Safety and immunogenicity of varicella-zoster virus vaccine in pediatric liver and intestine transplant recipients

Live-Attenuated Vaccines in Pediatric Solid Organ Transplant

Measles, mumps, rubella (MMR), and varicella incidence rates have increased due to the delayed vaccination schedules of children secondary to the COVID-19 pandemic. Decreased herd immunity creates a risk for immunocompetent children and immunocompromised individuals in the community. Historically, live-attenuated vaccines (MMR and varicella) were recommended before solid organ transplants. The amount of time before transplant when this is appropriate is often debated, as is the utility of vaccine titers. MMR and varicella vaccines previously were not recommended in immunocompromised patients post-solid organ transplant due to the undue risk of transmission and posed infection risk. The new literature on live-attenuated vaccines in post-transplant pediatric patients provides more insight into the vaccines' safety and efficacy. The present article aims to provide guidance on live-attenuated vaccines (MMR and varicella) in the pre-transplant and post-operative solid organ transplant phases of care in pediatric patients.

Parent and healthcare provider views of live varicella vaccination of pediatric solid organ transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Live attenuated varicella vaccine (LAVV) has historically been contraindicated in children who are immunocompromised due to solid organ transplant (SOT) because of safety concerns. Recently, clinical guidelines were developed that support post-transplant varicella vaccination in selected SOT recipients based on emerging evidence of LAVV safety. This qualitative study sought to explore barriers and facilitators to implementing the new guidelines, as well as acceptability of LAVV among healthcare providers (HCPs) and parents.

METHODS

HCPs and parents of transplant recipients were recruited from four sites using purposive sampling. Data from semi-structured interviews were analyzed using an Interpretive Description approach that incorporated data from the interviews, academic knowledge and clinical experience, and drew from Grounded Theory and Thematic Analysis. The theoretical framework used was Adaptive Leadership.

RESULTS

Thirty-four participants (16 HCPs and 18 parents) were included in the analysis. Parents developed skills in adaptive leadership that included strategies to protect their child against infectious diseases. Foundational information that live vaccines were absolutely contraindicated post-transplant "stuck" with parents and led them to develop strategies other than vaccination to keep their child safe. Some parents struggled to understand that information previously presented as a certainty (contraindication of LAVV) could change. Their approach to adaptive leadership informed their appraisal of the new vaccination guidelines and willingness to accept vaccination.

CONCLUSIONS

HCPs should adopt a family-centered approach to communicating changing guidelines that considers parents' approach to adaptive leadership and discusses the changing nature of medical evidence. Trust between HCPs and parents can facilitate these conversations.

Live attenuated vaccines in patients receiving immunosuppressive agents

The use of live attenuated vaccines in patients with immunosuppressive agents is contraindicated in package inserts and guidelines in Japan and other countries. However, patients receiving immunosuppressants have a high risk of infectious disease becoming severe, and the necessity to prevent infectious disease is high. To date, 2,091 vaccinations have been reported in 25 reports of live attenuated vaccines in people receiving immunosuppressants. Twenty-three patients (1.1%) became infected with the virus strain used in the vaccine, which was varicella virus in 21 patients. No reports have described life-threatening complications. A prospective study at the National Center for Child Health and Development conducted under certain immunological conditions (CD4 cell count ≥ 500/mm3, stimulation index of lymphocyte blast transformation by phytohemagglutinin (PHA) ≥ 101.6, serum immunoglobulin G ≥ 300 mg/dL) confirmed the serological effectiveness and safety. The evidence suggests that live attenuated vaccines can be used even in combination with immunosuppressants. Further evidence must be gathered and immunological criteria investigated to determine the conditions for safe use. Depending on the results of these investigations, the wording in package inserts and guidelines may need to be revised.

Safety and immunogenicity of the live-attenuated varicella vaccine in pediatric solid organ transplant recipients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

This study aimed to synthesize the available evidence on the immunogenicity, safety, and effectiveness of live-attenuated varicella vaccine in solid organ transplant recipients. Medline and EMBASE were searched using predefined search terms to identify relevant studies. The included articles reported varicella vaccine administration in the posttransplant period in children and adults. A pooled proportion of transplant recipients who seroconverted and who developed vaccine-strain varicella and varicella disease was generated. Eighteen articles (14 observational studies and 4 case reports) were included, reporting on 711 transplant recipients who received the varicella vaccine. The pooled proportion was 88.2% (95% confidence interval 78.0%-96.0%, 13 studies) for vaccinees who seroconverted, 0% (0%-1.2%, 13 studies) for vaccine-strain varicella, and 0.8% (0%-4.9%, 9 studies) for varicella disease. Most studies followed clinical guidelines for administering live-attenuated vaccines, with criteria that could include being at least 1 year posttransplant, 2 months postrejection episode, and on low-dose immunosuppressive medications. Varicella vaccination in transplant recipients was overall safe in the included studies, with few cases of vaccine-strain-induced varicella or vaccine failure, and although it was immunogenic, the proportion of recipients who seroconverted was lower than that seen in the general population. Our data support varicella vaccination in select pediatric solid organ transplant recipients.

Vaccination Recommendations in Solid Organ Transplant Adult Candidates and Recipients

Prevention of infections is crucial in solid organ transplant (SOT) candidates and recipients. These patients are exposed to an increased infectious risk due to previous organ insufficiency and to pharmacologic immunosuppression. Besides infectious-related morbidity and mortality, this vulnerable group of patients is also exposed to the risk of acute decompensation and organ rejection or failure in the pre- and post-transplant period, respectively, since antimicrobial treatments are less effective than in the immunocompetent patients. Vaccination represents a major preventive measure against specific infectious risks in this population but as responses to vaccines are reduced, especially in the early post-transplant period or after treatment for rejection, an optimal vaccination status should be obtained prior to transplantation whenever possible. This review reports the currently available data on the indications and protocols of vaccination in SOT adult candidates and recipients.

Safety and Immunogenicity of Live Viral Vaccines in a Multicenter Cohort of Pediatric Transplant Recipients

Importance

Live vaccines (measles-mumps-rubella [MMR] and varicella-zoster virus [VZV]) have not been recommended after solid organ transplant due to concern for inciting vaccine strain infection in an immunocompromised host. However, the rates of measles, mumps, and varicella are rising nationally and internationally, leaving susceptible immunocompromised children at risk for life-threating conditions.

Objective

To determine the safety and immunogenicity of live vaccines in pediatric liver and kidney transplant recipients.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study included select pediatric liver and kidney transplant recipients who had not completed their primary MMR and VZV vaccine series and/or who displayed nonprotective serum antibody levels at enrollment between January 1, 2002, and February 28, 2023. Eligibility for live vaccine was determined by individual US pediatric solid organ transplant center protocols.

