No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Effect of Corticosteroid on Immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines in Patients With Solid Cancer
Abstract
PURPOSE
Corticosteroids are known to diminish immune response ability, which is generally used in routine premedication for chemotherapy. The intersecting of timeframe between the corticosteroid's duration of action and peak COVID-19 vaccine efficacy could impair vaccine immunogenicity. Thus, inquiring about corticosteroids affecting the efficacy of vaccines to promote effective immunity in this population is needed.
METHODS
This was a prospective longitudinal observational cohort study that enrolled patients with solid cancer classified into dexamethasone- and nondexamethasone-receiving groups. All participants were immunized with two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or CoronaVac vaccines. This study's purpose was to compare corticosteroid's effect on immunogenicity responses to the SARS-CoV-2 S protein in patients with cancer after two doses of COVID-19 vaccine in the dexamethasone and nondexamethasone group. Secondary outcomes included the postimmunization anti–spike (S) immunoglobin G (IgG) seroconversion rate, the association of corticosteroid dosage, time duration, and immunogenicity level.
RESULTS
Among the 161 enrolled patients with solid cancer, 71 and 90 were in the dexamethasone and nondexamethasone groups, respectively. The median anti–S IgG titer after COVID-19 vaccination in the dexamethasone group was lower than that in the nondexamethasone group with a statistically significant difference (47.22 v 141.09 U/mL, P = .035). The anti–S IgG seroconversion rate was also significantly lower in the dexamethasone group than in the nondexamethasone group (93.83% v 80.95%, P = .023). The lowest median anti–SARS-CoV-2 IgG titer level at 7.89 AU/mL was observed in patients with the highest dose of steroid group (≥37 mg of dexamethasone cumulative dose throughout the course of chemotherapy [per course]) and patients who were injected with COVID-19 vaccines on the same day of receiving dexamethasone, 25.41 AU/mL.
CONCLUSION
Patients with solid cancer vaccinated against COVID-19 disease while receiving dexamethasone had lower immunogenicity responses than those who got vaccines without dexamethasone. The direct association between the immunogenicity level and steroid dosage, as well as length of duration from vaccination to dexamethasone, was observed.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have shown high efficacy, but immunocompromised participants were excluded from controlled clinical trials. In this study, we compared immune responses to the BNT162b2 mRNA Coronavirus Disease 2019 vaccine in patients with solid tumors (n = 53) who were on active cytotoxic anti-cancer therapy to a control cohort of participants without cancer (n = 50). Neutralizing antibodies were detected in 67% of patients with cancer after the first immunization, followed by a threefold increase in median titers after the second dose. Similar patterns were observed for spike protein-specific serum antibodies and T cells, but the magnitude of each of these responses was diminished relative to the control cohort. In most patients with cancer, we detected spike receptor-binding domain and other S1-specific memory B cell subsets as potential predictors of anamnestic responses to additional immunizations. We therefore initiated a phase 1 trial for 20 cancer cohort participants of a third vaccine dose of BNT162b2 (NCT04936997); primary outcomes were immune responses, with a secondary outcome of safety. At 1 week after a third immunization, 16 participants demonstrated a median threefold increase in neutralizing antibody responses, but no improvement was observed in T cell responses. Adverse events were mild. These results suggest that a third dose of BNT162b2 is safe, improves humoral immunity against SARS-CoV-2 and could be immunologically beneficial for patients with cancer on active chemotherapy.
The Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S immunoassay (Roche Diagnostics International Ltd, Rotkreuz, Switzerland) has been developed for the detection of antibodies to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‑CoV‑2) spike (S) protein. We evaluated the assay performance using samples from seven sites in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. For specificity and sensitivity analyses, 7880 presumed negative pre-pandemic samples and 827 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-confirmed single or sequential samples from 272 different patients were tested, respectively. The overall specificity and sensitivity (≥14 days post-PCR) for the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S immunoassay were 99.95% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 99.87–99.99; 7876/7880) and 97.92% (95% CI: 95.21–99.32; 235/240), respectively. The Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S immunoassay had significantly higher specificity compared with the LIAISON® SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG (99.95% [2032/2033] vs 98.82% [2009/2033]), ADVIA Centaur® SARS-CoV-2 Total (100% [928/928] vs 86.96% [807/928]), ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 IgG (99.97% [2931/2932] vs 99.69% [2923/2932]), iFlash-SARS-CoV-2 IgM (100.00% [928/928] vs 99.57% [924/928]), and EUROIMMUN Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG (100.00% [903/903] vs 97.45% [880/903]) and IgA (100.00% [895/895] vs 95.75% [857/895]) assays. The Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S immunoassay had significantly higher sensitivity (≥14 days post-PCR) compared with the ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 IgG (98.70% [76/77] vs 87.01% [67/77]), iFlash-SARS-CoV-2 IgG (100.00% [76/76] vs 93.42% [71/76]) and IgM (100.00% [76/76] vs 35.53% [27/76]), and EUROIMMUN Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG (98.26% [113/115] vs 93.91% [108/115]) assays. Therefore, the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S assay demonstrated a reliable performance across various sample populations for the detection of anti-S antibodies.
Background:
The efficacy and safety profiles of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with cancer is unknown. We aimed to assess the safety and immunogenicity of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine in patients with cancer.
