CLL

For older, unfit patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL), first-line treatment with the all-oral combination of ibrutinib (Imbruvica) and venetoclax (Venclexta) was associated with superior progression-free survival, compared with chlorambucil and obinutuzumab (Gazyva), results of the phase 3 GLOW trial showed.

Among 211 patients with CLL/SLL who were 65 or older, or younger patients with a high comorbidity burden, the median progression-free survival (PFS) after 27.7 months of follow-up was not reached for patients treated with a fixed duration combination of ibrutinib plus venetoclax (I+V), compared with 21 months for patients who received chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab (Clb+O), reported Arnon P. Kater, MD, PhD, from Amsterdam University Medical Centers.

The oral combination was also associated with a higher rate of undetectable minimal residual disease (MRD) 3 months after the end of treatment, at 51.9% vs. 17.1% with Clb+O, he said in a late-breaking abstract presented during the European Hematology Association annual meeting (Abstract LB1902).

“Overall, the results from GLOW support a positive clinical profile of I+V as an all-oral, once-daily, fixed-duration regimen in older patients with newly diagnosed CLL,” he said.
 

A low bar

But the bar for success in the GLOW trial may have been set low, with the older combination of chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab used as the comparator, rather than a more contemporary regimen, said Clive S. Zent , MD, from the Wilmot Cancer Institute at the University of Rochester (New York) Medical Center, who was not involved in the study.

“Really, nobody in this country that I’m aware of, certainly not in academic medicine, would be using chlorambucil and obinutuzumab or rituximab for standard of care,” Dr. Zent said in an interview.

“This is like comparing a mule cart to a Tesla,” he said.

Apart from possibly providing a rationale for using ibrutinib and venetoclax in this population, the GLOW results do not add much beyond that already in the CAPTIVE MRD trial, he added.

“What we’re really interested in, is ibrutinib and venetoclax better than ibrutinib alone or venetoclax alone? And that has not been asked or answered yet,” he said.

Dr. Zent acknowledged that the combination works very well and is well tolerated, and the idea of fixed duration therapy is attractive, as are the long-term outcomes for many patients following cessation of therapy.

“But remember, if you take ibrutinib, you’ve got a 90% chance of going into remission, and an over 80% chance of being in remission 5 years later, so that’s pretty good as well,” he said.

Paolo P. Ghia, MD, from Univerista Vita-Salute San Raffaele in Milan, who has studied fixed-duration I+V in younger patients with CLL in the CAPTIVATE trial agreed that “in general, there is very little role for chemoimmunotherapy in CLL.”

But Dr. Ghia, who was not involved in the GLOW study, said in an interview that the results add to the growing body of evidence of the efficacy and safety of ibrutinib -venetoclax in a wide range of patients.

“Overall between the two studies [CAPTIVATE and GLOW] we have now over 400 patients who have been treated with the combination, and the message is rather similar in the two studies: you have a high frequency of undetectable MRD in peripheral blood and in the bone marrow, with a high concordance between the two tissues, and in particular we have a durability of the response,” he said.
 

GLOW details

Dr. Kater noted that ibrutinib and venetoclax have distinct and complementary modes of action, with ibrutinib mobilizing CLL cells out of their “protective lymphoid niches” and inhibiting their proliferation, as well as accelerating apoptosis by sensitizing cells to inhibition by the anti–B-cell lymphoma 2 (BCL-2) agent venetoclax. The combination leads to high levels of MRD negative by eliminating subpopulations of resting and dividing CLL cells.

The GLOW investigators enrolled 211 patients who were 65 or older, or were younger than 65 with a cumulative illness rating scale (CIRS) score of greater than 6, or creatinine clearance rate of less than 70 mL/min, and no known deletion 17p (del17p) or TP53 mutation.

The patients all had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status scores of 0-2.

After stratification by immunoglobulin heavy chain variable (IGHV) region genes and presence of deletion 11q (del11q), the patients were randomly assigned to either a three cycle run-in with ibrutinib 420 mg daily followed by ibrutinib plus venetoclax ramped up from 20 to 400 mg, or to chlorambucil 0.5 mg/kg on days and 15 for six cycles, and obinutuzumab 1,000 mg on days 1,2, 8, and 15 of cycle 1, and day 1 of cycles 2-6.

About one-third of patients in each study arm were 75 or older. Baseline characteristics were generally similar between the arms, except for a higher frequency of CIRS scores above 6 in the I+V arm, and a higher frequency of elevated lactate dehydrogenase in the Clb+O arm.
 

Superior PFS

As noted, the primary endpoint of PFS as assessed by independent review committee (IRC) after 27.7 months of follow-up had not been reached in I+V arm, compared with 21 months in the Clb+O arm, translating into a hazard ratio or progression with I+V of 0.21 (P < .0001). Investigator-assessed PFS was similar, with an HR of 2.07 (P < .0001).

PFS was superior with I+V across all subgroups, including age, baseline performance status. CIRS total score, Rai stage, bulky disease, elevated LDH at baseline, IGHV mutated or unmutated, and presence or absence of del(11q).

IRC-assessed combined complete response (CR) or CR with incomplete recovery of blood counts (CRi) rates were 38.7% with I+V vs. 11.4% with Clb+O (P < .0001).

Responses were also more durable with the oral combination, with 90% of patients having a sustained IRC-assessed response at 24 months, compared with 41% in the chemoimmunotherapy arm.

Rates of undetectable MRD by next-generation sequencing 3 months after the end of treatment were also significantly higher with I+V in both bone marrow (51.9% vs. 17.1%, respectively, P < .0001) and peripheral blood (54.7% vs. 39%, P = .0259). ­

One year post treatment 49% of patients assigned to I+V had undetectable MRD in peripheral blood, compared with 12% of patients assigned to Clb+O).
 

Safety

In all, 11 patients assigned to I+V discontinued treatment because of adverse events, compared with 2 in the Clb+O arm. Two patients in the I+V arm (1.9%) discontinued ibrutinib because of atrial fibrillation (AF). Serious adverse events in 5% or more of patients that were more frequent with I+V include infections (12.3% vs. 8.6% and AF (6.6% vs. o%). The tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) was not seen in the I+V arm, but occurred in 5.7% of patients in the Clb+O arm.

There were a total of 11 deaths in the I+V arm and 12 in the Clb+O arm during treatment or follow-up.

Causes of death were generally similar between the arms, with infections and cardiac events being the most common causes, Dr. Kater said.

Of the four deaths that occurred during ibrutinib lead-in, one was due to infection, one to metastatic carcinoma, and two due to cardiac disorders. Of the three that occurred in the I+V arm during treatment, two were from sudden death, and one from a nervous system disorder. Four patients in this arm died during follow-up, two from infections, one from sudden death, and one from progressive disease with Richter transformation.

In the Clb+O arm, one patient died during treatment from an infection and one died from hepatobiliary disease. Of the 10 that died during follow-up, 6 died from infections/infestations, 2 from cardiac disorders, and 1 each from nervous system and respiratory/thoracic/mediastinal disorder.

The study was supported by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Kater disclosed advisory board activity, research committee, and steering committee participation for Janssen, and similar relationships with others. Dr. Zent disclosed research funding to the University of Rochester from AstraZenca/Acerta and TG Therpeutics. Dr. Ghia disclosed consultancy, honoraria, travel expenses, and research funding from Janssen and others.

For older, unfit patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL), first-line treatment with the all-oral combination of ibrutinib (Imbruvica) and venetoclax (Venclexta) was associated with superior progression-free survival, compared with chlorambucil and obinutuzumab (Gazyva), results of the phase 3 GLOW trial showed.

Among 211 patients with CLL/SLL who were 65 or older, or younger patients with a high comorbidity burden, the median progression-free survival (PFS) after 27.7 months of follow-up was not reached for patients treated with a fixed duration combination of ibrutinib plus venetoclax (I+V), compared with 21 months for patients who received chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab (Clb+O), reported Arnon P. Kater, MD, PhD, from Amsterdam University Medical Centers.

The oral combination was also associated with a higher rate of undetectable minimal residual disease (MRD) 3 months after the end of treatment, at 51.9% vs. 17.1% with Clb+O, he said in a late-breaking abstract presented during the European Hematology Association annual meeting (Abstract LB1902).

“Overall, the results from GLOW support a positive clinical profile of I+V as an all-oral, once-daily, fixed-duration regimen in older patients with newly diagnosed CLL,” he said.
 

A low bar

But the bar for success in the GLOW trial may have been set low, with the older combination of chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab used as the comparator, rather than a more contemporary regimen, said Clive S. Zent , MD, from the Wilmot Cancer Institute at the University of Rochester (New York) Medical Center, who was not involved in the study.

“Really, nobody in this country that I’m aware of, certainly not in academic medicine, would be using chlorambucil and obinutuzumab or rituximab for standard of care,” Dr. Zent said in an interview.

“This is like comparing a mule cart to a Tesla,” he said.

Apart from possibly providing a rationale for using ibrutinib and venetoclax in this population, the GLOW results do not add much beyond that already in the CAPTIVE MRD trial, he added.

“What we’re really interested in, is ibrutinib and venetoclax better than ibrutinib alone or venetoclax alone? And that has not been asked or answered yet,” he said.

Dr. Zent acknowledged that the combination works very well and is well tolerated, and the idea of fixed duration therapy is attractive, as are the long-term outcomes for many patients following cessation of therapy.

“But remember, if you take ibrutinib, you’ve got a 90% chance of going into remission, and an over 80% chance of being in remission 5 years later, so that’s pretty good as well,” he said.

Paolo P. Ghia, MD, from Univerista Vita-Salute San Raffaele in Milan, who has studied fixed-duration I+V in younger patients with CLL in the CAPTIVATE trial agreed that “in general, there is very little role for chemoimmunotherapy in CLL.”

But Dr. Ghia, who was not involved in the GLOW study, said in an interview that the results add to the growing body of evidence of the efficacy and safety of ibrutinib -venetoclax in a wide range of patients.

“Overall between the two studies [CAPTIVATE and GLOW] we have now over 400 patients who have been treated with the combination, and the message is rather similar in the two studies: you have a high frequency of undetectable MRD in peripheral blood and in the bone marrow, with a high concordance between the two tissues, and in particular we have a durability of the response,” he said.
 

GLOW details

Dr. Kater noted that ibrutinib and venetoclax have distinct and complementary modes of action, with ibrutinib mobilizing CLL cells out of their “protective lymphoid niches” and inhibiting their proliferation, as well as accelerating apoptosis by sensitizing cells to inhibition by the anti–B-cell lymphoma 2 (BCL-2) agent venetoclax. The combination leads to high levels of MRD negative by eliminating subpopulations of resting and dividing CLL cells.

The GLOW investigators enrolled 211 patients who were 65 or older, or were younger than 65 with a cumulative illness rating scale (CIRS) score of greater than 6, or creatinine clearance rate of less than 70 mL/min, and no known deletion 17p (del17p) or TP53 mutation.

The patients all had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status scores of 0-2.

After stratification by immunoglobulin heavy chain variable (IGHV) region genes and presence of deletion 11q (del11q), the patients were randomly assigned to either a three cycle run-in with ibrutinib 420 mg daily followed by ibrutinib plus venetoclax ramped up from 20 to 400 mg, or to chlorambucil 0.5 mg/kg on days and 15 for six cycles, and obinutuzumab 1,000 mg on days 1,2, 8, and 15 of cycle 1, and day 1 of cycles 2-6.

About one-third of patients in each study arm were 75 or older. Baseline characteristics were generally similar between the arms, except for a higher frequency of CIRS scores above 6 in the I+V arm, and a higher frequency of elevated lactate dehydrogenase in the Clb+O arm.
 

Superior PFS

As noted, the primary endpoint of PFS as assessed by independent review committee (IRC) after 27.7 months of follow-up had not been reached in I+V arm, compared with 21 months in the Clb+O arm, translating into a hazard ratio or progression with I+V of 0.21 (P < .0001). Investigator-assessed PFS was similar, with an HR of 2.07 (P < .0001).

PFS was superior with I+V across all subgroups, including age, baseline performance status. CIRS total score, Rai stage, bulky disease, elevated LDH at baseline, IGHV mutated or unmutated, and presence or absence of del(11q).

IRC-assessed combined complete response (CR) or CR with incomplete recovery of blood counts (CRi) rates were 38.7% with I+V vs. 11.4% with Clb+O (P < .0001).

Responses were also more durable with the oral combination, with 90% of patients having a sustained IRC-assessed response at 24 months, compared with 41% in the chemoimmunotherapy arm.

Rates of undetectable MRD by next-generation sequencing 3 months after the end of treatment were also significantly higher with I+V in both bone marrow (51.9% vs. 17.1%, respectively, P < .0001) and peripheral blood (54.7% vs. 39%, P = .0259). ­

One year post treatment 49% of patients assigned to I+V had undetectable MRD in peripheral blood, compared with 12% of patients assigned to Clb+O).
 

Safety

In all, 11 patients assigned to I+V discontinued treatment because of adverse events, compared with 2 in the Clb+O arm. Two patients in the I+V arm (1.9%) discontinued ibrutinib because of atrial fibrillation (AF). Serious adverse events in 5% or more of patients that were more frequent with I+V include infections (12.3% vs. 8.6% and AF (6.6% vs. o%). The tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) was not seen in the I+V arm, but occurred in 5.7% of patients in the Clb+O arm.

There were a total of 11 deaths in the I+V arm and 12 in the Clb+O arm during treatment or follow-up.

Causes of death were generally similar between the arms, with infections and cardiac events being the most common causes, Dr. Kater said.

Of the four deaths that occurred during ibrutinib lead-in, one was due to infection, one to metastatic carcinoma, and two due to cardiac disorders. Of the three that occurred in the I+V arm during treatment, two were from sudden death, and one from a nervous system disorder. Four patients in this arm died during follow-up, two from infections, one from sudden death, and one from progressive disease with Richter transformation.

In the Clb+O arm, one patient died during treatment from an infection and one died from hepatobiliary disease. Of the 10 that died during follow-up, 6 died from infections/infestations, 2 from cardiac disorders, and 1 each from nervous system and respiratory/thoracic/mediastinal disorder.

The study was supported by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Kater disclosed advisory board activity, research committee, and steering committee participation for Janssen, and similar relationships with others. Dr. Zent disclosed research funding to the University of Rochester from AstraZenca/Acerta and TG Therpeutics. Dr. Ghia disclosed consultancy, honoraria, travel expenses, and research funding from Janssen and others.

For older, unfit patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL), first-line treatment with the all-oral combination of ibrutinib (Imbruvica) and venetoclax (Venclexta) was associated with superior progression-free survival, compared with chlorambucil and obinutuzumab (Gazyva), results of the phase 3 GLOW trial showed.

