Search

Background The optimal timing of vaccination with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines after cellular therapy is incompletely understood. The objectives of this study are to determine whether humoral and cellular responses after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination differ if initiated <4 months versus 4–12 months after cellular therapy. Methods We conducted a multicenter, prospective, observational study at 30 cancer centers in the United States. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was administered as part of routine care. We obtained blood prior to and after vaccinations at up to 5 time points and tested for SARS-CoV-2 spike (anti-S) IgG in all participants and neutralizing antibodies for Wuhan D614G, Delta B.1.617.2, and Omicron B.1.1.529 strains, as well as SARS-CoV-2–specific T-cell receptors, in a subgroup. Results We enrolled 466 allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) (n = 231), autologous HCT (n = 170), and chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T-cell) therapy (n = 65) recipients between April 2021 and June 2022. Humoral and cellular responses did not significantly differ among participants initiating vaccinations <4 months versus 4–12 months after cellular therapy. Anti-S IgG ≥2500 U/mL was correlated with high neutralizing antibody titers and attained by the last time point in 70%, 69%, and 34% of allogeneic HCT, autologous HCT, and CAR-T-cell recipients, respectively. SARS-CoV-2–specific T-cell responses were attained in 57%, 83%, and 58%, respectively. Pre–cellular therapy SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination and baseline B-cell count were key predictors of post–cellular therapy immunity. Conclusions These data support mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccination prior to, and reinitiation 3 to 4 months after, cellular therapies with allogeneic HCT, autologous HCT, and CAR-T-cell therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Medication nonadherence continues to be challenging for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) recipients. The risk and severity of chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) are associated with low immunosuppressant concentrations (which can be improved with model-informed precision dosing (MIPD)) and with immunosuppressant nonadherence (which can be improved with acceptable interventions). Methods: With the goals of improving adherence and achieving therapeutic concentrations of immunosuppressants to eliminate GVHD, we characterized the feasibility of using the Medication Event Monitoring (MEMS®) Cap in adult HCT recipients. Results: Of the 27 participants offered the MEMS® Cap at the time of hospital discharge, 7 (25.9%) used it, which is below our a priori threshold of 70%. These data suggest the MEMS® Cap is not feasible for HCT recipients. The MEMS® Cap data were available for a median of 35 days per participant per medication (range: 7–109 days). The average daily adherence per participant ranged from 0 to 100%; four participants had an average daily adherence of over 80%. Conclusions: MIPD may be supported by MEMS® technology to provide the precise time of immunosuppressant self-administration. The MEMS® Cap was used by only a small percentage (25.9%) of HCT recipients in this pilot study. In accordance with larger studies using less accurate tools to evaluate adherence, immunosuppressant adherence varied from 0% to 100%. Future studies should establish the feasibility and clinical benefit of combining MIPD with newer technology, specifically the MEMS® Button, which can inform the oncology pharmacist of the time of immunosuppressant self-administration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]