Secukinumab does not impair the immunogenic response to the influenza vaccine in patients

Effect of Secukinumab and Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors on Humoral Response to BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccine in Patients With Spondyloarthritis Compared to Immunocompetent Controls

OBJECTIVE

To assess the humoral response to the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine among patients with spondyloarthritis (SpA) receiving secukinumab (SEC) compared to those receiving tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) and immunocompetent controls.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with psoriatic arthritis or axial SpA receiving SEC (n = 37) or TNFi (monotherapy, n = 109; + methotrexate [MTX], n = 16), immunocompetent controls (n = 122), and patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving TNFi therapy (controls, n = 50) were vaccinated with 2 or 3 doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine. We evaluated humoral response, adverse events, and disease activity, and monitored for breakthrough coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) postvaccination.

RESULTS

The 2-dose vaccine regimen induced a comparable seropositive response in all study groups. S1/S2 antibody titers (in binding antibody units/mL; mean [SD]) were higher in the SEC group vs the TNFi + MTX-SpA and TNFi-RA groups (192.5 [68.4] vs 104.6 [46.9], P < 0.001, and 143.1 [81.9], P = 0.004). After 6 months, 96.3%, 96.6%, and 80.9% of the SEC, immunocompetent, and TNFi monotherapy-SpA groups (P = 0.10), respectively; 66.7% of the TNFi + MTX-SpA group (P = 0.03); and 63% of the TNFi-RA group (P = 0.004) remained seropositive. S1/S2 antibody titer decline was steeper in the TNFi groups than the SEC group. After the third dose, 100% of the SpA and immunocompetent and 88.9% of the TNFi-RA (P = 0.25) groups were seropositive. Rate of breakthrough COVID-19 infection was higher in the TNFi groups than in the SEC group (36-37.5% vs 10.8%). No significant between-group differences were observed for postvaccination disease activity and adverse events.

CONCLUSION

SEC did not interfere with the immunogenic response to BNT162b2 vaccine in patients with SpA; however, TNFi therapy was associated with lower S1/S2-antibody titers, faster decline, and higher rate of breakthrough infections.

Vaccinations in Selected Immune-Related Diseases Treated with Biological Drugs and JAK Inhibitors-Literature Review and Statement of Experts from Polish Dermatological Society

The growing use of biological drugs in immune-mediated chronic diseases has undoubtedly revolutionized their treatment. Yet, the topic of vaccinations in this group of patients still raises many concerns and implies many therapeutic problems that require discussion and standardization of management. The aim of this literature review is to present current knowledge regarding safety and efficacy of vaccinations in dermatological and rheumatological patients treated with biological drugs and JAK inhibitors. Additionally, this article provides recommendation from experts of the Polish Dermatological Society about proper use of vaccinations during therapy with biologics. Generally, all live attenuated vaccines are contraindicated during immunosuppressive/immunomodulatory therapy. If there is need, they should be administered long enough prior to the therapy or after cessation. Yet, inactivated vaccines mostly can be safely used, but the problem in this case is the effectiveness of the vaccination. Most studies report that the immune response in patients on biologics after administration of different inactivated vaccines is similar to or even better than in the control group. Thus, the importance of vaccination among patients on biologics must be emphasized to reduce omissions and the fear of possible side effects or insufficient post-vaccination response.

Effect of DMARDs on the immunogenicity of vaccines

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

Efficacy and safety of mRNA and AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARD) are at a potentially higher risk for COVID-19 infection complications. Given their inherent altered immune system and the use of immunomodulatory medications, vaccine immunogenicity could be unpredictable with a suboptimal or even an exaggerated immunological response. The aim of this study is to provide real-time data on the emerging evidence of COVID-19 vaccines' efficacy and safety in patients with ARDs.

METHODS

We performed a literature search of the PubMed, EMBASE, and OVID databases up to 11-13 April 2022 on the efficacy and safety of both types of the mRNA-vaccines and the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines in patients with ARD. The risk of bias in the retrieved studies was evaluated using the Quality in Prognostic Studies tool. Also, current clinical practice guidelines from multiple international professional societies were reviewed.

