Safety and immunogenicity of yellow fever 17D vaccine in adults receiving systemic corticosteroid therapy: an observational cohort study

Advising the immunocompromised traveller: a review of immunocompromise at The London Hospital for Tropical Diseases Travel Clinic between 1st April 2019 and 30th April 2020

BACKGROUND

Immunocompromised travellers (ICTs) face greater infectious and non-infectious travel-associated risks than their immunocompetent counterparts. Increasing travel and emergence of novel immunosuppressants poses great challenges for travel medicine practitioners to confidently provide up-to-date evidence-based risk management advice and pre-travel care for ICTs.

METHODS

We reviewed the records of ICTs attending the London Hospital for Tropical Diseases (HTD) Travel Clinic between 1st April 2019 and 30th April 2020 with the aim to describe demographic and travel characteristics, type, and severity of immunocompromise, the degree of risk associated with intended travel and evaluate travel advice.

RESULTS

Of the 193 ICTs identified, immunocompromise was due to physiological reasons (42%), chronic infection (17.1%) and immunosuppressive therapy (16.6%). Median age was 38 (range 9 months to 84 years) and male to female ratio 0.75 (83:110). Travel was intended to 80 countries for a median of 16 days (range 2 to 3167), predominantly for leisure (53%), non-medical work (17%) and visiting friends and relatives (12%). Live vaccine safety dominated discussion in the pre-travel consultation. Existing guidelines arguably fell short in dealing with travel risks associated with hyper-specific conditions, targeted immunosuppressants and non-vaccine preventable infections.

CONCLUSIONS

Our cohort represents a wide spectrum of immunocompromise, for whom we arguably need more measurable ways to approach travel-associated risks. We propose prospective qualitative participatory research to inform our unit of the priorities of ICTs in the pre-travel consultation. We further recommend the formation of a repository of specialists and formulary of complex cases to direct subsequent informative systematic review and prospective risk studies.

Live vaccinations in dermatology for immunosuppressed patients: a narrative review

Given the higher susceptibility to infectious disease in patients receiving immunosuppressive therapies for inflammatory dermatologic conditions, immunization is important in this population. While live vaccines protect against life-threatening diseases, they can be harmful in immunosuppressed patients given the risk of replication of the attenuated pathogen and adverse reactions. The utilization of live vaccines in immunosuppressed patients depends on multiple factors such as the vaccine and therapy regimen. To provide an overview of evidence-based recommendations for the use of live vaccines in patients receiving immunosuppressive therapies for dermatological conditions. A literature search of the PubMed database was performed using keywords live vaccine, live-attenuated vaccine, dermatology, immunosuppressed, and immunocompromised, and specific immunosuppressive therapies: corticosteroids, glucocorticoids, methotrexate, azathioprine, cyclosporine, mycophenolate mofetil, biologics. Relevant articles written in English were included. Using these keywords, 125 articles were reviewed, of which 28 were ultimately selected. Recommendations for live vaccines can be determined on a case-by-case basis. Measles, mumps, rubella, varicella (MMRV) vaccines may be safely administered to patients on low-dose immunosuppressive agents while the yellow fever vaccine is typically contraindicated. It may be safe to administer live MMRV boosters to children on immunosuppressive therapies and the live herpes zoster vaccine to patients on biologics. Given poor adherence to immunization guidelines in immunosuppressed patients, dermatologists have a critical role in educating patients and general practitioners regarding live vaccines. By reviewing a patient's vaccination history and following immunization guidelines prior to initiating immunosuppressive therapies, physicians can mitigate morbidity and mortality from vaccine-preventable diseases.

A review of criteria strictness in "Toxicity Grading Scale for Healthy Adult and Adolescent Volunteers Enrolled in Preventive Vaccine Clinical Trials"

