Adverse Events Reported by Patients With Cancer After Administration of a 2-Dose mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine.

BACKGROUND: Most safety and efficacy trials of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines excluded patients with cancer, yet these patients are more likely than healthy individuals to contract SARS-CoV-2 and more likely to become seriously ill after infection. Our objective was to record short-term adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine in patients with cancer, to compare the magnitude and duration of these reactions with those of patients without cancer, and to determine whether adverse reactions are related to active cancer therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective, single-institution observational study was performed at an NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. All study participants received 2 doses of the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine separated by approximately 3 weeks. A report of adverse reactions to dose 1 of the vaccine was completed upon return to the clinic for dose 2. Participants completed an identical survey either online or by telephone 2 weeks after the second vaccine dose. RESULTS: The cohort of 1,753 patients included 67.5% who had a history of cancer and 12.0% who were receiving active cancer treatment. Local pain at the injection site was the most frequently reported symptom for all respondents and did not distinguish patients with cancer from those without cancer after either dose 1 (39.3% vs 43.9%; P=.07) or dose 2 (42.5% vs 40.3%; P=.45). Among patients with cancer, those receiving active treatment were less likely to report pain at the injection site after dose 1 compared with those not receiving active treatment (30.0% vs 41.4%; P=.002). The onset and duration of adverse events was otherwise unrelated to active cancer treatment. CONCLUSIONS: When patients with cancer were compared with those without cancer, few differences in reported adverse events were noted. Active cancer treatment had little impact on adverse event profiles.

Equipotent doses of daunorubicin and idarubicin for AML: a meta-analysis of clinical trials versus in vitro estimation.

In the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia (AML), the "7 + 3"-based strategy, combining cytarabine 100-200 mg/m2 for 7 days with an anthracycline for 3 days, remains the standard of care for younger and medically fit patients. Daunorubicin (DNR) and idarubicin (IDA) are the two anthracyclines most commonly used. DNR and IDA are used interchangeably with different conversion factors, as there is no high-level evidence on the equipotency of these two agents for AML treatment. To determine the equipotent doses of DNR and IDA, we first systematically reviewed studies directly comparing the clinical outcomes of AML induction therapy utilizing DNR and IDA. We found 15 articles that met our inclusion criteria and compared time-to-event survival end points as well as complete remission rates post-induction. The DNR:IDA equipotency ratio was estimated at 5.90 with 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.7-20.7. To validate the estimate from our meta-analysis biologically, we conducted in vitro tests comparing anti-AML activity of DNR and IDA against six AML cell lines and two primary AML cells from patients with different cytogenetic and molecular characteristics. Based on these in vitro data, the equipotency dose ratio between DNR and IDA was 4.06 with 95% CI 3.64-4.49. Combining the estimates from the meta-analysis and the in vitro data using inverse-variance weighting, the current best estimate of the DNR:IDA equipotent ratio is 4.1 with 95% CI 3.9-4.3. This estimate, however, is largely driven by the in vitro chemo-sensitivity data. Given clinical studies demonstrating the safety of IDA at higher doses, our work implies that dose intensification of IDA could be investigated in future clinical trials in AML.

Prevalence and characteristics of patients with undiagnosed HIV infection in an urban emergency department.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends offering HIV testing to persons admitted to emergency departments (EDs). Whether by opt-in or opt-out, many EDs (including our own) have found a seroprevalence of 0.8-1.5% when rapid testing is offered. The true seropositivity rate is unknown. We performed a retrospective chart analysis upon all patients presenting to our ED over a 2-week period in the fall of 2007 who had serum drawn as a part of their emergency care. Demographics and clinical characteristics were linked via de-identified serum, which was sent for HIV testing. Nine hundred fifty nine patients had sera available for rapid HIV testing. One hundred twenty one (13%) samples were reactive via the OraQuick(®) test (OraSure Technologies, Bethlehem, PA), a point of care rapid antibody test. Due to concerns about the appropriateness of sera as substrate for the OraQuick(®) technology, reactive samples were retested via standard enzyme immunoassay (EIA)/Western blot. One hundred twelve analyzable samples were retested-38 were positive and 27 of these were from patients who reported a history of HIV infection. The rate of undiagnosed HIV infection was 1.2% (11/914 potentially analyzable samples). Of all patients with HIV in our ED, 29% of them were presumably unaware of their diagnosis. In conclusion, HIV seroprevalence in our urban ED is high, and a large fraction of the patients appears to be unaware of the infection.