Vaccine–Drug Interactions: Cytokines, Cytochromes, and Molecular Mechanisms

Vaccination and clozapine use: a systematic review and an analysis of the VAERS database

In the context of COVID-19 concerns related to the potential interactions between clozapine and vaccination arose. With the ultimate goal of deriving recommendations for clinical practice, we systematically reviewed the current evidence regarding altered vaccine effectiveness in clozapine-treated patients and safety aspects of vaccination, such as haematological changes and the impact of vaccines on clozapine blood levels, in clozapine-treated patients. A systematic PRISMA-conform literature search of four databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE and Cochrane Library) complemented by a case-by-case analysis of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database was performed. We then systematically appraised the joint evidence and tried to derive recommendations for clinical practice. 14 records were included in this analysis. These records consisted of 5 original articles and 9 case reports. Among the original articles, two studies provided data on the association between clozapine use and antibody responses to vaccination, both indicating that clozapine use in schizophrenia may be associated with reduced levels of immunoglobulins. Additionally, three studies examined vaccine safety in clozapine-treated patients, with no clinically significant adverse effects directly attributable to the interplay between vaccinations and clozapine. VAERS Analysis encompassed 137 reports and showed no consistent evidence of an increased risk for clozapine blood level increases or adverse events. We found no evidence indicating that clozapine impairs the effectiveness of vaccines. Moreover, no serious safety concerns seem to apply when patients on clozapine are receiving vaccines. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that data on the interaction between clozapine and vaccines remain limited.

Immunogenicity and safety of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in people living with HIV: A longitudinal cohort study

To clarify the characteristics in immunogenicity and safety of inactivated SARS-Cov-2 vaccines among HIV-infected individuals, a longitudinal cohort study was performed on HIV-infected and HIV-uninfected participants with no history of COVID-19 infection and COVID-19 vaccine inoculation. Participants information and adverse events were collected. Blood samples were collected on the same day before vaccination, 21 days after the first shot, 28 days after the second shot, 6 months after the second vaccination and 14 days after the third dose to test anti-receptor-binding domain IgG antibody, viral load, CD4+, CD8+ T cell count. Our result showed that although HIV-infected adults with low nadir CD4+ T cell count ≤ 350 cells/mm3 generate significantly lower immune response after three shots of vaccine compared with HIV-negative controls, 100% of all the HIV-infected and healthy controls were seroconverted after the third shot. Seroconversion ratio and antibody level of 190 days after two shots of vaccination for HIV-infected with nadir CD4+ T cell count ≤ 350 were significantly lower than that of healthy controls. No significant difference was found in viral load among blood samples collected at each time points. CD4 and CD4/CD8 ratio value were found increased greatly after each shot of inoculation in HIV-infected individuals with nadir CD4+ T cell count ≤ 350. Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that among HIV-infected individuals, PLWH with CD4+ T cell count ≤ 350 were less likely experience seroconversion 21 days after the first shot, and less likely maintained antibody immunity 6 months post 2nd dose. Adverse events after each inoculation were not serious and recovered within 1 week. In conclusion, inactivated COVID-19 vaccine was safe and effective in people living with HIV after three shots of vaccination. HIV-infected individuals with low nadir CD4+ T cell count ≤ 350 was associated with a nonoptimal antibody response. Further vaccination strategies could be developed for those with low CD4+ T cell counts.

Changes in Psychotropic Drug Blood Levels After SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination: A Two-Center Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Limited evidence from case reports suggests that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination may interact with the treatment outcomes of psychiatric medications. Apart from clozapine, reports on the effect of COVID-19 vaccination on other psychotropic agents are scarce. This study aimed to investigate the impact of COVID-19 vaccination on the plasma levels of different psychotropic drugs using therapeutic drug monitoring.

METHODS

Plasma levels of psychotropic agents, including agomelatine, amisulpride, amitriptyline, escitalopram, fluoxetine, lamotrigine, mirtazapine, olanzapine, quetiapine, sertraline, trazodone, and venlafaxine, from inpatients with a broad spectrum of psychiatric diseases receiving COVID-19 vaccinations were collected at 2 medical centers between 08/2021 and 02/2022 under steady-state conditions before and after vaccination. Postvaccination changes were estimated as a percentage of baseline.

RESULTS

Data from 16 patients who received COVID-19 vaccination were included. The largest changes in plasma levels were reported for quetiapine (+101.2%) and trazodone (-38.5%) in 1 and 3 patients, respectively, 1 day postvaccination compared with baseline levels. One week postvaccination, the plasma levels of fluoxetine (active moiety) and escitalopram increased by 31% and 24.9%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides the first evidence of major changes in the plasma levels of escitalopram, fluoxetine, trazodone, and quetiapine after COVID-19 vaccination. When planning COVID-19 vaccination for patients treated with these medications, clinicians should monitor rapid changes in bioavailability and consider short-term dose adjustments to ensure safety.

Influenza Vaccination and Myo-Pericarditis in Patients Receiving Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: Investigating the Likelihood of Interaction through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and VigiBase

Background: Evidence on whether the influenza vaccine could exacerbate immune-related adverse events, including myopericarditis (MP), in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), is still conflicting. We explored this issue through a global real-world approach. Methods: We queried the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and VigiBase to retrieve cases of MP in which the influenza vaccine and ICIs were recorded as suspect and were concomitantly reported. For the included cases, causality assessment and Drug Interaction Probability Scale (DIPS) algorithms were applied. Results: There were 191 and 399 reports of MP with the influenza vaccine that were retrieved (VAERS and VigiBase, respectively). No case of MP reporting the concomitant use of ICIs and the influenza vaccine was found in VAERS, while three cases of myocarditis were retrieved in VigiBase. All of the cases were unclassifiable for a causality assessment because of the lack of data concerning latency. According to the DIPS, one report was categorized as possible and two as doubtful. Conclusion: The paucity of cases coupled with the doubtful causality assessment make the potential interaction between influenza vaccines and ICIs in cancer patients negligible from clinical and epidemiological standpoints. These findings support the cardiovascular safety of the influenza vaccination, which remains strongly recommended in cancer patients, especially in the current COVID-19 era.

Influenza immunization does not predominantly alter levels of phenytoin, and cytochrome P-450 enzymes in epileptic patients receiving phenytoin monotherapy

OBJECTIVE

The study aims to test the effect of influenza vaccination on phenytoin, CYP2C9, and IFNγ levels in epileptic patients receiving phenytoin monotherapy METHODS: Thirty-one epileptic patients receiving stable-dose phenytoin monotherapy were enrolled onto the study. Serum concentrations of phenytoin, CYP2C9, and IFNγ were compared before and after influenza immunization. The participants were given 0.5 mL of quadrivalent influenza vaccine types A and B subvirion. Blood samples were drawn at baseline, and days 3, 7, 14 post-immunization. The outcomes were levels of phenytoin, CYP2C9, IFNγ, and the incidence of adverse events.

RESULTS

No significant changes in serum phenytoin, IFNγ, and CYP2C9 levels between baseline and days 3, 7, and 14 after immunization were found. The mean levels of phenytoin, IFNγ, and CYP2C9, respectively, were 11.94 ± 7.43, 1.14 ± 0.98, and 47.69 ± 37.53 pg/mL (baseline); 12.15 ± 6.57, 2.13 ± 3.41, and 49.44 ± 39.83 pg/mL (day 3); 12.19 ± 7.69, 1.15 ± 0.94, and 49.48 ± 33.83 pg/mL (day 7); 12.79 ± 7.94, 2.15 ± 3.11, and 53.65 ± 40.91 pg/mL (day 14). The incidence of vaccine-related adverse events, which were generally mild and resolved without clinical consequences, was 58.1 %. No seizure or changes in seizure frequency were observed during the study. One patient experienced dizziness and ataxia which were symptoms attributed to phenytoin toxicity (34.57 μg/mL) by day 14.

CONCLUSIONS

Influenza vaccine has no significant effect on the serum phenytoin and CYP2C9 levels in epileptic patients receiving chronic phenytoin monotherapy. The administration of influenza vaccine to epileptic patients receiving phenytoin monotherapy appears to be safe. Therefore, it is not necessary to routinely measure the serum phenytoin level after influenza immunization.

Current trends in drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics

Pharmacokinetics (PK) is the study of the absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion (ADME) processes of a drug. Understanding PK properties is essential for drug development and precision medication. In this review we provided an overview of recent research on PK with focus on the following aspects: (1) an update on drug-metabolizing enzymes and transporters in the determination of PK, as well as advances in xenobiotic receptors and noncoding RNAs (ncRNAs) in the modulation of PK, providing new understanding of the transcriptional and posttranscriptional regulatory mechanisms that result in inter-individual variations in pharmacotherapy; (2) current status and trends in assessing drug-drug interactions, especially interactions between drugs and herbs, between drugs and therapeutic biologics, and microbiota-mediated interactions; (3) advances in understanding the effects of diseases on PK, particularly changes in metabolizing enzymes and transporters with disease progression; (4) trends in mathematical modeling including physiologically-based PK modeling and novel animal models such as CRISPR/Cas9-based animal models for DMPK studies; (5) emerging non-classical xenobiotic metabolic pathways and the involvement of novel metabolic enzymes, especially non-P450s. Existing challenges and perspectives on future directions are discussed, and may stimulate the development of new research models, technologies, and strategies towards the development of better drugs and improved clinical practice.

