Additional Dose of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Increases Neutralization Capacity in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients

Purpose: Solid organ transplant recipients (SOTR) develop weak antibody responses after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Published data on neutralizing activity of plasma, a better measure of protection, in SOTR following an additional dose of SARSCoV- 2 vaccine is limited. Method(s): Plasma was longitudinally collected from SOTR following initial COVID- 19 vaccination. Neutralizing activity against SARS-CoV-2 was assessed using the cPass Neutralization Antibody Detection Kit (GenScript, Biotech). ELISAs were performed against SARS-CoV-2 proteins (S1, N, RBD), CMV (glycoprotein B), Influenza A H1N1 (nucleoprotein), HSV-1, EBV glycoprotein (gp350), and tetanus toxoid for comparison. Result(s): Demographic and clinical characteristics are summarized in table 1. No participants had evidence of COVID-19 infection as IgG titers to SARS-CoV-2 N protein were low. Neutralizing activity against SARS-CoV-2 RBD was observed in 39.6% of individuals (N=21/53) ~93 days after initial vaccination. Participants with neutralizing activity were more likely to have received a liver transplant (47.6% vs 6.25%, p=0.001), and less likely to be on an anti-metabolite (52.4% vs. 87.5%, p=0.009) or triple immunosuppression (14.3% vs. 53.1%, p=0.008). After an additional vaccine dose, 78.1% (N=25/32) of participants developed neutralizing activity with significant increases in viral neutralization (figure 1, median 36.8% [95%CI 18.9-64.6] to 97.2% [95%CI 74.0-98.9], p<0.0001). Participants with low neutralizing activity demonstrated adequate antibody titers to other microbial antigens (figure 2). Conclusion(s): An additional dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine increased the number of SOTR with neutralizing activity and the magnitude of the seroresponse. SOTR with low neutralizing activity maintain humoral responses to other microbial antigens suggesting the diminished seroresponse might be related to inhibition of new B cell responses.

Immune response to COVID-19 vaccination in patients with B-cell malignancies after CD19 CART cell therapy

Introduction: Patients with hematologic malignancies are at an increased risk of morbid/mortality from COVID-19. Our prospective clinical study evaluated immune responses to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in patients with B-cell lymphoma who had received CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy. Methods: We measured SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing activity of plasma from 18 patients and 4 healthy controls (HC) and antibody titers against viral spike proteins (S1, S2, RBD) including their delta variants using an enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA). We measured B cell subpopulations in the patients' blood using flow cytometry. Results: We found that the peripheral blood plasma from 3/4 HCs showed substantial SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing activity already at 4 weeks after the first dose of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine while none of the CD19 CART patients evidenced any antibody-mediated neutralizing activity at the same point in time. At 4 weeks after receiving the second dose of the vaccine, all 4 HCs showed complete neutralizing activity. In marked contrast, only 1 of 14 CART patients evidenced any relevant antibody-mediated SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing activity. Assessing whether a globally insufficient antibody-mediated immunity was the underlying cause of the lack of a response to the COVID-19 vaccine in our CART patients, we found that IgG antibody levels against common microbial and viral antigens like influenza, Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), Cytomegalovirus (CMV), and tetanus toxoid, were comparable to those observed in HCs. However, while at 4 weeks post second dose of the vaccine the HCs showed high levels of vaccine-induced IgG antibody titers against all the viral spike proteins (S1, S2, RBD), including the delta variants of the S1 and RBD proteins, the vast majority of our CART patients did not evidence any SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies. Importantly, a third booster vaccination did not lead to an improvement in the antiviral immunity in the 4 CART patients analyzed. When we assessed B cell subpopulations in the blood of patients and HCs, we found that prior treatments had completely eradicated all CD19+/CD20+ B cells in the patients while numbers of long-lived memory plasma cells were comparable to those of HCs. Conclusions: In this study, 17 of 18 patients with lymphoma who received CD19 CART therapy had very poor immunoreactivity to 1-3 doses of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines. Importantly, antibody responses to common recall antigens were preserved, suggesting impaired immune response primarily against novel antigens like SARS-COV-2. This lack of immunoreactivity against novel antigens was probably based on the eradication of earlier-stage B cell subpopulations after treatment with anti-CD19 and anti-CD20 immunotherapies.

