Knowledge, attitudes, and clinical practice of rheumatologists in vaccination of the at-risk rheumatology patient population

Exploring the attitudes and practices of adult service users and providers towards vaccination in non-primary care settings: A mixed methods scoping review

BACKGROUND

There are several identified service user and provider barriers which lead to missed vaccination opportunities for adults within primary care. Programs delivering vaccination in non-primary care settings, such as in emergency departments, hospitals, specialist clinic and non-medical settings may assist in filling these gaps, especially among under-served populations. While expanding the locations in which vaccines are provided may improve uptake, there is a need to explore service user and provider attitudes towards delivery.

OBJECTIVES

This scoping review aims to explore perceptions and attitudes of adult service users and providers towards receiving and delivering vaccination in non-primary care settings and identify how attitudes relate to determinants of vaccine compliance.

METHODS

This scoping review was conducted in accordance with Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidance for scoping reviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Studies that focused on attitudes and perceptions of adult service users and providers towards the delivery of influenza, COVID-19, pneumococcal, and herpes zoster vaccines in non-primary care settings were included. Primary, peer-reviewed studies published in English from 01/01/2010 to 31/12/2023 were sought. Studies that focused on vaccination in primary care settings, the operational delivery of vaccination programs and interventions, children or adolescents less than 18 years, pregnant women, and healthcare workers receiving vaccination for occupational purposes were excluded.

RESULTS

30 studies were included for final analysis in this study. 22 were cross-sectional studies, and 19 were published in the United States. 15 studies were conducted in non-medical settings and 11 in the emergency department. Findings showed that service users were receptive towards vaccination in non-primary care settings and were especially motivated by the convenience of non-medical settings such as workplaces, mobile clinics, drive through clinics, and faith-based organisations. A number of service user barriers were reported to vaccine acceptance, including low confidence in vaccines, fear of adverse effects, and low risk perception of infection. Findings of the included studies highlight a number of provider attitudinal barriers to the delivery of vaccinations outside of primary care, such as considering the process too time-consuming, costly, and detracting from the purpose of their work, although the number of studies assessing provider attitudes were limited.

CONCLUSION

Overall, there is a limited amount of evidence available regarding the attitudes to vaccination in non-primary care settings, especially among providers. There is a need for more study in this area to strengthen understanding of attitudes towards vaccination delivery in these settings. Mapping of available studies suggests there is a high acceptance level among service users towards vaccination in non-primary care settings, especially those in non-medical settings who lack routine access to the healthcare system. Further exploration of this and expansion of programs may serve to improve vaccine access and assist in overcoming inequity.

Facilitators and barriers of vaccine uptake in patients with autoimune inflammatory rheumatic disease: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIRD) often have lower vaccination coverage rates compared with the general population, despite being disproportionately affected by infectious complications. We aim to systematically review the literature regarding vaccination willingness and hesitancy in AIRD.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library in June 2021. Study selection was performed by two independent reviewers and data were extracted using a standardised form. Risk of bias was assessed using instruments from McMaster University. Identified barriers were categorised into the WHO's measuring behavioural and social drivers (BeSD) of vaccination conceptual model.

RESULTS

The search yielded 1644 hits of which 30 publications were included (cross-sectional studies based on interviews (n=27) and intervention studies (n=3)). The majority of studies reported barriers to influenza and pneumococcal vaccination only (n=9) or in combination with another vaccination (n=8) from the patients' perspective. Only one study assessed the view of rheumatologists. Coverage of domains matched to the BeSD model suggests a lack of awareness of infection risk by both patients and physicians. Patients mainly mentioned behavioural and social factors that negatively influenced their willingness to be vaccinated while physicians mentioned organisational deficits as major barriers.

CONCLUSIONS

The view on vaccination in patients with AIRD diverges between patients and rheumatologists. Our results show that in-depth counselling on vaccines is important for patients, whereas physicians need support in implementing specific immunisation recommendations. The themes identified provide a starting point for future interventions to improve vaccine rates in patients with AIRD.

