ABSTRACT
There is increased infection risk at the time of autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) including for patients with plasma cell disorders (PCD), therefore preventing infection with COVID-19 vaccination in this vulnerable group is key. However, patients with PCD have been shown to mount suboptimal responses to COVID-19 vaccination. A clinical audit of serological response to COVID-19 vaccination before and after ASCT was undertaken, to observe how antibody titres change during this period. Antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein were measured using the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2S assay (Roche diagnostics) in 88 patients who underwent ASCT for PCD at the University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust between December 2020 and September 2021. Pre-ASCT antibody titres were measured following first or second vaccine and following ASCT. The majority ( n = 76) had no prior history of COVID-19 infection, and four of this cohort declined vaccination. In those who received one vaccine pre-ASCT ( n = 21), 76% seroconverted with a median titre of 11.3 3 U/ml (IQR 1.5-62.6). In those who received two doses pre-ASCT ( n = 51), 97% seroconverted with a median titre of 494 U/ml (IQR 190.5-1681). In those who received two doses pre-ASCT, anti-S antibodies were detected in the immediate post-ASCT setting, with titres of 373 U/ml (median, IQR 40.6-2326) measured less than or equal to 28 days (median 15 [6-25]) post-ASCT, and 170 U/ml (IQR 55-604) at more than 28 days (median 85 [32-125]) post-ASCT. Patients who received one dose pre-ASCT had lower median titres of 36.5 U/ml (IQR 12.6-1310) measured less than or equal to 28 days (median 15 [12-22] post-ASCT and 7.7 U/ml (IQR 2.9-23.8) at more than 28 days (median 85 [40-104] post-ASCT. Antibody levels declined over time, but patients who had received two vaccines pre-ASCT maintained higher titres post-ASCT compared to those who had received one dose, emphasising the importance of COVID-19 vaccination prior to ASCT. Our patients are advised to be re-vaccinated against COVID-19 3 months after ASCT, and antibody response following re-vaccination was measured in a subgroup ( n = 14). Those who were previously un-vaccinated did not seroconvert following one dose. However, antibody titres in those who had received either one or two vaccines ( n = 12) prior to ASCT increased from 32.4 U/ml (median, IQR 13.4-1082) post-ASCT to 431 U/ml (median, IQR 15.33-2500) following re-vaccination. Those who had received two vaccines pre-ASCT ( n = 2) achieved higher titres than those who had received a single dose. In conclusion, we demonstrated how protective titres fall during the patient's journey through ASCT and our repeated interactions with them. Despite this, patients vaccinated prior to ASCT maintain some level of measurable antibody immediately post-ASCT, which is encouraging as patients are considered most vulnerable to infection during this period. Titres were also boosted effectively after one dose of re-vaccination, compared to those never vaccinated. Current guidance is for adult patients who have undergone ASCT to be considered 'never vaccinated' against COVID-19, in line with pre-COVID-19 re-vaccination practice, and to receive a three-dose primary course followed by a booster vaccination post-ASCT. We must facilitate and encourage our patients to be vaccinated prior and after ASCT in this rapidly changing landscape, especially in context of the spread and evolution of a potentially more transmissible virus. (Table Presented).
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
Introduction: Daratumumab in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone (DVd) demonstrated a superior overall response rates (ORR) and progression free survival (PFS) compared to Vd in the CASTOR phase 3 trial for patients with RRMM. On this basis, DVd was recommended in March 2019 for UK patients with RRMM that had 1 prior line (PL). Discrepancies in outcomes between patients treated in clinical trials compared to routine practice is well recognised due to a combination of patient, disease and treatment-related factors. In addition, bortezomib is often administered once-weekly in routine practice to minimise neuropathy, while CASTOR used bi-weekly bortezomib dosing. As a result, the real-world outcomes of patients treated with DVd are yet to be determined. The primary aims of this analysis was to assess the ORR and PFS for patients with RRMM with 1PL treated with DVd in routine practice. Secondary aims were to assess OS, time to next treatment (TTNT), and efficacy in different sub-groups (high risk cytogenetics, previous proteasome inhibitor (PI) exposure, refractoriness of prior therapies, bi-weekly vs weekly bortezomib schedule, and previous treatment free interval (TFI)). Methods: This was a retrospective analysis from 14 centres (academic and community hospitals;7 within the West Midlands Research Consortium (WMRC)) treated with DVd between March 2019 and June 2021. Patients received daratumumab (IV and then SC from June 2020) weekly in cycles 1-3, on day 1 of a 3-week cycle during cycles 4-8, and then monthly from cycle 9 to progression. SC Bortezomib was predominantly given weekly for cycles 1-8 although 5 centres used bi-weekly dosing for selected patients with aggressive disease. Adverse events were graded as per CTCAE criteria. Results: 288 patients were included, with a median age of 69 years (range 20-88) (Table 1). Patients received a median of 1 PL (range 1-2) with 93% (269) 1PL, 7% (18) 2 PL (due to COVID-19 measures). The majority had an ECOG performance status of 0-2 (98%) and most received weekly bortezomib (n=201). This population differed from those with 1PL treated on CASTOR in being older, more were ISS 3 (31% vs 19%, p=0.0145), and more had prior bortezomib exposure (71% vs 51%, p=0.0003), 4% were PI refractory, 9% had a GFR of <30ml/min (<20ml/min was an exclusion from CASTOR), and 2% had an ECOG performance status of ≥3. The ORR was 76%, with >VGPR in 54% (Table 2), with no significant difference in response between patients receiving biweekly vs weekly bortezomib (85% vs 83%;p=0.71). The median time to response was 1.6m. With a median follow up of 15m, the median PFS was 14m (95% CI 11.6-16). High cytogenetic risk