Vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 breakthrough infections in patients with cancer (UKCCEP): a population-based test-negative case-control study.

BACKGROUND: People with cancer are at increased risk of hospitalisation and death following infection with SARS-CoV-2. Therefore, we aimed to conduct one of the first evaluations of vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections in patients with cancer at a population level. METHODS: In this population-based test-negative case-control study of the UK Coronavirus Cancer Evaluation Project (UKCCEP), we extracted data from the UKCCEP registry on all SARS-CoV-2 PCR test results (from the Second Generation Surveillance System), vaccination records (from the National Immunisation Management Service), patient demographics, and cancer records from England, UK, from Dec 8, 2020, to Oct 15, 2021. Adults (aged ≥18 years) with cancer in the UKCCEP registry were identified via Public Health England's Rapid Cancer Registration Dataset between Jan 1, 2018, and April 30, 2021, and comprised the cancer cohort. We constructed a control population cohort from adults with PCR tests in the UKCCEP registry who were not contained within the Rapid Cancer Registration Dataset. The coprimary endpoints were overall vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough infections after the second dose (positive PCR COVID-19 test) and vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough infections at 3-6 months after the second dose in the cancer cohort and control population. FINDINGS: The cancer cohort comprised 377 194 individuals, of whom 42 882 had breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections. The control population consisted of 28 010 955 individuals, of whom 5 748 708 had SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections. Overall vaccine effectiveness was 69·8% (95% CI 69·8-69·9) in the control population and 65·5% (65·1-65·9) in the cancer cohort. Vaccine effectiveness at 3-6 months was lower in the cancer cohort (47·0%, 46·3-47·6) than in the control population (61·4%, 61·4-61·5). INTERPRETATION: COVID-19 vaccination is effective for individuals with cancer, conferring varying levels of protection against breakthrough infections. However, vaccine effectiveness is lower in patients with cancer than in the general population. COVID-19 vaccination for patients with cancer should be used in conjunction with non-pharmacological strategies and community-based antiviral treatment programmes to reduce the risk that COVID-19 poses to patients with cancer. FUNDING: University of Oxford, University of Southampton, University of Birmingham, Department of Health and Social Care, and Blood Cancer UK.

A case series of vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia in a London teaching hospital.

The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine has been associated with increased risk of thrombosis. Understanding of the management of these rare events is evolving, and currently recommended treatments include human normal immunoglobulin and nonheparin anticoagulation such as direct oral anticoagulants. Our report describes three consecutive patients presenting to a London teaching hospital with vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT), also referred to as vaccine-induced prothrombotic immune thrombocytopenia. The patients ranged in age from 40 to 54 years and two had no known previous medical comorbidities. Two patients had cerebral venous sinus thrombosis and one had a deep vein thrombosis. Two were treated with anticoagulation, one with oral rivaroxaban and the other with an intravenous argotraban infusion that was later converted to oral apixaban. One patient received three doses of human normal immunoglobulin and 5 days of therapeutic plasma exchange. This case series may be used to improve understanding of the clinical course and management of VITT.

Videoconferencing to deliver genetics services: a systematic review of telegenetics in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic has forced reorganization of clinical services to minimize face-to-face contact between patients and health-care providers. Specialist services, including clinical genetics, must consider methods of remote delivery including videoconferencing-termed telegenetics. This review evaluates the evidence for telegenetics and its applicability to future service development. METHODS: A systematic review of six databases was conducted to identify studies from 2005 onward using synchronous videoconferencing to deliver clinical genetics services. Included studies compared telegenetics to an alternative method or used a before and after design. RESULTS: Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria (eight compared telegenetics to in-person consultations and three to telephone delivery). Patient satisfaction, genetic knowledge, and psychosocial outcomes were similar for in-person and telegenetic counseling. There was some evidence that telegenetics may be superior to telephone delivery for knowledge gain and reduction in anxiety and depression. There is limited evidence concerning the effect of telegenetics on provider satisfaction and behavioral outcomes. Conclusions are limited by at least moderate risk of bias in all evaluated studies and small sample sizes. CONCLUSION: Across most outcomes measured, telegenetics had equivalent outcomes to in-person appointment; however, the extent to which the available evidence is applicable to longer-term use is debatable.