To assess safety in vaccine development, stricter grading scales, such as the "Toxicity Grading Scale for Healthy Adult and Adolescent Volunteers Enrolled in Preventive Vaccine Clinical Trials" issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA grading scale), are required. However, concern exists that their strictness may lead to an overestimation of some adverse events (AEs). We analyzed the details of AEs in a phase I clinical trial of a preventive vaccine for infectious diseases. In this trial, we observed the high occurrence of Grade 1 or greater AEs in hemoglobin changes from baseline value, and hypernatremia, and hypokalemia by FDA grading scale. The range considered as non-AE according to the FDA grading scale shifted or became narrower when compared to reference intervals, especially for a Japanese cohort. For sodium grading, the criterion for hypernatremia was around 2 to mEq/L lower than the upper limit of most standards in several countries. Also, the criterion for hypokalemia was around 0.2 mEq/L higher than the lower limit of most standards. Regarding a decrease in hemoglobin from baseline, the criterion of "any decrease" used for a Grade 1 AE was too strict and we suggest this be omitted. Upper and lower limits of AE criteria for sodium and potassium should be equal to, or 10-20% above, the reference interval consistent with other toxicities determined by laboratory tests. Consideration should be given to the issues surrounding the criteria that determine AEs before conducting clinical trials.

Duration of Protection After Vaccination Against Yellow Fever: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The duration of protection after a single dose of yellow fever vaccine is a matter of debate. To summarize the current knowledge, we performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Studies on the duration of protection after 1 and ≥2 vaccine doses were reviewed. Data were stratified by time since vaccination. In our meta-analysis, we used random-effects models. We identified 36 studies from 20 countries, comprising more than 17 000 participants aged 6 months to 85 years. Among healthy adults and children, pooled seroprotection rates after single vaccination dose were close to 100% by 3 months and remained high in adults for 5 to 10 years. In children vaccinated before age 2 years, the seroprotection rate was 52% within 5 years after primary vaccination. For immunodeficient persons, data indicate relevant waning. The extent of waning of seroprotection after yellow fever vaccination depends on age and immune status at primary vaccination.

Yellow fever vaccine safety in immunocompromised individuals: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Yellow fever is an arbovirus with variable severity, including severe forms with high mortality. The vaccination is the most effective measure to protect against the disease. Nonserious and serious adverse events have been described in immunocompromised individuals, but previous studies have failed to demonstrate this association. This systematic review assessed the risk of adverse events after yellow fever vaccination in immunocompromised individuals compared to its use in non-immunocompromised individuals.

METHODS

A search was conducted in the MEDLINE, LILACS, EMBASE, SCOPUS, DARE, Toxiline, Web of Science and grey literature databases for publications until February 2021. Randomized and quasi-randomized clinical trials and observational studies that included immunocompromised participants (individuals with HIV infection, organ transplants, with cancer, who used immunosuppressive drugs for rheumatologic diseases and those on immunosuppressive therapy for other diseases) were selected. The methodological quality of observational or non-randomized studies was assessed by the ROBINS-I tool. Two meta-analyses were performed, proportion and risk factor analyses, to identify the summary measure of relative risk (RR) in the studies that had variables suitable for combination.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies were included, most with risk of bias classified as critical. Thirteen studies had enough data to carry out the proposed meta-analyses. Seven studies without a comparator group had their results aggregated in the proportion meta-analysis, identifying an 8.5% (95% CI 0.07-21.8) risk of immunocompromised individuals presenting adverse events after vaccination. Six cohort studies were combined, with an RR of 1.00 (95% CI 0.78-1.29). Subgroup analysis was performed according to the aetiology of immunosuppression and was also unable to identify an increased risk of adverse events following vaccination.

CONCLUSIONS

It is not possible to affirm that immunocompromised individuals, regardless of aetiology, have a higher risk of adverse events after receiving the yellow fever vaccine.

Efficacy, Immunogenicity and Safety of Vaccination in Pediatric Patients With Autoimmune Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases (pedAIIRD): A Systematic Literature Review for the 2021 Update of the EULAR/PRES Recommendations

Background

In 2011, the first European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) vaccination recommendations for pediatric patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (pedAIIRD) were published. The past decade numerous new studies were performed to assess the safety, efficacy and immunogenicity of vaccinations in pedAIIRD. A systematic literature review (SLR) was therefore performed to serve as the basis for the updated 2021 EULAR/PRES recommendations.

Methods

An SLR was performed according to the standard operating procedures for EULAR-endorsed recommendations. Primary outcomes were efficacy, immunogenicity and safety of vaccination in pedAIIRD. The search was performed in Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library and included studies published from November 2010 until July 2020.

