The COVID-19 Pandemic and In-Person Visit Rate Disruptions Among Patients With Hematologic Neoplasms in the US in 2020 to 2021.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a reduction in routine in-person medical care; however, it is unknown whether there have been any changes in visit rates among patients with hematologic neoplasms. Objective: To examine associations between the COVID-19 pandemic and in-person visits and telemedicine use among patients undergoing active treatment for hematologic neoplasms. Design, Setting, and Participants: Data for this retrospective observational cohort study were obtained from a nationwide electronic health record-derived, deidentified database. Data for patients with hematologic neoplasms who had received at least 1 systemic line of therapy between March 1, 2016, and February 28, 2021, were included. Treatments were categorized into 3 types: oral therapy, outpatient infusions, and inpatient infusions. The data cutoff date was April 30, 2021, when study analyses were conducted. Main Outcomes and Measures: Monthly visit rates were calculated as the number of documented visits (telemedicine or in-person) per active patient per 30-day period. We used time-series forecasting methods on prepandemic data (March 2016 to February 2020) to estimate expected rates between March 1, 2020, and February 28, 2021 (if the pandemic had not occurred). Results: This study included data for 24 261 patients, with a median age of 68 years (IQR, 60-75 years). A total of 6737 patients received oral therapy, 15 314 received outpatient infusions, and 8316 received inpatient infusions. More than half of patients were men (14 370 [58%]) and non-Hispanic White (16 309 [66%]). Early pandemic months (March to May 2020) demonstrated a significant 21% reduction (95% prediction interval [PI], 12%-27%) in in-person visit rates averaged across oral therapy and outpatient infusions. Reductions in in-person visit rates were also significant for all treatment types for multiple myeloma (oral therapy: 29% reduction; 95% PI, 21%-36%; P = .001; outpatient infusions: 11% reduction; 95% PI, 4%-17%; P = .002; inpatient infusions: 55% reduction; 95% PI, 27%-67%; P = .005), for oral therapy for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (28% reduction; 95% PI, 12%-39%; P = .003), and for outpatient infusions for mantle cell lymphoma (38% reduction; 95% PI, 6%-54%; P = .003) and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (20% reduction; 95% PI, 6%-31%; P = .002). Telemedicine visit rates were highest for patients receiving oral therapy, with greater use in the early pandemic months and a subsequent decrease in later months. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patients with hematologic neoplasms, documented in-person visit rates for those receiving oral therapy and outpatient infusions significantly decreased during the early pandemic months but returned to close to projected rates in the later half of 2020. There were no statistically significant reductions in the overall in-person visit rate for patients receiving inpatient infusions. There was higher telemedicine use in the early pandemic months, followed by a decline, but use was persistent in the later half of 2020. Further studies are needed to ascertain associations between the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent cancer outcomes and the evolution of telemedicine use for care delivery.

Characterization of post-vaccination SARS-CoV-2 T cell subtypes in patients with different hematologic malignancies and treatments.

Background: To evaluate the benefits of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in cancer patients it is relevant to understand the adaptive immune response elicited after vaccination. Patients affected by hematologic malignancies are frequently immune-compromised and show a decreased seroconversion rate compared to other cancer patients or controls. Therefore, vaccine-induced cellular immune responses in these patients might have an important protective role and need a detailed evaluation. Methods: Certain T cell subtypes (CD4, CD8, Tfh, γδT), including cell functionality as indicated by cytokine secretion (IFN, TNF) and expression of activation markers (CD69, CD154) were assessed via multi-parameter flow cytometry in hematologic malignancy patients (N=12) and healthy controls (N=12) after a second SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose. The PBMC of post-vaccination samples were stimulated with a spike-peptide pool (S-Peptides) of SARS-CoV-2, with CD3/CD28, with a pool of peptides from the cytomegalovirus, Epstein-Barr virus and influenza A virus (CEF-Peptides) or left unstimulated. Furthermore, the concentration of spike-specific antibodies has been analyzed in patients. Results: Our results indicate that hematologic malignancy patients developed a robust cellular immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination comparable to that of healthy controls, and for certain T cell subtypes even higher. The most reactive T cells to SARS-CoV-2 spike peptides belonged to the CD4 and Tfh cell compartment, being median (IQR), 3.39 (1.41-5.92) and 2.12 (0.55-4.14) as a percentage of IFN- and TNF-producing Tfh cells in patients. In this regard, the immunomodulatory treatment of patients before the vaccination period seems important as it was strongly associated with a higher percentage of activated CD4 and Tfh cells. SARS-CoV-2- and CEF-specific T cell responses significantly correlated with each other. Compared to lymphoma patients, myeloma patients had an increased percentage of SARS-CoV-2-specific Tfh cells. T-SNE analysis revealed higher frequencies of γδT cells in patients compared to controls, especially in myeloma patients. In general, after vaccination, SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells were also detectable in patients without seroconversion. Conclusion: Hematologic malignancy patients are capable of developing a SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4 and Tfh cellular immune response after vaccination, and certain immunomodulatory therapies in the period before vaccination might increase the antigen-specific immune response. A proper response to recall antigens (e.g., CEF-Peptides) reflects immune cellular functionality and might be predictive for generating a newly induced antigen-specific immune response as is expected after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.