Exposures

Exposure was defined as receipt of a posttransplant live vaccine. Transplant recipients received 1 to 3 doses of MMR vaccine and/or 1 to 3 doses of VZV vaccine.

Main Outcome and Measure

Safety data were collected following each vaccination, and antibody levels were obtained at 0 to 3 months and 1 year following vaccination. Comparisons were performed using Mann-Whitney U test, and factors associated with development of postvaccination protective antibodies were explored using univariate analysis.

Results

The cohort included 281 children (270 [96%] liver, 9 [3%] kidney, 2 [1%] liver-kidney recipients) from 18 centers. The median time from transplant to enrollment was 6.3 years (IQR, 3.4-11.1 years). The median age at first posttransplant vaccine was 8.9 years (IQR, 4.7-13.8 years). A total of 202 of 275 (73%) children were receiving low-level monotherapy immunosuppression at the time of vaccination. The majority of children developed protective antibodies following vaccination (107 of 149 [72%] varicella, 130 of 152 [86%] measles, 100 of 120 [83%] mumps, and 124 of 125 [99%] rubella). One year post vaccination, the majority of children who initially mounted protective antibodies maintained this protection (34 of 44 [77%] varicella, 45 of 49 [92%] measles, 35 of 42 [83%] mumps, 51 of 54 [94%] rubella). Five children developed clinical varicella, all of which resolved within 1 week. There were no cases of measles or rubella and no episodes of graft rejection within 1 month of vaccination. There was no association between antibody response and immunosuppression level at the time of vaccination.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings suggest that live vaccinations may be safe and immunogenic after solid organ transplant in select pediatric recipients and can offer protection against circulating measles, mumps, and varicella.

Immunization of Solid Organ Transplant Candidates and Recipients: A 2022 Update

Immunizations are a relatively safe and cost-effective intervention to prevent morbidity and mortality associated with vaccine preventable infection (VPIs). As such, immunizations are a critical part of the care of pre and posttransplant patients and should be prioritized. New tools are needed to continue to disseminate and implement the most up-to-date vaccine recommendations for the SOT population. These tools will help both primary care providers and multi-disciplinary transplant team members taking care of transplant patients to stay abreast of evidence-based best practices regarding the immunization of the SOT patient.

Low post-transplant measles and varicella titers among pediatric liver transplant recipients: A 10-year single-center study

BACKGROUND

Vaccine preventable illnesses are important sources of morbidity, mortality, and increased healthcare costs in pediatric LT recipients. Our aim was to measure the seroprevalence of antibodies to measles and VZV in this population.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review of 44 patients who received LT before age 18 at UCLA Mattel Children's Hospital from January 2008 to December 2017.

RESULTS

Median age at transplantation was 2.5 years (IQR 1.2-7.7). Post-transplant measles antibodies were present in 17 of 37 patients (46%); risk factors for seronegativity included younger age at transplant (p = .02) and greater time from transplant to testing (p = .04). Post-transplant VZV antibodies were present in 17 of 39 patients (44%); risk factors for seronegativity included greater time from transplant to testing (p = .04). 6 of 16 patients (38%) who tested positive for pre-transplant VZV antibodies tested negative after transplantation. Fourteen of 20 patients (70%) with at least 1 documented dose of the MMR vaccine tested positive for post-transplant measles antibodies. Ten of 20 of patients (50%) with at least 1 documented dose of the VZV vaccine tested positive for post-transplant VZV antibodies. We also describe 10 patients who received post-transplant measles and VZV vaccines without documented complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that pediatric LT patients are at greater risk of contracting measles and VZV despite vaccination status, and that prevalence of measles and VZV antibodies decreases as time from transplantation increases. This should weigh into the institutional risk-benefit assessment when deciding whether or not to administer LAVs to these patients.

Long-Term Varicella Zoster Virus Immunity in Paediatric Liver Transplant Patients Can Be Achieved by Booster Vaccinations—A Single-Centre, Retrospective, Observational Analysis

Varicella is one of the most common vaccine-preventable infections after paediatric solid organ transplantation; thus, vaccination offers simple and cheap protection. However, children with liver disease often progress to liver transplantation (LT) before they reach the recommended vaccination age. As a live vaccine, varicella zoster virus (VZV) vaccination after transplantation is controversial; however, many case series demonstrate that vaccination may be safe and effective in paediatric liver transplant recipients. Only limited data exists describing long-term vaccination response in such immunocompromised patients. We investigated retrospectively vaccination response in paediatric patients before and after transplantation and describe long-term immunity over ten years, including the influence of booster-vaccinations. In this retrospective, single-centre study, 458 LT recipients were analysed between September 2004 and June 2021. Of these, 53 were re-transplantations. Patients with no available vaccination records and with a history of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease, after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and clinical chickenpox were excluded from this analysis (n = 198). In total, data on 207 children with a median annual follow-up of 6.2 years was available: 95 patients (45.9%) were unvaccinated prior to LT. Compared to healthy children, the response to vaccination, measured by seroconversion, is weaker in children with liver disease: almost 70% after one vaccination and 93% after two vaccinations. One year after transplantation, the mean titres and the number of children with protective antibody levels (VZV IgG ≥ 50 IU/L) decreased from 77.5% to 41.3%. Neither diagnosis, gender, nor age were predictors of vaccination response. Booster-vaccination was recommended for children after seroreversion using annual titre measurements and led to a significant increase in mean titre and number of protected children. Response to vaccination shows no difference from monotherapy with a calcineurin inhibitor to intensified immunosuppression by adding prednisolone or mycophenolate mofetil. Children with liver disease show weaker seroconversion rates to VZV vaccination compared to healthy children. Therefore, VZV-naïve children should receive basic immunization with two vaccine doses as well as those vaccinated only once before transplantation. An average of 2–3 vaccine doses are required in order to achieve a long-term seroconversion and protective antibody levels in 95% of children.

Lack of persisting antibody in a post-transplant patient after vaccine-strain varicella

BACKGROUND

LAVV have historically been avoided in children after solid organ transplantation. However, it has been reported that post-transplant, children without severe immunosuppression can generate anti-varicella antibody after immunization but the duration of the response is not clear. Furthermore, the origin of the varicella virus in immunosuppressed patients who develop varicella after vaccination is often unclear.

CLINICAL PROGRESS

A female child received LAVV 30 months after a living donor liver transplant at the age of 2 months. Varicella rash appeared on the trunk 16 days after vaccination and gradually spread over the body. The patient was treated with intravenous acyclovir followed by oral therapy and recovered fully. The virus detected in blisters was derived from the vaccine-type strain. Paired sera before and after the onset of varicella showed an increase in antibody titer. However, 2 years after onset, the antibody titer decreased to undetectable again.

CONCLUSIONS

This was an informative case of varicella due to vaccine strain attenuated virus. Antibody levels were not maintained over many years. Although varicella was caused by the vaccine-type strain, repeated vaccinations may be necessary for post-transplant patients who develop varicella.

