4.7 Letter

Impaired neutralizing antibody response to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in cancer patients

期刊

CELL AND BIOSCIENCE
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13578-021-00713-2

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI [U54CA260582, P30 CA016058]
  2. NIH [U54CA260582, P30 CA016058, R01 AI150473, R01 DK105033, R01 AI077283, R01 CA213290, P01 CA186866, R01 CA255334, R01 HL12744201A1]
  3. Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center Cancer Center Support Grant [P30CA016058]
  4. Peletonia Institute for Immune-Oncology
  5. Cardiovascular Medicine JB Biorepository
  6. Robert J. Anthony Fund
  7. Pelotonia community
  8. Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center [P30CA016058]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cancer patients, especially those with CLL and NHL, exhibit lower neutralizing antibody responses after receiving two doses of mRNA vaccines, indicating an urgent need for novel immunization strategies against SARS-CoV-2.
There is currently a critical need to determine the efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination for immunocompromised patients. In this study, we determined the neutralizing antibody response in 160 cancer patients diagnosed with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), lung cancer, breast cancer, and various non-Hodgkin's lymphomas (NHL), after they received two doses of mRNA vaccines. Serum from 46 mRNA vaccinated health care workers (HCWs) served as healthy controls. We discovered that (1) cancer patients exhibited reduced neutralizing antibody titer (NT50) compared to HCWs; (2) CLL and NHL patients exhibited the lowest NT50 levels, with 50-60% of them below the detection limit; (3) mean NT50 levels in patients with CLL and NHL was similar to 2.6 fold lower than those with solid tumors; and (4) cancer patients who received anti-B cell therapy exhibited significantly reduced NT50 levels. Our results demonstrate an urgent need for novel immunization strategies for cancer patients against SARS-CoV-2, particularly those with hematological cancers and those on anti-B cell therapies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据