Among 211 patients with CLL/SLL who were 65 or older, or younger patients with a high comorbidity burden, the median progression-free survival (PFS) after 27.7 months of follow-up was not reached for patients treated with a fixed duration combination of ibrutinib plus venetoclax (I+V), compared with 21 months for patients who received chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab (Clb+O), reported Arnon P. Kater, MD, PhD, from Amsterdam University Medical Centers.

The oral combination was also associated with a higher rate of undetectable minimal residual disease (MRD) 3 months after the end of treatment, at 51.9% vs. 17.1% with Clb+O, he said in a late-breaking abstract presented during the European Hematology Association annual meeting (Abstract LB1902).

“Overall, the results from GLOW support a positive clinical profile of I+V as an all-oral, once-daily, fixed-duration regimen in older patients with newly diagnosed CLL,” he said.
 

A low bar

But the bar for success in the GLOW trial may have been set low, with the older combination of chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab used as the comparator, rather than a more contemporary regimen, said Clive S. Zent , MD, from the Wilmot Cancer Institute at the University of Rochester (New York) Medical Center, who was not involved in the study.

“Really, nobody in this country that I’m aware of, certainly not in academic medicine, would be using chlorambucil and obinutuzumab or rituximab for standard of care,” Dr. Zent said in an interview.

“This is like comparing a mule cart to a Tesla,” he said.

Apart from possibly providing a rationale for using ibrutinib and venetoclax in this population, the GLOW results do not add much beyond that already in the CAPTIVE MRD trial, he added.

“What we’re really interested in, is ibrutinib and venetoclax better than ibrutinib alone or venetoclax alone? And that has not been asked or answered yet,” he said.

Dr. Zent acknowledged that the combination works very well and is well tolerated, and the idea of fixed duration therapy is attractive, as are the long-term outcomes for many patients following cessation of therapy.

“But remember, if you take ibrutinib, you’ve got a 90% chance of going into remission, and an over 80% chance of being in remission 5 years later, so that’s pretty good as well,” he said.

Paolo P. Ghia, MD, from Univerista Vita-Salute San Raffaele in Milan, who has studied fixed-duration I+V in younger patients with CLL in the CAPTIVATE trial agreed that “in general, there is very little role for chemoimmunotherapy in CLL.”

But Dr. Ghia, who was not involved in the GLOW study, said in an interview that the results add to the growing body of evidence of the efficacy and safety of ibrutinib -venetoclax in a wide range of patients.

“Overall between the two studies [CAPTIVATE and GLOW] we have now over 400 patients who have been treated with the combination, and the message is rather similar in the two studies: you have a high frequency of undetectable MRD in peripheral blood and in the bone marrow, with a high concordance between the two tissues, and in particular we have a durability of the response,” he said.
 

GLOW details

Dr. Kater noted that ibrutinib and venetoclax have distinct and complementary modes of action, with ibrutinib mobilizing CLL cells out of their “protective lymphoid niches” and inhibiting their proliferation, as well as accelerating apoptosis by sensitizing cells to inhibition by the anti–B-cell lymphoma 2 (BCL-2) agent venetoclax. The combination leads to high levels of MRD negative by eliminating subpopulations of resting and dividing CLL cells.

The GLOW investigators enrolled 211 patients who were 65 or older, or were younger than 65 with a cumulative illness rating scale (CIRS) score of greater than 6, or creatinine clearance rate of less than 70 mL/min, and no known deletion 17p (del17p) or TP53 mutation.

The patients all had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status scores of 0-2.

After stratification by immunoglobulin heavy chain variable (IGHV) region genes and presence of deletion 11q (del11q), the patients were randomly assigned to either a three cycle run-in with ibrutinib 420 mg daily followed by ibrutinib plus venetoclax ramped up from 20 to 400 mg, or to chlorambucil 0.5 mg/kg on days and 15 for six cycles, and obinutuzumab 1,000 mg on days 1,2, 8, and 15 of cycle 1, and day 1 of cycles 2-6.

About one-third of patients in each study arm were 75 or older. Baseline characteristics were generally similar between the arms, except for a higher frequency of CIRS scores above 6 in the I+V arm, and a higher frequency of elevated lactate dehydrogenase in the Clb+O arm.
 

Superior PFS

As noted, the primary endpoint of PFS as assessed by independent review committee (IRC) after 27.7 months of follow-up had not been reached in I+V arm, compared with 21 months in the Clb+O arm, translating into a hazard ratio or progression with I+V of 0.21 (P < .0001). Investigator-assessed PFS was similar, with an HR of 2.07 (P < .0001).

PFS was superior with I+V across all subgroups, including age, baseline performance status. CIRS total score, Rai stage, bulky disease, elevated LDH at baseline, IGHV mutated or unmutated, and presence or absence of del(11q).

IRC-assessed combined complete response (CR) or CR with incomplete recovery of blood counts (CRi) rates were 38.7% with I+V vs. 11.4% with Clb+O (P < .0001).

Responses were also more durable with the oral combination, with 90% of patients having a sustained IRC-assessed response at 24 months, compared with 41% in the chemoimmunotherapy arm.

Rates of undetectable MRD by next-generation sequencing 3 months after the end of treatment were also significantly higher with I+V in both bone marrow (51.9% vs. 17.1%, respectively, P < .0001) and peripheral blood (54.7% vs. 39%, P = .0259). ­

One year post treatment 49% of patients assigned to I+V had undetectable MRD in peripheral blood, compared with 12% of patients assigned to Clb+O).
 

Safety

In all, 11 patients assigned to I+V discontinued treatment because of adverse events, compared with 2 in the Clb+O arm. Two patients in the I+V arm (1.9%) discontinued ibrutinib because of atrial fibrillation (AF). Serious adverse events in 5% or more of patients that were more frequent with I+V include infections (12.3% vs. 8.6% and AF (6.6% vs. o%). The tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) was not seen in the I+V arm, but occurred in 5.7% of patients in the Clb+O arm.

There were a total of 11 deaths in the I+V arm and 12 in the Clb+O arm during treatment or follow-up.

Causes of death were generally similar between the arms, with infections and cardiac events being the most common causes, Dr. Kater said.

Of the four deaths that occurred during ibrutinib lead-in, one was due to infection, one to metastatic carcinoma, and two due to cardiac disorders. Of the three that occurred in the I+V arm during treatment, two were from sudden death, and one from a nervous system disorder. Four patients in this arm died during follow-up, two from infections, one from sudden death, and one from progressive disease with Richter transformation.

In the Clb+O arm, one patient died during treatment from an infection and one died from hepatobiliary disease. Of the 10 that died during follow-up, 6 died from infections/infestations, 2 from cardiac disorders, and 1 each from nervous system and respiratory/thoracic/mediastinal disorder.

The study was supported by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Kater disclosed advisory board activity, research committee, and steering committee participation for Janssen, and similar relationships with others. Dr. Zent disclosed research funding to the University of Rochester from AstraZenca/Acerta and TG Therpeutics. Dr. Ghia disclosed consultancy, honoraria, travel expenses, and research funding from Janssen and others.

Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) have increased risk for severe COVID-19 disease as well as mortality.

South_agency/Getty Images

Such patients are likely to have compromised immune systems, making them respond poorly to vaccines, as has been seen in studies involving pneumococcal, hepatitis B, and influenza A and B vaccination. 

In order to determine if vaccination against COVID-19 disease will be effective among these patients, researchers performed a study to determine the efficacy of a single COVID-19 vaccine in patients with CLL. They found that the response rate of patients with CLL to vaccination was significantly lower than that of healthy controls, according to the study published in Blood Advances.

Study details

The study (NCT04746092) assessed the humoral immune responses to BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 (Pfizer) vaccination in adult patients with CLL and compared responses with those obtained in age-matched healthy controls. Patients received two vaccine doses, 21 days apart, and antibody titers were measured 2-3 weeks after administration of the second dose, according to Yair Herishanu, MD, of the Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv University, and colleagues.

Troubling results

The researchers found an antibody-mediated response to the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in only 66 of 167 (39.5%) of all patients with CLL. The response rate of 52 of these responding patients with CLL to the vaccine was significantly lower than that occurring in 52 age- and sex-matched healthy controls (52% vs. 100%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio, 0.010; 95% confidence interval, 0.001-0.162; P < .001). 

Among the patients with CLL, the response rate was highest in those who obtained clinical remission after treatment (79.2%), followed by 55.2% in treatment-naive patients, and it was only 16% in patients under treatment at the time of vaccination. 

In patients treated with either BTK inhibitors or venetoclax with and without anti-CD20 antibody, response rates were low (16.0% and 13.6%, respectively). In particular, none of the patients exposed to anti-CD20 antibodies less than 12 months prior to vaccination responded, according to the researchers.

Multivariate analysis showed that the independent predictors of a vaccine response were age (65 years or younger; odds ratio, 3.17; P = .025), sex (women; OR, 3.66; P = .006), lack of active therapy (including treatment naive and previously treated patients; OR 6.59; P < .001), IgG levels 550 mg/dL or greater (OR, 3.70; P = .037), and IgM levels 40mg/dL or greater (OR, 2.92; P = .017). 

Within a median follow-up period of 75 days since the first vaccine dose, none of the CLL patients developed COVID-19 infection, the researchers reported.

“Vaccinated patients with CLL should continue to adhere to masking, social distancing, and vaccination of their close contacts should be strongly recommended. Serological tests after the second injection of the COVID-19 vaccine can provide valuable information to the individual patient and perhaps, may be integrated in future clinical decisions,” the researchers concluded.

The study was sponsored by the Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center. The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest. 

[email protected] 

Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) have increased risk for severe COVID-19 disease as well as mortality.

South_agency/Getty Images

Such patients are likely to have compromised immune systems, making them respond poorly to vaccines, as has been seen in studies involving pneumococcal, hepatitis B, and influenza A and B vaccination. 

In order to determine if vaccination against COVID-19 disease will be effective among these patients, researchers performed a study to determine the efficacy of a single COVID-19 vaccine in patients with CLL. They found that the response rate of patients with CLL to vaccination was significantly lower than that of healthy controls, according to the study published in Blood Advances.

Study details

The study (NCT04746092) assessed the humoral immune responses to BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 (Pfizer) vaccination in adult patients with CLL and compared responses with those obtained in age-matched healthy controls. Patients received two vaccine doses, 21 days apart, and antibody titers were measured 2-3 weeks after administration of the second dose, according to Yair Herishanu, MD, of the Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv University, and colleagues.

Troubling results

The researchers found an antibody-mediated response to the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in only 66 of 167 (39.5%) of all patients with CLL. The response rate of 52 of these responding patients with CLL to the vaccine was significantly lower than that occurring in 52 age- and sex-matched healthy controls (52% vs. 100%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio, 0.010; 95% confidence interval, 0.001-0.162; P < .001). 

Among the patients with CLL, the response rate was highest in those who obtained clinical remission after treatment (79.2%), followed by 55.2% in treatment-naive patients, and it was only 16% in patients under treatment at the time of vaccination. 

In patients treated with either BTK inhibitors or venetoclax with and without anti-CD20 antibody, response rates were low (16.0% and 13.6%, respectively). In particular, none of the patients exposed to anti-CD20 antibodies less than 12 months prior to vaccination responded, according to the researchers.

Multivariate analysis showed that the independent predictors of a vaccine response were age (65 years or younger; odds ratio, 3.17; P = .025), sex (women; OR, 3.66; P = .006), lack of active therapy (including treatment naive and previously treated patients; OR 6.59; P < .001), IgG levels 550 mg/dL or greater (OR, 3.70; P = .037), and IgM levels 40mg/dL or greater (OR, 2.92; P = .017). 

Within a median follow-up period of 75 days since the first vaccine dose, none of the CLL patients developed COVID-19 infection, the researchers reported.

“Vaccinated patients with CLL should continue to adhere to masking, social distancing, and vaccination of their close contacts should be strongly recommended. Serological tests after the second injection of the COVID-19 vaccine can provide valuable information to the individual patient and perhaps, may be integrated in future clinical decisions,” the researchers concluded.

The study was sponsored by the Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center. The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest. 

[email protected] 

Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) have increased risk for severe COVID-19 disease as well as mortality.

South_agency/Getty Images

Such patients are likely to have compromised immune systems, making them respond poorly to vaccines, as has been seen in studies involving pneumococcal, hepatitis B, and influenza A and B vaccination. 

In order to determine if vaccination against COVID-19 disease will be effective among these patients, researchers performed a study to determine the efficacy of a single COVID-19 vaccine in patients with CLL. They found that the response rate of patients with CLL to vaccination was significantly lower than that of healthy controls, according to the study published in Blood Advances.

Study details

The study (NCT04746092) assessed the humoral immune responses to BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 (Pfizer) vaccination in adult patients with CLL and compared responses with those obtained in age-matched healthy controls. Patients received two vaccine doses, 21 days apart, and antibody titers were measured 2-3 weeks after administration of the second dose, according to Yair Herishanu, MD, of the Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv University, and colleagues.

Troubling results

The researchers found an antibody-mediated response to the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in only 66 of 167 (39.5%) of all patients with CLL. The response rate of 52 of these responding patients with CLL to the vaccine was significantly lower than that occurring in 52 age- and sex-matched healthy controls (52% vs. 100%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio, 0.010; 95% confidence interval, 0.001-0.162; P < .001). 

Among the patients with CLL, the response rate was highest in those who obtained clinical remission after treatment (79.2%), followed by 55.2% in treatment-naive patients, and it was only 16% in patients under treatment at the time of vaccination. 

In patients treated with either BTK inhibitors or venetoclax with and without anti-CD20 antibody, response rates were low (16.0% and 13.6%, respectively). In particular, none of the patients exposed to anti-CD20 antibodies less than 12 months prior to vaccination responded, according to the researchers.

Multivariate analysis showed that the independent predictors of a vaccine response were age (65 years or younger; odds ratio, 3.17; P = .025), sex (women; OR, 3.66; P = .006), lack of active therapy (including treatment naive and previously treated patients; OR 6.59; P < .001), IgG levels 550 mg/dL or greater (OR, 3.70; P = .037), and IgM levels 40mg/dL or greater (OR, 2.92; P = .017). 

Within a median follow-up period of 75 days since the first vaccine dose, none of the CLL patients developed COVID-19 infection, the researchers reported.

“Vaccinated patients with CLL should continue to adhere to masking, social distancing, and vaccination of their close contacts should be strongly recommended. Serological tests after the second injection of the COVID-19 vaccine can provide valuable information to the individual patient and perhaps, may be integrated in future clinical decisions,” the researchers concluded.

The study was sponsored by the Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center. The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest. 

[email protected] 

Survivors of childhood cancers are at increased risk for prescription opioid misuse compared with their peers, a review of a claims database revealed.