Vaccines in adults with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic disease: What are the knowledge and attitudes of physicians?

Objectives

The aim of this study was to evaluate the knowledge and practices about vaccination in adults with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIRD) among primary care physicians (PCPs), internal medicine specialists (IMSs), and rheumatologists and to emphasize the importance of vaccination.

Patients and methods

Between March 2021 and April 2021, a total of 310 IMSs, PCPs, and rheumatologists (132 males, 178 females; mean age: 37.4±9.5 years; range, 24 to 64 years) were included. A web-based questionnaire was used in the study.

Results

Of the physicians, 87.7% were aware of that patients with AIRD were among adults with vaccination indications, but 53.9% reported that they knew about recommended vaccines, and 53.2% recommended vaccines to their patients. The most common reasons for not recommending vaccination were reservations about the drugs used (22.3%) and lack of information (17.7%). Those with longer practice as physicians and older physicians had less knowledge about the vaccine than the other participants. While 59.7% of the participants thought that the vaccination plans of the patients should be made by the rheumatologist, the rate of PCPs who did not prefer to apply the planned vaccines in the first step was 50.7%. A total of 50% of the participants did not recommend the administration of the COVID-19 vaccine in a primary healthcare institution to those receiving immunosuppressive therapy.

Conclusion

Considering that one of the major obstacles to adult vaccination is the physician's refusal to recommend it, our study highlights the missing points in the vaccination knowledge and approach of physicians. Providing advice on adult vaccination and immunization of risky groups to more physicians and periodic training to prevent loss of knowledge after graduation may contribute to an increase in the vaccination rate of adults with AIRD.

Public Attitude Towards COVID-19 Vaccination: Validation of COVID-Vaccination Attitude Scale (C-VAS)

Introduction

The fear of emergence of newer strains of SARS-CoV-2 as well as concerns of waning of protection after doses of COVID-19 vaccine has created a degree of global uncertainty surrounding the pandemic. Some of the emerging strains of SARS-CoV-2 have shown potential for causing serious disease and death, a threat that has been ameliorated by ensuring the vaccine coverage in populations. Still, the vaccine coverage remains unsatisfactory in certain populations. Hence, understanding and working on the factors which affect acceptance of the vaccine amongst the public can be considered a priority for public health as much as ensuring availability of the vaccines.

Objective

This research work aims to build and validate a scale to assess the public attitude towards COVID vaccination. The proposed scale has been named as COVID Vaccination Attitude Scale (C-VAS).

Materials and Methods

A three-stage process was used to develop the C-VAS which includes (1) item generation (deductive and inductive approach); (2) item-refinement (pre-testing and pilot testing, exploratory factor analysis (EFA); and (3) scale validation (confirmatory factor analysis, CFA). The sample size used for this research was 840. In order to overcome the issue of common method bias, the data was collected in two phases. The sample n1 (411) was used for EFA and the sample n2 (429) was employed for undertaking CFA. Common method bias was assessed to check if variations in responses are caused by the instrument instead of the actual dispositions of the respondents. Items of the scale were taken by reviewing the extant literature about vaccination, from the relevant established theories such as health belief model and by interviewing with domain experts. The content validity of the scale was determined.

Results

EFA extracted five factors, labelled as "Perceived Benefits", "Perceived Barriers", "Perceived Severity", "Health Motivation" and "Perceived Risk". To further validate the factor-item structure CFA was performed.

Conclusion

The measurement model was assessed by applying CFA to examine the reliability, accuracy and validity of the scale. Development of this scale can help in understanding factors that affect vaccine acceptability behavior. This can be used in promoting COVID vaccine coverage in countries and societies which still have low vaccination rates especially due to lack of acceptance of the vaccine. This scale also has the potential to understand public behavior in relation to similar future outbreaks and the acceptance of the mitigatory vaccines.

Predictors of Influenza Vaccination in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis 2017-2021: Results From the Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort

Objective

Adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are at a higher risk for infections, including influenza and related complications. We identified influenza vaccination coverage in adults newly diagnosed with RA and examined sociodemographic RA characteristics and attitudes associated with vaccination.

