scholarly journals Vaccine response following anti-CD20 therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 905 patients

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (12) ◽  
pp. 2624-2643
Author(s):  
Abi Vijenthira ◽  
Inna Gong ◽  
Stephen D. Betschel ◽  
Matthew Cheung ◽  
Lisa K. Hicks
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Influenza Vaccine ◽  
Pandemic Influenza ◽  
Hematologic Malignancy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Vaccine Dose ◽  
Hematologic Malignancies ◽  
Healthy Controls ◽  
Vaccine Response ◽  
Anti Cd20

Abstract The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review of the literature on vaccine responsiveness in patients who have received anti-CD20 therapy. PubMed and EMBASE were searched up to 4 January 2021 to identify studies of vaccine immunogenicity in patients treated with anti-CD20 therapy, including patients with hematologic malignancy or autoimmune disease. The primary outcomes were seroprotection (SP), seroconversion (SC), and/or seroresponse rates for each type of vaccine reported. As the pandemic influenza vaccine (2009 H1N1) has standardized definitions for SP and SC, and represented a novel primary antigen similar to the COVID-19 vaccine, meta-analysis was conducted for SC of studies of this vaccine. Pooled estimates, relative benefit ratios (RBs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Thirty-eight studies (905 patients treated with anti-CD20 therapy) were included (19 studies of patients with hematologic malignancies). Patients on active (<3 months since last dose) anti-CD20 therapy had poor responses to all types of vaccines. The pooled estimate for SC after 1 pandemic influenza vaccine dose in these patients was 3% (95% CI, 0% to 9%), with an RB of 0.05 (95% CI, 0-0.73) compared with healthy controls and 0.22 (95% CI, 0.09-0.56) compared with disease controls. SC compared with controls seems abrogated for at least 6 months following treatment (3-6 months post anti-CD20 therapy with an RB of 0.50 [95% CI, 0.24-1.06] compared with healthy and of 0.44 [95% CI, 0.23-0.84] compared with disease controls). For all vaccine types, response to vaccination improves incrementally over time, but may not reach the level of healthy controls even 12 months after therapy.

scholarly journals COVID-19 Vaccine Response in Patients with Hematologic Malignancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 4113-4113
Author(s):  
Inna Gong ◽  
Abi Vijenthira ◽  
Stephen Betschel ◽  
Lisa K. Hicks ◽  
Matthew Cheung
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Plasma Cell ◽  
Hematologic Malignancy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Lymphocytic Leukemia ◽  
Myelogenous Leukemia ◽  
Vaccine Response ◽  
Plasma Cell Dyscrasias ◽  
Anti Cd20

