Vaccinating the inflammatory bowel disease patient: deficiencies in gastroenterologists knowledge

Infliximab and/or immunomodulators inhibit immune responses to trivalent influenza vaccination in adults with inflammatory bowel disease

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Appropriate influenza vaccination is important for patients with inflammatory bowel disease under immunosuppressive therapy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of immunosuppressive therapy on the immune response to the trivalent influenza vaccine in adult patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

METHODS

In this cohort study, 91 participants received a single dose of influenza vaccine for the 2010/2011 season. Serum samples were collected at 3 different times (pre-vaccination, 3 weeks post-vaccination, and after flu season) to measure hemagglutination inhibition antibody titers. Immune responses were compared based on immunosuppressive therapy.

RESULTS

Among the 88 subjects who completed the study, the influenza vaccine induced a more than 4-fold increase in the mean antibody level for all flu strains. The overall seroprotection proportion (post-vaccination titer ≥ 1:40) was 81% for H1N1, 61% for H3N2, and 86% for B. Treatment with an immunomodulator reduced the immune response to the H1N1 strain (OR=0.20, p=0.01), and treatment with infliximab reduced the immune response to the other strains (H3N2 strain: OR=0.37, p=0.02; B strain: OR=0.18, p=0.03). Combination therapy with azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine and infliximab significantly inhibited the immune response to H1N1 (OR=0.056, p=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Infliximab and/or immunomodulators inhibit immune responses to some strains of trivalent influenza vaccination in adults with inflammatory bowel disease. For optimization of the trivalent influenza vaccination for patients with adult inflammatory bowel disease treated with immunosuppressive agents, establishing an effective vaccination method is crucial.

Immunization rates and vaccine beliefs among patients with inflammatory bowel disease: an opportunity for improvement

BACKGROUND

Immunosuppressive agents used to treat inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) can increase the risk for infections, several of which are preventable through vaccination. Our study aimed to describe vaccine utilization by immunosuppression status, examine reasons for vaccine refusal, and identify characteristics associated with lack of influenza vaccination in patients with IBD.

METHODS

We administered an online survey between February 2012 and April 2012 to an internet-based cohort of patients with IBD in the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of America Partners program.

RESULTS

During this time, 958 individuals completed the survey. The median age was 45, 72.8% were female, and 62.0% had Crohn's disease. Self-reported vaccination rates were low. Those on immunosuppression (n = 514) were more likely to be counseled to avoid live vaccines (P < 0.01). However, counseling rates were low (3.5%-19.1% for various live vaccines). Among the 776 individuals who received the influenza vaccine, maintaining health (74.1%), importance of prevention (66.1%), and provider recommendation (38%) were the most frequently cited motivations. Factors associated with lack of influenza vaccine included lower education level (P = 0.01), younger age (P = 0.02), and no chronic immunosuppression use (P < 0.01). Five hundred seventy (59.5%) individuals thought that patients were responsible for keeping track of their vaccines, whereas 428 (44.7%) placed responsibility on their gastroenterologist and 595 (62.1%) on their primary care physician.

CONCLUSIONS

Vaccine utilization remains suboptimal in patients with IBD. Educational interventions may increase vaccination rates by clarifying misconceptions. Gastroenterologists can play a more active role in health care maintenance in patients with IBD by counseling patients on which vaccines to receive or avoid.

Safety and utilization of influenza immunization in children with inflammatory bowel disease

OBJECTIVE

Influenza immunization is recommended for children with IBD, however safety concerns may limit uptake. This study assessed whether immunization was associated with adverse events in IBD patients using a population-based database of children with IBD.

METHODS

All children <19 years diagnosed with IBD in Ontario, Canada between 1999-2009 were identified using health administrative data, and matched to non-IBD controls. Self-controlled case series (SCCS) analyses determined health services event rates (outpatient visits, hospitalizations and emergency visits) in any 2-week risk period to 180 days post-immunization compared to a no-risk control period. Relative incidence (RI) was calculated for overall and IBD-related events and rates were compared between IBD cases and controls using relative incidence ratios (RIR).