Methods

We used data from patients enrolled in the Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort between September 2017 and February 2021. At enrollment, participants reported their vaccination status in the previous year and completed the Beliefs About Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ). Clinical data were obtained from medical records. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of vaccination in the year after RA diagnosis.

Results

The baseline analytic sample of 431 patients were mostly White (80%) women (67%) with a mean age of 56 (SD 14) years. Prediagnosis, influenza vaccine coverage was 38%, increasing to 46% post diagnosis in the longitudinal sample (n = 229). Participants with previous influenza vaccination (odds ratio [OR] 15.33; 95% confidence interval [CI] 6.37‐36.90), on biologics or JAKs (OR 5.42; 95% CI 1.72‐17.03), and with a higher change in BMQ Necessity‐Concerns Differential scores (OR 1.08; 95% CI 1.02‐1.15) had greater odds, whereas women (OR 0.32; 95% CI 0.14‐0.71), participants with a non‐White racial background (OR 0.13; 95% CI 0.04‐0.51), and participants currently smoking (OR 0.09; 95% CI 0.02‐0.37) had lower odds of influenza vaccine coverage.

Conclusion

Influenza vaccination coverage in patients with early RA remains below national targets in adults living with a chronic condition. Discussing vaccine history and medication attitudes at initial clinic visits with new patients with RA may enhance vaccine acceptance and uptake.

Vaccination Attitudes and Experiences of Medical Doctors in Croatia amid the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Social Roles Conflict?

The study aimed to investigate the range of experiences and attitudes of Croatian medical doctors (MDs) related to vaccination and vaccine hesitancy. In January 2021 three asynchronous online focus groups were held using MRQual, a web-based platform, which included 46 MDs from all three levels of the healthcare system in Croatia. NVivo, a qualitative data analysis software package, was used for the thematic analysis of collected data. The participants expressed a high level of support for the Croatian immunization program and vaccines in general. However, some skepticism was expressed regarding new vaccines and the regulatory processes of their approval. A significant number of participants raised concerns over the approval of COVID-19 vaccines, especially given their rapid development. The results also revealed that the process of communication with patients is often based on the very elaborate categorizations of patients based on previous experience, which leads to prioritizing and a communication breakup when dealing with “problematic patients”. MDs find themselves in a delicate situation where a fine balance between time-consuming communication with patients and the demands for maintaining satisfying vaccination uptake is needed. The situation arises from a social roles conflict that is embedded in wider social values and expectations, since communication problems do not arise in the doctor’s office, and therefore cannot be solved without addressing the social forces that cause trust deficiencies. To achieve better immunization results public health leaders need to better understand the social contexts and constraints of MDs vaccine-related behaviors.

Healthcare workers' perceptions and attitudes towards the UK's COVID-19 vaccination programme: a rapid qualitative appraisal

OBJECTIVES

While there is research relating to perceptions of vaccines among healthcare workers (HCWs), the evidence base in relation to COVID-19 remains limited. The aim of this study was to explore HCWs' perceptions and attitudes towards vaccines and the COVID-19 vaccination programme in the UK, including their expectations and views on promoting vaccination to others.

DESIGN

This study was designed as a rapid qualitative appraisal, integrating data from a review of UK policies and guidance on COVID-19 vaccination with data from in-depth semistructured telephone interviews with frontline HCWs in the UK. Data were analysed using framework analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

Interviews were carried out with a purposive sample of HCWs from two large London-based hospital Trusts (n=24) and 24 government policies, and guidelines on the vaccination programme were reviewed.

RESULTS

The level of uncertainty about the long-term safety of vaccines and efficacy against mutant strains made it difficult for HCWs to balance the benefits against the risks of vaccination. HCWs felt that government decisions on vaccine rollout had not been supported by evidence-based science, and this impacted their level of trust and confidence in the programme. The spread of misinformation online also impacted HCWs' attitudes towards vaccination, particularly among junior level and black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) HCWs. Most HCWs felt encouraged to promote vaccination to their patients, and the majority said they would advocate vaccination or engage in conversations about vaccination with others when relevant.