Methods:
For this prospective observational study, we recruited patients with cancer and healthy controls (mostly health-care workers) from three London hospitals between Dec 8, 2020, and Feb 18, 2021. Participants who were vaccinated between Dec 8 and Dec 29, 2020, received two 30 μg doses of BNT162b2 administered intramuscularly 21 days apart; patients vaccinated after this date received only one 30 μg dose with a planned follow-up boost at 12 weeks. Blood samples were taken before vaccination and at 3 weeks and 5 weeks after the first vaccination. Where possible, serial nasopharyngeal real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR) swab tests were done every 10 days or in cases of symptomatic COVID-19. The coprimary endpoints were seroconversion to SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein in patients with cancer following the first vaccination with the BNT162b2 vaccine and the effect of vaccine boosting after 21 days on seroconversion. All participants with available data were included in the safety and immunogenicity analyses. Ongoing follow-up is underway for further blood sampling after the delayed (12-week) vaccine boost. This study is registered with the NHS Health Research Authority and Health and Care Research Wales (REC ID 20/HRA/2031).
Findings:
151 patients with cancer (95 patients with solid cancer and 56 patients with haematological cancer) and 54 healthy controls were enrolled. For this interim data analysis of the safety and immunogenicity of vaccinated patients with cancer, samples and data obtained up to March 19, 2021, were analysed. After exclusion of 17 patients who had been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 (detected by either antibody seroconversion or a positive rRT-PCR COVID-19 swab test) from the immunogenicity analysis, the proportion of positive anti-S IgG titres at approximately 21 days following a single vaccine inoculum across the three cohorts were 32 (94%; 95% CI 81-98) of 34 healthy controls; 21 (38%; 26-51) of 56 patients with solid cancer, and eight (18%; 10-32) of 44 patients with haematological cancer. 16 healthy controls, 25 patients with solid cancer, and six patients with haematological cancer received a second dose on day 21. Of the patients with available blood samples 2 weeks following a 21-day vaccine boost, and excluding 17 participants with evidence of previous natural SARS-CoV-2 exposure, 18 (95%; 95% CI 75-99) of 19 patients with solid cancer, 12 (100%; 76-100) of 12 healthy controls, and three (60%; 23-88) of five patients with haematological cancers were seropositive, compared with ten (30%; 17-47) of 33, 18 (86%; 65-95) of 21, and four (11%; 4-25) of 36, respectively, who did not receive a boost. The vaccine was well tolerated; no toxicities were reported in 75 (54%) of 140 patients with cancer following the first dose of BNT162b2, and in 22 (71%) of 31 patients with cancer following the second dose. Similarly, no toxicities were reported in 15 (38%) of 40 healthy controls after the first dose and in five (31%) of 16 after the second dose. Injection-site pain within 7 days following the first dose was the most commonly reported local reaction (23 [35%] of 65 patients with cancer; 12 [48%] of 25 healthy controls). No vaccine-related deaths were reported.
Interpretation:
In patients with cancer, one dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine yields poor efficacy. Immunogenicity increased significantly in patients with solid cancer within 2 weeks of a vaccine boost at day 21 after the first dose. These data support prioritisation of patients with cancer for an early (day 21) second dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine.
Funding:
King's College London, Cancer Research UK, Wellcome Trust, Rosetrees Trust, and Francis Crick Institute.
Background
Neutralization tests (NT) are the gold standard for detecting and quantifying anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies (NAb), but their complexity restricts them to research settings or reference laboratories. Antibodies against S protein receptor binding domain (RBD) have been shown to confer a neutralizing activity against SARS-CoV-2. Assays quantitatively measuring anti-S1-RBD-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies could be of great value for NAb screening of potential donors for convalescent-phase plasma therapy, assessing natural or vaccine-induced immunity, stratifying individuals for vaccine receipt, and documenting vaccine response.
Methods
Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S (Elecsys-S), a high-throughput automated electrochemiluminescence double-antigen sandwich immunoassay for quantitative measurement of pan-anti-S1-RBD-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, was evaluated against NT on 357 patients with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. NT was performed in a BSL-3 laboratory using a Slovenian SARS-CoV-2 isolate; the NT titer ≥1:20 was considered positive.
Results
Elecsys-S detected pan-anti-S1-RBD-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in 352/357 (98.6%) samples. NAb were identified by NT in 257/357 (72%) samples. The Elecsys-S/NT agreement was moderate (Cohen’s kappa 0.56). High NT titer antibodies (≥1:160) were detected in 106/357 (30%) samples. Elecsys-S’s pan-anti-S1-RBD-SARS-CoV-2 antibody concentrations correlated with individual NT titer categories (the lowest concentrations were identified in NT-negative samples and the highest in samples with NT titer 1:1,280), and the Elecsys-S cutoff value for reasonable prediction of NAb generated after natural infection was established (133 BAU/ml).
Conclusion
Although NT should remain the gold standard for assessing candidates for convalescent-phase plasma donors, selected commercial anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays with optimized cutoff, like Elecsys-S, could be used for rapid, automated, and large-scale screening of individuals with clinically relevant NAb levels as suitable donors.
Background
Cancer patients with COVID-19 disease have been reported to have double the case fatality rate of the general population.
Methods
A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central was done for studies on cancer patients with COVID-19. Pooled proportions were calculated for categorical variables. Odds ratio (OR) and forest plots (Random-effects model) were constructed for both primary and secondary outcomes.
Results
This systematic review of 38 studies and meta-analysis of 181,323 patients from 26 studies included 23,736 cancer patients. Our meta-analysis shows that cancer patients with COVID-19 have a higher likelihood of death (n = 165,980, OR = 2.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.47 to 4.42), which was largely driven by mortality among patients in China. Cancer patients were more likely to be intubated. Among cancer subtypes, the mortality was highest in hematological malignancies (n = 878, OR = 2.39, 95% CI = 1.17 to 4.87) followed by lung cancer (n = 646, OR = 1.83, 95% CI = 1.00 to 3.37). There was no association between receipt of a particular type of oncologic therapy and mortality. Our study showed that cancer patients affected by COVID-19 are a decade older than the normal population and have a higher proportion of co-morbidities. There was insufficient data to assess the association of COVID-directed therapy and survival outcomes in cancer patients.
