ABSTRACT
SARS-CoV-2 and its variants cause CoronaVIrus Disease 19 (COVID-19), a pandemic disease. Hematological malignancies increase susceptibility to severe COVID-19 due to immunosuppression. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies protect against severe COVID-19. This retrospective real-life study aimed to evaluate seropositivity and neutralizing antibody rates against SARS-CoV-2 and its Omicron BA.1 variant in hematological patients. A total of 106 patients with different hematologic malignancies, who have mostly received three or more vaccine doses (73%), were included in this study. Serum was collected between May and June 2022. The primary endpoint was anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody response against ancestral (wild type; wt) and Omicron BA.1 virus, defined as a neutralizing antibody titer ≥ 1:10. Adequate neutralizing antibody response was observed in 75 (71%) and 87 (82%) of patients for wt and Omicron BA.1 variants, respectively.However, patients with B-cell lymphoproliferative disorders and/or those treated with anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies in the prior 12 months showed a lower seropositivity rate compared to other patients against both Omicron BA.1 variant (73% vs 91%; P = 0.02) and wt virus (64% vs 78%; P = 0.16). Our real-life experience confirmed that full vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 induces adequate neutralizing antibody protection for both the wt virus and Omicron BA.1 variants, even in hematological frail patients. However, protective measures should be maintained in hematological patients, especially those with B-cell lymphoproliferative diseases treated with anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, because these subjects could have a reduced neutralizing antibody production.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hematologic Neoplasms , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Antibodies, Neutralizing , COVID-19/prevention & control , Retrospective Studies , Antibodies, Viral , Antibodies, MonoclonalABSTRACT
Staging and monitoring of multiple myeloma (MM) is mainly based on monoclonal component quantification; the absence of such a parameter renders difficult follow up of patients with nonsecretory MM (nsMM). In this study our aims were to determine the specificity and sensitivity of Tc99m-sestaMIBI scintigraphy at diagnosis and during follow up of nsMM patients. Nine nsMM patients were prospectively studied at diagnosis and during treatment for a mean time of 33 months (range: 12-65+). Tc99m-sestaMIBI (MIBI) scintigraphy was compared to conventional imaging (CI: X ray with CAT or NMR details) at diagnosis and during follow up. At diagnosis, CI and MIBI were concordant in three patients; CI showed more focal lesions than MIBI in four patients, while MIBI revealed more focal lesions than CI in two patients. During the follow up, MIBI uptake was normal in the four patients who achieved remission. Five patients did not achieve remission: CI and MIBI were concordant in three, while MIBI was falsely negative in two patients. In conclusion, Tc99m-sestaMIBI scintigraphy has high sensitivity (no false positive cases) and 78% specificity (2/9 false negative cases) in tracing active nsMM lesions; it should be considered complementary to CI for monitoring this rare disease.