Live Vaccines in Pediatric Liver Transplant Recipients: "To Give or Not to Give"

Content available: Author Audio Recording.

Safety of LAVs administered after pediatric LT

Recent guidelines suggest that LAVs may be given to LT recipients meeting certain criteria. However, information is still limited. We sought to evaluate the safety of LAVs, including measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella to LT recipients following our clinically based immunization protocol for LT recipients. We conducted a case-series analysis on safety of LAVs for measles, rubella, varicella, and mumps given to LT recipients at our institution from July 2010 to July 2019. Patients who underwent LT at age <20 years who visited our immunization clinic were included. LT recipients were vaccinated if 2 years had lapsed from LT, had no signs of rejection within 6 months, and were on minimal immunosuppressants. Patient demographics, underlying diseases, type and number of vaccines administered, date of vaccination, and adverse events occurring within 4 weeks after vaccination were extracted from their medical records. During the study period, LAVs were administered 422 times to 209 patients who met criteria and included 225 doses of MR combination vaccine, 224 doses of varicella vaccine, and 215 doses of mumps vaccine. Underlying diseases included cholestatic liver diseases (n = 125), followed by metabolic diseases (n = 33) and acute liver failure (n = 19). Nine non-critical adverse events (2.1%) possibly associated with LAVs were reported, but there were no serious adverse events, including hospitalizations or deaths. In conclusion, LAVs administered to LT recipients were safe without any serious adverse events following our relatively simple institutional protocol.

Live attenuated vaccines under immunosuppressive agents or biological agents: survey and clinical data from Japan

Live attenuated vaccines are contraindicated for patients on immunosuppressive agents or biological agent, except for live attenuated varicella vaccine, although previous reports showed their effectiveness and safety. This study is the nationwide cross-sectional research about the current utilization of live attenuated vaccines for patients on immunosuppressive agents or biological agents in Japan. We sent questionnaires to pediatric centers and examined whether each institution offered live attenuated vaccines to patients with immunosuppressive agents or biological agents (institutional research). We also examined adverse events associated with live attenuated vaccines between 2013 and 2017 (patient research). In the institutional research, 46 out of 334 institutions (13.8%) administered live attenuated vaccines to patients receiving immunosuppressive agents. In contrast, only six out of 270 institutions (2.2%) administered live attenuated vaccines to patients receiving biological agents. However, 66.3% of physicians answered that patients receiving immunosuppressive agents should be immunized with live attenuated vaccines, and only 7.0% disagreed with them. In the patient research, data for 781 patients were collected. Vaccine-associated infections were observed in only two patients (0.3%), both of whom had varicella, although they recovered promptly. No life-threatening adverse events were noted.

CONCLUSION

In pediatric centers, the demand for live attenuated vaccines in patients receiving immunosuppressive agents was high and most physicians think they should be immunized. Immunization with live attenuated vaccines appeared safe in patients receiving immunosuppressive agents, although further studies are needed for patients receiving biological agents What is known: • Live attenuated vaccines (LAV) are generally contraindicated for patients on immunosuppressive agents (IS) or biological agents (BA), except for live attenuated varicella vaccine, as immunocompromised patients are at greater risk for serious viral infection from the vaccine strains. • Viral infections, such as measles and varicella, cause serious complications in children receiving IS. • Several previous reports showed that LAV is relatively effective and safe for patients receiving IS. What is new: • In Japan, the demand for LAV in patients receiving IS was high, and most physicians hoped they should be immunized. • Vaccine-associated infection is rarely observed in patients with IS after LAV administration. • Immunization with LAV appeared safe in patients receiving IS.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN).

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN000029176.Date of registration: 2017/09/19.

Principles of immunisation in children with solid organ transplant

Vaccine-preventable diseases (VPD) are a significant risk to paediatric solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients on lifelong immunosuppressive therapy. Children progressing to end-stage organ dysfunction are unable to mount a robust immune response. Hence, it is important to plan vaccination early in the course of disease, especially if a child is anticipated to be a SOT candidate. Vaccine recommendations need to be individualised in this population based on vaccine history and serology. Catch-up or accelerated schedules may be used to complete vaccinations before transplant. Post-transplant, immunisation is recommenced in consultation with the transplant team taking into context the time since transplant and the intensity of the immunosuppressive regime. Inactivated vaccines are safe post-transplant but postexposure prophylaxis may still be required in children with inadequate immunity to VPD. Specific vaccines may be advised for SOT recipients travelling abroad (in consultation with a travel clinic) or those entering high-risk professions. Additionally, the vaccination status of all household members and close contacts should be reviewed and optimised, offering additional protection to the transplant recipient.

Varicella-zoster-virus vaccination of immunosuppressed children with inflammatory bowel disease or autoimmune hepatitis: A prospective observational study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Children with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) receiving immunosuppressive treatment are at risk for severe varicella zoster virus (VZV)-induced disease. This study evaluated vaccination of susceptible patients with stable disease and documented immunoreactivity without interruption of their current immunosuppression (IS).

METHODS

This prospective multicentre observational study used a prevaccination checklist to select patients with low-intensity and high-intensity IS for VZV vaccination. Tolerability and safety after immunization were assessed by questionnaire. The immune response was measured by the VZV-IgG concentration, relative avidity index (RAI), and specific lymphocyte proliferative response.

RESULTS

A total of 29 VZV vaccinations were performed in 17 seronegative patients aged 3-16 years (IBD n = 15, AIH n = 2). Eight patients received high-intensity immunosuppression, another six low-intensity immunosuppression, and three patients interrupted IS before VZV vaccination. All 29 vaccinations were well tolerated; only minor side effects such as fever and abdominal pain, were reported in two patients. One patient experienced a flare of Crohn's disease the day after vaccination. The VZV-IgG-concentration increased significantly (p = 0.018) after vaccination, and a specific lymphocyte response towards VZV in vitro was detected in all tested patients which correlated with the RAI (r = 0.489; p = 0.078).

CONCLUSIONS

VZV vaccination was well tolerated, safe and immunogenic in children receiving ongoing IS due to IBD and AIH. Ensuring immunoreactivity by clinical and laboratory parameters, rather than the type and dosage of IS, is a reasonable approach to decide on live-attenuated virus vaccinations in immunosuppressed children (German clinical trials DRKS00016357).

A community divided: Post-transplant live vaccine practices among Society of Pediatric Liver Transplantation (SPLIT) centers

BACKGROUND

Historically, the IDSA and the AST have recommended that live vaccines not be administered post-transplant due to concern for induction of vaccine-strain disease in immunocompromised hosts. However, recent prospective studies and revised AST guidelines published in April 2019 suggest that in the current era of immunosuppression minimization, live vaccines may be safely administered to select transplant recipients with resulting immunoprotection. The goal of this study was to assess current post-transplant live vaccine practices at individual pediatric liver transplant centers following the updated AST guidelines.

