Treatment outcomes of complement protein C5 inhibition in 509 UK patients with paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria.

ABSTRACT: Paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH) is an acquired clonal hematopoietic disorder that occurs on a background of bone marrow failure (BMF). In PNH, chronic intravascular hemolysis causes an increase in morbidity and mortality, mainly because of thromboses. Over the last 20 years, treatment of PNH has focused on the complement protein C5 to prevent intravascular hemolysis using the monoclonal antibody eculizumab and more recently ravulizumab. In the United Kingdom, all patients are under review at 1 of 2 reference centers. We report on all 509 UK patients with PNH treated with eculizumab and/or ravulizumab between May 2002 and July 2022. The survival of patients with eculizumab and ravulizumab was significantly lower than that of age- and sex-matched controls (P = .001). Only 4 patients died of thromboses. The survival of patients with PNH (n = 389), when those requiring treatment for BMF (clonal evolution to myelodysplastic syndrome or acute leukemia or had progressive unresponsive aplastic anemia) were excluded, was not significantly different from that of age- and sex-matched controls (P = .12). There were 11 cases of meningococcal sepsis (0.35 events per 100 patient-years). Extravascular hemolysis was evident in patients who received treatment, with 26.7% of patients requiring transfusions in the most recent 12 months on therapy. Eculizumab and ravulizumab are safe and effective therapies that reduce mortality and morbidity in PNH, but further work is needed to reduce mortality in those with concomitant BMF.

Venetoclax ramp-up strategies for chronic lymphocytic leukaemia in the United Kingdom: a real world multicentre retrospective study.

This retrospective, observational study evaluated patterns of inpatient versus outpatient tumour lysis syndrome (TLS) monitoring during venetoclax ramp-up in 170 patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. The primary outcome was clinical/biochemical TLS. Two clinical and four biochemical TLS occurred (4.1%). Five of the six events occurred in high-risk patients, four occurred at 20 mg dose and three at the 6-h time-point. Inpatient versus outpatient TLS rates within the high-risk subgroup were 15% and 8%. Risk category was the only predictor of TLS events in multivariate analysis. Outpatient escalation did not associate with clinically meaningful TLS events, suggesting outpatient escalation has manageable associated TLS risks, including in high-risk cohorts. These observations require confirmation in larger studies.

Boosting of Waned Humoral and Cellular Responses to SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Concern Among Patients with Cancer.

This study offers longitudinal insight into the impact of three SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations on humoral and cellular immunity in patients with solid cancers, patients with hematologic malignancies, and persons without cancer. For all cohorts, virus-neutralizing immunity was significantly depleted over a period of up to 9 months following the second vaccine dose, the one striking exception being IL2 production by SARS-CoV-2 antigen-specific T cells. Immunity was restored by the third vaccine dose, except in a substantial number of patients with hematologic malignancy, for whom both cancer type and treatment schedule were associated with nonresponse. Thus, whereas most patients with myelodysplastic syndrome were conspicuously good responders, some patients with other hematologic malignancies receiving cancer therapies within 2 weeks of vaccination showed no seroconversion despite three vaccine doses. Moreover, SARS-CoV-2 exposure during the course of the study neither prevented immunity waning, even in healthy controls, nor guaranteed vaccine responsiveness. These data offer real-world human immunologic insights that can inform health policy for patients with cancer.

Safety and immunogenicity of one versus two doses of the COVID-19 vaccine BNT162b2 for patients with cancer: interim analysis of a prospective observational study.

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.

Acute Immune Signatures and Their Legacies in Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 Infected Cancer Patients.

Given the immune system's importance for cancer surveillance and treatment, we have investigated how it may be affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection of cancer patients. Across some heterogeneity in tumor type, stage, and treatment, virus-exposed solid cancer patients display a dominant impact of SARS-CoV-2, apparent from the resemblance of their immune signatures to those for COVID-19+ non-cancer patients. This is not the case for hematological malignancies, with virus-exposed patients collectively displaying heterogeneous humoral responses, an exhausted T cell phenotype and a high prevalence of prolonged virus shedding. Furthermore, while recovered solid cancer patients' immunophenotypes resemble those of non-virus-exposed cancer patients, recovered hematological cancer patients display distinct, lingering immunological legacies. Thus, while solid cancer patients, including those with advanced disease, seem no more at risk of SARS-CoV-2-associated immune dysregulation than the general population, hematological cancer patients show complex immunological consequences of SARS-CoV-2 exposure that might usefully inform their care.

Outpatient management of steroid-induced hyperglycaemia and steroid-induced diabetes in people with lymphoproliferative disorders treated with intermittent high dose steroids.

High dose steroids (HDS) are used in the treatment of haematological malignancies. The reported risk of steroid-induced diabetes (SID) is high. However, screening is not consistently performed. We implemented a protocol for detection and management of SID and steroid-induced hyperglycamia (SIH) in haematology outpatients receiving HDS. Eighty-three people were diagnosed with a lymphoproliferative disorder, of whom 6 had known Type 2 diabetes. Fifty-three people without known diabetes were screened by HbA1c and random venous plasma glucose. All patients (n = 34) subsequently prescribed HDS checked capillary blood glucose (CBG) pre-breakfast and pre-evening meal. Treatment algorithms used initiation and/or dose titration of gliclazide or human NPH insulin, aiming for pre-meal CBG 5-11 mmol/l. Type 2 diabetes was identified in 4/53 people screened (7.5%). Of 34 people treated with HDS, 17 (44%) developed SIH/SID. All 7 people with Type 2 diabetes developed SIH and 3 required insulin. Of 27 people without known diabetes, 8 (30%) developed SID and 1 required insulin. Pre-treatment HbA1c was higher in people who developed SID compared to those that did not (p = 0.002). This is the first report of a SID/SIH detection and treatment protocol for use in people with lymphoproliferative disorders receiving intermittent HDS, demonstrating its feasibility and safety.