Results

The SLR yielded 57 studies which were included for critical appraisal and data extraction. Only 8 studies described the occurrence of vaccine-preventable infections after vaccination (efficacy), none of these studies were powered to assess efficacy. The majority of studies assessed (humoral) immune responses as surrogate endpoint for vaccine efficacy. Studies on non-live vaccines showed that these were safe and in general immunogenic. Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in general did not significantly reduce seroprotection rates, except for B-cell depleting therapies which severely hampered humoral responses. Four new studies on human papilloma virus vaccination showed that this vaccine was safe and immunogenic in pedAIIRD. Regarding live-attenuated vaccinations, level 1 evidence of the measles mumps rubella (MMR) booster vaccination became available which showed the safety of this booster for patients treated with methotrexate. In addition, level 3 evidence became available that suggested that the MMR and varicella zoster virus (VZV) vaccination for patients on low dose glucocorticosteroids and bDMARDs might be safe as well.

Conclusions

The past decade, knowledge on the safety and immunogenicity of (live-attenuated) vaccines in pedAIIRD significantly increased. Data on efficacy (infection prevention) remains scarce. The results from this SLR are the basis for the updated EULAR/PRES vaccination recommendations in pedAIIRD.

A New Consideration for Corticosteroid Injections: Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19) Vaccination

Corticosteroid injection (CSI) is a commonly used tool in hand surgery that is often given little consideration as a potential detriment to vaccination efficacy. The authors reviewed guidelines issued by relevant societies for the timing of CSI around the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccination period and the evidence used to support them. Ultimately, providers and patients should be adequately educated on the theoretical risks and benefits before proceeding with CSI immediately before, during, or immediately after coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination.

Impact of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs on vaccine immunogenicity in patients with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases

Patients with rheumatic diseases are at increased risk of infectious complications; vaccinations are a critical component of their care. Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs may reduce the immunogenicity of common vaccines. We will review here available data regarding the effect of these medications on influenza, pneumococcal, herpes zoster, SARS-CoV-2, hepatitis B, human papilloma virus and yellow fever vaccines. Rituximab has the most substantial impact on vaccine immunogenicity, which is most profound when vaccinations are given at shorter intervals after rituximab dosing. Methotrexate has less substantial effect but appears to adversely impact most vaccine immunogenicity. Abatacept likely decrease vaccine immunogenicity, although these studies are limited by the lack of adequate control groups. Janus kinase and tumour necrosis factor inhibitors decrease absolute antibody titres for many vaccines, but do not seem to significantly impact the proportions of patients achieving seroprotection. Other biologics (interleukin-6R (IL-6R), IL-12/IL-23 and IL-17 inhibitors) have little observed impact on vaccine immunogenicity. Data regarding the effect of these medications on the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine immunogenicity are just now emerging, and early glimpses appear similar to our experience with other vaccines. In this review, we summarise the most recent data regarding vaccine response and efficacy in this setting, particularly in light of current vaccination recommendations for immunocompromised patients.

Adverse events following yellow fever vaccination in immunocompromised persons

This observational retrospective study conducted during an yellow fever (YF) outbreak in Sao Paulo, Brazil, in 2017-2018, describes adverse events (AE) following YF vaccination of immunocompromised persons. Risks and benefits of vaccination were individually evaluated by physicians. AE were assessed by phone call or electronic mail, 14 to 90 days after vaccination. Three hundred and eighty one immunocompromised persons received a full-dose of YF vaccine. Their age ranged from 1.4 to 89.3 years (median 50.8 years); 53% were women; 178 (46.7%) had chronic kidney disease, 78 (20.5%) had immune-mediated inflammatory diseases; 94 (24.7%) were using or had recently used immunosuppressive/ immunomodulatory drugs. All of them denied previous YF vaccination. We were able to contact 341 (89.5%) vaccinees: 233 (68.3%) of them received the YF vaccine from BioManguinhos and 108 (31.7%) received the vaccine from Sanofi-Pasteur; 130 (38.1%) vaccinees received other vaccines (up to 4) simultaneously with the the YF vaccine, mostly hepatitis B (59 vaccinees), pneumococcal polysaccharide 23-valent (46), influenza (43) and diphtheria-tetanus (dT, 41). One hundred and eleven vaccinees (32.6%) reported at least one AE: 79 (23.2%) presented systemic AE, 44 (12.9%) had local AE and 12 had both, local and systemic AE. The most common AE was pain at the injection site (41 persons, 12%), myalgia (34; 10%), fever (25; 7.3%) and headache (16; 4.7%). There was no statistically significant difference on the AE frequency according to the vaccine producer. There were four severe AE: one hospitalization and three deaths, considered not related to the YF vaccine.