Conclusion
Cancer patients with COVID-19 disease are at increased risk of mortality and morbidity. A more nuanced understanding of the interaction between cancer-directed therapies and COVID-19-directed therapies is needed. This will require uniform prospective recording of data, possibly in multi-institutional registry databases.
Background
Vaccines are needed to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) and to protect persons who are at high risk for complications. The mRNA-1273 vaccine is a lipid nanoparticle–encapsulated mRNA-based vaccine that encodes the prefusion stabilized full-length spike protein of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes Covid-19.
Methods
This phase 3 randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at 99 centers across the United States. Persons at high risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection or its complications were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive two intramuscular injections of mRNA-1273 (100 μg) or placebo 28 days apart. The primary end point was prevention of Covid-19 illness with onset at least 14 days after the second injection in participants who had not previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2.
Results
Download a PDF of the Research Summary.
The trial enrolled 30,420 volunteers who were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either vaccine or placebo (15,210 participants in each group). More than 96% of participants received both injections, and 2.2% had evidence (serologic, virologic, or both) of SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline. Symptomatic Covid-19 illness was confirmed in 185 participants in the placebo group (56.5 per 1000 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 48.7 to 65.3) and in 11 participants in the mRNA-1273 group (3.3 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 1.7 to 6.0); vaccine efficacy was 94.1% (95% CI, 89.3 to 96.8%; P<0.001). Efficacy was similar across key secondary analyses, including assessment 14 days after the first dose, analyses that included participants who had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline, and analyses in participants 65 years of age or older. Severe Covid-19 occurred in 30 participants, with one fatality; all 30 were in the placebo group. Moderate, transient reactogenicity after vaccination occurred more frequently in the mRNA-1273 group. Serious adverse events were rare, and the incidence was similar in the two groups.
Conclusions
The mRNA-1273 vaccine showed 94.1% efficacy at preventing Covid-19 illness, including severe disease. Aside from transient local and systemic reactions, no safety concerns were identified. (Funded by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; COVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04470427.)
Background
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and the resulting coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) have afflicted tens of millions of people in a worldwide pandemic. Safe and effective vaccines are needed urgently.
Methods
Download a PDF of the Research Summary.
In an ongoing multinational, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, pivotal efficacy trial, we randomly assigned persons 16 years of age or older in a 1:1 ratio to receive two doses, 21 days apart, of either placebo or the BNT162b2 vaccine candidate (30 μg per dose). BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle–formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine that encodes a prefusion stabilized, membrane-anchored SARS-CoV-2 full-length spike protein. The primary end points were efficacy of the vaccine against laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and safety.
Results
A total of 43,548 participants underwent randomization, of whom 43,448 received injections: 21,720 with BNT162b2 and 21,728 with placebo. There were 8 cases of Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose among participants assigned to receive BNT162b2 and 162 cases among those assigned to placebo; BNT162b2 was 95% effective in preventing Covid-19 (95% credible interval, 90.3 to 97.6). Similar vaccine efficacy (generally 90 to 100%) was observed across subgroups defined by age, sex, race, ethnicity, baseline body-mass index, and the presence of coexisting conditions. Among 10 cases of severe Covid-19 with onset after the first dose, 9 occurred in placebo recipients and 1 in a BNT162b2 recipient. The safety profile of BNT162b2 was characterized by short-term, mild-to-moderate pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. The incidence of serious adverse events was low and was similar in the vaccine and placebo groups.
Conclusions
A two-dose regimen of BNT162b2 conferred 95% protection against Covid-19 in persons 16 years of age or older. Safety over a median of 2 months was similar to that of other viral vaccines. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728.)
Background
A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials.
Methods
This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 10¹⁰ viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674.
Findings
Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation.
Interpretation
ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials.
Funding
UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D’Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca.
Background
The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic warrants accelerated efforts to test vaccine candidates. We aimed to assess the safety and immunogenicity of an inactivated severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine candidate, BBIBP-CorV, in humans.
Methods
We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1/2 trial at Shangqiu City Liangyuan District Center for Disease Control and Prevention in Henan Province, China. In phase 1, healthy people aged 18–80 years, who were negative for serum-specific IgM/IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 at the time of screening, were separated into two age groups (18–59 years and ≥60 years) and randomly assigned to receive vaccine or placebo in a two-dose schedule of 2 μg, 4 μg, or 8 μg on days 0 and 28. In phase 2, healthy adults (aged 18–59 years) were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to receive vaccine or placebo on a single-dose schedule of 8 μg on day 0 or on a two-dose schedule of 4 μg on days 0 and 14, 0 and 21, or 0 and 28. Participants within each cohort were randomly assigned by stratified block randomisation (block size eight) and allocated (3:1) to receive vaccine or placebo. Group allocation was concealed from participants, investigators, and outcome assessors. The primary outcomes were safety and tolerability. The secondary outcome was immunogenicity, assessed as the neutralising antibody responses against infectious SARS-CoV-2. This study is registered with www.chictr.org.cn, ChiCTR2000032459.
