Efficacy and safety profile of COVID-19 vaccine in cancer patients: a prospective, multicenter cohort study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Yasin AI
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8793921 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:This study assessed the immunogenicity and safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine in lung cancer patients receiving anticancer treatment. We enrolled lung cancer patients receiving anticancer treatment and non-cancer patients; all participants were fully vaccinated with the BNT162b2 vaccine. Blood samples were collected before the first and second vaccinations and 4 ± 1 weeks after the second vaccination. Anti-severe respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein S1 subunit receptor-binding domain antibody titers were measured using the Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant and Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S assays. Fifty-five lung cancer patients and 38 non-cancer patients were included in the immunogenicity analysis. Lung cancer patients showed significant increase in the geometric mean antibody concentration, which was significantly lower than that in the non-cancer patients after the first (30 vs. 121 AU/mL, p < .001 on Architect; 4.0 vs 1.2 U/mL, p < .001 on Elecsys) and second vaccinations (1632 vs. 3472 AU/mL, p = .005 on Architect; 213 vs 573 A/mL, p = .002 on Elecsys). The adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for seroprotection was significantly lower (p < .05) in lung cancer patients than that in non-cancer patients. Analysis of the anticancer treatment types showed that the aOR for seroprotection was significantly lower (p < .05) in lung cancer patients receiving cytotoxic agents. They showed no increase in adverse reactions. BNT162b2 vaccination in lung cancer patients undergoing anticancer treatment significantly increased (p < .05) antibody titers and showed acceptable safety. Immunogenicity in these patients could be inadequate compared with that in non-cancer patients.
| S-EPMC9746471 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionHydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is an antimalarial drug that received worldwide news and media attention in the treatment of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This drug was used on the basis of its antimicrobial and antiviral properties despite lack of definite evidence of clinical efficacy. In this study, we aim to assess the efficacy and safety of using HCQ in treatment of patients with COVID-19 who were admitted in acute care hospitals in Bahrain.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study on a random sample of patients admitted with COVID-19 between 24 February and 31 July 2020. The study was conducted in four acute care COVID-19 hospitals in Bahrain. Data was extracted from the medical records. The primary endpoint was the requirement of non-invasive ventilation, intubation, or death. Secondary endpoint was length of hospitalization for survivors. Three methods of analysis were used to control for confounding factors: logistic multivariate regression, propensity score adjusted regression, and matched propensity score analysis.ResultsA random sample of 1571 patients were included, 440 of whom received HCQ (treatment group) and 1131 did not receive it (control group). Our results showed that HCQ did not have a significant effect on primary outcomes due to COVID-19 infection when compared to controls after adjusting for confounders (OR 1.43, 95% CI 0.85-2.37, P = 0.17). Co-administration of azithromycin had no effect on primary outcomes (OR 2.7, 95% CI 0.82-8.85, P = 0.10). HCQ was associated with increased risk of hypoglycemia (OR 10.9, 95% CI 1.72-69.49, P = 0.011) and diarrhea (OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.4-5.5, P = 0.003), but not QT prolongation (OR 1.92, 95% CI 0.95-3.9, P = 0.06) or cardiac arrhythmia (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.55-2.05, P = 0.85).ConclusionOur results showed no significant beneficial effect of using hydroxychloroquine on the outcome of patients with COVID-19. Moreover, the risk of hypoglycemia due to hydroxychloroquine would possess a significant risk for out-of-hospital use.
