Patient populations, including those with hematological malignancies, have different responses to COVID-19 vaccines. This study aimed to quantitatively analyze the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in patients with hematological malignancies. Studies reporting on the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in cohorts with hematological malignancies compared to healthy controls were systematically searched in four databases. Meta-analysis and subgroup analyses were performed to generate quantitative synthesis. Fifteen studies with 2,055 cohorts with hematological malignancies and 1,105 healthy subjects as control were included. After two doses of COVID-19 vaccination, only 60% of cohorts with hematological malignancies were seroconverted compared to healthy controls (RR 0.60; 95%CI 0.50–0.71). A single dose of the vaccine resulted in a significantly lower seroconversion rate (RR 0.30; 95%CI 0.16–0.54). Non-Hodgkin lymphoma cohorts had the lowest rate of seroconversion (RR 0.5; 95%CI 0.35–0.71) and those who received active treatments had lower immunological responses (RR 0.59; 95%CI 0.46–0.75). Antibody titers were lower in cohorts with hematological malignancies without any differences in adverse effects in both groups. In conclusion, cohorts with hematological malignancies showed a lower seroconversion rate and antibody titers after receiving COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. The type of malignancy and the status of treatment had a significant impact on the response to vaccination. The vaccines were shown to be safe for both patients with hematological malignancies and healthy controls. Booster doses and stricter health protocols might be beneficial for patient populations.

Over the past few decades, treatment options have become more advanced for multiple myeloma (MM), one of the most prevalent hematological cancers; however, multiple myeloma remains an incurable disease due to its poor response to therapy and high rates of resistance, which cause relapsed/refractory or multiple myeloma. Researchers have described anti-BCMA (B-cell maturation antigen) as a promising treatment regimen that targets the BCMA biomarker in the affected plasma cells. BCMA is a protein that is specifically expressed in plasma-cell neoplasms by using several mechanisms, such as CAR T cells (Chimeric Antigen Receptor T cells), antibody-drug conjugates, and bispecific T-cell engagers, thus allowing for a rapid response in the treatment of resistant or relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma patients. Anti-BCMA treatment is novel and specific in its mechanisms of action, with noninferior complete responses, higher overall survival rates, and fewer reported adverse events compared to other currently available treatment of MM. In this review, we compared anti-BCMA mechanisms with those of previously available therapies, such as those using immunomodulators and proteasome inhibitors, and discussed the advantages of using anti-BCMA as a potential first-line treatment for multiple myeloma patients.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a serious complication that can occur during and after postoperative treatment, including in treatment after orthopedic surgery. The current guidelines for VTE prophylaxis in postoperative patients recommend the use of LMWHs, one of which is enoxaparin. Another recommendation for use in pharmacological VTE prophylaxis is rivaroxaban, which has better efficacy than enoxaparin but a higher bleeding risk. The aim of this systematic review is to provide an update on the profile of rivaroxaban for VTE prophylaxis after orthopedic surgery. PubMed, SCOPUS, EMBASE, and EBSCOhost were searched up until May 2022. The outcome sought was efficacy and safety, described by the incidence of VTE and incidence of bleeding, respectively. Five randomized controlled trials (RCT) were finally included. Rivaroxaban was confirmed to have better efficacy by significantly reducing the risk of VTE and all-cause mortality (RR = 0.38; 95% CI = 0.27–0.54) compared to enoxaparin. However, regarding the safety variable, no significant difference was found between the incidence of major bleeding in rivaroxaban and enoxaparin (RR = 0.97; 95% CI = 0.56–1.68). The results of the analysis show that rivaroxaban has better efficacy than enoxaparin but the same safety profile, so when used, the bleeding of patients should still be monitored.