RESULTS

We identified 60 prognostic studies, 69 case reports and case series, and eight international clinical practice guidelines. Our results demonstrated that most patients with ARDs were able to mount humoral and/or cellular responses after two doses of COVID-19 vaccine although this response was suboptimal in patients receiving certain disease-modifying medications including rituximab, methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil, daily glucocorticoids >10 mg, abatacept, as well as in older individuals, and those with comorbid interstitial lung diseases. Safety reports on COVID-19 vaccines in patients with ARDs were largely reassuring with mostly self-limiting adverse events and very minimal post-vaccination disease flares.

CONCLUSION

Both types of the mRNA-vaccines and the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines are highly effective and safe in patients with ARD. However, due to their suboptimal response in some patients, alternative mitigation strategies such as booster vaccines and shielding practices should also be followed. Management of immunomodulatory treatment regimens during the peri vaccination period should be individualized through shared decision making with patients and their attending rheumatologists.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

American College of Rheumatology Guidance for COVID-19 Vaccination in Patients With Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases: Version 5

OBJECTIVE

To provide guidance to rheumatology providers on the use of COVID-19 vaccines for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).

METHODS

A task force was assembled that included 9 rheumatologists/immunologists, 2 infectious diseases specialists, and 2 public health physicians. After agreeing on scoping questions, an evidence report was created that summarized the published literature and publicly available data regarding COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and safety, as well as literature for other vaccines in RMD patients. Task force members rated their agreement with draft consensus statements on a 9-point numerical scoring system, using a modified Delphi process and the RAND/University of California Los Angeles Appropriateness Method, with refinement and iteration over 2 sessions. Consensus was determined based on the distribution of ratings.

RESULTS

Despite a paucity of direct evidence, statements were developed by the task force and agreed upon with consensus to provide guidance for use of the COVID-19 vaccines, including supplemental/booster dosing, in RMD patients and to offer recommendations regarding the use and timing of immunomodulatory therapies around the time of vaccination.

CONCLUSION

These guidance statements are intended to provide direction to rheumatology health care providers on how to best use COVID-19 vaccines and to facilitate implementation of vaccination strategies for RMD patients.

Seroresponse to Inactivated and Recombinant Influenza Vaccines Among Maintenance Hemodialysis Patients

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

High-dose influenza vaccine provides better protection against influenza infection in older adults than standard-dose vaccine. We compared vaccine seroresponse among hemodialysis patients over a period of 4 months after administration of high-dose trivalent inactivated (HD-IIV3), standard-dose quadrivalent inactivated (SD-IIV4), or quadrivalent recombinant quadrivalent (RIV4) influenza vaccine.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective observational study.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

Patients at 4 hemodialysis clinics who received influenza vaccine.

EXPOSURE

Type of influenza vaccine.

OUTCOME

Hemagglutination inhibition (HI) titers were measured at baseline and at 1, 2, 3, and 4 months after vaccination. The primary outcome was seroprotection rates at HI titers of at least 1:40 and at least 1:160 (antibody levels providing protection from infection in approximately 50% and 95% of immunocompetent individuals, respectively) at 1, 2, 3, and 4 months after vaccination.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

We calculated geometric mean titer as well as seroprotection and seroconversion rates. Adjusted generalized linear models with additional trend analyses were performed to evaluate the association between vaccine type and outcomes.

RESULTS

254 hemodialysis patients were vaccinated against influenza with HD-IIV3 (n = 141), SD-IIV4 (n = 36), or RIV4 (n = 77). A robust initial seroresponse to influenza A strains was observed after all 3 vaccines. Geometric mean titer and seroprotection (HI titer ≥1:160) rates against influenza A strains were higher and more sustained with HD-IIV3 than SD-IIV4 or RIV4. More than 80% of patients vaccinated with HD-IIV3 were seroprotected (HI titer ≥1:160) at month 4 (P < 0.001), whereas, among patients vaccinated with SD-IIV4 or RIV4, seroprotection rates were similar to those at baseline. Seroprotection rates were lower against B strains for all vaccines.

LIMITATIONS

Because of the use of observational data, bias from unmeasured confounders may exist. Some age subgroups were small in number. Clinical outcome data were not available.

