ABSTRACT
Background: The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in more than 419 million cases and more than 5.9 million deaths. Preious studies hae indicated inferior responses to SARS-CoV-2 accination across different hematological diseases. Through this prospectie cohort study, we examined the deelopment and durability of anti-receptor binding domain (RBD) IgG after two doses of BNT162b2 in 179 patients with either multiple myeloma (MM) or Chronic Lymphatic B-cell Leukemia (B-CLL) six months after accination and compared to immunocompetent controls. Aims: We aimed to inestigate the durability of immune responses to COVID-19 accination in patients with MM or B-CLL compared to healthy controls, and to identify risk factors for humoral non-response, including type of diagnosis. Methods: We measured anti-receptor binding domain (RBD) IgG after two doses of BNT162b2 in 179 patients (MM: n=78, B-CLL: n=101) and 179 age and sex matched healthy controls up to six months after first accination. Anti- RBD IgG leels and neutralizing capacity of antibodies were measured at first and second dose of BNT162b2 and two and six months after first dose. Humoral response was defined as anti-RBD IgG > 225 AU/mL with a neutralizing index ≥ 25%. Humoral non-response was defined as the absence of a humoral response. T-cell responses were assessed six months after the first dose using an ELISA-based interferon-gamma release assay. A positie T-cell response was defined as IFN-γ release > 200 mIU/mL. Data on diagnoses were obtained through medical records, and data on accination status were obtained from the Danish Vaccination Register. Results: In patients with MM or B-CLL, the geometric mean concentration (GMC) of anti-RBD IgG increased from baseline 1.49 AU/mL (95% CI: 1.21-1.84) to three weeks after the first accine dose 15.10 AU/mL (95% CI: 9.39- 24.29) and after receiing the second dose 1179.60 AU/mL (95% CI: 727.78-1919.85). From two to six months after first accine there was a significant decline in the GMC of anti-RBD IgG to 252.75 AU/mL (95% CI: 159.17-403.43). The mean neutralizing capacity in patients with MM or B-CLL was lower than in controls at all time points after the first accine dose. Six months after first accine dose, 79 of 179 (44.1%) patients with MM or B-CLL had a positie humoral response, while this was the case for 170 of 179 controls (95.0%), p<0.001. Haing MM or B-CLL was significantly associated with risk of humoral non-response. This was most pronounced in B-CLL patients who had an age and sex adjusted risk ratio (RR) of 12.25 (95% CI: 6.42-23.38, p< 0.001) of humoral non-response compared to healthy controls. For MM patients the RR was 4.65 (95% CI: 2.21-9.80, p< 0.001). T-cell response was assessed in a subset of 48 patients with MM (n=28) or B-CLL (n=20) and 26 controls, six months after first accine dose. A total of 21 (43.8%) patients with MM (12/28) or B-CLL (9/20) and 14 (53.8%) controls had a positie T-cell response (p =0.56). Seen of 20 (35.0%) patients with MM or B-CLL who did not deelop a humoral response, deeloped a T-cell response (MM: 3/8, B-CLL: 4/12), while 14 of 28 (50.0%) patients with MM or B-CLL who deeloped a humoral response deeloped a T-cell response (p =0.46, MM: 9/11, B-CLL: 5/8). In healthy controls 14 of 25 (56.0%) people who deeloped a humoral response also deeloped a T-cell response. Summary/Conclusion: Humoral response to BNT162b2 was impaired in patients with MM or B-CLL compared to healthy controls. Both patients with MM and B-CLL were at higher risk of humoral non-response compared to healthy controls.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to suggestions that cost-effectiveness analyses should adopt a broader perspective when estimating costs. This review aims to provide an overview of economic evaluations of interventions against viral pandemics in terms of the perspective taken, types of costs included, comparators, type of economic model, data sources and methods for estimating productivity costs. STUDY DESIGN: Scoping literature review. METHODS: Publications were eligible if they conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis, cost-benefit analysis or cost-minimisation analysis and evaluated interventions aimed at viral pandemics or for patients infected with viral pandemic disease. We searched PubMed, Embase and Scopus for relevant references and charted data from the selected full-text publications into a predefined spreadsheet based on research sub-questions, summary tables and figures. RESULTS: From 5410 references, 36 full-text publications fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The economic evaluations were mainly model based and included direct medical costs of hospital treatment. Around half of the studies included productivity costs and the proportion of total costs attributed to productivity costs ranged from 10% to 90%, depending on estimation methods, assumptions about valuation of time, type of intervention, severity of illness and degree of transmission. CONCLUSIONS: Economic evaluations of interventions against viral pandemics differed in terms of estimation methods and reporting of productivity costs, even for similar interventions. Hence, the literature on economic evaluations for pandemic response would benefit from having standards for conducting and reporting economic evaluations, especially for productivity costs.