| S-EPMC7822757 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundVaccines are urgently needed to handle the morbidity and mortality of the COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia. The inactivated vaccine is widely used in Indonesia's national immunization program due to its eligibility of stock, easier to transport, and considered to be more established than newer platforms. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the safety profile of the inactivated vaccine and analyze the safety profile between adults and the elderly.MethodsA prospective analytical study was conducted to evaluate the safety profile of inactivated COVID-19 vaccine among healthy adults aged ≥ 18 years from September 2nd to December 28th, 2021, at ten primary health centers from 5 districts in Jakarta, Indonesia. The participants were instructed to record the symptoms after inactivated COVID-19 vaccine injection in the diary card for 28 days. Chi-square tests were carried out to analyze the relationship between the adverse event following immunization (AEFI) in adults and elderly groups.ResultsFour of 1113 participants were not included in this study due to the lack of follow-up. Out of 1109 participants, there were 1044 adults (18-59 years) and 65 elderly (>59 years). There were no serious AEFI cases reported. Most AEFI cases were mild to moderate and resolved after several days of injection. Local pain, myalgia and fatigue were the most frequent adverse events reported. We found that there was no correlation between the adults and elderly age group with the incidence of AEFI (p = 0.924) for local reactions (p = 0.181) and most of the systemic reactions (p = 0.629). However, there is an increased risk of fever in the elderly group compared to the adult group (OR 4.046, 95 % CI 1.794-9.124, p = 0.003) following immunization.ConclusionsOur study demonstrated that the inactivated COVID-19 vaccine is safe, considering that all symptoms experienced were mild to moderate and resolved entirely.
| S-EPMC10257516 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEarly clinical data from studies of the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine (Novavax), a recombinant nanoparticle vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that contains the full-length spike glycoprotein of the prototype strain plus Matrix-M adjuvant, showed that the vaccine was safe and associated with a robust immune response in healthy adult participants. Additional data were needed regarding the efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of this vaccine in a larger population.MethodsIn this phase 3, randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled trial conducted at 33 sites in the United Kingdom, we assigned adults between the ages of 18 and 84 years in a 1:1 ratio to receive two intramuscular 5-μg doses of NVX-CoV2373 or placebo administered 21 days apart. The primary efficacy end point was virologically confirmed mild, moderate, or severe SARS-CoV-2 infection with an onset at least 7 days after the second injection in participants who were serologically negative at baseline.ResultsA total of 15,187 participants underwent randomization, and 14,039 were included in the per-protocol efficacy population. Of the participants, 27.9% were 65 years of age or older, and 44.6% had coexisting illnesses. Infections were reported in 10 participants in the vaccine group and in 96 in the placebo group, with a symptom onset of at least 7 days after the second injection, for a vaccine efficacy of 89.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 80.2 to 94.6). No hospitalizations or deaths were reported among the 10 cases in the vaccine group. Five cases of severe infection were reported, all of which were in the placebo group. A post hoc analysis showed an efficacy of 86.3% (95% CI, 71.3 to 93.5) against the B.1.1.7 (or alpha) variant and 96.4% (95% CI, 73.8 to 99.5) against non-B.1.1.7 variants. Reactogenicity was generally mild and transient. The incidence of serious adverse events was low and similar in the two groups.ConclusionsA two-dose regimen of the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine administered to adult participants conferred 89.7% protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection and showed high efficacy against the B.1.1.7 variant. (Funded by Novavax; EudraCT number, 2020-004123-16.).
