Search

Patients with hematologic conditions have a higher risk of severe COVID-19 and COVID-19-related death. This is related to immune deficiencies induced by hematologic conditions and/or the treatment thereof. Prospective vaccine immunogenicity studies have demonstrated that in the majority of patients, a 3-dose COVID-19 vaccination schedule leads to antibody concentrations comparable to levels obtained in healthy adults after a 2-dose schedule. In B cell depleted patients, humoral responses are poor, however vaccination did induce potent cellular immune responses. The effect of 3-dose vaccination schedules and COVID-19 booster vaccinations on the protection of patients with hematologic malignancies against severe COVID-19 and COVID-19 related death remains to be confirmed by population-based vaccine effectiveness studies.

IMPORTANCE: It has become common practice to offer immunocompromised patients with hematologic cancers a third COVID-19 vaccination dose, but data substantiating this are scarce. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether a third mRNA-1273 vaccination is associated with increased neutralizing antibody concentrations in immunocompromised patients with hematologic cancers comparable to levels obtained in healthy individuals after the standard 2-dose mRNA-1273 vaccination schedule. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This prospective observational cohort study was conducted at 4 university hospitals in the Netherlands and included 584 evaluable patients spanning the spectrum of hematologic cancers and 44 randomly selected age-matched adults without malignant or immunodeficient comorbidities. EXPOSURES: One additional mRNA-1273 vaccination 5 months after completion of the standard 2-dose mRNA-1273 vaccination schedule. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Serum immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies to spike subunit 1 (S1) antigens prior to and 4 weeks after a third mRNA-1273 vaccination, and antibody neutralization capacity of wild-type, Delta, and Omicron variants in a subgroup of patients. RESULTS: In this cohort of 584 immunocompromised patients with hematologic cancers (mean [SD] age, 60 [11.2] years; 216 [37.0%] women), a third mRNA-1273 vaccination was associated with median S1-IgG concentrations comparable to concentrations obtained by healthy individuals after the 2-dose mRNA-1273 schedule. The rise in S1-IgG concentration after the third vaccination was most pronounced in patients with a recovering immune system, but potent responses were also observed in patients with persistent immunodeficiencies. Specifically, patients with myeloid cancers or multiple myeloma and recipients of autologous or allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) reached median S1-IgG concentrations similar to those obtained by healthy individuals after a 2-dose schedule. Patients receiving or shortly after completing anti-CD20 therapy, CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy recipients, and patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia receiving ibrutinib were less responsive or unresponsive to the third vaccination. In the 27 patients who received cell therapy between the second and third vaccination, S1 antibodies were preserved, but a third mRNA-1273 vaccination was not associated with significantly enhanced S1-IgG concentrations except for patients with multiple myeloma receiving autologous HCT. A third vaccination was associated with significantly improved neutralization capacity per antibody. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Results of this cohort study support that the primary schedule for immunocompromised patients with hematologic cancers should be supplemented with a delayed third vaccination. Patients with B-cell lymphoma and allogeneic HCT recipients need to be revaccinated after treatment or transplantation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT Identifier: 2021-001072-41

[Display omitted]