Strategies for the prevention of perinatal hepatitis B transmission in a marginalized population on the Thailand-Myanmar border: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Data on the cost effectiveness of hepatitis B virus (HBV) screening and vaccination strategies for prevention of vertical transmission of HBV in resource limited settings is sparse. METHODS: A decision tree model of HBV prevention strategies utilised data from a cohort of 7071 pregnant women on the Thailand-Myanmar border using a provider perspective. All options included universal HBV vaccination for newborns in three strategies: (1) universal vaccination alone; (2) universal vaccination with screening of women during antenatal visits with rapid diagnostic test (RDT) plus HBV immune globulin (HBIG) administration to newborns of HBV surface antigen positive women; and (3) universal vaccination with screening of women during antenatal visits plus HBIG administration to newborns of women testing HBV e antigen positive by confirmatory test. At the time of the study, the HBIG after confirmatory test strategy was used. The costs in United States Dollars (US$), infections averted and incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated and sensitivity analyses were conducted. A willingness to pay threshold of US$1200 was used. RESULTS: The universal HBV vaccination was the least costly option at US$4.33 per woman attending the clinic. The HBIG after (RDT) strategy had an ICER of US$716.78 per infection averted. The HBIG after confirmatory test strategy was not cost-effective due to extended dominance. The one-way sensitivity analysis showed that while the transmission parameters and cost of HBIG had the biggest impact on outcomes, the HBIG after confirmatory test only became a cost-effective option when a low test cost was used or a high HBIG cost was used. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that HBIG after RDT had an 87% likelihood of being cost-effective as compared to vaccination only at a willingness to pay threshold of US$1200. CONCLUSIONS: HBIG following confirmatory test is not a cost-effective strategy for preventing vertical transmission of HBV in the Thailand-Myanmar border population. By switching to HBIG following rapid diagnostic test, perinatal infections will be reduced by nearly one third. This strategy may be applicable to similar settings for marginalized populations where the confirmatory test is not logistically possible.

Role of Perioperative Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: We aim to describe and highlight the current use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in the muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) treatment landscape, particularly focusing on the perioperative setting. We provide a comprehensive review of key trials of the use of ICI in the perioperative setting, discussing trial outcomes and limitations and reviewing the role of biomarkers. INTRODUCTION: ICIs have recently been integrated into the treatment algorithm for metastatic urothelial carcinoma. More than 30 published studies have investigated the role of these agents in the radical treatment of MIBC. Some studies have demonstrated conflicting results, affecting widespread adoption in clinical practice. METHODS: We performed a narrative overview of the literature from databases including PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, European society of Medical Oncology/American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Proceedings, and clinicaltrials.gov databases up until December 2021. DISCUSSION: We described the results of key trials in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting, some of the reasons for conflicting study results, and the implications for clinical practice. Relevant biomarkers in the field are discussed, alongside a brief overview of the immune microenvironment in bladder cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative ICIs have shown promising efficacy with low toxicity in the neoadjuvant setting. The two large trials in the adjuvant setting have been contradictory. The efficacy of perioperative ICIs combined with favorable tolerability and better toxicity profile compared with chemotherapy, with the potential for biomarker-driven patient selection, may lead to a change in future practice. There is, however, a lack of long-term survival and toxicity data for those treated with ICIs, and this needs to be developed further to demonstrate an added survival benefit by using ICIs.

Association of SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Antibody Vaccine Response With Infection Severity in Patients With Cancer: A National COVID Cancer Cross-sectional Evaluation.

