Efficacy Of Vaccination In Patients Research Articles

A systematic review and expert Delphi Consensus recommendation on the use of vaccines in patients receiving dupilumab: A position paper of the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology

BackgroundDupilumab is a monoclonal antibody that targets the interleukin (IL)-4 receptor alpha subunit, thus blocking the effects of IL-4 and IL-13, and has shown efficacy in treating various conditions including asthma, atopic dermatitis, eosinophilic esophagitis, and others. Because of its immune modulatory effects, clinical trials that studied dupilumab did not allow patients to receive live vaccines during the clinical trials because of an abundance of caution, and thus package inserts recommend that patients who are being treated with dupilumab should avoid live vaccines. Because dupilumab is now approved for use in patients from 6 months of age for the treatment of atopic dermatitis, this reported contraindication is now posing a clinical dilemma for patients and clinicians. ObjectiveTo perform a systematic review of literature on the safety and efficacy of vaccinations in patients who are receiving dupilumab and to provide expert guidance on the use of vaccines in patients who are receiving dupilumab. MethodsA systematic review of the literature was performed, and an expert Delphi Panel was assembled. ResultsThe available literature on patients who received vaccinations while using dupilumab overall suggests that live vaccines are safe and that the vaccine efficacy, in general, is not affected by dupilumab. The expert Delphi panel agreed that the use of vaccines in patients receiving dupilumab was likely safe and effective. ConclusionVaccines (including live vaccines) can be administered to patients receiving dupilumab in a shared decision-making capacity.

Assessing herpes zoster vaccine efficacy in patients with diabetes: A community-based cohort study.

The effectiveness of herpes zoster (HZ) vaccines in patients with diabetes over the age of 50 remains an active area of research. Utilizing a real-world database from the US community, this study spanning from 2006 to 2023, aimed to evaluate the impact of HZ vaccination on newly diagnosed diabetes patients who received an HZ vaccination within 1 year of diagnosis. Exclusion criteria were established to omit patients with immune deficiencies. The cohort consisted of 53 885 patients, with an average age of 63.5 years, including 43% females and 58% whites. After implementing 1:1 propensity score matching for age, sex, race, comorbidities, diabetes medication, and hemoglobin A1c to ensure comparability, the study population was further stratified into four groups: N1 comparing any HZ vaccination to non-HZ vaccination (53 882 matched pairs), N2 for Shingrix versus non-HZ vaccination (16 665 matched pairs), N3 for Zostavax versus non-HZ vaccination (12 058 matched pairs), and N4 for Shingrix versus Zostavax (11 721 matched pairs). Cox proportional hazards regression analysis revealed a hazard ratio (HR) for HZ incidence post any HZ vaccination of 0.92 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.83-1.01). Additional analyses yielded HRs of 1.12 (95% CI: 0.93-1.34) for Shingrix versus non-HZ vaccine, 1.02 (95% CI: 0.86-1.20) for Zostavax versus non-HZ vaccine, and 1.06 (95% CI: 0.87-1.29) for Shingrix versus Zostavax. Subgroup analyses across age, sex, and follow-up duration also showed no significant differences. These findings underscore the lack of a significant benefit from HZ vaccination in newly diagnosed diabetes patients aged over 50, highlighting the necessity for further prospective research.

Antibody Production after COVID-19 Vaccination in Patients with Inborn Errors of Immunity.