CONCLUSION

In order to improve HCWs' trust and confidence in the UK's COVID-19 vaccination programme, there needs to be clarity about what is known and not known about the vaccines and transparency around the evidence-base supporting government decisions on vaccine rollout. Effort is also needed to dispel the spread of vaccine-related misinformation online and to address specific concerns, particularly among BAME and junior-level HCWs.

Healthcare workers' perceptions and attitudes towards the UK's COVID-19 vaccination programme: a rapid qualitative appraisal

OBJECTIVES

While there is research relating to perceptions of vaccines among healthcare workers (HCWs), the evidence base in relation to COVID-19 remains limited. The aim of this study was to explore HCWs' perceptions and attitudes towards vaccines and the COVID-19 vaccination programme in the UK, including their expectations and views on promoting vaccination to others.

DESIGN

This study was designed as a rapid qualitative appraisal, integrating data from a review of UK policies and guidance on COVID-19 vaccination with data from in-depth semistructured telephone interviews with frontline HCWs in the UK. Data were analysed using framework analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

Interviews were carried out with a purposive sample of HCWs from two large London-based hospital Trusts (n=24) and 24 government policies, and guidelines on the vaccination programme were reviewed.

RESULTS

The level of uncertainty about the long-term safety of vaccines and efficacy against mutant strains made it difficult for HCWs to balance the benefits against the risks of vaccination. HCWs felt that government decisions on vaccine rollout had not been supported by evidence-based science, and this impacted their level of trust and confidence in the programme. The spread of misinformation online also impacted HCWs' attitudes towards vaccination, particularly among junior level and black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) HCWs. Most HCWs felt encouraged to promote vaccination to their patients, and the majority said they would advocate vaccination or engage in conversations about vaccination with others when relevant.

CONCLUSION

In order to improve HCWs' trust and confidence in the UK's COVID-19 vaccination programme, there needs to be clarity about what is known and not known about the vaccines and transparency around the evidence-base supporting government decisions on vaccine rollout. Effort is also needed to dispel the spread of vaccine-related misinformation online and to address specific concerns, particularly among BAME and junior-level HCWs.

Vaccination in Children With Autoimmune Disorders and Treated With Various Immunosuppressive Regimens: A Comprehensive Review and Practical Guide

Children with autoimmune disorders are especially at risk of vaccine-preventable diseases due to their underlying disease and the immunosuppressive treatment often required for a long period. In addition, vaccine coverage remains too low in this vulnerable population. This can be explained by a fear of possible adverse effects of vaccines under immunosuppression, but also a lack of data and clear recommendations, particularly with regard to vaccination with live vaccines. In this review, the latest literature and recommendations on vaccination in immunosuppressed children are discussed in detail, with the aim to provide a set of practical guidelines on vaccination for specialists caring for children suffering from different autoimmune disorders and treated with various immunosuppressive regimens.

Influenza and pneumococcal vaccination coverage in Latin American patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: a cross-sectional and comparative study

BACKGROUND

Infections are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in systemic lupus (SLE). Vaccination would be an effective method to reduce infection rate. Coverage for influenza and pneumococcus appears to be low in Latin America. The objective of this study was to evaluate vaccination coverage for influenza and pneumococcus in Latin America, causes of non-vaccination and to compare it with European patients.

METHODS

A survey was conducted through social networks targeting Latin American lupus patients. A self-report was used to assess the demographics, risk factors for pneumonia, vaccination status, and causes of non-vaccination. The same method was used for European patients. We used binary logistic regression to identify factors associated with pneumococcal and influenza vaccination.

