1
|
Jones JL, Tse F, Carroll MW, deBruyn JC, McNeil SA, Pham-Huy A, Seow CH, Barrett LL, Bessissow T, Carman N, Melmed GY, Vanderkooi OG, Marshall JK, Benchimol EI. Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline for Immunizations in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD)-Part 2: Inactivated Vaccines. J Can Assoc Gastroenterol 2021; 4:e72-e91. [PMID: 34476339 PMCID: PMC8407486 DOI: 10.1093/jcag/gwab016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/28/2021] [Indexed: 12/19/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS The effectiveness and safety of vaccinations can be altered by immunosuppressive therapies, and perhaps by inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) itself. These recommendations developed by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and endorsed by the American Gastroenterological Association, aim to provide guidance on immunizations in adult and pediatric patients with IBD. This publication focused on inactivated vaccines. METHODS Systematic reviews evaluating the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of vaccines in patients with IBD, other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, and the general population were performed. Critical outcomes included mortality, vaccine-preventable diseases, and serious adverse events. Immunogenicity was considered a surrogate outcome for vaccine efficacy. Certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Key questions were developed through an iterative online platform, and voted on by a multidisciplinary group. Recommendations were formulated using the Evidence-to-Decision framework. Strong recommendation means that most patients should receive the recommended course of action, whereas a conditional recommendation means that different choices will be appropriate for different patients. RESULTS Consensus was reached on 15 of 20 questions. Recommendations address the following vaccines: Haemophilus influenzae type b, recombinant zoster, hepatitis B, influenza, pneumococcus, meningococcus, tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis, and human papillomavirus. Most of the recommendations for patients with IBD are congruent with the current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Canada's National Advisory Committee on Immunization recommendations for the general population, with the following exceptions. In patients with IBD, the panel suggested Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine for patients older than 5 years of age, recombinant zoster vaccine for adults younger than 50 year of age, and hepatitis B vaccine for adults without a risk factor. Consensus was not reached, and recommendations were not made for 5 statements, due largely to lack of evidence, including double-dose hepatitis B vaccine, timing of influenza immunization in patients on biologics, pneumococcal and meningococcal vaccines in adult patients without risk factors, and human papillomavirus vaccine in patients aged 27-45 years. CONCLUSIONS Patients with IBD may be at increased risk of some vaccine-preventable diseases. Therefore, maintaining appropriate vaccination status in these patients is critical to optimize patient outcomes. In general, IBD is not a contraindication to the use of inactivated vaccines, but immunosuppressive therapy may reduce vaccine responses.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jennifer L Jones
- Department of Medicine and Community Health and Epidemiology, Dalhousie
University, Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Center,
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
| | - Frances Tse
- Division of Gastroenterology and Farncombe Family Digestive Health
Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton,
Ontario, Canada
| | - Matthew W Carroll
- Division of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition,
Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta,
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
| | - Jennifer C deBruyn
- Section of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Departments of Pediatrics and
Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
| | - Shelly A McNeil
- Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Dalhousie
University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
| | - Anne Pham-Huy
- Division of Infectious Diseases, Immunology and Allergy, Department of
Pediatrics, Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, University of
Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Cynthia H Seow
- Division of Gastroenterology, Departments of Medicine and Community
Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary,
Alberta, Canada
| | - Lisa L Barrett
- Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Dalhousie
University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
| | - Talat Bessissow
- Division of Gastroenterology, McGill University Health
Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Nicholas Carman
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Ottawa,
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- CHEO Inflammatory Bowel Disease Centre, Division of Gastroenterology,
Hepatology and Nutrition, Children’s Hospital of Eastern
Ontario, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Gil Y Melmed
- Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center, Cedars-Sinai Medical
Center, Los Angeles, California, United States
| | - Otto G Vanderkooi