Kinetics of cellular and humoral immunogenicity and effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 booster vaccination in hematologic neoplasms.

Data on the effect of booster SARS-CoV-2 vaccination are mainly focused on humoral immunogenicity, while the kinetics of vaccine-induced cellular response and its correlation with effectiveness in hematologic patients are less explored. Our aim was to evaluate the longitudinal cellular and humoral immunogenicity induced by two and three doses of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in 270 patients with hematologic malignancies, and its relationship with the severity of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection. Results indicate that at 23 weeks after the second dose, the seroconversion rate declined from 68.5% to 59.3%, with a reduction in median anti-S titers from 1577 to 456 BAU/mL, mainly in patients over 65 years of age or chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients undergoing active therapy. Cellular immunogenicity, however, remained positive in 84.4% of cases. A third vaccine dose seroconverted 42.7% (41/96) and triggered cellular response in 36.7% (11/30) of previously negative patients. Notably, only 7.2% (15/209) of patients failed to develop both humoral and cellular response. Active therapy, anti-CD20 antibodies, lymphopenia, hypogammaglobulinemia, and low CD19+ cell count were associated with poor humoral response, while active disease, GvHD immunosuppressive therapy, lymphopenia, and low CD3+ , CD4+ , CD56+ cell count determined an impaired cellular response. After 13.8 months of follow-up, the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was 24.8% (67/270), including 6 (9%) severe/critical cases associated with a weaker cellular (median interferon gamma (IFN-γ) 0.19 vs. 0.35 IU/mL) and humoral response (median anti-S titer <4.81 vs. 788 BAU/mL) than asymptomatic/mild cases. In conclusion, SARS-CoV-2 booster vaccination improves humoral response and COVID-19 severity is associated with impaired vaccine-induced immunogenicity.

COVID-19 and Other Viral Infections in Patients With Hematologic Malignancies.

COVID-19 and our armamentarium of strategies to combat it have evolved dramatically since the virus first emerged in late 2019. Vaccination remains the primary strategy to prevent severe illness, although the protective effect can vary in patients with hematologic malignancy. Strategies such as additional vaccine doses and now bivalent boosters can contribute to increased immune response, especially in the face of evolving viral variants. Because of these new variants, no approved monoclonal antibodies are available for pre-exposure or postexposure prophylaxis. Patients with symptomatic, mild-to-moderate COVID-19 and risk features for developing severe COVID-19, who present within 5-7 days of symptom onset, should be offered outpatient therapy with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NR) or in some cases with intravenous (IV) remdesivir. NR interacts with many blood cancer treatments, and reviewing drug interactions is essential. Patients with severe COVID-19 should be managed with IV remdesivir, tocilizumab (or an alternate interleukin-6 receptor blocker), or baricitinib, as indicated based on the severity of illness. Dexamethasone can be considered on an individual basis, weighing oxygen requirements and patients' underlying disease and their perceived ability to clear infection. Finally, as CD19-targeted and B-cell maturation (BCMA)-targeted chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies become more heavily used for relapsed/refractory hematologic malignancies, viral infections including COVID-19 are increasingly recognized as common complications, but data on risk factors and prophylaxis in this patient population are scarce. We summarize the available evidence regarding viral infections after CAR T-cell therapy.

