Influenza A/H1N1 vaccination of patients with SLE: can antimalarial drugs restore diminished response under immunosuppressive therapy?

Vaccination updates and special considerations for systemic lupus erythematosus patients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We review the latest guidelines and note special considerations for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients when approaching vaccination against SARS-CoV-2, influenza, pneumococcus, herpes zoster, and potentially respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine in the future.

RECENT FINDINGS

SLE patients have unique infectious risks due to newer treatments and the nature of the disease itself. It is important to balance the benefit of additional protective immunity from updated vaccines against the possible risk of disease activity exacerbations.

SUMMARY

It is important to continuously evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of updated vaccines specifically for SLE patients. Additionally, the newly approved RSV vaccine should be considered for this population to reduce severe respiratory illness.

Safety and immunogenicity of influenza A(H3N2) component vaccine in juvenile systemic lupus erythematosus

INTRODUCTION

Seasonal influenza A (H3N2) virus is an important cause of morbidity and mortality in the last 50 years in population that is greater than the impact of H1N1. Data assessing immunogenicity and safety of this virus component in juvenile systemic lupus erythematosus (JSLE) is lacking in the literature.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate short-term immunogenicity and safety of influenza A/Singapore (H3N2) vaccine in JSLE.

METHODS

24 consecutive JSLE patients and 29 healthy controls (HC) were vaccinated with influenza A/Singapore/INFIMH-16-0019/2016(H3N2)-like virus. Influenza A (H3N2) seroprotection (SP), seroconversion (SC), geometric mean titers (GMT), factor increase in GMT (FI-GMT) titers were assessed before and 4 weeks post-vaccination. Disease activity, therapies and adverse events (AE) were also evaluated.

RESULTS

JSLE patients and controls were comparable in current age [14.5 (10.1-18.3) vs. 14 (9-18.4) years, p = 0.448] and female sex [21 (87.5%) vs. 19 (65.5%), p = 0.108]. Before vaccination, JSLE and HC had comparable SP rates [22 (91.7%) vs. 25 (86.2%), p = 0.678] and GMT titers [102.3 (95% CI 75.0-139.4) vs. 109.6 (95% CI 68.2-176.2), p = 0.231]. At D30, JSLE and HC had similar immune response, since no differences were observed in SP [24 (100%) vs. 28 (96.6%), p = 1.000)], SC [4 (16.7%) vs. 9 (31.0%), p = 0.338), GMT [162.3 (132.9-198.3) vs. 208.1 (150.5-287.8), p = 0.143] and factor increase in GMT [1.6 (1.2-2.1) vs. 1.9 (1.4-2.5), p = 0.574]. SLEDAI-2K scores [2 (0-17) vs. 2 (0-17), p = 0.765] and therapies remained stable throughout the study. Further analysis of possible factors influencing vaccine immune response among JSLE patients demonstrated similar GMT between patients with SLEDAI < 4 compared to SLEDAI ≥ 4 (p = 0.713), as well as between patients with and without current use of prednisone (p = 0.420), azathioprine (p = 1.0), mycophenolate mofetil (p = 0.185), and methotrexate (p = 0.095). No serious AE were reported in both groups and most of them were asymptomatic (58.3% vs. 44.8%, p = 0.958). Local and systemic AE were alike in both groups (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

This is the first study that identified adequate immune protection against H3N2-influenza strain with additional vaccine-induced increment of immune response and an adequate safety profile in JSLE. ( www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov , NCT03540823).

Vaccination in the Era of Immunosuppression

Patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRDs) are at increased risk for severe infections. Vaccine responses and safety profiles may differ between AIIRD patients and the general population. While patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRDs) often experience diminished humoral responses and reduced vaccine efficacy, factors such as the type of immunosuppressant medications used and the specific vaccine employed contribute to these outcomes. Notably, individuals undergoing B cell depletion therapy tend to have poor vaccine immunogenicity. However, despite these considerations, vaccine responses are generally considered clinically sufficient. Ideally, immunosuppressed AIIRD patients should receive vaccinations at least two weeks before commencing immunosuppressive treatment. However, it is common for many patients to already be on immunosuppressants during the immunization process. Vaccination rarely triggers flares in AIIRDs; if flares occur, they are typically mild. Despite the heightened infection risk, including COVID-19, among AIIRD patients with rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, sarcoidosis, and other diseases on immunosuppressants, the vaccination rates remain suboptimal. The future directions of vaccination in the era of immunosuppression will likely involve customized vaccines with enhanced adjuvants and alternative delivery methods. By addressing the unique challenges faced by immunosuppressed individuals, we may improve vaccine efficacy, reduce the risk of infections, and ultimately enhance the health outcomes. Additionally, clinical trials to evaluate the safety and efficacy of temporarily discontinuing immunosuppressants during vaccination in various AIIRDs are crucial.

Effect of DMARDs on the immunogenicity of vaccines

Vaccines are important for protecting individuals at increased risk of severe infections, including patients undergoing DMARD therapy. However, DMARD therapy can also compromise the immune system, leading to impaired responses to vaccination. This Review focuses on the impact of DMARDs on influenza and SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations, as such vaccines have been investigated most thoroughly. Various data suggest that B cell depletion therapy, mycophenolate mofetil, cyclophosphamide, azathioprine and abatacept substantially reduce the immunogenicity of these vaccines. However, the effects of glucocorticoids, methotrexate, TNF inhibitors and JAK inhibitors on vaccine responses remain unclear and could depend on the dosage and type of vaccination. Vaccination is aimed at initiating robust humoral and cellular vaccine responses, which requires efficient interactions between antigen-presenting cells, T cells and B cells. DMARDs impair these cells in different ways and to different degrees, such as the prevention of antigen-presenting cell maturation, alteration of T cell differentiation and selective inhibition of B cell subsets, thus inhibiting processes that are necessary for an effective vaccine response. Innovative modified vaccination strategies are needed to improve vaccination responses in patients undergoing DMARD therapy and to protect these patients from the severe outcomes of infectious diseases.

Robust immunogenicity to the H3N2 component of influenza A vaccine in primary Sjögren syndrome

INTRODUCTION

Influenza A (H3N2) virus is the major cause of morbidity/mortality due to seasonal influenza over 50 years. Data about the safety/immunogenicity of influenza A/Singapore (H3N2) vaccine are scarce in primary Sjögren syndrome (pSS).

METHODS

Twenty-one consecutive pSS patients and 42 HC (healthy control individuals) were immunized with influenza A/Singapore/INFIMH-16-0019/2016 (H3N2)-like virus. Rates of SP (seroprotection) and SC (seroconversion), GMT (geometric mean titers), FI-GMT (factor increase in GMT), ESSDAI (EULAR Sjögren's Syndrome Disease Activity Index), and adverse events were appraised before and 4 weeks post-vaccination.