Abstract Introduction: Emerging data suggests that seroresponse (SR) in patients with hematologic malignancy following COVID-19 vaccination is likely lower than in patients without blood cancer. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on SR in patients with hematologic malignancy who received COVID-19 vaccination (submitted to PROSPERO for registration). Methods: We searched PubMed and EMBASE from December 1, 2020, to July 22, 2021, to identify studies of SR following COVID-19 vaccine in adult patients with hematologic malignancy (including studies in which patients with hematologic malignancy represented a subset of a broader population). Patients with positive serologic response at baseline (prior to vaccination) or known COVID-19 infection were excluded. The primary outcomes were pooled SR estimates following COVID-19 vaccination in patients with hematologic malignancy, and pooled SR estimates of subgroups based on hematologic malignancy type. Secondary outcomes were pooled relative risk ratio (RR; compared to non-cancer controls) based on dichotomous-effect SR in all patients, and subgroups based on hematologic malignancy type, treatment status, and use of anti-CD20 therapy. Pooled estimates and RR with its associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using MetaXL (EpiGear), and Reference Manager (Cochrane) using random effects model. Results A total of 17 studies comprising 2834 patients with hematologic malignancy from Europe, United Kingdom and North America were included (Figure 1). The pooled estimate for SR was 58% (95% CI 48-67%, I 2 95%), with a RR of 0.53 (95% 0.42-0.66, I 2 94%) when compared to controls (10 studies with comparison group, 1092 hematologic malignancy patients, 830 controls; Figure 2). The pooled estimate for SR varied by type of hematologic malignancy: lymphomas SR 52% (95% CI 36-68%, 7 studies, 832 patients, I 2 94%); chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) SR 42% (95% CI 25-60%, 6 studies, 921 patients, I 2 93%); plasma cell dyscrasias SR 66% (95% CI 47-83%, 8 studies, 611 patients, I 2 95%); myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs, including chronic myelogenous leukemia) SR 83% (95% CI 68-95%, 6 studies, 227 patients, I 2 58%); acute leukemia SR 86% (95% CI 77-94%, 2 studies, 67 patients, 46 acute myelogenous leukemia [AML] and 15 acute lymphocytic leukemia], I 2 0%). The RR for SR also varied by type of hematologic malignancy: lymphomas (excluding CLL) RR 0.48 (95% CI 0.34-0.68, 4 studies, 337 patients, I 2 89%); CLL RR 0.37 (95% CI 0.25-0.53, 3 studies, 194 patients, I 2 54%); plasma cell dyscrasias RR 0.73 (95% CI 0.62-0.86, 5 studies, 323 patients, I 2 70%); RR MPN 0.78 (95% CI 0.62-0.99, 3 studies, 199 patients, I 2 90%). The pooled estimate for SR in those receiving treatment was 42% (95% CI 26-58%, 9 studies, 683 patients, I 2 94%). The pooled estimates for SR for those receiving anti-CD20, bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi), or venetoclax were 13% (95% CI 1-32%, 6 studies, 367 patients, I 2 88%), 42% (95% CI 17-71%, 3 studies, 319 patients, I 2 75%), and 20% (95% CI 0-54%, 3 studies, 39 patients, I 2 66%), respectively. The RR for those receiving treatment for their hematologic malignancy compared to those who were not receiving treatment was 0.51 (95% CI 0.37-0.71, 8 studies, 579 patients, I 2 89%; Figure 3). . The RR of patients receiving anti-CD20 therapy compared to non-cancer controls was 0.13 (95% CI 0.02-0.93, 102 patients, I 2 73%). For patients treated with anti-CD20 therapy, the RR of those receiving vaccination within 9-12 months compared to beyond 9-12 months was 0.12 (95% CI 0.06-0.25, 2 studies, 74 patients, I 2 0%; Figure 4). Conclusion: Our systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that patients with hematologic malignancy have a lower SR rate following vaccination compared to controls. Furthermore, SR is variable across different types of hematologic malignancy, with very good response rates seen in patients with myeloid diseases (MPN and AML) and poor response rates seen in lymphoma and CLL. Active treatment, particularly anti-CD20 therapy within 12 months of vaccination, is associated with a particularly low SR following vaccination. Additional studies are needed to understand non-humoral responses to vaccination, and to guide decisions regarding how to optimize vaccine response in patients with blood cancer. We plan to update the systematic review and meta-analysis as more data become available. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

scholarly journals Outcomes of patients with hematologic malignancies and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 3377 patients

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (25) ◽  
pp. 2881-2892
Author(s):  
Abi Vijenthira ◽  
Inna Y. Gong ◽  
Thomas A. Fox ◽  
Stephen Booth ◽  
Gordon Cook ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Pediatric Patients ◽  
Hematologic Malignancy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Hematologic Malignancies ◽  
Hospitalized Patients ◽  
Adult Patients ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
Dying Patients ◽  
Pooled Prevalence

Abstract Outcomes for patients with hematologic malignancy infected with COVID-19 have not been aggregated. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the risk of death and other important outcomes for these patients. We searched PubMed and EMBASE up to 20 August 2020 to identify reports of patients with hematologic malignancy and COVID-19. The primary outcome was a pooled mortality estimate, considering all patients and only hospitalized patients. Secondary outcomes included risk of intensive care unit admission and ventilation in hospitalized patients. Subgroup analyses included mortality stratified by age, treatment status, and malignancy subtype. Pooled prevalence, risk ratios (RRs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Thirty-four adult and 5 pediatric studies (3377 patients) from Asia, Europe, and North America were included (14 of 34 adult studies included only hospitalized patients). Risk of death among adult patients was 34% (95% CI, 28-39; N = 3240) in this sample of predominantly hospitalized patients. Patients aged ≥60 years had a significantly higher risk of death than patients <60 years (RR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.45-2.27; N = 1169). The risk of death in pediatric patients was 4% (95% CI, 1-9; N = 102). RR of death comparing patients with recent systemic anticancer therapy to no treatment was 1.17 (95% CI, 0.83-1.64; N = 736). Adult patients with hematologic malignancy and COVID-19, especially hospitalized patients, have a high risk of dying. Patients ≥60 years have significantly higher mortality; pediatric patients appear to be relatively spared. Recent cancer treatment does not appear to significantly increase the risk of death.