Chimeric antigen receptor-based therapies beyond cancer.

Adoptive cell transfer (ACT) therapies have gained renewed interest in the field of immunotherapy following the advent of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) technology. This immunological breakthrough requires immune cell engineering with an artificial surface protein receptor for antigen-specific recognition coupled to an intracellular protein domain for cell activating functions. CAR-based ACT has successfully solved some hematological malignancies, and it is expected that other tumors may soon benefit from this approach. However, the potential of CAR technology is such that other immune-mediated disorders are beginning to profit from it. This review will focus on CAR-based ACT therapeutic areas other than oncology such as infection, allergy, autoimmunity, transplantation, and fibrotic repair. Herein, we discuss the results and limitations of preclinical and clinical studies in that regard.

Risk factors and outcomes of COVID-19 in adult patients with hematological malignancies: A single-center study showing lower than expected rates of hospitalization and mortality.

BACKGROUND: Studies addressing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients with hematological malignancies have reported mortality rates of up to 40%; however, included predominantly hospitalized patients. METHODS: During the first year of the pandemic, we followed adult patients with hematological malignancies treated at a tertiary center in Jerusalem, Israel, who contracted COVID-19, with the aim of studying risk factors for adverse COVID-19-related outcomes. We used remote communication to track patients managed at home-isolation, and patient questioning to assess the source of COVID-19 infection, community versus nosocomial. RESULTS: Our series included 183 patients, median age was 62.5 years, 72% had at least one comorbidity and 39% were receiving active antineoplastic treatment. Hospitalization, critical COVID-19, and mortality rates were 32%, 12.6%, and 9.8%, respectively, remarkably lower than previously reported. Age, multiple comorbidities, and active antineoplastic treatment were significantly associated with hospitalization due to COVID-19. Treatment with monoclonal antibodies was strongly associated with both hospitalization and critical COVID-19. In older (≥60) patients not receiving active antineoplastic treatment, mortality, and severe COVID-19 rates were comparable to those of the general Israeli population. We did not detect patients that contracted COVID-19 within the Hematology Division. CONCLUSION: These findings are relevant for the future management of patients with hematological malignancies in COVID-19-affected regions.

Vector-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is associated with improved T-cell responses in hematological neoplasia.

In order to elucidate mechanisms for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccination success in hematological neoplasia, we, herein, provide a comprehensive characterization of the spike-specific T-cell and serological immunity induced in 130 patients in comparison with 91 healthy controls. We studied 121 distinct T-cell subpopulations and the vaccination schemes as putative response predictors. In patients with lymphoid malignancies an insufficient immunoglobulin G (IgG) response was accompanied by a healthy CD4+ T-cell function. Compared with controls, a spike-specific CD4+ response was detectable in fewer patients with myeloid neoplasia whereas the seroconversion rate was normal. Vaccination-induced CD4+ responses were associated to CD8+ and IgG responses. Vector-based AZD1222 vaccine induced more frequently detectable specific CD4+ responses in study participants across all cohorts (96%; 27 of 28), whereas fully messenger RNA-based vaccination schemes resulted in measurable CD4+ cells in only 102 of 168 participants (61%; P < .0001). A similar benefit of vector-based vaccination was observed for the induction of spike-specific CD8+ T cells. Multivariable models confirmed vaccination schemes that incorporated at least 1 vector-based vaccination as key feature to mount both a spike-specific CD4+ response (odds ratio, 10.67) and CD8+ response (odds ratio, 6.56). Multivariable analyses identified a specific CD4+ response but not the vector-based immunization as beneficial for a strong, specific IgG titer. Our study reveals factors associated with a T-cell response in patients with hematological neoplasia and might pave the way toward tailored vaccination schemes for vaccinees with these diseases. The study was registered at the German Clinical Trials Register as #DRKS00027372.