Vaccination guidelines for patients treated for hematological diseases are typically conservative. Given their high risk for severe COVID-19, it is important to identify those patients that benefit from vaccination. We prospectively quantified serum immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies to spike subunit 1 (S1) antigens during and after 2-dose mRNA-1273 (Spikevax/Moderna) vaccination in hematology patients. Obtaining S1 IgG ≥ 300 binding antibody units (BAUs)/mL was considered adequate as it represents the lower level of S1 IgG concentration obtained in healthy individuals, and it correlates with potent virus neutralization. Selected patients (n = 723) were severely immunocompromised owing to their disease or treatment thereof. Nevertheless, >50% of patients obtained S1 IgG ≥ 300 BAUs/mL after 2-dose mRNA-1273. All patients with sickle cell disease or chronic myeloid leukemia obtained adequate antibody concentrations. Around 70% of patients with chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD), multiple myeloma, or untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) obtained S1 IgG ≥ 300 BAUs/mL. Ruxolitinib or hypomethylating therapy but not high-dose chemotherapy blunted responses in myeloid malignancies. Responses in patients with lymphoma, patients with CLL on ibrutinib, and chimeric antigen receptor T-cell recipients were low. The minimal time interval after autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) to reach adequate concentrations was <2 months for multiple myeloma, 8 months for lymphoma, and 4 to 6 months after allogeneic HCT. Serum IgG4, absolute B- and natural killer–cell number, and number of immunosuppressants predicted S1 IgG ≥ 300 BAUs/mL. Hematology patients on chemotherapy, shortly after HCT, or with cGVHD should not be precluded from vaccination. This trial was registered at Netherlands Trial Register as #NL9553.

Vaccination guidelines for patients treated for hematological diseases are typically conservative. Given their high risk for severe COVID-19, it is important to identify those patients that benefit from vaccination. We prospectively quantified serum immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies to spike subunit 1 (S1) antigens during and after 2-dose mRNA-1273 (Spikevax/Moderna) vaccination in hematology patients. Obtaining S1 IgG ≥ 300 binding antibody units (BAUs)/mL was considered adequate as it represents the lower level of S1 IgG concentration obtained in healthy individuals, and it correlates with potent virus neutralization. Selected patients (n = 723) were severely immunocompromised owing to their disease or treatment thereof. Nevertheless, >50% of patients obtained S1 IgG ≥ 300 BAUs/mL after 2-dose mRNA-1273. All patients with sickle cell disease or chronic myeloid leukemia obtained adequate antibody concentrations. Around 70% of patients with chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD), multiple myeloma, or untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) obtained S1 IgG ≥ 300 BAUs/mL. Ruxolitinib or hypomethylating therapy but not high-dose chemotherapy blunted responses in myeloid malignancies. Responses in patients with lymphoma, patients with CLL on ibrutinib, and chimeric antigen receptor T-cell recipients were low. The minimal time interval after autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) to reach adequate concentrations was <2 months for multiple myeloma, 8 months for lymphoma, and 4 to 6 months after allogeneic HCT. Serum IgG4, absolute B- and natural killer–cell number, and number of immunosuppressants predicted S1 IgG ≥ 300 BAUs/mL. Hematology patients on chemotherapy, shortly after HCT, or with cGVHD should not be precluded from vaccination. This trial was registered at Netherlands Trial Register as #NL9553.

•Treatment with the oral CXCR4 antagonist mavorixafor resulted in increased levels of absolute neutrophil and lymphocyte counts vs placebo.•Infection frequency, severity, and duration were decreased with mavorixafor treatment vs placebo. Mavorixafor was well tolerated.

Introduction

Background:Patients with hematologic conditions have a high mortality rate when infected with SARS-CoV-2 (Williamson, Nature 2020). Protection of this group from severe COVID-19 is therefore important. However, according to available vaccination guidelines, one should consider to postpone vaccination of patients on or early after chemotherapy, hematopoietic progenitor cell transplantation (HCT) or with graft versus host disease, because of anticipated poor efficacy. Based on previous (non-COVID-19) vaccination studies among hematology patients, we hypothesized that a significant group of patients may acquire sufficient protection following COVID-19 vaccination, despite disease and therapy related immunodeficiencies.

Mutsaers: AstraZeneca: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy. Van Meerten: Janssen: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Honoraria. Kater: BMS, Roche/Genentech: Other: Ad Board, , Research Funding; Janssen, AstraZeneca: Other: Ad Board, steering committee, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Other: Ad Board, Research Funding; Genmab, LAVA: Other: Ad Board, Steering Committee. Zweegman: Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Nijhof: Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Nur: Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Zeerleder:Jazz Pharma: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi/Genzyme: Speakers Bureau; Alexion: Speakers Bureau.