Among more than 8,000 patients age 21 or younger who had completed treatment for hematologic, central nervous system, bone, or gonadal cancers, survivors were significantly more likely than were their peers to have an opioid prescription, longer duration of prescription, and higher daily doses of opioids, and to have opioid prescriptions overlapping for a week or more, reported Xu Ji, PhD, of Emory University in Atlanta.

Teenage and young adult patients were at higher risk than were patients younger than 12, and the risk was highest among patients who had been treated for bone malignancies, as well as those who had undergone any hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

“These findings suggest that health care providers who regularly see survivors should explore nonopioid options to help prevent opioid misuse, and screen for potential misuse in those who actually receive opioids,” she said in an oral abstract presented during the annual meeting of the American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology.

“This is a really important topic, and something that’s probably been underinvestigated and underexplored in our patient population,” said session comoderator Sheri Spunt, MD, Endowed Professor of Pediatric Cancer at Stanford (Calif.) University.
 

Database review

Dr. Ji and colleagues used the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database from 2009 to 2018 to examine prescription opioid use, potential misuse, and substance use disorders in pediatric cancer survivors in the first year after completion of therapy, and to identify factors associated with risk for misuse or substance use disorders. Specifically, the period of interest was the first year after completion of all treatments, including surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, and stem cell transplant (Abstract 2015).

They looked at deidentified records on any opioid prescription and for treatment of any opioid use or substance use disorder (alcohol, psychotherapeutic drugs, marijuana, or illicit drug use disorders).

They defined indicators of potential misuse as either prescriptions for long-acting or extended-release opioids for acute pain conditions; opioid and benzodiazepine prescriptions overlapping by a week or more; opioid prescriptions overlapping by a week or more; high daily opioid dosage (prescribed daily dose of 100 or greater morphine milligram equivalent [MME]; and/or opioid dose escalation (an increase of at least 50% in mean MMEs per month twice consecutively within 1 year).

They compared outcomes between a total of 8,635 survivors and 44,175 controls, matched on a 1:5 basis with survivors by age, sex, and region, and continuous enrollment during the 1-year posttherapy period.

In each of three age categories – 0 to 11 years, 12 to 17 years, and 18 years and older – survivors were significantly more likely to have received an opioid prescription, at 15% for the youngest survivors vs. 2% of controls, 25% vs. 8% for 12- to 17-year-olds, and 28% vs. 12% for those 18 and older (P < .01 for all three comparisons).

Survivors were also significantly more likely to have any indicator of potential misuse (1.6% vs. 0.1%, 4.6% vs. 0.5%, and 7.4% vs. 1.2%, respectively, P < .001 for all) and both the youngest and oldest groups (but not 12- to 17-year-olds) were significantly more like to have opioid or substance use disorder (0.4% vs. 0% for 0-11 years, 5.76% vs. 4.2% for 18 years and older, P < .001 for both).

Among patients with any opioid prescription, survivors were significantly more likely than were controls of any age to have indicators for potential misuse. For example, 13% of survivors aged 18 years and older had prescriptions for high opioid doses, compared with 5% of controls, and 12% had prescription overlap, vs. 2%.

Compared with patients with leukemia, patients treated for bone malignancies had a 6% greater risk for having any indicator of misuse, while patients with other malignancies were at slightly lower risk for misuse than those who completed leukemia therapy.

Patients who received any stem cell transplant had an 8.4% greater risk for misuse compared with patients who had surgery only.
 

Opioids pre- and posttreatment?

“Being someone who takes care of a lot of bone cancer patients, I do see patients with these issues,” Dr. Spunt said.

Audience member Jack H. Staddon, MD, PhD, of the Billings (Montana) Clinic, noted the possibility that opioid use during treatment may have been carried on into the posttreatment period, and asked whether use of narcotics during treatment was an independent risk factor for posttreatment narcotic use or misuse.

The researchers plan to investigate this question in future studies, Dr. Ji replied.

They did not report a study funding source. Dr. Ji and coauthors and Dr. Staddon reported no relevant disclosures.

Survivors of childhood cancers are at increased risk for prescription opioid misuse compared with their peers, a review of a claims database revealed.

Among more than 8,000 patients age 21 or younger who had completed treatment for hematologic, central nervous system, bone, or gonadal cancers, survivors were significantly more likely than were their peers to have an opioid prescription, longer duration of prescription, and higher daily doses of opioids, and to have opioid prescriptions overlapping for a week or more, reported Xu Ji, PhD, of Emory University in Atlanta.

Teenage and young adult patients were at higher risk than were patients younger than 12, and the risk was highest among patients who had been treated for bone malignancies, as well as those who had undergone any hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

“These findings suggest that health care providers who regularly see survivors should explore nonopioid options to help prevent opioid misuse, and screen for potential misuse in those who actually receive opioids,” she said in an oral abstract presented during the annual meeting of the American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology.

“This is a really important topic, and something that’s probably been underinvestigated and underexplored in our patient population,” said session comoderator Sheri Spunt, MD, Endowed Professor of Pediatric Cancer at Stanford (Calif.) University.
 

Database review

Dr. Ji and colleagues used the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database from 2009 to 2018 to examine prescription opioid use, potential misuse, and substance use disorders in pediatric cancer survivors in the first year after completion of therapy, and to identify factors associated with risk for misuse or substance use disorders. Specifically, the period of interest was the first year after completion of all treatments, including surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, and stem cell transplant (Abstract 2015).

They looked at deidentified records on any opioid prescription and for treatment of any opioid use or substance use disorder (alcohol, psychotherapeutic drugs, marijuana, or illicit drug use disorders).

They defined indicators of potential misuse as either prescriptions for long-acting or extended-release opioids for acute pain conditions; opioid and benzodiazepine prescriptions overlapping by a week or more; opioid prescriptions overlapping by a week or more; high daily opioid dosage (prescribed daily dose of 100 or greater morphine milligram equivalent [MME]; and/or opioid dose escalation (an increase of at least 50% in mean MMEs per month twice consecutively within 1 year).

They compared outcomes between a total of 8,635 survivors and 44,175 controls, matched on a 1:5 basis with survivors by age, sex, and region, and continuous enrollment during the 1-year posttherapy period.

In each of three age categories – 0 to 11 years, 12 to 17 years, and 18 years and older – survivors were significantly more likely to have received an opioid prescription, at 15% for the youngest survivors vs. 2% of controls, 25% vs. 8% for 12- to 17-year-olds, and 28% vs. 12% for those 18 and older (P < .01 for all three comparisons).

Survivors were also significantly more likely to have any indicator of potential misuse (1.6% vs. 0.1%, 4.6% vs. 0.5%, and 7.4% vs. 1.2%, respectively, P < .001 for all) and both the youngest and oldest groups (but not 12- to 17-year-olds) were significantly more like to have opioid or substance use disorder (0.4% vs. 0% for 0-11 years, 5.76% vs. 4.2% for 18 years and older, P < .001 for both).

Among patients with any opioid prescription, survivors were significantly more likely than were controls of any age to have indicators for potential misuse. For example, 13% of survivors aged 18 years and older had prescriptions for high opioid doses, compared with 5% of controls, and 12% had prescription overlap, vs. 2%.

Compared with patients with leukemia, patients treated for bone malignancies had a 6% greater risk for having any indicator of misuse, while patients with other malignancies were at slightly lower risk for misuse than those who completed leukemia therapy.

Patients who received any stem cell transplant had an 8.4% greater risk for misuse compared with patients who had surgery only.
 

Opioids pre- and posttreatment?

“Being someone who takes care of a lot of bone cancer patients, I do see patients with these issues,” Dr. Spunt said.

Audience member Jack H. Staddon, MD, PhD, of the Billings (Montana) Clinic, noted the possibility that opioid use during treatment may have been carried on into the posttreatment period, and asked whether use of narcotics during treatment was an independent risk factor for posttreatment narcotic use or misuse.

The researchers plan to investigate this question in future studies, Dr. Ji replied.

They did not report a study funding source. Dr. Ji and coauthors and Dr. Staddon reported no relevant disclosures.

Survivors of childhood cancers are at increased risk for prescription opioid misuse compared with their peers, a review of a claims database revealed.

Among more than 8,000 patients age 21 or younger who had completed treatment for hematologic, central nervous system, bone, or gonadal cancers, survivors were significantly more likely than were their peers to have an opioid prescription, longer duration of prescription, and higher daily doses of opioids, and to have opioid prescriptions overlapping for a week or more, reported Xu Ji, PhD, of Emory University in Atlanta.

Teenage and young adult patients were at higher risk than were patients younger than 12, and the risk was highest among patients who had been treated for bone malignancies, as well as those who had undergone any hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

“These findings suggest that health care providers who regularly see survivors should explore nonopioid options to help prevent opioid misuse, and screen for potential misuse in those who actually receive opioids,” she said in an oral abstract presented during the annual meeting of the American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology.

“This is a really important topic, and something that’s probably been underinvestigated and underexplored in our patient population,” said session comoderator Sheri Spunt, MD, Endowed Professor of Pediatric Cancer at Stanford (Calif.) University.
 

Database review

Dr. Ji and colleagues used the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database from 2009 to 2018 to examine prescription opioid use, potential misuse, and substance use disorders in pediatric cancer survivors in the first year after completion of therapy, and to identify factors associated with risk for misuse or substance use disorders. Specifically, the period of interest was the first year after completion of all treatments, including surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, and stem cell transplant (Abstract 2015).

They looked at deidentified records on any opioid prescription and for treatment of any opioid use or substance use disorder (alcohol, psychotherapeutic drugs, marijuana, or illicit drug use disorders).

They defined indicators of potential misuse as either prescriptions for long-acting or extended-release opioids for acute pain conditions; opioid and benzodiazepine prescriptions overlapping by a week or more; opioid prescriptions overlapping by a week or more; high daily opioid dosage (prescribed daily dose of 100 or greater morphine milligram equivalent [MME]; and/or opioid dose escalation (an increase of at least 50% in mean MMEs per month twice consecutively within 1 year).

They compared outcomes between a total of 8,635 survivors and 44,175 controls, matched on a 1:5 basis with survivors by age, sex, and region, and continuous enrollment during the 1-year posttherapy period.

In each of three age categories – 0 to 11 years, 12 to 17 years, and 18 years and older – survivors were significantly more likely to have received an opioid prescription, at 15% for the youngest survivors vs. 2% of controls, 25% vs. 8% for 12- to 17-year-olds, and 28% vs. 12% for those 18 and older (P < .01 for all three comparisons).

Survivors were also significantly more likely to have any indicator of potential misuse (1.6% vs. 0.1%, 4.6% vs. 0.5%, and 7.4% vs. 1.2%, respectively, P < .001 for all) and both the youngest and oldest groups (but not 12- to 17-year-olds) were significantly more like to have opioid or substance use disorder (0.4% vs. 0% for 0-11 years, 5.76% vs. 4.2% for 18 years and older, P < .001 for both).

Among patients with any opioid prescription, survivors were significantly more likely than were controls of any age to have indicators for potential misuse. For example, 13% of survivors aged 18 years and older had prescriptions for high opioid doses, compared with 5% of controls, and 12% had prescription overlap, vs. 2%.

Compared with patients with leukemia, patients treated for bone malignancies had a 6% greater risk for having any indicator of misuse, while patients with other malignancies were at slightly lower risk for misuse than those who completed leukemia therapy.

Patients who received any stem cell transplant had an 8.4% greater risk for misuse compared with patients who had surgery only.
 

Opioids pre- and posttreatment?

“Being someone who takes care of a lot of bone cancer patients, I do see patients with these issues,” Dr. Spunt said.

Audience member Jack H. Staddon, MD, PhD, of the Billings (Montana) Clinic, noted the possibility that opioid use during treatment may have been carried on into the posttreatment period, and asked whether use of narcotics during treatment was an independent risk factor for posttreatment narcotic use or misuse.

The researchers plan to investigate this question in future studies, Dr. Ji replied.

They did not report a study funding source. Dr. Ji and coauthors and Dr. Staddon reported no relevant disclosures.

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a clinically heterogeneous disease associated with several known genetic abnormalities, including 17p deletion (del[17p]), 11q deletion (del[11q]), and TP53 gene mutations, which are adverse prognostic markers among patients treated with chemoimmunotherapy.

The Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib is approved for patients with untreated, relapsed, or refractory disease, including those with del(17p). Clinicians will soon have the chance to pair it with ublituximab, a next-generation, glycoengineered, type I, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody that binds to a unique epitope on CD20, differentiating it from rituximab, ofatumumab, and obinutuzumab. Results from the phase 3 GENUINE trial, which were recently published in The Lancet Haematology, showed that ublituximab plus ibrutinib was superior to ibrutinib alone for patients with relapsed or refractory high-risk CLL.

This news organization spoke with Jennifer R. Brown, MD, PhD, director of the CLL Center and institute physician at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, about the GENUINE trial and its potential impact on treatment choices going forward.
 

What type of patients were treated in the GENUINE trial?

Dr. Brown: This is a trial among relapsed/refractory CLL patients with 17p or 11q deletion or TP53 mutation. Patients aged 18 years or older with CLL who warranted treatment, as defined by International Workshop on CLL criteria, were eligible if they had previously received at least two cycles of at least one standard treatment regimen, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or lower, and had high-risk cytogenetics, defined as the presence of at least one of del(17p), del(11q), or TP53 mutation confirmed by a central laboratory with fluorescence in situ hybridization and/or next-generation sequencing.

What were the main outcomes of the trial?

Originally, the GENUINE trial had coprimary endpoints of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate. Because of slow accrual, it was amended to have one primary endpoint of independent review committee (IRC)–assessed ORR.

IRC-assessed ORR was improved from 65% to 83% with the addition of ublituximab. PFS also improved significantly in the ublituximab group, with an even greater improvement when the analysis was limited to those with del(17p) or TP53 aberrancy, but this outcome was limited by the reduced sample size of the study as well as the relatively short PFS of the ibrutinib arm.

After a median follow-up of 41.6 months, the median IRC-assessed PFS in all treated patients was not reached in the ublituximab plus ibrutinib group after 15 PFS events but was 35.9 months in the ibrutinib group after 25 PFS events (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.87; P = .016).

Undetectable minimal residual disease was also seen in 42% of the combination arm, compared with 6% of the ibrutinib arm.
 

What types of adverse events were found in the trial?

The researchers found mostly mild and known side effects of ibrutinib. More atrial fibrillation and neutropenia were seen in the antibody group, but this was not marked.

Most adverse events were of grade 1 or 2. The most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events were neutropenia (11 [19%] patients in the ublituximab plus ibrutinib group and 7 [12%] in the ibrutinib group), anemia (5 [8%] and 5 [9%], respectively), and diarrhea (6 [10%] and 3 [5%], respectively).
 