RESULTS

There were 1130 participants from Latin America. Among them, 97% were women with an average of 37.9 years (SD: 11.3) and 46.5% had more than 7 years of disease duration. Two or more risk factors for pneumonia were found in 64.9%. Coverage for influenza and pneumococcal was 42.7 and 25% respectively, being lower than in Europe. Tetanus coverage was the most important predictor for receiving influenza and pneumococcal vaccination. Lack of prescription was the most common cause of non-application (64.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Vaccination coverage for influenza and pneumonia is low in Latin America, especially compared to Europe. It is necessary to make specialists aware of their role in vaccine control and to implement measures to improve coordination between them and general practitioners.

Understanding factors associated with vaccine uptake and vaccine hesitancy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a scoping literature review

Due to higher risk of complications associated with vaccine-preventable infections (e.g., influenza, pneumococcus), patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are a priority group for vaccination. However, vaccination rates among RA patients are low, indicating a need to understand the determinants of vaccine hesitancy in this group. This study conducted an evidence synthesis of various stakeholders' (patients, physicians/rheumatologists) perspectives about the determinants of vaccine hesitancy and uptake among patients with RA. We searched three bibliographic and reference databases (PUBMED, PsychINFO, and SCOPUS) for relevant English or French articles published in peer-reviewed journals through July 2019 that conducted either qualitative or quantitative assessments of vaccine hesitancy or uptake. Key themes associated with vaccination hesitancy themes according to different stakeholders were extracted and summarized. Of 783 unique citations, 16 articles met the inclusion criteria. Most studies (78%; n = 134,787 RA patients) examined barriers reported by patients, 13% (n = 114) by rheumatologists. Two principal themes and six sub-themes associated with vaccination hesitancy were identified among both patients and rheumatologists: 'social and contextual factors' (including healthcare policies, access to care/high patient loads, and social/media influences) and 'patient and provider factors' (including patient understanding of benefits and risks, provider awareness of guidelines and perceived responsibility for vaccination, and implementation challenges). Determinants of vaccine hesitancy and uptake in RA identified by different stakeholders implicate patient-, provider-, and healthcare system‑related factors. This information is relevant for the design of interventions that target improving vaccine uptake in RA patients.

Clinician's Perceptions of a CME Activity to Increase Knowledge of Vaccination in Adults with Chronic Inflammatory Conditions

Objective:

Annual influenza and pneumococcal vaccination rates remain suboptimal in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus despite their higher risk of infections and related complications. The CDC identified lack of knowledge about vaccine guidelines among adult patients and their providers as the most substantial barrier to vaccination coverage. As specialists working with particularly affected populations, rheumatologists, allergists, and immunologists can advise patients regarding gaps in recommended vaccinations.

The aim of this study was to describe prescribers’ perceptions of an educational activity that was developed to increase rates of appropriate pneumococcal and influenza vaccination in adults with chronic inflammatory conditions. We were interested in the impact of the educational activity on the knowledge and practice of providers.

Methods:

We evaluated a multimodal educational activity aimed at increasing vaccination rates in high-risk adults. We assessed provider knowledge, perceptions of the activity, and impact on their practice. The activity was conducted at a single site “in house” education event in the live format and was disseminated nationally in print and online format.

Results:

In the “in house” interactive education session, mean scores on the pre- and post-tests were 75% (SD 11.6%, 95% CI 70–80%) and 89% (SD 11.1%, 95% CI 85–95%; p=.0001 vs. pre-test score), respectively, demonstrating that knowledge was significantly increased after completing the activity. In the nationally available activity 93% (n=240) of respondents indicated that the activity significantly increased their awareness about the importance of vaccinations in these high-risk patients and recognition of when these vaccines were indicated or contraindicated, while 55% (n=142) planned to consequently change their practice.

Conclusion:

Provider education is a valuable strategy for practice-based improvements in vaccination coverage since provider failure to recommend vaccinations is a primary barrier in high-risk patients. Most patients received vaccinations based on physician recommendations and vaccination rates were markedly higher among patients receiving vaccine information from their providers. This educational activity increased clinicians’ knowledge of and confidence in vaccinations for adults with chronic inflammatory conditions.