METHODS

A six-item email survey detailing center-specific post-transplant live vaccine practices followed by up to three response-specific questions were distributed between July 2019 and May 2020 to a representative from each center participating in the SPLIT consortium.

RESULTS

The overall survey response rate was 93% (41/44 centers). Only 29% (12/41) of centers offer live vaccines post-transplant; each of these 12 centers uses different eligibility criteria for live vaccines. There was no difference between large (ten or more transplants per year) and small (less than ten transplants per year) centers in likelihood to offer live vaccines post-transplant. The main reasons for a center not offering post-transplant live vaccines were safety concerns and inability to reach group consensus.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of pediatric liver transplant centers are reluctant to offer live vaccines post-transplant despite the updated AST guidelines. Prospective multicenter studies are needed to confirm safety and immunogenicity of live vaccines post-transplant.

Prospective study of live attenuated vaccines for patients receiving immunosuppressive agents

Patients receiving immunosuppressive agents are at risk of life-threatening infections. However, live vaccines are generally contraindicated in them. We conducted a prospective study regarding live attenuated vaccines for them. Patients elder than one year of age with immunosuppressive agents who showed negative or borderline antibody titers (virus-specific IgG levels < 4.0) against one or more of measles, rubella, varicella, and mumps and fulfilled the criteria (CD4 cell counts ≥ 500/mm3, stimulation index of lymphocyte blast transformation by PHA ≥ 101.6, serum IgG level ≥ 300 mg/dl, no steroid use or prednisolone < 1 mg/kg/day or < 2 mg/kg/2 days, trough levels of tacrolimus or cyclosporine were < 10 ng/ml or < 100 ng/ml and under good control of primary disease) were enrolled. Sixty-four vaccinations were administered to 32 patients. The seroconversion rates for measles, rubella, varicella, and mumps were 80.0%, 100.0%, 59.1%, and 69.2%, respectively. No life-threatening adverse events were observed, although one patient suffered from vaccine-strain varicella who showed cellular and humoral immunodeficiency (CD4 cell counts = 511/mm3, stimulation index of lymphocyte blast transformation by PHA = 91.1, serum IgG level = 208 mg/dl). This girl was immunized before we established the criteria for vaccination. Immunization with live attenuated vaccines for patients receiving immunosuppressive agents might be effective and safe if their cellular and humoral immunological parameters are within normal levels. However, determining the criteria for vaccination by immunological parameters should be established to guarantee the safety of live vaccines in the future. Clinical Trial Registration: UMIN Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN-CTR) UMIN000007710. The date of registration: 2012/4/13.

The Importance of Prioritizing Pre and Posttransplant Immunizations in an Era of Vaccine Refusal and Epidemic Outbreaks

Vaccine-preventable infections are occurring at epidemic rates both nationally and internationally. At the same time, rates of vaccine hesitancy and refusal are increasing across the country leading to decreased herd immunity. For immunosuppressed transplant recipients, this situation poses great risk. Currently, 1 in 6 pediatric solid organ transplant recipients is hospitalized with a vaccine-preventable infection in the first 5 years posttransplant. For many recipients, these infections result in significant morbidity, mortality, and increased hospitalization costs. Surprisingly, despite this risk many transplant recipients are not up-to-date on age appropriate immunizations at the time of transplant and thereafter. As a transplant community, we must prioritize immunizations in both pre and posttransplant care. Research is needed to understand how to monitor immune response to vaccines in immunosuppressed patients and when to optimally immunize patients posttransplant. Finally, recommendations about administration of live vaccines posttransplant may need to be reevaluated in the setting of measles outbreaks and decreased herd immunity.

Varicella infection following vaccination in a pediatric kidney transplant recipient

Live viral vaccines have historically been avoided in children after solid organ transplantation. Multiple reports of safety and immunogenicity, largely in the pediatric liver transplant population, have led to a reconsideration of this recommendation. Here, we report the case of a 4-year-old boy who inadvertently received the live attenuated MMR-varicella vaccine (MMRV) at a routine well-child visit 16 months after receiving a living donor kidney transplant. This was not known until after he was admitted with rash and documented disseminated varicella infection 5 weeks later. He was treated with intravenous acyclovir followed by oral therapy and recovered fully. This case and its discussion illustrate what is still unknown about the risk-to-benefit ratio of live viral vaccination in any individual transplant recipient. Criteria to determine which patients should receive these vaccines should be evaluated before their use after transplant becomes routine, and all recipients and their families should be counseled to have a low threshold to seek medical care for any febrile illness or rash after live viral vaccination.

Live vaccines after pediatric solid organ transplant: Proceedings of a consensus meeting, 2018

Growing evidence suggests receipt of live-attenuated viral vaccines after solid organ transplant (SOT) has occurred and is safe and needed due to lapses in herd immunity. A 2-day consortium of experts in infectious diseases, transplantation, vaccinology, and immunology was held with the objective to review evidence and create expert recommendations for clinicians when considering live viral vaccines post-SOT. For consideration of VV and MMR post-transplant, evidence exists only for kidney and liver transplant recipients. For MMR vaccine post-SOT, consider vaccination during outbreak or travel to endemic risk areas. Patients who have received antiproliferative agents (eg. mycophenolate mofetil), T cell-depleting agents, or rituximab; or have persistently elevated EBV viral loads, or are in a state of functional tolerance, should be vaccinated with caution and have a more in-depth evaluation to define benefit of vaccination and net state of immune suppression prior to considering vaccination. MMR and/or VV (not combined MMRV) is considered to be safe in patients who are clinically well, are greater than 1 year after liver or kidney transplant and 2 months after acute rejection episode, can be closely monitored, and meet specific criteria of "low-level" immune suppression as defined in the document.

Practical Guide to Vaccination in All Stages of CKD, Including Patients Treated by Dialysis or Kidney Transplantation

Infection is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), including those receiving maintenance dialysis or with a kidney transplant. Although responses to vaccines are impaired in these populations, immunizations remain an important component of preventative care due to their favorable safety profiles and the high rate of infection in these patients. Most guidelines for patients with CKD focus on the importance of the hepatitis B, influenza, and pneumococcal vaccines in addition to age-appropriate immunizations. More data are needed to determine the clinical efficacy of these immunizations and others in this population and define optimal dosing and timing for administration. Studies have suggested that there may be a benefit to immunization before the onset of dialysis or transplantation because patients with early-stage CKD generally have higher rates of seroconversion. Because nephrologists often serve as primary care physicians for patients with CKD, it is important to understand the role of vaccinations in the preventive care of this patient population.