What about serious adverse events?

Hospitalization from infection was seen, as expected. There were two cardiac arrests and an unexplained death, across both arms, which was concerning, given the known association of ibrutinib with ventricular arrhythmia and sudden death. There were also several hemorrhages, including one fatal one, which was again consistent with the known side effects of ibrutinib.

Are there treatments comparable with ublituximab plus ibrutinib that clinicians should perhaps first consider using?

In terms of other anti-CD20 antibodies, we have two randomized trials that have failed to show a benefit from adding rituximab to ibrutinib.

Obinutuzumab, like ublituximab, is also a next-generation glycoengineered antibody, and it is reasonably likely that it might lead to similar results. However, the only data we have on ibrutinib with obinutuzumab are from a single arm in a more heterogeneous, lower-risk patient population, and it is unlikely that a randomized comparison will ever be done.
 

On the basis of these trial results, how would you use the combination of ublituximab and ibrutinib for your patients?

I would consider the addition of ublituximab to a BTK inhibitor in high-risk patients (once ublituximab is approved). I already usually use a next-generation BTK inhibitor rather than ibrutinib.

Are there any other implications of the GENUINE trial?

I think this trial underscores the importance of studying genetic subgroups of patients separately. In this case, that was done in high-risk patients, but this observation likely also applies to low-risk patients.

Most trials to date have enrolled unselected patient populations, often without stratification, and their results therefore tend to obscure the outcomes in both the very high risk (as studied here) and in the low risk (patients with immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region gene mutations).

Dr. Brown has served as a consultant for AbbVie, Acerta/AstraZeneca, Beigene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Juno/Celgene, Catapult, Genentech/Roche, Janssen, MEI Pharma, Morphosys, and Novartis, and has received research funding from Gilead, Loxo/Lilly, TG Therapeutics, Verastem/SecuraBio.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a clinically heterogeneous disease associated with several known genetic abnormalities, including 17p deletion (del[17p]), 11q deletion (del[11q]), and TP53 gene mutations, which are adverse prognostic markers among patients treated with chemoimmunotherapy.

The Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib is approved for patients with untreated, relapsed, or refractory disease, including those with del(17p). Clinicians will soon have the chance to pair it with ublituximab, a next-generation, glycoengineered, type I, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody that binds to a unique epitope on CD20, differentiating it from rituximab, ofatumumab, and obinutuzumab. Results from the phase 3 GENUINE trial, which were recently published in The Lancet Haematology, showed that ublituximab plus ibrutinib was superior to ibrutinib alone for patients with relapsed or refractory high-risk CLL.

This news organization spoke with Jennifer R. Brown, MD, PhD, director of the CLL Center and institute physician at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, about the GENUINE trial and its potential impact on treatment choices going forward.
 

What type of patients were treated in the GENUINE trial?

Dr. Brown: This is a trial among relapsed/refractory CLL patients with 17p or 11q deletion or TP53 mutation. Patients aged 18 years or older with CLL who warranted treatment, as defined by International Workshop on CLL criteria, were eligible if they had previously received at least two cycles of at least one standard treatment regimen, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or lower, and had high-risk cytogenetics, defined as the presence of at least one of del(17p), del(11q), or TP53 mutation confirmed by a central laboratory with fluorescence in situ hybridization and/or next-generation sequencing.

What were the main outcomes of the trial?

Originally, the GENUINE trial had coprimary endpoints of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate. Because of slow accrual, it was amended to have one primary endpoint of independent review committee (IRC)–assessed ORR.

IRC-assessed ORR was improved from 65% to 83% with the addition of ublituximab. PFS also improved significantly in the ublituximab group, with an even greater improvement when the analysis was limited to those with del(17p) or TP53 aberrancy, but this outcome was limited by the reduced sample size of the study as well as the relatively short PFS of the ibrutinib arm.

After a median follow-up of 41.6 months, the median IRC-assessed PFS in all treated patients was not reached in the ublituximab plus ibrutinib group after 15 PFS events but was 35.9 months in the ibrutinib group after 25 PFS events (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.87; P = .016).

Undetectable minimal residual disease was also seen in 42% of the combination arm, compared with 6% of the ibrutinib arm.
 

What types of adverse events were found in the trial?

The researchers found mostly mild and known side effects of ibrutinib. More atrial fibrillation and neutropenia were seen in the antibody group, but this was not marked.

Most adverse events were of grade 1 or 2. The most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events were neutropenia (11 [19%] patients in the ublituximab plus ibrutinib group and 7 [12%] in the ibrutinib group), anemia (5 [8%] and 5 [9%], respectively), and diarrhea (6 [10%] and 3 [5%], respectively).
 

What about serious adverse events?

Hospitalization from infection was seen, as expected. There were two cardiac arrests and an unexplained death, across both arms, which was concerning, given the known association of ibrutinib with ventricular arrhythmia and sudden death. There were also several hemorrhages, including one fatal one, which was again consistent with the known side effects of ibrutinib.

Are there treatments comparable with ublituximab plus ibrutinib that clinicians should perhaps first consider using?

In terms of other anti-CD20 antibodies, we have two randomized trials that have failed to show a benefit from adding rituximab to ibrutinib.

Obinutuzumab, like ublituximab, is also a next-generation glycoengineered antibody, and it is reasonably likely that it might lead to similar results. However, the only data we have on ibrutinib with obinutuzumab are from a single arm in a more heterogeneous, lower-risk patient population, and it is unlikely that a randomized comparison will ever be done.
 

On the basis of these trial results, how would you use the combination of ublituximab and ibrutinib for your patients?

I would consider the addition of ublituximab to a BTK inhibitor in high-risk patients (once ublituximab is approved). I already usually use a next-generation BTK inhibitor rather than ibrutinib.

Are there any other implications of the GENUINE trial?

I think this trial underscores the importance of studying genetic subgroups of patients separately. In this case, that was done in high-risk patients, but this observation likely also applies to low-risk patients.

Most trials to date have enrolled unselected patient populations, often without stratification, and their results therefore tend to obscure the outcomes in both the very high risk (as studied here) and in the low risk (patients with immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region gene mutations).

Dr. Brown has served as a consultant for AbbVie, Acerta/AstraZeneca, Beigene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Juno/Celgene, Catapult, Genentech/Roche, Janssen, MEI Pharma, Morphosys, and Novartis, and has received research funding from Gilead, Loxo/Lilly, TG Therapeutics, Verastem/SecuraBio.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a clinically heterogeneous disease associated with several known genetic abnormalities, including 17p deletion (del[17p]), 11q deletion (del[11q]), and TP53 gene mutations, which are adverse prognostic markers among patients treated with chemoimmunotherapy.

The Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib is approved for patients with untreated, relapsed, or refractory disease, including those with del(17p). Clinicians will soon have the chance to pair it with ublituximab, a next-generation, glycoengineered, type I, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody that binds to a unique epitope on CD20, differentiating it from rituximab, ofatumumab, and obinutuzumab. Results from the phase 3 GENUINE trial, which were recently published in The Lancet Haematology, showed that ublituximab plus ibrutinib was superior to ibrutinib alone for patients with relapsed or refractory high-risk CLL.

This news organization spoke with Jennifer R. Brown, MD, PhD, director of the CLL Center and institute physician at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, about the GENUINE trial and its potential impact on treatment choices going forward.
 

What type of patients were treated in the GENUINE trial?

Dr. Brown: This is a trial among relapsed/refractory CLL patients with 17p or 11q deletion or TP53 mutation. Patients aged 18 years or older with CLL who warranted treatment, as defined by International Workshop on CLL criteria, were eligible if they had previously received at least two cycles of at least one standard treatment regimen, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or lower, and had high-risk cytogenetics, defined as the presence of at least one of del(17p), del(11q), or TP53 mutation confirmed by a central laboratory with fluorescence in situ hybridization and/or next-generation sequencing.

What were the main outcomes of the trial?

Originally, the GENUINE trial had coprimary endpoints of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate. Because of slow accrual, it was amended to have one primary endpoint of independent review committee (IRC)–assessed ORR.

IRC-assessed ORR was improved from 65% to 83% with the addition of ublituximab. PFS also improved significantly in the ublituximab group, with an even greater improvement when the analysis was limited to those with del(17p) or TP53 aberrancy, but this outcome was limited by the reduced sample size of the study as well as the relatively short PFS of the ibrutinib arm.

After a median follow-up of 41.6 months, the median IRC-assessed PFS in all treated patients was not reached in the ublituximab plus ibrutinib group after 15 PFS events but was 35.9 months in the ibrutinib group after 25 PFS events (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.87; P = .016).

Undetectable minimal residual disease was also seen in 42% of the combination arm, compared with 6% of the ibrutinib arm.
 

What types of adverse events were found in the trial?

The researchers found mostly mild and known side effects of ibrutinib. More atrial fibrillation and neutropenia were seen in the antibody group, but this was not marked.

Most adverse events were of grade 1 or 2. The most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events were neutropenia (11 [19%] patients in the ublituximab plus ibrutinib group and 7 [12%] in the ibrutinib group), anemia (5 [8%] and 5 [9%], respectively), and diarrhea (6 [10%] and 3 [5%], respectively).
 

What about serious adverse events?

Hospitalization from infection was seen, as expected. There were two cardiac arrests and an unexplained death, across both arms, which was concerning, given the known association of ibrutinib with ventricular arrhythmia and sudden death. There were also several hemorrhages, including one fatal one, which was again consistent with the known side effects of ibrutinib.

Are there treatments comparable with ublituximab plus ibrutinib that clinicians should perhaps first consider using?

In terms of other anti-CD20 antibodies, we have two randomized trials that have failed to show a benefit from adding rituximab to ibrutinib.

Obinutuzumab, like ublituximab, is also a next-generation glycoengineered antibody, and it is reasonably likely that it might lead to similar results. However, the only data we have on ibrutinib with obinutuzumab are from a single arm in a more heterogeneous, lower-risk patient population, and it is unlikely that a randomized comparison will ever be done.
 

On the basis of these trial results, how would you use the combination of ublituximab and ibrutinib for your patients?

I would consider the addition of ublituximab to a BTK inhibitor in high-risk patients (once ublituximab is approved). I already usually use a next-generation BTK inhibitor rather than ibrutinib.

Are there any other implications of the GENUINE trial?

I think this trial underscores the importance of studying genetic subgroups of patients separately. In this case, that was done in high-risk patients, but this observation likely also applies to low-risk patients.

Most trials to date have enrolled unselected patient populations, often without stratification, and their results therefore tend to obscure the outcomes in both the very high risk (as studied here) and in the low risk (patients with immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region gene mutations).

Dr. Brown has served as a consultant for AbbVie, Acerta/AstraZeneca, Beigene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Juno/Celgene, Catapult, Genentech/Roche, Janssen, MEI Pharma, Morphosys, and Novartis, and has received research funding from Gilead, Loxo/Lilly, TG Therapeutics, Verastem/SecuraBio.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients present significant problems with regard to COVID-19 disease, according to a literature review by Yousef Roosta, MD, of Urmia (Iran) University of Medical Sciences, and colleagues.

Diagnostic interaction between CLL and COVID-19 provides a major challenge. CLL patients have a lower rate of anti–SARS-CoV-2 IgG development, and evidence shows worse therapeutic outcomes in these patients, according to study published in Leukemia Research Reports.

The researchers assessed 20 retrieved articles, 11 of which examined patients with CLL and with concomitant COVID-19; and 9 articles were designed as prospective or retrospective case series of such patients. The studies were assessed qualitatively by the QUADAS-2 tool.
 

Troubling results

Although the overall prevalence of CLL and COVID-19 concurrence was low, at 0.6% (95% confidence interval 0.5%-0.7%) according to the meta-analysis, the results showed some special challenges in the diagnosis and care of these patients.

Diagnostic difficulties are a unique problem. Lymphopenia is common in patients with COVID-19, while lymphocytosis may be considered a transient or even rare finding. The interplay between the two diseases is sometimes very misleading for specialists, and in patients with lymphocytosis, the diagnosis of CLL may be completely ignored, according to the researchers. They added that when performing a diagnostic approach for concurrent COVID-19 and CLL, due to differences in the amount and type of immune response, “relying on serological testing, and especially the evaluation of the anti–SARS-CoV-2 IgG levels may not be beneficial,” they indicated.

In addition, studies showed unacceptable therapeutic outcome in patients with concurrent CLL and COVID-19, with mortality ranging from 33% to 41.7%, showing a need to revise current treatment protocols, according to the authors. In one study, 85.7% of surviving patients showed a considerable decrease in functional class and significant fatigue, with such a poor prognosis occurring more commonly in the elderly.

With regard to treatment, “it is quite obvious that despite the use of current standard protocols, the prognosis of these patients will be much worse than the prognosis of CLL patients with no evidence of COVID-19. Even in the first-line treatment protocol for these patients, there is no agreement in combination therapy with selected CLL drugs along with management protocols of COVID-19 patients,” the researchers stated.

“[The] different hematological behaviors of two diseases might mimic the detection of COVID-19 in the CLL state and vise versa. Also, due to the low level of immune response against SARS-CoV-2 in CLL patients, both scheduled immunological-based diagnosis and treatment may fail,” the researchers added.

The authors reported that they had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients present significant problems with regard to COVID-19 disease, according to a literature review by Yousef Roosta, MD, of Urmia (Iran) University of Medical Sciences, and colleagues.

Diagnostic interaction between CLL and COVID-19 provides a major challenge. CLL patients have a lower rate of anti–SARS-CoV-2 IgG development, and evidence shows worse therapeutic outcomes in these patients, according to study published in Leukemia Research Reports.

The researchers assessed 20 retrieved articles, 11 of which examined patients with CLL and with concomitant COVID-19; and 9 articles were designed as prospective or retrospective case series of such patients. The studies were assessed qualitatively by the QUADAS-2 tool.
 

Troubling results

Although the overall prevalence of CLL and COVID-19 concurrence was low, at 0.6% (95% confidence interval 0.5%-0.7%) according to the meta-analysis, the results showed some special challenges in the diagnosis and care of these patients.

Diagnostic difficulties are a unique problem. Lymphopenia is common in patients with COVID-19, while lymphocytosis may be considered a transient or even rare finding. The interplay between the two diseases is sometimes very misleading for specialists, and in patients with lymphocytosis, the diagnosis of CLL may be completely ignored, according to the researchers. They added that when performing a diagnostic approach for concurrent COVID-19 and CLL, due to differences in the amount and type of immune response, “relying on serological testing, and especially the evaluation of the anti–SARS-CoV-2 IgG levels may not be beneficial,” they indicated.