An evidence-based guide to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination of patients on immunotherapies in dermatology

Immune-mediated diseases and immunotherapeutics can negatively affect normal immune functioning and, consequently, vaccine safety and response. The COVID-19 pandemic has incited research aimed at developing a novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine. As SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are developed and made available, the assessment of anticipated safety and efficacy in patients with immune-mediated dermatologic diseases and requiring immunosuppressive and/or immunomodulatory therapy is particularly important. A review of the literature was conducted by a multidisciplinary committee to provide guidance on the safety and efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination for dermatologists and other clinicians when prescribing immunotherapeutics. The vaccine platforms being used to develop SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are expected to be safe and potentially effective for dermatology patients on immunotherapeutics. Current guidelines for the vaccination of an immunocompromised host remain appropriate when considering future administration of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines.

Planned Yellow Fever Primary Vaccination Is Safe and Immunogenic in Patients With Autoimmune Diseases: A Prospective Non-interventional Study

Yellow Fever (YF) vaccination is suggested to induce a large number of adverse events (AE) and suboptimal responses in patients with autoimmune diseases (AID); however, there have been no studies on 17DD-YF primary vaccination performance in patients with AID. This prospective non-interventional study conducted between March and July, 2017 assessed the safety and immunogenicity of planned 17DD-YF primary vaccination in patients with AID. Adult patients with AID (both sexes) were enrolled, along with healthy controls, at a single hospital (Vitória, Brazil). Included patients were referred for planned vaccination by a rheumatologist; in remission, or with low disease activity; and had low level immunosuppression or the attending physician advised interruption of immunosuppression for safety reasons. The occurrence of AE, neutralizing antibody kinetics, seropositivity rates, and 17DD-YF viremia were evaluated at various time points (day 0 (D0), D3, D4, D5, D6, D14, and D28). Individuals evaluated (n = 278), including patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA; 79), spondyloarthritis (SpA; 59), systemic sclerosis (8), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE; 27), primary Sjögren's syndrome (SS; 54), and healthy controls (HC; 51). Only mild AE were reported. The frequency of local and systemic AE in patients with AID and HC did not differ significantly (8 vs. 10% and 21 vs. 32%; p = 1.00 and 0.18, respectively). Patients with AID presented late seroconversion profiles according to kinetic timelines of the plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT). PRNT-determined virus titers (copies/mL) [181 (95% confidence interval (CI), 144–228) vs. 440 (95% CI, 291–665), p = 0.004] and seropositivity rate (78 vs. 96%, p = 0.01) were lower in patients with AID after 28 days, particularly those with SpA (73%) and SLE (73%), relative to HC. The YF viremia peak (RNAnemia) was 5–6 days after vaccination in all groups. In conclusion, consistent seroconversion rates were observed in patients with AID and our findings support that planned 17DD-YF primary vaccination is safe and immunogenic in patients with AID.

Efficacy, immunogenicity and safety of vaccination in adult patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases: a systematic literature review for the 2019 update of EULAR recommendations

Aim

To present a systematic literature review (SLR) on efficacy, immunogenicity and safety of vaccination in adult patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRD), aiming to provide a basis for updating the EULAR evidence-based recommendations.

Methods

An SLR was performed according to the standard operating procedures for EULAR-endorsed recommendations. Outcome was determined by efficacy, immunogenicity and safety of vaccination in adult patients with AIIRD, including those receiving immunomodulating therapy. Furthermore, a search was performed on the effect of vaccinating household members of patients with AIIRD on the occurrence of vaccine-preventable infections in patients and their household members (including newborns). The literature search was performed using Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library (October 2009 to August 2018).

Results

While most investigated vaccines were efficacious and/or immunogenic in patients with AIIRD, some were less efficacious than in healthy control subjects, and/or in patients receiving immunosuppressive agents. Adverse events of vaccination were generally mild and the rates were comparable to those in healthy persons. Vaccination did not seem to lead to an increase in activity of the underlying AIIRD, but insufficient power of most studies precluded arriving at definite conclusions. The number of studies investigating clinical efficacy of vaccination is still limited. No studies on the effect of vaccinating household members of patients with AIIRD were retrieved.