patients had inferior outcomes: median PFS 10m (95% CI 6-14) for high risk vs not reached for standard risk (p=0.043);as did those with advanced ISS: median PFS was not reached, 15 and 12m for stage I, II and III respectively (p=0.05). For 15 patients with extramedullary disease (EMD), the median PFS was 3m (95% CI 1-5). Median PFS for patients who were PI refractory was shorter (10m vs 15m for PI sensitive patients (p=0.006)). There was no difference in median PFS for patients with prior PI exposure vs no prior PI (15 vs 13m;p=0.75), or according to weekly or bi-weekly bortezomib schedule (11 vs 15m;p=0.14). The median TTNT was 21m (95% CI 17-25). Overall, the median duration of treatment was 8m and 25 patients (9%) stopped treatment to receive a second autologous stem cell transplant. Those that had a prior TFI of >12m had a longer median PFS of 21m vs 10m (p=0.0004). The median OS has not been reached, with an estimated 2-year OS of 74%. For patients with high risk cytogenetics the median OS was 16m (95% CI 9-23;vs not reached for standard risk;p=0.0006), with estimated 2-year OS in the high risk group of 36%. There was no difference in OS for patients treated with biweekly vs weekly bortezomib (not reached for either;p=0.38). DVd was generally well tolerated with 6% stopping due to adverse events (CASTOR 9.5%). Grade 3 or 4 toxicity occurred in 62 (22%) most comm nly neutropenia and thrombocytopenia, with any grade infusion reactions reported in 27 (9%). Conclusions: These real-world data of DVd at 1 st relapse demonstrated good tolerability and high response rates with a weekly bortezomib schedule despite a more heterogenous population. However, high risk patients by cytogenetics, ISS or EMD had inferior outcomes as did those treated within 12 months from first line treatment. [Formula presented] Disclosures: Cook: Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria;Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria;Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria;Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding;Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding;BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding;Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria;Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria;Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Pratt: Binding Site: Consultancy;BMS/Celgene: Consultancy;Gilead: Consultancy;Janssen: Consultancy;Takeda: Consultancy;Amgen: Consultancy. Kishore: Celgene: Other: Attending fees;Jannsen: Other: Attending fees;Sanofi: Other: Attending fees;Takeda: Other: Attending fees. Yong: Amgen: Honoraria;Autolus: Research Funding;BMS: Research Funding;Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding;Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding;GSK: Honoraria;Takeda: Honoraria. Popat: Abbvie, Takeda, Janssen, and Celgene: Consultancy;Takeda: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES;GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding;AbbVie, BMS, Janssen, Oncopeptides, and Amgen: Honoraria;Janssen and BMS: Other: travel expenses.
ABSTRACT
Rationale: The COVID-19 pandemic has decreased the feasibility of in-person research. Despite this, widespread technological accessibility and ease-of-use make virtual research a viable alternative. Studies conducted virtually offer researchers and participants flexibility, convenience, and geographic accessibility. However, there are inherent challenges that may influence the research process, particularly for participants. This study examines patients' challenges with participating in a virtual research interview from the perspectives of researchers and patients. Methods: We conducted an exploratory community-based sub-study during a concurrent study to validate a function-based health literacy measurement tool (questionnaire) with chronic airway disease patients. Participants received and accessed study materials virtually and responded to the questionnaire over-the-phone;some participants were re-tested for questionnaire reproducibility. Initially, participants and researchers independently responded to 6 open-ended questions post-interview regarding challenges experienced during the study. Responses informed the development of a comprehensive, 18-question checklist addressing participant challenges. In subsequent interviews, research assistants administered the checklist, capturing quantitative data and verbatim quotes. Researchers' observation notes, recorded during each interview, and team teleconference notes were reviewed to provide researchers' perspectives on participant challenges. Thematic analysis of qualitative data was conducted using NVivo (QSR International, Version 12). Challenges were coded inductively and quantified on the basis of whether a researcher or patient had indicated a patient challenge, and cross-referenced with detailed observation notes. Quantitative analyses were conducted using R (R Core Team, 2019). Results: Initial interviews (n=185) and re-tests (n=110) were analysed. Quantified challenges were compared across self-reported gender, condition (asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) & asthma-COPD overlap (ACO)), education level, first language, age, ethnicity, disease duration, and previous disease-specific education. In 76% of interviews, participants experienced one or more challenges;31 unique challenges were identified. As an example, Table 1 contains the top 5 problems experienced by participants, across disease and self-reported gender, during initial interviews recorded using the open-ended question set. Qualitative analysis revealed that participants primarily experienced challenges with technology, communication (verbal & online), and instruction clarity (e.g., when/how to use study materials). Conclusions: Participants experienced a variety of challenges throughout the virtual study. Considering potential friction points for participants and possible solutions prior to starting the study by involving researchers, key informants, and participants can enhance the study process. Developing simple, informative study materials and instructions may help to mitigate challenges inherent to virtual research and facilitate a seamless, participant-friendly study experience given the unfamiliarity of this research format. .