High-titer post-vaccine COVID-19 convalescent plasma for immunocompromised patients during the first omicron surge.

BACKGROUND: Transplant and hematologic malignancy patients have high Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mortality and impaired vaccination responses. Omicron variant evades several monoclonal antibodies previously used in immunocompromised patients. Polyclonal COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) may provide broader neutralizing capacity against new variants at high titers. Vaccination increases severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) titer in convalescent donors. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of hospitalized immunocompromised patients with COVID-19 who received high-titer CCP during the first omicron surge, collected from vaccinated donors within 6 months of pre-omicron COVID-19. Data on safety and outcomes were extracted. RESULTS: A total of 44 immunocompromised patients were included, 59.1% with solid organ transplant, 22.7% with hematopoietic cell transplant, 11.4% with hematologic malignancy, and 6.8% with autoimmune disease. Overall, 95% of CCP units transfused were from recently recovered and vaccinated donors and had SARS-CoV-2 antibody results 8- to 37-fold higher than the Food and Drug Administration's cutoff for high-titer CCP. There were two mild transfusion reactions. A total of 30-day mortality was 4.5%. There were no differences in 100-day mortality by underlying diagnosis, levels of immunosuppression, and timing of CCP administration. Patients with higher immunosuppression had significantly higher mean World Health Organization clinical progression scores at 30-day post-CCP compared to those with lower immunosuppression. CONCLUSIONS: CCP is a safe, globally available treatment for immunocompromised patients with COVID-19. Mortality was lower in our cohort than that of COVID-19 patients with similar immunocompromising conditions. Post-vaccine CCP with very high titers should be prioritized for study in immunocompromised patients. Post-vaccine CCP has the potential to keep pace with new variants by overcoming mutations at sufficiently high titer.

Virtual Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic for Patients With Hematologic Malignancies: A Single-Institution Experience.

PURPOSE: The use of virtual care rapidly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic and has persisted as a routine method of care delivery. Much of the literature on virtual care in oncology has focused on solid tumors, and little is known about its application in malignant hematology. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients with hematologic malignancies at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre from October 2019 to March 2021 to determine the use of virtual care during this period, cost-savings associated with virtual visits, and patient satisfaction. Patient satisfaction was assessed using the Your Voice Matters survey, a provincially administered survey to evaluate patient experience. RESULTS: Overall, 12.1% (1,122/9,295) of patients had a virtual visit during the study period (0% from October 2019 to February 2020, 36% from March to August 2020, and 30% from September 2020 to March 2021), of which 36% were in the lymphoma clinic and 46% were in the myeloma clinic. The mean two-way opportunity cost for an in-person visit was $168.00 CAD per person with public transit, and $120.40 CAD per person driving. Responses to the Your Voice Matters survey indicated that patients with a virtual visit reported that physical symptoms were discussed appropriately (mean 4.73/5), and were more likely to ask for a follow-up virtual visit compared with patients with in-person visits (mean 4.50/5 v 3.02/5, respectively; P < .01). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that virtual care may be a feasible and well-received tool for delivering care to a substantial proportion of patients with hematologic malignancies, while enabling substantial cost-savings to patients.

Outcome of early treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with haematological disorders.

Outcome of early treatment of COVID-19 with antivirals or anti-spike monoclonal antibodies (MABs) in patients with haematological malignancies (HM) is unknown. A retrospective study of HM patients treated for mild/moderate COVID-19 between March 2021 and July 2022 was performed. The main composite end-point was treatment failure (severe COVID-19 or COVID-19-related death). We included 328 consecutive patients who received MABs (n = 120, 37%; sotrovimab, n = 73) or antivirals (n = 208, 63%; nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, n = 116) over a median of two days after symptoms started; 111 (33.8%) had non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL); 89 (27%) were transplant/CAR-T (chimaeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy) recipients. Most infections (n = 309, 94%) occurred during the Omicron period. Failure developed in 31 patients (9.5%). Its independent predictors were older age, fewer vaccine doses, and treatment with MABs. Rate of failure was lower in the Omicron versus the pre-Omicron period (7.8% versus 36.8%, p < 0.001). During the Omicron period, predictors of failure were age, fewer vaccine doses and diagnosis of acute myeloid leukaemia/myelodysplastic syndrome (AML/MDS). Independent predictors of longer viral shedding were age, comorbidities, hospital admission at diagnosis, NHL/CLL, treatment with MABs. COVID-19-associated mortality was 3.4% (n = 11). The mortality in those who developed severe COVID-19 after early treatment was 26% in the Omicron period. Patients with HM had a significant risk of failure of early treatment, even during the Omicron period, with high mortality rate.