Long-term outcomes of patients with large B-cell lymphoma treated with standard-of-care axicabtagene ciloleucel: Results from the us lymphoma CAR-T cell consortium

Introduction: Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) is an autologous anti-CD19 Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy that induces durable responses in patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma. At a median of 27.1 months follow-up on the ZUMA-1 trial, median overall survival (OS) was 25.8 months with 39% progression free survival (PFS) at 2 years post-infusion (Locke, Lancet Onc 2019). We previously reported outcomes of axi-cel patients treated with standard of care therapy at a median follow up of 12.9 months, including 42% who did not meet eligibility criteria for ZUMA-1 based on co-morbidities (Nastoupil, JCO 2020). Here we report results from this cohort at a median follow up of 32.4 months, as well as late outcomes of interest including cytopenias, infections and secondary malignancies. Methods and Results: The US Lymphoma CAR-T Consortium comprised of 17 US academic centers who contributed data independent of the manufacturer. Two hundred and ninety-eight patients underwent leukapheresis with intent to manufacture standard of care axi-cel as of September 30, 2018. In infused patients (n=275), OS and PFS were calculated from date of infusion. After median follow-up of 32.4 months (95% CI 31.1 - 34.3), median OS was not reached (95% CI 25.6 - not evaluable) (Figure 1A) with 1-, 2- and 3-year OS of 68.5% (95% CI 62.6-73.7), 56.4% (95% CI 50.1-62.2) and 52.2% (95% CI 45.7-58.2%), respectively. Median PFS was 9 months (95% CI 5.9-19.6) (Figure 1B);1-, 2- and 3-year PFS was 47.4% (95% CI 41.4-53.2), 41.6% (95% CI 35.6-47.5) and 37.3% (95% CI 31.3-43.2), respectively. Twenty-seven PFS events occurred at or after 1 year post infusion;19 events were progressive lymphoma, with the latest relapse observed 28 months after axi-cel infusion. Eight patients died while in remission from their lymphoma: 4 from secondary malignancy, 3 from infection, and 1 from unknown causes. Results of multivariable modeling were similar to our prior analysis: factors associated with both a shorter PFS and shorter OS included male sex, elevated pre-lymphodepletion LDH, and poor ECOG status. Complete blood count and B- and T-cell recovery data were collected at 1 and 2-years post-infusion, excluding patients who had relapsed or been treated for secondary malignancy at time of collection (Table 1). Rates of neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count ≤1000) at 1- and 2- years were 9.2% (10/109) and 11.2% (9/80) and rates of CD4 count ≤200/ul were 62% (23/37) and 27% (7/26). Recovery of B cells was seen in 54% (15/28) and 57% (13/23) at 1-and 2-years post infusion. Infections were reported in 31.2% (34/109) patients between 6- and 12-months post infusion, and 17% (18/109) were severe, requiring either hospitalization and/or IV antibiotics. Twenty-one patients (24%, 21/89) had an infection between 1- and 2- years, 11% of which were severe. Twenty percent (10/49) of patients between 2- and 3-years had an infection and 4 (8%) were severe. Neutropenia, low CD4 counts, and IgG levels were not associated with infection, though patients with infection between 6-12 months were more likely to have received IVIG (p<0.001). No patient in this cohort died of COVID-19. Twenty-two of 275 (8%) patients were diagnosed with subsequent malignancy after axi-cel treatment: 14/275 (5%) patients were diagnosed with myeloid malignancies (MDS (n=12), AML (n=1), CMML (n=1));other malignancies included squamous cell carcinoma of skin (n=3);sarcoma (n=1);endometrial (n=1);lung (n=1);mesothelioma (n=1) and AITL (n=1). Patients with myeloid malignancy had a median age of 62 at axi-cel apheresis (IQR 56-67), 64% were male and median lines of prior therapy was 4 (IQR 3-6), including 36% with a prior autologous stem cell transplant. Eleven patients were in remission from lymphoma at myeloid malignancy diagnosis, while 3 were diagnosed after progression and interval therapy. Conclusion: This multi-center retrospective study showed similar long-term results to the ZUMA-1 trial, despite including patients who did not meet ZUMA-1 eligibility criteria ba ed on comorbidities. Sixteen percent of PFS events were seen after 1 year, largely due to disease progression. Late infection was common but was not explained by persistent neutropenia or low CD4 counts. Subsequent malignancy, including MDS, occurred in 8% of patients and require further study to better identify patients at risk. (Figure Presented).

