epidemic waves have significantly influenced kidney transplantation (KT) programs. Contact protection together with vaccination are the principal protective tools for KT recipients. We reviewed the impact of COVID-19 infection in KT recipients throughout the different epidemic waves. METHOD Of 900 active KT recipients in our program, 160 (17.8%) have suffered COVID-19 infection during the six epidemic waves: first (March–August 2020), second (September–December2020), third (January–March 2021), fourth (April–May 2021), fifth (June–September 2021) and sixth (October–December 2021, preliminary data). We compared the clinical evolution and the impact of vaccination. RESULTS Infected KT recipients were younger in the third and fourth waves (P  < 0.001). We observed a higher percentage of pneumonia and hospital admission in the first and fifth waves (P = 0.045, P = 0.016) (Table 1), without differences in ICU admission, and with the disappearance of asymptomatic cases after the third wave. The highest mortality was observed in KT recipients >65 years old infected within the first 6 months after KT (P = 0.006) and overall mortality was higher in the first wave (P = 0.033). Mortality in hospitalized KT recipients and those admitted in the ICU were similar along the 5 waves, without clear impact of vaccination (P = 0.251). On the 5 January 2022, we have already accumulated an incidence of COVID in KT of 3.1% (sixth wave, 77% with booster vaccination), similar to the first wave (3.8%), with 12.5% mortality, similar to second, third and fifth waves, in patients with outcome (53.3%). CONCLUSION The incidence of COVID-19 in KT recipients has been high in all the waves of the pandemic in Spain. Global mortality has diminished after the first wave, and the time until outcome has increased. The highest mortality occurs in the subgroup of old KT recipients early after KT. Vaccination has not significantly reduced the mortality in KT with Covid who require hospital or ICU admission.

Issues regarding COVID-19 in kidney transplantation in the ERA of the Omicron variant: a commentary by the ERA Descartes Working Group.

The Omicron variant, which has become the dominant strain of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) worldwide, brings new challenges to preventing and controlling the infection. Moreover, the widespread implementation of vaccination policies before and after transplantation, and the development of new prophylactic and treatment strategies for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) over the past 12-18 months, has raised several new issues concerning kidney transplant recipients. In this special report, the ERA DESCARTES (Developing Education Science and Care for Renal Transplantation in European States) Working Group addresses several questions related to everyday clinical practice concerning kidney transplant recipients and to the assessment of deceased and live kidney donors: what is the current risk of severe disease and of breakthrough infection, the optimal management of immunosuppression in kidney transplant recipients with COVID-19, the role of passive immunization and the efficacy of antiviral drugs in ambulatory patients, the management of drug-to-drug interactions, safety criteria for the use of SARS-CoV-2-positive donors, issues related to the use of T cell depleting agents as induction treatment, and current recommendations for shielding practices.

Clinical, Functional, and Mental Health Outcomes in Kidney Transplant Recipients 3 Months After a Diagnosis of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Kidney transplant patients are at high risk for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related mortality. However, limited data are available on longer-term clinical, functional, and mental health outcomes in patients who survive COVID-19. METHODS: We analyzed data from adult kidney transplant patients in the European Renal Association COVID-19 Database who presented with COVID-19 between February 1, 2020, and January 31, 2021. RESULTS: We included 912 patients with a mean age of 56.7 (±13.7) y. 26.4% were not hospitalized, 57.5% were hospitalized without need for intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and 16.1% were hospitalized and admitted to the ICU. At 3 mo follow-up survival was 82.3% overall, and 98.8%, 84.2%, and 49.0%, respectively, in each group. At 3 mo follow-up biopsy-proven acute rejection, need for renal replacement therapy, and graft failure occurred in the overall group in 0.8%, 2.6%, and 1.8% respectively, and in 2.1%, 10.6%, and 10.6% of ICU-admitted patients, respectively. Of the surviving patients, 83.3% and 94.4% reached their pre-COVID-19 physician-reported functional and mental health status, respectively, within 3 mo. Of patients who had not yet reached their prior functional and mental health status, their treating physicians expected that 79.6% and 80.0%, respectively, still would do so within the coming year. ICU admission was independently associated with a low likelihood to reach prior functional and mental health status. CONCLUSIONS: In kidney transplant recipients alive at 3-mo follow-up, clinical, physician-reported functional, and mental health recovery was good for both nonhospitalized and hospitalized patients. Recovery was, however, less favorable for patients who had been admitted to the ICU.