Findings
In phase 1, 192 participants were enrolled (mean age 53·7 years [SD 15·6]) and were randomly assigned to receive vaccine (2 μg [n=24], 4 μg [n=24], or 8 μg [n=24] for both age groups [18–59 years and ≥60 years]) or placebo (n=24). At least one adverse reaction was reported within the first 7 days of inoculation in 42 (29%) of 144 vaccine recipients. The most common systematic adverse reaction was fever (18–59 years, one [4%] in the 2 μg group, one [4%] in the 4 μg group, and two [8%] in the 8 μg group; ≥60 years, one [4%] in the 8 μg group). All adverse reactions were mild or moderate in severity. No serious adverse event was reported within 28 days post vaccination. Neutralising antibody geometric mean titres were higher at day 42 in the group aged 18–59 years (87·7 [95% CI 64·9–118·6], 2 μg group; 211·2 [158·9–280·6], 4 μg group; and 228·7 [186·1–281·1], 8 μg group) and the group aged 60 years and older (80·7 [65·4–99·6], 2 μg group; 131·5 [108·2–159·7], 4 μg group; and 170·87 [133·0–219·5], 8 μg group) compared with the placebo group (2·0 [2·0–2·0]). In phase 2, 448 participants were enrolled (mean age 41·7 years [SD 9·9]) and were randomly assigned to receive the vaccine (8 μg on day 0 [n=84] or 4 μg on days 0 and 14 [n=84], days 0 and 21 [n=84], or days 0 and 28 [n=84]) or placebo on the same schedules (n=112). At least one adverse reaction within the first 7 days was reported in 76 (23%) of 336 vaccine recipients (33 [39%], 8 μg day 0; 18 [21%], 4 μg days 0 and 14; 15 [18%], 4 μg days 0 and 21; and ten [12%], 4 μg days 0 and 28). One placebo recipient in the 4 μg days 0 and 21 group reported grade 3 fever, but was self-limited and recovered. All other adverse reactions were mild or moderate in severity. The most common systematic adverse reaction was fever (one [1%], 8 μg day 0; one [1%], 4 μg days 0 and 14; three [4%], 4 μg days 0 and 21; two [2%], 4 μg days 0 and 28). The vaccine-elicited neutralising antibody titres on day 28 were significantly greater in the 4 μg days 0 and 14 (169·5, 95% CI 132·2–217·1), days 0 and 21 (282·7, 221·2–361·4), and days 0 and 28 (218·0, 181·8–261·3) schedules than the 8 μg day 0 schedule (14·7, 11·6–18·8; all p<0·001).
Interpretation
The inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, BBIBP-CorV, is safe and well tolerated at all tested doses in two age groups. Humoral responses against SARS-CoV-2 were induced in all vaccine recipients on day 42. Two-dose immunisation with 4 μg vaccine on days 0 and 21 or days 0 and 28 achieved higher neutralising antibody titres than the single 8 μg dose or 4 μg dose on days 0 and 14.
Funding
National Program on Key Research Project of China, National Mega projects of China for Major Infectious Diseases, National Mega Projects of China for New Drug Creation, and Beijing Science and Technology Plan.
Background
The pandemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) might be curtailed by vaccination. We assessed the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of a viral vectored coronavirus vaccine that expresses the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2.
Methods
We did a phase 1/2, single-blind, randomised controlled trial in five trial sites in the UK of a chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) expressing the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein compared with a meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MenACWY) as control. Healthy adults aged 18–55 years with no history of laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection or of COVID-19-like symptoms were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 at a dose of 5 × 10¹⁰ viral particles or MenACWY as a single intramuscular injection. A protocol amendment in two of the five sites allowed prophylactic paracetamol to be administered before vaccination. Ten participants assigned to a non-randomised, unblinded ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 prime-boost group received a two-dose schedule, with the booster vaccine administered 28 days after the first dose. Humoral responses at baseline and following vaccination were assessed using a standardised total IgG ELISA against trimeric SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, a muliplexed immunoassay, three live SARS-CoV-2 neutralisation assays (a 50% plaque reduction neutralisation assay [PRNT50]; a microneutralisation assay [MNA50, MNA80, and MNA90]; and Marburg VN), and a pseudovirus neutralisation assay. Cellular responses were assessed using an ex-vivo interferon-γ enzyme-linked immunospot assay. The co-primary outcomes are to assess efficacy, as measured by cases of symptomatic virologically confirmed COVID-19, and safety, as measured by the occurrence of serious adverse events. Analyses were done by group allocation in participants who received the vaccine. Safety was assessed over 28 days after vaccination. Here, we report the preliminary findings on safety, reactogenicity, and cellular and humoral immune responses. The study is ongoing, and was registered at ISRCTN, 15281137, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606.
Findings
Between April 23 and May 21, 2020, 1077 participants were enrolled and assigned to receive either ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (n=543) or MenACWY (n=534), ten of whom were enrolled in the non-randomised ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 prime-boost group. Local and systemic reactions were more common in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and many were reduced by use of prophylactic paracetamol, including pain, feeling feverish, chills, muscle ache, headache, and malaise (all p<0·05). There were no serious adverse events related to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. In the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, spike-specific T-cell responses peaked on day 14 (median 856 spot-forming cells per million peripheral blood mononuclear cells, IQR 493–1802; n=43). Anti-spike IgG responses rose by day 28 (median 157 ELISA units [EU], 96–317; n=127), and were boosted following a second dose (639 EU, 360–792; n=10). Neutralising antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 were detected in 32 (91%) of 35 participants after a single dose when measured in MNA80 and in 35 (100%) participants when measured in PRNT50. After a booster dose, all participants had neutralising activity (nine of nine in MNA80 at day 42 and ten of ten in Marburg VN on day 56). Neutralising antibody responses correlated strongly with antibody levels measured by ELISA (R²=0·67 by Marburg VN; p<0·001).
Interpretation
ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 showed an acceptable safety profile, and homologous boosting increased antibody responses. These results, together with the induction of both humoral and cellular immune responses, support large-scale evaluation of this candidate vaccine in an ongoing phase 3 programme.
Funding
UK Research and Innovation, Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and the German Center for Infection Research (DZIF), Partner site Gießen-Marburg-Langen.
Background
Data on patients with COVID-19 who have cancer are lacking. Here we characterise the outcomes of a cohort of patients with cancer and COVID-19 and identify potential prognostic factors for mortality and severe illness.