In addition, studies showed unacceptable therapeutic outcome in patients with concurrent CLL and COVID-19, with mortality ranging from 33% to 41.7%, showing a need to revise current treatment protocols, according to the authors. In one study, 85.7% of surviving patients showed a considerable decrease in functional class and significant fatigue, with such a poor prognosis occurring more commonly in the elderly.

With regard to treatment, “it is quite obvious that despite the use of current standard protocols, the prognosis of these patients will be much worse than the prognosis of CLL patients with no evidence of COVID-19. Even in the first-line treatment protocol for these patients, there is no agreement in combination therapy with selected CLL drugs along with management protocols of COVID-19 patients,” the researchers stated.

“[The] different hematological behaviors of two diseases might mimic the detection of COVID-19 in the CLL state and vise versa. Also, due to the low level of immune response against SARS-CoV-2 in CLL patients, both scheduled immunological-based diagnosis and treatment may fail,” the researchers added.

The authors reported that they had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients present significant problems with regard to COVID-19 disease, according to a literature review by Yousef Roosta, MD, of Urmia (Iran) University of Medical Sciences, and colleagues.

Diagnostic interaction between CLL and COVID-19 provides a major challenge. CLL patients have a lower rate of anti–SARS-CoV-2 IgG development, and evidence shows worse therapeutic outcomes in these patients, according to study published in Leukemia Research Reports.

The researchers assessed 20 retrieved articles, 11 of which examined patients with CLL and with concomitant COVID-19; and 9 articles were designed as prospective or retrospective case series of such patients. The studies were assessed qualitatively by the QUADAS-2 tool.
 

Troubling results

Although the overall prevalence of CLL and COVID-19 concurrence was low, at 0.6% (95% confidence interval 0.5%-0.7%) according to the meta-analysis, the results showed some special challenges in the diagnosis and care of these patients.

Diagnostic difficulties are a unique problem. Lymphopenia is common in patients with COVID-19, while lymphocytosis may be considered a transient or even rare finding. The interplay between the two diseases is sometimes very misleading for specialists, and in patients with lymphocytosis, the diagnosis of CLL may be completely ignored, according to the researchers. They added that when performing a diagnostic approach for concurrent COVID-19 and CLL, due to differences in the amount and type of immune response, “relying on serological testing, and especially the evaluation of the anti–SARS-CoV-2 IgG levels may not be beneficial,” they indicated.

In addition, studies showed unacceptable therapeutic outcome in patients with concurrent CLL and COVID-19, with mortality ranging from 33% to 41.7%, showing a need to revise current treatment protocols, according to the authors. In one study, 85.7% of surviving patients showed a considerable decrease in functional class and significant fatigue, with such a poor prognosis occurring more commonly in the elderly.

With regard to treatment, “it is quite obvious that despite the use of current standard protocols, the prognosis of these patients will be much worse than the prognosis of CLL patients with no evidence of COVID-19. Even in the first-line treatment protocol for these patients, there is no agreement in combination therapy with selected CLL drugs along with management protocols of COVID-19 patients,” the researchers stated.

“[The] different hematological behaviors of two diseases might mimic the detection of COVID-19 in the CLL state and vise versa. Also, due to the low level of immune response against SARS-CoV-2 in CLL patients, both scheduled immunological-based diagnosis and treatment may fail,” the researchers added.

The authors reported that they had no disclosures.

[email protected]

The first report on responses to COVID-19 vaccination among patients with cancer suggests that, for these patients, the immune response that occurs after the first dose of vaccine is reduced, in comparison with the response that occurs in healthy individuals.

The new findings, which are soon to be published as a preprint, cast doubt on the current U.K. policy of delaying the second dose of the vaccine.

Delaying the second dose can leave most patients with cancer wholly or partially unprotected, according to the researchers. Moreover, such a delay has implications for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the cancer patient’s environs as well as for the evolution of virus variants that could be of concern, the researchers concluded.

The data come from a British study that included 151 patients with cancer and 54 healthy control persons. All participants received the COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech).

This vaccine requires two doses. The first few participants in this study were given the second dose 21 days after they had received the first dose, but then national guidelines changed, and the remaining participants had to wait 12 weeks to receive their second dose.

The researchers reported that, among health controls, the immune efficacy of the first dose was very high (97% efficacious). By contrast, among patients with solid tumors, the immune efficacy of a single dose was strikingly low (39%), and it was even lower in patients with hematologic malignancies (13%).

The second dose of vaccine greatly and rapidly increased the immune efficacy in patients with solid tumors (95% within 2 weeks of receiving the second dose), the researchers added.

Too few patients with hematologic cancers had received the second dose before the study ended for clear conclusions to be drawn. Nevertheless, the available data suggest that 50% of patients with hematologic cancers who had received the booster at day 21 were seropositive at 5 weeks vs. only 8% of those who had not received the booster.

“Our data provide the first real-world evidence of immune efficacy following one dose of the Pfizer vaccine in immunocompromised patient populations [and] clearly show that the poor one-dose efficacy in cancer patients can be rescued with an early booster at day 21,” commented senior author Sheeba Irshad, MD, senior clinical lecturer, King’s College London.

“Based on our findings, we would recommend an urgent review of the vaccine strategy for clinically extremely vulnerable groups. Until then, it is important that cancer patients continue to observe all public health measures in place, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination,” Dr. Irshad added.

The paper, with first author Leticia Monin-Aldama, PhD, is scheduled to appear on the preprint server medRxiv. It has not undergone peer review. The paper was distributed to journalists, with comments from experts not involved in the study, by the UK Science Media Centre.

These data are “of immediate importance” to patients with cancer, commented Shoba Amarnath, PhD, Newcastle University research fellow, Laboratory of T-cell Regulation, Newcastle University Center for Cancer, Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

“These findings are consistent with our understanding. … We know that the immune system within cancer patients is compromised as compared to healthy controls,” Dr. Amarnath said. “The data in the study support the notion that, in solid cancer patients, a considerable delay in second dose will extend the period when cancer patients are at risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

Although more data are required, “this study does raise the issue of whether patients with cancer, other diseases, or those undergoing therapies that affect the body’s immune response should be fast-tracked for their second vaccine dose,” commented Lawrence Young, PhD, professor of molecular oncology and director of the Warwick Cancer Research Center, University of Warwick, Coventry, England.

Stephen Evans, MSc, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, underlined that the study is “essentially” observational and “inevitable limitations must be taken into account.

“Nevertheless, these results do suggest that the vaccines may well not protect those patients with cancer as well as those without cancer,” Mr. Evans said. He added that it is “important that this population continues to observe all COVID-19–associated measures, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination.”

Study details

Previous studies have shown that some patients with cancer have prolonged responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection, with ongoing immune dysregulation, inefficient seroconversion, and prolonged viral shedding.

There are few data, however, on how these patients respond to COVID-19 vaccination. The authors point out that, among the 18,860 individuals who received the Pfizer vaccine during its development trials, “none with an active oncological diagnosis was included.”

To investigate this issue, they launched the SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Patients (SOAP-02) study.

The 151 patients with cancer who participated in this study were mostly elderly, the authors noted (75% were older than 65 years; the median age was 73 years). The majority (63%) had solid-tumor malignancies. Of those, 8% had late-stage disease and had been living with their cancer for more than 24 months.

The healthy control persons were vaccine-eligible primary health care workers who were not age matched to the cancer patients.

All participants received the first dose of vaccine; 31 (of 151) patients with cancer and 16 (of 54) healthy control persons received the second dose on day 21.

The remaining participants were scheduled to receive their second dose 12 weeks later (after the study ended), in line with the changes in the national guidelines.

The team reported that, approximately 21 days after receiving the first vaccine dose, the immune efficacy of the vaccine was estimated to be 97% among healthy control persons vs. 39% for patients with solid tumors and only 13% for those with hematologic malignancies (P < .0001 for both).

T-cell responses, as assessed via interferon-gamma and/or interleukin-2 production, were observed in 82% of healthy control persons, 71% of patients with solid tumors, and 50% of those with hematologic cancers.

Vaccine boosting at day 21 resulted in immune efficacy of 100% for healthy control persons and 95% for patients with solid tumors. In contrast, only 43% of those who did not receive the second dose were seropositive 2 weeks later.

Further analysis suggested that participants who did not have a serologic response were “spread evenly” across different cancer types, but the reduced responses were more frequent among patients who had received the vaccine within 15 days of cancer treatment, especially chemotherapy, and had undergone intensive treatments.

The SOAP study is sponsored by King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas Trust Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded from grants from the KCL Charity, Cancer Research UK, and program grants from Breast Cancer Now. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first report on responses to COVID-19 vaccination among patients with cancer suggests that, for these patients, the immune response that occurs after the first dose of vaccine is reduced, in comparison with the response that occurs in healthy individuals.

The new findings, which are soon to be published as a preprint, cast doubt on the current U.K. policy of delaying the second dose of the vaccine.

Delaying the second dose can leave most patients with cancer wholly or partially unprotected, according to the researchers. Moreover, such a delay has implications for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the cancer patient’s environs as well as for the evolution of virus variants that could be of concern, the researchers concluded.

The data come from a British study that included 151 patients with cancer and 54 healthy control persons. All participants received the COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech).

This vaccine requires two doses. The first few participants in this study were given the second dose 21 days after they had received the first dose, but then national guidelines changed, and the remaining participants had to wait 12 weeks to receive their second dose.

The researchers reported that, among health controls, the immune efficacy of the first dose was very high (97% efficacious). By contrast, among patients with solid tumors, the immune efficacy of a single dose was strikingly low (39%), and it was even lower in patients with hematologic malignancies (13%).

The second dose of vaccine greatly and rapidly increased the immune efficacy in patients with solid tumors (95% within 2 weeks of receiving the second dose), the researchers added.

Too few patients with hematologic cancers had received the second dose before the study ended for clear conclusions to be drawn. Nevertheless, the available data suggest that 50% of patients with hematologic cancers who had received the booster at day 21 were seropositive at 5 weeks vs. only 8% of those who had not received the booster.

“Our data provide the first real-world evidence of immune efficacy following one dose of the Pfizer vaccine in immunocompromised patient populations [and] clearly show that the poor one-dose efficacy in cancer patients can be rescued with an early booster at day 21,” commented senior author Sheeba Irshad, MD, senior clinical lecturer, King’s College London.

“Based on our findings, we would recommend an urgent review of the vaccine strategy for clinically extremely vulnerable groups. Until then, it is important that cancer patients continue to observe all public health measures in place, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination,” Dr. Irshad added.

The paper, with first author Leticia Monin-Aldama, PhD, is scheduled to appear on the preprint server medRxiv. It has not undergone peer review. The paper was distributed to journalists, with comments from experts not involved in the study, by the UK Science Media Centre.

These data are “of immediate importance” to patients with cancer, commented Shoba Amarnath, PhD, Newcastle University research fellow, Laboratory of T-cell Regulation, Newcastle University Center for Cancer, Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

“These findings are consistent with our understanding. … We know that the immune system within cancer patients is compromised as compared to healthy controls,” Dr. Amarnath said. “The data in the study support the notion that, in solid cancer patients, a considerable delay in second dose will extend the period when cancer patients are at risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

Although more data are required, “this study does raise the issue of whether patients with cancer, other diseases, or those undergoing therapies that affect the body’s immune response should be fast-tracked for their second vaccine dose,” commented Lawrence Young, PhD, professor of molecular oncology and director of the Warwick Cancer Research Center, University of Warwick, Coventry, England.

Stephen Evans, MSc, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, underlined that the study is “essentially” observational and “inevitable limitations must be taken into account.

“Nevertheless, these results do suggest that the vaccines may well not protect those patients with cancer as well as those without cancer,” Mr. Evans said. He added that it is “important that this population continues to observe all COVID-19–associated measures, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination.”

Study details

Previous studies have shown that some patients with cancer have prolonged responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection, with ongoing immune dysregulation, inefficient seroconversion, and prolonged viral shedding.

There are few data, however, on how these patients respond to COVID-19 vaccination. The authors point out that, among the 18,860 individuals who received the Pfizer vaccine during its development trials, “none with an active oncological diagnosis was included.”

To investigate this issue, they launched the SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Patients (SOAP-02) study.

The 151 patients with cancer who participated in this study were mostly elderly, the authors noted (75% were older than 65 years; the median age was 73 years). The majority (63%) had solid-tumor malignancies. Of those, 8% had late-stage disease and had been living with their cancer for more than 24 months.

The healthy control persons were vaccine-eligible primary health care workers who were not age matched to the cancer patients.

All participants received the first dose of vaccine; 31 (of 151) patients with cancer and 16 (of 54) healthy control persons received the second dose on day 21.

The remaining participants were scheduled to receive their second dose 12 weeks later (after the study ended), in line with the changes in the national guidelines.

The team reported that, approximately 21 days after receiving the first vaccine dose, the immune efficacy of the vaccine was estimated to be 97% among healthy control persons vs. 39% for patients with solid tumors and only 13% for those with hematologic malignancies (P < .0001 for both).

T-cell responses, as assessed via interferon-gamma and/or interleukin-2 production, were observed in 82% of healthy control persons, 71% of patients with solid tumors, and 50% of those with hematologic cancers.

Vaccine boosting at day 21 resulted in immune efficacy of 100% for healthy control persons and 95% for patients with solid tumors. In contrast, only 43% of those who did not receive the second dose were seropositive 2 weeks later.

Further analysis suggested that participants who did not have a serologic response were “spread evenly” across different cancer types, but the reduced responses were more frequent among patients who had received the vaccine within 15 days of cancer treatment, especially chemotherapy, and had undergone intensive treatments.

The SOAP study is sponsored by King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas Trust Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded from grants from the KCL Charity, Cancer Research UK, and program grants from Breast Cancer Now. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first report on responses to COVID-19 vaccination among patients with cancer suggests that, for these patients, the immune response that occurs after the first dose of vaccine is reduced, in comparison with the response that occurs in healthy individuals.

The new findings, which are soon to be published as a preprint, cast doubt on the current U.K. policy of delaying the second dose of the vaccine.

Delaying the second dose can leave most patients with cancer wholly or partially unprotected, according to the researchers. Moreover, such a delay has implications for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the cancer patient’s environs as well as for the evolution of virus variants that could be of concern, the researchers concluded.

The data come from a British study that included 151 patients with cancer and 54 healthy control persons. All participants received the COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech).

This vaccine requires two doses. The first few participants in this study were given the second dose 21 days after they had received the first dose, but then national guidelines changed, and the remaining participants had to wait 12 weeks to receive their second dose.

The researchers reported that, among health controls, the immune efficacy of the first dose was very high (97% efficacious). By contrast, among patients with solid tumors, the immune efficacy of a single dose was strikingly low (39%), and it was even lower in patients with hematologic malignancies (13%).