Importance: Accurate identification of patient groups with the lowest level of protection following COVID-19 vaccination is important to better target resources and interventions for the most vulnerable populations. It is not known whether SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing has clinical utility for high-risk groups, such as people with cancer. Objective: To evaluate whether spike protein antibody vaccine response (COV-S) following COVID-19 vaccination is associated with the risk of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection or hospitalization among patients with cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a population-based cross-sectional study of patients with cancer from the UK as part of the National COVID Cancer Antibody Survey. Adults with a known or reported cancer diagnosis who had completed their primary SARS-CoV-2 vaccination schedule were included. This analysis ran from September 1, 2021, to March 4, 2022, a period covering the expansion of the UK's third-dose vaccination booster program. Interventions: Anti-SARS-CoV-2 COV-S antibody test (Elecsys; Roche). Main Outcomes and Measures: Odds of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection and COVID-19 hospitalization. Results: The evaluation comprised 4249 antibody test results from 3555 patients with cancer and 294 230 test results from 225 272 individuals in the noncancer population. The overall cohort of 228 827 individuals (patients with cancer and the noncancer population) comprised 298 479 antibody tests. The median age of the cohort was in the age band of 40 and 49 years and included 182 741 test results (61.22%) from women and 115 737 (38.78%) from men. There were 279 721 tests (93.72%) taken by individuals identifying as White or White British. Patients with cancer were more likely to have undetectable anti-S antibody responses than the general population (199 of 4249 test results [4.68%] vs 376 of 294 230 [0.13%]; P < .001). Patients with leukemia or lymphoma had the lowest antibody titers. In the cancer cohort, following multivariable correction, patients who had an undetectable antibody response were at much greater risk for SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection (odds ratio [OR], 3.05; 95% CI, 1.96-4.72; P < .001) and SARS-CoV-2-related hospitalization (OR, 6.48; 95% CI, 3.31-12.67; P < .001) than individuals who had a positive antibody response. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that COV-S antibody testing allows the identification of patients with cancer who have the lowest level of antibody-derived protection from COVID-19. This study supports larger evaluations of SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing. Prevention of SARS-CoV-2 transmission to patients with cancer should be prioritized to minimize impact on cancer treatments and maximize quality of life for individuals with cancer during the ongoing pandemic.

A population-scale temporal case-control evaluation of COVID-19 disease phenotype and related outcome rates in patients with cancer in England (UKCCP).

Patients with cancer are at increased risk of hospitalisation and mortality following severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. However, the SARS-CoV-2 phenotype evolution in patients with cancer since 2020 has not previously been described. We therefore evaluated SARS-CoV-2 on a UK populationscale from 01/11/2020-31/08/2022, assessing case-outcome rates of hospital assessment(s), intensive care admission and mortality. We observed that the SARS-CoV-2 disease phenotype has become less severe in patients with cancer and the non-cancer population. Case-hospitalisation rates for patients with cancer dropped from 30.58% in early 2021 to 7.45% in 2022 while case-mortality rates decreased from 20.53% to 3.25%. However, the risk of hospitalisation and mortality remains 2.10x and 2.54x higher in patients with cancer, respectively. Overall, the SARS-CoV-2 disease phenotype is less severe in 2022 compared to 2020 but patients with cancer remain at higher risk than the non-cancer population. Patients with cancer must therefore be empowered to live more normal lives, to see loved ones and families, while also being safeguarded with expanded measures to reduce the risk of transmission.

Adherence in leading medical journals to the CONSORT 2010 statement for reporting of binary outcomes in randomised controlled trials: cross-sectional analysis.

