ABSTRACT
Background Plasma cell disorders (PCD) are at risk of inadequate immune responses to COVID-19 vaccines due to recognised humoral and cellular immune dysfunction which is multi-factorial and related to host and disease factors. With an estimated risk of 33% mortality from contracting COVID-19 in this population, protection with an anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is critical. Initial extension to vaccination intervals in the United Kingdom to 12 weeks in December 2020 led to concerns that PCD patients would be left vulnerable for an extended period. Methods A clinical audit was performed on measured serological responses in PCD patients after first and second doses of the BNT162b2 and ChAdOx-1 nCoV-19 vaccines. Antibody levels were measured using Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2S assay (Roche) for quantitative detection of IgG Abs, specific for the SARS-CoV-2 spike-protein. Positive cut-off of 0.80 U/mL defined serological response. Testing was performed at (or closest to) 4 and 8-weeks post-dose. Baseline nucleocapsid Ab results were available from previous screening in a subset of patients. All patients on CIT underwent 4-weekly swabs. Clinical information was retrieved from medical records. Results 188 PCD patients (155 multiple myeloma, 18 amyloid, 10 SMM/MGUS, other 5 PCD), median age 64 (range 32-84), had serological assessment after both vaccine doses. Fourteen with previous COVID-19 infection were excluded. Of 174 patients, 112 were tested after first dose. 88% (153) were on chemo-immunotherapy treatment (CIT). Seropositive rate after first dose was 63% (71/112);of those with available negative baseline antibody test, 62% (31/50) seroconverted. After second dose, 89% (154/174) were seropositive;of those with negative baseline antibody, 90% (61/68) seroconverted. Expectedly, paired median titres after second dose were significantly higher than post first dose (n=112, 3.245 U/mL (IQR 0.4-25.55) vs 518 U/mL (IQR 29.40-2187) p<0.0001) (Figure 1A). Of 41 patients seronegative after first dose, 25 (61%) seroconverted after second, though with lower titres than those only requiring one dose (Figure 1B). Active CIT, disease response less than PR, >=4 lines therapy, light-chain disease, male gender and not responding to first dose were significant factors for not responding to two vaccine doses. We explored <400 U/mL as sub-optimal response (in keeping with upcoming booster study eligibility, OCTAVE-DUO(1), also encompassing the lower quartile of reported healthy controls(2)), which included 43% (75/174) patients. Age 70 years, male gender, >=4 lines of treatment were independent predictors of less-than-optimal response (anti-CD38 CIT of borderline significance). Importantly, vaccine dosing intervals classified as =<42 vs >42 days (Figure 1C) or 28 +/- 14 days vs 84 +/- 14 days (excluding n=66 in neither) (Figure 1D) did not show difference in both definitions of response, neither did vaccine type. Fourteen with previous COVID-19 infection responded to one vaccine dose, median titres 2121 U/mL (IQR 23.48- 2500)) rising to median 2500 U/mL (IQR 2500-2500) after second dose (Figure 1E), significantly higher than those without previous infection. Conclusion Serological response to COVID-19 vaccine is lower in PCD patients than reported healthy controls at 63% after first dose, rising to 89% after second dose, despite extended dosing intervals. PCD patients should be prioritised for shorter intervals, as we show that patients seronegative after first dose, respond after second dose. Further work in PCD is needed to understand how Ab levels correlate to neutralisation capability, cellular responses, protection from infection and how long seroconversion lasts to better define correlates of protection. A booster vaccination or prophylactic passive antibody strategy may be required for those identified at risk, shown not to have responded to two vaccine doses or to have less-than-optimal response. Results from these trials will be eagerly awaited. (Figure Presented).