Introduction

No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract 685

In unrelated donor hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (URD-SCT) patients are preferably transplanted with stem cells from a fully HLA matched donor, usually defined as identical for HLA-class I, -DR and -DQ. Since HLA-DPB1 is often not taken into consideration in donor selection, 80–90% of URD-SCTs are mismatched for HLA-DPB1. The role of HLA-DPB1 as transplantation antigen has been unclear, since clinical reports on the impact of matching for HLA-DPB1 on transplant outcome showed conflicting results. HLA-DPB1 mismatching has been associated with an increased risk of graft versus host disease (GVHD). However, we recently demonstrated that HLA-DPB1 specific T cells can mediate a potent graft versus leukemia effect without inducing GVHD. It has been suggested that the controversial effects of matching for HLA-DPB1 in URD-SCT could partly be explained by the assumption that not all HLA-DPB1 differences are immunogenic. This theory was based on the cross-reactive recognition of two HLA-DPB1* 09 specific T cell clones that recognized other HLA-DPB1 alleles sharing amino acids (aa) in position 8–11 of HLA-DPB1 (Zino et al, blood 2004). It was hypothesized that there would be no induction of T cell responses between individuals expressing HLA-DPB1 molecules sharing this aa sequence. This was translated into a classification of permissive and non-permissive HLA-DPB1 mismatches in order to allow a broader donor selection. To investigate whether cross-reactive recognition of other HLA-DPB1 molecules by our previously generated HLA-DPB1*02 or *03 specific CD4+ T cell clones depended on the presence of specific aa sequences we tested recognition of a panel of 14 EBV-LCL expressing 9 different HLA-DPB1 molecules. All HLA-DPB1*02 as well as all *03 specific T cell clones showed cross-reactivity with other HLA-DPB1 alleles and each T cell clone exhibited its own pattern of cross-reactivity. Two HLA-DPB1*0201 specific T cell clones with different TCR-Vβ showed also recognition of EBV-LCL expressing HLA-DPB1*1001 and *1701 or HLA-DPB1*1001, *0901 and *1601 respectively. Five HLA-DPB1*03 reactive T cells clones with different TCR-Vβ showed differential cross-recognition of EBV-LCL expressing HLA-DPB1*0101, *0601, *1101, *1301 and *1401. To identify immunogenic differences the aa sequences of the HLA-DPB1 molecules recognized by the various T cell clones were compared. The HLA-DPB1 molecules recognized by the HLA-DPB1*02 specific T cell clones shared an aa substitution at position 69 compared to the responder cell. However, HLA-DPB1*0601,*0901 and *1901 with the same substitution were not recognized by both T cell clones. This phenomenon was also observed for the HLA-DPB1*03 specific T cell clones, indicating that the cross-reactive recognition of HLA-DPB1 could not be predicted by aa sequences. Next, we analyzed the immunogenicity of various HLA-DPB1 alleles in different stimulator/responder combinations to verify the classification of permissive and non-permissive mismatches. We developed a model to generate allo-HLA-DP responses by transducing HLA-class II negative HELA cells with various HLA-DP molecules and used these cells to stimulate purified CD4+ T cells from HLA-DPB1 homozygous donors. HELA cells transduced with HLA-DPB1*0101, *0201, *0301, *0401, *0402, *0501, *0601, *0901, *1101, *1301, *1401 or *1701 were used as stimulator cells. Responder CD4+ T cells were typed HLA-DPB1* 0201, *0301, *0401 or *0402. 14 days after stimulation, CD4+ T cells were tested for recognition of the stimulator cells and of HELA cells transduced with the responder HLA-DPB1 molecule as a negative control. For these 4 responders, stimulation with 12 different HLA-DP transduced HELA cell lines resulted in specific IFN-γ production in response to the stimulator cells in 47 out of 48 stimulations. 28 CD4+ T cell lines also showed cross-reactive recognition of HELA cells transduced with at least one other HLA-DPB1 molecule. In conclusion, we showed that cross-reactive recognition of various HLA-DPB1 molecules by HLA-DPB1 specific T cells is a common observation. However, we demonstrated that cross-reactivity between HLA-DPB1 molecules by allo-HLA-DPB1 specific T cells does not exclude the generation of immune response between individuals expressing these HLA-DPB1 molecules. By generating multiple allo-HLA-DP specific T cell lines, we showed that all HLA-DPB1 mismatch combinations are immunogenic.