Measles, mumps, rubella (vaccine) and varicella vaccines in pediatric liver transplant: An initial analysis of post-transplant immunity

Varicella and measles infection represents a significant source of morbidity and mortality for pediatric LT recipients. We evaluated the prevalence and correlates of post-transplant immunity in pediatric LT recipients previously immunized against measles (n = 72) and varicella (n = 67). Sixteen of seventy-two (22%) patients were measles non-immune, and 42/67 (63%) were varicella non-immune after LT. Median time from LT to titers for measles and varicella was 4.0 and 3.3 years, respectively. In the measles cohort, non-immune patients received fewer pretransplant vaccine doses (P = 0.026) and were younger at both time of vaccination (P = 0.006) and LT (P = 0.004) compared with immune patients. Upon multivariable analysis, weight > 10 kg at LT (OR 5.91, 95% CI 1.27-27.41) and technical variant graft (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01-0.37) were independently, significantly associated with measles immunity. In the varicella cohort, non-immune patients received fewer pretransplant vaccine doses (P = 0.028), were younger at transplant (P = 0.022), and had less time lapse between their last vaccine and transplant (P = 0.012) compared with immune patients. Upon multivariate analysis, time > 1 year from last vaccine to LT was independently, significantly associated with varicella immunity (OR 3.78, CI 1.30-11.01). This study demonstrates that non-immunity to measles and varicella is a prevalent problem after liver transplantation in children and identifies 3 unique risk factors for non-immunity in this high-risk population.

Varicella zoster virus in solid organ transplantation: Guidelines from the American Society of Transplantation Infectious Diseases Community of Practice

These updated guidelines from the American Society of Transplantation Infectious Diseases Community of Practice review the diagnosis, prevention, and management of varicella zoster virus (VZV) in the pre- and post-transplant period. Primary varicella is an uncommon complication post-solid-organ transplant (SOT), except among pediatric transplant patients and those seronegative for VZV. As the majority of SOT recipients are seropositive for VZV, herpes zoster (HZ) occurs frequently following SOT, particularly among recipients who are older (≥65 years of age) and those receiving more intensive immunosuppression. Transplant providers should aware of the increased risk for HZ-related complications such as dissemination, organ-specific involvement, and post-herpetic neuralgia. Treatment for localized zoster is primarily given as oral regimens, but those with more complicated presentations or those at risk for dissemination should be treated initially with IV therapy. Available antiviral prophylaxis regimens and vaccination strategies for varicella and HZ among these immunosuppressed patients remain a mainstay for prevention in the pre-and post-transplant periods. Finally, we discuss important approaches to addressing post-exposure prophylaxis and infection control practices for those SOT patients with documented VZV infections.

Vaccinations in pediatric kidney transplant recipients

Pediatric kidney transplant (KT) candidates should be fully immunized according to routine childhood schedules using age-appropriate guidelines. Unfortunately, vaccination rates in KT candidates remain suboptimal. With the exception of influenza vaccine, vaccination after transplantation should be delayed 3-6 months to maximize immunogenicity. While most vaccinations in the KT recipient are administered by primary care physicians, there are specific schedule alterations in the cases of influenza, hepatitis B, pneumococcal, and meningococcal vaccinations; consequently, these vaccines are usually administered by transplant physicians. This article will focus on those deviations from the normal vaccine schedule important in the care of pediatric KT recipients. The article will also review human papillomavirus vaccine due to its special importance in cancer prevention. Live vaccines are generally contraindicated in KT recipients. However, we present a brief review of live vaccines in organ transplant recipients, as there is evidence that certain live virus vaccines may be safe and effective in select groups. Lastly, we review vaccination of pediatric KT recipients prior to international travel.

Incidence of Hospitalization for Vaccine-Preventable Infections in Children Following Solid Organ Transplant and Associated Morbidity, Mortality, and Costs

IMPORTANCE

Pediatric transplant recipients are at risk for vaccine-preventable infections owing to immunosuppression, suboptimal response to vaccines before and after transplant, and potential underimmunization if transplant occurred early in life. However, the incidence and burden of illness from vaccine-preventable infections in this population is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate in pediatric solid organ transplant recipients the number of hospitalizations for vaccine-preventable infections in the first 5 years after transplant and to determine the associated morbidity, mortality, and costs.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A retrospective cohort study from January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2011, with 5 years of follow-up per participant (unless they died during the study period). The participants of this multicenter study through the Pediatric Health Information System were solid organ transplant recipients who were younger than 18 years at the time of transplant. Analysis began in July 2017.

EXPOSURES

Transplant.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Hospitalizations for a vaccine-preventable infection during the first 5 years after transplant were ascertained using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, and International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision, clinical modification diagnosis codes. Data were collected on clinical care, outcomes, and costs during these hospitalizations.

RESULTS

Of 6980 transplant recipients identified, there were 3819 boys (54.7%), and the mean (SD) age at transplant was 8 (6.2) years. Overall, 1092 patients (15.6%) had a total of 1471 cases of vaccine-preventable infections. There were 187 of 1471 cases (12.7%) that occurred during transplant hospitalization. The case fatality rate was 1.7% for all infections. Excluding infections that occurred during transplant hospitalization (when all patients go to the intensive care unit), 213 of 1257 patients (17.0%) were hospitalized with a vaccine-preventable infection requiring intensive care. In multivariable analysis, age younger than 2 years at time of transplant and receipt of a lung, heart, intestine, or multivisceral organ were positively associated with increased risk of a hospitalization from a vaccine-preventable infection.Transplant hospitalizations complicated by vaccine-preventable infections were $120 498 more expensive (median cost) than transplant hospitalizations not complicated by vaccine-preventable infections.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Hospitalization for vaccine-preventable infections occurred in more than 15% of solid organ transplant recipients in the first 5 years after transplant at a rate of up to 87 times higher than in the general population. There was significant morbidity, mortality, and costs from these infections, demonstrating the importance of immunizing all transplant candidates and recipients. Further research on improving immunization delivery, preventing nosocomial infections, and monitoring response to vaccines in the transplant population is needed.

Vaccinations in kidney transplant recipients: Clearing the muddy waters

Vaccine preventable diseases account for a significant proportion of morbidity and mortality in transplant recipients and cause adverse outcomes to the patient and allograft. Patients should be screened for vaccination history at the time of pre-transplant evaluation and vaccinated at least four weeks prior to transplantation. For non-immune patients, dead-vaccines can be administered starting at six months post-transplant. Live attenuated vaccines are contraindicated after transplant due to concern for infectious complications from the vaccine and every effort should be made to vaccinate prior to transplant. Since transplant recipients are on life-long immunosuppression, these patients may have lower rates of serological conversion, lower mean antibody titers and waning of protective immunity over shorter period as compared to general population. Recommendations regarding booster dose in kidney transplant recipients with sub-optimal serological response are lacking. Travel plans should be part of routine post-transplant assessment and pre-travel vaccines and counseling should be provided. More studies are needed on vaccination schedules, serological response, need for booster doses and safety of live attenuated vaccines in this special population.

