Effect of Immunosuppressive Therapies for the Treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Disease on Response to Routine Vaccinations: A Meta-Analysis

Efficacy of Vaccination and Revaccination Against Hepatitis B Virus Using 2 Different Strategies in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease

BACKGROUND

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) exhibit an increased risk for acquiring hepatitis B virus (HBV), thus they should be vaccinated preferably, if not already infected or immunized. We assessed the efficacy of HBV vaccination in IBD patients and impact of different factors on the immune response. We also evaluated the success rate of 2 different revaccination strategies in the nonresponders.

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational cohort study carried out in 5 tertiary centers. All patients were tested for hepatitis B surface antigen, antibodies against hepatitis B surface antigen (anti-HBs), and antibodies against hepatitis B core antigen. Patients tested negative and underwent the standard schedule with 20 µg at 0, 1, and 6 months. Nonresponders (anti-HBs <10 IU/L) were offered a revaccination scheme with either 3 doses of 40 µg at 0, 1, and 6 months or an accelerated scheme with 20 µg at 0, 1, and 2 months.

RESULTS

A total of 409 patients were included, and 273 (66.7%) of those (females: 49.5%; Crohn's disease [CD]: 56.7%) responded to baseline vaccination. A total of 189 (69.2%) of 273 (females: 48.1%; CD: 60.3%) developed anti-HBs >100 IU/L. Body mass index <30 kg/m2 (P = .017) was positively associated, while diagnosis of CD (P = .013), extensive UC (P <.0001), extraintestinal manifestations (P = .001), and treatment with immunomodulators/anti-tumor necrosis factor (P < .00) negatively affected the response. Revaccination was offered to 103 patients, and 58.3% of them achieved anti-HBs >10 IU/L. Both revaccination strategies were equally effective.

CONCLUSIONS

IBD patients demonstrate lower response to HBV vaccination compared with the general population. Age, body mass index, type, disease activity, and immunosuppression negatively affect the response. Half of nonresponders may benefit from an enhanced revaccination attempt.

Saffron as a Promising Therapy for Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a chronic inflammatory illness of the gastrointestinal tract (GI), characterized by recurrent episodes of inflammation and tissue destruction. It affects an increasing number of individuals worldwide who suffer from Crohn's disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC). Despite substantial advances in understanding the underlying causes of IBD, the available treatments remain restricted and are sometimes accompanied by severe consequences. Consequently, there is an urgent need to study alternate therapeutic options. This review assesses the present drugs, identifies their limitations, and proposes the use of saffron, a natural plant with great therapeutic potential based on preclinical and clinical investigations. Saffron has gained attention for its potential therapeutic benefits in treating various ailments due to its established bioactive compounds possessing antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties. This review covers how saffron impacts the levels of calprotectin, an inflammatory marker, for various inflammatory responses in multiple diseases including IBD. Data from clinical trials were assessed to determine the efficacy and safety of using saffron to counter inflammation in multiple diseases. Studies have shown that saffron may protect against inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) through several mechanisms by inhibiting pro-inflammatory cytokines (TNF-α, IL-1β, and IL-6), reducing oxidative stress through antioxidant effects, enhancing mucosal barrier function by upregulating tight junction proteins, and modulating the gut microbiota composition to promote beneficial bacteria while suppressing pathogenic ones; these combined actions contribute to its therapeutic potential in managing and alleviating the symptoms of IBD. This will enable future research endeavors and expedite the translation of saffron-based interventions into clinical practice as a valuable adjunctive therapy or a potential alternative to conventional treatments, thereby enhancing the quality of life for individuals suffering from inflammatory diseases including IBD.

Serological responses to vaccination in children exposed in utero to ustekinumab or vedolizumab: cross-sectional analysis of a prospective multicentre cohort

Evidence on serological responses to vaccination in children exposed to ustekinumab (UST) or vedolizumab (VDZ) in utero is lacking. This multicentre prospective study aimed to assess the impact of prenatal exposure to UST or VDZ due to maternal inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) on serological responses to vaccination and other immunological parameters in exposed children. Children aged ≥ 1 year who were exposed in utero to UST or VDZ and completed at least 1-year of mandatory vaccination were included. We assessed the serological response to vaccination (non-live: tetanus, diphtheria, and Haemophilus influenzae B; live: mumps, rubella, and measles), whole blood count, and immunoglobulin levels. The control group comprised unexposed children born to mothers without IBD. A total of 23 children (median age, 25 months) exposed to UST (n = 13) or VDZ (n = 10) and 10 controls (median age, 37 months) were included. The serological response to vaccination was comparable between the UST and VDZ groups and controls, with an adequate serological response rate of ≥ 80%. Only children exposed to UST showed a slightly reduced serological response to mumps (67% vs. 86% in controls), whereas all children exposed to VDZ showed an adequate response. The majority of the exposed children had normal levels of individual immunoglobulin classes, similar to the controls. No severe pathology was observed in any of the children.Conclusion: Despite the limited sample size, our findings suggest that in utero exposure to VDZ or UST does not significantly impair the vaccine response or broader immunological parameters in exposed children.

Uptake, safety and effectiveness of inactivated influenza vaccine in inflammatory bowel disease: a UK-wide study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate (1) the UK-wide inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) uptake in adults with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), (2) the association between vaccination against influenza and IBD flare and (3) the effectiveness of IIV in preventing morbidity and mortality.

DESIGN

Data for adults with IBD diagnosed before the 1 September 2018 were extracted from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Gold. We calculated the proportion of people vaccinated against seasonal influenza in the 2018-2019 influenza cycle. To investigate vaccine effectiveness, we calculated the propensity score (PS) for vaccination and conducted Cox proportional hazard regression with inverse-probability treatment weighting on PS. We employed self-controlled case series analysis to investigate the association between vaccination and IBD flare.

RESULTS

Data for 13 631 people with IBD (50.4% male, mean age 52.9 years) were included. Fifty percent were vaccinated during the influenza cycle, while 32.1% were vaccinated on time, that is, before the seasonal influenza virus circulated in the community. IIV was associated with reduced all-cause mortality (aHR (95% CI): 0.73 (0.55,0.97) but not hospitalisation for pneumonia (aHR (95% CI) 0.52 (0.20-1.37), including in the influenza active period (aHR (95% CI) 0.48 (0.18-1.27)). Administration of the IIV was not associated with IBD flare.

CONCLUSION

The uptake of influenza vaccine was low in people with IBD, and the majority were not vaccinated before influenza virus circulated in the community. Vaccination with the IIV was not associated with IBD flare. These findings add to the evidence to promote vaccination against influenza in people with IBD.

mRNA-1273 vaccinated inflammatory bowel disease patients receiving TNF inhibitors develop broad and robust SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8+ T cell responses

SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8+ T cells recognize conserved viral peptides and in the absence of cross-reactive antibodies form an important line of protection against emerging viral variants as they ameliorate disease severity. SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines induce robust spike-specific antibody and T cell responses in healthy individuals, but their effectiveness in patients with chronic immune-mediated inflammatory disorders (IMIDs) is less well defined. These patients are often treated with systemic immunosuppressants, which may negatively affect vaccine-induced immunity. Indeed, TNF inhibitor (TNFi)-treated inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients display reduced ability to maintain SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses post-vaccination, yet the effects on CD8+ T cells remain unclear. Here, we analyzed the impact of IBD and TNFi treatment on mRNA-1273 vaccine-induced CD8+ T cell responses compared to healthy controls in SARS-CoV-2 experienced and inexperienced patients. CD8+ T cells were analyzed for their ability to recognize 32 SARS-CoV-2-specific epitopes, restricted by 10 common HLA class I allotypes using heterotetramer combinatorial coding. This strategy allowed in-depth ex vivo profiling of the vaccine-induced CD8+ T cell responses using phenotypic and activation markers. mRNA vaccination of TNFi-treated and untreated IBD patients induced robust spike-specific CD8+ T cell responses with a predominant central memory and activated phenotype, comparable to those in healthy controls. Prominent non-spike-specific CD8+ T cell responses were observed in SARS-CoV-2 experienced donors prior to vaccination. Non-spike-specific CD8+ T cells persisted and spike-specific CD8+ T cells notably expanded after vaccination in these patient cohorts. Our data demonstrate that regardless of TNFi treatment or prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, IBD patients benefit from vaccination by inducing a robust spike-specific CD8+ T cell response.

Efficacy of Hepatitis B Vaccination with a Novel Immunostimulatory Sequence Adjuvant (Heplisav-B) in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease

BACKGROUND

Owing to the use of immunosuppressive agents, patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have an increased risk of vaccine preventable diseases, including infection with hepatitis B virus (HBV). Heplisav-B, an FDA-approved vaccine, is more effective (90% to 100%) than Engerix-B (70.5% to 90.2%) at inducing immunity to HBV in clinical studies. Available data on efficacy of Heplisav-B vaccine in patients with IBD are limited.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study included patients age 18 years and older with ulcerative colitis (UC) or Crohn's disease (CD) who received 1 or 2 doses of Heplisav-B vaccine and had postvaccination serologic testing. Prior to immunization, all participants were seronegative for HBsAb antibodies (HBsAb) measured as <10 IU/mL. Postvaccination HBsAb of ≥10 IU/mL was considered successful vaccination. Patient demographics, disease characteristics, and medications were abstracted.

RESULTS

One hundred six patients were included in the analysis. Median age was 43 years, and 44 (42%) were female. Thirty-nine patients (37%) had UC, whereas 67 (63%) had CD. Eighty-three patients (78.3%) had active immunity after vaccination with Heplisav-B, with median postvaccination HBsAb levels of 114 IU/L. Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, diabetes mellitus, immunomodulator use, or those on 2 or more of immunosuppressive medications were less likely to respond to Heplisav-B, though these findings were not statistically significant on a multivariate analysis aside from chronic kidney disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Heplisav-B, a 2-dose vaccine, is an effective vaccine for HBV in patients with IBD. In our study, its overall efficacy (78.3%) is greater than that reported for the presently available 3-dose vaccination (Engerix) in patients with IBD.

The Burden of Vaccine-preventable Diseases in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease

BACKGROUND

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are at an increased risk of infections, including vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs). The aim of this study was to explore the inpatient prevalence of VPD in patients with IBD, as well as inpatient outcomes.

METHODS

Retrospective study using the 2013-2017 Nationwide Inpatient Sample databases. All patients 18 years of age or older with International Classification of Diseases, Ninth and 10th Revisions , Clinical Modification (ICD-9/10 CM) codes for IBD were included, as well as patients with VPDs as a principal diagnostic code. The primary outcome was the occurrence and odds of VPD in patients with IBD compared with patients with no IBD. Secondary outcomes were inpatient mortality, morbidity, and economic burden compared with patients with IBD and non-vaccine-preventable infections (VPIs). Multivariate regression yielded adjusted odds ratios.

RESULTS

Of 1,622,245 (0.9%) patients with a diagnosis of IBD, 3560 (0.2%) had associated VPDs, while 131,150 patients had non-VPI (8.1%). The most common VPDs were influenza, herpes zoster (HZ), pneumococcal pneumonia, and varicella. Only HZ and varicella had increased odds of occurrence in patients with IBD of all ages. Patients with IBD 65 years of age or older had increased odds of VPD compared with patients under 65 years. Patients with IBD and associated VPD had higher odds of intensive care unit stay, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, and multiorgan failure compared with patients with IBD and non-VPI.

CONCLUSIONS

VPDs represent a clinically relevant cause of infectious disease-related hospital admissions in patients with IBD. Patients with IBD are at increased risk for hospitalization due to HZ and varicella. Those hospitalized for VPD have higher morbidity compared with patients with IBD and non-VPI. These findings echo the importance of instituting optimal immunization schedules in patients with IBD, particularly in patients 65 years or older.

Impact of Cirrhosis on Outcomes in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Hospitalizations

BACKGROUND

Evidence regarding outcomes in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) hospitalizations with coexisting cirrhosis is scant. We queried the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database to evaluate the impact of cirrhosis on hospitalization characteristics and outcomes in patients with Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis.

METHODS

All admissions that listed IBD as a primary diagnosis by ICD-10-CM code (K50.X for Crohn's disease and K51.X for ulcerative colitis) in the NIS for 2016 and 2017 were included. Attributes of admissions with cirrhosis (K74.XX, 70.3, 78.81, and 71.7) were compared with noncirrhosis IBD admissions. The primary outcome was inpatient mortality. Length of stay and total hospital charges comprised secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

A total weighted sample of 276,430 IBD admissions were identified, including 4615 with a concomitant diagnosis of cirrhosis. In a multivariate model, after adjusting for comorbidities, age, alimentary surgery during the admission and hospital type (teaching, urban nonteaching or rural), the presence of cirrhosis was associated with a higher inpatient mortality [odds ratio: 1.57; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.16-2.15] and increased cost of admission (mean difference $11,651; 95% CI: 3830-19,472). No difference was noted in length of stay (difference: 0.44 d; 95% CI: -0.12-1.02) among these groups. Among admission diagnoses, infectious complications were the primary cause of death in 93.3% (95% CI: 87.1%-99.5%) of all inpatient mortality in the IBD with cirrhosis cohort as compared with 80.1% (95% CI: 77.6%-82.7%) of the mortality among IBD patients without cirrhosis ( P =0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that the presence of cirrhosis has an independent negative impact on outcomes for hospitalized patients with IBD as reflected by increased in-hospital mortality and higher cost of admission. A majority of the mortality was attributable to infections.

Humoral responses after second and third SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory disorders on immunosuppressants: a cohort study

Background

Disease-specific studies have reported impaired humoral responses after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory disorders treated with specific immunosuppressants. Disease-overarching studies, and data on recall responses and third vaccinations are scarce. Our primary objective was to investigate the effects of immunosuppressive monotherapies on the humoral immune response after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with prevalent immune-mediated inflammatory disorders.

Methods

We did a cohort study in participants treated in outpatient clinics in seven university hospitals and one rheumatology treatment centre in the Netherlands as well as participants included in two national cohort studies on COVID-19-related disease severity. We included patients aged older than 18 years, diagnosed with any of the prespecified immune-mediated inflammatory disorders, who were able to understand and complete questionnaires in Dutch. Participants with immune-mediated inflammatory disorders who were not on systemic immunosuppressants and healthy participants were included as controls. Anti-receptor binding domain IgG responses and neutralisation capacity were monitored following standard vaccination regimens and a three-vaccination regimen in subgroups. Hybrid immune responses—ie, vaccination after previous SARS-CoV-2 infection—were studied as a proxy for recall responses.

Findings

Between Feb 2 and Aug 1, 2021, we included 3222 participants in our cohort. Sera from 2339 participants, 1869 without and 470 participants with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection were analysed (mean age 49·9 years [SD 13·7]; 1470 [62·8%] females and 869 [37·2%] males). Humoral responses did not differ between disorders. Anti-CD20 therapy, sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor (S1P) modulators, and mycophenolate mofetil combined with corticosteroids were associated with lower relative risks for reaching seroconversion following standard vaccination (0·32 [95% CI 0·19–0·49] for anti-CD20 therapy, 0·35 [0·21–0·55] for S1P modulators, and 0·61 [0·40–0·90] for mycophenolate mofetil combined with corticosteroids). A third vaccination increased seroconversion for mycophenolate mofetil combination treatments (from 52·6% after the second vaccination to 89·5% after the third) but not significantly for anti-CD20 therapies (from 36·8% to 45·6%) and S1P modulators (from 35·5% to 48·4%). Most other immunosuppressant groups showed moderately reduced antibody titres after standard vaccination that did not increase after a third vaccination, although seroconversion rates and neutralisation capacity were unaffected. In participants with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were boosted after vaccination, regardless of immunosuppressive treatment.

Interpretation

Humoral responses following vaccination are impaired by specific immunosuppressants. After standard vaccination regimens, patients with immune-mediated inflammatory disorders taking most immunosuppressants show similar seroconversion to controls, although antibody titres might be moderately reduced. As neutralisation capacity and recall responses are also preserved in these patients, this is not likely to translate to loss of (short-term) protection. In patients on immunosuppressants showing poor humoral responses after standard vaccination regimens, a third vaccination resulted in additional seroconversion in patients taking mycophenolate mofetil combination treatments, whereas the effect of a third vaccination in patients on anti-CD20 therapy and S1P modulators was limited.

Funding

ZonMw (The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development).

Meta-analysis: hepatitis B vaccination in inflammatory bowel disease

BACKGROUND

The response rate of hepatitis B virus (HBV) vaccination in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is variable. Increasing dose or accelerated schedule is the suggested strategy to improve seroconversion.

AIM

We performed a meta-analysis to determine the pooled response rate of HBV vaccination and to identify the predictors of seroconversion.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library databases. Studies reporting the response of HBV vaccination in IBD patients were included. Response was recorded as adequate immune response (AIR, >10 IU/L) and Effective immune response (EIR, >100 IU/L). Pooled AIR and EIR rates were calculated for different doses (10-20 μg or 40 μg) and schedules (standard: 0, 1 and 6 months or accelerated: 0, 1 and 2 months). Meta-analysis was performed to identify the predictors of response.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies including 2602 patients were eligible. Pooled AIR and EIR rates after HBV vaccination were 62% (95% CI, 55-68) and 42% (95% CI, 37-48), respectively. Pooled AIR and EIR rates for standard and double dose were similar. Pooled AIR and EIR rates were also comparable for different schedules of HBV vaccination. Gender, IBD subtype and disease activity did not affect the response rate. Use of immunosuppression [immunomodulators (RR: 0.73, 95% CI, 0.62-0.87) and anti-TNFs (RR: 0.72, 95% CI, 0.60-0.87)] was a predictor of poor immune response compared to no immunosuppressive therapy.

CONCLUSION

Patients with IBD have a poor serological response after HBV vaccination. HBV screening and vaccination should preferably be done before starting the immunosuppressive drugs.

Evaluating the antibody response to SARS-COV-2 vaccination amongst kidney transplant recipients at a single nephrology centre

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Kidney transplant recipients are highly vulnerable to the serious complications of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) infections and thus stand to benefit from vaccination. Therefore, it is necessary to establish the effectiveness of available vaccines as this group of patients was not represented in the randomized trials.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

A total of 707 consecutive adult kidney transplant recipients in a single center in the United Kingdom were evaluated. 373 were confirmed to have received two doses of either the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) or AZD1222 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) and subsequently had SARS-COV-2 antibody testing were included in the final analysis. Participants were excluded from the analysis if they had a previous history of SARS-COV-2 infection or were seropositive for SARS-COV-2 antibody pre-vaccination. Multivariate and propensity score analyses were performed to identify the predictors of antibody response to SARS-COV-2 vaccines. The primary outcome was seroconversion rates following two vaccine doses.

RESULTS

Antibody responders were 56.8% (212/373) and non-responders 43.2% (161/373). Antibody response was associated with greater estimated glomerular filtration (eGFR) rate [odds ratio (OR), for every 10 ml/min/1.73m2 = 1.40 (1.19-1.66), P<0.001] whereas, non-response was associated with mycophenolic acid immunosuppression [OR, 0.02(0.01-0.11), p<0.001] and increasing age [OR per 10year increase, 0.61(0.48-0.78), p<0.001]. In the propensity-score analysis of four treatment variables (vaccine type, mycophenolic acid, corticosteroid, and triple immunosuppression), only mycophenolic acid was significantly associated with vaccine response [adjusted OR by PSA 0.17 (0.07-0.41): p<0.001]. 22 SARS-COV-2 infections were recorded in our cohort following vaccination. 17(77%) infections, with 3 deaths, occurred in the non-responder group. No death occurred in the responder group.

CONCLUSION

Vaccine response in allograft recipients after two doses of SARS-COV-2 vaccine is poor compared to the general population. Maintenance with mycophenolic acid appears to have the strongest negative impact on vaccine response.

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.

Vaccinations in patients with inflammatory bowel disease

Treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) frequently requires administration of immunosuppressive therapies, which increases susceptibility to a number of infectious pathogens. However, many infections can be prevented by correct and appropriate utilization of vaccinations. While several guidelines have been published on vaccination schedules in patients with IBD, vaccination rates remain suboptimal and even lower than those in the general population. This is due to many factors including poor awareness of the importance of vaccines by gastroenterologists and general practitioners as well as potential prejudices of patients regarding the safety and benefits of vaccines. With the aim of increasing awareness about the key role of immunization in the management of patients with IBD, the present review examines the existing literature relating to the main vaccinations and their application in these patients. We also summarize current evidence in order to provide clinicians with an easy source of reference for the principal recommendations for prevention of infectious diseases in patients with IBD. In addition, the recommendations about traveling for IBD patients are briefly explored. Lastly, since it is important for gastroenterologists to be aware of recommendations on vaccination, we recommend implementing educational programs to ensure compliance with current guidelines.

Risk of Vaccine-Preventable Infections in Swiss Adults with Inflammatory Bowel Disease

BACKGROUND

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have a higher risk of infection and are frequently not up to date with their immunizations.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to review vaccination status and evaluate whether age, disease type, or treatment regimen could predict the absence of seroprotection against selected vaccine-preventable infection in adults with IBD.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study using questionnaire, immunization records review, and assessment of tetanus-specific, varicella-specific, and measles-specific immunoglobulin G concentrations. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01908283.

RESULTS

Among the 306 adults assessed (median age 42.7 years old, 70% with Crohn's disease, 78% receiving immunosuppressive treatment), only 33% had an immunization record available. Absence of seroprotection against tetanus (6%) was associated with increasing age and absence of booster dose; absence of seroprotection against varicella (1%) or measles (3%) was exclusively observed in younger patients with Crohn's disease. There was no statistically significant difference in immunoglobulin concentrations among treatment groups. Although vaccinations are strongly recommended in IBD patients, the frequencies of participants with at least 1 dose of vaccine recorded were low for nearly all antigens: tetanus 94%, diphtheria 87%, pertussis 54%, poliovirus 22%, measles-mumps-rubella 47%, varicella-zoster 0%, Streptococcus pneumoniae 5%, Neisseria meningitidis 12%, hepatitis A 41%, hepatitis B 48%, human papillomavirus 5%, and tick-borne encephalitis 6%.

CONCLUSIONS

Although many guidelines recommend the vaccination of IBD patients, disease prevention through immunization is still often overlooked, including in Switzerland, increasing their risk of vaccine-preventable diseases. Serological testing should be standardized to monitor patients' protection during follow-up as immunity may wane faster in this population.

Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline for Immunizations in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD)-Part 1: Live Vaccines

Background & Aims

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) may be at increased risk of some vaccine-preventable diseases. The effectiveness and safety of vaccinations may be altered by immunosuppressive therapies or 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 patients with inflammatory bowel disease. This publication focused on live 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 process and voted on by a multidisciplinary panel. 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

Three good practice statements included reviewing a patient’s vaccination status at diagnosis and at regular intervals, giving appropriate vaccinations as soon as possible, and not delaying urgently needed immunosuppressive therapy to provide vaccinations. There are 4 recommendations on the use of live vaccines. Measles, mumps, rubella vaccine is recommended for both adult and pediatric patients with IBD not on immunosuppressive therapy, but not for those using immunosuppressive medications (conditional). Varicella vaccine is recommended for pediatric patients with IBD not on immunosuppressive therapy, but not for those using immunosuppressive medications (conditional). For adults, recommendations are conditionally in favor of varicella vaccine for those not on immunosuppressive therapy, and against for those on therapy. No recommendation was made regarding the use of live vaccines in infants born to mothers using biologics because the desirable and undesirable effects were closely balanced and the evidence was insufficient.

Conclusions

Maintaining appropriate vaccination status in patients with IBD is critical to optimize patient outcomes. In general, live vaccines are recommended in patients not on immunosuppressive therapy, but not for those using immunosuppressive medications. Additional studies are needed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of live vaccines in patients on immunosuppressive therapy.

Immunogenicity of cholera vaccination in children with inflammatory bowel disease

The cholera vaccine can protect patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) against both cholera and travelers' diarrhea. However, both immunosuppressive treatment and IBD can affect its vaccine immunogenicity. The aim of this study was to assess the immunogenicity and safety of the cholera vaccine in children with IBD. Children older than 6 years with diagnosed IBD were enrolled in this multicenter study. All patients were administered two doses of the oral cholera vaccine (Dukoral®). Anti-cholera toxin B subunit IgA and IgG seroconversion rates were evaluated in a group with immunosuppressive (IS) treatment and a group without IS treatment (NIS). Immunogenicity was assessed in 70 children, 79% of whom received IS treatment. Post-vaccination seroconversion was displayed by 33% of children, for IgA, and 70% of children, for IgG. No statistically significant differences were found in the immune responses between the IS and NIS groups: 35% vs. 27% (p = .90), for IgA, and 68% vs. 80.0% (p = .16), for IgG, respectively. One case of IBD exacerbation after vaccination was reported. The oral cholera vaccine is safe. The immunogenicity of the oral cholera vaccine in children with IBD was lower than previously observed in healthy ones. The treatment type does not seem to affect the vaccine immunogenicity.

Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline for Immunizations in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD)-Part 1: Live Vaccines

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) may be at increased risk of some vaccine-preventable diseases. The effectiveness and safety of vaccinations may be altered by immunosuppressive therapies or 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 live 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 process and voted on by a multidisciplinary panel. 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

Three good practice statements included reviewing a patient's vaccination status at diagnosis and at regular intervals, giving appropriate vaccinations as soon as possible, and not delaying urgently needed immunosuppressive therapy to provide vaccinations. There are 4 recommendations on the use of live vaccines. Measles, mumps, rubella vaccine is recommended for both adult and pediatric patients with IBD not on immunosuppressive therapy, but not for those using immunosuppressive medications (conditional). Varicella vaccine is recommended for pediatric patients with IBD not on immunosuppressive therapy, but not for those using immunosuppressive medications (conditional). For adults, recommendations are conditionally in favor of varicella vaccine for those not on immunosuppressive therapy, and against for those on therapy. No recommendation was made regarding the use of live vaccines in infants born to mothers using biologics because the desirable and undesirable effects were closely balanced and the evidence was insufficient.

CONCLUSIONS

Maintaining appropriate vaccination status in patients with IBD is critical to optimize patient outcomes. In general, live vaccines are recommended in patients not on immunosuppressive therapy, but not for those using immunosuppressive medications. Additional studies are needed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of live vaccines in patients on immunosuppressive therapy.

A Review of Vaccinations in Adult Patients with Secondary Immunodeficiency

Vaccine-preventable diseases and their related complications are associated with increased morbidity and mortality in patients with altered immunocompetence. Optimised immunisation in this patient population is challenging because of limited data from vaccine trials, suboptimal vaccine efficacy and safety concerns. Reliable efficacy data are lacking among patients with altered immunocompetence, and existing recommendations are mainly based on expert consensus and may vary geographically. Inactivated vaccines can be generally used without risks in this group, but their efficacy may be reduced, and immunisation schedules vary according to local guidelines, age, and type and stage of the underlying disease. Live vaccines, if indicated, should be administered with care because of the risk of vaccine-associated disease. We have reviewed the current evidence on vaccination principles and recommendations in adult patients with secondary immunodeficiencies, including asplenia, HIV infection, stem cell and solid organ transplant, haematological malignancies, inflammatory bowel disease and other chronic disorders.

Health Maintenance in Patients with Ulcerative Colitis

Medical care for individuals with ulcerative colitis (UC) has become increasingly subspecialized, and this population presents unique challenges in the delivery of care. Most points of contact are with gastroenterology subspecialty clinics, and primary care providers have shown concern and unfamiliarity about managing these individuals. Gastroenterology subspecialists need to be comfortable discussing the unique preventive care needs of patients with UC, tailored to specific recommendations based on their demographics and current medication usage. This article reviews pertinent topics in preventive care for individuals with UC to provide a framework for gastroenterology subspecialists to be able to provide patient-centered care.

Fendrix vs Engerix-B for Primo-Vaccination Against Hepatitis B Infection in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Randomized Clinical Trial

INTRODUCTION

To compare Engerix-B and Fendrix hepatitis B virus for primo vaccination in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

METHODS

Patients with IBD were randomized 1:1 to receive Engerix-B double dose or Fendrix single dose at months 0, 1, 2, and 6. Anti-HBs titers were measured 2 months after the third and fourth doses. Response to vaccination was defined as anti-HBs ≥100 UI/L. Anti-HBs titers were measured 2 months after the third and fourth doses and again at 6 and 12 months after the fourth dose.

RESULTS

A total of 173 patients were randomized (54% received Engerix-B and 46% Fendrix). Overall, 45% of patients responded (anti-HBs ≥100 IU/L) after 3 doses and 71% after the fourth dose. The response rate after the fourth dose was 75% with Fendrix vs 68% with Engerix-B (P = 0.3). Older age and treatment with steroids, immunomodulators, or anti-tumor necrosis factor were associated with a lower probability of response. However, the type of vaccine was not associated with the response. Anti-HBs titer negativization occurred in 13% of patients after 6 months and 20% after 12 months. Anti-HBs ≥100 IU/L after vaccination was the only factor associated with maintaining anti-HBs titers during follow-up.

DISCUSSION

We could not demonstrate a higher response rate of Fendrix (single dose) over Engerix-B (double dose). A 4-dose schedule is more effective than a 3-dose regimen. Older age and treatment with immunomodulators or anti-tumor necrosis factors impaired the success. A high proportion of IBD patients with protective anti-HBs titers after vaccination loose them over time. The risk of losing protective anti-HBs titers is increased in patients achieving anti-HBs <100 IU/L after the vaccination.

Immune Response to Vaccination in Children and Young People With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess immune response to vaccination in children and young people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). In patients with IBDs, both the disease itself and its treatment can affect the vaccine response.

METHODS

Medical databases were searched for relevant studies and statistical analysis was performed. As a result, 20 publications were included in the study, 9 of which met the criteria for the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The immune response to vaccination was better in healthy subjects (odds ratio = 0.73, 95% confidence interval = 0.45-1.17) and patients without immunosuppressive treatment (odds ratio  = 0.65, 95% confidence interval = 0.41-1.03), but did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Immunogenicity of vaccinations in children and young people with IBD is not significantly lower than it is in healthy ones. Immune response to vaccination in this group of patients is also not significantly lower in patients on immunosuppressive therapy than in those without it.

Infection prevention in sarcoidosis: proposal for vaccination and prophylactic therapy

Sarcoidosis is a systemic inflammatory disease characterized by granuloma formation in affected organs and caused by dysregulated immune response to an unknown antigen. Sarcoidosis patients receiving immunosuppressive medications are at increased risk of infection. Lymphopenia is also commonly seen among patient with sarcoidosis. In this review, risk of infections, including opportunistic infections, will be outlined. Recommendations for vaccinations and prophylactic therapy based on literature review will also be summarized. (Sarcoidosis Vasc Diffuse Lung Dis 2020; 37 (2): 87-98).

Immunogenicity of Diphtheria Booster Vaccination in Adolescents With Inflammatory Bowel Disease

The aim of this prospective study was to assess the immunogenicity and safety of booster vaccine against diphtheria in children with inflammatory bowel disease on and without immunosuppression treatment. Immunoprotection was achieved in 93% of the children. No significant differences depending on the treatment used and no serious adverse events or flares of inflammatory bowel disease were observed.

Mapping Host-Related Correlates of Influenza Vaccine-Induced Immune Response: An Umbrella Review of the Available Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Seasonal influenza is the leading infectious disease in terms of its health and socioeconomic impact. Annual immunization is the most efficient way to reduce this burden. Several correlates of influenza vaccine-induced protection are commonly used, owing to their ready availability and cheapness. Influenza vaccine-induced immunogenicity is a function of host-, virus- and vaccine-related factors. Host-related factors constitute the most heterogeneous group. The objective of this study was to analyze the available systematic evidence on the host factors able to modify influenza vaccine-induced immunogenicity. An umbrella review approach was undertaken. A total of 28 systematic reviews/meta-analyses were analyzed—these covered the following domains: intravenous drug use, psychological stress, acute and chronic physical exercise, genetic polymorphisms, use of pre-/pro-/symbiotics, previous Bacillus Calmette–Guérin vaccination, diabetes mellitus, vitamin D supplementation/deficiency, latent cytomegalovirus infection and various forms of immunosuppression. In order to present effect sizes on the same scale, all possible meta-analyses were re-performed and cumulative evidence synthesis ranking was carried out. The meta-analysis was conducted separately on each health condition category and virus (sub)type. A total of 97 pooled estimates were used in order to construct an evidence-based stakeholder-friendly map. The principal public health implications are discussed.

Vaccination in the Elderly and IBD

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Significant gaps in knowledge and utilization of vaccinations exist among practitioners providing care for patients with IBD. This review is intended to update the reader on best practices for vaccination within the IBD population with a specific focus on the elderly.

RECENT FINDINGS

Advances in IBD therapeutics have recently increased the number of immunosuppressive therapies available to practitioners. Differences in mechanisms of action of these medications have led to differential implications pertaining to vaccination strategies. Additionally, new vaccines, including the recombinant zoster vaccine, have recently become available for the use in the IBD population. Given the prominent role the IBD provider plays in the management of patients with IBD, a clear understanding of best practices is essential. This review provides a framework for the integration of optimal vaccination strategies for practitioners caring for adult and elderly patients with IBD.

Vaccination status of patients using anti-TNF therapy and the physicians' behavior shaping the phenomenon: Mixed-methods approach

OBJECTIVE

Anti-tumor necrosis factor (Anti-TNF) therapy improves the prognosis and reduces the morbidity and mortality associated with many chronic inflammatory autoimmune diseases. However, as it is linked to an increased infection risk, appropriate vaccination is required. The study aimed at investigating the vaccination status of patients receiving Anti-TNF therapy and physicians' perceptions of and views about vaccinating these patients.

METHODS

A sequential explanatory mixed-methods approach was used. The study comprised a quantitative, retrospective drug utilization review for determining institutional consumption of Anti-TNF therapy and an assessment of vaccination status in patients prescribed Anti-TNF therapy to audit physicians' adherence to Anti-TNF therapy-related vaccination recommendations. Patient data from electronic medical records (EMRs) obtained from tertiary care hospitals between September 2015 and September 2017 were used. Further, a qualitative study using a phenomenographic approach with semi-structured interviews of 12 physicians was carried out to explore the physicians' perceptions, views, and recommendations of vaccinating patients who are undergoing Anti-TNF therapy and identifying factors that may cause poor adherence to vaccination recommendations.

RESULTS

Forty-three of 310 patients receiving Anti-TNF therapy were vaccinated. Infliximab was the most frequently prescribed agent, accounting for 96.7% of total orders. Eight of the 12 physicians stated that they were aware of vaccination guidelines and seven viewed pre-Anti-TNF therapy vaccination as essential because of the high infection risk and claimed to incorporate it in their daily practice. Barriers to adherence included ignorance of recommendations, workload, vaccine unavailability, and advanced disease state.

CONCLUSION

Although the recommendations published by professional medical societies emphasized the importance of vaccination before initiating Anti-TNF therapy, few patients were vaccinated. Medical administration in hospitals should develop policies, procedures, and guidelines for vaccination; implement education programs for physicians and patients and procure vaccines in a timely way to improve their use.

High Immunogenicity of the Pneumococcal Conjugated Vaccine in Immunocompromised Adults With Inflammatory Bowel Disease

INTRODUCTION

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are predisposed to pneumococcal infections due to their underlying disease and iatrogenic immunosuppression. Vaccination with the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugated vaccine (PCV13) is recommended, but with poor take-up and few data available. We performed an open-label, phase IV, multicenter study to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of PCV13 in adults with IBD and to analyze the influence of immunomodulating treatments on anti-pneumococcal seroresponses.

METHODS

We enrolled 306 patients with IBD from March 2014 through February 2016, with the following exclusion criteria: current IBD flare, pregnancy, pneumococcal immunization in the previous 5 years, and influenza immunization in the previous 4 weeks. PCV13 was administered intramuscularly. Serotype-specific vaccine responses were evaluated using an opsonophagocytic assay. Adverse events were monitored by diary cards and standardized phone interviews.

RESULTS

The median seroprotection rate increased significantly from 43.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 42.3-45.5) at inclusion to 90.4% (95% CI, 89.5-91.3%; P < 0.001) after vaccination. Patients receiving anti-tumor necrosis factor agents achieved a slightly lower seroprotection rate (from 44.5% [95% CI, 42.3%-46.8%] to 86.6% [95% CI, 84.9%-88.1%]) than patients treated with other types of immunosuppressive regimens (thiopurine, methotrexate, oral corticosteroids; from 44.7% [95% CI, 41.7%-47.7%] to 93.8% [95% CI, 92.1%-95.2%]) or nonimmunosuppressive treatment (5-aminosalicylate, topical corticosteroids, vedolizumab; from 41.3% [95% CI, 37.9%-44.8%] to 95.2% [95% CI, 93.4%-96.6%]). There were no safety issues.

DISCUSSION

Overall, the administration of PCV13 was highly immunogenic and well tolerated, irrespective of the baseline treatment, and should be encouraged in all adults with IBD.

Improving immunization strategies in patients with inflammatory bowel disease

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are susceptible to varieties of opportunistic infections due to immunological changes in the setting of their disease and drug-induced immunosuppression. Even though numerous infections can be prevented by vaccine, vaccination in IBD patients is inadequate. Data showed only 9% were vaccinated against pneumococcal infection and 28% described commonly receiving influenza vaccine. This review article discusses the recent immunizations against influenza virus; pneumococcal infection; human papilloma virus; tetanus, diphtheria and pertussis; measles, mumps and rubella; varicella zoster; and herpes zoster for individuals diagnosed with IBD and those patients with drug-related immunosuppression. In addition, this review discusses concerns about IBD patients planning to travel abroad. Immunization status and screening for opportunistic infection need to be addressed in IBD patients at the time of diagnosis and they should be vaccinated accordingly. Generally, standard vaccination strategies should be pursued in IBD patients, although live vaccines should be avoided while they are not immunocompetent.