- Section of Infectious Diseases, Departments of Pediatrics,
Microbiology, Immunology and Infectious Diseases, Pathology and Laboratory
Medicine and Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Alberta
Children’s Hospital Research Institute, Calgary,
Alberta, Canada
| | - John K Marshall
- Division of Gastroenterology and Farncombe Family Digestive Health
Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton,
Ontario, Canada
| | - Eric I Benchimol
- Department of Pediatrics and School of Epidemiology and Public Health,
University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada
- CHEO Inflammatory Bowel Disease Centre, Division of Gastroenterology,
Hepatology and Nutrition, Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario and CHEO
Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada
- ICES Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada
- Department of Paediatrics, University of Toronto,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada,
SickKids Inflammatory Bowel Disease Centre, Division of
Gastroenterology Hepatology and Nutrition, The Hospital for Sick Children, Child
Health Evaluative Sciences, SickKids Research Institute, ICES,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Zalmanovici Trestioreanu A, Fraser A, Gafter‐Gvili A, Paul M, Leibovici L. Antibiotics for preventing meningococcal infections. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 2013:CD004785. [PMID: 24163051 PMCID: PMC6698485 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd004785.pub5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Meningococcal disease is a contagious bacterial infection caused by Neisseria meningitidis (N. meningitidis). Household contacts have the highest risk of contracting the disease during the first week of a case being detected. Prophylaxis is considered for close contacts of people with a meningococcal infection and populations with known high carriage rates. OBJECTIVES To study the effectiveness, adverse events and development of drug resistance of different antibiotics as prophylactic treatment regimens for meningococcal infection. SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL 2013, Issue 6, MEDLINE (January 1966 to June week 1, 2013), EMBASE (1980 to June 2013) and LILACS (1982 to June 2013). SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs addressing the effectiveness of different antibiotics for: (a) prophylaxis against meningococcal disease; (b) eradication of N. meningitidis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently appraised the quality and extracted data from the included trials. We analysed dichotomous data by calculating the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each trial. MAIN RESULTS No new trials were found for inclusion in this update. We included 24 studies; 19 including 2531 randomised participants and five including 4354 cluster-randomised participants. There were no cases of meningococcal disease during follow-up in the trials, thus effectiveness regarding prevention of future disease cannot be directly assessed.Mortality that was reported in one study was not related to meningococcal disease or treatment. Ciprofloxacin (RR 0.04; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.12), rifampin (rifampicin) (RR 0.17; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.24), minocycline (RR 0.28; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.37) and penicillin (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.94) proved effective at eradicating N. meningitidis one week after treatment when compared with placebo. Rifampin (RR 0.20; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.29), ciprofloxacin (RR 0.03; 95% CI 0.00 to 0.42) and penicillin (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.51 to 0.79) still proved effective at one to two weeks. Rifampin was effective compared to placebo up to four weeks after treatment but resistant isolates were seen following prophylactic treatment. No trials evaluated ceftriaxone against placebo but rifampin was less effective than ceftriaxone after one to two weeks of follow-up (RR 5.93; 95% CI 1.22 to 28.68). Mild adverse events associated with treatment were observed. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Using rifampin during an outbreak may lead to the circulation of resistant isolates. Use of ciprofloxacin, ceftriaxone or penicillin should be considered. All four agents were effective for up to two weeks follow-up, though more trials comparing the effectiveness of these agents for eradicating N. meningitidis would provide important insights.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Abigail Fraser
- University of Bristol, Oakfield HouseMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of BristolOakfield RoadBristolUKBS8 2BN
| | - Anat Gafter‐Gvili
- Beilinson Hospital, Rabin Medical CenterDepartment of Medicine E39 Jabotinski StreetPetah TikvaIsrael49100
| | - Mical Paul
- Rambam Health Care CampusDivision of Infectious DiseasesHa‐aliya 8 StHaifaIsrael33705
| | - Leonard Leibovici
- Beilinson Hospital, Rabin Medical CenterDepartment of Medicine E39 Jabotinski StreetPetah TikvaIsrael49100
| | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Zalmanovici Trestioreanu A, Fraser A, Gafter-Gvili A, Paul M, Leibovici L. Antibiotics for preventing meningococcal infections. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011:CD004785. [PMID: 21833949 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd004785.pub4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/04/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Meningococcal disease is a contagious bacterial infection caused by Neisseria meningitidis (N. meningitidis). Household contacts have the highest risk of contracting the disease during the first week of a case being detected. Prophylaxis is considered for close contacts of people with a meningococcal infection and populations with known high carriage rates. OBJECTIVES To study the effectiveness of different prophylactic treatment regimens. SEARCH STRATEGY We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2011, Issue 2) which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE (January 1966 to May Week 3, 2011), EMBASE (1980 to May 2011) and LILACS (1982 to May 2011). SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs addressing the effectiveness of different antibiotics for: (a) prophylaxis against meningococcal disease; (b) eradication of N. meningitidis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently appraised the quality and extracted data from the included trials. We analysed dichotomous data by calculating the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each trial. MAIN RESULTS We included 24 studies; 19 including 2531 randomised participants and five including 4354 cluster-randomised participants. There were no cases of meningococcal disease during follow up in the trials, thus effectiveness regarding prevention of future disease cannot be directly assessed.Ciprofloxacin (RR 0.04; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.12), rifampin (rifampicin) (RR 0.17; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.24), minocycline (RR 0.28; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.37) and penicillin (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.94) proved effective at eradicating N. meningitidis one week after treatment when compared with placebo. Rifampin (RR 0.20; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.29), ciprofloxacin (RR 0.03; 95% CI 0.00 to 0.42) and penicillin (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.51 to 0.79) still proved effective at one to two weeks. Rifampin was effective compared to placebo up to four weeks after treatment but resistant isolates were seen following prophylactic treatment. No trials evaluated ceftriaxone against placebo but ceftriaxone was more effective than rifampin after one to two weeks of follow up (RR 5.93; 95% CI 1.22 to 28.68). Mild adverse events associated with treatment were observed. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Using rifampin during an outbreak may lead to the circulation of resistant isolates. Use of ciprofloxacin, ceftriaxone or penicillin should be considered. All four agents were effective for up to two weeks follow up, though more trials comparing the effectiveness of these agents for eradicating N. meningitidis would provide important insights.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anca Zalmanovici Trestioreanu
- Department of Family Medicine, Beilinson Campus, Rabin Medical Center, 39 Jabotinski Street, Petah Tikva, Israel, 49100
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Prasad K, Karlupia N. Prevention of bacterial meningitis: an overview of Cochrane systematic reviews. Respir Med 2007; 101:2037-43. [PMID: 17706408 DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2007.06.030] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/31/2007] [Accepted: 06/26/2007] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]
Abstract
Acute bacterial meningitis (ABM) is an acute inflammation of leptomeninges caused by bacteria, and has a case fatality rate of 10-30%. Prevention strategies, such as vaccination and prophylactic antibiotics, can prevent ABM and have substantial public health impact by reducing the disease burden associated with it. The aim of this paper is to summarize the main findings from Cochrane systematic reviews that have considered the evidence for measures to prevent ABM. We assessed the evidence available in the Cochrane Library. We found five Cochrane reviews focused on the prevention of ABM; three with use of vaccination and two with prophylactic antibiotics. Polysaccharide serogroup A vaccine is strongly protective for the first year, against serogroup A meningococcal meningitis in adults and children over 5 years of age. Meningococcal serogroup C conjugate (MCC) vaccine is safe and effective in infants. Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccine is safe and effective against Hib-invasive disease at all ages. Ceftriaxone, rifampicin and ciprofloxacin are the most effective prophylactic antibiotics against Neisseria meningitidis. There is sufficient evidence to use polysaccharide serogroup A vaccine to prevent serogroup A meningococcal meningitis, MCC conjugate vaccines to prevent meningococcal C meningitis and Hib conjugate vaccine to prevent Hib infections. More studies are needed to evaluate the effects of Hib conjugate vaccine on mortality. Further, studies are required to compare the relative effectiveness of ceftriaxone, ciprofloxacin and rifampicin in chemoprophylaxis against meningococcal infection.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kameshwar Prasad
- Department of Neurology, Room No. 704, 7th Floor, Neurosciences Centre, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi 110029, India.
| | | |
Collapse
|