Methods
In this cohort study, we collected de-identified data on patients with active or previous malignancy, aged 18 years and older, with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection from the USA, Canada, and Spain from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) database for whom baseline data were added between March 17 and April 16, 2020. We collected data on baseline clinical conditions, medications, cancer diagnosis and treatment, and COVID-19 disease course. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality within 30 days of diagnosis of COVID-19. We assessed the association between the outcome and potential prognostic variables using logistic regression analyses, partially adjusted for age, sex, smoking status, and obesity. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04354701, and is ongoing.
Findings
Of 1035 records entered into the CCC19 database during the study period, 928 patients met inclusion criteria for our analysis. Median age was 66 years (IQR 57–76), 279 (30%) were aged 75 years or older, and 468 (50%) patients were male. The most prevalent malignancies were breast (191 [21%]) and prostate (152 [16%]). 366 (39%) patients were on active anticancer treatment, and 396 (43%) had active (measurable) cancer. At analysis (May 7, 2020), 121 (13%) patients had died. In logistic regression analysis, independent factors associated with increased 30-day mortality, after partial adjustment, were: increased age (per 10 years; partially adjusted odds ratio 1·84, 95% CI 1·53–2·21), male sex (1·63, 1·07–2·48), smoking status (former smoker vs never smoked: 1·60, 1·03–2·47), number of comorbidities (two vs none: 4·50, 1·33–15·28), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or higher (status of 2 vs 0 or 1: 3·89, 2·11–7·18), active cancer (progressing vs remission: 5·20, 2·77–9·77), and receipt of azithromycin plus hydroxychloroquine (vs treatment with neither: 2·93, 1·79–4·79; confounding by indication cannot be excluded). Compared with residence in the US-Northeast, residence in Canada (0·24, 0·07–0·84) or the US-Midwest (0·50, 0·28–0·90) were associated with decreased 30-day all-cause mortality. Race and ethnicity, obesity status, cancer type, type of anticancer therapy, and recent surgery were not associated with mortality.
Interpretation
Among patients with cancer and COVID-19, 30-day all-cause mortality was high and associated with general risk factors and risk factors unique to patients with cancer. Longer follow-up is needed to better understand the effect of COVID-19 on outcomes in patients with cancer, including the ability to continue specific cancer treatments.
Funding
American Cancer Society, National Institutes of Health, and Hope Foundation for Cancer Research.
The present outbreak of a coronavirus-associated acute respiratory disease called coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) is the third documented spillover of an animal coronavirus to humans in only two decades that has resulted in a major epidemic. The Coronaviridae Study Group (CSG) of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses, which is responsible for developing the classification of viruses and taxon nomenclature of the family Coronaviridae, has assessed the placement of the human pathogen, tentatively named 2019-nCoV, within the Coronaviridae. Based on phylogeny, taxonomy and established practice, the CSG recognizes this virus as forming a sister clade to the prototype human and bat severe acute respiratory syndrome coronaviruses (SARS-CoVs) of the species Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus, and designates it as SARS-CoV-2. In order to facilitate communication, the CSG proposes to use the following naming convention for individual isolates: SARS-CoV-2/host/location/isolate/date. While the full spectrum of clinical manifestations associated with SARS-CoV-2 infections in humans remains to be determined, the independent zoonotic transmission of SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 highlights the need for studying viruses at the species level to complement research focused on individual pathogenic viruses of immediate significance. This will improve our understanding of virus–host interactions in an ever-changing environment and enhance our preparedness for future outbreaks.
Background
Patients with cancer have an increased risk of complications from SARS-CoV-2 infection. Vaccination to prevent COVID-19 is recommended, but data on the immunogenicity and safety of COVID-19 vaccines for patients with solid tumours receiving systemic cancer treatment are scarce. Therefore, we aimed to assess the impact of immunotherapy, chemotherapy, and chemoimmunotherapy on the immunogenicity and safety of the mRNA-1273 (Moderna Biotech, Madrid, Spain) COVID-19 vaccine as part of the Vaccination Against COVID in Cancer (VOICE) trial.
Methods
This prospective, multicentre, non-inferiority trial was done across three centres in the Netherlands. Individuals aged 18 years or older with a life expectancy of more than 12 months were enrolled into four cohorts: individuals without cancer (cohort A [control cohort]), and patients with solid tumours, regardless of stage and histology, treated with immunotherapy (cohort B), chemotherapy (cohort C), or chemoimmunotherapy (cohort D). Participants received two mRNA-1273 vaccinations of 100 μg in 0·5 mL intramuscularly, 28 days apart. The primary endpoint, analysed per protocol (excluding patients with a positive baseline sample [>10 binding antibody units (BAU)/mL], indicating previous SARS-CoV-2 infection), was defined as the SARS-CoV-2 spike S1-specific IgG serum antibody response (ie, SARS-CoV-2-binding antibody concentration of >10 BAU/mL) 28 days after the second vaccination. For the primary endpoint analysis, a non-inferiority design with a margin of 10% was used. We also assessed adverse events in all patients who received at least one vaccination, and recorded solicited adverse events in participants who received at least one vaccination but excluding those who already had seroconversion (>10 BAU/mL) at baseline. This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04715438.
Findings
Between Feb 17 and March 12, 2021, 791 participants were enrolled and followed up for a median of 122 days (IQR 118 to 128). A SARS-CoV-2-binding antibody response was found in 240 (100%; 95% CI 98 to 100) of 240 evaluable participants in cohort A, 130 (99%; 96 to >99) of 131 evaluable patients in cohort B, 223 (97%; 94 to 99) of 229 evaluable patients in cohort C, and 143 (100%; 97 to 100) of 143 evaluable patients in cohort D. The SARS-CoV-2-binding antibody response in each patient cohort was non-inferior compared with cohort A. No new safety signals were observed. Grade 3 or worse serious adverse events occurred in no participants in cohort A, three (2%) of 137 patients in cohort B, six (2%) of 244 patients in cohort C, and one (1%) of 163 patients in cohort D, with four events (two of fever, and one each of diarrhoea and febrile neutropenia) potentially related to the vaccination. There were no vaccine-related deaths.