CONCLUSIONS

Hemodialysis patients exhibited high seroprotection rates after all 3 influenza vaccines. The seroresponse waned more slowly with HD-IIV3 compared with SD-IIV4 and RIV4 vaccines.

COVID-19 vaccination in patients receiving allergen immunotherapy (AIT) or biologicals-EAACI recommendations

Immune modulation is a key therapeutic approach for allergic diseases, asthma and autoimmunity. It can be achieved in an antigen-specific manner via allergen immunotherapy (AIT) or in an endotype-driven approach using biologicals that target the major pathways of the type 2 (T2) immune response: immunoglobulin (Ig)E, interleukin (IL)-5 and IL-4/IL-13 or non-type 2 response: anti-cytokine antibodies and B-cell depletion via anti-CD20. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination provides an excellent opportunity to tackle the global pandemics and is currently being applied in an accelerated rhythm worldwide. The vaccine exerts its effects through immune modulation, induces and amplifies the response against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2). Thus, as there may be a discernible interference between these treatment modalities, recommendations on how they should be applied in sequence are expected. The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) assembled an expert panel under its Research and Outreach Committee (ROC). This expert panel evaluated the evidence and have formulated recommendations on the administration of COVID-19 vaccine in patients with allergic diseases and asthma receiving AIT or biologicals. The panel also formulated recommendations for COVID-19 vaccine in association with biologicals targeting the type 1 or type 3 immune response. In formulating recommendations, the panel evaluated the mechanisms of COVID-19 infection, of COVID-19 vaccine, of AIT and of biologicals and considered the data published for other anti-infectious vaccines administered concurrently with AIT or biologicals.

Vaccination Recommendations for Psoriasis and Atopic Dermatitis Patients on Biologic Therapy: A Practical Guide

Novel biologic therapies have revolutionized the treatment of psoriasis and atopic dermatitis. Although they are generally safe, they are immunomodulatory and therefore unique considerations apply in regards to infections and vaccine administration. This review aims to provide a clear and practical guide for dermatologists or other healthcare providers to reference when caring for psoriasis or atopic dermatitis patients being treated with biologic therapies using currently available guidelines and clinical data. Vaccinations for approved biologics including TNFα, IL-12/23, IL-23, IL-17, and IL-4/13 inhibitors will be discussed, with a special note on current COVID-19 vaccination recommendations.

COVID-19 Outcomes and Vaccination in Patients with Spondyloarthritis

The rapid transmission of the highly infectious severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), led to widespread infection throughout the world. Concerns and challenges regarding COVID-19 illness have emerged for patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, such as spondyloarthritis (SpA), who receive treatment with biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), because this population is vulnerable to infections and has a high prevalence of risk factors associated with severe COVID-19 illness. Available data on COVID-19 indicate that patients with SpA who are treated with DMARDs have SARS-CoV-2 infection rates comparable with those in the general population, with similar increased risk associated with older age and comorbidities. Novel vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 are approved or authorized for emergency use by the US Food and Drug Administration, and others are in development to prevent infection and serious illness. This review provides an overview of SpA, the mechanism of action for the SARS-CoV-2 infection, the clinical course of COVID-19, and the vaccines approved for, or in development against, SARS-CoV-2. Detailed information on the use of established vaccines in patients with SpA receiving DMARDs is provided, along with recommendations for COVID-19 vaccination. Available evidence has shown COVID-19 vaccination in patients with SpA, among other rheumatic diseases, to be safe and effective with most DMARD use; however, there is evidence of potential interference with some therapies used in SpA. Healthcare providers should educate patients to provide the knowledge and confidence to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, since the potential benefit outweighs the low risk of vaccine-related adverse events.

American College of Rheumatology Guidance for COVID-19 Vaccination in Patients With Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases: Version 4

OBJECTIVE

To provide guidance to rheumatology providers on the use of COVID-19 vaccines for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).

METHODS

A task force was assembled that included 9 rheumatologists/immunologists, 2 infectious disease specialists, and 2 public health physicians. After agreeing on scoping questions, an evidence report was created that summarized the published literature and publicly available data regarding COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and safety, as well as literature for other vaccines in RMD patients. Task force members rated their agreement with draft consensus statements on a 9-point numerical scoring system, using a modified Delphi process and the RAND/University of California Los Angeles Appropriateness Method, with refinement and iteration over 2 sessions. Consensus was determined based on the distribution of ratings.