ABSTRACT
Background: Plasma cell disorder (PCD) patients are extremely vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 infection due to disease-related impaired humoral and cellular immunity as well as the receipt of immunosuppressive therapy. Reported mortality in a large cohort of patients with plasma cell disorders is 33%. The roll out of the COVID-19 vaccine is welcomed in this population, however there is concern of suboptimal antibody responses, from previous experience with the influenza vaccine. There is urgent need to understand the humoral response to SARSCoV- 2 infection in these patients, in the context of systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT). Aims: We aimed to investigate the presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in a cohort of PCD patients, the relationship with symptomatic infection, PCD characteristics and receipt of SACT. Methods: SARS-CoV-2 antibody screening with the Elecsys Anti-SARSCoV- 2 assay (Roche Diagnostics, Basel, Switzerland), a semi-quantitative assay of IgG and IgM against the nucleocapsid (N) antigen was introduced for PCD patients at our institution in July 2020. Clinical information was retrieved from the medical records. Patients with unexpected positive antibody tests were asked about possible past contacts and exposure to SARS-CoV-2. Results: We report on a six-month period of routine SARS-CoV-2 antibody screening. Two-hundred and forty-three PCD patients had one antibody test, 106 had serial samples. Total seroprevalence was 10.7% (26/243), of which 12 were patients with known PCR-swab positive COVID-19 disease. In a separate but overlapping cohort, 41 patients have had PCR confirmed COVID-19 disease;20 of these patients were tested, and 12 (60%) had seroconverted. Median time to testing from positive PCR test in the antibody positive patients was 86.5 days (range 22-256) and in antibody negative patients, 30.5 days (range 5-176 days). No PCD or COVID-19 disease factors were found to influence the likelihood of mounting an antibody response after PCR-confirmed COVID-19 disease in these 20 patients. In our screened cohort, 14 (6.3%) patients were unexpectedly antibody positive. Their clinical course is summarised in the included figure. The majority 85.7% (12/14) of patients described no COVID-19 symptoms. Seven (50%) patients were on SACT (including ixazomib, pomalidomide, lenalidomide and dexamethasone combinations) throughout the period from possible exposure to positive antibody test, with no interruption to their ongoing oral immunomodulatory treatment. Ten antibody positive patients had serial positive results at median 45 days (range 21-119) apart, demonstrating persistence, but some decline in titre over time. Summary/Conclusion: Our seroprevalence of 10.7% is lower but not dissimilar to that reported in the London population over a similar time period reflecting shielding behaviours in our patients but also the challenges of protecting them during high SARS-CoV-2 incidence in the community. Nevertheless, PCD patients retain the ability to seroconvert, even with asymptomatic COVID-19 disease and while on immunomodulatory therapy. Seroconversion rates following symptomatic infection appear lower however, with evidence of delay compared to the general population. These data support the advice for COVID-19 vaccination to be offered to all PCD patients although the suboptimal humoral response calls for close antibody monitoring of all vaccinated PCD patients and timely booster doses.
ABSTRACT
Content: Introduction: Myeloma patients who have completed chemotherapy moved from an intensive period of interaction with healthcare professionals, to less frequent visits. At this time, they often struggle with disease burden, treatment side effects and age-related co-morbidities. Improved patient survival with novel therapies has resulted in increasing patient numbers in outpatient haematology clinics. Centralisation of services means that many patients travel long distances to maintain contact with their transplant centres because they value the access to new drugs and clinical trials, and expertise in management of transplant-related complications and relapse. Faced with growing numbers of patients in follow up with survivorship needs, a new patient-centred model of care is needed. Method: The Promoting Individualised Self-Management and Survivorship (PrISMS) clinic was designed for myeloma patients who are off treatment and in plateau phase. This remote clinic is staffed by a doctor, a nurse specialist and a physiotherapist, a multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach to holistic management centred on patient needs and providing consistent individualised physical activity and lifestyle advice. Two weeks before the consultation, patients complete a questionnaire about their concerns, symptoms and ways in which they would like to improve their health. This allows the MDT to prepare appropriate advice for each patient, ensuring efficient use of consultations. Patients are also required to have a blood test either locally or at University College London Hospital before the clinic. Results: From March 2019 to October 2020, 54 patients were enrolled into the pilot PrISMS clinic and 197 telephone or video consultations were held. The median call duration was 12 minutes. Most patients had their blood tests (89%) and questionnaires (84%) completed before the appointment. Patients needing closer monitoring or active treatment due to disease relapse (9/54) were referred immediately back to face-to-face clinics. 