scholarly journals Humoral and cellular responses to mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV2 in patients with a history of CD20-B-cell depleting therapy

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthias B. Moor ◽  
Franziska Suter-Riniker ◽  
Michael P. Horn ◽  
Daniel Aeberli ◽  
Jennifer Amsler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Immune Responses ◽  
B Cell ◽  
Vaccine Dose ◽  
Lymphocyte Subpopulation ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Healthy Controls ◽  
Vaccine Response ◽  
Treatment History ◽  
History Of ◽  
Anti Cd20

Background B-cell depleting therapies increase COVID19 morbidity and mortality. For this specific population, evidence-based vaccination strategies are lacking. Here, we investigated humoral and cell mediated immune responses to SARS-CoV2 mRNA-based vaccines in patients receiving CD20-B-cell depleting agents for autoimmune disease, malignancy, or transplantation. Methods Patients at the Bern University Hospital with a treatment history of anti-CD20 depleting agents (rituximab or ocrelizumab) were enrolled for analysis of humoral and cell-mediated immune responses (by IFN-g release assay) after completing vaccination against SARS-CoV2. Primary outcome was the the anti-spike antibody response in anti-CD20-treated patients (n=96) in comparison to immunocompetent controls (n=29). Results Anti-spike IgG antibodies were detected in 49% of patients 1.79 months after the second vaccine dose (interquartile range, IQR: 1.16-2.48) compared to 100% of controls (p<0.001). SARS-CoV2 specific interferon-g; release was detected in 17% of patients and 86% of healthy controls (p<0.001). Only 5% of patients, but 86% of healthy controls showed positive reactions in both assays, respectively (p<0.001). Time since last anti-CD20 therapy (7.6 months), peripheral CD19+ (>27/ul), and CD4+ lymphocyte count (>653/ul) predicted humoral vaccine response (area under the curve [AUC]: 62% [CI 56-78], 67% [CI 58-80] and 67% [CI 54-79], (positive predictive value [PPV]: 0.76, 0.7 and 0.71). Conclusion This study provides evidence for blunted humoral and cell-mediated immune responses elicited by SARS-CoV2 mRNA vaccines in patients with CD20-depleting treatment history. Lymphocyte subpopulation counts are associated with vaccine response in this highly vulnerable population. (Funded by Bern University Hospital, ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04877496)

scholarly journals COVID ‐19 vaccine response in patients with hematologic malignancy: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Inna Y. Gong ◽  
Abi Vijenthira ◽  
Stephen D. Betschel ◽  
Lisa K. Hicks ◽  
Matthew C. Cheung
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Hematologic Malignancy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Vaccine Response

scholarly journals Alteration of Postural Balance in Patients with Fibromyalgia Syndrome—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Diagnostics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 127
Author(s):  
David Núñez-Fuentes ◽  
Esteban Obrero-Gaitán ◽  
Noelia Zagalaz-Anula ◽  
Alfonso Javier Ibáñez-Vera ◽  
Alexander Achalandabaso-Ochoa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Postural Balance ◽  
Fibromyalgia Syndrome ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Random Effect Model ◽  
Healthy Controls ◽  
Functional Balance ◽  
Sensory Organization ◽  
Effect Model

