A practical approach to vaccination of patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases in Australia

Immunogenicity and safety of vaccination in children with paediatric rheumatic diseases: a scoping review

Children with paediatric rheumatic diseases (PRDs) are at increased risk of vaccine-preventable disease. Safe and effective vaccination is central to preventive care in PRD patients; however, uncertainty surrounding immunogenicity and safety has contributed to suboptimal vaccination. The aim of this study was to evaluate treatment effect on immunogenicity to vaccination in PRD patients and assess vaccine safety, specifically adverse events following immunisation (AEFI) and disease flare. Scoping review. In this scoping review, a systematic search of PubMed, CINAHL and Embase databases was conducted from 2014 to 23 August 2022 to identify observational studies evaluating the immunogenicity and safety of commonly used vaccinations in PRD patients. The primary outcome was immunogenicity (defined as seroprotection and protective antibody concentrations), with secondary outcomes describing AEFI and disease flare also extracted. Due to extensive heterogeneity related to diagnostic and vaccination variability, narrative synthesis was used to describe the findings of each study. Study quality was assessed via the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. The review was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022307212). The search yielded 19 studies evaluating immunogenicity to vaccination and incidence of AEFI and disease flares in this population, which were of acceptable quality. Corticosteroids did not have deleterious effects on vaccine response. Treatment with conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biologic DMARDs generally had no effect immunogenicity in PRD patients. While patients exhibited adequate seroprotection, protective antibody levels were lower in patients on some immunosuppressant agents. Varicella infections were recorded post vaccination in several patients with low protective antibody levels undergoing treatment with DMARDs and corticosteroids. Most vaccines appear safe and effective in PRD patients, despite immunosuppressant treatment. Booster vaccinations should be considered with some studies highlighting inadequate seroprotection following primary course of vaccinations with acceleration of antibody decline over time. There was limited evidence to support avoiding live vaccines in PRD patients.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Infections in Immunosuppressed Travellers with Autoimmune Inflammatory Diseases-A Narrative Review and Advice for Clinical Practice

The management of autoimmune, inflammatory diseases has been revolutionized by biologic therapies. A beneficial consequence of better disease control is that more patients are well enough to travel the world. There is now a class of traveller, the significantly immunosuppressed person with autoimmune disease, with specific risks and requirements. This review introduces the concept of the pre-travel risk assessment and discusses the major vaccine-preventable and non-vaccine-preventable travel-associated infections. The challenges and controversies around vaccination and immunosuppression are reviewed with advice for clinical practice.

The immunosuppressed traveler: infection risks with autoimmunity and immunosuppression, vaccinations, and general travel advice

The travel-related infection risks in the significantly immunocompromised traveler are complex and comprise vaccine preventable, vector-borne, and other nonvaccine preventable infections. A thorough risk assessment should be performed before travel and advice sought from relevant specialists. Immunosuppression used to treat autoimmune diseases and their mechanisms of action need particular consideration.This risk assessment needs to take the patient's beliefs and preferences into account. It is also important not to neglect noninfectious travel considerations.

The impact of the interleukin 12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab on the risk of infections in patients with psoriatic arthritis

Introduction: Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is characterized by chronic inflammation mediated by pro-inflammatory cytokines, with clinical features resulting from dysfunctional integrated signaling pathways affecting different constituents of the immune system. Increased understanding of the processes responsible for enthesitis, synovial inflammation, joint erosion, and new bone formation during PsA has led to development of biologic therapies targeting these cytokines. There is an increased risk of opportunistic infections in patients with PsA, and this risk is increased further with targeted biologic therapy.Areas covered: This paper reviews the role of the interleukin (IL)-12, IL-23 and IL-17 axis in the pathogenesis of PsA. The data suggest that ustekinumab is associated with a low risk of infections in patients with PsA, including tuberculosis or hepatitis reactivation. No live vaccines can be safely administered; ustekinumab is contraindicated/cannot be given with live vaccines. However, long-term treatment with ustekinumab does not impair the immune response to these vaccines when administered after an appropriate interval.Expert opinion: Ustekinumab is associated with a low risk of serious and opportunistic infections. More research is needed to confirm these findings specifically in patients with PsA, and comparative studies are needed to investigate the relative risk of infection with different biologics.