Clinicians and lay people tend to overestimate the effectiveness of a treatment when only the relative effect is presented, particularly if the relative effect is large, but the absolute effect is small. In recognition of this problem, item 17b of The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement stipulates authors present both absolute and relative effects for binary outcomes in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Adherence to item 17b and the effect of differing levels of CONSORT endorsement by journals on adherence is not well known. We assessed the extent to which item 17b is adhered to in 258 RCTs published in five leading medical journals (Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, JAMA, The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine) between January and December 2019 that all endorsed the CONSORT statement to varying degrees. Only 53 of 258 (20.5%; 95% CI 15.8% to 26.0%) included studies adhered fully to item 17b. Proportional adherence was higher in journals that endorsed the statement more strictly (BMJ and JAMA, 47.4% [34.0% to 61.0%]) compared with journals less strict in their endorsement (NEJM and Ann Intern Med, 12.2% [7.0% to 19.3%]; The Lancet, 14.1% [7.3% to 23.8%]). Journals that only recommend author adherence to CONSORT had a greater proportion of studies reporting only relative effects in the main results section (62.6%) and abstract (64.2%) compared with journals that require authors to submit a completed checklist (24.6% and 29.8%, respectively). The majority of RCTs (79.5%) with binary primary outcomes published in five leading medical journals during 2019 do not report both absolute and relative effect estimates as per item 17b of the CONSORT guideline despite its universal endorsement. Differences in adherence were observed between journals that endorsed the CONSORT statement to differing extents.

COVID-19: Third dose booster vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough coronavirus infection, hospitalisations and death in patients with cancer: A population-based study.

PURPOSE: People living with cancer and haematological malignancies are at an increased risk of hospitalisation and death following infection with acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Coronavirus third dose vaccine boosters are proposed to boost waning immune responses in immunocompromised individuals and increase coronavirus protection; however, their effectiveness has not yet been systematically evaluated. METHODS: This study is a population-scale real-world evaluation of the United Kingdom's third dose vaccine booster programme for cancer patients from 8th December 2020 to 7th December 2021. The cancer cohort comprises individuals from Public Health England's national cancer dataset, excluding individuals less than 18 years. A test-negative case-control design was used to assess the third dose booster vaccine effectiveness. Multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to compare risk in the cancer cohort relative to the general population. RESULTS: The cancer cohort comprised of 2,258,553 tests from 361,098 individuals. Third dose boosters were evaluated by reference to 87,039,743 polymerase chain reaction coronavirus tests. Vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough infections, symptomatic infections, coronavirus hospitalisation and death in cancer patients were 59.1%, 62.8%, 80.5% and 94.5%, respectively. Lower vaccine effectiveness was associated with a cancer diagnosis within 12 months, lymphoma, recent systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT) or radiotherapy. Patients with lymphoma had low levels of protection from symptomatic disease. In spite of third dose boosters, following multivariable adjustment, individuals with cancer remain at an increased risk of coronavirus hospitalisation and death compared to the population control (OR 3.38, 3.01, respectively. p < 0.001 for both). CONCLUSIONS: Third dose boosters are effective for most individuals with cancer, increasing protection from coronavirus. However, their effectiveness is heterogenous and lower than the general population. Many patients with cancer will remain at the increased risk of coronavirus infections even after 3 doses. In the case of patients with lymphoma, there is a particularly strong disparity of vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough infection and severe disease. Breakthrough infections will disrupt cancer care and treatment with potentially adverse consequences on survival outcomes. The data support the role of vaccine boosters in preventing severe disease, and further pharmacological intervention to prevent transmission and aid viral clearance to limit the disruption of cancer care as the delivery of care continues to evolve during the coronavirus pandemic.

Loneliness, social isolation, cardiovascular disease and mortality: a synthesis of the literature and conceptual framework.

