Search

Objective: To describe determinants of persisting humoral and cellular immune response to the second COVID‐19 vaccination among patients with myeloma. Methods: This is a prospective, observational study utilising the RUDYstudy.org platform. Participants reported their second and third COVID‐19 vaccination dates. Myeloma patients had an Anti‐S antibody level sample taken at least 21 days after their second vaccination and a repeat sample before their third vaccination. Results: 60 patients provided samples at least 3 weeks (median 57.5 days) after their second vaccination and before their third vaccination (median 176.0 days after second vaccine dose). Low Anti‐S antibody levels (<50 IU/mL) doubled during this interval (p =.023) and, in the 47 participants with T‐spot data, there was a 25% increase negative T‐spot tests (p =.008). Low anti–S antibody levels prior to the third vaccination were predicted by lower Anti‐S antibody level and negative T‐spot status after the second vaccine. Independent determinants of a negative T‐spot included increasing age, previous COVID infection, high CD4 count and lower percentage change in Anti‐S antibody levels. Conclusions: Negative T‐spot results predict low Anti‐S antibody levels (<50 IU/mL) following a second COVID‐19 vaccination and a number of biomarkers predict T cell responses in myeloma patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Treatment advances have greatly improved survival, but myeloma is among the worst of all cancers for delayed diagnosis, causing serious morbidities and early deaths. This delay is largely because the symptom profile of myeloma has very low specificity, and in primary care, myeloma is rare. However, initiating the journey to diagnosis simply requires considering myeloma and sending blood to test for monoclonal immunoglobulin. Laboratory tests reliably detect monoclonal immunoglobulin, which is present in 99% of myeloma cases, so why do health care systems have such a problem with delayed diagnosis? The Myeloma UK early diagnosis programme has brought together diverse expertise to investigate this problem, and this article was prepared by the programme's working group for laboratory best practice. It reviews evidence for test requesting, analysis and reporting, for which there is large variation in practice across the United Kingdom. It presents a 'GP Myeloma diagnostic tool' and how it can be integrated into laboratory practice alongside a laboratory best practice tool. It proposes improved requesting and integration with haematology services for reporting and interpretation. Here the laboratory has a central role in creating efficient and cost‐effective pathways for appropriate and timely bone marrow examination for myeloma diagnosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]