RESULTS

pSS and HC had similar mean age (51.2 ± 14.2 vs. 50.6 ± 12.1 years, p = 0.886). Pre-vaccination SP rates were high in pSS and HC (90.5% vs. 71.4%, p = 0.114), and GMT were higher in pSS [80.0 (52.4-160.0) vs. 40.0 (20.0-80.0), p = 0.001]. The percentage of influenza vaccination in the preceding two years was elevated and similar in pSS and HC (94.1% vs. 94.6%, p = 1.000). GMT values augmented in both groups four weeks after vaccination and persisted higher in the first group [160.0 (80.0-320.0) vs. 80.0 (40.0-80.0), p < 0.001] with equivalent FI-GMT [1.4 (1.0-2.8) vs. 1.4 (1.0-2.0), p = 0.410]. Both groups had low and similar SC rates (19.0% vs. 9.5%, p = 0.423). ESSDAI values persisted steadily during the study (p = 0.313). No serious adverse events have occurred.

CONCLUSION

The novel demonstration that the influenza A/Singapore (H3N2) vaccine induces a different pattern of immunogenicity from other influenza A constituents in pSS, featured by a desirable high pre- and post-vaccination immunogenicity, is in line with reported differences in immune responses between strains in trivalent vaccines and may be related to pre-existing immunity.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov: #NCT03540823. Key Points • This prospective study demonstrated a robust pre- and post-vaccination immunogenicity to influenza A/Singapore/INFIMH-16-0019/2016 (H3N2)-like virus in primary Sjögren's syndrome (pSS). • This high immunogenicity pattern may be related to pre-existing immunization, or else it is related to immunogenicity differences of each strain. • This vaccine had an adequate safety profile in pSS, with no impact on disease activity.

2022 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for Vaccinations in Patients With Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases

OBJECTIVE

To provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of vaccinations in children and adults with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).

METHODS

This guideline follows American College of Rheumatology (ACR) policy guiding management of conflicts of interest and disclosures and the ACR guideline development process, which includes the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. It also adheres to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) criteria. A core leadership team consisting of adult and pediatric rheumatologists and a guideline methodologist drafted clinical population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) questions. A review team performed a systematic literature review for the PICO questions, graded the quality of evidence, and produced an evidence report. An expert Voting Panel reviewed the evidence and formulated recommendations. The panel included adult and pediatric rheumatology providers, infectious diseases specialists, and patient representatives. Consensus required ≥70% agreement on both the direction and strength of each recommendation.

RESULTS

This guideline includes expanded indications for some vaccines in patients with RMDs, as well as guidance on whether to hold immunosuppressive medications or delay vaccination to maximize vaccine immunogenicity and efficacy. Safe approaches to the use of live attenuated vaccines in patients taking immunosuppressive medications are also addressed. Most recommendations are conditional and had low quality of supporting evidence.

CONCLUSION

Application of these recommendations should consider patients' individual risk for vaccine-preventable illness and for disease flares, particularly if immunosuppressive medications are held for vaccination. Shared decision-making with patients is encouraged in clinical settings.

2022 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for Vaccinations in Patients With Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases

OBJECTIVE

To provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of vaccinations in children and adults with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).

METHODS

This guideline follows American College of Rheumatology (ACR) policy guiding management of conflicts of interest and disclosures and the ACR guideline development process, which includes the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. It also adheres to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) criteria. A core leadership team consisting of adult and pediatric rheumatologists and a guideline methodologist drafted clinical population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) questions. A review team performed a systematic literature review for the PICO questions, graded the quality of evidence, and produced an evidence report. An expert Voting Panel reviewed the evidence and formulated recommendations. The panel included adult and pediatric rheumatology providers, infectious diseases specialists, and patient representatives. Consensus required ≥70% agreement on both the direction and strength of each recommendation.

RESULTS

This guideline includes expanded indications for some vaccines in patients with RMDs, as well as guidance on whether to hold immunosuppressive medications or delay vaccination to maximize vaccine immunogenicity and efficacy. Safe approaches to the use of live attenuated vaccines in patients taking immunosuppressive medications are also addressed. Most recommendations are conditional and had low quality of supporting evidence.

CONCLUSION

Application of these recommendations should consider patients' individual risk for vaccine-preventable illness and for disease flares, particularly if immunosuppressive medications are held for vaccination. Shared decision-making with patients is encouraged in clinical settings.

Global excellence in rheumatology in Latin America: The case of systemic lupus erythematosus

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) affects more severely non-White populations, due to their genetic background and sociodemographic characteristics. Several studies have evaluated Latin American SLE patients to determine their genetic and clinical characteristics as well as prognostic factors; these studies have not only allowed the development of treatment guidelines aimed at the region but also to support regional and global projects. Additionally, educational activities in Spanish and Portuguese have been started to reduce our patients' health illiteracy. Despite the relatively low research output from Latin American countries, we consider that studies from our region coupled with the networks developed to increase our capabilities, could be a model for other rare autoimmune diseases.

Serological Response to BNT162b2 Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination in Patients with Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases: Results From the RHEUVAX Cohort

Objective

In the light of the current COVID-19 epidemic and the availability of effective vaccines, this study aims to identify factors associated with non-response to anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines as immunological alteration associated with immune rheumatic diseases (IRD) and immunosuppressive medications may impair the response to vaccination.

Methods

Volunteers in the health profession community with IRD, age, and sex-matched controls (CTRL) who underwent vaccination with two doses of BNT162b2 were recruited for this study. Anti-Trimeric Spike protein antibodies were assayed eight ± one weeks after the second vaccine dose. Univariate and logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors independently associated with non-response and low antibody titers.

Results

Samples were obtained from 237 IRD patients (m/f 73/164, mean age 57, CI 95% [56-59]): 4 autoinflammatory diseases (AI), 62 connective tissue diseases (CTD), 86 rheumatoid arthritis (RA), 71 spondylarthritis (SpA) and 14 vasculitis (Vsc). 232 CTRL were recruited (m/f 71/161, mean age 57, CI 95% [56-58]). Globally, IRD had a lower seroconversion rate (88.6% vs 99.6%, CI 95% OR [1.61-5.73], p&lt;0.001) and lower antibody titer compared to controls (median (IQR) 403 (131.5-1012) versus 1160 (702.5-1675), p&lt;0.001). After logistic regression, age, corticosteroid (CCS), Abatacept and Mycophenolate Mofetil (MMF) use were associated with non-response. Lower antibody titer was associated with the use of MMF, ABA, CCS, Rituximab, tumor necrosis factor inhibitor, JAK inhibitors, and higher age.

Conclusion

The response to anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is often impaired in IRD patients under treatment and may pose them at higher risk of severe COVID-19. Specific vaccination protocols are desirable for these patients.

Recommendations for prevention of infection in systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases

OBJECTIVES

To develop recommendations for the prevention of infection in adult patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARD).

METHODS

Clinical research questions relevant to the objective of the document were identified by a panel of experts selected based on their experience in the field. Systematic reviews of the available evidence were conducted, and evidence was graded according to the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. Specific recommendations were made.

RESULTS

Five questions were selected, referring to prevention of infection by Pneumocystis jirovecii with trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, primary and secondary prophylactic measures against hepatitis B virus, vaccination against human papillomavirus, vaccination against Streptococcus pneumoniae and vaccination against influenza virus, making a total of 18 recommendations, structured by question, based on the evidence found for the different SARD and/or expert consensus.

CONCLUSIONS

There is enough evidence on the safety and efficacy of vaccinations and other prophylactic measures against the microorganisms reviewed in this document to specifically recommend them for patients with SARD.