Impaired mRNA Based COVID-19 Vaccine Response in Patients with B-Cell Malignancies after CD19 Directed CAR-T Cell Therapy

Introduction: Patients with hematologic malignancies are at an increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 disease (Vijenthira, Blood 2020). This is likely a result of combination of immunodeficiency conferred by the disease and the therapeutics. The immunogenicity of the COVID-19 vaccines in patients with exposure to CD19 directed Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR)-T cell therapy is not established. CD19 CAR-T cell therapies cause B-cell aplasia, which in turn can affect humoral immune response against novel antigens. Herein, we present results from our prospectively conducted clinical study to evaluate immune responses against mRNA based COVID-19 vaccines in patients with lymphoma who have received CD19 directed CAR-T cell therapy. Methods: All patients and healthy controls were enrolled in a prospective clinical study evaluating immune responses against commercial COVID-19 RNA vaccines in patients with hematologic malignancies. Plasma samples were generated from heparinized peripheral blood of 4 heathy controls (HCs) receiving the same vaccines and 19 B cell lymphoma patients treated with CD19 CAR- T cells. Samples from ~4 weeks post second dose of the vaccine (d56) were available for 14 CAR-T patients, for 5 CAR-T patients samples were available from ~4 weeks after the first dose (d28). Plasma samples were analyzed in an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) using different full-length recombinant SARS-CoV-2 proteins and control proteins. Neutralizing activity was measured using the cPass Neutralization Antibody Detection Kit (GenScript Biotech). Results: Results from 4 healthy controls and 19 patients (12 males and 7 females) with lymphoma are reported. Median age for the lymphoma patients is 65 years. Eleven patients had large B cell lymphoma, 5 had follicular lymphoma and 3 had mantle cell lymphoma as primary diagnoses. Seventeen patients had advance stage disease (III/IV stage) and had received a median of 3 prior lines of therapy. All patients received CD19 directed CAR-T cell therapy. Ten patients received Moderna vaccine and 9 received Pfizer vaccine. Median time between CAR-T infusion and first COVID-19 vaccine was 258 days. While the peripheral blood plasma from 3/4 HCs already showed substantial SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing activity at ~4 weeks after the first dose of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine, none of the 5 CD19 CAR-T patients analyzed evidenced any antibody-mediated neutralizing activity in their blood at the same point in time (Figure 1A). Around 4 weeks after receiving the second dose of the vaccine, all 4 HCs tested evidenced complete or almost complete neutralizing activity (Figure 1B). In marked contrast, only 1 out of 14 CAR-T patients analyzed evidenced any relevant antibody-mediated SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing activity in their blood (Figure 1B). Interestingly, when we asked whether a globally insufficient antibody-mediated immunity was the underlying cause of the lack of a response to the COVID-19 vaccine in our CAR-T patients, we found that that was clearly not the case since anti-Flu, -TT, and -EBV responses were equivalent to the ones observed in HCs (Figure 2A). However, while at ~4 weeks post second dose of the vaccine the HCs showed marked antibody titers against all the viral spike proteins including their “delta” variants (Figure 2B), that was not the case for our CAR-T patients. The vast majority of our CAR-T patients did not evidence IgG antibody responses against any of the SARS-CoV-2 proteins analyzed such as S1, S1 delta, RBD, RBD delta, or S2 (Figure 2B). Conclusion: In this prospectively conducted clinical study, 18 of 19 patients with lymphoma who have received CD19 CAR-T therapy had poor immunogenicity against mRNA based COVID-19 vaccines as measured by neutralization assays and antibody titers. The antibody titers against B.1.617.2 (delta variant, S1 and RBD protein) were also demonstrably poor. The antibody response to common pathogens (flu, EBV, TT) were preserved, suggesting impaired immune response against novel antigens. Long-term follow-up of this study is ongoin . APR and DJ contributed equally [Formula presented] Disclosures: Dahiya: Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy;Atara Biotherapeutics: Consultancy;BMS: Consultancy;Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding;Miltenyi Biotech: Research Funding. Hardy: American Gene Technologies, International: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;InCyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Kite/Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Impact of Induction Treatment on Stem Cell Collection: A COVID Related Study