Immunization of Solid Organ Transplant Candidates and Recipients: A 2018 Update

This article discusses the recommended vaccines used before and after solid organ transplant period, including data regarding vaccine safety and efficacy and travel-related vaccines. Vaccination is an important part of the preparation for solid organ transplantation, because vaccine-preventable diseases contribute to the morbidity and mortality of these patients. A pretransplantation protocol should be encouraged in every transplant center. The main goal of vaccination is to provide seroprotection before transplantation, because iatrogenically immunosuppressed patients posttransplant have a lower seroresponse to vaccines.

Vaccines in pediatric transplant recipients-Past, present, and future

Infections significantly impact outcomes for solid organ and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in children. Vaccine-preventable diseases contribute to morbidity and mortality in both early and late posttransplant time periods. Several infectious diseases and transplantation societies have published recommendations and guidelines that address immunization in adult and pediatric transplant recipients. In many cases, pediatric-specific studies are limited in size or quality, leading to recommendations being based on adult data or mixed adult-pediatric studies. We therefore review the current state of evidence for selected immunizations in pediatric transplant recipients and highlight areas for future investigation. Specific attention is given to studies that enrolled only children.

[Immunizations for patients with kidney disease]

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with significant infectious complications leading to adverse health outcomes. This increased susceptibility to infection can be related to the nephropathy itself as observed in nephrotic syndrome, to the treatment especially in situations requiring immunosuppressive drugs or related to dialysis. Despite a less effective response to vaccination, some data emphasize similar benefits from immunization among people with CKD to the general population. However, some situations encountered in nephrology require adaptation of immunization practices. The aim of this review is to provide a synthesis of the existing guidelines for immunization in the field of nephrology.

Prospective Study of Live Attenuated Vaccines for Patients with Nephrotic Syndrome Receiving Immunosuppressive Agents

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a prospective study to evaluate the immunogenicity and safety of live attenuated vaccines in patients with nephrotic syndrome receiving immunosuppressive agents.

STUDY DESIGN

Patients with nephrotic syndrome receiving immunosuppressive agents with negative or borderline antibody titers (virus-specific IgG levels <4.0) against measles, rubella, varicella, and/or mumps fulfilling the criteria of cellular and humoral immunity were enrolled. Virus-specific IgG levels were measured using an enzyme immunoassay. The primary endpoint was the seroconversion rate (ie, achievement of virus-specific IgG levels ≥4.0) at 2 months after vaccination. Virus-specific IgG levels at 1 year, breakthrough infections (wild-type infections), and adverse events were also evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 116 vaccinations were administered to 60 patients. Seroconversion rates were 95.7% for measles, 100% for rubella, 61.9% for varicella, and 40.0% for mumps. More patients with a borderline antibody titer before vaccination achieved seroconversion than those with negative antibody titer, with statistical significance after varicella and mumps vaccination. The rate of patients who maintained seropositivity at 1 year after vaccination was 83.3% for measles, 94.1% for rubella, 76.7% for varicella, and 20.0% for mumps. No patient experienced breakthrough infection. No serious adverse events, including vaccine-associated infection, were observed.

CONCLUSION

Immunization with live attenuated vaccines may be immunogenic and is apparently safe in our cohort of patients with nephrotic syndrome receiving immunosuppressive agents if their cellular and humoral immunologic measures are within clinically acceptable levels.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

UMIN-CTR UMIN 000007710.

Vaccination titres pre- and post-transplant in paediatric renal transplant recipients and the impact of immunosuppressive therapy

BACKGROUND

Avoidance of vaccine-preventable infections in paediatric renal allograft recipients is of utmost importance. However, the development and maintenance of protective vaccination titres may be impaired in this patient population owing to their need for immunosuppressive medication.

METHODS

In the framework of the Cooperative European Paediatric Renal Transplant Initiative (CERTAIN), we therefore performed a multi-centre, multi-national study and analysed vaccination titres pre- and post-transplant in 155 patients with serial titre measurements in comparison with published data in healthy children.

RESULTS

The percentage of patients with positive vaccination titres before renal transplantation (RTx) was low, especially for diphtheria (38.5%, control 75%) and pertussis (21.3%, control 96.3%). As few as 58.1% of patients had a hepatitis B antibody (HBsAb) titre >100 IU/L before RTx. 38.1% of patients showed a vaccination titre loss post-transplant. Patients with an HBsAb titre between 10 and 100 IU/L before RTx experienced a significantly (p < 0.05) more frequent hepatitis B vaccination titre loss post-transplant than patients with an HBsAb titre >100 IU/L. The revaccination rate post-transplant was low and revaccination failed to induce positive titres in a considerable number of patients (27.3 to 83.3%). Treatment with rituximab was associated with a significantly increased risk of a vaccination titre loss post-transplant (odds ratio 4.26, p = 0.033).

CONCLUSIONS

These data show a low percentage of patients with positive vaccination titres pre-transplant, a low revaccination rate post-transplant with limited antibody response, and a high rate of vaccination titre losses.

Varicella-zoster-virus vaccination in immunosuppressed children with rheumatic diseases using a pre-vaccination check list

BACKGROUND

The goal of this study was to apply the varicella zoster virus (VZV) vaccine to patients with pediatric rheumatic diseases (PRD) at risk for severe chickenpox, without interrupting their current immunosuppression, including biological agents, using an immunological-based pre-vaccination checklist to assure safety. A pre-vaccination checklist was implemented to ensure adequate immune competence prior to immunization.

METHODS

This prospective study included seronegative patients (VZV-IgG ≤200 mIU/ml) and patients who had previously received only a single dose of VZV vaccine. All vaccinees demonstrated clinically inactive PRD. Patients were categorized according to their actual treatment in low-intensity IS (LIIS) and high-intensity IS (HIIS) including biological therapy. The pre-vaccination checklist defined thresholds for the following basic laboratory tests: white blood cell count ≥3000/mm³, lymphocytes ≥1200/mm³, serum IgG ≥500 mg/dl, IgM ≥20 mg/dl, tetanus toxoid antibody ≥0.1 IU/ml. In case of HIIS additional specifications included a CD4+ lymphocyte count ≥200/mm³ and a positive T-cell function (via analyzable positive control of a standard tuberculosis interferon-gamma-release-assay (TB-IGRA) indicating mitogen-induced T cell proliferation). Patients who met the criteria of the pre-vaccination checklist received the first and/or second VZV vaccination. Immunologic response and side effects were monitored.