A quality improvement intervention failed to significantly increase pneumococcal and influenza vaccination rates in immunosuppressed inflammatory arthritis patients

OBJECTIVES

Pneumococcal and influenza vaccination rates have been suboptimal in studies of immunosuppressed patients. We aimed to assess barriers to and increase rates of 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) and influenza vaccination in this group. The primary endpoint was a statistically significant increase in adequate PPSV23 and influenza vaccination.

METHODS

In 2017, rheumatology outpatients completed an anonymous questionnaire recording vaccination knowledge, status, and barriers. Simultaneously, a low-cost multifaceted quality improvement (QI) intervention was performed. All outpatients on oral steroids, immunosuppressant conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) or biologics disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) were included in the study. In 2018, post-intervention, the clinic was re-assessed. Demographics, diagnosis, medications, smart phone access, and willingness to use this for vaccination reminders were assessed for independent vaccination predictors using binary logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Four hundred twenty-five patients were included (72.6% rheumatoid arthritis, 74% women, 45.6% ≥ 60 years old). From 2017 to 2018, PPSV23 vaccination rates changed from 41.0 to 47.2% (P = 0.29) and influenza from 61.8 to 62.1% (P = 0.95). The most common reason for non-vaccination was lack of awareness. Following the intervention, this changed for influenza (36.7 to 34.2%) and PPSV23 (82.1 to 76.4%). General practitioners performed most vaccinations, only 3.6% were delivered in the hospital. Significant predictors of PPSV23 vaccination were older age {≥ 80 years had an OR 41.66 (95% CI 3.69-469.8, P = 0.003), compared with ≤ 39 years}, bDMARD use (OR 2.80, 95% CI 1.24-6.32, P = 0.013), and adequate influenza vaccination (OR 9.01, 95% CI 4.40-18.42, P < 0.001). Up-to-date PPSV23 vaccination (OR 8.93, 95% CI 4.39-18.17, P < 0.001) predicted influenza vaccination.

CONCLUSIONS

PPSV23 and influenza vaccination rates were suboptimal. The intervention did not cause a statistically significant change in vaccination rates. Point-of-care vaccination may be more effective.Key Points• Low vaccination rates amongst immunosuppressed inflammatory arthritis outpatients• Less than 5% of vaccinations occurred in hospital• There was no statistically significant difference in the rates of adequate PPSV23 (41.0 to 47.2%) or influenza (61.8 to 62.1%) vaccination following our intervention.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Adherence to Current Vaccination Recommendations for Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis in Mexico

BACKGROUND

Patients with RA have a two to four-fold increased risk of developing infections compared to the general population. For this reason, the administration of influenza, pneumococcal and shingles vaccines is recommended for all patients with RA, preferably prior to initiating treatment, Previous studies have demonstrated the low prevalence of vaccination as well as adherence to current recommendations by rheumatologists in other regions.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the knowledge and adherence to the current vaccination recommendations for patients with RA by rheumatology members of the Mexican College of Rheumatology (MCR), and to identify barriers to their application in this population.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted through a survey sent to 577 rheumatologists from Mexico in January 2017.

RESULTS

We received completed surveys from 122 individuals, representing 21.14% of the 577 rheumatologists in our registry. Fifty percent responded that they recommended immunization against influenza to 76%-100% of their patients, 36.07% recommended immunization against pneumococcus to 76%-100% of their patients, and 69.67% of the survey responders did not recommend shingles immunization routinely to their patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The data collected in this study show there is poor adherence to immunization schedules recommended for the RA population. This data suggests there is misinformation about the effectiveness, safety and optimal timing of immunization in patients with RA in Mexico.

Vaccination coverage in systemic lupus erythematosus-a cross-sectional analysis of the German long-term study (LuLa cohort)

Objectives

Vaccinations are an important measure to prevent infections in immunocompromised patients. The knowledge of vaccination coverage and reasons for non-vaccination in patients with SLE is scarce. The aim of this study was to assess coverage rates of selected vaccinations in a representative sample of SLE patients and to identify predictors for non-vaccination.

Methods

In 2013, information on selected vaccinations (coverage, application and reservations) and on demographics, clinical parameters and health beliefs was assessed by means of a self-reported questionnaire among a representative sample of SLE patients in Germany (LuLa cohort).

Results

Five hundred and seventy-nine patients participated. Vaccination status was primarily checked by their general practitioner (57.3%). Of all the patients, 24.9% did not get their vaccination status checked at all, 16.1% had generally been advised against the use of vaccinations by a physician, and 37.5% stated that they had rejected vaccinations themselves. Their main reasons were fears of developing a lupus flare (21.8%) or adverse events (13.5%). A greater belief by patients in the doctor controlling one's health and the general benefit of medication prevented the rejection of vaccines. Vaccination coverage was low for all recorded vaccinations (tetanus 65.8%, influenza 45.2%, pneumococcus 32.2% and meningococcus 6.1%). Older age was predictive of receiving influenza and pneumococcal vaccination. The same applies for CSs >7.5 mg for receiving influenza vaccination.

Conclusion

Vaccination coverage in SLE patients is poor and reflects insufficient implementation of national and international recommendations. Rheumatologists need to recognize patients' reservations against vaccinations, to communicate their importance and safety and to give individual recommendations to patients and their health-care providers.

Trial registration

German Clinical Trials Register, www.germanctr.de, DRKS00011052.

A survey to evaluate the implementation of vaccine recommendations among rheumatologists practicing in Greece

Objectives

We sought to document the knowledge, perceptions and attitudes toward vaccinations among rheumatologists practicing in Greece.

Methods

Rheumatologists practicing in Greece in 2015 were surveyed by questionnaire during the Postgraduate Course of the Greek Rheumatology Society. Statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS software.

Results

One hundred and ten practicing rheumatologists in Greece were surveyed. Response rate was 63%. The majority of responders (82%) inquire patients about vaccination status during rheumatology medical history and most of them specifically advise patients for vaccination uptake (91%). Correct identification of all vaccine types was made by 11% of rheumatologists that took the survey. Ninety-three percent of responders were aware that influenza vaccine should be administered annually, and 94% acknowledged the need for pneumococcal vaccination. Some were not concerned about reduced immunogenicity in patients receiving treatment with methotrexate/TNF inhibitors and rituximab/abatacept (17% and 7%, respectively). A notable percentage overlook that live vaccines are contraindicated during treatment with TNF inhibitors (17%), conventional synthetic DMARDs (61%), or corticosteroids (30%).

Conclusions

According to our results, the majority of Greek rheumatologists have implemented a vaccine strategy in their everyday practice. Still, there are several misconceptions that need to be addressed. A significant percentage cannot properly distinguish between inactivated and live vaccines, and many are not knowledgeable of the potential effect of specific DMARDs on the immunogenicity and safety of vaccination.

Comparing guideline-based care quality for inflammatory bowel disease and rheumatoid arthritis patients within a medical home

BACKGROUND

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patient populations face similar risks of chronic immunosuppression including corticosteroid use. We compared the receipt of preventive services between IBD and RA populations according to published quality metrics.

METHODS

We defined a single-center cohort of patients with IBD or RA receiving specialty and primary care. Electronic health record abstraction assessed quality metrics, sociodemographics, comorbidity, and utilization. Comparisons used multivariate odds ratios and Student's t-tests.

RESULTS

218 RA and 190 IBD patients were included. In multivariate analysis, IBD patients were less likely to receive pneumococcal vaccination (OR=0.29, 95% CI: 0.11-0.85), while RA patients underwent glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis screening more often (100% vs. 82.5%, p = 0.023).

CONCLUSIONS

Gastroenterologists can improve care quality for IBD patients by assuming greater responsibility for preventive care in IBD patients and/or collaborating with primary care and health systems to improve preventive care delivery.

Survey on management strategies of rheumatoid arthritis in Saudi Arabia: a Saudi Society for Rheumatology Initiative

AIM

Currently there are no national recommendation guidelines for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in Saudi Arabia, which has led to a lack of standard of care. The aim of this study is to explore RA management strategies in practicing rheumatologists in Saudi Arabia.