The second dose of vaccine greatly and rapidly increased the immune efficacy in patients with solid tumors (95% within 2 weeks of receiving the second dose), the researchers added.

Too few patients with hematologic cancers had received the second dose before the study ended for clear conclusions to be drawn. Nevertheless, the available data suggest that 50% of patients with hematologic cancers who had received the booster at day 21 were seropositive at 5 weeks vs. only 8% of those who had not received the booster.

“Our data provide the first real-world evidence of immune efficacy following one dose of the Pfizer vaccine in immunocompromised patient populations [and] clearly show that the poor one-dose efficacy in cancer patients can be rescued with an early booster at day 21,” commented senior author Sheeba Irshad, MD, senior clinical lecturer, King’s College London.

“Based on our findings, we would recommend an urgent review of the vaccine strategy for clinically extremely vulnerable groups. Until then, it is important that cancer patients continue to observe all public health measures in place, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination,” Dr. Irshad added.

The paper, with first author Leticia Monin-Aldama, PhD, is scheduled to appear on the preprint server medRxiv. It has not undergone peer review. The paper was distributed to journalists, with comments from experts not involved in the study, by the UK Science Media Centre.

These data are “of immediate importance” to patients with cancer, commented Shoba Amarnath, PhD, Newcastle University research fellow, Laboratory of T-cell Regulation, Newcastle University Center for Cancer, Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

“These findings are consistent with our understanding. … We know that the immune system within cancer patients is compromised as compared to healthy controls,” Dr. Amarnath said. “The data in the study support the notion that, in solid cancer patients, a considerable delay in second dose will extend the period when cancer patients are at risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

Although more data are required, “this study does raise the issue of whether patients with cancer, other diseases, or those undergoing therapies that affect the body’s immune response should be fast-tracked for their second vaccine dose,” commented Lawrence Young, PhD, professor of molecular oncology and director of the Warwick Cancer Research Center, University of Warwick, Coventry, England.

Stephen Evans, MSc, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, underlined that the study is “essentially” observational and “inevitable limitations must be taken into account.

“Nevertheless, these results do suggest that the vaccines may well not protect those patients with cancer as well as those without cancer,” Mr. Evans said. He added that it is “important that this population continues to observe all COVID-19–associated measures, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination.”

Study details

Previous studies have shown that some patients with cancer have prolonged responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection, with ongoing immune dysregulation, inefficient seroconversion, and prolonged viral shedding.

There are few data, however, on how these patients respond to COVID-19 vaccination. The authors point out that, among the 18,860 individuals who received the Pfizer vaccine during its development trials, “none with an active oncological diagnosis was included.”

To investigate this issue, they launched the SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Patients (SOAP-02) study.

The 151 patients with cancer who participated in this study were mostly elderly, the authors noted (75% were older than 65 years; the median age was 73 years). The majority (63%) had solid-tumor malignancies. Of those, 8% had late-stage disease and had been living with their cancer for more than 24 months.

The healthy control persons were vaccine-eligible primary health care workers who were not age matched to the cancer patients.

All participants received the first dose of vaccine; 31 (of 151) patients with cancer and 16 (of 54) healthy control persons received the second dose on day 21.

The remaining participants were scheduled to receive their second dose 12 weeks later (after the study ended), in line with the changes in the national guidelines.

The team reported that, approximately 21 days after receiving the first vaccine dose, the immune efficacy of the vaccine was estimated to be 97% among healthy control persons vs. 39% for patients with solid tumors and only 13% for those with hematologic malignancies (P < .0001 for both).

T-cell responses, as assessed via interferon-gamma and/or interleukin-2 production, were observed in 82% of healthy control persons, 71% of patients with solid tumors, and 50% of those with hematologic cancers.

Vaccine boosting at day 21 resulted in immune efficacy of 100% for healthy control persons and 95% for patients with solid tumors. In contrast, only 43% of those who did not receive the second dose were seropositive 2 weeks later.

Further analysis suggested that participants who did not have a serologic response were “spread evenly” across different cancer types, but the reduced responses were more frequent among patients who had received the vaccine within 15 days of cancer treatment, especially chemotherapy, and had undergone intensive treatments.

The SOAP study is sponsored by King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas Trust Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded from grants from the KCL Charity, Cancer Research UK, and program grants from Breast Cancer Now. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Pirtobrutinib treatment yielded promising outcomes in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and other patients with B-cell malignancies who discontinued prior Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK)–inhibitor treatment due to resistance or intolerance, according to the results of the BRUIN trial, a phase 1/2 study.

Pirtobrutinib (formerly known as LOXO-305) is an oral-dose, highly selective, reversible BTK inhibitor, which might address a growing, unmet need for alternative therapies in BTK-inhibitor treatment failure patients, according to Anthony R. Mato, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and colleagues. Their report was published in The Lancet.

The study included 109 women (34%) and 214 men (66%), with a median age of 68 years, who were treated with pirtobrutinib. Of these, 203 patients were assigned to pirtobrutinib (25-300 mg once per day) in the phase 1 portion of the study, and 120 patients were assigned to pirtobrutinib (200 mg once per day) in phase 2.
 

Promising outcomes

Pirtobrutinib, showed promising efficacy and tolerable safety in patients with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, and Waldenström macroglobulinemia who were previously treated with a BTK inhibitor. In 121 efficacy-evaluable patients with CLL or SLL treated with a previous covalent BTK inhibitor, the overall response rate with pirtobrutinib was 62% (95% confidence interval, 53-71). The ORR was similar in CLL patients with previous covalent BTK inhibitor resistance (67%), covalent BTK inhibitor intolerance (52%), BTK C481-mutant (71%), and BTK wild-type (66%) disease.

In 52 efficacy-evaluable patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) previously treated with covalent BTK inhibitors, the ORR was 52% (95% CI, 38-66). Of 117 patients with CLL, SLL, or MCL who responded, all but 8 remain progression free to date, the authors stated.

In 19 efficacy-evaluable patients with Waldenström macroglobulinemia, the ORR was 68%. Among eight patients with follicular lymphoma who were efficacy evaluable, responses were observed in four (50%) patients, and six (75%) of eight efficacy evaluable patients with Richter’s transformation identified before enrollment responded to treatment, the authors stated.

No dose-limiting toxicities were observed and the maximum tolerated dose was not reached, according to the researchers. The recommended phase 2 dose was 200 mg daily. The adverse events, which occurred in at least 10% of 323 patients, were fatigue (20%), diarrhea (17%), and contusion (13%). The most common grade 3 or higher adverse event was neutropenia (10%). Five patients (1%) discontinued treatment because of a treatment-related adverse event.

In this “first-in-human trial of pirtobrutinib, we showed promising efficacy and safety in patients with B-cell malignancies, including CLL or SLL, MCL, Waldenström macroglobulinemia, and follicular lymphoma. Activity was observed in heavily pretreated patients, including patients with resistance and intolerance to previous covalent BTK inhibitor treatment. Global randomized phase 3 studies in CLL or SLL, and MCL are planned,” the researchers concluded.
 

Birth of a third generation?

“The pirtobrutinib study, by opening the way for a third generation of BTK inhibitors, could improve such a personalized molecular approach in the treatment of B-cell malignancies,” according to accompanying editorial comment by Jean-Marie Michot, MD, and Vincent Ribrag, MD, both of the Institut de Cancérologie Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.

They discussed how BTK inhibitors have been a considerable therapeutic advance in the treatment of NHL-B and CLL and how the three currently approved BTK inhibitors, namely ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, and zanubrutinib, are all covalent and irreversible inhibitors at the protein – the C481 binding site. “Ibrutinib was the first approved drug. The second-generation inhibitors, acalabrutinib and zanubrutinib, were designed to be more BTK selective,” they added. However, the covalency and irreversibility of the drugs, considered therapeutic strengths, have resulted in induced resistance mutations occurring at the covalent binding, rendering the drugs inactive. “Two advantages of this new drug class are highlighted. First, the selectivity of the drug on BTK appears to be increased,” they wrote. “Second, this class does not bind BTK to the C481 residue, and the efficacy of the drug is therefore not affected by mutations in the BTK binding site.”

Several of the study authors reported receiving grants and personal fees from Loxo Oncology (a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly), which sponsored the study, as well as financial relationships with other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.

Dr. Michot and Dr. Ribrag reported that they had no disclosures relevant to the discussion.

[email protected]

Pirtobrutinib treatment yielded promising outcomes in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and other patients with B-cell malignancies who discontinued prior Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK)–inhibitor treatment due to resistance or intolerance, according to the results of the BRUIN trial, a phase 1/2 study.

Pirtobrutinib (formerly known as LOXO-305) is an oral-dose, highly selective, reversible BTK inhibitor, which might address a growing, unmet need for alternative therapies in BTK-inhibitor treatment failure patients, according to Anthony R. Mato, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and colleagues. Their report was published in The Lancet.

The study included 109 women (34%) and 214 men (66%), with a median age of 68 years, who were treated with pirtobrutinib. Of these, 203 patients were assigned to pirtobrutinib (25-300 mg once per day) in the phase 1 portion of the study, and 120 patients were assigned to pirtobrutinib (200 mg once per day) in phase 2.
 

Promising outcomes

Pirtobrutinib, showed promising efficacy and tolerable safety in patients with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, and Waldenström macroglobulinemia who were previously treated with a BTK inhibitor. In 121 efficacy-evaluable patients with CLL or SLL treated with a previous covalent BTK inhibitor, the overall response rate with pirtobrutinib was 62% (95% confidence interval, 53-71). The ORR was similar in CLL patients with previous covalent BTK inhibitor resistance (67%), covalent BTK inhibitor intolerance (52%), BTK C481-mutant (71%), and BTK wild-type (66%) disease.

In 52 efficacy-evaluable patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) previously treated with covalent BTK inhibitors, the ORR was 52% (95% CI, 38-66). Of 117 patients with CLL, SLL, or MCL who responded, all but 8 remain progression free to date, the authors stated.

In 19 efficacy-evaluable patients with Waldenström macroglobulinemia, the ORR was 68%. Among eight patients with follicular lymphoma who were efficacy evaluable, responses were observed in four (50%) patients, and six (75%) of eight efficacy evaluable patients with Richter’s transformation identified before enrollment responded to treatment, the authors stated.

No dose-limiting toxicities were observed and the maximum tolerated dose was not reached, according to the researchers. The recommended phase 2 dose was 200 mg daily. The adverse events, which occurred in at least 10% of 323 patients, were fatigue (20%), diarrhea (17%), and contusion (13%). The most common grade 3 or higher adverse event was neutropenia (10%). Five patients (1%) discontinued treatment because of a treatment-related adverse event.

In this “first-in-human trial of pirtobrutinib, we showed promising efficacy and safety in patients with B-cell malignancies, including CLL or SLL, MCL, Waldenström macroglobulinemia, and follicular lymphoma. Activity was observed in heavily pretreated patients, including patients with resistance and intolerance to previous covalent BTK inhibitor treatment. Global randomized phase 3 studies in CLL or SLL, and MCL are planned,” the researchers concluded.
 

Birth of a third generation?

“The pirtobrutinib study, by opening the way for a third generation of BTK inhibitors, could improve such a personalized molecular approach in the treatment of B-cell malignancies,” according to accompanying editorial comment by Jean-Marie Michot, MD, and Vincent Ribrag, MD, both of the Institut de Cancérologie Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.

They discussed how BTK inhibitors have been a considerable therapeutic advance in the treatment of NHL-B and CLL and how the three currently approved BTK inhibitors, namely ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, and zanubrutinib, are all covalent and irreversible inhibitors at the protein – the C481 binding site. “Ibrutinib was the first approved drug. The second-generation inhibitors, acalabrutinib and zanubrutinib, were designed to be more BTK selective,” they added. However, the covalency and irreversibility of the drugs, considered therapeutic strengths, have resulted in induced resistance mutations occurring at the covalent binding, rendering the drugs inactive. “Two advantages of this new drug class are highlighted. First, the selectivity of the drug on BTK appears to be increased,” they wrote. “Second, this class does not bind BTK to the C481 residue, and the efficacy of the drug is therefore not affected by mutations in the BTK binding site.”

Several of the study authors reported receiving grants and personal fees from Loxo Oncology (a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly), which sponsored the study, as well as financial relationships with other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.

Dr. Michot and Dr. Ribrag reported that they had no disclosures relevant to the discussion.

[email protected]

Pirtobrutinib treatment yielded promising outcomes in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and other patients with B-cell malignancies who discontinued prior Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK)–inhibitor treatment due to resistance or intolerance, according to the results of the BRUIN trial, a phase 1/2 study.

Pirtobrutinib (formerly known as LOXO-305) is an oral-dose, highly selective, reversible BTK inhibitor, which might address a growing, unmet need for alternative therapies in BTK-inhibitor treatment failure patients, according to Anthony R. Mato, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and colleagues. Their report was published in The Lancet.

The study included 109 women (34%) and 214 men (66%), with a median age of 68 years, who were treated with pirtobrutinib. Of these, 203 patients were assigned to pirtobrutinib (25-300 mg once per day) in the phase 1 portion of the study, and 120 patients were assigned to pirtobrutinib (200 mg once per day) in phase 2.
 

Promising outcomes

Pirtobrutinib, showed promising efficacy and tolerable safety in patients with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, and Waldenström macroglobulinemia who were previously treated with a BTK inhibitor. In 121 efficacy-evaluable patients with CLL or SLL treated with a previous covalent BTK inhibitor, the overall response rate with pirtobrutinib was 62% (95% confidence interval, 53-71). The ORR was similar in CLL patients with previous covalent BTK inhibitor resistance (67%), covalent BTK inhibitor intolerance (52%), BTK C481-mutant (71%), and BTK wild-type (66%) disease.

In 52 efficacy-evaluable patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) previously treated with covalent BTK inhibitors, the ORR was 52% (95% CI, 38-66). Of 117 patients with CLL, SLL, or MCL who responded, all but 8 remain progression free to date, the authors stated.

In 19 efficacy-evaluable patients with Waldenström macroglobulinemia, the ORR was 68%. Among eight patients with follicular lymphoma who were efficacy evaluable, responses were observed in four (50%) patients, and six (75%) of eight efficacy evaluable patients with Richter’s transformation identified before enrollment responded to treatment, the authors stated.

No dose-limiting toxicities were observed and the maximum tolerated dose was not reached, according to the researchers. The recommended phase 2 dose was 200 mg daily. The adverse events, which occurred in at least 10% of 323 patients, were fatigue (20%), diarrhea (17%), and contusion (13%). The most common grade 3 or higher adverse event was neutropenia (10%). Five patients (1%) discontinued treatment because of a treatment-related adverse event.