Interpretation
Most patients with cancer develop, while receiving chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or both for a solid tumour, an adequate antibody response to vaccination with the mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine. The vaccine is also safe in these patients. The minority of patients with an inadequate response after two vaccinations might benefit from a third vaccination.
Funding
ZonMw, The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development.
Background:
Patients with chronic inflammatory disease (CID) treated with immunosuppressive medications have increased risk for severe COVID-19. Although mRNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccination provides protection in immunocompetent persons, immunogenicity in immunosuppressed patients with CID is unclear.
Objective:
To determine the immunogenicity of mRNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with CID.
Design:
Prospective observational cohort study.
Setting:
Two U.S. CID referral centers.
Participants:
Volunteer sample of adults with confirmed CID eligible for early COVID-19 vaccination, including hospital employees of any age and patients older than 65 years. Immunocompetent participants were recruited separately from hospital employees. All participants received 2 doses of mRNA vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 between 10 December 2020 and 20 March 2021. Participants were assessed within 2 weeks before vaccination and 20 days after final vaccination.
Measurements:
Anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) IgG+ binding in all participants, and neutralizing antibody titers and circulating S-specific plasmablasts in a subset to assess humoral response after vaccination.
Results:
Most of the 133 participants with CID (88.7%) and all 53 immunocompetent participants developed antibodies in response to mRNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, although some with CID developed numerically lower titers of anti-S IgG. Anti-S IgG antibody titers after vaccination were lower in participants with CID receiving glucocorticoids (n = 17) than in those not receiving them; the geometric mean of anti-S IgG antibodies was 357 (95% CI, 96 to 1324) for participants receiving prednisone versus 2190 (CI, 1598 to 3002) for those not receiving it. Anti-S IgG antibody titers were also lower in those receiving B-cell depletion therapy (BCDT) (n = 10). Measures of immunogenicity differed numerically between those who were and those who were not receiving antimetabolites (n = 48), tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (n = 39), and Janus kinase inhibitors (n = 11); however, 95% CIs were wide and overlapped. Neutralization titers seemed generally consistent with anti-S IgG results. Results were not adjusted for differences in baseline clinical factors, including other immunosuppressant therapies.
Limitations:
Small sample that lacked demographic diversity, and residual confounding.
Conclusion:
Compared with nonusers, patients with CID treated with glucocorticoids and BCDT seem to have lower SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-induced antibody responses. These preliminary findings require confirmation in a larger study.
Primary funding source:
The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust, Marcus Program in Precision Medicine Innovation, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases.
Most COVID-19 vaccines are designed to elicit immune responses, ideally neutralizing antibodies (NAbs), against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Several vaccines, including mRNA, adenoviral-vectored, protein subunit and whole-cell inactivated virus vaccines, have now reported efficacy in phase III trials and have received emergency approval in many countries. The two mRNA vaccines approved to date show efficacy even after only one dose, when non-NAbs and moderate T helper 1 cell responses are detectable, but almost no NAbs. After a single dose, the adenovirus vaccines elicit polyfunctional antibodies that are capable of mediating virus neutralization and of driving other antibody-dependent effector functions, as well as potent T cell responses. These data suggest that protection may require low levels of NAbs and might involve other immune effector mechanisms including non-NAbs, T cells and innate immune mechanisms. Identifying the mechanisms of protection as well as correlates of protection is crucially important to inform further vaccine development and guide the use of licensed COVID-19 vaccines worldwide. This Progress article summarizes our current understanding of the immune mechanisms of protection induced by the available COVID-19 vaccines. The authors compare vaccine-induced antibody responses following one or two doses of different vaccines and consider the relative importance of neutralizing antibodies for vaccine-mediated protection against SARS-CoV-2.
This follow-up study measures the antibody response following the second dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine in recipients of solid organ transplants.
Background
The Ad26.COV2.S vaccine is a recombinant, replication-incompetent human adenovirus type 26 vector encoding full-length severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein in a prefusion-stabilized conformation.
Methods
Download a PDF of the Research Summary.
In an international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned adult participants in a 1:1 ratio to receive a single dose of Ad26.COV2.S (5×10¹⁰ viral particles) or placebo. The primary end points were vaccine efficacy against moderate to severe–critical coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) with an onset at least 14 days and at least 28 days after administration among participants in the per-protocol population who had tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. Safety was also assessed.
Results
The per-protocol population included 19,630 SARS-CoV-2–negative participants who received Ad26.COV2.S and 19,691 who received placebo. Ad26.COV2.S protected against moderate to severe–critical Covid-19 with onset at least 14 days after administration (116 cases in the vaccine group vs. 348 in the placebo group; efficacy, 66.9%; adjusted 95% confidence interval [CI], 59.0 to 73.4) and at least 28 days after administration (66 vs. 193 cases; efficacy, 66.1%; adjusted 95% CI, 55.0 to 74.8). Vaccine efficacy was higher against severe–critical Covid-19 (76.7% [adjusted 95% CI, 54.6 to 89.1] for onset at ≥14 days and 85.4% [adjusted 95% CI, 54.2 to 96.9] for onset at ≥28 days). Despite 86 of 91 cases (94.5%) in South Africa with sequenced virus having the 20H/501Y.V2 variant, vaccine efficacy was 52.0% and 64.0% against moderate to severe–critical Covid-19 with onset at least 14 days and at least 28 days after administration, respectively, and efficacy against severe–critical Covid-19 was 73.1% and 81.7%, respectively. Reactogenicity was higher with Ad26.COV2.S than with placebo but was generally mild to moderate and transient. The incidence of serious adverse events was balanced between the two groups. Three deaths occurred in the vaccine group (none were Covid-19–related), and 16 in the placebo group (5 were Covid-19–related).