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.

The effect of immunosuppressive agents on immunogenicity of pneumococcal vaccination: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Patients with a weakened immune system due to immunosuppressive treatment are at increased risk of infection with Streptococcus pneumoniae. Although pneumococcal vaccination is highly recommended for those patients, the effectiveness of pneumococcal vaccination in this population remains largely unknown. Therefore, the objective of this PROSPERO-registered systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of the most commonly prescribed immunosuppressive agents such as azathioprine, methotrexate, anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor α (TNFα), or rituximab, on the initial serologic response to pneumococcal vaccination in patients with auto-immune disease.

METHODS

We included 22 articles comprising 2077 patients, of whom 1623 were treated with immunosuppressive agents, and 454 were controls.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The findings of our systematic review indicate that, in patients treated with immunosuppressive medication and compared to controls, the initial serologic response to pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) and pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV) are impaired. Moreover, this impaired response was more profound after PCV than after PPSV. We hypothesize that the immunosuppressive medication mainly compromises the cellular immunity, explaining the more severely reduced response rate to PCV (which induces a T-cell dependent immune response), compared to PPSV. Treatment with TNFα blocking agents was associated with a more favorable response, compared to patients treated with other immunosuppressive medication. Targeted research applying uniform correlates of protection is needed to bridge the knowledge gap in vaccination immunology in this patient group. PROSPERO registration: CRD42017058364.

Exploring the relationship between environmental enteric dysfunction and oral vaccine responses

Oral vaccines significantly underperform in low-income countries. One possible contributory factor is environmental enteric dysfunction (EED), a subclinical disorder of small intestinal structure and function among children living in poverty. Here, we review studies describing oral vaccine responses and EED. We identified eight studies evaluating EED and oral vaccine responses. There was substantial heterogeneity in study design and few consistent trends emerged. Four studies reported a negative association between EED and oral vaccine responses; two showed no significant association; and two described a positive correlation. Current evidence is therefore insufficient to determine whether EED contributes to oral vaccine underperformance. We identify roadblocks in the field and future research needs, including carefully designed studies those can investigate this hypothesis further.

Immune response to hepatitis B vaccination among people with inflammatory bowel diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The response rate to hepatitis B virus (HBV) vaccination in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is low and varies markedly. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the response rate to HBV vaccination and identified the factors predictive of an immune response.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases, and reviewed the titles and abstracts of studies on the efficacy of HBV vaccination in IBD patients performed through July 2016. Anti-HBs levels>10IU/L was considered to be an effective immune response. The primary outcome measure was the response rate to HBV vaccination after series completion, and the secondary outcome was identification of factors at baseline predictive of an immune response.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies including 1688 patients were eligible for inclusion. Based on a random-effects model, the pooled rate of a response to HBV vaccination among patients with IBD was 61% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 53-69). Young age (mean difference [MD]: -5.7; 95% CI: -8.46, -2.95) and vaccination during disease remission (relative risk [RR]: 1.62; 95% CI: 1.15-2.29) were associated with a positive response to HBV vaccination. In addition, no immunosuppressive therapy was predictive of an immune response compared to immunomodulatory (RR: 1.33; 95% CI: 1.08-1.63) or anti-tumor necrosis factor-α (anti-TNF-α) (RR: 1.57; 95% CI: 1.19-2.08) therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on this meta-analysis, only three of five IBD patients will show a serological response to HBV vaccination. Vaccination should be performed at the time of IBD diagnosis, during disease remission, or before starting immunosuppressive therapy.

Diagnostic and vaccine strategies to prevent infections in patients with inflammatory bowel disease

OBJECTIVES

The treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has been revolutionized by the use of immunomodulatory agents. Although these potent drugs are effective in controlling disease activity, they also cause an increased risk of new infections or reactivation of latent infections. On these premises, we aimed to provide guidance on the definitions of immunocompromised patients, opportunistic infections and the risk factors associated with their occurrence in an IBD context, and to suggest the proper screening tests for infectious diseases and the vaccination schedules to perform before and/or during therapy with immunomodulators.

METHODS

All the most recent evidences - filtered by the combined work of gastroenterologists and infectious disease experts - were summarized with the aim to provide a practical standpoint for the physician.

RESULTS

A systematic screening of all infections which may arise during therapy with immunomodulator drugs is necessary in all patients with IBD.

CONCLUSIONS

The ideal timing to perform screening tests and vaccinations is at the diagnosis of the disease, regardless of its severity at onset, because the course of IBD and its treatment may vary over time, and an immunocompromised status may hamper efficacy and/or possibility to perform all necessary vaccines.

ACG Clinical Guideline: Preventive Care in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Recent data suggest that inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients do not receive preventive services at the same rate as general medical patients. Patients with IBD often consider their gastroenterologist to be the primary provider of care. To improve the care delivered to IBD patients, health maintenance issues need to be co-managed by both the gastroenterologist and primary care team. Gastroenterologists need to explicitly inform the primary care provider of the unique needs of the IBD patient, especially those on immunomodulators and biologics or being considered for such therapy. In particular, documentation of up to date vaccinations are crucial as IBD patients are often treated with long-term immune-suppressive therapies and may be at increased risk for infections, many of which are preventable with vaccinations. Health maintenance issues addressed in this guideline include identification, safety and appropriate timing of vaccinations, screening for osteoporosis, cervical cancer, melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer as well as identification of depression and anxiety and smoking cessation. To accomplish these health maintenance goals, coordination between the primary care provider, gastroenterology team and other specialists is necessary.