Metabolic syndrome (MetS) is a constellation of cardiovascular risk factors that increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus and all cause mortality. Long-term survivors of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) have a substantial risk of developing MetS and cardiovascular disease, with the estimated prevalence of MetS being 31–49% among HCT recipients. Although MetS has not yet been proven to impact cardiovascular risk after HCT, an understanding of the incidence and risk factors for MetS in HCT recipients can provide the foundation to evaluate screening guidelines and develop interventions that may mitigate cardiovascular-related mortality. A working group was established through the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research and the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation with the goal of reviewing literature and recommend practices appropriate to HCT recipients. Here we deliver consensus recommendations to help clinicians provide screening and preventive care for MetS and cardiovascular disease among HCT recipients. All HCT survivors should be advised of the risks of MetS and encouraged to undergo recommended screening based on their predisposition and ongoing risk factors.

Background Patients with solid or hematological tumors or neurological and immune-inflammatory disorders are potentially fragile subjects at increased risk of experiencing severe coronavirus disease 2019 and an inadequate response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination. Methods We designed a prospective Italian multicenter study to assess humoral and T-cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients (n = 378) with solid tumors (ST), hematological malignancies (HM), neurological disorders (ND), and immunorheumatological diseases (ID). A group of healthy controls was also included. We analyzed the immunogenicity of the primary vaccination schedule and booster dose. Results The overall seroconversion rate in patients after 2 doses was 62.1%. Significantly lower rates were observed in HM (52.4%) and ID (51.9%) than in ST (95.6%) and ND (70.7%); a lower median antibody level was detected in HM and ID versus ST and ND (P < .0001). Similar rates of patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 T-cell response were found in all disease groups, with a higher level observed in ND. The booster dose improved the humoral response in all disease groups, although to a lesser extent in HM patients, whereas the T-cell response increased similarly in all groups. In the multivariable logistic model, independent predictors of seroconversion were disease subgroup, treatment type, and age. Ongoing treatment known to affect the immune system was associated with the worst humoral response to vaccination (P < .0001) but had no effect on T-cell responses. Conclusions Immunosuppressive treatment more than disease type per se is a risk factor for a low humoral response after vaccination. The booster dose can improve both humoral and T-cell responses.

No abstract