RESULTS

A total of 4916 IBD patients were matched to 21 686 controls. IBD patients were more likely to have received immunization than controls (25.3% vs 13.2%, P < .001). No increased event rates existed in IBD cases during risk periods (pooled RI 0.95, 95% CI 0.84-1.07), including hospitalizations and emergency visits. There was a slightly higher event rate in IBD cases versus controls for days 3-14 (RIR 1.60, 95% CI 1.05-2.44, P = .03). IBD-related visit rates were lower in risk periods compared to control period (pooled RI 0.81, 95% CI 0.68-0.96).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no increase in health services use in the post-vaccine risk period in IBD patients, and there was evidence for a protective effect of influenza immunization against IBD-related health services use. Influenza immunization is safe in children with IBD and should be encouraged to improve poor coverage rates.

Vaccination strategies in patients with IBD

Patients with IBD are at increased risk of infection, in part owing to the disease itself, but mostly because of treatment with immunosuppressive drugs. Although many of these infections are vaccine-preventable, vaccination coverage in patients with IBD is extremely low. The vaccine strategies examined in this Review are based on data that enable us to provide practical advice for clinicians. Clinical evidence indicates that vaccines do not increase the risk of relapse in patients with IBD. Live vaccines are contraindicated in immunocompromised individuals, but inactivated vaccines can be safely administered. Most patients receiving immunosuppressive therapy develop an immune response after vaccination, but response rates might differ from those of nonimmunosuppressed individuals. Therefore, vaccination status should be checked and updated upon diagnosis of IBD.

Efficacy of the vaccination in inflammatory bowel disease

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is associated with conditions that may predispose to infections, such as the lack of an appropriate innate immune response to infectious agents, malnutrition, surgery, and immunosuppressive and biological drugs. Some of these infections may be preventable by vaccination. Therefore, for this particular patient population, the benefits of implementing a well-established immunization protocol in daily clinical practice are potentially even greater than for the general population. In recent years international consensus guidelines have been published, but in spite of theses recommendations, studies have shown that a significant number of patients with IBD remain inadequately immunized. Another important issue regarding immunization in this population is that vaccine efficacy among patients receiving immunosuppressive therapies has been variable. In a healthy population, a humoral immune response to hepatitis B vaccination (HBV) is expected in > 90%, whereas a much lower rate is achieved in the IBD patients. Immunosuppressive, anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy and disease activity have been implicated in the impaired efficacy of the vaccination. The serological response to HBV should be confirmed and patients with an inadequate response should receive a second full series of vaccine. Modified dosing regimens, including doubling the standard antigen dose, might increase the effectiveness. Response to influenza, pneumococcal and tetanus immunization is still not clear, as there are studies that show a normal response to the vaccination while others demonstrate a lack of efficacy. We pose a series of questions on the efficacy of the different vaccinations recommended for IBD patients and attempt to answer them using scientific evidence.

Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a survey of prophylaxis patterns among gastroenterology providers

BACKGROUND

The use of combination immunosuppressive agents is associated with reports of pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia (PJP). The aim of this study was to determine practice patterns among gastroenterology providers for PJP prophylaxis in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) on immunosuppressive therapy.

METHODS

An internet-based survey of 14 questions was sent through e-mail to a random sampling of 4000 gastroenterologists, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants between November 2011 and February 2012. Three reminder e-mails were sent to providers who had not completed the survey.