2018 APLAR axial spondyloarthritis treatment recommendations

INTRODUCTION

Despite the availability of axial spondyloarthritis (SpA) recommendations proposed by various rheumatology societies, we considered that a region-specific guideline was of substantial added value to clinicians of the Asia-Pacific region, given the wide variations in predisposition to infections and other patient factors, local practice patterns, and access to treatment across countries.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Systematic reviews were undertaken of English-language articles published between 2000 and 2016, identified from MEDLINE using PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases. The strength of available evidence was graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. Recommendations were developed through consensus using the Delphi technique.

RESULTS

Fourteen axial SpA treatment recommendations were developed based on evidence summaries and consensus. The first 2 recommendations cover non-pharmacological approaches to management. Recommendations 3 to 5 describe the following: the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs as first-line symptomatic treatment; the avoidance of long-term corticosteroid use; and the utility of conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) for peripheral or extra-articular manifestations. Recommendation 6 refers to the indications for biological DMARDs (bDMARDs). Recommendation 7 deals specifically with screening for infections endemic to Asia, prior to use of bDMARDs. Recommendations 7 to 13 cover the role of bDMARDs in the treatment of active axial SpA and include related issues such as continuing therapy and use in special populations. Recommendation 14 deals with the utility of surgical intervention in axial SpA.

CONCLUSION

These recommendations provide up-to-date guidance for treatment of axial SpA to help meet the needs of patients and clinicians in the Asia-Pacific region.

S. typhi Vi capsular polysaccharide vaccine-induced humoral immunity in travellers with immunosuppressive therapy for rheumatoid disease

INTRODUCTION

Typhoid fever is a global health problem, causing significant morbidity and mortality. Currently, the most widely used vaccine is the typhoid Vi capsular polysaccharide (Vi-PS) vaccine. While epidemiological studies on its efficacy have been performed in children in endemic countries, there are no efficacy studies evaluating its use in travel medicine. Response to vaccination may differ in travellers receiving immunosuppressive therapy. This study investigates the humoral response to Vi-PS vaccination in travellers receiving immunosuppressive therapy for rheumatoid disease.

METHODS

We recruited patients from the LUMC rheumatology outpatient clinic and travellers from the travel clinic who had previously received Vi-PS vaccination and also immunosuppressive therapy for rheumatoid disease. We analysed blood samples acquired from 42 patients over a period of 3 years. We estimated the length of persistence of protective titres using the survival analysis using multiple cut-off values for protection and measured titre half-life and the influence of immunosuppressive medication on titre half-life using mixed models.

RESULTS

Anti-Vi-PS antibody levels stayed above 10 EU/ml for a mean of 13.3 years, above 15 EU/ml for a mean of 10.1 years and above 20 EU/ml for a mean of 8.6 years after Vi-PS vaccination. Titre half-life was 7.5 years (95% CI 5.0-14.7 years, P < 0.001). No significant influence of medication on titre half-life was found.

CONCLUSION

Both persistence of protective antibody titres and titre half-life are longer than expected based on other studies. This warrants further study in adult volunteers, both in healthy individuals and patients suffering from rheumatoid disease.

Travel and biologic therapy: travel-related infection risk, vaccine response and recommendations

BACKGROUND

Biologic therapy has revolutionized the management of refractory chronic autoimmune and auto-inflammatory disease, as well as several malignancies, providing rapid symptomatic relief and/or disease remission. Patients receiving biologic therapies have an improved quality of life, facilitating travel to exotic destinations and potentially placing them at risk of a range of infections. For each biologic agent, we review associated travel-related infection risk and expected travel vaccine response and effectiveness.

METHODS

A PUBMED search [vaccination OR vaccine] AND/OR ['specific vaccine'] AND/OR [immunology OR immune response OR response] AND [biologic OR biological OR biologic agent] was performed. A review of the literature was performed in order to develop recommendations on vaccination for patients in receipt of biologic therapy travelling to high-risk travel destinations.

RESULTS

There is a paucity of literature in this area, however, it is apparent that travel-related infection risk is increased in patients on biologic therapy and when illness occurs they are at a higher risk of complication and hospitalization. Patients in receipt of biologic agents are deemed as having a high level of immunosuppression-live vaccines, including the yellow fever vaccine, are contraindicated. Inactivated vaccines are considered safe; however, vaccine response can be attenuated by the patient's biologic therapy, thereby resulting in reduced vaccine effectiveness and protection.

CONCLUSIONS

Best practice requires a collaborative approach between the patient's primary healthcare physician, relevant specialist and travel medicine expert, who should all be familiar with the immunosuppressive and immunomodulatory effects resulting from the biologic therapies. Timing of vaccines should be carefully planned, and if possible, vaccination provided well before established immunosuppression.