Vaccination and immunotherapies in neuroimmunological diseases

Neuroimmunological diseases and their treatment compromise the immune system, thereby increasing the risk of infections and serious illness. Consequently, vaccinations to protect against infections are an important part of the clinical management of these diseases. However, the wide variety of immunotherapies that are currently used to treat neuroimmunological disease — particularly multiple sclerosis and neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders — can also impair immunological responses to vaccinations. In this Review, we discuss what is known about the effects of various immunotherapies on immunological responses to vaccines and what these effects mean for the safe and effective use of vaccines in patients with a neuroimmunological disease. The success of vaccination in patients receiving immunotherapy largely depends on the specific mode of action of the immunotherapy. To minimize the risk of infection when using immunotherapy, assessment of immune status and exclusion of underlying chronic infections before initiation of therapy are essential. Selection of the required vaccinations and leaving appropriate time intervals between vaccination and administration of immunotherapy can help to safeguard patients. We also discuss the rapidly evolving knowledge of how immunotherapies affect responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and how these effects should influence the management of patients on these therapies during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In this Review, the authors discuss how various immunotherapies for neuroimmunological diseases interact with vaccination responses, including responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations, and the implications for the safe and effective use of vaccines in patients with these diseases.

Vaccination against infection is an essential part of the management of neuroimmunological diseases.

All indicated vaccinations should be administered before initiation of immunotherapy whenever possible; appropriate intervals between vaccination and treatment vary with treatment and vaccination.

Inactivated vaccines are considered safe in neuroimmunological diseases but live vaccines are generally contraindicated during immunotherapy.

Vaccination responses during immunotherapy can be diminished or abrogated, depending on the treatment and vaccination; antibody titre testing to monitor responses can be considered where appropriate.

Vaccinations must be avoided during relapses or exacerbations of neuroimmunological diseases.

Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 is recommended for patients with neuroimmunological disease but some immunotherapies limit the immune response; therefore, timing should be considered carefully.

Influenza Vaccination in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: Efficacy, Effectiveness, Safety, Utilization, and Barriers

Influenza increases morbidity and mortality in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and lupus nephritis but is preventable through vaccination. This systematic review of PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, WHO Clinical Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov publications until August 2021 identified 45 reports (16,596 patients), including 8.5% with renal involvement or lupus nephritis: 9 studies (10,446 patients) on clinical effectiveness, 20 studies (1327 patients) on vaccine efficacy, 22 studies (1116 patients) on vaccine safety, 14 studies (4619 patients) on utilization rates, and 5 studies (3220 patients) on barriers. Pooled seroconversion rates ranged between 46% and 56%, while seroprotection rates ranged from 68% to 73% and were significantly associated with age and disease duration. Influenza infection was lower in vaccinated patients with systemic lupus erythematosus compared with unvaccinated patients. Disease activity scores did not change significantly after vaccination and reported flares were mild to moderate. Pooled current vaccination rate was 40.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 33.7%-46.5%) with significant heterogeneity and associated with the gross domestic product (P = .002) and disease duration (P = .001). Barriers to vaccination were the lack of doctor recommendation (57.4%) and concerns over the safety or efficacy of the vaccine (12.7%).

Current Take on Systemic Sclerosis Patients' Vaccination Recommendations

Systemic sclerosis (SSc) is a rare autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic disease. The prevalence of SSc ranges from 7 to 700 cases per million worldwide. Due to multiple organ involvement and constant inflammatory state, this group of patients presents an increased risk of infectious diseases. This paper aimed to gather the up-to-date evidence on vaccination strategies for patients with SSc and to be a useful tool for the prevention and management of infectious diseases. The authors conducted a scoping review in which each paragraph presents data on a specific vaccine’s safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy. The work deals with the following topics: SARS-CoV-2, seasonal influenza, S. pneumoniae, HAV, HBV, HZV, N. meningitidis, H. influenzae, HPV, and diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis.

Impact of distinct therapies on antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in systemic lupus erythematosus

Objective

To date, the only study that has assessed the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2 mRNA) vaccine in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) observed a moderate response, but the sample size precluded an accurate analysis of the effect of individual drugs. Therefore, we evaluated the immunogenicity of an inactivated SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccine (Sinovac‐CoronaVac) and the influence of different medications in SLE. Safety was also assessed.

Methods

We conducted a prospective controlled study of 232 SARS‐CoV‐2–naive SLE patients and 58 SARS‐CoV‐2–naive controls who were vaccinated with 2 doses of Sinovac‐CoronaVac with a 28‐day interval (day 0/day 28 [D0/D28]). Immunogenicity analysis at D0/D28 and D69 included anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 S1/S2 IgG seroconversion (SC) and neutralizing antibodies (NAb) positivity. The influence of individual drugs on immune response and safety was assessed.

Results

Patients and controls were well balanced for age (P = 0.771). At D69, SLE patients showed a moderate SC (70.2% versus 98.1%; P < 0.001) and moderate frequency of NAb positivity (61.5% versus 84.6%; P = 0.002), although both frequencies were lower than in controls. Factors associated with lower SC in univariate analysis at D69 were prednisone use (odds ratio [OR] 0.215 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.108–0.427], P < 0.001) and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) use (OR 0.201 [95% CI 0.107–0.378], P < 0.001), whereas hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) use led to a 2.5 increase in SC (P = 0.011). SLE patients who were receiving HCQ monotherapy had similar SC to controls at D69 (100% versus 98.1%; P = 1.000). In multivariate analysis, prednisone and MMF use were independently associated with lower SC (P < 0.001) and NAb positivity (P < 0.001). Safety analysis revealed no moderate/severe adverse events.

Conclusion

Sinovac‐CoronaVac has a moderate immunogenicity in SARS‐CoV‐2–naive SLE patients with an excellent safety profile. We further demonstrate that HCQ may improve SC, whereas prednisone and MMF had a major deleterious effect in vaccine response, reinforcing the need to investigate the role of temporary MMF withdrawal or a vaccine‐booster dose (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04754698).

The Use of COVID-19 Vaccines in Patients with SLE

Purpose of Review

Three COVID-19 vaccines obtained emergency authorization from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and are widely used in the USA. Unfortunately, there is a paucity of evidence on the safety and efficacy of these vaccines in patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRD), as these patients were excluded from all phases of vaccine development. Here we reviewed current data on COVID-19 vaccination in patients with AIIRD, with emphasis on systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and provided a comprehensive update on the benefits and risks of vaccination.

Recent Findings

Patients with SLE have worse immune responses following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination than healthy controls. The efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines seems to be further reduced by immunosuppressive medications, such as glucocorticoids (GC), methotrexate (MTX), mycophenolate/mycophenolic acid (MMF), and rituximab (RTX). However, these data do not substantiate that AIIRD patients are at greater risk of disease flares or have a higher incidence of side effects following vaccination. There is no significant safety concern for the use of COVID-19 vaccines in patients with AIIRD.

Summary

The benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks in patients with AIIRD, including SLE. More data are needed to determine the necessity of a booster vaccine dose and appropriate adjustment of immunosuppressants around the administration of vaccine.

Effect of Immunosuppression on the Immunogenicity of mRNA Vaccines to SARS-CoV-2 : A Prospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Patients with chronic inflammatory disease (CID) treated with immunosuppressive medications have increased risk for severe COVID-19. Although mRNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccination provides protection in immunocompetent persons, immunogenicity in immunosuppressed patients with CID is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the immunogenicity of mRNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with CID.

DESIGN

Prospective observational cohort study.

SETTING

Two U.S. CID referral centers.

PARTICIPANTS

Volunteer sample of adults with confirmed CID eligible for early COVID-19 vaccination, including hospital employees of any age and patients older than 65 years. Immunocompetent participants were recruited separately from hospital employees. All participants received 2 doses of mRNA vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 between 10 December 2020 and 20 March 2021. Participants were assessed within 2 weeks before vaccination and 20 days after final vaccination.

MEASUREMENTS

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) IgG⁺ binding in all participants, and neutralizing antibody titers and circulating S-specific plasmablasts in a subset to assess humoral response after vaccination.

RESULTS

Most of the 133 participants with CID (88.7%) and all 53 immunocompetent participants developed antibodies in response to mRNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, although some with CID developed numerically lower titers of anti-S IgG. Anti-S IgG antibody titers after vaccination were lower in participants with CID receiving glucocorticoids (n = 17) than in those not receiving them; the geometric mean of anti-S IgG antibodies was 357 (95% CI, 96 to 1324) for participants receiving prednisone versus 2190 (CI, 1598 to 3002) for those not receiving it. Anti-S IgG antibody titers were also lower in those receiving B-cell depletion therapy (BCDT) (n = 10). Measures of immunogenicity differed numerically between those who were and those who were not receiving antimetabolites (n = 48), tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (n = 39), and Janus kinase inhibitors (n = 11); however, 95% CIs were wide and overlapped. Neutralization titers seemed generally consistent with anti-S IgG results. Results were not adjusted for differences in baseline clinical factors, including other immunosuppressant therapies.

LIMITATIONS

Small sample that lacked demographic diversity, and residual confounding.

CONCLUSION

Compared with nonusers, patients with CID treated with glucocorticoids and BCDT seem to have lower SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-induced antibody responses. These preliminary findings require confirmation in a larger study.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust, Marcus Program in Precision Medicine Innovation, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 Infection and Autoimmunity 1 Year Later: The Era of Vaccines

Impressive efforts have been made by researchers worldwide in the development of target vaccines against the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) and in improving the management of immunomodulating agents. Currently, different vaccine formulations, such as viral vector, mRNA, and protein-based, almost all directed toward the spike protein that includes the domain for receptor binding, have been approved. Although data are not conclusive, patients affected by autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs) seem to have a slightly higher disease prevalence, risk of hospitalization, and death from coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) than the general population. Therefore, ARD patients, under immunosuppressive agents, have been included among the priority target groups for vaccine administration. However, specific cautions are needed to optimize vaccine safety and effectiveness in these patients, such as modification in some of the ongoing immunosuppressive therapies and the preferential use of mRNA other than vector-based vaccines. Immunomodulating agents can be a therapeutic opportunity for the management of COVID-19 patients; however, their clinical impact depends on how they are handled. To place in therapy immunomodulating agents in the correct window of opportunity throughout the identification of surrogate markers of disease progression and host immune response is mandatory to optimize patient's outcome.

Influenza A/Singapore (H3N2) component vaccine in systemic lupus erythematosus: A distinct pattern of immunogenicity

INTRODUCTION

Influenza A (H3N2) virus is the most important cause of seasonal influenza morbidity and mortality in the last 50 years, surpassing the impact of H1N1. Data assessing immunogenicity and safety of this virus component are lacking in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and restricted to small reports with other H3N2 strains.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate short-term immunogenicity and safety of influenza A/Singapore (H3N2) vaccine in SLE.

METHODS

81 consecutive SLE patients and 81 age- and sex-matched healthy controls (HC) were vaccinated with the influenza A/Singapore/INFIMH-16-0019/2016(H3N2)-like virus. Seroprotection (SP) and seroconversion (SC) rates, geometric mean titers(GMT), and factor increase in GMT(FI-GMT) and adverse events were assessed before and 4 weeks post-vaccination. Disease activity and therapies were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Before immunization, SLE and HC groups had high SP rates (89% vs 77%, p = 0.061) and elevated GMT titer with higher levels in SLE (129.1(104.1-154.1) vs 54.8(45.0-64.6), p < 0.001). Frequency of two previous years' influenza vaccination was high and comparable in SLE and HC (89% vs 90%, p = 1.000). Four weeks post-vaccination, median GMT increased for both groups and remained higher in SLE compared to HC (239.9(189.5-290.4) vs 94.5(72.6-116.4), p < 0.0001) with a comparable FI-GMT (2.3(1.8-2.9) vs 1.9(1.5-2.3), p = 0.051). SC rates were low and comparable for both groups (16% vs 11%, respectively, p = 0.974). Disease activity scores remained stable throughout the study (p = 1.000) and severe adverse events were not identified.

CONCLUSION

Influenza A/Singapore (H3N2) vaccine has an adequate safety profile. The distinct immunogenicity pattern from other influenza A components characterized by a remarkably high pre- and post-vaccination SP rate and high GMT levels may be associated with previous influenza A vaccination. (www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03540823).

Recommendations for prevention of infection in systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases

OBJECTIVES

To develop recommendations for the prevention of infection in adult patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARD).

METHODS

Clinical research questions relevant to the objective of the document were identified by a panel of experts selected based on their experience in the field. Systematic reviews of the available evidence were conducted, and evidence was graded according to the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. Specific recommendations were made.

RESULTS

Five questions were selected, referring to prevention of infection by Pneumocystis jirovecii with trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, primary and secondary prophylactic measures against hepatitis B virus, vaccination against human papillomavirus, vaccination against Streptococcus pneumoniae and vaccination against influenza virus, making a total of 18 recommendations, structured by question, based on the evidence found for the different SARD and/or expert consensus.

CONCLUSIONS

There is enough evidence on the safety and efficacy of vaccinations and other prophylactic measures against the microorganisms reviewed in this document to specifically recommend them for patients with SARD.

Approach to SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination in Patients With Multiple Sclerosis

For more than a year now, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been causing the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic with high mortality and detrimental effects on society, economy, and individual lives. Great hopes are being placed on vaccination as one of the most potent escape strategies from the pandemic and multiple vaccines are already in clinical use. However, there is still a lot of insecurity about the safety and efficacy of vaccines in patients with autoimmune diseases like multiple sclerosis (MS), especially under treatment with immunomodulatory or immunosuppressive drugs. We propose strategic approaches to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination management in MS patients and encourage fellow physicians to measure the immune response in their patients. Notably, both humoral and cellular responses should be considered since the immunological equivalent for protection from SARS-CoV-2 after infection or vaccination still remains undefined and will most likely involve antiviral cellular immunity. It is important to gain insights into the vaccine response of immunocompromised patients in order to be able to deduce sensible strategies for vaccination in the future.

Lupus, vaccinations and COVID-19: What we know now

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus causing Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has had a huge impact on health services, with a high mortality associated with complications including pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) are at increased risk of viral infections, and recent data suggests they may be at an increased risk of poor outcomes with COVID-19. This may be particularly true for those on rituximab or high dose steroids. A huge international effort from the scientific community has so far resulted in the temporary authorisation of three vaccines which offer protection against SARS-CoV-2, with over 30 other vaccines being evaluated in ongoing trials. Although there has historically been concern that vaccines may trigger disease flares of SLE, there is little convincing evidence to show this. In general lupus patients appear to gain good protection from vaccination, although there may be reduced efficacy in those with high disease activity or those on immunosuppressive therapies, such as rituximab or high dose steroids. Recent concerns have been raised regarding rare clotting events with the AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine and it is currently unknown whether this risk is higher for those patients with secondary antiphospholipid syndrome. With the possibility of annual COVID vaccination programmes in the future, prospective data collection and registries looking at the effect of vaccination on SLE disease control, the incidence of COVID-19 in SLE patients and severity of COVID-19 disease course would all be useful. As mass vaccination programmes begin to roll out across the world, we assess the evidence of the use of vaccines in SLE patients and in particular vaccines targeting SARS-CoV-2.

Glucocorticoids and B Cell Depleting Agents Substantially Impair Immunogenicity of mRNA Vaccines to SARS-CoV-2

BACKGROUND

Individuals with chronic inflammatory diseases (CID) are frequently treated with immunosuppressive medications that can increase their risk of severe COVID-19. While novel mRNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccination platforms provide robust protection in immunocompetent individuals, the immunogenicity in CID patients on immunosuppression is not well established. Therefore, determining the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in the setting of immunosuppression is essential to risk-stratify CID patients with impaired protection and provide clinical guidance regarding medication management.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective assessment of mRNA-based vaccine immunogenicity in 133 adults with CIDs and 53 immunocompetent controls. Blood from participants over 18 years of age was collected before initial immunization and 1-2 weeks after the second immunization. Serum anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) IgG + binding, neutralizing antibody titers, and circulating S-specific plasmablasts were quantified to assess the magnitude and quality of the humoral response following vaccination.

RESULTS

Compared to immunocompetent controls, a three-fold reduction in anti-S IgG titers (P=0.009) and SARS-CoV-2 neutralization (p<0.0001) were observed in CID patients. B cell depletion and glucocorticoids exerted the strongest effect with a 36- and 10-fold reduction in humoral responses, respectively (p<0.0001). Janus kinase inhibitors and antimetabolites, including methotrexate, also blunted antibody titers in multivariate regression analysis (P<0.0001, P=0.0023, respectively). Other targeted therapies, such as TNF inhibitors, IL-12/23 inhibitors, and integrin inhibitors, had only modest impacts on antibody formation and neutralization.

CONCLUSIONS

CID patients treated with immunosuppressive therapies exhibit impaired SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-induced immunity, with glucocorticoids and B cell depletion therapy more severely impeding optimal responses.

Interferon activation status underlies higher antibody response to viral antigens in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus receiving no or light treatment

OBJECTIVES

Infections have been proposed as an environmental risk factor for autoimmune disease. Responses to microbial antigens may be studied in vivo during vaccination. We therefore followed patients with SLE and controls during split-virion influenza vaccination to quantify antibody responses against viral antigens and associated cellular and proteome parameters.

METHODS

Blood samples and clinical data were collected from female patients with SLE with no or HCQ and/or low-dose prednisolone treatment (n = 29) and age- and sex-matched healthy controls (n = 17). Vaccine-specific antibody titres were measured by ELISA and IFN-induced gene expression in monocytes by quantitative PCR. Serum proteins were measured by proximity extension assay and disease-associated symptoms were followed by questionnaires.

RESULTS

The vaccine-specific antibody response was significantly higher in patients compared with controls and titres of IgG targeting the viral proteins were higher in patients than controls at both 1 and 3 months after immunization. Clinical disease symptoms and autoantibody titres remained unchanged throughout the study. Notably, a positive pre-vaccination mRNA-based IFN score was associated with a significantly higher vaccine-specific antibody response and with a broader profile of autoantibody specificities. Screening of serum protein biomarkers revealed higher levels of IFN-regulated proteins in patients compared with controls and that levels of such proteins correlated with the vaccine-specific IgG response, with C-C motif chemokine ligand 3 exhibiting the strongest association.

CONCLUSION

Augmented antibody responses to viral antigens develop in patients with SLE on no or light treatment and associate with markers of type I IFN system activation at the RNA and protein levels.

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

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

Oral disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and immunosuppressants with antiviral potential, including SARS-CoV-2 infection: a review

There have been several episodes of viral infection evolving into epidemics in recent decades, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the latest example. Its high infectivity and moderate mortality have resulted in an urgent need to find an effective treatment modality. Although the category of immunosuppressive drugs usually poses a risk of infection due to interference of the immune system, some of them have been found to exert antiviral properties and are already used in daily practice. Recently, hydroxychloroquine and baricitinib have been proposed as potential drugs for SARS-CoV-2. In fact, there are other immunosuppressants known with antiviral activities, including cyclosporine A, hydroxyurea, minocycline, mycophenolic acid, mycophenolate mofetil, leflunomide, tofacitinib, and thalidomide. The inherent antiviral activity could be a treatment choice for patients with coexisting rheumatological disorders and infections. Clinical evidence, their possible mode of actions and spectrum of antiviral activities are included in this review article.

LAY SUMMARY

Immunosuppressants often raise the concern of infection risks, especially for patients with underlying immune disorders. However, some disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) with inherent antiviral activity would be a reasonable choice in the situation of concomitant viral infections and flare up of autoimmune diseases. This review covers DMARDs of treatment potential for SARS-CoV-2 in part I, and antiviral mechanisms plus trial evidence for viruses other than SARS-CoV-2 in part II.

Rethinking the role of hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of COVID-19

There are currently no proven or approved treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Early anecdotal reports and limited in vitro data led to the significant uptake of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), and to lesser extent chloroquine (CQ), for many patients with this disease. As an increasing number of patients with COVID-19 are treated with these agents and more evidence accumulates, there continues to be no high-quality clinical data showing a clear benefit of these agents for this disease. Moreover, these agents have the potential to cause harm, including a broad range of adverse events including serious cardiac side effects when combined with other agents. In addition, the known and potent immunomodulatory effects of these agents which support their use in the treatment of auto-immune conditions, and provided a component in the original rationale for their use in patients with COVID-19, may, in fact, undermine their utility in the context of the treatment of this respiratory viral infection. Specifically, the impact of HCQ on cytokine production and suppression of antigen presentation may have immunologic consequences that hamper innate and adaptive antiviral immune responses for patients with COVID-19. Similarly, the reported in vitro inhibition of viral proliferation is largely derived from the blockade of viral fusion that initiates infection rather than the direct inhibition of viral replication as seen with nucleoside/tide analogs in other viral infections. Given these facts and the growing uncertainty about these agents for the treatment of COVID-19, it is clear that at the very least thoughtful planning and data collection from randomized clinical trials are needed to understand what if any role these agents may have in this disease. In this article, we review the datasets that support or detract from the use of these agents for the treatment of COVID-19 and render a data informed opinion that they should only be used with caution and in the context of carefully thought out clinical trials, or on a case-by-case basis after rigorous consideration of the risks and benefits of this therapeutic approach.

The Practice Guideline for Vaccinating Korean Patients with Autoimmune Inflammatory Rheumatic Disease

To develop a clinical practice guideline for vaccination in patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic disease (AIIRD), the Korean College of Rheumatology and the Korean Society of Infectious Diseases developed a clinical practice guideline according to the clinical practice guideline development manual. Since vaccination is unlikely to cause AIIRD or worsen disease activities, required vaccinations are recommended. Once patients are diagnosed with AIIRD, treatment strategies should be established and, at the same time, monitor their vaccination history. It is recommended to administer vaccines when the disease enters the stabilized stage. Administering live attenuated vaccines in patients with AIIRD who are taking immunosuppressants should be avoided. Vaccination should be considered in patients with AIIRD, prior to initiating immunosuppressants. It is recommended to administer influenza, Streptococcus pneumoniae, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, herpes zoster, measles-mumps-rubella virus, human papillomavirus, and tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis vaccines in patients with AIIRD; such patients who planned to travel are generally recommended to be vaccinated at the recommended vaccine level of healthy adults. Those who live in a household with patients with AIIRD and their caregivers should also be vaccinated at levels that are generally recommended for healthy adults.

The lupus patient traveller: a guide to the rheumatologist

With an increasing number of international journeys occurring daily, there is also an increase in the need for appropriate medical advice for patients who will undertake such travel. In this context, the lupus patient presents a great challenge to the rheumatologist. However, the demand for such information by patients is low, and it has proven difficult for the medical community to adequately provide it. In this article, we carried out a literature review of the medical recommendations made for the lupus patient in order to guide the rheumatologist through the topic of travel medicine.

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

Aim

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Hepatitis A virus vaccination in childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus

Objectives: Vaccination of systemic lupus erythematosus patients with non-live vaccines may decrease vaccine-preventable infections and mortalities. In the present study, we aimed to compare the immunogenicity and safety of inactivated hepatitis A vaccination in childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus and healthy subjects. Methods: A total of 30 childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus and 39 healthy participants who were seronegative for hepatitis A received two doses of the hepatitis A vaccine in a 0- and 6-month schedule. Hepatitis A virus (HAV) IgG antibodies were measured before vaccination and 7 months after the vaccination. Results: Although anti-HAV IgG antibody titers after vaccination were found to be somewhat lower in children with systemic lupus erythematosus than that of the healthy subjects ( p < 0.05), the difference in seroconversion rate was insignificant between childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus patients ( n = 24/30, 80%) and healthy controls ( n = 33/39, 84.6%). There was no increase in median Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI)-2K scores and anti-ds DNA levels after the vaccination procedure. Seroconversion rates in childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus patients were not affected by medication, high disease activity (SLEDAI-2K >6) and anti-ds DNA positivity. None of the patients experienced any flare or adverse reaction throughout the study. Conclusions: According to these results, we conclude that inactivated hepatitis A vaccine is safe and well tolerated in childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus patients, with no adverse events or increase in activity. Immunogenicity to the hepatitis A vaccine was adequate, with a seropositivity rate of 80%.

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.

Pandemic non-adjuvanted influenza A H1N1 vaccine in a cohort of patients with systemic sclerosis

Objective

To assess the possible effect of therapy, disease subtype and severity on H1N1 immunogenicity in patients with SSc.

Methods

Ninety-two patients and 92 age- and gender-matched healthy controls received adjuvant-free influenza A/California/7/2009 (pH1N1) vaccine. Blood samples were collected immediately before and 3 weeks after vaccination to evaluate antibody responses to the H1N1 virus. Efficacy was assessed by seroprotection (SP) and seroconversion (SC) rates and the factor increase in geometric mean antibody titre. Participants received a 21-day symptom diary card and were instructed to report local and systemic adverse events.

Results

SSc patients were predominantly females (91%) and 61% had limited SSc, 12% had severe skin involvement and 57.6% were on immunosuppressive (IS) therapy. SSc patients and controls presented comparable overall SP (P = 0.20) and SC (P = 0.61) rates. Further evaluation of the possible effect of disease and therapy revealed similar rates of SP and SC in patients with dcSSc vs lcSSc (SP P = 0.62 and SC P = 0.66), severe vs mild/moderate skin involvement (SP P = 1 and SC P = 0.45) and with vs without IS (SP P = 0.26 and SC P = 0.10). The frequency of mild local and minor systemic reactions was similar in patients with dcSSC vs lcSSc (P = 0.70 vs 0.32) and in those with and without severe skin involvement (P = 0.59 vs 0.28).

Conclusion

The non-adjuvanted influenza H1N1 virus vaccine proved to be safe and effective, independent of SSc clinical subtype, disease severity or therapy. These latter factors do not seem to contribute to mild adverse events observed in SSc. Our data support the annual influenza vaccination recommendation for these patients.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov), NCT01151644.

A randomized, open-label study to investigate the effect of belimumab on pneumococcal vaccination in patients with active, autoantibody-positive systemic lupus erythematosus

Objective Intravenous belimumab 10 mg/kg is approved as an add-on therapy in patients with active, autoantibody-positive systemic lupus erythematosus. This study aimed to assess the impact of belimumab on immune response to pneumococcal vaccination in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Methods This was a Phase 4, open-label study (GSK BEL115470; NCT01597492) conducted in the United States. Patients were randomized (7:9) to receive a 23-valent pneumococcal vaccination four weeks prior to (pre-belimumab cohort) or 24 weeks after (belimumab-concurrent cohort) commencing four-weekly belimumab 10 mg/kg intravenous treatment plus standard systemic lupus erythematosus therapy. Analyses of vaccine titers were performed on the as-treated population (received ≥1 dose of belimumab). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with positive antibody responses (≥2-fold increase from pre-vaccination levels, or post-vaccination level ≥ 0.6 µg/mL if pre-vaccination levels were unquantifiable) to ≥1 of 23 pneumococcal vaccine serotypes, four weeks post vaccination. Other endpoints included the proportion of patients with positive antibody responses to ≥2 to ≥10, and ≥11-23 (post hoc analysis) of serotypes. Safety was assessed by monitoring adverse events. Results Seventy-nine patients received pneumococcal vaccination (pre-belimumab cohort, n = 34; belimumab-concurrent cohort, n = 45). The majority (87.3% [69/79]) completed the study; 10 (12.7%) withdrew (patient request, n = 3; adverse event, n = 3; lost to follow-up, n = 2; other, n = 2). At Week 4 post-vaccination, 97.0% (32/33) and 97.6% (40/41) of patients (pre-belimumab and concurrent belimumab cohorts, respectively) had a positive response to ≥1 of 23 pneumococcal serotypes. Over 85% of patients in both cohorts responded to ≥10 of serotypes, approximately 80% responded to ≥12 serotypes, and approximately two-thirds responded to ≥16 serotypes. Little difference was observed between cohorts across a broad response, up to 23 serotypes. Eight (23.5%) patients experienced an adverse event considered by the investigator to be treatment-related in the pre-belimumab cohort and four (8.9%) in the belimumab-concurrent cohort; seven patients experienced non-fatal serious adverse events (pre-belimumab cohort, 11.8% [ n = 4]; concurrent-belimumab cohort, 6.7% [ n = 3]), and no deaths were reported. Conclusion The proportion of patients generating a response to ≥1 pneumococcal serotype did not differ between the pre-belimumab and belimumab-concurrent cohorts; the proportions were also comparable across a broader response (from ≥2 serotypes to 23 serotypes).

Targeting endosomal acidification by chloroquine analogs as a promising strategy for the treatment of emerging viral diseases

Emerging viruses such as HIV, dengue, influenza A, SARS coronavirus, Ebola, and other viruses pose a significant threat to human health. Majority of these viruses are responsible for the outbreaks of pathogenic lethal infections. To date, there are no effective therapeutic strategies available for the prophylaxis and treatment of these infections. Chloroquine analogs have been used for decades as the primary and most successful drugs against malaria. Concomitant with the emergence of chloroquine‐resistant Plasmodium strains and a subsequent decrease in the use as antimalarial drugs, other applications of the analogs have been investigated. Since the analogs have interesting biochemical properties, these drugs are found to be effective against a wide variety of viral infections. As antiviral action, the analogs have been shown to inhibit acidification of endosome during the events of replication and infection. Moreover, immunomodulatory effects of analogs have been beneficial to patients with severe inflammatory complications of several viral diseases. Interestingly, one of the successful targeting strategies is the inhibition of HIV replication by the analogs in vitro which are being tested in several clinical trials. This review focuses on the potentialities of chloroquine analogs for the treatment of endosomal low pH dependent emerging viral diseases.

Is Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Associated With a Declined Immunogenicity and Poor Safety of Influenza Vaccination?: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

There are conflicts on whether influenza vaccinated systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients are associated with a decreased immunogenicity and safety, compared with healthy controls. We conducted meta-analyses to compare SLE patients with healthy controls for flu-vaccine immunogenicity, as well as for adverse events.PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library were searched by October 15, 2015. Studies were included when they met the inclusion criteria. Two reviewers independently extracted data on study characteristics, methodological quality, and outcomes. The primary outcome was seroprotection (SP) rate after immunization.A total of 15 studies were included. There were significant differences in SP rates between the SLE patients and healthy controls, respectively, for H1N1 (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.73-0.87) and B strain (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65-0.87), but not for H3N2 (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.68-1.03). Subgroup analyses demonstrated SLE patients with immunosuppressants, corticosteroids, azathioprine and prednisone had significantly lower SP rates, compared with healthy controls. SLE patients with nonadjuvanted H1N1 vaccine had significantly lower SP rate, compared with healthy controls. SLE patients were not associated with increased adverse events (RR 1.88, 95% CI 0.94-3.77).SLE generates immunogenicity differently, compared with healthy controls in pandemic H1N1 and B strains, but same in seasonal H3N2 strain. Nonadjuvant and special kind of immunosuppressive biologics can play an important role in SLE immunogenicity to flu vaccine. There is no significant difference in adverse event rates between SLE patients and healthy controls.

Immunogenicity and Safety of Influenza Vaccination in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Patients Compared with Healthy Controls: A Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the immunogenicity and safety of influenza vaccine in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

METHODS

Relevant articles were retrieved from electronic databases. Seroprotection rate, seroconversion rate and factors that increase antibody geometric mean titer (GMT) were used as indices to measure the immunogenicity. The safety of vaccine was assessed through monitoring adverse events, which included side effects and SLE exacerbations. We performed a meta-analysis of influenza vaccine seroprotection, seroconversion and adverse effects. SLE exacerbation after vaccination was comprehensively described. We used the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP) guidelines to determine whether influenza can induce adequate immunogenicity in patients with SLE.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies with 1966 subjects met the inclusion criteria. At least 565 of the subjects were patients with low-to-moderate SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) score or stable SLE disease. Compared with the general population, seroprotection rate in SLE patients was significantly decreased in patients with H1N1 [odds ratio (OR) = 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.27-0.50] and H3N2 vaccination (OR = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.24-0.93), but not influenza B vaccination (OR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.24-1.25). Seroconversion rate also significantly decreased in patients with H1N1 (OR = 0.39, 95% CI: 0.27-0.57) and influenza B (OR = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.29-0.76) vaccination, but not H3N2 vaccination (OR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.21-1.79). However, the immunogenicity of influenza vaccine in SLE patients almost reached that of the CPMP guidelines. The OR for side effects (patients versus healthy controls) was 3.24 (95% CI: 0.62-16.76). Among 1966 patients with SLE, 32 experienced mild exacerbation of SLE and five had serious side effects for other reasons.

CONCLUSION

Influenza vaccine has moderate effect on protecting patients with SLE. The side effects of influenza vaccine are not serious and are manageable. With consideration of a higher risk of SLE exacerbation and a more severe course of infection among SLE patients, influenza vaccination should be promoted among SLE patients with a low-to-moderate SLEDAI score or stable disease.

The pandemic influenza A (H1N1) 2009 vaccine does not increase the mortality rate of idiopathic interstitial pneumonia: a matched case-control study

Background

Evidence regarding the mortality rate after administration of the pandemic influenza A (H1N1) 2009 vaccine on patients with underlying diseases is currently scarce. We conducted a case-control study in Japan to compare the mortality rates of patients with idiopathic interstitial pneumonia after the vaccines were administered and were not administered.

Methods

Between October 2009 and March 2010, we collected clinical records in Japan and conducted a 1∶1 matched case-control study. Patients with idiopathic interstitial pneumonia who died during this period were considered case patients, and those who survived were considered control patients. We determined and compared the proportion of each group that received the pandemic influenza A (H1N1) 2009 vaccine and estimated the odds ratio. Finally, we conducted simulations that compensated for the shortcomings of the study associated with adjusted severity of idiopathic interstitial pneumonia.

Results

The case and control groups each comprised of 75 patients with idiopathic interstitial pneumonia. The proportion of patients who received the pandemic influenza A (H1N1) 2009 vaccine was 30.7% and 38.7% for the case and control groups, respectively. During that winter, the crude conditional odds ratio of mortality was 0.63 (95% confidence interval, 0.25–1.47) and the adjusted conditional odds ratio was 1.18 (95% confidence interval, 0.33–4.49); neither was significant. The simulation study showed more accurate conditional odds ratios of 0.63–0.71.

Conclusions

In our study, we detected no evidence that the influenza A (H1N1) 2009 vaccine increased the mortality rate of patients with idiopathic interstitial pneumonia. The results, however, are limited by the small sample size and low statistical power. A larger-scale study is required.

Mycophenolic acid counteracts B cell proliferation and plasmablast formation in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus

Introduction

Clinical trials revealed a high efficacy of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) in inducing and maintaining remission in patients with class III-V-lupus nephritis. Also extrarenal manifestations respond to MMF treatment. However, few attempts have been undertaken to delineate its mechanism of action in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) a disease characterized by enhanced B cell activation.

Methods

Clinical and paraclinical parameters of 107 patients with SLE were recorded consecutively and analyzed retrospectively. Patients were divided into treatment groups (MMF: n = 39, azathioprine (AZA) n = 30 and controls without immunosuppressive therapy n = 38). To further delineate the effect of mycophenolic acid (MPA) on naive and memory B cells in vitro assays were performed.

Results

Although patients taking AZA flared more frequently than patients on MMF or controls, the analysis of clinical parameters did not reveal significant differences. However, profound differences in paraclinical parameters were found. B cell frequencies and numbers were significantly higher in patients taking MMF compared to those on AZA but lower numbers and frequencies of plasmablasts were detected compared to AZA-treated patients or controls. Notably, MMF treatment was associated with a significantly higher frequency and number of transitional B cells as well as naive B cells compared to AZA treatment. Differences in T cell subsets were not significant. MPA abrogated in vitro proliferation of purified B cells completely but had only moderate impact on B cell survival.

Conclusions

The thorough inhibition of B cell activation and plasma cell formation by MMF might explain the favorable outcomes of previous clinical trials in patients with SLE, since enhanced B cell proliferation is a hallmark of this disease.

Immunogenicity of influenza H1N1 vaccination in mixed connective tissue disease: effect of disease and therapy

OBJECTIVE

To assess the potential acute effects regarding the immunogenicity and safety of non-adjuvanted influenza A H1N1/2009 vaccine in patients with mixed connective tissue disease and healthy controls.

METHODS

Sixty-nine mixed connective tissue disease patients that were confirmed by Kasukawa's classification criteria and 69 age- and gender-matched controls participated in the study; the participants were vaccinated with the non-adjuvanted influenza A/California/7/2009 (H1N1) virus-like strain. The percentages of seroprotection, seroconversion, geometric mean titer and factor increase in the geometric mean titer were calculated. The patients were clinically evaluated, and blood samples were collected pre- and 21 days post-vaccination to evaluate C-reactive protein, muscle enzymes and autoantibodies. Anti-H1N1 titers were determined using an influenza hemagglutination inhibition assay. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01151644.

RESULTS

Before vaccination, no difference was observed regarding the seroprotection rates (p = 1.0) and geometric mean titer (p = 0.83) between the patients and controls. After vaccination, seroprotection (75.4% vs. 71%, (p = 0.7), seroconversion (68.1% vs. 65.2%, (p = 1.00) and factor increase in the geometric mean titer (10.0 vs. 8.0, p = 0.40) were similar in the two groups. Further evaluation of seroconversion in patients with and without current or previous history of muscle disease (p = 0.20), skin ulcers (p = 0.48), lupus-like cutaneous disease (p = 0.74), secondary Sjogren syndrome (p = 0.78), scleroderma-pattern in the nailfold capillaroscopy (p = 1.0), lymphopenia #1000/mm³ on two or more occasions (p = 1.0), hypergammaglobulinemia $1.6 g/d (p = 0.60), pulmonary hypertension (p = 1.0) and pulmonary fibrosis (p = 0.80) revealed comparable rates. Seroconversion rates were also similar in patients with and without immunosuppressants. Disease parameters, such as C-reactive protein (p = 0.94), aldolase (p = 0.73), creatine phosphokinase (p = 0.40) and ribonucleoprotein antibody levels (p = 0.98), remained largely unchanged pre and post-vaccination. No severe side effects were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

The non-adjuvanted influenza A/H1N1 vaccination immune response in mixed connective tissue disease patients is adequate and does not depend on the disease manifestations and therapy.

Pandemic unadjuvanted influenza A (H1N1) vaccine in dermatomyositis and polymyositis: immunogenicity independent of therapy and no harmful effect in disease

The goal of the present study was to evaluate the influence of the influenza A H1N1/2009 vaccine on dermatomyositis/polymyositis (DM/PM) disease parameters and the potential deleterious effect of therapy on immune response. Thirty-seven DM and 21 PM patients (Bohan and Peter's criteria) were gender- and age-matched to 116 healthy controls. Seroprotection, seroconversion, the geometric mean titers (GMTs) and the factor increase (FI) in the GMTs were calculated. Disease safety was determined from a muscle enzyme analysis and the DM/PM scores [patient's visual analog scale (VAS), physician's VAS, manual muscle strength (MMT-8)] evaluated pre- and post-vaccination. The mean age (43.1±9.9 vs. 43.8±8.4 years, p=0.607) and gender distribution (p=1.00) were comparable between the patients and controls. After 21 days, seroconversion (p=0.394), seroprotection (p=0.08), GMT (p=0.573) and the FI in the GMT (p=0.496) were similar in both groups. The disease and muscle parameters remained stable throughout the study, including the creatine kinase (p=0.20) and aldolase levels (p=0.98), the physicians' VAS (p=1.00), the patients' VAS (p=1.00) and the MMT-8 (p=1.00). Regarding the influence of treatment, the seroconversion rates were comparable between the controls and patients undergoing treatment with glucocorticoid (GC) (p=0.969), GC >0.5mg/kg/day (p=0.395) and GC+immunosuppressors (p=0.285). Vaccine-related adverse events were mild and similar in the DM/PM and control groups (p>0.05). Our data support the administration of the pandemic influenza A H1N1/2009 vaccination in DM/PM, as we found no short-term harmful effects related to the disease itself and adequate immunogenicity in spite of therapy. Further studies are necessary to identify any long-term adverse effects in patients with these diseases.

TNF blockers show distinct patterns of immune response to the pandemic influenza A H1N1 vaccine in inflammatory arthritis patients

Objective. To evaluate the immunogenicity of the anti-influenza A H1N1/2009 vaccine in RA and spondyloarthritis (SpA) patients receiving distinct classes of anti-TNF agents compared with patients receiving DMARDs and healthy controls.

Methods. One hundred and twenty patients (RA, n = 41; AS, n = 57; PsA, n = 22) on anti-TNF agents (monoclonal, n = 94; soluble receptor, n = 26) were compared with 116 inflammatory arthritis patients under DMARDs and 117 healthy controls. Seroprotection, seroconversion (SC), geometric mean titre, factor increase in geometric mean titre and adverse events were evaluated 21 days after vaccination.

Results. After immunization, SC rates (58.2% vs 74.3%, P = 0.017) were significantly lower in SpA patients receiving anti-TNF therapy, whereas no difference was observed in RA patients receiving this therapy compared with healthy controls (P = 0.067). SpA patients receiving mAbs (infliximab/adalimumab) had a significantly lower SC rate compared with healthy controls (51.6% vs 74.3%, P = 0.002) or those on DMARDs (51.6% vs 74.7%, P = 0.005), whereas no difference was observed for patients on etanercept (86.7% vs 74.3%, P = 0.091). Further analysis of non-seroconverting and seroconverting SpA patients revealed that the former group had a higher mean age (P = 0.003), a higher frequency of anti-TNF (P = 0.031) and mAbs (P = 0.001) and a lower frequency of MTX (P = 0.028). In multivariate logistic regression, only older age (P = 0.015) and mAb treatment (P = 0.023) remained significant factors for non-SC in SpA patients.

Conclusion. This study revealed a distinct disease pattern of immune response to the pandemic influenza vaccine in inflammatory arthritis patients receiving anti-TNF agents, illustrated by a reduced immunogenicity solely in SpA patients using mAbs.

Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01151644.