Few studies have evaluated COVID-19 vaccine efficacy in patients with inborn errors of immunity (IEI). To evaluate the levels of antibody (Ab) production and function after COVID-19 vaccination in IEI patients with phagocytic, complement, and Ab deficiencies and their comparison with healthy controls. Serum samples were collected from 41 patients and 32 healthy controls at least one month after the second dose of vaccination, while clinical evaluations continued until the end of the third dose. Levels of specific anti-receptor-binding domain (RBD) IgG and anti-RBD neutralizing antibodies were measured using EUROIMMUN and ChemoBind kits, respectively. Conventional SARS-CoV-2 neutralization test (cVNT) was also performed. Cutoff values of ≤20, 20-80, and ≥80 (for cVNT and Chemobined) and 0.8-4.2, 4.2-8.5, and ≥8.5 (for EUROIMMUN) were defined as negative/weak, positive/moderate, and positive/significant, respectively. A considerable distinction was observed between the Ab-deficient patients and the controls for Ab concentration (EUROIMMUN, p<0.01) and neutralization (ChemoBind, p<0.001). However, there was no significant difference compared with the other patient groups. A near-zero cVNT in Ab-deficient patients was found compared to the controls (p<0.01). A significant correlation between the two kits was found using the whole data (R2=0.82, p<0.0001). Despite varying degrees of Ab production, all Ab deficient patients, as well as almost half of those with complement and phagocytic defects, did not effectively neutralize the virus (cVNT). In light of the decreased production and efficiency of the vaccine, a revised immunization plan may be needed in IEI.

COVID-19 infection and efficacy of vaccination in patients with rheumatic diseases during Omicron outbreak in South Korea: a prospective cohort study

ObjectivesThis study aims to investigate COVID-19 epidemiological data in patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIRDs) during Omicron wave and to identify clinical factors associated with infection, including COVID-19 vaccination.MethodsThis...

The Potential Role of SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Vaccines in Multiple Sclerosis Onset and Reactivation: A Case Series and Literature Review.

The recent SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and related vaccines have raised several issues. Among them, the potential role of the viral infection (COVID-19) or anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines as causal factors of dysimmune CNS disorders, as well as the safety and efficacy of vaccines in patients affected by such diseases and on immune-active treatments have been analyzed. The aim is to better understand the relationship between SARS-CoV-2 infection/vaccines with dysimmune CNS diseases by describing 12 cases of multiple sclerosis/myelitis onset or reactivation after exposure to SARS-CoV-2 infection/vaccines and reviewing all published case reports or case series in which MS onset or reactivation was temporally associated with either COVID-19 (8 case reports, 3 case series) or anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines (13 case reports, 6 case series). All the cases share a temporal association between viral/vaccine exposure and symptoms onset. This finding, together with direct or immune-based mechanisms described both during COVID-19 and MS, claims in favor of a role for SARS-CoV-2 infection/vaccines in unmasking dysimmune CNS disorders. The most common clinical presentations involve the optic nerve, brainstem and spinal cord. The preferential tropism of the virus together with the presence of some host-related genetic/immune factors might predispose to the involvement of specific CNS districts.

AMA-VACC: Clinical trial assessing the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines and booster vaccination in siponimod treated patients with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (P12-3.004)