Early administration of remdesivir plus convalescent plasma therapy is effective to treat COVID-19 pneumonia in B-cell depleted patients with hematological malignancies.

Patients with hematological malignancies (HMs) are at a higher risk of developing severe form and protracted course of COVID-19 disease. We investigated whether the combination of viral replication inhibition with remdesivir and administration of anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulins with convalescent plasma (CP) therapy might be sufficient to treat B-cell-depleted patients with COVID-19. We enrolled 20 consecutive patients with various HMs with profound B-cell lymphopenia and COVID-19 pneumonia between December 2020 and May 2021. All patients demonstrated undetectable baseline anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin levels before CP. Each patient received at least a complete course of remdesivir and at least one unit of CP. Previous anti-CD20 therapy resulted in a more prolonged SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity compared to other causes of B-cell lymphopenia (p = 0.004). Timing of CP therapy showed a significant impact on the clinical outcome. Simultaneous use of remdesivir and CP reduced time period for oxygen weaning after diagnosis (p = 0.017), length of hospital stay (p = 0.007), and PCR positivity (p = 0.012) compared to patients who received remdesivir and CP consecutively. In addition, time from the diagnosis to CP therapy affected the length of oxygen dependency (p < 0.001) and hospital stay (p < 0.0001). In those cases where there were at least 10 days from the diagnosis to plasma administration, oxygen dependency was prolonged vs. patients with shorter interval (p = 0.006). In conclusion, the combination of inhibition of viral replication with passive immunization was proved to be efficient and safe. Our results suggest the clear benefit of early, combined administration of remdesivir and CP to avoid protracted COVID-19 disease among patients with HMs and B-cell lymphopenia.

Immunogenicity and risks associated with impaired immune responses following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and booster in hematologic malignancy patients: an updated meta-analysis.

Patients with hematologic malignancies (HM) have demonstrated impaired immune responses following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Factors associated with poor immunogenicity remain largely undetermined. A literature search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and medRxiv databases to identify studies that reported humoral or cellular immune responses (CIR) following complete SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. The primary aim was to estimate the seroconversion rate (SR) following complete SARS-CoV-2 vaccination across various subtypes of HM diseases and treatments. The secondary aims were to determine the rates of development of neutralizing antibodies (NAb) and CIR following complete vaccination and SR following booster doses. A total of 170 studies were included for qualitative and quantitative analysis of primary and secondary outcomes. A meta-analysis of 150 studies including 20,922 HM patients revealed a pooled SR following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination of 67.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 64.8-70.4%; I2 = 94%). Meta-regression analysis showed that patients with lymphoid malignancies, but not myeloid malignancies, had lower seroconversion rates than those with solid cancers (R2 = 0.52, P < 0.0001). Patients receiving chimeric antigen receptor T-cells (CART), B-cell targeted therapies or JAK inhibitors were associated with poor seroconversion (R2 = 0.39, P < 0.0001). The pooled NAb and CIR rates were 52.8% (95% CI; 45.8-59.7%, I2 = 87%) and 66.6% (95% CI, 57.1-74.9%; I2 = 86%), respectively. Approximately 20.9% (95% CI, 11.4-35.1%, I2 = 90%) of HM patients failed to elicit humoral and cellular immunity. Among non-seroconverted patients after primary vaccination, only 40.5% (95% CI, 33.0-48.4%; I2 = 87%) mounted seroconversion after the booster. In conclusion, HM patients, especially those with lymphoid malignancies and/or receiving CART, B-cell targeted therapies, or JAK inhibitors, showed poor SR after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. A minority of patients attained seroconversion after booster vaccination. Strategies to improve immune response in these severely immunosuppressed patients are needed.