| S-EPMC8262625 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTracheal intubation for patients with COVID-19 is required for invasive mechanical ventilation. The authors sought to describe practice for emergency intubation, estimate success rates and complications, and determine variation in practice and outcomes between high-income and low- and middle-income countries. The authors hypothesized that successful emergency airway management in patients with COVID-19 is associated with geographical and procedural factors.MethodsThe authors performed a prospective observational cohort study between March 23, 2020, and October 24, 2020, which included 4,476 episodes of emergency tracheal intubation performed by 1,722 clinicians from 607 institutions across 32 countries in patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation. The authors investigated associations between intubation and operator characteristics, and the primary outcome of first-attempt success.ResultsSuccessful first-attempt tracheal intubation was achieved in 4,017/4,476 (89.7%) episodes, while 23 of 4,476 (0.5%) episodes required four or more attempts. Ten emergency surgical airways were reported-an approximate incidence of 1 in 450 (10 of 4,476). Failed intubation (defined as emergency surgical airway, four or more attempts, or a supraglottic airway as the final device) occurred in approximately 1 of 120 episodes (36 of 4,476). Successful first attempt was more likely during rapid sequence induction versus non-rapid sequence induction (adjusted odds ratio, 1.89 [95% CI, 1.49 to 2.39]; P < 0.001), when operators used powered air-purifying respirators versus nonpowered respirators (adjusted odds ratio, 1.60 [95% CI, 1.16 to 2.20]; P = 0.006), and when performed by operators with more COVID-19 intubations recorded (adjusted odds ratio, 1.03 for each additional previous intubation [95% CI, 1.01 to 1.06]; P = 0.015). Intubations performed in low- or middle-income countries were less likely to be successful at first attempt than in high-income countries (adjusted odds ratio, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.41 to 0.79]; P = 0.001).ConclusionsThe authors report rates of failed tracheal intubation and emergency surgical airway in patients with COVID-19 requiring emergency airway management, and identified factors associated with increased success. Risks of tracheal intubation failure and success should be considered when managing COVID-19.Editor’s perspective
| S-EPMC8274456 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and the resulting coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) have afflicted tens of millions of people in a worldwide pandemic. Safe and effective vaccines are needed urgently.MethodsIn an ongoing multinational, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, pivotal efficacy trial, we randomly assigned persons 16 years of age or older in a 1:1 ratio to receive two doses, 21 days apart, of either placebo or the BNT162b2 vaccine candidate (30 μg per dose). BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle-formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine that encodes a prefusion stabilized, membrane-anchored SARS-CoV-2 full-length spike protein. The primary end points were efficacy of the vaccine against laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and safety.ResultsA total of 43,548 participants underwent randomization, of whom 43,448 received injections: 21,720 with BNT162b2 and 21,728 with placebo. There were 8 cases of Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose among participants assigned to receive BNT162b2 and 162 cases among those assigned to placebo; BNT162b2 was 95% effective in preventing Covid-19 (95% credible interval, 90.3 to 97.6). Similar vaccine efficacy (generally 90 to 100%) was observed across subgroups defined by age, sex, race, ethnicity, baseline body-mass index, and the presence of coexisting conditions. Among 10 cases of severe Covid-19 with onset after the first dose, 9 occurred in placebo recipients and 1 in a BNT162b2 recipient. The safety profile of BNT162b2 was characterized by short-term, mild-to-moderate pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. The incidence of serious adverse events was low and was similar in the vaccine and placebo groups.ConclusionsA two-dose regimen of BNT162b2 conferred 95% protection against Covid-19 in persons 16 years of age or older. Safety over a median of 2 months was similar to that of other viral vaccines. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728.).
| S-EPMC7745181 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9889528 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe efficacy of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is not clear.MethodsFrom January 2022 to October 2022, patients diagnosed with HCC in a prospective, multicenter, observational cohort were analyzed.ResultsOne hundred and forty-one patients with (n = 107) or without COVID-19 vaccination (n = 34) were included. The number of patients with severe or very severe infection was relatively lower in the vaccinated group (3.7% vs. 11.8%, p = 0.096). Median infection-free survival in the vaccinated group (14.0 vs. 8.3 months, p = 0.010) was significantly longer than that in the unvaccinated group. COVID-19 vaccination (hazard ratio (HR) HR = 0.47), European Cooperative Oncology Group performance score = 0 (HR = 2.06), and extrahepatic spread (HR = 0.28) were found to be the independent predictive factors for infection-free survival.ConclusionCOVID-19 vaccines could effectively reduce the SARS-Cov-2 infection in patients with HCC.
