Revaccination following CAR-T therapy: a needs assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CD19-targeted chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy has transformed treatment for relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma, offering promising remission rates. However, it carries significant infectious risks, necessitating revaccination for infection prevention. This single-center quality improvement study aimed to (1) assess revaccination uptake and barriers in CAR-T recipients through interviews and focus groups, and (2) use qualitative insights to develop an educational handout to improve revaccination adherence. The study was conducted at Juravinski Hospital and Cancer Centre, Hamilton, Ontario, and enrolled 22 patients who received CAR-T between January 2020 and June 2023. Participants completed a survey evaluating their revaccination experience, which informed the development of a patient-facing educational handout. A focus group of survey participants then reviewed the handout and offered feedback on its clarity and usefulness. Only 50% of participants proceeded with revaccination. Key barriers included limited awareness among primary care providers (PCPs), poor communication between hematologists and PCPs, and logistical difficulties. The focus group highlighted gaps in understanding post-CAR-T immunization needs and emphasized the importance of patient and physician education. Participants supported the creation of a concise handout outlining the revaccination schedule and clarified the PCP's role in coordination. This study underscores the need for improved communication across care providers and accessible patient education to support post-CAR-T revaccination. Future efforts should focus on implementing and evaluating targeted educational tools to enhance vaccine uptake in this high-risk population.. CD19-targeted chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CAR-T) is a newer treatment for relapsed/refractory (R/R) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) that has shown durable remission rates.Infection is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality associated with CAR-T. Studies have shown the cumulative incidence between 44% to 53% within 1 year following CAR-T infusion.To help reduce the rates of vaccine-preventable infection, guidelines have recommended revaccination following CAR-T. These recommendations have been extrapolated from studies with allogeneic stem cell transplantation.Given the relatively new nature of CAR-T, there is a lack of studies looking at revaccination rates and barriers to revaccination. CD19-targeted chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CAR-T) is a newer treatment for relapsed/refractory (R/R) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) that has shown durable remission rates. Infection is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality associated with CAR-T. Studies have shown the cumulative incidence between 44% to 53% within 1 year following CAR-T infusion. To help reduce the rates of vaccine-preventable infection, guidelines have recommended revaccination following CAR-T. These recommendations have been extrapolated from studies with allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Given the relatively new nature of CAR-T, there is a lack of studies looking at revaccination rates and barriers to revaccination. In this study, we aimed to determine revaccination uptake and barriers in patients receiving CAR-T through structured interviews and focus groups. Further, we used qualitative methods to map identified themes to inform an educational handout for patients to improve revaccination.We enrolled 22 eligible patients who had received CAR-T between January 2020 and 223. Participants completed a quality assurance survey on the revaccination process, which informed the creation of a revaccination educational handout. A focus group of survey participants reviewed the handout for its effectiveness in educating patients on post-CAR-T vaccination and provided further revaccination recommendations.We found that only 50% of participants proceeded with revaccination post-CAR-T. The most common barriers identified were perceived lack of awareness among primary care providers (PCPs), inadequate communication between the hematologist and PCP, and logistical challenges.The focus group revealed gaps in understanding CAR-T-related immunization needs and emphasized the necessity for clear patient and physician education. It also emphasized the integral role of the PCP in revaccination coordination, and the necessity for a clear, concise handout outlining the post-CAR-T revaccination schedule. In this study, we aimed to determine revaccination uptake and barriers in patients receiving CAR-T through structured interviews and focus groups. Further, we used qualitative methods to map identified themes to inform an educational handout for patients to improve revaccination. We enrolled 22 eligible patients who had received CAR-T between January 2020 and 223. Participants completed a quality assurance survey on the revaccination process, which informed the creation of a revaccination educational handout. A focus group of survey participants reviewed the handout for its effectiveness in educating patients on post-CAR-T vaccination and provided further revaccination recommendations. We found that only 50% of participants proceeded with revaccination post-CAR-T. The most common barriers identified were perceived lack of awareness among primary care providers (PCPs), inadequate communication between the hematologist and PCP, and logistical challenges. The focus group revealed gaps in understanding CAR-T-related immunization needs and emphasized the necessity for clear patient and physician education. It also emphasized the integral role of the PCP in revaccination coordination, and the necessity for a clear, concise handout outlining the post-CAR-T revaccination schedule. Although this is a small study, it does demonstrate a poor revaccination uptake in our CAR-T population, and the need for further optimization. Although this is a small study, it does demonstrate a poor revaccination uptake in our CAR-T population, and the need for further optimization. We have demonstrated the need for improved coordination between healthcare providers and the need for accessible educational resources to enhance post-CAR-T revaccination
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".