Sotrovimab restores neutralisation against current Omicron subvariants in patients with blood cancer

Wu et al. report that patients with hematologic malignancies have reduced immunity against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron subvariants and Sotrovimab retains neutralizing capacity against all tested Omicron subvariants.

Health-Related Quality of Life in patients with Checkpoint Inhibitor Enterocolitis

IntroductionImmune checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) have transformed the treatment of many advanced cancers but cause immune related adverse events including enterocolitis (CPI-E). The conventional inflammatory bowel diseases ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD) are associated with unfavourable health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes, but there are currently no data on HRQoL in the setting of CPI-E. This study aimed to investigate HRQoL in CPI-E.MethodsA prospective study was conducted across two London hospital trusts between February-April 2021. UC, CD and CPI-E patient cohorts were recruited from outpatient clinics and the biologic infusion unit. Disease activity was assessed using non-invasive scoring systems: modified-Partial Mayo Score (m-PMS), modified-Harvey Bradshaw Index (m-HBI), Simple Crohn’s and Colitis Activity Index (SCCAI) and Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). HRQoL outcomes were assessed using validated questionnaires: Patient Health Questionnaire-8 (PHQ-8), Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7), IBD-Questionnaire (IBD-Q) and Multidimensional Assessment of Fatigue (MAF).ResultsSeventy-five patients (33 CD, 21 UC, 21 CPI-E) were recruited. 33 CD patients (100%) and 20 UC patients (95.2%) were receiving biologic therapy. Thirteen CPI-E patients (61.9%) received Anti-PD1/PDL1 monotherapy and (38.1%) received combination anti-PD1 and anti-CTLA-4 therapy. Twenty-four CD patients (72.7%), 11 UC patients (52.4%) and 16 CPI-E patients (76.2%) were shielding due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Using m-PMS, m-HBI, SCCAI and CTCAE, >80% in each of the three cohorts were either classed as being in remission or having mild disease activity. Three CPI-E patients (14.3%) had moderate depression (PHQ-8 ≥10) and a further 9 (42.9%) had mild depression (PHQ-8 score 5-9). Nine CPI-E patients (42.9%) had significant fatigue (MAF score ≥30) and 6 (28.6%) had mild or moderate anxiety (GAD-7 ≥5). There were no significant differences in PHQ-8, GAD-7, IBD-Q and MAF between CPI-E, CD and UC patients, suggesting comparable levels of psychological morbidity in the three groups. Significant correlations were found between CPI-E disease activity and IBD-Q and GAD-7 scores.ConclusionOur study suggests that psychological morbidity in CPI-E is common and comparable to rates in CD and UC, even in the setting of clinical remission. Clinicians should be aware of this complication and take a holistic approach to this patient group.

RAMPART: A phase III multi-arm multi-stage trial of adjuvant checkpoint inhibitors in patients with resected primary renal cell carcinoma (RCC) at high or intermediate risk of relapse.

BACKGROUND: 20-60% of patients with initially locally advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC) develop metastatic disease despite optimal surgical excision. Adjuvant strategies have been tested in RCC including cytokines, radiotherapy, hormones and oral tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (TKIs), with limited success. The predominant global standard-of-care after nephrectomy remains active monitoring. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are effective in the treatment of metastatic RCC; RAMPART will investigate these agents in the adjuvant setting. METHODS/DESIGN: RAMPART is an international, UK-led trial investigating the addition of ICIs after nephrectomy in patients with resected locally advanced RCC. RAMPART is a multi-arm multi-stage (MAMS) platform trial, upon which additional research questions may be addressed over time. The target population is patients with histologically proven resected locally advanced RCC (clear cell and non-clear cell histological subtypes), with no residual macroscopic disease, who are at high or intermediate risk of relapse (Leibovich score 3-11). Patients with fully resected synchronous ipsilateral adrenal metastases are included. Participants are randomly assigned (3,2:2) to Arm A - active monitoring (no placebo) for one year, Arm B - durvalumab (PD-L1 inhibitor) 4-weekly for one year; or Arm C - combination therapy with durvalumab 4-weekly for one year plus two doses of tremelimumab (CTLA-4 inhibitor) at day 1 of the first two 4-weekly cycles. The co-primary outcomes are disease-free-survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes include safety, metastasis-free survival, RCC specific survival, quality of life, and patient and clinician preferences. Tumour tissue, plasma and urine are collected for molecular analysis (TransRAMPART). TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN #: ISRCTN53348826, NCT #: NCT03288532, EUDRACT #: 2017-002329-39, CTA #: 20363/0380/001-0001, MREC #: 17/LO/1875, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03288532, RAMPART grant number: MC_UU_12023/25, TransRAMPART grant number: A28690 Cancer Research UK, RAMPART Protocol version 5.0.