Introduction: Standard induction therapy for multiple myeloma consists of 3-6 cycles of bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) or carfilzomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (KRd). Receiving greater than 6 cycles of a lenalidomide containing regimen is thought to negatively impact the ability to collect sufficient CD34+ stem cells for autologous stem cell transplant (Kumar, Dispenzieri et al. 2007, Bhutani, Zonder et al. 2013). Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, at least 20 patients at University of Maryland Greenebaum Comprehensive Cancer Center (UMGCC) had transplant postponed, potentially resulting in prolonged exposure to lenalidomide containing induction regimens. Here, in the context of modern stem cell mobilization methods, we describe a retrospective study that suggests prolonged induction does not inhibit adequate stem cell collection for transplant. Methods: By chart review, we identified 56 patients with multiple myeloma who received induction with VRd or KRd and underwent apheresis or stem cell transplant at UMGCC between 10/1/19 and 10/1/20. Patients were excluded if they received more than 2 cycles of a different induction regimen, had a past medical history of an inborn hematological disorder, or participated in a clinical trial of novel stem cell mobilization therapy. We defined 1 cycle of VRd or KRd as 1 cycle of “lenalidomide containing regimen”. In accordance with routine clinical practice, we defined standard induction as having received 3-6 cycles of lenalidomide containing regimen and prolonged induction as having received 7 or more cycles. Results: 29 patients received standard induction (Standard induction cohort) and 27 received prolonged induction (Prolonged induction cohort) with lenalidomide containing regimens. The median number of cycles received by the Standard cohort was 6 (range 4-6), and the median number of cycles received by the Prolonged cohort was 8 (range 7-13). The frequency of KRd use was similar between patients who received standard induction and prolonged induction (27.58% vs. 25.93%, respectively). Standard induction and Prolonged induction cohorts were similar with respect to clinical characteristics (Fig 1), as well as the mobilization regimen used for stem cell collection (p = 0.6829). 55/56 patients collected sufficient stem cells for 1 transplant (≥ 4 x 10 6 CD34 cells/kg), and 40/56 patients collected sufficient cells for 2 transplants (≥ 8 x 10 6 CD34 cells/kg). There was no significant difference in the total CD34+ stem cells collected at completion of apheresis between standard and prolonged induction (10.41 and 10.45 x 10 6 CD34 cells/kg, respectively, p = 0.968, Fig 2). Furthermore, there was no significant correlation between the number of cycles of lenalidomide containing regimen a patient received and total CD34+ cells collected (R 2 = 0.0073, p = 0.5324). Although prolonged induction did not affect final stem yield, prolonged induction could increase the apheresis time required for adequate collection or result in more frequent need for plerixafor rescue. There was no significant difference in the total number of stem cells collected after day 1 of apheresis between patients who received standard or prolonged induction (8.72 vs. 7.96 x 10 6 cells/kg, respectively, p = 0.557). However, patients who received prolonged induction were more likely to require 2 days of apheresis (44% vs. 25%, p = 0.1625) and there was a trend toward significance in which patients who received prolonged induction underwent apheresis longer than patients who received standard induction (468 vs 382 minutes, respectively, p = 0.0928, Fig 3). In addition, longer apheresis time was associated with more cycles of lenalidomide containing regimen, which neared statistical significance (R 2 = 0.0624, p = 0.0658, Fig 4). There was no significant difference between standard and prolonged induction with respect to the frequency of plerixafor rescue. Conclusions: Prolonged induction with lenalidomide containing regimens does not impair adequate stem cell collection for autologou transplant. Prolonged induction may increase the apheresis time required to collect sufficient stem cells for transplant, but ultimately clinicians should be re-assured that extending induction when necessary is not likely to increase the risk of collection failure. [Formula presented] Disclosures: Badros: Janssen: Research Funding;J&J: Research Funding;BMS: Research Funding;GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding.