Booster influenza vaccination does not improve immune response in adult inflammatory bowel disease patients treated with immunosuppressives: a randomized controlled trial

Expert consensus on vaccination in patients with inflammatory bowel disease in Japan

Immunosuppressive therapies can affect the immune response to or safety of vaccination in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The appropriateness of vaccination should be assessed prior to the initiation of IBD treatment because patients with IBD frequently undergo continuous treatment with immunosuppressive drugs. This consensus was developed to support the decision-making process regarding appropriate vaccination for pediatric and adult patients with IBD and physicians by providing critical information according to the published literature and expert consensus about vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs) [excluding cervical cancer and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)] in Japan. This consensus includes 19 important clinical questions (CQs) on the following 4 topics: VPDs (6 CQs), live attenuated vaccines (2 CQs), inactivated vaccines (6 CQs), and vaccination for pregnancy, childbirth, and breastfeeding (5 CQs). These topics and CQs were selected under unified consensus by the members of a committee on intractable diseases with support by a Health and Labour Sciences Research Grant. Physicians should provide necessary information on VPDs to their patients with IBD and carefully manage these patients' IBD if various risk factors for the development or worsening of VPDs are present. This consensus will facilitate informed and shared decision-making in daily IBD clinical practice.

Safety of Immunizations for the Adult Patient With Inflammatory Bowel Disease-A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have low vaccination rates for vaccine-preventable diseases. Fear of adverse reactions (AEs) appear to negatively affect vaccination efforts. We aimed to systemically review the risks for AEs following immunization for patients with IBD.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and Embase until April 15, 2020, for studies evaluating the safety of vaccinations among patients with IBD. The primary outcome was the incidence of systemic and local AEs among vaccinated patients. Secondary outcome was the rate of IBD flare following immunization. We utilized a random effects meta-analysis of proportions using the DerSimonian-Laird approach to estimate the safety of immunizations.

RESULTS

A total of 13 studies with 2116 patients was included in our analysis after fulfilling our inclusion criteria. Seven studies examined the influenza vaccine, 4 the pneumococcal vaccine, 1 the recombinant zoster vaccine, and 1 the hepatitis B vaccine. Follow-up of patients was up to 6 months. The majority of AEs were local, with a pooled incidence of 24% (95% CI, 9%-42%) for all vaccines. Systemic AEs were mostly mild, without resulting in hospitalizations or deaths, with a pooled incidence of 16% (95% CI, 6%-29%) for all vaccines. Flare of inflammatory bowel disease after vaccination found with a pooled incidence of 2% (95% CI, 1%-4%) and we include in the analysis data from all immunizations examined.

DISCUSSION

Our study demonstrated that AEs after vaccination are mainly local or mildly systemic and do not differ significantly from the expected AE after recommended immunizations for the general population. Thus, gastroenterologists should reinforce that vaccines are safe in patients with IBD.

Immunisation status of children and adolescents with a new diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease

BACKGROUND

Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) are at increased risk of serious infections, including vaccine preventable diseases. Current evidence suggests uptake of additional recommended special risk vaccinations is low. Identification of IBD patients prior to commencing immunosuppressive therapy allows for optimisation of vaccination, including timely administration of live-attenuated and additional recommended vaccines, such as influenza and pneumococcal vaccines.

METHODS

Paediatric patients (0-18 years) seen at the tertiary Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia, with a recent diagnosis of IBD were referred by the Gastroenterology Unit to our Specialist Immunisation Clinic (SIC) for assessment and provision of routine and special risk vaccines. Data was collected via a standardised REDCap questionnaire completed in or post attendance at the SIC and included serology results where available.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine paediatric patients were recruited to the study between 2014 and 2017. Median age at IBD diagnosis was 11.25 years (IQR 4.64 years), with median time between diagnosis and SIC review of 0.88 years (IQR 2.84 years). At initial review 84.1% (58/69) of patients were up to date with vaccines on the Australian National Immunisation Program (NIP) schedule. Of those who were tested, serological evidence of immunity was demonstrated in 38.3% (23/60) of patients for Hepatitis B, 66.7% (36/54) for measles, 51.9% (28/54) for rubella and 41.9% (26/62) for Varicella Zoster Virus. Prior to SIC review 47.8% (33/69) had additional vaccinations and 92.8% (64/69) had vaccinations administered in the 12 months following SIC assessment. The Pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (76.8%, 53/69) was the most commonly administered vaccine after SIC review, followed by influenza vaccine (69.6%, 48/69). Within 12 months of SIC review 43.5% (30/69) of patients had completed the schedule and were up-to-date as recommended by the SIC.

CONCLUSIONS

Children with IBD and other special risk groups can benefit from early referral to a SIC team to ensure optimal administration of routine and additionally recommended vaccines, especially live and additional special risk vaccines. The value of optimising immunisations could also be applied to other special risk groups, including adult IBD cohorts, particularly those commencing newer biologic immunosuppressive medications.

Review Article: vaccination for patients with inflammatory bowel disease during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

Poor immune responses are frequently observed in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) receiving established vaccines; risk factors include immunosuppressants and active disease.

AIMS

To summarise available information regarding immune responses achieved in patients with IBD receiving established vaccines. Using this information, to identify risk factors in the IBD population related to poor vaccine-induced immunity that may be applicable to vaccines against COVID-19.

METHODS

We undertook a literature review on immunity to currently recommended vaccines for patients with IBD and to COVID-19 vaccines and summarised the relevant literature.

RESULTS

Patients with IBD have reduced immune responses following vaccination compared to the general population. Factors including the use of immunomodulators and anti-TNF agents reduce response rates. Patients with IBD should be vaccinated against COVID-19 at the earliest opportunity as recommended by International Advisory Committees, and vaccination should not be deferred because a patient is receiving immune-modifying therapies. Antibody titres to COVID-19 vaccines appear to be reduced in patients receiving anti-TNF therapy, especially in combination with immunomodulators after one vaccination. Therefore, we should optimise any established risk factors that could impact response to vaccination in patients with IBD before vaccination.

CONCLUSIONS

Ideally, patients with IBD should be vaccinated at the earliest opportunity against COVID-19. Patients should be in remission and, if possible, have their corticosteroid dose minimised before vaccination. Further research is required to determine the impact of different biologics on vaccine response to COVID-19 and the potential for booster vaccines or heterologous prime-boost vaccinations in the IBD population.

Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline for Immunizations in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD)-Part 2: Inactivated Vaccines

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.

Accuracy of Self-Reported Vaccination Status in a Cohort of Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Prevention of vaccine-preventable diseases is important in the care of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Thus, accurate immunization histories are critical. Many providers rely on patient self-report when assessing immunization status. The primary aim of our study was to determine the accuracy of self-reported influenza vaccination status in a cohort of patients with IBD.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective study of patients with IBD who answered a vaccination status questionnaire and compared their responses to the Wisconsin Immunization Registry, a state-wide electronic immunization information system. The primary outcome was the sensitivity and specificity of self-reported influenza vaccination status. A secondary outcome evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of pneumococcal vaccination status.

RESULTS

A total of 200 patients with IBD were included in the study. Documented immunization rates were 74.5% for influenza vaccinations and 79.9% for pneumococcal vaccinations. Influenza vaccination self-report had a sensitivity of 98.7%, a specificity of 90.2%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 96.7% and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 95.8%. In comparison, the sensitivity for pneumococcal vaccination was 83.5% with a specificity of 86.2%, PPV of 96.4%, and NPV of 54.3%.

CONCLUSIONS

Self-reported influenza immunization status is sensitive and specific in patients with IBD. Accuracy for pneumococcal vaccination is slightly lower, but responses were notable for a high PPV. Self-report is an effective way to determine influenza immunization status and provides useful information for receipt of pneumococcal vaccine in patients with IBD.

Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline for Immunizations in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD)-Part 2: Inactivated Vaccines

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.

SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with inflammatory bowel disease

BACKGROUND

The current COVID-19 pandemic, caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), has drastically impacted societies worldwide. Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 is expected to play a key role in the management of this pandemic. Inflammatory conditions such as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) often require chronic immunosuppression, which can influence vaccination decisions.

AIM

This review article aims to describe the most commonly available SARS-CoV-2 vaccination vectors globally, assess the potential benefits and concerns of vaccination in the setting of immunosuppression and provide medical practitioners with guidance regarding SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with IBD.

METHODS

All published Phase 1/2 and/or Phase 3 and 4 studies of SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations were reviewed. IBD international society position papers, safety registry data and media releases from pharmaceutical companies as well as administrative and medicines regulatory bodies were included. General vaccine evidence and recommendations in immunosuppressed patients were reviewed for context. Society position papers regarding special populations, including immunosuppressed, pregnant and breast-feeding individuals were also evaluated. Literature was critically analysed and summarised.

RESULTS

Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 is supported in all adult, non-pregnant individuals with IBD without contraindication. There is the potential that vaccine efficacy may be reduced in those who are immunosuppressed; however, medical therapies should not be withheld in order to undertake vaccination. SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are safe, but data specific to immunosuppressed patients remain limited.

CONCLUSIONS

SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is essential from both an individual patient and community perspective and should be encouraged in patients with IBD. Recommendations must be continually updated as real-world and trial-based evidence emerges.

A Review of the Efficacy of Influenza Vaccination in Autoimmune Disease Patients

Patients suffering from autoimmune diseases appear to be at greater risk for developing infections with the influenza virus compared to healthy controls due to their immunosuppressive treatment, suggesting the importance of vaccination. Within this literature review, we highlight the importance, efficacy, and safety of influenza vaccination in individuals with autoimmune diseases, including systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), Sjogren syndrome (SS), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. Overall, vaccination is generally well tolerated by SLE patients and the literature recommends the inactivated influenza vaccine to SLE patients according to the recommendations and schedules for the general population and annually against seasonal influenza viruses. While the data are still unclear in patients with SS, there does seem to be a general consensus to vaccinate these individuals to prevent harmful risks of influenza disease. In patients with RA and IBD, vaccination efficacy with the inactivated influenza vaccine should be determined on a case-by-case basis, taking patient therapy into account. In light of the current pandemic and global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis, it is crucial to emphasize the safety and immunogenicity of influenza vaccination in vulnerable individuals suffering from autoimmune diseases. Public health measures are recommended to protect these individuals with vaccinations, keeping in mind the possibility of the multiple COVID-19 vaccines that are currently available.

SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination in IBD: Past Lessons, Current Evidence, and Future Challenges

Since the beginning of the pandemic, patients with inflammatory bowel diseases [IBD] have been considered at high risk for infection and complications of COVID-19. IBD patients and patients taking immunosuppressive therapy were excluded from clinical phase III vaccine trials, complicating the assessment of effectiveness of these new vaccines. From past experience we know that adapted vaccination strategies may be appropriate in some IBD patients to optimise immunogenicity. We review current evidence on SARS-CoV-2 vaccination relevant to IBD patients, including immune responses from humoral to cellular, emerging data on new variants, and off-label vaccination schemes. We also identify clinical and scientific knowledge gaps that can be translated into both large-scale population-based studies and targeted vaccine studies to describe the precise immune responses induced by SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in IBD patients. We strongly endorse the recommendation of vaccinating IBD patients to ensure maximal protection from COVID-19 both for the individual and the community.

What Do Influenza and COVID-19 Represent for Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease?

BACKGROUND

Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) are a group of immune and inflammatory diseases; and patients seem to be more vulnerable to influenza and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). These conditions are characterized by the augmented release of inflammatory cytokines that have been suggested as potential triggers for the acute respiratory distress syndrome, which may favor severe and even fatal outcomes. For these reasons, this review aims to evaluate what influenza and COVID-19 may represent for patients with IBD.

METHODS

The search was performed in MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed to build the review.

RESULTS

The conventional therapies used by IBD patients may also interfere in the outcomes of influenza and COVID-19. Immune-suppressors agents are associated with a higher risk of infections due to the inhibition of intracellular signals necessary to the host act against pathogens. On the other hand, drugs related to the suppression of the production of cytokines in IBD could bring benefits to reduce mucosal inflammation, and for preventing pneumonia. Moreover, coronaviruses can bind to the target cells through angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE-2) receptor that is expressed in epithelial cells of the lung and largely the colon and the terminal ileum suggesting that human intestinal tract could be an alternative route for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

CONCLUSIONS

Once the cytokine storm observed in influenza and COVID-19 is similar to the cytokine pattern observed in IBD patients during the disease flares, the advice is that avoiding the infections is still an optimal option for IBD subjects.

Influenza vaccination in immunocompromised populations: Strategies to improve immunogenicity

Immunocompromised individuals are at high risk of severe illness and complications from influenza infection. For this reason, immunization using inactivated influenza vaccines is recommended for transplant patients, individuals receiving immunosuppressant treatments, and other persons with immunodeficiency. However, these immunocompromised populations are more likely to have lower and non-protective responses to annual vaccination with a standard influenza vaccine. Here, we review strategies aimed to improve the immunogenicity of influenza vaccines in immunocompromised populations. The different strategies employed have included adjuvanted vaccines, high-dose vaccines, booster doses, intradermal vaccination, and temporary discontinuation of immunosuppressant treatment regimens. High-dose trivalent, inactivated, split-virus influenza vaccine (IIV3-HD) is so far one of the leading strategies for improving vaccine responses in HIV patients, transplant patients, and persons receiving immunosuppressant therapies for inflammatory diseases. Several studies in these populations have shown stronger humoral responses with IIV3-HD than existing standard-dose trivalent vaccine, and comparable safety. Accordingly, some scientific societies have stated that high-dose influenza vaccine could be a preferred option for immunocompromised patients. However, larger randomized controlled studies are needed to validate relative immunogenicity and safety of IIV3-HD and other enhanced vaccines and vaccination strategies in immunocompromised individuals.

Optimizing Immunization Strategies in Patients with IBD

Recent advances in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) include the use of immune modifiers and monoclonal antibodies, such as tumor necrosis factor (TNF) alpha inhibitors, anti-integrin agents, janus kinase inhibitors, and interleukin-12/23 inhibitors. These agents achieve higher rates of clinical remission and mucosal healing than conventional therapy. However, these therapies increase the risk of infections, including some vaccine-preventable diseases. Infections are one of the most common adverse event of immunosuppressive therapy. Thus, providers should optimize immunization strategies to reduce the risk of vaccine-preventable infections in patients with IBD. There are several newly licensed vaccines recommended for adults by the US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. This review will focus on how gastroenterology providers can implement the adult immunization schedule approved by ACIP for patients with IBD.

High Immunogenicity to Influenza Vaccination in Crohn's Disease Patients Treated with Ustekinumab

Influenza vaccination can be less effective in patients treated with immunosuppressive therapy. However, little is known about the effects of ustekinumab; an anti-IL-12/23 agent used to treat Crohn’s disease (CD), on vaccination response. In this prospective study, we assessed immune responses to seasonal influenza vaccination in CD patients treated with ustekinumab compared to CD patients treated with anti-TNFα therapy (adalimumab) and healthy controls. Humoral responses were assessed with hemagglutinin inhibition (HI) assays. Influenza-specific total CD3⁺, CD3⁺CD4⁺, and CD3⁺CD8⁺ T-cell responses were measured with flow cytometry. Fifteen patients treated with ustekinumab; 12 with adalimumab and 20 healthy controls were vaccinated for seasonal influenza in September 2018. Seroprotection rates against all vaccine strains in the ustekinumab group were high and comparable to healthy controls. Seroconversion rates were comparable, and for A/H3N2 highest in the ustekinumab group. HI titers were significantly higher in the ustekinumab group and healthy controls than in the adalimumab group for the B/Victoria strain. Post-vaccination T-cell responses in the ustekinumab group were similar to healthy controls. One-month post-vaccination proliferation of CD3⁺CD8⁺ T-cells was highest in the ustekinumab group. In conclusion, ustekinumab does not impair immune responses to inactivated influenza vaccination. Therefore, CD patients treated with ustekinumab can be effectively vaccinated for seasonal influenza.

Immunogenicity of High Dose Influenza Vaccine for Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease on Anti-TNF Monotherapy: A Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) on anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF) agents may have lower immune response to the influenza vaccine. We aimed to evaluate the immunogenicity of the high dose (HD) vs standard dose (SD) influenza vaccine in patients with IBD on anti-TNF monotherapy.

METHODS

We performed a randomized clinical trial at a single academic center evaluating the immunogenicity of the HD vs SD influenza vaccine in patients with IBD on anti-TNF monotherapy. Influenza antibody concentration was measured at immunization, at 2 to 4 weeks postimmunization, and at 6 months.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine patients with IBD were recruited into the study, 40 on anti-TNF monotherapy, and 19 on vedolizumab, along with 20 healthy controls (HC). Patients with IBD receiving the HD influenza vaccine had significantly higher H3N2 postimmunization antibodies compared with those who received the SD influenza vaccine (160 [interquartile range 80 to 320] vs 80 [interquartile range 40 to 160]; P = 0.003). The H1N1 postimmunization levels were not significantly higher in the HD influenza vaccine (320 [interquartile range 150 to 320] vs 160 [interquartile range 80 to 320]; P = 0.18). Patients with IBD receiving the HD influenza vaccine and those on vedolizumab who received SD had equivalent antibody concentrations to HC (H1N1 P = 0.85; H3N2 P = 0.23; B/Victoria P = 0.20 and H1N1 P = 0.46; H3N2 P = 0.21; B/Victoria P = 1.00, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with IBD on anti-TNF monotherapy receiving the HD influenza vaccine had significantly higher postimmunization antibody levels compared with SD vaccine. Clinicaltrials.gov (#NCT02461758).

Improved Antibody Response to Three Additional Hepatitis B Vaccine Doses Following Primary Vaccination Failure in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease

BACKGROUND

Studies have shown the efficacy of hepatitis B (HBV) vaccination in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is impaired, but few data exist regarding the effectiveness of revaccination strategies following primary vaccination failure. Our aim was to analyze the association between administration of additional vaccine doses and hepatitis B surface antibody (HBsAb) seroconversion.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study. Inclusion criteria are as follows: age ≥ 18, diagnosis of Crohn's disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC), inadequate HBsAb < 10 IU/L following initial HBV vaccination series, subsequent administration of 1-3 additional doses of HBV vaccine with follow-up serum HBsAb measurements. Patients were stratified into groups of ≤ 2 or 3 doses received. Primary outcome was achieving HBsAb > 10 IU/L. Outcomes were stratified by age ≥ or < 40 years. We performed logistic and linear multivariable regression analyses for categorical and continuous data.

RESULTS

The study cohort consists of (n = 149) 54.4% women; 77.9% white; 72.6% with CD, with mean age: 46.2. Patients of all ages and age ≥ 40 years, who received 3 additional doses of vaccine, were more likely to achieve seroprotective HBsAb levels than patients who received 1 or 2 doses (OR 1.77, P = 0.01; OR 1.9, P = 0.03, respectively, after adjusting for age, sex, race, immunosuppressive medication exposure, time between vaccine/titer).

CONCLUSIONS

Following initial HBV vaccination failure, patients with IBD of all ages are more likely to develop seroprotective levels of HBsAb following 3 additional vaccine doses, rather than 1 or 2 alone. In patients who fail primary HBV vaccination, providers should consider a more aggressive revaccination strategy with an additional 3-dose series.

Seasonal influenza vaccines induced high levels of neutralizing cross-reactive antibody responses against different genetic group influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 viruses

Influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 viruses have been circulating throughout the world since the 2009 pandemic. A/California/07/2009 (H1N1) virus was included in seasonal influenza vaccines for seven years altogether, providing a great opportunity to analyse vaccine-induced immunity in relation to the postpandemic evolution of the A(H1N1)pdm09 virus. Serum antibodies against various epidemic strains of influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 viruses were measured among health care workers (HCWs) by haemagglutination inhibition and microneutralization tests before and after 2010 and 2012 seasonal influenza vaccinations. We detected high responses of vaccine-induced neutralizing antibodies to six distinct genetic groups. Our results indicate antigenic similarity between vaccine and circulating A(H1N1)pdm09 strains, and substantial vaccine-induced immunity against circulating epidemic viruses.

Management of elderly ulcerative colitis in Japan

Japan has the largest aging society, where many elderly people have intractable diseases including ulcerative colitis (UC). Along with the increasing total number of UC patients, the number of elderly UC patients has also been increasing and will continue to do so in the future. Although the clinical features and natural history of UC in the elderly have many similarities with UC in the non-elderly population, age-specific concerns including comorbidities, immunological dysfunction, and polypharmacy make the diagnosis and management of elderly UC challenging compared to UC in non-elderly patients. Based on increasing data related to elderly UC patients from Japan, as well as other countries, we reviewed the epidemiology, clinical course, differential diagnosis, management of comorbidities, surveillance, medical therapy, and surgery of UC in the elderly.

The risk for opportunistic infections in inflammatory bowel disease with biologics: an update

Crohn's disease and Ulcerative Colitis are forms of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), chronic diseases treated with medical and surgical therapy. Patients with IBD are treated with potent immunomodulatory agents, leading to immunosuppression, and the potential for opportunistic infections. In 2014, the ECCO guidelines were released to guide the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of a variety of these opportunistic infections. Since 2014, there have been a number of new agents released as well as a significant expansion in our knowledge of the safety profile of IBD medications. In this article, we review the literature after 2014 regarding opportunistic infections and updates on safety data. Areas covered: We review updates in immunomodulatory therapies for IBD and opportunistic infections since the 2014 ECCO guidelines were published. Expert commentary: The prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of opportunistic infections continue to evolve, as new drugs are approved, and the use of a combination of biologic agents are considered for therapy in clinical trials. What causes some patients to fail to respond to vaccination, or for others to develop severe infections, remains unclear. Improved risk stratification for opportunistic infections in IBD patients and updated ECCO 2014 guidelines would be of significant benefit.