In unrelated donor hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (URD-SCT) patients are preferably transplanted with stem cells from a fully HLA matched donor, usually defined as identical for HLA-class I, -DR and -DQ. Since HLA-DPB1 is often not taken into consideration in donor selection, 80–90% of URD-SCTs are mismatched for HLA-DPB1. The role of HLA-DPB1 as transplantation antigen has been unclear, since clinical reports on the impact of matching for HLA-DPB1 on transplant outcome showed conflicting results. HLA-DPB1 mismatching has been associated with an increased risk of graft versus host disease (GVHD). However, we recently demonstrated that HLA-DPB1 specific T cells can mediate a potent graft versus leukemia effect without inducing GVHD. It has been suggested that the controversial effects of matching for HLA-DPB1 in URD-SCT could partly be explained by the assumption that not all HLA-DPB1 differences are immunogenic. This theory was based on the cross-reactive recognition of two HLA-DPB1* 09 specific T cell clones that recognized other HLA-DPB1 alleles sharing amino acids (aa) in position 8–11 of HLA-DPB1 (Zino et al, blood 2004). It was hypothesized that there would be no induction of T cell responses between individuals expressing HLA-DPB1 molecules sharing this aa sequence. This was translated into a classification of permissive and non-permissive HLA-DPB1 mismatches in order to allow a broader donor selection. To investigate whether cross-reactive recognition of other HLA-DPB1 molecules by our previously generated HLA-DPB1*02 or *03 specific CD4+ T cell clones depended on the presence of specific aa sequences we tested recognition of a panel of 14 EBV-LCL expressing 9 different HLA-DPB1 molecules. All HLA-DPB1*02 as well as all *03 specific T cell clones showed cross-reactivity with other HLA-DPB1 alleles and each T cell clone exhibited its own pattern of cross-reactivity. Two HLA-DPB1*0201 specific T cell clones with different TCR-Vβ showed also recognition of EBV-LCL expressing HLA-DPB1*1001 and *1701 or HLA-DPB1*1001, *0901 and *1601 respectively. Five HLA-DPB1*03 reactive T cells clones with different TCR-Vβ showed differential cross-recognition of EBV-LCL expressing HLA-DPB1*0101, *0601, *1101, *1301 and *1401. To identify immunogenic differences the aa sequences of the HLA-DPB1 molecules recognized by the various T cell clones were compared. The HLA-DPB1 molecules recognized by the HLA-DPB1*02 specific T cell clones shared an aa substitution at position 69 compared to the responder cell. However, HLA-DPB1*0601,*0901 and *1901 with the same substitution were not recognized by both T cell clones. This phenomenon was also observed for the HLA-DPB1*03 specific T cell clones, indicating that the cross-reactive recognition of HLA-DPB1 could not be predicted by aa sequences. Next, we analyzed the immunogenicity of various HLA-DPB1 alleles in different stimulator/responder combinations to verify the classification of permissive and non-permissive mismatches. We developed a model to generate allo-HLA-DP responses by transducing HLA-class II negative HELA cells with various HLA-DP molecules and used these cells to stimulate purified CD4+ T cells from HLA-DPB1 homozygous donors. HELA cells transduced with HLA-DPB1*0101, *0201, *0301, *0401, *0402, *0501, *0601, *0901, *1101, *1301, *1401 or *1701 were used as stimulator cells. Responder CD4+ T cells were typed HLA-DPB1* 0201, *0301, *0401 or *0402. 14 days after stimulation, CD4+ T cells were tested for recognition of the stimulator cells and of HELA cells transduced with the responder HLA-DPB1 molecule as a negative control. For these 4 responders, stimulation with 12 different HLA-DP transduced HELA cell lines resulted in specific IFN-γ production in response to the stimulator cells in 47 out of 48 stimulations. 28 CD4+ T cell lines also showed cross-reactive recognition of HELA cells transduced with at least one other HLA-DPB1 molecule. In conclusion, we showed that cross-reactive recognition of various HLA-DPB1 molecules by HLA-DPB1 specific T cells is a common observation. However, we demonstrated that cross-reactivity between HLA-DPB1 molecules by allo-HLA-DPB1 specific T cells does not exclude the generation of immune response between individuals expressing these HLA-DPB1 molecules. By generating multiple allo-HLA-DP specific T cell lines, we showed that all HLA-DPB1 mismatch combinations are immunogenic.

