SARS-CoV-2 vaccine uptake, perspectives, and adverse reactions following vaccination in patients with cancer undergoing treatment

Figueiredo, Jane C.; Ihenacho, Ugonna; Merin, Noah; Hamid, Omid; Darrah, Justin; Gong, Jun; Paquette, Ronald; Mita, Alain C.; Vescio, Robert; Mehmi, Inderjit; Basho, Reva; Salvy, Sarah-Jeanne; Shirazipour, Celina H.; Cáceres, Nenette A.; Finster, Laurel J.; Coleman, Brenda L.; Arnow, H.U.; Floríndez, Lucía I.; Prostko, John; Frias, Edwin C.; Stewart, James L.; Merchant, Akil; Reckamp, Karen L.

doi:10.1016/j.annonc.2021.10.004

Cited by 15 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The published literature regarding ADRs in cancer patients after COVID-19 vaccine administration mostly shows an increasing trend of systemic ADRs after the second dose. 13,[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27] We could only find one study conducted in Thailand in which ADRs after the first and second of AZD1222 vaccine doses were evaluated observing the opposite trend. 28 Some articles have also showed an association between gender and the incidence of ADRs after the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Female gender was associated with higher risk of experiencing ADRs. 27,29 Only a few reports have evaluated the safety profile of the COVID-19 vaccines in cancer patients, fewer have reported data specifically about the mRNA-1273 vaccine safety profile in this population, and none of them have reported data about ADRs after the third dose of this vaccine. Our study is at the moment, the only one evaluating the safety profile of each of the three doses of mRNA-1273 vaccine in cancer patients.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Adverse drug reactions to the three doses of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) mRNA-1273 vaccine in a cohort of cancer patients under active treatment of a tertiary hospital in Madrid, Spain

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines efficacy and safety have been tested in phase 3 studies in which cancer patients were not included or were underrepresented. Methods: The objective of this study is to evaluate the safety profile of the mRNA-1273 vaccine across cancer patients and its relationship to patients’ demographics. We selected from our records all 18-years or older solid cancer patients under active treatment vaccinated with the complete three-dose schedule mRNA-1273 vaccine whose adverse drug reactions (ADRs) after each dose were recorded. Medical records were reviewed retrospectively to collect data between April 19, 2021, and December 31, 2021. Patients with documented previous infection by SARS-Cov-2 were excluded. Results: A total of 93 patients met the inclusion criteria. Local ADRs were reported more frequently after the first and second dose than after the third (41.9%, 43% and 31.1% of the patients respectively), while systemic ADRs followed the opposite pattern (16.1%, 34.4% and 52.6% of the patients respectively). We found a statistically significant association between sex and systemic adverse reactions after the third dose, p < 0.001 and between systemic adverse reactions after the second dose and systemic adverse reactions after the third dose, p = 0.001 A significant linear trend, p = 0.012, with a higher Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score associated with a lower proportion of patients suffering from systemic side effects was found. Women had 5.79 times higher odds to exhibit systemic ADRs after the third dose (p=0.01) compared to males. Increasing age was associated with a decreased likelihood of exhibiting ADRs (p=0.016). Conclusion: The mRNA-1273 vaccine shows a tolerable safety profile. The likelihood of ADRs appears to be associated with gender and age. Its association with ECOG scores is less evident. Further studies are needed to elucidate this data in cancer patients.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adverse drug reactions to the three doses of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) mRNA-1273 vaccine in a cohort of cancer patients under active treatment of a tertiary hospital in Madrid, Spain

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The current recommendation is that patients with active cancer undergoing immunotherapy should receive COVID-19 vaccine at the earliest available opportunity but should avoid vaccination 48-72 hours within treatment to reduce confusion about the causality of adverse effects (169)(170)(171)(172). The patients undergoing combined ICIs therapy should be more carefully evaluated and closely monitored at the time of vaccination (173,174).…”

Section: Medication Strategies For Icis Under the Covid-19 Pandemicmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dosing Regimens of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: Attempts at Lower Dose, Less Frequency, Shorter Course