Conclusions
A single dose of Ad26.COV2.S protected against symptomatic Covid-19 and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and was effective against severe–critical disease, including hospitalization and death. Safety appeared to be similar to that in other phase 3 trials of Covid-19 vaccines. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development and others; ENSEMBLE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04505722.)
Myth: Corticosteroid injection for the treatment of pain and inflammation is known to decrease the efficacy of the messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccines for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
Fact: There is currently no direct evidence to suggest that a corticosteroid injection before or after the administration of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine decreases the efficacy of the vaccine.
However, based on the known timeline of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis suppression following epidural and intraarticular corticosteroid injections, and the timeline of the reported peak efficacy of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, physicians should consider timing an elective corticosteroid injection such that it is administered no less than 2 weeks prior to a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine dose and no less than 1 week following a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine dose, whenever possible.
Background
A vaccine against COVID-19 is urgently needed for older adults, in whom morbidity and mortality due to the disease are increased. We aimed to assess the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of a candidate COVID-19 vaccine, CoronaVac, containing inactivated SARS-CoV-2, in adults aged 60 years and older.
Methods
We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1/2 clinical trial of CoronaVac in healthy adults aged 60 years and older in Renqiu (Hebei, China). Vaccine or placebo was given by intramuscular injection in two doses (days 0 and 28). Phase 1 comprised a dose-escalation study, in which participants were allocated to two blocks: block 1 (3 μg inactivated virus in 0·5 mL of aluminium hydroxide solution per injection) and block 2 (6 μg per injection). Within each block, participants were randomly assigned (2:1) using block randomisation to receive CoronaVac or placebo (aluminium hydroxide solution only). In phase 2, participants were randomly assigned (2:2:2:1) using block randomisation to receive either CoronaVac at 1·5 μg, 3 μg, or 6 μg per dose, or placebo. All participants, investigators, and laboratory staff were masked to treatment allocation. The primary safety endpoint was adverse reactions within 28 days after each injection in all participants who received at least one dose. The primary immunogenicity endpoint was seroconversion rate at 28 days after the second injection (which was assessed in all participants who had received the two doses of vaccine according to their random assignment, had antibody results available, and did not violate the trial protocol). Seroconversion was defined as a change from seronegative at baseline to seropositive for neutralising antibodies to live SARS-CoV-2 (positive cutoff titre 1/8), or a four-fold titre increase if the participant was seropositive at baseline. This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04383574).
Findings
Between May 22 and June 1, 2020, 72 participants (24 in each intervention group and 24 in the placebo group; mean age 65·8 years [SD 4·8]) were enrolled in phase 1, and between June 12 and June 15, 2020, 350 participants were enrolled in phase 2 (100 in each intervention group and 50 in the placebo group; mean age 66·6 years [SD 4·7] in 349 participants). In the safety populations from both phases, any adverse reaction within 28 days after injection occurred in 20 (20%) of 100 participants in the 1·5 μg group, 25 (20%) of 125 in the 3 μg group, 27 (22%) of 123 in the 6 μg group, and 15 (21%) of 73 in the placebo group. All adverse reactions were mild or moderate in severity and injection site pain (39 [9%] of 421 participants) was the most frequently reported event. As of Aug 28, 2020, eight serious adverse events, considered unrelated to vaccination, have been reported by seven (2%) participants. In phase 1, seroconversion after the second dose was observed in 24 of 24 participants (100·0% [95% CI 85·8–100·0]) in the 3 μg group and 22 of 23 (95·7% [78·1–99·9]) in the 6 μg group. In phase 2, seroconversion was seen in 88 of 97 participants in the 1·5 μg group (90·7% [83·1–95·7]), 96 of 98 in the 3 μg group (98·0% [92·8–99·8]), and 97 of 98 (99·0% [94·5–100·0]) in the 6 μg group. There were no detectable antibody responses in the placebo groups.
Interpretation
CoronaVac is safe and well tolerated in older adults. Neutralising antibody titres induced by the 3 μg dose were similar to those of the 6 μg dose, and higher than those of the 1·5 μg dose, supporting the use of the 3 μg dose CoronaVac in phase 3 trials to assess protection against COVID-19.
Funding
Chinese National Key Research and Development Program and Beijing Science and Technology Program.
Background
A heterologous recombinant adenovirus (rAd)-based vaccine, Gam-COVID-Vac (Sputnik V), showed a good safety profile and induced strong humoral and cellular immune responses in participants in phase 1/2 clinical trials. Here, we report preliminary results on the efficacy and safety of Gam-COVID-Vac from the interim analysis of this phase 3 trial.
Methods
We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial at 25 hospitals and polyclinics in Moscow, Russia. We included participants aged at least 18 years, with negative SARS-CoV-2 PCR and IgG and IgM tests, no infectious diseases in the 14 days before enrolment, and no other vaccinations in the 30 days before enrolment. Participants were randomly assigned (3:1) to receive vaccine or placebo, with stratification by age group. Investigators, participants, and all study staff were masked to group assignment. The vaccine was administered (0·5 mL/dose) intramuscularly in a prime-boost regimen: a 21-day interval between the first dose (rAd26) and the second dose (rAd5), both vectors carrying the gene for the full-length SARS-CoV-2 glycoprotein S. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 from day 21 after receiving the first dose. All analyses excluded participants with protocol violations: the primary outcome was assessed in participants who had received two doses of vaccine or placebo, serious adverse events were assessed in all participants who had received at least one dose at the time of database lock, and rare adverse events were assessed in all participants who had received two doses and for whom all available data were verified in the case report form at the time of database lock. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04530396).