Breakthrough Infections Following mRNA SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination in Kidney Transplant Recipients.

BACKGROUND: The clinical effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in kidney transplant (KT) recipients is lower than in the general population. METHODS: From April to October 2021, 481 KT recipients with COVID-19, included in the Spanish Society of Nephrology COVID-19 Registry, were analyzed. Data regarding vaccination status and vaccine type were collected, and outcomes of unvaccinated or partially vaccinated patients (n = 130) were compared with fully vaccinated patients (n = 351). RESULTS: Clinical picture was similar and survival analysis showed no differences between groups: 21.7% of fully vaccinated patients and 20.8% of unvaccinated or partially vaccinated died (P = 0.776). In multivariable analysis, age and pneumonia were independent risk factors for death, whereas vaccination status was not related to mortality. These results remained similar when we excluded patients with partial vaccination, as well as when we analyzed exclusively hospitalized patients. Patients vaccinated with mRNA-1273 (n = 213) showed a significantly lower mortality than those who received the BNT162b2 vaccine (n = 121) (hazard ratio: 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.31-0.85; P = 0.010). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 severity in KT patients has remained high and has not improved despite receiving 2 doses of the mRNA vaccine. The mRNA-1273 vaccine shows higher clinical effectiveness than BNT162b2 in KT recipients with breakthrough infections. Confirmation of these data will require further research taking into account the new variants and the administration of successive vaccine doses.

A comprehensive assessment of long-term SARS-CoV-2-specific adaptive immune memory in convalescent COVID-19 Solid Organ Transplant recipients.

Long-term adaptive immune memory has been reported among immunocompetent individuals up to eight months following SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, limited data is available in convalescent patients with a solid organ transplant. To investigate this, we performed a thorough evaluation of adaptive immune memory at different compartments (serological, memory B cells and cytokine [IFN-γ, IL-2, IFN-γ/IL12 and IL-21] producing T cells) specific to SARS-CoV-2 by ELISA and FluoroSpot-based assays in 102 convalescent patients (53 with a solid organ transplants (38 kidney, 5 liver, 5 lung and 5 heart transplant) and 49 immunocompetent controls) with different clinical COVID-19 severity (severe, mild and asymptomatic) beyond six months after infection. While similar detectable memory responses at different immune compartments were detected between those with a solid organ transplant and immunocompetent individuals, these responses were predominantly driven by distinct COVID-19 clinical severities (97.6%, 80.5% and 42.1%, all significantly different, were seropositive; 84% vs 75% vs 35.7%, all significantly different, showed IgG-producing memory B cells and 82.5%, 86.9% and 31.6%, displayed IFN-γ producing T cells; in severe, mild and asymptomatic convalescent patients, respectively). Notably, patients with a solid organ transplant with longer time after transplantation did more likely show detectable long-lasting immune memory, regardless of COVID-19 severity. Thus, our study shows that patients with a solid organ transplant are capable of maintaining long-lasting peripheral immune memory after COVID-19 infection; mainly determined by the degree of infection severity.

Cellular and humoral immunogenicity of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in patients with hematologic malignancies.

Recent studies have shown a suboptimal humoral response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines in patients diagnosed with hematologic malignancies; however, data about cellular immunogenicity are scarce. The aim of this study was to evaluate both the humoral and cellular immunogenicity 1 month after the second dose of the mRNA-1273 vaccine. Antibody titers were measured by using the Elecsys and LIAISON anti-SARS-CoV-2 S assays, and T-cell response was assessed by using interferon-γ release immunoassay technology. Overall, 76.3% (184 of 241) of patients developed humoral immunity, and the cellular response rate was 79% (184 of 233). Hypogammaglobulinemia, lymphopenia, active hematologic treatment, and anti-CD20 therapy during the previous 6 months were associated with an inferior humoral response. Conversely, age >65 years, active disease, lymphopenia, and immunosuppressive treatment of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) were associated with an impaired cellular response. A significant dissociation between the humoral and cellular responses was observed in patients treated with anti-CD20 therapy (the humoral response was 17.5%, whereas the cellular response was 71.1%). In these patients, B-cell aplasia was confirmed while T-cell counts were preserved. In contrast, humoral response was observed in 77.3% of patients undergoing immunosuppressive treatment of GVHD, whereas only 52.4% had a cellular response. The cellular and humoral responses to the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-1273 vaccine in patients with hematologic malignancies are highly influenced by the presence of treatments such as anti-CD20 therapy and immunosuppressive agents. This observation has implications for the further management of these patients.