RESULTS

The invitation e-mail that contained the link to the survey was clicked by 504 providers and the completed surveys were returned by 123 of them (78% physicians, 11% nurse practitioners, 11% physician assistants). The response rate was 24.4%. Seventy-nine percent of the respondents had managed >25 patients with IBD in the past year, with as much as one-third of all respondents managing >100 patients. Eight percent of the respondents reported patients who had developed PJP on immunosuppressive therapy, 11% reported initiating PJP prophylaxis, mostly for patients on triple immunosuppressive therapy. Prescription of PJP prophylaxis was not significantly associated with the number of years in practice or the number of IBD patients treated. However, providers with patients that had developed PJP were 7.4 times more likely to prescribe prophylaxis (P = 0.01). In addition, providers in academic centers were 4 times more likely to initiate PJP prophylaxis than those in nonacademic centers (P = 0.03). The most common reasons for not prescribing PJP prophylaxis included the absence of guidelines on the benefits of prophylaxis, lack of personal experience with PJP, and the lack of knowledge on the need for prophylaxis in patients with IBD on combination immunosuppressive therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The lack of guidelines seems to influence the decision on not to prescribe PJP prophylaxis in patients with IBD. Additional studies are needed to determine PJP risk factors and risks and benefits of prophylaxis.

Shortened surveillance intervals following suboptimal bowel preparation for colonoscopy: results of a national survey

PURPOSE

Suboptimal bowel preparation can result in decreased neoplasia detection, shortened surveillance intervals, and increased costs. We assessed bowel preparation recommendations and the relationship to self-reported proportion of suboptimal bowel preparations in practice; and evaluated the impact of suboptimal bowel preparation on colonoscopy surveillance practices. A random sample of a national organization of gastroenterologists in the U.S. was surveyed.

METHODS

Demographic and practice characteristics, bowel preparation regimens, and proportion of suboptimal bowel preparations in practice were ascertained. Recommended follow-up colonoscopy intervals were evaluated for optimal and suboptimal bowel preparation and select clinical scenarios.

RESULTS

We identified 6,777 physicians, of which 1,354 were randomly selected; 999 were eligible, and 288 completed the survey. Higher proportion of suboptimal bowel preparations/week (≥10 %) was associated with hospital/university practice, teaching hospital affiliation, >25 % Medicaid insured patients, recommendation of PEG alone and sulfate-free. Those reporting >25 % Medicare and privately insured patients, split dose recommendation, and use of MoviPrep® were associated with a <10 % suboptimal bowel preparations/week. Shorter surveillance intervals for three clinical scenarios were reported for suboptimal preparations and were shortest among participants in the Northeast who more often recommended early follow-up for normal findings and small adenomas. Those who recommended 4-l PEG alone more often advised <1 year surveillance interval for a large adenoma.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrates significantly shortened surveillance interval recommendations for suboptimal bowel preparation and that these interval recommendations vary regionally in the United States. Findings suggest an interrelationship between dietary restriction, purgative type, and practice and patient characteristics that warrant additional research.

Split dose and MiraLAX-based purgatives to enhance bowel preparation quality becoming common recommendations in the US

OBJECTIVES

Rates of suboptimal bowel preparation up to 30% have been reported. Liberalized precolonoscopy diet, split dose purgative, and the use of MiraLAX-based bowel preparation (MBBP) prior to colonoscopy are recently developed measures to improve bowel preparation quality but little is known about the utilization prevalence of these measures. We examined the patterns of utilization of these newer approaches to improve precolonoscopy bowel preparation quality among American gastroenterologists.

METHODS

Surveys were distributed to a random sample of members of the American College of Gastroenterologists. Participants were queried regarding demographics, practice characteristics, and bowel preparation recommendations including recommendations for liberal dietary restrictions, split dose purgative, and the use of MBBP. Approaches were evaluated individually and in combination.