RESULTS

Twenty-three patients were recruited of whom nine had already received one VZV immunization before initiating IS. All patients met the pre-vaccination checklist criteria despite ongoing IS. There was no overall difference in VZV-IgG levels when comparing the LIIS (n=9) and HIIS (n=14) groups. In total, 21 patients (91%) showed a positive vaccination response, after the first immunization the median VZV-IgG across all patients was 224 (59-1219) mIU/ml (median (range)), after booster immunization it increased to 882 (30-4685) mIU/ml. Two patients in the HIIS group failed to raise positive VZV-IgG, despite booster immunization. All nine patients receiving only the second immunization on IS reached high titers of VZV-IgG >500 mIU/ml (1117 (513-4685) mIU/ml). There were no cases of rash or other vaccine-induced varicella disease symptoms and no evidence of PRD flare.

CONCLUSIONS

VZV vaccination is safe and largely immunogenic in children with ongoing IS fulfilling an immunological based pre-vaccination checklist. This new approach is based on immunologic function rather than on type of medications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCRTN trial registration number 21654693 , date of registration February 12, 2018, retrospectively registered.

Safety of live vaccines on immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory therapy-a retrospective study in three Swiss Travel Clinics

BACKGROUND

Patients increasingly benefit from immunosuppressive/immunomodulatory medications for a range of conditions allowing them a lifestyle similar to healthy individuals, including travel. However, the administration of live vaccines to immunodeficient patients bears the risk of replication of the attenuated vaccine microorganism. Therefore, live vaccines are generally contraindicated on immunosuppression. Data on live vaccinations on immunosuppressive/immunomodulatory medication are scarce. We identified all travellers seeking pre-travel advice in three Swiss travel clinics with a live vaccine during immunosuppressive/immunomodulatory therapy to ascertain experienced side effects. A retrospective and multi-centre study design was chosen to increase the sample size.

METHODS

This study was conducted in the travel clinics of the University of Zurich; the Swiss TPH, Basel; and Geneva University Hospitals. Travellers on immunosuppressive/immunomodulatory therapy who received live vaccines [yellow fever vaccination (YFV), measles/mumps/rubella (MMR), varicella and/ or oral typhoid vaccination (OTV)] between 2008 and 2015 were identified and interviewed. A total of 60 age- and sex-matched controls (matched to Basel/Zurich travel clinics travellers) were included.

RESULTS

Overall, 197 patients were identified. And 116 patients (59%) and 60 controls were interviewed. YFV was administered 92 times, MMR 21 times, varicella 4 times and OTV 6 times to patients on immunosuppressive/immunomodulatory therapy. Most common medications were corticosteroids (n = 45), mesalazine (n = 28) and methotrexate (n = 19). Live vaccines were also administered on biological treatment, e.g. TNF-alpha inhibitors (n = 8). Systemic reactions were observed in 12.2% of the immunosuppressed vs 13.3% of controls; local reactions in 7.8% of the immunosuppressed vs 11.7% of controls. In controls, all reactions were mild/moderate. In the immunosuppressed, 2/21 severe reactions occurred: severe local pain on interferon-beta and severe muscle/joint pain on sulfasalazine.

CONCLUSION

Safety of live vaccines given to immunosuppressed patients cannot be concluded. However, it is re-assuring that in the examined patient groups no serious side effects or infections by the attenuated vaccine strain occurred.

Simultaneous Occurrence of Varicella Zoster Virus-Induced Pancreatitis and Hepatitis in a Renal Transplant Recipient: A Case Report and Review of Literature

INTRODUCTION

Gastrointestinal complications are common after renal transplantation, including oral lesions, esophagitis, gastritis, diarrhea, and colon carcinoma. The differential diagnosis is difficult in this scenario because multiple factors such as drugs, infections, and preexisting gastrointestinal disease come into play.

CASE PRESENTATION

We report a case of varicella zoster virus-induced pancreatitis and hepatitis in a renal transplant recipient. The patient underwent renal transplantation 3 years earlier and now presented with severe pain in the epigastrium radiating to his back and had raised serum lipase levels and skin lesions characteristic of varicella. Liver enzyme levels were also elevated. He was started on a regimen of acyclovir. His pain improved in 24 hours, and liver enzyme levels returned to normal in 48 hours.

DISCUSSION

There is a paucity of literature on the simultaneous occurrence of varicella zoster virus-induced hepatitis and pancreatitis in both immunocompetent and immunocompromised patients. Our case highlights the gastrointestinal complications of varicella infection in immunocompromised patients that may precede the characteristic dermatologic manifestations, and the fact that rarely both hepatitis and pancreatitis may be seen.

Immunizations in solid organ and hematopoeitic stem cell transplant patients: A comprehensive review

The Solid Organ Transplantation (SOT) and Haematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation (HSCT) population is continuously increasing as a result of broader indications for transplant and improved survival. Infectious diseases, including vaccine-preventable diseases, are a significant threat for this population, primarily after but also prior to transplantation. As a consequence, clinicians must ensure that patients are optimally immunized before transplantation, to provide the best protection during the early post-transplantation period, when immunosuppression is the strongest and vaccine responses are poor. After 3-6 months, inactivated vaccines immunization can be resumed. By contrast, live-attenuated vaccines are lifelong contraindicated in SOT patients, but can be considered in HSCT patients at least 2 years after transplantation, if there is no immunosuppression or graft-versus-host-disease. However, because of the advantages of live-attenuated over inactivated vaccines--and also sometimes the absence of an inactivated alternative--an increasing number of prospective studies on live vaccine immunization after transplantation are performed and give new insights about safety and immunogenicity in this population.

Vaccination strategies in patients with solid organ transplant: evidences and future perspectives

Solid organ transplant recipients need emphases on immunization that result in certainly decrease the risk of vaccine preventable diseases. Organ transplant candidate should complete the recommended full vaccination schedule as early as possible during the courses of underlying disease because the patients with end stage liver or renal disease have reduced immune response to vaccine. Furthermore, live attenuated vaccines are generally contraindicated after transplantation. This review summarizes current information and the evidences regarding the efficacy and safety of immunization in adult solid organ transplant candidates and recipients.

Travel vaccination recommendations and endemic infection risks in solid organ transplantation recipients

BACKGROUND

Solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients are often heavily immunosuppressed and consequently at risk of serious illness from vaccine preventable viral and bacterial infections or with endemic fungal and parasitic infections. We review the literature to provide guidance regarding the timing and appropriateness of vaccination and pathogen avoidance related to the immunological status of SOT recipients.

METHODS

A PUBMED search ([Vaccination OR vaccine] AND/OR ["specific vaccine"] AND/OR [immunology OR immune response OR cytokine OR T lymphocyte] AND transplant was performed. A review of the literature was performed in order to develop recommendations on vaccination for SOT recipients travelling to high-risk destinations.

RESULTS

Whilst immunological failure of vaccination in SOT is primarily the result of impaired B-cell responses, the role of T-cells in vaccine failure and success remains unknown. Vaccination should be initiated at least 4 weeks prior to SOT or more than 6 months post-SOT. Avoidance of live vaccination is generally recommended, although some live vaccines may be considered in the specific situations (e.g. yellow fever). The practicing physician requires a detailed understanding of region-specific endemic pathogen risks.