SARS-CoV-2 primary and breakthrough infections in patients with cancer: Implications for patient care.

Initial reports of SARS-CoV-2 caused COVID-19 suggested that patients with malignant diseases were at increased risk for infection and its severe consequences. In order to provide early United States population-based assessments of SARS-CoV-2 primary infections in unvaccinated patients with hematologic malignancies or cancer, and SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections in vaccinated patients with hematologic malignancies or cancer, we conducted retrospective studies using two, unique nationwide electronic health records (EHR) databases. Using these massive databases to provide highly statistically significant data, our studies demonstrated that, compared to patients without malignancies, risk for COVID-19 was increased in patients with all cancers and with all hematologic malignancies. Risks varied with specific types of malignancy. Patients with hematologic malignancies or cancer were at greatest risk for COVID-19 during the first year after diagnosis. Risk for infection was increased for patients 65 years and older, compared to younger patients and among Black patients compared to white patients. When patients with hematologic malignancies or cancer were vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2, their risk for breakthrough infections was decreased relative to primary infections but remained elevated relative to vaccinated patients without malignancies. Compared to vaccinated patients without malignancies, vaccinated patients with hematologic malignancy or cancer showed increased risk for infection at earlier post vaccination time points. As with primary infections, risk for breakthrough infections was greatest in patients during their first year of hematologic malignancy or cancer. There were no signs of racial disparities among vaccinated patients with hematologic malignancies or cancer. These results provide the population basis to understand the significance of subsequent immunologic studies showing relative defective and delayed immunoresponsiveness to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines among patients with hematologic malignancies and cancers. These studies further provide the basis for recommendations regarding COVID-19 vaccination, vigilance and maintaining mitigation strategies in patients with hematologic malignancies and cancers.

Evaluation of serological response to anti-SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination in hematological patients.

Introduction: In immunocompromised patients, SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine has been used in Italy from the beginning of the vaccination campaign, but several studies have shown that the serological response of onco-hematological patients was reduced compared to healthy subjects, due to the state of immunosuppression because of both underlying disease and administered therapy. Methods: We evaluated the association of anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike IgG titers in 215 hematological patients with clinical and demographic variables to verify if it was possible to identify predictive parameters of serological response, as well as using a control group, consisting of healthy health workers of San Carlo Hospital in Potenza. Anti-SARS-CoV2 IgG titers were evaluated after 30-45 days post second dose vaccine using chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay technology. Results: Patients with hematological malignancies, compared with the control arm, had both a mean concentration of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG significantly lower and a seroconversion rate numerically lower. All chronic lymphatic leukemia patients showed levels of antibody titer below the mean concentration, also in only clinical surveillance patients. Comparing serological response in hematological malignancies, only acute leukemia patients who were off therapy had the highest seroconversion rate among the patients' cohorts and a mean antibody concentration greater than the control arm. Patients treated with steroids and rituximab showed a lower level of anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike IgG. Differences in anti-spike IgG levels among chronic myeloid leukemia patients stratified according to tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy and molecular response were observed, and they could have interesting implications on the evaluation of the effects of these drugs on the immune system, but having not reached statistical significance at the moment. The cohort of patients who received a stem cell transplant was very heterogeneous because it included different hematological malignancies and different types of transplant; however, a mean concentration of anti-SARS-CoV2 IgG greater than the control arm was reported. Indeed, among patients who performed a transplant for over 6 months only one had a spike IgG concentration below the cutoff. Conclusions: Our data confirm reduced serological response in hematological patients after anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. However, we found a great diversity of SARS-CoV-2 antibody response according to types of pathologies and therapies.

Third primary SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines enhance antibody responses in most patients with haematological malignancies.