Cytokine release syndrome in a patient with colorectal cancer after vaccination with BNT162b2.

Patients with cancer are currently prioritized in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination programs globally, which includes administration of mRNA vaccines. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) has not been reported with mRNA vaccines and is an extremely rare immune-related adverse event of immune checkpoint inhibitors. We present a case of CRS that occurred 5 d after vaccination with BTN162b2 (tozinameran)-the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine-in a patient with colorectal cancer on long-standing anti-PD-1 monotherapy. The CRS was evidenced by raised inflammatory markers, thrombocytopenia, elevated cytokine levels (IFN-γ/IL-2R/IL-18/IL-16/IL-10) and steroid responsiveness. The close temporal association of vaccination and diagnosis of CRS in this case suggests that CRS was a vaccine-related adverse event; with anti-PD1 blockade as a potential contributor. Overall, further prospective pharmacovigillence data are needed in patients with cancer, but the benefit-risk profile remains strongly in favor of COVID-19 vaccination in this population.

Strengthening health systems resilience: Key concepts and strategies

Health system resilience is key to coping with catastrophic events, such as the economic crisis and the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, but there is much confusion about what resilience means, how to strengthen it and how to assess it. For operational and assessment purposes, and to foster a more consistent understanding and use of the key concepts, we adopt the following definitions of health system resilience and shock: Health system resilience is the ability to prepare for, manage (absorb, adapt and transform) and learn from shocks. Shock is a sudden and extreme change which impacts on a health system, and is thus different from the predictable and enduring health system stresses, such as population ageing. A shock cycle has four stages: Stage 1: Preparedness;Stage 2: Shock onset and alert;Stage 3: Shock impact and management;and Stage 4: Recovery and learning. Based on the existing literature and emerging evidence from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, we identify strategies for enhancing resilience and map them on to the key health systems functions: Governance: effective and participatory leadership with strong vision and communication;coordination of activities across government and key stakeholders;an organizational learning culture that is responsive to crises;effective information systems and flows;and surveillance enabling timely detection of shocks and their impact. Financing: ensuring sufficient monetary resources in the system and flexibility to reallocate and inject extra funds;ensuring stability of health system funding through countercyclical health financing mechanisms and reserves;purchasing flexibility and reallocation of funding to meet changing needs;and comprehensive health coverage. Resources: appropriate level and distribution of human and physical resources;ability to increase capacity to cope with a sudden surge in demand;and motivated and well-supported workforce. Service delivery: alternative and flexible approaches to deliver care. Assessing how each function is placed in terms of the strategies above can allow a country to identify the potential sources of vulnerability and plan for further action (to enhance resilience or the capacity to respond). Resilience can also be assessed after the crisis, providing an evaluation of the handling of the crisis. Assessment of health system resilience is crisis- and context-specific. It is important to employ a range of both quantitative and qualitative metrics that allow evaluation of particular aspects of health system resilience in order to provide a meaningful overall assessment. Analysing experiences of other countries provides useful lessons for policy-makers implementing resilience-enhancing strategies. It is particularly important to learn in the aftermath of the shock and make the link between recovering from the shock to preparedness for future shocks, which is an area often neglected once the health system returns to post-shock 'normality'.