Examining Socioeconomic and Computational Aspects of Vaccine Pharmacovigilance

BACKGROUND

Vaccine pharmacovigilance relates to the detection of adverse events, their assessment, understanding, and prevention, and communication of their risk to the public. These activities can be tedious and long lasting for regulatory authority scientists and may be affected by community practices and public health policies. To better understand underlying challenges, we examined vaccine adverse event reports, assessed whether data-driven techniques can provide additional insight in safety characterization, and wondered on the impact of socioeconomic parameters.

METHODS

First, we integrated VAERS content with additional sources of drug and molecular data and examined reaction and outcome occurrence by using disproportionality metrics and enrichment analysis. Second, we reviewed social and behavioral determinants that may affect vaccine pharmacovigilance aspects.

RESULTS

We describe our experience in processing more than 607000 vaccine adverse event reports and report on the challenges to integrate more than 95500 VAERS medication narratives with structured information about drugs and other therapeutics or supplements. We found that only 12.6% of events were serious, while 8.97% referred to polypharmacy cases. Exacerbation of serious clinical patient outcomes was observed in 8.88% VAERS cases in which drugs may interact with vaccinations or with each other, regardless of vaccine activity interference. Furthermore, we characterized the symptoms reported in those cases and summarized reaction occurrence among vaccine-types. Last, we examine socioeconomic parameters and cost-management features, explore adverse event reporting trends, and highlight perspectives relating to the use and development of digital services, especially in the context of personalized and collaborative health-care.

CONCLUSIONS

This work provides an informative review of VAERS, identifies challenges and limitations in the processing of vaccine adverse event data, and calls for the better understanding of the socioeconomic landscape pertaining vaccine safety concerns. We expect that adoption of computational techniques for integrated safety assessment and interpretation is key not only to pharmacovigilance practice but also to stakeholders from the entire healthcare system.

No signal of interactions between influenza vaccines and drugs used for chronic diseases: a case-by-case analysis of the vaccine adverse event reporting system and vigibase

BACKGROUND

An increasing number of reports indicates that vaccines against influenza may interact with specific drugs via drug metabolism. To date, actual impact of vaccine-drug interactions observed in the real world clinical practice has not been investigated.

METHODS

From VAERS and VigiBase, we collected Adverse Event Following Immunization (AEFI) reports for individuals receiving vaccines against influenza recorded as suspect and selected cases where predictable toxicity was recorded with oral anticoagulants, antiepileptics and statins (i.e. hemorrhages, overdosage and rhabdomyolysis, respectively). We applied AEFI and Drug Interaction Probability Scale (DIPS) Algorithms to assess causality of drug-vaccine interactions.

RESULTS

116 AEFI reports submitted to VAERS and 83 from Vigibase were included in our analysis; antiepileptics and statins were related to the highest number of indeterminate/consistent (93.7%; 65.3%) and possible/probable (50%; 57.7%) cases according to the AEFI and DIPS, respectively. The majority of cases occurred within the first week after vaccine administration (5-7 days).

CONCLUSION

The relative paucity of detected interactions does not impact on the benefit of the vaccination against influenza, which remains strongly recommended; this does not exclude that closer monitoring for selected patients exposed to concomitant chronic pharmacological therapies and affected by predisposing factors may be useful.

Immunizations in Children Requiring Warfarin Therapy

Children with conditions requiring chronic warfarin therapy have increased. The importance of receiving immunizations in this population is magnified due to potential weakness in their immune response. There is concern about immunizing on therapeutic anticoagulation due to risk of hematomas and the influence of vaccine on warfarin metabolism. This study evaluated the influence of vaccines on warfarin effect as measured by the International Normalized Ratio and the clinically relevant hematomas or bruising postimmunization. There were no clinically relevant negative outcomes postimmunizations. This study demonstrates that immunizations may be safely administered to children receiving therapeutic warfarin therapy.