<h3>Objective:</h3> We are aiming to understand the cellular and humoral immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA booster vaccinations in siponimod treated patients. <h3>Background:</h3> SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines are a key factor fighting the COVID-19 pandemic across the globe. However, data are lacking on the efficacy of vaccination in patients with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS) on disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) both over time and after a booster vaccination. <h3>Design/Methods:</h3> AMA-VACC is an open-label, three-cohort, prospective study in Germany with 41 multiple sclerosis patients currently treated with siponimod, any first-line DMT or without treatment at all in clinical routine. Cohort 1 receives SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination while continuing their current siponimod treatment, cohort 2 interrupts siponimod treatment for the purpose of a full vaccination cycle and cohort 3 receives vaccination during continuous treatment with first-line DMTs (glatirameracetate, interferons, teriflunomide) or no current treatment in clinical routine. Primary endpoint is the rate of patients achieving seroconversion assessed by detection of serum neutralizing antibodies one week after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination. Furthermore, development and maintenance of SARS-CoV-2 specific T-cells is evaluated in all patients. Both parameters are analyzed in week one, month one and six month after initial vaccination cycle and one month after a booster vaccination. <h3>Results:</h3> After a positive first interim analysis showing both SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies and T-cell responses one week after complete vaccination in siponimod patients, final data of the study will be available in early 2023 including the effect of booster vaccination, which was received by 38 of 41 patients during study. <h3>Conclusions:</h3> This final analysis of the AMA-VACC trial will provide first longitudinal data on the immune response after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination and booster vaccination in siponimod treated SPMS patients and support physicians and patients to make an informed decision on the coordination of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination and SPMS treatment. <b>Disclosure:</b> Dr. Ziemssen has received personal compensation in the range of $5,000-$9,999 for serving as a Consultant for Biogen. Dr. Ziemssen has received personal compensation in the range of $5,000-$9,999 for serving as a Consultant for Roche. Dr. Ziemssen has received personal compensation in the range of $5,000-$9,999 for serving as a Consultant for Novartis. Dr. Ziemssen has received personal compensation in the range of $5,000-$9,999 for serving as a Consultant for BMS Celgene. Dr. Ziemssen has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving as a Consultant for Merck. Dr. Ziemssen has received personal compensation in the range of $5,000-$9,999 for serving on a Speakers Bureau for Roche. Dr. Ziemssen has received personal compensation in the range of $5,000-$9,999 for serving on a Speakers Bureau for Novartis. Dr. Ziemssen has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving on a Speakers Bureau for Merck. Dr. Ziemssen has received personal compensation in the range of $10,000-$49,999 for serving on a Speakers Bureau for Sanofi. Dr. Ziemssen has received personal compensation in the range of $5,000-$9,999 for serving on a Speakers Bureau for BMS Celgene. Dr. Ziemssen has received personal compensation in the range of $5,000-$9,999 for serving on a Speakers Bureau for Biogen. Dr. Ziemssen has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving on a Speakers Bureau for TEVA. The institution of Dr. Ziemssen has received research support from Biogen. The institution of Dr. Ziemssen has received research support from Novartis. The institution of Dr. Ziemssen has received research support from Merck. The institution of Dr. Ziemssen has received research support from Sanofi. The institution of Dr. Ziemssen has received research support from Celgene. Dr. Groth has received personal compensation for serving as an employee of Novartis Pharma GmbH. Dr. Winkelmann has received personal compensation for serving as an employee of Novartis Pharma GmbH. Prof. Bopp has received personal compensation in the range of $5,000-$9,999 for serving as a Consultant for Novartis. Prof. Bopp has received personal compensation in the range of $5,000-$9,999 for serving as a Consultant for Biogen. Prof. Bopp has received personal compensation in the range of $5,000-$9,999 for serving as a Consultant for Teva. Prof. Bopp has received personal compensation in the range of $5,000-$9,999 for serving as a Consultant for Merck. Prof. Bopp has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving on a Scientific Advisory or Data Safety Monitoring board for Pathios Therapeutics. The institution of Prof. Bopp has received research support from DFG (German Research Foundation). The institution of Prof. Bopp has received research support from BMBF. Prof. Bopp has received intellectual property interests from a discovery or technology relating to health care.

Impact of chronic liver disease on SARS-CoV-2 infection outcomes: Roles of stage, etiology and vaccination.

Since the first identification in December of 2019 and the fast spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, it has represented a dramatic global public health concern. Though affecting mainly the respiratory system, SARS-CoV-2 disease, defined as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), may have a systemic involvement leading to multiple organ dysfunction. Experimental evidence about the SARS-CoV-2 tropism for the liver and the increasing of hepatic cytolysis enzymes during infection support the presence of a pathophysiological relationship between liver and SARS-CoV-2. On the other side, patients with chronic liver disease have been demonstrated to have a poor prognosis with COVID-19. In particular, patients with liver cirrhosis appear extremely vulnerable to infection. Moreover, the etiology of liver disease and the vaccination status could affect the COVID-19 outcomes. This review analyzes the impact of the disease stage and the related causes on morbidity and mortality, clinical outcomes during SARS-CoV-2 infection, as well as the efficacy of vaccination in patients with chronic liver disease.