| S-EPMC11310663 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveAmong persons with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) who received SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, we compared postvaccine antibody responses and IMID disease activity/states.DesignSingle-centre prospective cohort study.SettingSpecialty ambulatory clinics in central Canada.ParticipantsPeople with inflammatory arthritis (n=78; 77% rheumatoid arthritis), systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (n=84; 57% lupus), inflammatory bowel disease (n=93; 43% Crohn's) and multiple sclerosis (n=72; 71% relapsing-remitting) (female 79.4%, white 84.7%, mean (SD) age 56.0 (14.3) years) received COVID-19 vaccinations between March 2021 and September 2022.Primary outcomePostvaccination anti-spike, anti-receptor binding domain (anti-RBD) and anti-nucleocapsid (anti-NC) IgG antibodies tested by multiplex immunoassays compared across vaccine regimens and with responses in 370 age-matched and sex-matched vaccinated controls.Secondary outcomesCOVID-19 infection and self-reported IMID disease activity/state.ResultsMost (216/327, 66.1%) received homologous messenger RNA (mRNA) (BNT162b2 or mRNA1273) vaccines, 2.4% received homologous ChAdOx1 and 30.6% received heterologous vaccines (23.9% ChAdOx1/mRNA, 6.4% heterologous mRNA) for their first two vaccines (V1, V2). Seroconversion rates were 52.0% (91/175) for post-V1 anti-spike and 58.9% (103/175) for anti-RBD; 91.5% (214/234) for post-V2 anti-spike and 90.2% (211/234) for anti-RBD; and were lower than controls (post-V2 anti-spike 98.1% (360/370), p<0.0001). Antibody titres decreased 3 months after V2 but increased 1 month after the third vaccine (V3) and 1 month after the fourth vaccine (V4) (BAU/mL median (IQR), anti-spike 1835 (2448) 1 month post-V2, 629.1 (883.4) 3 months post-V2, 4757.5 (7033.1) 1 month post-V3 and 4356.0 (9393.4) 1 month post-V4; anti-RBD 1686.8 (2199.44) 1 month post-V2, 555.8 (809.3) 3 months post-V2, 4280.3 (6380.6) 1 month post-V3 and 4792.2 (11 673.78) 1 month post-V4). If primed with a vector vaccine, an mRNA vaccine increased antibody titres to those comparable to homologous mRNA vaccines. Anti-RBD and anti-spike titres were higher in anti-NC seropositive (n=31; 25 participants) versus seronegative samples (BAU/mL median (IQR) anti-RBD 11 755.3 (20 373.1) vs 1248.0 (53 278.7); anti-spike 11 254.4 (15 352.6) vs 1313.1 (3106.6); both p<0.001). IMID disease activity/state and rates of self-reported moderate or severe IMID flare were similar across vaccinations.ConclusionHeterologous COVID-19 vaccination improves seroconversion rates following a vector vaccine and does not lead to IMID disease flare. IMIDs benefit from at least three vaccines.
| S-EPMC10230332 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCancer patients (CPs) are considered more vulnerable and as a high mortality group regarding COVID-19. In this analysis, we aimed to describe asymptomatic COVID (+) CPs and associated factors.MethodsWe conducted a prospective study in CPs and health care workers (HCWs) in 4 French cancer centers (PAPESCO [PAtients et PErsonnels de Santé des Centres de Lutte Contre le Cancer pendant l'épidémie de COvid-19] study). This analysis used data recorded between June 17, 2020 and November 30, 2020 in CPs (first 2 waves, no variants). At inclusion and quarterly, CPs reported the presence of predefined COVID-19 symptoms and had a blood rapid diagnostic test; a reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) was done in case of suspected infection.ResultsA total 878 CPs were included; COVID-19 prevalence was similar in both CPs (8%) and HCWs (9.5%); of the 70 CPs (8%) who were COVID (+), 29 (41.4%) were and remained asymptomatic; 241/808 of the COVID (-) (29.8%) were symptomatic. 18 COVID (+) were hospitalized (2% of CPs), 1 in intensive care unit (ICU) and 1 died (0.1% of CPs and 2.4% of symptomatic COVID [+] CPs). Only the inclusion center was associated with clinical presentation (in Nancy, Angers, Nantes, and Clermont-Ferrand: 65.4%, 35%, 28.6%, and 10% CPs were asymptomatic, respectively).ConclusionsSeroprevalence of COVID-19 in CPs was similar to that observed in HCWs; mortality related to COVID-19 among CPs was 0.1%. More than 40% of COVID (+) CPs were asymptomatic and one third of COVID (-) CPs had symptoms. Only geographic origin was associated with the presence or absence of symptoms. Social distancing and protective measures must be applied in CPs at home and when hospitalized.
| S-EPMC9021575 | biostudies-literature