Second European evidence-based consensus on the prevention, diagnosis and management of opportunistic infections in inflammatory bowel disease

Hepatitis B vaccination in patients with inflammatory bowel disease

AIM: To determine the prevalence for hepatitis B virus (HBV) and HBV screening and vaccination practices for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

METHODS: This study is a retrospective, cross-sectional observational study. A retrospective chart review was performed in 500 patients who have been consecutively treated for IBD between September 2008 and January 2013 at the Rush University Medical Center Gastroenterology section. The patients were identified through the electronic medical record with the criteria that they attended the gastroenterology clinic, and that they had a diagnosis of IBD at the time of visit discharge. Once identified, each record was analyzed to determine whether the subject had been infected with HBV in the past, already been vaccinated against HBV, or advised to get vaccinated and followed through with the recommended vaccination.

RESULTS: About 254 out of 500 patients (51%) had HBV screening ordered. Among those ordered to have screening tests, 86% followed through with HBV serology. Gastroenterology physicians had significantly different screening ratios from each other (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the ratios of HBV screening when IBD specialists were compared to other gastroenterology physicians (0.505 ± 0.023 vs 0.536 ± 0.066, P = 0.66). Of those 220 patients screened, 51% of IBD patients were found not to be immune against HBV. Approximately 50% of gastroenterology physicians recommended HBV vaccinations to their patients in whom serology was negative for antibodies against HBV. IBD specialists recommended vaccinations to a higher percentage of their patients compared to other gastroenterology physicians (0.168 ± 0.019 vs 0.038 ± 0.026, P = 0.015). Present and/or past HBV infection was found in 3.6% of the patients who had serology checked. There was no statistically significant difference in the prevalence of hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) between our study and that reported in previous studies done in Spain (4/220 vs 14/2076 respectively, P = 0.070); and in France (4/220 vs 3/315 respectively, P = 0.159). But, the prevalence of anti-HBcAb in this study was less than that reported in the study in Spain (7/220 vs 155/2076 respectively, P = 0.006); and was not significantly different from that reported in the study in France (7/220 vs 8/315 respectively, P = 0.313).

CONCLUSION: The prevalence of HBsAg in our IBD patients was not higher than previously reported European studies. Most IBD patients are not routinely screened or vaccinated against HBV at a tertiary referral center in the United States.

Impact of surveillance of hepatitis b and hepatitis c in patients with inflammatory bowel disease under anti-TNF therapies: multicenter prospective observational study (REPENTINA 3)

AIMS

Assess IBD patients starting anti-TNF for the impact of preventive measures in HBV and/or HCV, and the predictive response factors to HBV vaccination.

METHODS

Multicenter prospective study including 389 IBD patients. Four interventions were established: I-1) anti-HBs <100IU/L: HBV vaccination with double doses at 0-1-2months, and revaccination if titres <100IU/L (seroprotection defined as anti-HBs10-100IU/L and effective vaccination anti-HBs >100IU/L); I-2) anti-HBs >100IU/L (previous effective vaccination): monitoring levels; I-3) anti-HBc and/or HCV+: analysis every two months; I-4) HBsAg+: start anti-virals.

RESULTS

I-1 and I-2) For first vaccination, effective vaccination and seroprotection were obtained in 26.4% and 43.5%, and for revaccination 31.3% and 44.4%, respectively. Predictive factors of effective vaccination were age ≤30years (OR=2.2) and being vaccinated simultaneously with anti-TNF (OR=5.2) instead of late vaccination, whereas age ≤30years (OR=2.6) and anti-TNF monotherapy (OR=2.4) were predictive for seroprotection. 80.8% of patients previously vaccinated maintained titres at 29months follow-up. The only factor related to maintaining titres was previous vaccination versus achieving effective vaccination during anti-TNF (HR=2.49); I-3 and I-4) HBV-DNA + without reactivation was detected in 7% of 29 anti-HBc. No reactivation was found in the remaining HCV (n=5) or HBsAg (n=4) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

1) Response to vaccination/revaccination is low in patients with anti-TNF. Young patients vaccinated at the beginning of anti-TNF and receiving it as a monotheraphy showed better response. 2) Long-lasting effective vaccination is greatest in patients previously vaccinated. 3) Following-up the established surveillance and/or preventive anti-viral therapy seems to be safe in HBV and HCV patients.

Detection of cytomegalovirus (CMV) by real-time PCR in fecal samples for the non-invasive diagnosis of CMV intestinal disease

BACKGROUND

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection of the gastrointestinal tract can cause CMV intestinal disease (CMV-ID), a severe complication in immunocompromised patients. Current gold standard for diagnosing CMV-ID requires the analysis of colon biopsies. Testing of fecal samples by CMV PCR might be a non-invasive diagnostic alternative, but data on this method is scarce.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the use of quantitative CMV real-time PCR in fecal samples for diagnosing CMV-ID.

STUDY DESIGN

Fecal samples and lower intestinal tract biopsies from 66 patients were analyzed by quantitative CMV PCR. To evaluate the diagnostic significance of CMV detection by PCR in fecal samples, patients were classified according to the etiology of their intestinal disease (based on results of endoscopy, histopathology and quantitative CMV DNA detection in biopsies) into three groups: "CMV-ID", "non-CMV-ID", and "equivocal".

RESULTS

10/66 fecal samples were tested positive by quantitative CMV PCR, but CMV DNA loads were low (range <1000-11,000copies/ml). CMV detection by PCR in fecal samples was positive in 8/12 patients of the CMV-ID group, resulting in a sensitivity of 67% for diagnosing CMV-ID. With two exceptions, fecal CMV PCR was negative in the non-CMV-ID group (45/47) indicating a good specificity (96%). Moreover, CMV DNA detection in feces was associated with high CMV DNA levels in intestinal biopsies.

CONCLUSIONS

Negative CMV PCR results from fecal samples cannot exclude CMV-ID and thus have to be confirmed by analyzing intestinal biopsies. However, positive fecal PCR results are diagnostically useful and might help to circumvent invasive diagnostic procedures as endoscopy.

Long-term safety of immunomodulators in pediatric inflammatory diseases

The medical management of chronic inflammatory disorders in children, including mainly inflammatory bowel diseases and rheumatic diseases, has evolved dramatically over recent years with the advent of disease-modifying drugs such as immunomodulators and biological agents capable of interrupting the inflammatory cascade underlying these disorders. These agents are generally administered in patients who are refractory to conventional therapies. However, there is growing support that their use in the initial phases of these disorders, especially in pediatric patients, could interrupt and cease the inflammatory process. Thus, the aims of therapy have transitioned from symptomatic control to the achievement of deeper remission, including the healing of the inflammatory lesions combined with symptomatic remission. Therefore, more patients are currently receiving immunomodulators or biologics, frequently in addition to corticosteroids. Immunosuppression due to these therapies increases safety concerns, particularly regarding the risk of infections and malignancies. The available literature highlights how the combination of more than one of these therapies, especially if the combination includes corticosteroids, amplifies the risk of severe opportunistic infections. Otherwise, the infections described are mainly mild. Regarding malignancies, the overall risk associated with treatment appears non-significant in pediatric populations, but an appropriate benefit/risk assessment is recommended prior to the introduction of aggressive treatments such as immunomodulants and biologics. The background cancer risk related to the disease itself remains an issue. Protracted follow-up programs are needed, and the results from international multicenter registries are awaited to better understand the true risk related to therapy of these pediatric populations.