CONCLUSIONS

We provide a vaccination and endemic pathogen guide for physicians and travel clinics involved in the care of SOT recipients. In addition, recommendations based on timing of anticipated immunological recovery and available evidence regarding vaccine immunogenicity in SOT recipients are provided to help guide pre-travel consultations.

Vaccinations, response, and controls before and after intestinal transplantation in children

Vaccination is an effective strategy to decrease infections in transplant recipients. Children after intestinal transplantation carry a high risk of infection due to increased immunosuppression. In a series of 22 children after intestinal transplantation, we studied the vaccination schedules and the antibodies against vaccine-preventable diseases before transplantation, and at one and five yr after transplantation. We reviewed whether the vaccination schedules were complete, and we analysed the factors that may influence serological immunity and the incidence of disease in patients with deficient immunity. All patients completed the recommended vaccination schedules for DTaP-IPV and HBV. After transplantation, the negative antibodies against vaccine-preventable diseases were mostly related to an antirejection therapy: for DTaP-IPV: four of four patients with no antibody had been treated for rejection, for HBV: two of five, HAV: three of four, MMR: three of seven, and VZV: three of four. A post-transplantation varicella infection was followed by acute rejection, with probability for a relationship between both events. We observed 50% of varicella cases in unvaccinated children, highlighting the importance of pretransplant vaccination. Waning immunogenicity mediated by antibodies against vaccine-preventable disease after transplantation indicated a need for boosters. The recommendations should be regularly enforced, as the reliance on routine immunizations schedules is not adequate in immunocompromised patients.

Immunizations following solid-organ transplantation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To highlight the latest evidence for the use of key vaccines that are recommended in organ transplant candidates and recipients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Influenza vaccine is the best studied vaccine; factors affecting immunogenicity of this vaccine include time from transplant, use of mycophenolate mofetil and type of transplant. Newer formulations of influenza vaccine are available, but data for these are limited. Updated recommendations include giving conjugated pneumococcal vaccine to adult transplant candidates and recipients followed by the polysaccharide vaccine to increase serotype coverage. Human papillomavirus vaccine should also be given to transplant recipients, although the immunogenicity may be suboptimal. Quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine needs to be given in special circumstances such as to patients who are starting eculizumab therapy. Live vaccines in general are contraindicated, although increasing safety data are emerging for Varicella vaccine. Herpes Zoster vaccine may be offered prior to transplant, although the utility of this strategy regarding protection from shingles after transplant is not known. Newer vaccines such as inactivated zoster vaccine and vaccines for the prevention of cytomegalovirus are under study.

SUMMARY

Immunization for organ transplant recipients is an important part of pretransplant evaluation and the long-term care of the transplant recipient.

Vaccine administration in children with chronic kidney disease

Pediatric patients with severe chronic kidney disease (CKD) on conservative treatment, on dialysis, and those with renal transplantation are at a higher risk for infectious diseases as the result of impaired immune responses against infectious agents. Infections in these patients can have drastic consequences for disease morbidity and mortality. Immunization is a crucial preventive strategy for disease management in this pediatric population. However, vaccination coverage among children with CKD remains low due to safety concerns and doubts about vaccine immunogenicity and efficacy. In this study, we reviewed why children with CKD are at higher risk of infections, the importance of vaccinations among these children, barriers to vaccinations, and recommend the best vaccination schedules. Overall, vaccines have acceptable immunogenicity, efficacy, and safety profiles in children with CKD. However, in some cases, the protective antibody levels induced by vaccines and the benefits and risks of booster vaccine doses must be individually managed. Furthermore, close contacts and household members of these children should complete age-appropriate vaccination schedules to increase the child's indirect protection.

Live virus vaccines in transplantation: friend or foe?

Solid organ and hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients may be exposed to diseases which may be prevented through live attenuated virus vaccines (LAVV). Because of their immunosuppression, these diseases can lead to severe complications in transplant recipients. Despite increasing evidence regarding the safety and effectiveness of certain LAVV, these vaccines are still contraindicated for immunocompromised patients, such as transplant recipients. We review the available studies on LAVV, such as varicella zoster, measles-mumps-rubella, influenza, yellow fever, polio, and Japanese encephalitis vaccines in transplant patients. We discuss the current recommendations and the potential risks, as well as the expected benefits of LAVV immunization in this population.

Updated data on effective and safe immunizations with live-attenuated vaccines for children after living donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Although immunizations using live-attenuated vaccines are not recommended for children post-liver transplant due to their theoretical risks, they will inevitably encounter vaccine-preventable viral diseases upon returning to real-life situations. The window of opportunity for vaccination is usually limited prior to transplantation because these children often have unstable disease courses. Also, vaccine immunity does not always persist after transplantation.

METHODS

Beginning in 2002, subcutaneous immunizations with four individual live-attenuated vaccines (measles, rubella, varicella, and mumps) to pediatric patients following living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) were performed for those who fulfilled the clinical criteria, including humoral and cell-mediated immunity. Written informed consent was collected. We included the study on 70 immunizations for 18 cases that we reported in 2008 (Shinjoh et al., 2008).

RESULTS

A total of 196 immunizations were administered to 48 pediatric post-LDLT recipients. Of these, 144 were first immunizations and 52 were repeated immunizations following LDLT. The seroconversion rates at the first dose for measles (AIK-C), rubella (TO-336), varicella (Oka), and mumps (Hoshino) were 100% (36/36), 100% (35/35), 70% (23/33), and 75% (24/32), respectively. Antibody levels did not fall over time in patients immunized with rubella vaccine. Three mild cases of breakthrough varicella were observed. Two cases with transient parotid gland swelling were observed after mumps immunization. Two admissions because of fever at 2-3 weeks after the measles vaccine were reported but the patients had no symptoms of measles.

CONCLUSIONS

Immunizations using selected live-attenuated vaccines were safe and effective for post-LDLT children who were not severely immunosuppressed. However, with the exception of rubella, repeated immunization may be necessary.

Live viral vaccines in immunocompromised patients

ABSTRACT: 

Live-attenuated viral vaccines (LAV) have been used safely for several decades in healthy individuals to protect against diseases with great success. In immunocompromised hosts their use is usually not recommended. We explore the use of currently available LAV, such as live-attenuated influenza, varicella–zoster virus, measles, mumps and rubella, oral polio, rotavirus, yellow fever virus vaccines, especially in patients with cancer, solid organ or hematopoietic stem cell transplant, HIV, and with acquired or congenital immunodeficiencies. Although evidence-based recommendations cannot currently be made, it is possible that LAV will be recommended in specific, well-defined situations in these immunocompromised patients in the future.