Balance problems are one of the most frequent symptoms in patients with Fibromyalgia Syndrome (FMS). However, the extent and nature of this balance disorder are not known. The objective of this work was to determine the best evidence for the alteration of postural balance in patients with FMS and analyze differences with healthy controls. To meet this objective, a systematic review with meta-analysis was performed. A bibliographical search was carried out in PubMed Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL and SciELO. Observational studies that assessed postural balance in patients with FMS compared to healthy subjects in baseline conditions, were selected. In a random-effect model, the pooled effect was calculated with the Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) and its 95% confidence interval (CI). Nineteen studies reporting data of 2347 participants (95% female) were included. FMS patients showed poor balance with a large effect on static (SMD = 1.578; 95% CI = 1.164, 1.992), dynamic (SMD = 0.946; 95% CI = 0.598, 1.294), functional balance (SMD = 1.138; 95% CI = 0.689, 1.588) and on balance confidence (SMD = 1.194; 95% CI = 0.914, 1.473). Analysis of the Sensory Organization Test showed large alteration of vestibular (SMD = 1.631; 95% CI = 0.467, 2.795) and visual scores (SMD = 1.317; 95% CI = 0.153, 2.481) compared to healthy controls. Patients with FMS showed worse scores for different measures of postural balance compared to healthy controls. Concretely, FMS patients appear to have poor vestibular and visual scores with a possible somatosensory dependence.

Executive functions in children with heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
William M. Jackson ◽  
Nicholas Davis ◽  
Johanna Calderon ◽  
Jennifer J. Lee ◽  
Nicole Feirsen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Executive Functions ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Executive Dysfunction ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Planning Problem ◽  
Healthy Controls ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Increased Risk

Abstract Context: People with CHD are at increased risk for executive functioning deficits. Meta-analyses of these measures in CHD patients compared to healthy controls have not been reported. Objective: To examine differences in executive functions in individuals with CHD compared to healthy controls. Data sources: We performed a systematic review of publications from 1 January, 1986 to 15 June, 2020 indexed in PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycInfo, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Study selection: Inclusion criteria were (1) studies containing at least one executive function measure; (2) participants were over the age of three. Data extraction: Data extraction and quality assessment were performed independently by two authors. We used a shifting unit-of-analysis approach and pooled data using a random effects model. Results: The search yielded 61,217 results. Twenty-eight studies met criteria. A total of 7789 people with CHD were compared with 8187 healthy controls. We found the following standardised mean differences: −0.628 (−0.726, −0.531) for cognitive flexibility and set shifting, −0.469 (−0.606, −0.333) for inhibition, −0.369 (−0.466, −0.273) for working memory, −0.334 (−0.546, −0.121) for planning/problem solving, −0.361 (−0.576, −0.147) for summary measures, and −0.444 (−0.614, −0.274) for reporter-based measures (p < 0.001). Limitations: Our analysis consisted of cross-sectional and observational studies. We could not quantify the effect of collinearity. Conclusions: Individuals with CHD appear to have at least moderate deficits in executive functions. Given the growing population of people with CHD, more attention should be devoted to identifying executive dysfunction in this vulnerable group.

Shame in Borderline Personality Disorder: Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 35 (Supplement A) ◽  
pp. 149-161
Author(s):  
Tzipi Buchman-Wildbaum ◽  
Zsolt Unoka ◽  
Robert Dudas ◽  
Gabriella Vizin ◽  
Zsolt Demetrovics ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Borderline Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Education Level ◽  
Borderline Personality ◽  
Healthy Controls ◽  
Moderator Variables ◽  
Core Feature ◽  
Ptsd Symptomatology

Shame has been found to be a core feature of borderline personality disorder (BPD). To date, there is no existing systematic review or meta-analysis examining shame in individuals with BPD as compared to healthy controls (HCs). A meta-analysis of 10 studies comparing reported shame in BPD patients to HCs was carried out. Demographic and clinical moderator variables were included to see if they have a relationship with the effect size. Results showed that those with BPD had more reported shame than healthy controls. In addition, in BPD patients and HCs, higher education level was related to lower reported shame. In HCs, it was found that those who were younger reported a higher level of shame. Finally, among BPD patients, there was a relationship between levels of reported shame and elevated PTSD symptomatology. These findings emphasize the clinical relevance of shame in individuals with BPD and the need to formulate psychotherapeutic strategies that target and decrease shame.

scholarly journals Retraction Note: The impact of repeated vaccination on influenza vaccine effectiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMC Medicine ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauren C. Ramsay ◽  
Sarah A. Buchan ◽  
Robert G. Stirling ◽  
Benjamin J. Cowling ◽  
Shou Feng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Influenza Vaccine ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Vaccine Effectiveness ◽  
The Impact
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document