78% and 89% of patients received nurse specialist's and physiotherapist's advice respectively at any point in time, with 11 patients (20%) referred to local exercise programmes. Patients were signposted to survivorship tools such as online exercise videos and lifestyle mobile applications when appropriate. Patient feedback was positive, with 31 of the 36 surveyed patients (86%) agreed or strongly agreed that they felt more confident in self-managing myeloma after PrISMS consultations. 94% (34/36) agreed or strongly agreed that their concerns and symptoms were addressed, and 77% (28/36) gave an overall service rating of good or excellent. Thematic analysis of telephone feedback interviews with 22 participants revealed additional benefits of reduction in travel costs and time, substantially shorter clinic waiting times and reduction in associated psychological stress (Table 1). Conclusion: This new patient-centred model of care has been demonstrated to be safe and feasible, with good patient satisfaction. We hope that this MDT approach will empower patients, improve their clinical experience, and build trust in their clinical teams, as well as reducing patients' sense of isolation and vulnerability particularly in this time of COVID-19 crisis. Future work is needed to formally confirm its effects on patient reported outcome measures, safety and healthcare resource usage.
ABSTRACT
Myeloma patients who have completed chemotherapy move from an intensive period of interaction with healthcare professionals, to less frequent visits. At this time, they often struggle with disease burden, as well as treatment related toxicities and age-related co-morbidities. We previously reported from focus group interviews that patients need lifestyle support and advice to return to their pre-morbid social, psychological and economic functionality. Improved patient survival with novel therapies has resulted in increasing patient numbers in outpatient clinics. Centralisation of services means that many patients travel long distances to maintain contact with their transplant centre because they value the access to optimal treatment and clinical trials. Faced with growing numbers of patients in follow up with survivorship needs, we designed the Promoting Individualised Self- Management and Survivorship (PrISMS) clinic for myeloma patients who are off treatment and in plateau phase in early 2019. This remote clinic is staffed by a doctor, a nurse specialist and a physiotherapist, a multidisciplinary team approach to holistic management centred on patient needs and providing consistent individualised physical activity and lifestyle advice. Two weeks before the consultation, patients are required to have a blood test locally or at our hospital, and to complete a questionnaire about their concerns, symptoms and ways in which they would like to improve their health. We did not know at the time that such model of care would become especially pertinent as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. From March 2019 to October 2020, we enrolled 54 patients into the pilot PrISMS clinic and held 197 telephone or video consultations. The median call duration was 12 minutes, with most patients having had their blood tests (89%) and questionnaires (84%) completed before the appointment. Patients needing closer monitoring or active treatment due to disease relapse (9/54) were referred immediately back to face-to-face clinics. 78% and 89% of patients received nurse specialist's and physiotherapist's advice at any point in time, with 11 patients (20%) referred to local exercise programmes. Regarding patients' feedback, 31 of the 36 surveyed patients (86%) agreed or strongly agreed that they felt more confident in self-managing myeloma after the consultations. 94% (34/36) of the survey patients agreed or strongly agreed that their concerns and symptoms were addressed, and 77% (28/36) gave an overall service rating of good or excellent. Thematic analysis of telephone interviews with 22 participants revealed additional benefits of reduction in travel costs and time, shorter waiting times and reduction in associated psychological stress (Table 1). PrISMS clinic aims to empower patients through patient-centred care by providing tailored advice, through enhancing patients' competences by signposting them to various survivorship tools (Table 2), and through active patient participation by setting achievable goals. We hope that this new care model will improve patients' clinical experience and build trust in their clinical teams particularly at this time of crisis, and to reduce their sense of isolation. We continue to evaluate this service based on patients' feedback to optimise individualised care and resource allocation. Future work is needed to formally confirm its effects on patient reported outcome measures, safety and healthcare resource usage. (Table Presented).