Update on Vaccinating the Patient With Inflammatory Bowel Disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are at increased risk of infectious diseases independent of their immunosuppression status, and yet, studies suggest that this population is not receiving standard vaccinations at the same rate as the general population. This review seeks to understand why IBD patients may not be receiving recommended immunizations and to provide guidelines on vaccinating this vulnerable population.

RECENT FINDINGS

Inactive vaccines are recommended for patients with IBD regardless of immunosuppression status due to the increased risk for many vaccine-preventable illnesses. Certain live vaccines can be administered to the immunocompromised patient with IBD. Additionally, many patients with IBD will be immunosuppressed some time in their disease course, further increasing their risk for infection. Despite this understanding, patients with IBD have poor vaccination rates. Inadequate knowledge, limited time with patients, and lack of consensus as to who is responsible for identifying and administering vaccinations are some of the most important barriers to vaccinating the patient with IBD. In this review, we discuss guidelines for vaccinating both the immunocompetent and immunosuppressed patient with IBD as well as provide vaccine-specific recommendations. The evidence suggests that patients with IBD are not receiving recommended vaccinations because of misconceptions on the part of patients as well as a paucity of knowledge by their health care team. Educational programs can be successfully implemented to increase knowledge about appropriate vaccinations and can ultimately increase vaccine uptake among patients with IBD. In the end, gastroenterologists and primary care physicians must work together with their patients with IBD to ensure that recommended vaccinations are administered.

Immunogenicity of Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccine for Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease Undergoing Immunosuppressive Therapy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

No reports have described the immunogenicity and boosting effect of the quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (QIV) in adults with inflammatory bowel disease.

METHODS

Adults with Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis were randomly assigned to a single vaccination group or booster group, and a QIV was administered subcutaneously. Serum samples were collected before vaccination, 4 weeks after vaccination, and after the influenza season in the single vaccination group. In the booster group, serum samples were taken before vaccination, 4 weeks after the first vaccination, 4 weeks after the second vaccination, and after the influenza season. We measured hemagglutination inhibition antibody (HAI) titer and calculated the geometric mean titer ratio (GMTR), seroprotection rate, and seroconversion rate.

RESULTS

In total, 132 patients were enrolled. Twenty-two patients received immunomodulatory monotherapy and 16 received anti-tumor necrosis factor-α (anti-TNF-α) single-agent therapy. Fifteen patients received combination therapy comprising an immunosuppressant and anti-TNF-α agent. Each vaccine strain showed immunogenicity satisfying the European Medicines Agency criteria with a single inoculation. The booster influenza vaccination did not induce additional response. In patients administered infliximab, the seroprotection rate and seroconversion rate tended to be lower in patients who maintained blood concentrations [seroprotection rate: H1N1: OR, 0.37 (95% CI, 0.11-1.21); H3N2: 0.22 (0.07-0.68); seroconversion rate: H1N1: 0.23 (0.06-0.91); H3N2: 0.19 (0.06-0.56)].

CONCLUSION

Single dose QIV showed sufficient immunogenicity in patients with inflammatory bowel disease, and a boost in immunization by additional vaccination was not obtained. Additionally, immunogenicity was low in patients receiving infliximab therapy.

Seasonal influenza vaccine in immunocompromised persons

Immunocompromised persons are at high risk of complications from influenza infection. This population includes those with solid organ transplants, hematopoietic stem cell transplants, solid cancers and hematologic malignancy as well as those with autoimmune conditions receiving biologic therapies. In this review, we discuss the impact of influenza infection and evidence for vaccine effectiveness and immunogenicity. Overall, lower respiratory disease from influenza is common; however, vaccine immunogenicity is low. Despite this, in some populations, influenza vaccine has demonstrated effectiveness in reducing severe disease. Various strategies to improve influenza vaccine immunogenicity have been attempted including two vaccine doses in the same influenza season, intradermal, adjuvanted, and high-dose vaccines. The timing of influenza vaccine is also important to achieve optimal immunogenicity. Given the suboptimal immunogenicity, family members and healthcare professionals involved in the care of these populations should be vaccinated. Health care professional recommendation for vaccination is an important factor in vaccine coverage.