Conclusion

Evidence on efficacy, immunogenicity and safety of vaccination in patients with AIIRD was systematically reviewed to provide a basis for updated recommendations.

2019 update of EULAR recommendations for vaccination in adult patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases

To update the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for vaccination in adult patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRD) published in 2011. Four systematic literature reviews were performed regarding the incidence/prevalence of vaccine-preventable infections among patients with AIIRD; efficacy, immunogenicity and safety of vaccines; effect of anti-rheumatic drugs on the response to vaccines; effect of vaccination of household of AIIRDs patients. Subsequently, recommendations were formulated based on the evidence and expert opinion. The updated recommendations comprise six overarching principles and nine recommendations. The former address the need for an annual vaccination status assessment, shared decision-making and timing of vaccination, favouring vaccination during quiescent disease, preferably prior to the initiation of immunosuppression. Non-live vaccines can be safely provided to AIIRD patients regardless of underlying therapy, whereas live-attenuated vaccines may be considered with caution. Influenza and pneumococcal vaccination should be strongly considered for the majority of patients with AIIRD. Tetanus toxoid and human papilloma virus vaccination should be provided to AIIRD patients as recommended for the general population. Hepatitis A, hepatitis B and herpes zoster vaccination should be administered to AIIRD patients at risk. Immunocompetent household members of patients with AIIRD should receive vaccines according to national guidelines, except for the oral poliomyelitis vaccine. Live-attenuated vaccines should be avoided during the first 6 months of life in newborns of mothers treated with biologics during the second half of pregnancy. These 2019 EULAR recommendations provide an up-to-date guidance on the management of vaccinations in patients with AIIRD.

Brazilian recommendations on the safety and effectiveness of the yellow fever vaccination in patients with chronic immune-mediated inflammatory diseases

BACKGROUND

In Brazil, we are facing an alarming epidemic scenario of Yellow fever (YF), which is reaching the most populous areas of the country in unvaccinated people. Vaccination is the only effective tool to prevent YF. In special situations, such as patients with chronic immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (CIMID), undergoing immunosuppressive therapy, as a higher risk of severe adverse events may occur, assessment of the risk-benefit ratio of the yellow fever vaccine (YFV) should be performed on an individual level. Faced with the scarcity of specific orientation on YFV for this special group of patients, the Brazilian Rheumatology Society (BRS) endorsed a project aiming the development of individualized YFV recommendations for patients with CIMID, guided by questions addressed by both medical professionals and patients, followed an internationally validated methodology (GIN-McMaster Guideline Development). Firstly, a systematic review was carried out and an expert panel formed to take part of the decision process, comprising BRS clinical practitioners, as well as individuals from the Brazilian Dermatology Society (BDS), Brazilian Inflammatory Bowel Diseases Study Group (GEDIIB), and specialists on infectious diseases and vaccination (from Tropical Medicine, Infectious Diseases and Immunizations National Societies); in addition, two representatives of patient groups were included as members of the panel. When the quality of the evidence was low or there was a lack of evidence to determine the recommendations, the decisions were based on the expert opinion panel and a Delphi approach was performed. A recommendation was accepted upon achieving ≥80% agreement among the panel, including the patient representatives. As a result, eight recommendations were developed regarding the safety of YFV in patients with CIMID, considering the immunosuppression degree conferred by the treatment used. It was not possible to establish recommendations on the effectiveness of YFV in these patients as there is no consistent evidence to support these recommendations.

CONCLUSION

This paper approaches a real need, assessed by clinicians and patient care groups, to address specific questions on the management of YFV in patients with CIMID living or traveling to YF endemic areas, involving specialists from many areas together with patients, and might have global applicability, contributing to and supporting vaccination practices. We recommended a shared decision-making approach on taking or not the YFV.

Vaccination Guidelines for Patients With Immune-Mediated Disorders on Immunosuppressive Therapies

BACKGROUND:

Patients with immune-mediated diseases on immunosuppressive therapies have more infectious episodes than healthy individuals, yet vaccination practices by physicians for this patient population remain suboptimal.

OBJECTIVES:

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of vaccines in individuals exposed to immunosuppressive therapies and provide evidence-based clinical practice recommendations.