Findings
Between Sept 7 and Nov 24, 2020, 21 977 adults were randomly assigned to the vaccine group (n=16 501) or the placebo group (n=5476). 19 866 received two doses of vaccine or placebo and were included in the primary outcome analysis. From 21 days after the first dose of vaccine (the day of dose 2), 16 (0·1%) of 14 964 participants in the vaccine group and 62 (1·3%) of 4902 in the placebo group were confirmed to have COVID-19; vaccine efficacy was 91·6% (95% CI 85·6–95·2). Most reported adverse events were grade 1 (7485 [94·0%] of 7966 total events). 45 (0·3%) of 16 427 participants in the vaccine group and 23 (0·4%) of 5435 participants in the placebo group had serious adverse events; none were considered associated with vaccination, with confirmation from the independent data monitoring committee. Four deaths were reported during the study (three [<0·1%] of 16 427 participants in the vaccine group and one [<0·1%] of 5435 participants in the placebo group), none of which were considered related to the vaccine.
Interpretation
This interim analysis of the phase 3 trial of Gam-COVID-Vac showed 91·6% efficacy against COVID-19 and was well tolerated in a large cohort.
Funding
Moscow City Health Department, Russian Direct Investment Fund, Sberbank, and RUSAL.
Importance
Patients with specific cancers may be at higher risk than those without cancer for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and its severe outcomes. At present, limited data are available on the risk, racial disparity, and outcomes for COVID-19 illness in patients with cancer.
Objectives
To investigate how patients with specific types of cancer are at risk for COVID-19 infection and its adverse outcomes and whether there are cancer-specific race disparities for COVID-19 infection.
Design, Setting, and Participants
This retrospective case-control analysis of patient electronic health records included 73.4 million patients from 360 hospitals and 317 000 clinicians across 50 US states to August 14, 2020. The odds of COVID-19 infections for 13 common cancer types and adverse outcomes were assessed.
Exposures
The exposure groups were patients diagnosed with a specific cancer, whereas the unexposed groups were patients without the specific cancer.
Main Outcomes and Measures
The adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95% CI were estimated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the risk of COVID-19 infection.
Results
Among the 73.4 million patients included in the analysis (53.6% female), 2 523 920 had at least 1 of the 13 common cancers diagnosed (all cancer diagnosed within or before the last year), and 273 140 had recent cancer (cancer diagnosed within the last year). Among 16 570 patients diagnosed with COVID-19, 1200 had a cancer diagnosis and 690 had a recent cancer diagnosis of at least 1 of the 13 common cancers. Those with recent cancer diagnosis were at significantly increased risk for COVID-19 infection (aOR, 7.14 [95% CI, 6.91-7.39]; P < .001), with the strongest association for recently diagnosed leukemia (aOR, 12.16 [95% CI, 11.03-13.40]; P < .001), non–Hodgkin lymphoma (aOR, 8.54 [95% CI, 7.80-9.36]; P < .001), and lung cancer (aOR, 7.66 [95% CI, 7.07-8.29]; P < .001) and weakest for thyroid cancer (aOR, 3.10 [95% CI, 2.47-3.87]; P < .001). Among patients with recent cancer diagnosis, African Americans had a significantly higher risk for COVID-19 infection than White patients; this racial disparity was largest for breast cancer (aOR, 5.44 [95% CI, 4.69-6.31]; P < .001), followed by prostate cancer (aOR, 5.10 [95% CI, 4.34-5.98]; P < .001), colorectal cancer (aOR, 3.30 [95% CI, 2.55-4.26]; P < .001), and lung cancer (aOR, 2.53 [95% CI, 2.10-3.06]; P < .001). Patients with cancer and COVID-19 had significantly worse outcomes (hospitalization, 47.46%; death, 14.93%) than patients with COVID-19 without cancer (hospitalization, 24.26%; death, 5.26%) (P < .001) and patients with cancer without COVID-19 (hospitalization, 12.39%; death, 4.03%) (P < .001).
Conclusions and Relevance
In this case-control study, patients with cancer were at significantly increased risk for COVID-19 infection and worse outcomes, which was further exacerbated among African Americans. These findings highlight the need to protect and monitor patients with cancer as part of the strategy to control the pandemic.
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), has caused a global pandemic, and safe, effective vaccines are urgently needed1. Strong, Th1-skewed T cell responses can drive protective humoral and cell-mediated immune responses2 and might reduce the potential for disease enhancement3. Cytotoxic T cells clear virus-infected host cells and contribute to control of infection4. Studies of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 have suggested a protective role for both humoral and cell-mediated immune responses in recovery from COVID-19 (refs. 5,6). ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) is a candidate SARS-CoV-2 vaccine comprising a replication-deficient simian adenovirus expressing full-length SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. We recently reported preliminary safety and immunogenicity data from a phase 1/2 trial of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (NCT04400838)7 given as either a one- or two-dose regimen. The vaccine was tolerated, with induction of neutralizing antibodies and antigen-specific T cells against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Here we describe, in detail, exploratory analyses of the immune responses in adults, aged 18–55 years, up to 8 weeks after vaccination with a single dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in this trial, demonstrating an induction of a Th1-biased response characterized by interferon-γ and tumor necrosis factor-α cytokine secretion by CD4+ T cells and antibody production predominantly of IgG1 and IgG3 subclasses. CD8+ T cells, of monofunctional, polyfunctional and cytotoxic phenotypes, were also induced. Taken together, these results suggest a favorable immune profile induced by ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine, supporting the progression of this vaccine candidate to ongoing phase 2/3 trials to assess vaccine efficacy.