In this “first-in-human trial of pirtobrutinib, we showed promising efficacy and safety in patients with B-cell malignancies, including CLL or SLL, MCL, Waldenström macroglobulinemia, and follicular lymphoma. Activity was observed in heavily pretreated patients, including patients with resistance and intolerance to previous covalent BTK inhibitor treatment. Global randomized phase 3 studies in CLL or SLL, and MCL are planned,” the researchers concluded.
 

Birth of a third generation?

“The pirtobrutinib study, by opening the way for a third generation of BTK inhibitors, could improve such a personalized molecular approach in the treatment of B-cell malignancies,” according to accompanying editorial comment by Jean-Marie Michot, MD, and Vincent Ribrag, MD, both of the Institut de Cancérologie Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.

They discussed how BTK inhibitors have been a considerable therapeutic advance in the treatment of NHL-B and CLL and how the three currently approved BTK inhibitors, namely ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, and zanubrutinib, are all covalent and irreversible inhibitors at the protein – the C481 binding site. “Ibrutinib was the first approved drug. The second-generation inhibitors, acalabrutinib and zanubrutinib, were designed to be more BTK selective,” they added. However, the covalency and irreversibility of the drugs, considered therapeutic strengths, have resulted in induced resistance mutations occurring at the covalent binding, rendering the drugs inactive. “Two advantages of this new drug class are highlighted. First, the selectivity of the drug on BTK appears to be increased,” they wrote. “Second, this class does not bind BTK to the C481 residue, and the efficacy of the drug is therefore not affected by mutations in the BTK binding site.”

Several of the study authors reported receiving grants and personal fees from Loxo Oncology (a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly), which sponsored the study, as well as financial relationships with other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.

Dr. Michot and Dr. Ribrag reported that they had no disclosures relevant to the discussion.

[email protected]

Immunogenicity of the high-dose influenza vaccine (HD IIV3) in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis (MBL, the precursor state to CLL) was found lower than reported in healthy adults according to a report in Vaccine.

In addition, immunogenicity to influenza B was found to be greater in those patients with MBL, compared with those with CLL.

“Acute and chronic leukemia patients hospitalized with influenza infection document a case fatality rate of 25%-37%,” according to Jennifer A. Whitaker, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues in pointing out the importance of their study.

The prospective pilot study assessed the humoral immune responses of patients to the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 HD IIV3 (Fluzone High-Dose; Sanofi Pasteur), which was administered as part of routine clinical care in 30 patients (17 with previously untreated CLL and 13 with MBL). The median patient age was 69.5 years.

The primary outcomes were seroconversion and seroprotection, as measured by hemagglutination inhibition assay (HAI).
 

Lower response rate

At day 28 post vaccination, the seroprotection rates for the overall cohort were 19/30 (63.3%) for A/H1N1, 21/23 (91.3%) for A/H3N2, and 13/30 (43.3%) for influenza B. Patients with MBL achieved significantly higher day 28 HAI geometric mean titers (GMT), compared with CLL patients (54.1 vs. 12.1]; P = .01), In addition, MBL patients achieved higher day 28 seroprotection rates against the influenza B vaccine strain virus than did those with CLL (76.9% vs. 17.6%; P = .002). Seroconversion rates for the overall cohort were 3/30 (10%) for A/H1N1; 5/23 (21.7%) for A/H3N2; and 3/30 (10%) for influenza B. No individual with CLL demonstrated seroconversion for influenza B, according to the researchers.

“Our studies reinforce rigorous adherence to vaccination strategies in patients with hematologic malignancy, including those with CLL, given the increased risk of serious complications among those experiencing influenza infection,” the authors stated.

“Even suboptimal responses to influenza vaccination can provide partial protection, reduce hospitalization rates, and/or prevent serious disease complications. Given the recent major issue with novel and aggressive viruses such COVID-19, we absolutely must continue with larger prospective studies to confirm these findings and evaluate vaccine effectiveness in preventing influenza or other novel viruses in these populations,” the researchers concluded.

This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Whitaker reported having no disclosures. Several of the coauthors reported financial relationships with a variety of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.

[email protected]

Immunogenicity of the high-dose influenza vaccine (HD IIV3) in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis (MBL, the precursor state to CLL) was found lower than reported in healthy adults according to a report in Vaccine.

In addition, immunogenicity to influenza B was found to be greater in those patients with MBL, compared with those with CLL.

“Acute and chronic leukemia patients hospitalized with influenza infection document a case fatality rate of 25%-37%,” according to Jennifer A. Whitaker, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues in pointing out the importance of their study.

The prospective pilot study assessed the humoral immune responses of patients to the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 HD IIV3 (Fluzone High-Dose; Sanofi Pasteur), which was administered as part of routine clinical care in 30 patients (17 with previously untreated CLL and 13 with MBL). The median patient age was 69.5 years.

The primary outcomes were seroconversion and seroprotection, as measured by hemagglutination inhibition assay (HAI).
 

Lower response rate

At day 28 post vaccination, the seroprotection rates for the overall cohort were 19/30 (63.3%) for A/H1N1, 21/23 (91.3%) for A/H3N2, and 13/30 (43.3%) for influenza B. Patients with MBL achieved significantly higher day 28 HAI geometric mean titers (GMT), compared with CLL patients (54.1 vs. 12.1]; P = .01), In addition, MBL patients achieved higher day 28 seroprotection rates against the influenza B vaccine strain virus than did those with CLL (76.9% vs. 17.6%; P = .002). Seroconversion rates for the overall cohort were 3/30 (10%) for A/H1N1; 5/23 (21.7%) for A/H3N2; and 3/30 (10%) for influenza B. No individual with CLL demonstrated seroconversion for influenza B, according to the researchers.

“Our studies reinforce rigorous adherence to vaccination strategies in patients with hematologic malignancy, including those with CLL, given the increased risk of serious complications among those experiencing influenza infection,” the authors stated.

“Even suboptimal responses to influenza vaccination can provide partial protection, reduce hospitalization rates, and/or prevent serious disease complications. Given the recent major issue with novel and aggressive viruses such COVID-19, we absolutely must continue with larger prospective studies to confirm these findings and evaluate vaccine effectiveness in preventing influenza or other novel viruses in these populations,” the researchers concluded.

This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Whitaker reported having no disclosures. Several of the coauthors reported financial relationships with a variety of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.

[email protected]

Immunogenicity of the high-dose influenza vaccine (HD IIV3) in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis (MBL, the precursor state to CLL) was found lower than reported in healthy adults according to a report in Vaccine.

In addition, immunogenicity to influenza B was found to be greater in those patients with MBL, compared with those with CLL.

“Acute and chronic leukemia patients hospitalized with influenza infection document a case fatality rate of 25%-37%,” according to Jennifer A. Whitaker, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues in pointing out the importance of their study.

The prospective pilot study assessed the humoral immune responses of patients to the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 HD IIV3 (Fluzone High-Dose; Sanofi Pasteur), which was administered as part of routine clinical care in 30 patients (17 with previously untreated CLL and 13 with MBL). The median patient age was 69.5 years.

The primary outcomes were seroconversion and seroprotection, as measured by hemagglutination inhibition assay (HAI).
 

Lower response rate

At day 28 post vaccination, the seroprotection rates for the overall cohort were 19/30 (63.3%) for A/H1N1, 21/23 (91.3%) for A/H3N2, and 13/30 (43.3%) for influenza B. Patients with MBL achieved significantly higher day 28 HAI geometric mean titers (GMT), compared with CLL patients (54.1 vs. 12.1]; P = .01), In addition, MBL patients achieved higher day 28 seroprotection rates against the influenza B vaccine strain virus than did those with CLL (76.9% vs. 17.6%; P = .002). Seroconversion rates for the overall cohort were 3/30 (10%) for A/H1N1; 5/23 (21.7%) for A/H3N2; and 3/30 (10%) for influenza B. No individual with CLL demonstrated seroconversion for influenza B, according to the researchers.

“Our studies reinforce rigorous adherence to vaccination strategies in patients with hematologic malignancy, including those with CLL, given the increased risk of serious complications among those experiencing influenza infection,” the authors stated.

“Even suboptimal responses to influenza vaccination can provide partial protection, reduce hospitalization rates, and/or prevent serious disease complications. Given the recent major issue with novel and aggressive viruses such COVID-19, we absolutely must continue with larger prospective studies to confirm these findings and evaluate vaccine effectiveness in preventing influenza or other novel viruses in these populations,” the researchers concluded.

This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Whitaker reported having no disclosures. Several of the coauthors reported financial relationships with a variety of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.

[email protected]

COVID-19 has thrown a wrench in standard treatment protocols for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). These patients already face a greater risk of dying from infections, and recent research suggests they tend to have risk factors that increase their likelihood of complications and death from COVID-19.

In August, a group of oncologists from the United States and Europe published a literature-informed expert opinion to help their colleagues navigate this new CLL treatment landscape. It offers a roadmap for balancing patients’ therapeutic needs against their risk for viral infection and outlines the safest course of action for patients who test positive for COVID-19.

Mazyar Shadman, MD, MPH, an associate professor in the Clinical Research Division of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and the Division of Medical Oncology at the University of Washington School of Medicine, in Seattle, Washington, was contacted for comment to break down what clinicians need to know about treating CLL during the pandemic. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
 

Question: What prompted you and colleagues from the United States and Europe to write these recommendations?

Dr. Shadman: When we began the collaboration earlier this year, our colleagues in Italy and the rest of Europe had more experience with COVID-19, so they led the effort. We wanted to help oncologists manage their patients with CLL during the pandemic based on the evidence we had at the time and the unknowns we faced.
 

What’s an example of how the available evidence informed your recommendations?

At the time, we didn’t know whether patients with CLL were more likely to get COVID-19, compared to the general population, but we did have evidence already that cancer increases patients’ risk of bad outcomes and death from COVID-19. CLL, for example, can increase risk factors for infection, including hypogammaglobulinemia, innate immune dysfunction, and neutropenia, which may be exacerbated by anticancer treatments. Patients’ existing immune suppression might prevent or delay their ability to react to or cope with the virus. And many patients with CLL have other conditions that increase their risk of a severe response to COVID-19, including older age (70% of CLL patients are older than 65 years), hypertension (21%), and diabetes (26%).

These factors informed our recommendations to limit patients’ exposure to COVID-19 by reducing or postponing the number of in-person visits and routine in-hospital follow-ups, especially if they could be substituted with virtual check-ins.
 

The expert opinion recommendations are divided into three main categories: patients who are newly diagnosed with CLL but have not begun receiving therapy, those already receiving therapy but are free of COVID-19, and those who test positive for COVID-19. Let’s start with the first category. What do the recommendations say about waiting versus proceeding for newly diagnosed patients?

Our priority was balancing the negative impacts of getting COVID-19 with the negative impacts of postponing cancer treatment. We suggested taking each new CLL case on a patient-by-patient basis to determine who needed treatment tomorrow and who could wait a few weeks or months. Fortunately, CLL rarely requires immediate therapy, so the preference was to postpone treatment a few weeks, depending on the local COVID-19 outbreak situation.

In my practice, for instance, we tried to postpone visits as much as we could. Before the pandemic, patients with CLL in the watch-and-wait phase – those diagnosed but who don’t require treatment immediately – would come in for bloodwork and exams every 3-6 months. But when the pandemic hit, we skipped 3-month visits for patients with stable lab results and switched to telehealth visits instead. For those who needed blood draws, we used local labs closer to the patient’s home to minimize their exposure and transportation requirements.

When treatment cannot be deferred, we’ve recommended starting patients on therapies that require fewer in-person visits and are less immune suppressive. We recommended oncologists consider Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors, such as ibrutinib and acalabrutinib, as well as venetoclax. Some research suggests these inhibitors may be protective against COVID-19 by blunting a patient’s hyperinflammatory response to the virus. These drugs also require minimal routine treatment and lab visits, which helps limit patients’ potential exposure to COVID-19.

But there are risks to waiting. Even during the peak of the pandemic here in Seattle, if patients needed treatment immediately, we did not delay. Patients with significant drops in their platelet or neutrophil count or those with bulky disease, for instance, do require therapy.

It’s important to mention that we did have bad experiences with patients who needed immediate treatment and their treating physicians decided to wait because of COVID-19 risks. These patients who came in with aggressive CLL and experienced delays in care had much more complicated CLL treatment than if they had started treatment earlier.

When organ function became abnormal, for example, some patients could no longer receive certain therapies. If someone’s kidney function becomes abnormal, I wouldn’t recommend giving a drug like venetoclax. Although rare, some patients on venetoclax develop tumor lysis syndrome, which can lead to kidney failure.

Bottom line: Don’t just assume it’s a low-grade disease and that you can wait.



What about patients already receiving treatment for CLL who are free of COVID-19?

For patients on active treatment, we suggested stopping or holding treatment with monoclonal antibodies, such as rituximab and obinutuzumab, and chemotherapy regimens, such as idelalisib plus rituximab and duvelisib, when possible. We recommended oncologists consider continuing treatment for patients on BTK inhibitors.



What happens if a patient with CLL tests positive for COVID-19?

If a patient tests positive for COVID-19 but is not yet on CLL treatment, we recommend postponing CLL care until they’ve recovered from the infection. If a patient is already receiving treatment, the recommendations are similar to those above for COVID-19–negative patients: Delay care for those on chemotherapy and monoclonal antibodies, but consider continuing treatment for patients on BTK inhibitors.
 

The expert opinion was submitted in May and ultimately published in August. How has our understanding of treating CLL during the pandemic changed since then? Would you change any recommendations?

When we published this paper, it was still early on in the pandemic, and we didn’t know as much about COVID-19 and CLL as we do now. Since we published the recommendations, we have received confirmation from several studies that patients with cancer have a more complicated course of COVID-19 and have worse outcomes. But I believe the recommendations we devised early in the pandemic still hold now. Decisions about delivering treatment should be influenced by the local COVID-19 numbers and hospital resources as well as the patient’s specific situation – whether they have more stable disease and can delay or postpone care or whether they need more immediate attention.

With a further surge in cases predicted as we move even deeper into flu season, what would you recommend for initiating treatment in newly diagnosed patients?

The pandemic has created a very fluid situation for treating CLL. What’s happening now in Seattle may not be the same story in New York, California, or elsewhere. In early November [when Dr. Shadman was first contacted], in Seattle, we were not postponing care because our COVID-19 numbers were fairly good. But, as of mid December, that is starting to change as the COVID-19 numbers fluctuate.
 

If we do experience a second peak of COVID-19 cases, we would need to modify our practice as we did during the initial surge earlier this year. That would mean avoiding treatment with monoclonal antibodies and chemotherapy, as well as minimizing blood draws and drugs that require frequent in-person visits.
 

How important is it for patients to be vaccinated against COVID-19?

There are two key things to consider about a vaccine. Is the vaccine safe from the general safety standpoint that everyone is worried about? And if the vaccine is not harmful, will it work in patients will CLL?