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.

An update on the considerations for patients with rheumatic disease being treated with rituximab during the COVID-19 pandemic and the potential drug treatment strategies

ABSTRACT Introduction Over the last two decades, rituximab has become an increasingly popular drug in the treatment of a wide range of rheumatic diseases. However, with the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, clinicians face challenges in weighing risk against benefit in its use. Areas covered A review of existing data was performed to examine the relationship between rituximab use, morbidity and mortality from COVID-19, and vaccine efficacy in patients with rheumatic diseases, aiming to guide clinicians in continued use of the medication and consider the direction of future research. A literature review was performed through a search of the PubMed database, using the terms ((SARS-CoV-2) OR (COVID-19)) AND (rituximab) AND (rheumatic), which generated an initial 55 results, with relevant articles then selected for inclusion. Expert opinion In order to safeguard patients with an ongoing need for rituximab therapy, vaccination remains the primary concern. A target of performing booster doses 6 months after last rituximab dose is a reasonable estimate, which may be made more precise by use of B cell counts, although primary immunization should not be delayed. In those patients who remain seronegative, the use of newer antivirals and broadly neutralizing antibody infusions may help provide further safeguards.

SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Efficacy in Patients with Hematologic Malignancies: Practical Points for Further Research.

This letter to the editor responds to comments on a recently published article on seroconversion rates after COVID-19 vaccination.

Neutralizing antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with plasma cell disorders who are on active treatment after two doses of mRNA vaccination.

Many patients with plasma cell disorder (PCD) on active treatment with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) require hospitalization, with an increased mortality rate over healthy adults. The FDA approved two mRNA vaccines against SARS‐CoV‐2: BNT162b2 and mRNA‐1273. To assess the efficacy of vaccination in patients with PCD, retrospectively, we identified all patients on active treatment. A total of 149 patients were included. Neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) levels against SARS‐CoV‐2 adequate, intermediate, and no response were observed in 42%, 32%, and 26%, respectively. Low NAbs were seen in patients on daratumumab combinations or anti‐BCMA therapy, low lymphocytes, and low IgG levels. Twenty‐three (15%) patients have SARS CoV‐2, while 8% required hospitalization, majority of these patients had intermediate or no response based on NAbs levels. Therefore, checking NAbs may be clinically helpful in identifying patients' responses. Further prospective studies should ascertain the value of a third vaccine dose in this population.

Severity of COVID-19 after Vaccination among Hemodialysis Patients: An Observational Cohort Study.

Patients receiving hemodialysis are at high risk from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and demonstrate impaired immune responses to vaccines. There have been several descriptions of their immunologic responses to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination, but few studies have described the clinical efficacy of vaccination in patients on hemodialysis. In a multicenter observational study of the London hemodialysis population undergoing surveillance PCR testing during the period of vaccine rollout with BNT162b2 and AZD1222, all of those positive for SARS-CoV-2 were identified. Clinical outcomes were analyzed according to predictor variables, including vaccination status, using a mixed effects logistic regression model. Risk of infection was analyzed in a subgroup of the base population using a Cox proportional hazards model with vaccination status as a time-varying covariate. SARS-CoV-2 infection was identified in 1323 patients of different ethnicities (Asian/other, 30%; Black, 38%; and White, 32%), including 1047 (79%) unvaccinated, 86 (7%) after first-dose vaccination, and 190 (14%) after second-dose vaccination. The majority of patients had a mild course; however, 515 (39%) were hospitalized, and 172 (13%) died. Older age, diabetes, and immune suppression were associated with greater illness severity. In regression models adjusted for age, comorbidity, and time period, prior two-dose vaccination was associated with a 75% (95% confidence interval, 56 to 86) lower risk of admission and 88% (95% confidence interval, 70 to 95) fewer deaths compared with unvaccinated patients. No loss of protection was seen in patients over 65 years or with increasing time since vaccination, and no difference was seen between vaccine types. These data demonstrate a substantially lower risk of severe COVID-19 after vaccination in patients on dialysis who become infected with SARS-CoV-2.