To conduct a systematic review and develop a conceptual framework on the mechanisms linking loneliness, social isolation, health outcomes and mortality. Electronic databases were systematically searched (PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus and EMBASE) from inception to October 2018 followed by manual searching to identify research on loneliness, social isolation and mortality in adults published in the English language. Articles were assessed for quality and synthesised into a conceptual framework using meta-ethnographical approaches. A total of 122 articles were included. These collated observational designs examining mediators and moderations of the association in addition to qualitative studies exploring potential mechanisms were included. A framework incorporating 18 discrete factors implicated in the association between loneliness, social isolation and mortality was developed. Factors were categorised into societal or individual, and sub-categorised into biological, behavioural and psychological. These findings emphasise the complex multidirectional relationship between loneliness, social isolation and mortality. Our conceptual framework may allow development of more holistic interventions, targeting many of the interdependent factors that contribute to poor outcomes for lonely and socially isolated people.

High hepatitis B seroprevalence and risk factors for infection in pregnant women on the Thailand-Myanmar Border.

INTRODUCTION: Infection from Hepatitis B primarily results from peri-partum vertical transmission and the risk increases in the presence of hepatitis B e antigen. We aimed to evaluate a new screening program for hepatitis B in pregnant women as a component of antenatal services in a marginalized population. METHODOLOGY: Counseling and screening for hepatitis B screening was offered to all women at the first visit, at Shoklo Malaria Research Unit (SMRU) antenatal clinics on the Thai-Myanmar border.  Point-of-care rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) were used throughout the period of evaluation. A certified Thai Public Health laboratory at Mae Sot Hospital verified RDT positive cases using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for HBsAb and HBeAg. Risk factors for hepatitis B were identified by data linkage to antenatal care records. RESULTS: There were 523 (8.5%) RDT positive for HBsAg among 6158 women tested (Aug-2012 to April-2014). Of these 373 (96.9%) of 385 sent for confirmation were positive by ELISA i.e. RDT false positive rate of 3.1% (95% CI 1.7- 5.4). The overall confirmed HbsAg prevalence was 8.3% (511/6158) (95% CI 7.6-9.0). HBeAg prevalence was 32.7% (114/350) (95% CI 27.9-37.7) of cases tested. Risk factors for HBsAg positivity included age >25 years (OR 1.24, CI 1.03-1.49, p 0.021) and Karen heritage (OR 1.73, CI 1.39-2.15, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: High hepatitis B seroprevalence amongst migrants and refugees accessing SMRU antenatal services likely reflects that of Kayin State, Myanmar, and perinatal prevention programs are required. False positive cases with HBsAg RDT complicate what is theoretically a straightforward screening.

Audit of antenatal screening for syphilis and HIV in migrant and refugee women on the Thai-Myanmar border: a descriptive study.

OBJECTIVE: The antenatal prevalence of syphilis and HIV/AIDS in migrants and refugees is poorly documented. The aim of this study was to audit the first year of routine syphilis screening in the same population and reassess the trends in HIV rates. METHODS: From August 2012 to July 2013, 3600 pregnant women were screened for HIV (ELISA) and syphilis (VDRL with TPHA confirmation) at clinics along the Thai-Myanmar border. RESULTS: Seroprevalence for HIV 0.47% (95% CI 0.30-0.76) (17/3,599), and syphilis 0.39% (95% CI 0.23-0.65) (14/3,592), were low. Syphilis was significantly lower in refugees (0.07% 95% CI 0.01-0.38) (1/1,469), than in migrants (0.61% 95% CI 0.36-1.04) (13/2,123). The three active (VDRL≥1:8 and TPHA reactive) syphilis cases with VDRL titres of 1:32 were easy to counsel and treat. Women with low VDRL titres (>75% were < 1:8) and TPHA reactive results, in the absence of symptoms and both the woman and her husband having only one sexual partner in their lifetime, and the inability to determine the true cause of the positive results presented ethical difficulties for counsellors. CONCLUSION: As HIV and syphilis testing becomes available in more and more settings, the potential impact of false positive results should be considered, especially in populations with low prevalence for these diseases. This uncertainty must be considered in order to counsel patients and partners accurately and safely about the results of these tests, without exposing women to increased risk for abuse or abandonment. Our findings highlight the complexities of counselling patients about these tests and the global need for more conclusive syphilis testing strategies.