Because we don’t yet know the complete side-effect profile of a COVID-19 vaccine, we would need to assess each patient’s condition to limit adverse reactions and to see whether the vaccine alters a patient’s immune response to the CLL drug they’re taking.

At the University of Washington, Seattle, we have a plan to start studying the effectiveness of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in patients with CLL – carefully assessing patients’ response to the vaccine in terms of antibody response. We already know, based on small studies, that the antibody response to the flu vaccine, for instance, is not as strong in patients with CLL, compared to those without. But, overall, as long as the vaccine won’t cause harm, I would recommend my patients get it.

Dr. Shadman has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

COVID-19 has thrown a wrench in standard treatment protocols for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). These patients already face a greater risk of dying from infections, and recent research suggests they tend to have risk factors that increase their likelihood of complications and death from COVID-19.

In August, a group of oncologists from the United States and Europe published a literature-informed expert opinion to help their colleagues navigate this new CLL treatment landscape. It offers a roadmap for balancing patients’ therapeutic needs against their risk for viral infection and outlines the safest course of action for patients who test positive for COVID-19.

Mazyar Shadman, MD, MPH, an associate professor in the Clinical Research Division of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and the Division of Medical Oncology at the University of Washington School of Medicine, in Seattle, Washington, was contacted for comment to break down what clinicians need to know about treating CLL during the pandemic. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
 

Question: What prompted you and colleagues from the United States and Europe to write these recommendations?

Dr. Shadman: When we began the collaboration earlier this year, our colleagues in Italy and the rest of Europe had more experience with COVID-19, so they led the effort. We wanted to help oncologists manage their patients with CLL during the pandemic based on the evidence we had at the time and the unknowns we faced.
 

What’s an example of how the available evidence informed your recommendations?

At the time, we didn’t know whether patients with CLL were more likely to get COVID-19, compared to the general population, but we did have evidence already that cancer increases patients’ risk of bad outcomes and death from COVID-19. CLL, for example, can increase risk factors for infection, including hypogammaglobulinemia, innate immune dysfunction, and neutropenia, which may be exacerbated by anticancer treatments. Patients’ existing immune suppression might prevent or delay their ability to react to or cope with the virus. And many patients with CLL have other conditions that increase their risk of a severe response to COVID-19, including older age (70% of CLL patients are older than 65 years), hypertension (21%), and diabetes (26%).

These factors informed our recommendations to limit patients’ exposure to COVID-19 by reducing or postponing the number of in-person visits and routine in-hospital follow-ups, especially if they could be substituted with virtual check-ins.
 

The expert opinion recommendations are divided into three main categories: patients who are newly diagnosed with CLL but have not begun receiving therapy, those already receiving therapy but are free of COVID-19, and those who test positive for COVID-19. Let’s start with the first category. What do the recommendations say about waiting versus proceeding for newly diagnosed patients?

Our priority was balancing the negative impacts of getting COVID-19 with the negative impacts of postponing cancer treatment. We suggested taking each new CLL case on a patient-by-patient basis to determine who needed treatment tomorrow and who could wait a few weeks or months. Fortunately, CLL rarely requires immediate therapy, so the preference was to postpone treatment a few weeks, depending on the local COVID-19 outbreak situation.

In my practice, for instance, we tried to postpone visits as much as we could. Before the pandemic, patients with CLL in the watch-and-wait phase – those diagnosed but who don’t require treatment immediately – would come in for bloodwork and exams every 3-6 months. But when the pandemic hit, we skipped 3-month visits for patients with stable lab results and switched to telehealth visits instead. For those who needed blood draws, we used local labs closer to the patient’s home to minimize their exposure and transportation requirements.

When treatment cannot be deferred, we’ve recommended starting patients on therapies that require fewer in-person visits and are less immune suppressive. We recommended oncologists consider Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors, such as ibrutinib and acalabrutinib, as well as venetoclax. Some research suggests these inhibitors may be protective against COVID-19 by blunting a patient’s hyperinflammatory response to the virus. These drugs also require minimal routine treatment and lab visits, which helps limit patients’ potential exposure to COVID-19.

But there are risks to waiting. Even during the peak of the pandemic here in Seattle, if patients needed treatment immediately, we did not delay. Patients with significant drops in their platelet or neutrophil count or those with bulky disease, for instance, do require therapy.

It’s important to mention that we did have bad experiences with patients who needed immediate treatment and their treating physicians decided to wait because of COVID-19 risks. These patients who came in with aggressive CLL and experienced delays in care had much more complicated CLL treatment than if they had started treatment earlier.

When organ function became abnormal, for example, some patients could no longer receive certain therapies. If someone’s kidney function becomes abnormal, I wouldn’t recommend giving a drug like venetoclax. Although rare, some patients on venetoclax develop tumor lysis syndrome, which can lead to kidney failure.

Bottom line: Don’t just assume it’s a low-grade disease and that you can wait.



What about patients already receiving treatment for CLL who are free of COVID-19?

For patients on active treatment, we suggested stopping or holding treatment with monoclonal antibodies, such as rituximab and obinutuzumab, and chemotherapy regimens, such as idelalisib plus rituximab and duvelisib, when possible. We recommended oncologists consider continuing treatment for patients on BTK inhibitors.



What happens if a patient with CLL tests positive for COVID-19?

If a patient tests positive for COVID-19 but is not yet on CLL treatment, we recommend postponing CLL care until they’ve recovered from the infection. If a patient is already receiving treatment, the recommendations are similar to those above for COVID-19–negative patients: Delay care for those on chemotherapy and monoclonal antibodies, but consider continuing treatment for patients on BTK inhibitors.
 

The expert opinion was submitted in May and ultimately published in August. How has our understanding of treating CLL during the pandemic changed since then? Would you change any recommendations?

When we published this paper, it was still early on in the pandemic, and we didn’t know as much about COVID-19 and CLL as we do now. Since we published the recommendations, we have received confirmation from several studies that patients with cancer have a more complicated course of COVID-19 and have worse outcomes. But I believe the recommendations we devised early in the pandemic still hold now. Decisions about delivering treatment should be influenced by the local COVID-19 numbers and hospital resources as well as the patient’s specific situation – whether they have more stable disease and can delay or postpone care or whether they need more immediate attention.

With a further surge in cases predicted as we move even deeper into flu season, what would you recommend for initiating treatment in newly diagnosed patients?

The pandemic has created a very fluid situation for treating CLL. What’s happening now in Seattle may not be the same story in New York, California, or elsewhere. In early November [when Dr. Shadman was first contacted], in Seattle, we were not postponing care because our COVID-19 numbers were fairly good. But, as of mid December, that is starting to change as the COVID-19 numbers fluctuate.
 

If we do experience a second peak of COVID-19 cases, we would need to modify our practice as we did during the initial surge earlier this year. That would mean avoiding treatment with monoclonal antibodies and chemotherapy, as well as minimizing blood draws and drugs that require frequent in-person visits.
 

How important is it for patients to be vaccinated against COVID-19?

There are two key things to consider about a vaccine. Is the vaccine safe from the general safety standpoint that everyone is worried about? And if the vaccine is not harmful, will it work in patients will CLL?

Because we don’t yet know the complete side-effect profile of a COVID-19 vaccine, we would need to assess each patient’s condition to limit adverse reactions and to see whether the vaccine alters a patient’s immune response to the CLL drug they’re taking.

At the University of Washington, Seattle, we have a plan to start studying the effectiveness of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in patients with CLL – carefully assessing patients’ response to the vaccine in terms of antibody response. We already know, based on small studies, that the antibody response to the flu vaccine, for instance, is not as strong in patients with CLL, compared to those without. But, overall, as long as the vaccine won’t cause harm, I would recommend my patients get it.

Dr. Shadman has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

COVID-19 has thrown a wrench in standard treatment protocols for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). These patients already face a greater risk of dying from infections, and recent research suggests they tend to have risk factors that increase their likelihood of complications and death from COVID-19.

In August, a group of oncologists from the United States and Europe published a literature-informed expert opinion to help their colleagues navigate this new CLL treatment landscape. It offers a roadmap for balancing patients’ therapeutic needs against their risk for viral infection and outlines the safest course of action for patients who test positive for COVID-19.

Mazyar Shadman, MD, MPH, an associate professor in the Clinical Research Division of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and the Division of Medical Oncology at the University of Washington School of Medicine, in Seattle, Washington, was contacted for comment to break down what clinicians need to know about treating CLL during the pandemic. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
 

Question: What prompted you and colleagues from the United States and Europe to write these recommendations?

Dr. Shadman: When we began the collaboration earlier this year, our colleagues in Italy and the rest of Europe had more experience with COVID-19, so they led the effort. We wanted to help oncologists manage their patients with CLL during the pandemic based on the evidence we had at the time and the unknowns we faced.
 

What’s an example of how the available evidence informed your recommendations?

At the time, we didn’t know whether patients with CLL were more likely to get COVID-19, compared to the general population, but we did have evidence already that cancer increases patients’ risk of bad outcomes and death from COVID-19. CLL, for example, can increase risk factors for infection, including hypogammaglobulinemia, innate immune dysfunction, and neutropenia, which may be exacerbated by anticancer treatments. Patients’ existing immune suppression might prevent or delay their ability to react to or cope with the virus. And many patients with CLL have other conditions that increase their risk of a severe response to COVID-19, including older age (70% of CLL patients are older than 65 years), hypertension (21%), and diabetes (26%).

These factors informed our recommendations to limit patients’ exposure to COVID-19 by reducing or postponing the number of in-person visits and routine in-hospital follow-ups, especially if they could be substituted with virtual check-ins.
 

The expert opinion recommendations are divided into three main categories: patients who are newly diagnosed with CLL but have not begun receiving therapy, those already receiving therapy but are free of COVID-19, and those who test positive for COVID-19. Let’s start with the first category. What do the recommendations say about waiting versus proceeding for newly diagnosed patients?

Our priority was balancing the negative impacts of getting COVID-19 with the negative impacts of postponing cancer treatment. We suggested taking each new CLL case on a patient-by-patient basis to determine who needed treatment tomorrow and who could wait a few weeks or months. Fortunately, CLL rarely requires immediate therapy, so the preference was to postpone treatment a few weeks, depending on the local COVID-19 outbreak situation.

In my practice, for instance, we tried to postpone visits as much as we could. Before the pandemic, patients with CLL in the watch-and-wait phase – those diagnosed but who don’t require treatment immediately – would come in for bloodwork and exams every 3-6 months. But when the pandemic hit, we skipped 3-month visits for patients with stable lab results and switched to telehealth visits instead. For those who needed blood draws, we used local labs closer to the patient’s home to minimize their exposure and transportation requirements.

When treatment cannot be deferred, we’ve recommended starting patients on therapies that require fewer in-person visits and are less immune suppressive. We recommended oncologists consider Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors, such as ibrutinib and acalabrutinib, as well as venetoclax. Some research suggests these inhibitors may be protective against COVID-19 by blunting a patient’s hyperinflammatory response to the virus. These drugs also require minimal routine treatment and lab visits, which helps limit patients’ potential exposure to COVID-19.

But there are risks to waiting. Even during the peak of the pandemic here in Seattle, if patients needed treatment immediately, we did not delay. Patients with significant drops in their platelet or neutrophil count or those with bulky disease, for instance, do require therapy.

It’s important to mention that we did have bad experiences with patients who needed immediate treatment and their treating physicians decided to wait because of COVID-19 risks. These patients who came in with aggressive CLL and experienced delays in care had much more complicated CLL treatment than if they had started treatment earlier.

When organ function became abnormal, for example, some patients could no longer receive certain therapies. If someone’s kidney function becomes abnormal, I wouldn’t recommend giving a drug like venetoclax. Although rare, some patients on venetoclax develop tumor lysis syndrome, which can lead to kidney failure.

Bottom line: Don’t just assume it’s a low-grade disease and that you can wait.



What about patients already receiving treatment for CLL who are free of COVID-19?

For patients on active treatment, we suggested stopping or holding treatment with monoclonal antibodies, such as rituximab and obinutuzumab, and chemotherapy regimens, such as idelalisib plus rituximab and duvelisib, when possible. We recommended oncologists consider continuing treatment for patients on BTK inhibitors.



What happens if a patient with CLL tests positive for COVID-19?

If a patient tests positive for COVID-19 but is not yet on CLL treatment, we recommend postponing CLL care until they’ve recovered from the infection. If a patient is already receiving treatment, the recommendations are similar to those above for COVID-19–negative patients: Delay care for those on chemotherapy and monoclonal antibodies, but consider continuing treatment for patients on BTK inhibitors.
 

The expert opinion was submitted in May and ultimately published in August. How has our understanding of treating CLL during the pandemic changed since then? Would you change any recommendations?

When we published this paper, it was still early on in the pandemic, and we didn’t know as much about COVID-19 and CLL as we do now. Since we published the recommendations, we have received confirmation from several studies that patients with cancer have a more complicated course of COVID-19 and have worse outcomes. But I believe the recommendations we devised early in the pandemic still hold now. Decisions about delivering treatment should be influenced by the local COVID-19 numbers and hospital resources as well as the patient’s specific situation – whether they have more stable disease and can delay or postpone care or whether they need more immediate attention.

With a further surge in cases predicted as we move even deeper into flu season, what would you recommend for initiating treatment in newly diagnosed patients?

The pandemic has created a very fluid situation for treating CLL. What’s happening now in Seattle may not be the same story in New York, California, or elsewhere. In early November [when Dr. Shadman was first contacted], in Seattle, we were not postponing care because our COVID-19 numbers were fairly good. But, as of mid December, that is starting to change as the COVID-19 numbers fluctuate.
 

If we do experience a second peak of COVID-19 cases, we would need to modify our practice as we did during the initial surge earlier this year. That would mean avoiding treatment with monoclonal antibodies and chemotherapy, as well as minimizing blood draws and drugs that require frequent in-person visits.
 

How important is it for patients to be vaccinated against COVID-19?

There are two key things to consider about a vaccine. Is the vaccine safe from the general safety standpoint that everyone is worried about? And if the vaccine is not harmful, will it work in patients will CLL?

Because we don’t yet know the complete side-effect profile of a COVID-19 vaccine, we would need to assess each patient’s condition to limit adverse reactions and to see whether the vaccine alters a patient’s immune response to the CLL drug they’re taking.

At the University of Washington, Seattle, we have a plan to start studying the effectiveness of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in patients with CLL – carefully assessing patients’ response to the vaccine in terms of antibody response. We already know, based on small studies, that the antibody response to the flu vaccine, for instance, is not as strong in patients with CLL, compared to those without. But, overall, as long as the vaccine won’t cause harm, I would recommend my patients get it.

Dr. Shadman has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.