EPR22-116: The Efficacy of COVID-19 Vaccination in Patients Receiving Chemo and Immunotherapies

EPR22-116: The Efficacy of COVID-19 Vaccination in Patients Receiving Chemo and Immunotherapies

COVID-19 vaccines in patients with cancer: immunogenicity, efficacy and safety.

Patients with cancer have a higher risk of severe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and associated mortality than the general population. Owing to this increased risk, patients with cancer have been prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination globally, for both primary and booster vaccinations. However, given that these patients were not included in the pivotal clinical trials, considerable uncertainty remains regarding vaccine efficacy, and the extent of humoral and cellular immune responses in these patients, as well as the risks of vaccine-related adverse events. In this Review, we summarize the current knowledge generated in studies conducted since COVID-19 vaccines first became available. We also highlight critical points that might affect vaccine efficacy in patients with cancer in the future.

COVID-19 vaccination in patients with cancer, a rapid review.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine development and administration have become global priorities since the beginning of the pandemic, particularly for special populations at higher risk of complications and mortality, such as patients with haematologic and solid organ malignancies. This review aims to summarise the current data for COVID-19 vaccine efficacy in patients with cancer, suggest priority areas for future research and look at potential disparities at a global level. Although patients diagnosed with or receiving therapy for cancer were excluded from the initial vaccine trials, emerging evidence now supports vaccine safety with potentially diminished immune response in this group. Several studies that evaluated antibody response to COVID-19 vaccination found that patients with solid malignancies had lower serologic response rates compared to healthy controls, but better than patients with haematologic malignancies, who had the lowest seroconversion rates and antibody titres. As anticipated, poor serologic responses have been particularly observed among patients receiving B-cell depleting therapies. The data on cellular response are scarce and conflicting since not all studies have showed a difference between patients with malignancies and healthy subjects. Several questions concerning vaccination remain unanswered and require further exploration, such as response duration, need for response monitoring and rates of breakthrough infections.

The Outcome of COVID-19 in Patients with a History of Taking Rituximab: A Narrative Review.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a recently emerging disease caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Notably, the safety of immunosuppressive medications is a major concern during an infectious disease pandemic. Rituximab (RTX), as a monoclonal antibody against CD20 molecule, is widely used for the treatment of various diseases, mostly autoimmune diseases and some malignancies. Previous studies indicated that RTX, as an immunosuppressive medication, may be associated with the increased risk of infections. Moreover, given the wide use of RTX, a necessity of determining the different aspects of RTX use in the COVID-19 era is strongly felt. We reviewed current studies on the clinical courses of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. It appears that the use of RTX does not increase morbidity and mortality in most patients. However, underlying diseases and other concomitant medications may play a role in the disease course, while the concerns of vaccine efficacy in patients receiving RTX still need to be addressed. Therefore, more controlled studies are needed for a better conclusion.

S1060 Safety and Efficacy of COVID-19 Vaccination in Patients With Cirrhosis in United States: A Multicenter Study