METHODS:

A literature search for vaccination safety and efficacy in patients on immunosuppressive therapies (2009-2017) was conducted. Results were assessed using the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system.

RESULTS:

Several immunosuppressive therapies attenuate vaccine response. Thus, vaccines should be administered before treatment whenever feasible. Inactivated vaccines can be administered without treatment discontinuation. Similarly, evidence suggests that the live zoster vaccine is safe and effective while on select immunosuppressive therapy, although use of the subunit vaccine is preferred. Caution regarding other live vaccines is warranted. Drug pharmacokinetics, duration of vaccine-induced viremia, and immune response kinetics should be considered to determine appropriate timing of vaccination and treatment (re)initiation. Infants exposed to immunosuppressive therapies through breastmilk can usually be immunized according to local guidelines. Intrauterine exposure to immunosuppressive agents is not a contraindication for inactivated vaccines. Live attenuated vaccines scheduled for infants and children ⩾12 months of age, including measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella, can be safely administered as sufficient time has elapsed for drug clearance.

CONCLUSIONS:

Immunosuppressive agents may attenuate vaccine responses, but protective benefit is generally maintained. While these recommendations are evidence based, they do not replace clinical judgment, and decisions regarding vaccination must carefully assess the risks, benefits, and circumstances of individual patients.

Yellow fever vaccine and risk of developing serious adverse events: a systematic review

Objective

To evaluate contraindications and precautions for the yellow fever vaccine (YFV) in risk populations.

Methods

A literature review was conducted by searching PubMed for “yellow fever vaccine” and “adverse events” (AEs); 207 studies were found, and 43 of them met the inclusion criteria and were included in a systematic review.

Results

The results for first dose of YFV in elderly patients were conflicting—some showed AEs while some showed benefits. Therefore, precaution and case-by-case decisionmaking for YFV in this population are advised. The same precautions are warranted for YFV in infants 6-8 months, with the vaccine contraindicated in those < 6 months old and safe after 9 months of age. YFV seems safe in the first trimester of pregnancy, and probably throughout gestation, as it was not associated with increased malformations. During breastfeeding, YFV continues to be controversial. The vaccine seems safe in people being treated with immunomodulatory or immunosuppressive therapy, people with immunosuppressive diseases, and solid organ and hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients; in stem cell transplants, however, a booster dose should only be applied once immunity is recovered. HlV-infected patients with a CD4+ count > 200 cells/mm³ do not have increased risk of AEs from YFV. Egg allergy vaccination protocols seem to provide a safe way to immunize these patients.

Conclusions

YFV safety has been confirmed based on data from many vaccination campaigns and multiple studies. AEs seem more frequent after a first-time dose, mainly in risk groups, but this review evaluated YFV in several of the same risk groups and the vaccine was found to be safe in most of them.

Safety of live vaccines on immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory therapy-a retrospective study in three Swiss Travel Clinics

BACKGROUND

Patients increasingly benefit from immunosuppressive/immunomodulatory medications for a range of conditions allowing them a lifestyle similar to healthy individuals, including travel. However, the administration of live vaccines to immunodeficient patients bears the risk of replication of the attenuated vaccine microorganism. Therefore, live vaccines are generally contraindicated on immunosuppression. Data on live vaccinations on immunosuppressive/immunomodulatory medication are scarce. We identified all travellers seeking pre-travel advice in three Swiss travel clinics with a live vaccine during immunosuppressive/immunomodulatory therapy to ascertain experienced side effects. A retrospective and multi-centre study design was chosen to increase the sample size.

METHODS

This study was conducted in the travel clinics of the University of Zurich; the Swiss TPH, Basel; and Geneva University Hospitals. Travellers on immunosuppressive/immunomodulatory therapy who received live vaccines [yellow fever vaccination (YFV), measles/mumps/rubella (MMR), varicella and/ or oral typhoid vaccination (OTV)] between 2008 and 2015 were identified and interviewed. A total of 60 age- and sex-matched controls (matched to Basel/Zurich travel clinics travellers) were included.