Mismatching for HLA-DPB1 in unrelated donor hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (URD-SCT) has been associated with a significant decreased risk of disease relapse, indicating that HLA-DP might be a target for a graft versus leukemia (GVL) effect in HLA-class II expressing hematological malignancies. To determine whether a specific GVL effect could be caused by allo-HLA-DP specific T cells, we analyzed the immune response in a patient with a refractory immunocytoma responding to donor lymphocyte infusion (DLI) after HLA-DP mismatched URD-SCT. Patient and donor were fully matched for HLA-A, -B, -C, -DR and -DQ, but differed for both HLA-DP alleles (donor HLA-DPB1*0402/0501; patient HLA-DPB*020102/0301). The patient received a T cell depleted URD-SCT after a non-myeloablative conditioning regimen, resulting in mixed chimerism (75% donor) without GVHD. Because of a hematological relapse, a single DLI was given 6 months after SCT, resulting in a profound anti-leukemic effect with only grade I GVHD, treated with topical corticosteroids. 6 weeks after DLI, malignant cells in peripheral blood (PB) had dropped from 72% to 47%. 7 weeks later, only 3% malignant cells were present, and after 4 months, complete remission and conversion to full donor chimerism in the absence of GVHD was observed. To determine whether allo-HLA-DP specific T cells were involved in the immune response, leukemia-reactive donor T cell clones were isolated from PB or bone marrow at different time points during the response to DLI. Patient derived T cells were overnight stimulated with irradiated leukemic cells harvested before transplantation, and clonal IFN? producing T cells were sorted and expanded. 21 CD4+ T cell clones, 19 CD8+ T cell clones and 6 NK cell clones were tested for recognition of patient or donor derived cells as measured by IFN? production and cytotoxic activity. The CD8+ or NK clones did not recognize patient leukemic cells. However, all 21 CD4+ clones produced INF? in response to patient leukemic cells but not to donor cells. To determine whether these CD4+ T cell clones were capable of killing the leukemic cells, a CFSE based cytotoxicity assay was performed. 8 clones showed 30–90% lysis of the leukemic cell population. To further analyze the specificity of these CD4+ clones, blocking and panel studies were performed. Blocking with the HLA-DP specific mAb B7.21 abrogated IFN? production by all clones, confirming HLA-DP restricted recognition. A panel study using 12 unrelated EBV-LCL expressing different HLA-DP alleles identified 18 clones specific for HLA-DPB1*0301, and 3 clones specific for HLA-DPB1*0201. To analyze the polyclonality of the immune response, the distribution of TCR Vß chains was characterized by RT-PCR and sequence reactions. 7 different Vßs were found within the HLA-DPB1*0301 specific clones and 3 different Vßs within the HLA-DPB1*0201 specific clones. T cells using the same Vß could be isolated at different time points during the clinical response, demonstrating the significance of this anti-HLA-DP response. In conclusion, we observed in a patient with an HLA-class II positive B cell malignancy a profound GVL effect without GVHD, caused by a polyclonal immune response comprising both T helper and cytotoxic CD4+ HLA-DP specific T cell clones directed against both HLA-DP alleles. These data indicate that in HLA-class II expressing hematological malignancies HLA-DP mismatched SCT may be preferable over a fully matched SCT making use of HLA-DP as a specific target for immunotherapy.