RESULTS

Of the 999 eligible participants, 288 responded; 15.2% recommended a liberal diet, 60.0% split dose purgative, and 37.4% MBBP. Diet recommendations varied geographically with gastroenterologists in the West more likely to recommend a restrictive diet (odds ratio [OR] 2.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.16-7.67) and physicians in the Northeast more likely to recommend a liberal diet more likely. Older physicians more often recommended split dosing (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.04-2.97). Use of MBBP was more common in suburban settings (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.23-3.73). Evidence suggests that physicians in private practice were more likely to prescribe split dosing (p = 0.03) and less often recommended MBBP (p = 0.02). Likelihood of prescribing MBBP increased as weekly volume of colonoscopy increased (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

To enhance bowel preparation quality American gastroenterologists commonly use purgative split dosing. The use of MBBP is becoming more prevalent while a liberalized diet is infrequently recommended. Utilization of these newer approaches to improve bowel preparation quality varies by physician and practice characteristics. Further evaluation of the patterns of usage of these measures is indicated.

A survey of current practice of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in hospitalized inflammatory bowel disease patients in the United States

BACKGROUND

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients are at an increased risk of thrombosis, particularly when hospitalized. Several clinical practice guidelines now recommend pharmacologic prophylaxis for hospitalized ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease patients. It is unclear to what extent gastroenterologists are aware of these recommendations and whether they are administering pharmacologic venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis appropriately. Our aim was to explore current practice of VTE prophylaxis in hospitalized IBD patients in the United States.

METHODS

A survey was mailed electronically to gastroenterologists whose electronic mail address was listed in the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) database. This survey included clinical vignettes outlining scenarios for consideration of VTE prophylaxis.

RESULTS

A total of 6227 surveys were sent to gastroenterologists nationwide, and 591 physicians chose to participate (response rate 9.5%). Respondents (80.6%) believed that hospitalized IBD patients have a higher risk of VTE than other inpatients. A total of 29.1% were unaware of any recommendations addressing pharmacologic prophylaxis included in ACG IBD guidelines and 34.6% would give pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis to a hospitalized patient with severe ulcerative colitis. Heparin VTE prophylaxis use was associated with gastroenterologists who indicated that their practices comprised more than 50% of patients with IBD (P=0.0001), being a physician at an academic hospital (P=0.0001) and providers having less than 5 years practice experience (P=0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite reasonable awareness of the increased risk of thrombosis in hospitalized IBD patients, many US gastroenterologists may not follow clinical practice guidelines and use pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis.

Gastroenterologists' perceived barriers to optimal pre-colonoscopy bowel preparation: results of a national survey

Poor quality bowel preparation has been reported in almost one third of all colonoscopies. To better understand factors associated with poor bowel preparation, we explored perceived patient barriers to optimal pre-colonoscopy bowel preparation from the perspective of the gastroenterologist. A random sample of physician members of the American College of Gastroenterology was surveyed via the internet and postal mailing. Demographic and practice characteristics and practice-related and perceived patient barriers to optimal bowel preparation were assessed among 288 respondents. Lack of time, no patient education reimbursement, and volume of information were not associated with physician level of suboptimal bowel preparation. Those reporting ≥ 10 % suboptimal bowel preparations were more likely to believe patients lack understanding of the importance of following instructions, have problems with diet, and experience trouble tolerating the purgative. Bowel preparation instruction communication and unmet patient educational needs contribute to suboptimal bowel preparation. Educational interventions should address both practice and patient-related factors.

Health maintenance in the inflammatory bowel disease patient

Gastroenterologists are in a unique position to make very positive differences in the lives of their IBD patients. We understand that IBD patients do not receive preventive services at the same rate as general medical patients. Because these individuals are at increased risk for complications from preventable diseases, we have a valuable opportunity to protect this population (Table 1). Establishing a close working relationship with PCPs can facilitate delivering quality care, but it is important to note that some of these patients rely solely on their GI clinician for the majority of their care. In such a vulnerable population, it is important to be aggressive with vaccine recommendations, monitoring for depression, tobacco cessation, and in performing the appropriate cancer screening examinations. As professional societies and health care system increase their focus on quality measures, incorporating these important issues into routine practice will ultimately result in addressing quality standards; perhaps more important, it should provide our patients with the best individual care possible.