Effect of delays in the 2-week-wait cancer referral pathway during the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer survival in the UK: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 lockdown, referrals via the 2-week-wait urgent pathway for suspected cancer in England, UK, are reported to have decreased by up to 84%. We aimed to examine the impact of different scenarios of lockdown-accumulated backlog in cancer referrals on cancer survival, and the impact on survival per referred patient due to delayed referral versus risk of death from nosocomial infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. METHODS: In this modelling study, we used age-stratified and stage-stratified 10-year cancer survival estimates for patients in England, UK, for 20 common tumour types diagnosed in 2008-17 at age 30 years and older from Public Health England. We also used data for cancer diagnoses made via the 2-week-wait referral pathway in 2013-16 from the Cancer Waiting Times system from NHS Digital. We applied per-day hazard ratios (HRs) for cancer progression that we generated from observational studies of delay to treatment. We quantified the annual numbers of cancers at stage I-III diagnosed via the 2-week-wait pathway using 2-week-wait age-specific and stage-specific breakdowns. From these numbers, we estimated the aggregate number of lives and life-years lost in England for per-patient delays of 1-6 months in presentation, diagnosis, or cancer treatment, or a combination of these. We assessed three scenarios of a 3-month period of lockdown during which 25%, 50%, and 75% of the normal monthly volumes of symptomatic patients delayed their presentation until after lockdown. Using referral-to-diagnosis conversion rates and COVID-19 case-fatality rates, we also estimated the survival increment per patient referred. FINDINGS: Across England in 2013-16, an average of 6281 patients with stage I-III cancer were diagnosed via the 2-week-wait pathway per month, of whom 1691 (27%) would be predicted to die within 10 years from their disease. Delays in presentation via the 2-week-wait pathway over a 3-month lockdown period (with an average presentational delay of 2 months per patient) would result in 181 additional lives and 3316 life-years lost as a result of a backlog of referrals of 25%, 361 additional lives and 6632 life-years lost for a 50% backlog of referrals, and 542 additional lives and 9948 life-years lost for a 75% backlog in referrals. Compared with all diagnostics for the backlog being done in month 1 after lockdown, additional capacity across months 1-3 would result in 90 additional lives and 1662 live-years lost due to diagnostic delays for the 25% backlog scenario, 183 additional lives and 3362 life-years lost under the 50% backlog scenario, and 276 additional lives and 5075 life-years lost under the 75% backlog scenario. However, a delay in additional diagnostic capacity with provision spread across months 3-8 after lockdown would result in 401 additional lives and 7332 life-years lost due to diagnostic delays under the 25% backlog scenario, 811 additional lives and 14 873 life-years lost under the 50% backlog scenario, and 1231 additional lives and 22 635 life-years lost under the 75% backlog scenario. A 2-month delay in 2-week-wait investigatory referrals results in an estimated loss of between 0·0 and 0·7 life-years per referred patient, depending on age and tumour type. INTERPRETATION: Prompt provision of additional capacity to address the backlog of diagnostics will minimise deaths as a result of diagnostic delays that could add to those predicted due to expected presentational delays. Prioritisation of patient groups for whom delay would result in most life-years lost warrants consideration as an option for mitigating the aggregate burden of mortality in patients with cancer. FUNDING: None.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on treatment patterns in metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus pandemic has provoked discussions among healthcare providers how to manage cancer patients when faced with the threat of severe acute respiratory syndrome related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) containing regimens are standard of care in the majority of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC) patients. It remains unclear whether therapies should be modified in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We performed an online survey among physicians involved in the treatment of mccRCC, and 41 experts responded. Questions focused on criteria relevant for treatment decision outside the pandemic and the modifications of systemic therapy during COVID-19. FINDINGS: For the majority of experts (73%), the combination of International metastatic renal cell carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk category and patient fitness are two important factors for decision-making. The main treatment choice in fit, favourable risk patients outside the pandemic is pembrolizumab/axitinib for 53%, avelumab/axitinib, sunitinib or pazopanib for 13% of experts each. During the pandemic, ICI-containing regimens are chosen less often in favour of a tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) monotherapy, mainly sunitinib or pazopanib (35%).In fit, intermediate/poor-risk patients outside the pandemic, over 80% of experts choose ipilimumab/nivolumab, in contrast to only 41% of physicians during COVID-19, instead more TKI monotherapies are given. In patients responding to established therapies with ICI/ICI or ICI/TKI combinations, most participants modify treatment regimen by extending cycle length, holding one ICI or even both. CONCLUSION: mccRCC treatment modifications in light of the coronavirus pandemic are variable, with a shift from ICI/ICI to ICI/TKI or TKI monotherapy.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for Cancer Therapy in the COVID-19 Era.

The potential immune intersection between COVID-19 disease and cancer therapy raises important practical clinical questions and highlights multiple scientific gaps to be filled. Among available therapeutic approaches to be considered, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) seem to require major attention as they may act at the crossroads between cancer treatment and COVID-19 disease, due to their profound immunomodulatory activity. On the basis of available literature evidence, we suggest guidance to consider for treating physicians, and propose areas of clinical and preclinical investigation. Comprehensively, although with the necessary caution, ICI therapy seems to remain a suitable therapeutic option for patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.