Jiang

Liu

et al. 2022

Front. Oncol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are a revolutionary breakthrough in the field of cancer by modulating patient’s own immune system to exert anti-tumor effects. The clinical application of ICIs is still in its infancy, and their dosing regimens need to be continuously adjusted. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic studies showed a significant plateau in the exposure-response curve, with high receptor occupancy and plasma concentrations achieved at low dose levels. Coupled with concerns about drug toxicity and heavy economic costs, there has been an ongoing quest to reevaluate the current ICI dosing regimens while preserving maximum clinical efficacy. Many clinical data showed remarkable anticancer effects with ICIs at the doses far below the approved regimens, indicating the possibility of dose reduction. Our review attempts to summarize the clinical evidence for ICIs regimens with lower-dose, less-frequency, shorter-course, and provide clues for further ICIs regimen optimization.

show abstract

“…International research has reported that while the majority of cancer patients intended to be vaccinated as soon as the COVID‐19 vaccine was available, there were still a proportion who were undecided or hesitant about vaccination. 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 The research indicates that cancer patients who are female, 20 , 21 , 23 , 27 , 29 , 30 younger in age, 20 , 21 , 23 , 24 , 27 , 30 less educated/health literate, 19 , 23 , 24 , 26 , 27 , 29 , 30 have worse health status, 20 , 22 and are non‐white 21 , 27 , 29 are more likely to be hesitant. Commonly reported barriers to vaccine uptake include lack of confidence in science and vaccine efficacy, 16 , 19 , 21 , 23 , 24 fear of side effects, 16 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experiences and perspectives of cancer stakeholders regarding COVID‐19 vaccination

Bartley,

Havard,

Butow

et al. 2022

Asia-Pac J Clncl Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim The risk of dying from COVID‐19 is higher for those who are older, immune‐compromised, or chronically ill. Vaccines are an effective strategy in reducing mortality and morbidity from COVID‐19. However, for COVID‐19 vaccination programs to reach full potential, vaccines must be taken up by those at greatest risk, such as cancer patients. Understanding the perspectives of all stakeholders involved in cancer patient COVID‐19 vaccine uptake will be critical to ensuring appropriate support, and information is provided to facilitate vaccination. The aim of this research was to explore the longitudinal views of cancer stakeholders regarding COVID‐19 vaccination. Methods Semistructured interviews were conducted with cancer patients ( n = 23), family members ( n = 10), cancer health professionals ( n = 19), and representatives of cancer nongovernment organizations ( n = 7) across Australia 6 and 12 months postrecruitment. Transcripts were thematically analyzed, using an inductive approach. Results All stakeholder groups expressed mostly positive attitudes toward COVID‐19 vaccination, with the following key themes identified: (1) high motivation—vaccination perceived as offering health protection and hope; (2) hesitancy—concern about vaccine hesitancy among the general population, with a minority hesitant themselves; (3) confusion and frustration—regarding the vaccine rollout and patient eligibility; (4) uncertainty—about vaccination in the context of cancer; (5) access to vaccination; and (6) desire for expert individualized advice—on vaccine interaction with cancer treatments. Conclusion These findings highlight the COVID‐19 vaccine concerns and information needs of cancer stakeholders. Policymakers need to provide clear tailored information regarding vaccine eligibility, accessibility, benefits, and risks to facilitate vaccine uptake.

show abstract

SARS-CoV-2 vaccine uptake, perspectives, and adverse reactions following vaccination in patients with cancer undergoing treatment

Cited by 15 publications

References 5 publications

Adverse drug reactions to the three doses of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) mRNA-1273 vaccine in a cohort of cancer patients under active treatment of a tertiary hospital in Madrid, Spain

Adverse drug reactions to the three doses of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) mRNA-1273 vaccine in a cohort of cancer patients under active treatment of a tertiary hospital in Madrid, Spain

Dosing Regimens of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: Attempts at Lower Dose, Less Frequency, Shorter Course

Experiences and perspectives of cancer stakeholders regarding COVID‐19 vaccination

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About