SARS-CoV-2 infection, and resulting disease, COVID-19, has a high mortality amongst patients with haematological malignancies. Global vaccine rollouts have reduced hospitalisations and deaths, but vaccine efficacy in patients with haematological malignancies is known to be reduced. The UK-strategy offered a third, mRNA-based, vaccine as an extension to the primary course in these patients. The MARCH database is a retrospective observational study of serological responses in patients with blood disorders. Here we present data on 381 patients with haematological malignancies. By comparison with healthy controls, we report suboptimal responses following two primary vaccines, with significantly enhanced responses following the third primary dose. These responses however are heterogeneous and determined by haematological malignancy sub-type and therapy. We identify a group of patients with continued suboptimal vaccine responses who may benefit from additional doses, prophylactic extended half-life neutralising monoclonal therapies (nMAB) or prompt nMAB treatment in the event of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Patients with Hematological Malignancies Treated with T-Cell or B-Cell Immunotherapy Remain at High Risk of Severe Forms of COVID-19 in the Omicron Era.

BACKGROUND: Patients with hematological malignancies are at greater risk of severe COVID-19 and have been prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination. A significant proportion of them have an impaired vaccine response, both due to the underlying disease and to the treatments. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study to identify the specific risks of the outpatient population with hematological diseases. RESULT: Between 22 December 2021 to 12 February 2022, we followed 338 patients of which 16.9% (n = 57) developed SARS-CoV-2 infection despite previous vaccination (94.7%). COVID-19 patients were more likely to have received immunotherapy (85.5% vs. 41%, p < 10-4), and particularly anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies (40% vs. 14.9%, p < 10-4) and Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKi) (7.3% vs. 0.7%, p < 10-2). There was no significant difference in demographic characteristics or hematological malignancies between COVID-19-positive and non-positive patients. Patients hospitalized for COVID-19 had more frequently received immunotherapy than patients with asymptomatic or benign forms (100% vs. 77.3%, p < 0.05). Hospitalized COVID-19 patients had a higher proportion of negative or weakly positive serologies than non-hospitalized patients (92.3% vs. 61%, p < 0.05). Patients who received tixagevimab/cilgavimab prophylaxis (n = 102) were less likely to be COVID-19-positive (4.9 vs. 22%, p < 0.05) without significant difference in hospitalization rates. CONCLUSION: In the immunocompromised population of patients with hematological malignancies, the underlying treatment of blood cancer by immunotherapy appears to be a risk factor for SARS-CoV-2 infection and for developing a severe form.

Treatment approaches for managing patients with hematological malignancies in the time of COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic is a unique challenge to the care of patients with hematological malignancies. We aim to provide supportive guidance to clinicians making individual patients decisions during the COVID-19 pandemic, in particular during periods that access to healthcare resources may be limited. DISCUSSION: This review also provides recommendations, which are convenient in evaluating indications for therapy, reducing therapy-associated immunosuppression, and reducing healthcare utilization in patients with specific hematological malignancies in the COVID-19 era. Specific decisions regarding treatment of hematological malignancies will need to be individualized, based on disease risk, risk of immunosuppression, rates of community transmission of SARS-CoV-2, and available local healthcare resources.

Impact of COVID-19 on patients treated with autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: A retrospective cohort study.

Objective: To describe how coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) affects patients with hematological malignancies treated with autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Methods: This retrospective observational cohort study includes all patients with hematological malignancies treated with ASCT in Sweden from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2020. Patients who subsequently tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) until 31 March 2021 were analyzed for morbidity, mortality, need for supportive care, and risk factors related to COVID-19. Results: This study identified 442 patients who underwent ASCT in Sweden in 2020, among whom 20 (4.5%) subsequently tested positive for COVID-19. The overall mortality was 15%, and the COVID-19-related mortality was 10% among the patients who contracted COVID-19. Six (35%) patients were hospitalized, of which four (24%) needed supplementary oxygen and two (12%) needed intensive care. The absolute risk of COVID-19-related mortality was 0.45%. Conclusions: ASCT patients have a higher risk of severe outcome of COVID-19 compared to the normal population. However, the risks of death, inpatient care, oxygen therapy, and intensive care seem lower in this study compared to previous studies, possibly due to fewer mildly ill patients in other studies. The risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2 appears to be comparable to that in the general population. This study suggests that the COVID-19 pandemic is not a strong argument for refraining from ASCT in the case of hematological malignancy.