Mismatching for HLA-DPB1 in unrelated donor hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (URD-SCT) has been associated with a significant decreased risk of disease relapse, indicating that HLA-DP might be a target for a graft versus leukemia (GVL) effect in HLA-class II expressing hematological malignancies. To determine whether a specific GVL effect could be caused by allo-HLA-DP specific T cells, we analyzed the immune response in a patient with a refractory immunocytoma responding to donor lymphocyte infusion (DLI) after HLA-DP mismatched URD-SCT. Patient and donor were fully matched for HLA-A, -B, -C, -DR and -DQ, but differed for both HLA-DP alleles (donor HLA-DPB1*0402/0501; patient HLA-DPB*020102/0301). The patient received a T cell depleted URD-SCT after a non-myeloablative conditioning regimen, resulting in mixed chimerism (75% donor) without GVHD. Because of a hematological relapse, a single DLI was given 6 months after SCT, resulting in a profound anti-leukemic effect with only grade I GVHD, treated with topical corticosteroids. 6 weeks after DLI, malignant cells in peripheral blood (PB) had dropped from 72% to 47%. 7 weeks later, only 3% malignant cells were present, and after 4 months, complete remission and conversion to full donor chimerism in the absence of GVHD was observed. To determine whether allo-HLA-DP specific T cells were involved in the immune response, leukemia-reactive donor T cell clones were isolated from PB or bone marrow at different time points during the response to DLI. Patient derived T cells were overnight stimulated with irradiated leukemic cells harvested before transplantation, and clonal IFNγ producing T cells were sorted and expanded. 21 CD4+ T cell clones, 19 CD8+ T cell clones and 6 NK cell clones were tested for recognition of patient or donor derived cells as measured by IFNγ production and cytotoxic activity. The CD8+ or NK clones did not recognize patient leukemic cells. However, all 21 CD4+ clones produced INFγ in response to patient leukemic cells but not to donor cells. To determine whether these CD4+ T cell clones were capable of killing the leukemic cells, a CFSE based cytotoxicity assay was performed. 8 clones showed 30–90% lysis of the leukemic cell population. To further analyze the specificity of these CD4+ clones, blocking and panel studies were performed. Blocking with the HLA-DP specific mAb B7.21 abrogated IFNγ production by all clones, confirming HLA-DP restricted recognition. A panel study using 12 unrelated EBV-LCL expressing different HLA-DP alleles identified 18 clones specific for HLA-DPB1*0301, and 3 clones specific for HLA-DPB1*0201. To analyze the polyclonality of the immune response, the distribution of TCR Vβ chains was characterized by RT-PCR and sequence reactions. 7 different Vβs were found within the HLA-DPB1*0301 specific clones and 3 different Vβs within the HLA-DPB1*0201 specific clones. T cells using the same Vβ could be isolated at different time points during the clinical response, demonstrating the significance of this anti-HLA-DP response. In conclusion, we observed in a patient with an HLA-class II positive B cell malignancy a profound GVL effect without GVHD, caused by a polyclonal immune response comprising both T helper and cytotoxic CD4+ HLA-DP specific T cell clones directed against both HLA-DP alleles. These data indicate that in HLA-class II expressing hematological malignancies HLA-DP mismatched SCT may be preferable over a fully matched SCT making use of HLA-DP as a specific target for immunotherapy.