METHODS

A 38 questions survey was designed using an electronic website. The survey was distributed through the official email of the Saudi Society for Rheumatology. Rheumatologists with at least 1 year of experience were included. Descriptive analysis was used to report demographics and participants' answers. Chi-square and Fischer's exact test were used to evaluate the relation between the characteristics of participants and their answers.

RESULTS

Out of 120 registered practicing adult rheumatologists, 54 (45%) completed the survey. The majority were male 31 (57.4%) and Saudis 36 (66.7%). Forty-two participants (77.8%) use clinical outcome measures in daily clinical practice to guide treatment decisions with the majority using the Disease Activity Score of 28 joints (61.1%). Quality of life measures were used by 22 (40.7%) participants with statistically significant male predominance (P = 0.043). Time consumption was the most important cause for not using any outcome measures. Thirteen (24.1%) and 17 (31.5%) participants do not use parenteral methotrexate and leflunomide, respectively, because of unavailability in the hospital formulary. Nine (16.7%) and 38 (70.37%) participants do not see a role for tofacitinib and biosimilars, respectively, in the management of RA.

CONCLUSION

This survey has highlighted many areas of improvement in the practice of rheumatologists in Saudi Arabia and should be the focus of future educational activities.

Vaccinations for rheumatoid arthritis

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) suffer an increased burden of infectious disease-related morbidity and mortality and have twice the risk of acquiring a severe infection compared to the general population. This increased risk is not only a result of the autoimmune disease but is also attributed to the immunosuppressive therapies that are commonly used in this patient population. Given the increase in infection-related risks in RA, there is great interest in mitigating such risk. A number of vaccines are available to the rheumatologist, with a handful that are of importance for RA patients in the United States. The goal of this paper is to highlight the most recent literature on the key vaccines and the specific considerations for the rheumatologist and their RA patients, with a particular focus on influenza, pneumococcal, and herpes zoster vaccines. It is important for rheumatologist to understand and be aware of which vaccines are live and what potential contraindications exist for giving vaccines to RA patients.

Vaccination in paediatric rheumatology

As awareness of the risk of vaccine-preventable diseases for children with rheumatic diseases has increased, vaccination has become an important clinical consideration and focus of research in paediatric rheumatology. Conflicting reports in the literature and differing advice from national bodies regarding the safety of different vaccines for this patient population have led to confusion in the minds of many rheumatologists as to what is appropriate. This article will provide an overview of crucial aspects of the recently published European League Against Rheumatism recommendations regarding vaccination of paediatric patients with rheumatic disease, and will review advances in this field since their publication.

Attitudes to vaccination: a critical review

This paper provides a consolidated overview of public and healthcare professionals' attitudes towards vaccination in Europe by bringing together for the first time evidence across various vaccines, countries and populations. The paper relies on an extensive review of empirical literature published in English after 2009, as well as an analysis of unpublished market research data from member companies of Vaccines Europe. Our synthesis suggests that hesitant attitudes to vaccination are prevalent and may be increasing since the influenza pandemic of 2009. We define hesitancy as an expression of concern or doubt about the value or safety of vaccination. This means that hesitant attitudes are not confined only to those who refuse vaccination or those who encourage others to refuse vaccination. For many people, vaccination attitudes are shaped not just by healthcare professionals but also by an array of other information sources, including online and social media sources. We find that healthcare professionals report increasing challenges to building a trustful relationship with patients, through which they might otherwise allay concerns and reassure hesitant patients. We also find a range of reasons for vaccination attitudes, only some of which can be characterised as being related to lack of awareness or misinformation. Reasons that relate to issues of mistrust are cited more commonly in the literature than reasons that relate to information deficit. The importance of trust in the institutions involved with vaccination is discussed in terms of implications for researchers and policy-makers; we suggest that rebuilding this trust is a multi-stakeholder problem requiring a co-ordinated strategy.