RESULTS

Overall, 197 patients were identified. And 116 patients (59%) and 60 controls were interviewed. YFV was administered 92 times, MMR 21 times, varicella 4 times and OTV 6 times to patients on immunosuppressive/immunomodulatory therapy. Most common medications were corticosteroids (n = 45), mesalazine (n = 28) and methotrexate (n = 19). Live vaccines were also administered on biological treatment, e.g. TNF-alpha inhibitors (n = 8). Systemic reactions were observed in 12.2% of the immunosuppressed vs 13.3% of controls; local reactions in 7.8% of the immunosuppressed vs 11.7% of controls. In controls, all reactions were mild/moderate. In the immunosuppressed, 2/21 severe reactions occurred: severe local pain on interferon-beta and severe muscle/joint pain on sulfasalazine.

CONCLUSION

Safety of live vaccines given to immunosuppressed patients cannot be concluded. However, it is re-assuring that in the examined patient groups no serious side effects or infections by the attenuated vaccine strain occurred.

Vaccinations for rheumatoid arthritis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients experience increased infectious disease-related morbidity and mortality, and vaccinations represent an important element in their care. However, vaccine immunogenicity can be affected by disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy, such that vaccine choice and timing can be clinically challenging. We review the indications, safety, and immunogenicity of vaccines in the setting of RA.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent recommendations highlight the use of influenza, pneumococcal, and shingles vaccines in RA patients. Studies suggest influenza and pneumococcal vaccines are underutilized, but well tolerated in RA patients and generally immunogenic during DMARD use with the exception of rituximab. Though data for other nonlive vaccines are more limited, hepatitis B virus and human papilloma virus vaccines also appear well tolerated and immunogenic in this population. Live vaccines for shingles and yellow fever remain contraindicated in some RA patients; however, limited data suggest they might be well tolerated in certain individuals.

SUMMARY

The review updates rheumatologists on the optimal use and timing of routine vaccinations in the care of RA.

Diphtheria, tetanus, poliomyelitis, yellow fever and hepatitis B seroprevalence among HIV1-infected migrants. Results from the ANRS VIHVO vaccine sub-study

BACKGROUND

Few data are available on the seroprotection status of HIV1-infected patients with respect to vaccine-preventable diseases.

OBJECTIVE

To describe, in a population of HIV1-infected migrants on stable, effective ART therapy, the seroprevalence of diphtheria, poliomyelitis, tetanus, yellow fever antibodies and serostatus for hepatitis B, and to identify factors associated with seroprotection. Vaccine responses against diphtheria, tetanus, poliomyelitis and yellow fever were also studied.

METHODS

Sub-Saharan African patients participating in the ANRS-VIHVO cohort were enrolled prior to travel to their countries of origin. Serologic analyses were performed in a central laboratory before and after the trip. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with initial seroprotection.

RESULTS

250 patients (99 men and 151 women) were included in the seroprevalence study. Median age was 45 years (IQR 39-52), median CD4 cell count was 440/μL (IQR 336-571), and 237 patients (95%) had undetectable HIV1 viral load. The initial seroprevalence rates were 69.0% (95%CI 63.2-74.7) for diphtheria, 70.7% (95%CI 65.0-76.3) for tetanus, and 85.9% (95%CI 81.6-90.2) for yellow fever. Only 64.4% (95%CI 58.5-70.3) of patients had protective antibody titers against all three poliomyelitis vaccine strains before travel. No serological markers of hepatitis B were found in 18.6% of patients (95%CI 13.7-23.3). Patient declaration of prior vaccination was the only factor consistently associated with initial seroprotection.

CONCLUSIONS

We found a low prevalence of seroprotection against diphtheria, poliomyelitis, tetanus and hepatitis B. HIV infected migrants living in France and traveling to their native countries need to have their vaccine schedule completed.

Travel risk assessment, advice and vaccinations in immunocompromised travellers (HIV, solid organ transplant and haematopoeitic stem cell transplant recipients): A review

International travellers with immunocompromising conditions such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, solid organ transplantation (SOT) and haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) are at a significant risk of travel-related illnesses from both communicable and non-communicable diseases, depending on the intensity of underlying immune dysfunction, travel destinations and activities. In addition, the choice of travel vaccinations, timing and protective antibody responses are also highly dependent on the underlying conditions and thus pose significant challenges to the health-care providers who are involved in pre-travel risk assessment. This review article provides a framework of understanding and approach to aforementioned groups of immunocompromised travellers regarding pre-travel risk assessment and management; in particular travel vaccinations, infectious and non-infectious disease risks and provision of condition-specific advice; to reduce travel-related mortality and morbidity.