Introduction: Cirrhosis is associated with high mortality in COVID-19. Although COVID-19 vaccines are now available and are being administered to the public, their safety and efficacy in patients with cirrhosis have not been studied. We aimed to study the efficacy and safety of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in patients with cirrhosis compared to patients without cirrhosis. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study utilizing TriNetx multi-institutional research network to analyze patients who received mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Outcomes were compared between patients with and without diagnosis of cirrhosis. Cirrhosis and non-cirrhosis groups were also compared using 1:1 propensity-score matching (PSM). Cohorts were matched based on age, gender, ethnicity, BMI, and comorbid conditions including diabetes, chronic lower respiratory diseases, ischemic heart disease, heart failure, nicotine dependence, and chronic kidney disease. Results: A total of 402,202 patients with COVID-19 vaccination during the study period were identified, of which 3,063 patients were included in the cirrhosis cohort. After propensity score matched analysis, no significant difference was found between the cirrhosis and non-cirrhosis cohorts in the incidence of adverse events of special interest (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.9-1.86) and new diagnosis of COVID-19 (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.58-2.8) after COVID-19 vaccination. 30-day all cause hospitalization after COVID-19 vaccination was higher in patients with cirrhosis. Sub-group analysis revealed no difference in 30-day adverse events of special interest after COVID-19 vaccination in patients with decompensated cirrhosis (RR:1.23, 95% CI 0.74-2.05) or compensated cirrhosis (RR:1.48, 95% CI: 0.88-2.50) compared to patients without cirrhosis. < 10 patients in the decompensated cirrhosis and compensated cirrhosis subgroups received new diagnosis of COVID-19 after vaccination. Sub-group analysis revealed no difference in 30-day adverse events of special interest after COVID-19 vaccination in patients with decompensated cirrhosis (RR:1.23, 95% CI 0.74-2.05) or compensated cirrhosis (RR:1.48, 95% CI: 0.88-2.50) compared to patients without cirrhosis. Conclusion: Our study including a large cohort of patients who received COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in United States did not reveal any concerns regarding the safety and efficacy of these vaccines in patients with cirrhosis compared to general population.Table 1.: Vaccination related outcomes in study cohorts.

Safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccination in patients receiving systemic anticancer therapy.

245 Background: Patients with cancer who have been treated with systemic anticancer therapy are at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 and have been considered a high-priority group for COVID-19 vaccination in the United States. There is limited guidance and data on the appropriate timing of COVID-19 vaccination relative to receipt of systemic anticancer therapy. Methods: We queried the electronic medical record at the University of Illinois Hospital for patients with gastrointestinal, breast, lung, genitourinary, and head and neck tumors who had received intravenous systemic anticancer therapy between January 1, 2021 and May 25, 2021. Baseline variables were obtained as well as details of cancer treatment, vaccination timing relative to cancer treatment, and clinical outcomes. Results: A total of 274 patients received intravenous systemic anticancer therapy during the study period, of which 161 (58.8%) received at least one vaccine dose, and 138 (42.7%) were fully vaccinated. Of the 122 patients who received cancer treatment within 30 days of any vaccine dose, the median age was 64, and 72 (59%) were female gender. Race distribution was 50% Black, 15.6% White, 3.3% Asian; ethnicity was 24.6% Hispanic and 73% not-Hispanic. Treatment regimens consisted of 37.7% chemotherapy, 25.4% immunotherapy, 27.9% combination therapy, and 9.0% targeted therapy. For those who received anticancer therapy within 30 days of a vaccine, median time between any vaccination and treatment was 10 days (range 0-29 days). For those who had at least 60 days of follow-up after first vaccination, all-cause hospitalization rate was 22.4% (23/106). There was no statistical difference in all-cause 60-day hospitalization rate between those who received vaccination within 5 days of anticancer therapy versus those who received it between 6 and 30 days from anticancer therapy (14.3% vs 28.1%, p = 0.1). One patient (0.8%) developed a COVID-19 illness after any vaccine and did not require hospitalization. Conclusions: We observed safe and efficacious COVID-19 vaccination of patients with cancer receiving systemic IV anticancer therapy. COVID-19 infection after vaccination was rare, with no cases requiring hospitalization for COVID-19 illness post-vaccination in this cohort. All-cause hospitalization rates were similar among patients who received a vaccine within or after 5 days of receiving systemic anticancer therapy, suggesting vaccination side effect tolerability. Further quality improvement studies are needed on interventions to increase vaccination rates in this vulnerable population.

Protecting the vulnerable: SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in immunosuppressed patients with interstitial lung disease

Protecting the vulnerable: SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in immunosuppressed patients with interstitial lung disease

Blunted humoral response after mRNA vaccine in patients with haematological malignancies

Blunted humoral response after mRNA vaccine in patients with haematological malignancies