RESULTS

Despite a paucity of direct evidence, statements were developed by the task force and agreed upon with consensus to provide guidance for use of the COVID-19 vaccines, including supplemental/booster dosing, in RMD patients and to offer recommendations regarding the use and timing of immunomodulatory therapies around the time of vaccination.

CONCLUSION

These guidance statements are intended to provide direction to rheumatology health care providers on how to best use COVID-19 vaccines and to facilitate implementation of vaccination strategies for RMD patients.

Vaccinations in Patients with Rheumatic Disease: Consider Disease and Therapy

Patients with rheumatic diseases are susceptible to infections due to their underlying disease states as well as from immunosuppressive medications, highlighting the importance of vaccination, these same factors also pose challenges to vaccine efficacy, safety, and uptake. This article reviews the impact of immunosuppressive therapies and rheumatic disease on vaccine efficacy in this vulnerable patient population as well as discusses best practices.

Seroconversion after anti-SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccinations among moderate-to-severe psoriatic patients receiving systemic biologicals - Prospective observational cohort study

It is unclear whether biological antipsoriatic therapies affect seroconversion after messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA)‐based antisevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2) vaccinations. To assess antibody formation and the incidence of side effects after anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 mRNA vaccinations in psoriatic patients receiving different biologicals compared to healthy controls. 102 moderate‐to‐severe psoriatic patients (56.2 [±13.5] years) and 55 age‐matched healthy (56.4 ± 13.6 years) volunteers were included in our study. Ten to 21 days after the administration of the second dosage of BNT162b2 or mRNA‐1273 vaccine, antibody levels specific to the SARS‐CoV‐2 spike (S) protein receptor binding domain were monitored. The incidence of postvaccination side effects was recorded and compared to real‐life data in the literature. Of the 102 patients, 57 (55.88%) received tumor necrosis factor (TNF), 28 (27.45%) received interleukin (IL)‐12/23, 16 (15.68%) received IL‐17, and 1 (0.99%) received IL‐23 inhibitors. No significant differences in the median serum level of anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2S antibody were observed between the study population and the control group (median IQR range: 1681.0 U/mL (600.0–4844.0) versus 1984.0 U/mL (1000.0–3136.0; p = 0.82). The most frequent side effects of the mRNA vaccines within 7 days after the administration of both dosages were arm pain on the side of injection (23.53% and 23.53%), fatigue (9.80% and 13.72%), headache (4.9% and 5.88%), and chills or shivering (4.9% and 8.82%). Detectable antibodies against SARS‐CoV‐2S protein appear 10–21 days after the administration of the second dosage of BNT162b2 or mRNA‐1273 vaccines in moderate‐to‐severe psoriatic patients receiving biologicals, similar to those of healthy controls.

Response to Vaccines in Patients with Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases: A Narrative Review

Patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs), such as rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease, are at increased risk of infection. International guidelines recommend vaccination to limit this risk of infection, although live attenuated vaccines are contraindicated once immunosuppressive therapy has begun. Biologic therapies used to treat IMIDs target the immune system to stop chronic pathogenic process but may also attenuate the protective immune response to vaccines. Here, we review the current knowledge regarding vaccine responses in IMID patients receiving treatment with biologic therapies, with a focus on the interleukin (IL)-12/23 inhibitors. B cell-depleting therapies, such as rituximab, strongly impair vaccines immunogenicity, and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors and the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA-4) fusion protein abatacept are also associated with attenuated antibody responses, which are further diminished in patients taking concomitant immunosuppressants. On the other hand, integrin, IL-6, IL-12/23, IL-17, and B-cell activating factor (BAFF) inhibitors do not appear to affect the immune response to several vaccines evaluated. Importantly, treatment with biologic therapies in IMID patients is not associated with an increased risk of infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or developing severe disease. However, the efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines on IMID patients may be reduced compared with healthy individuals. The impact of biologic therapies on the response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines seems to replicate what has been described for other vaccines. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination appears to be safe and well tolerated in IMID patients. Attenuated but, in general, still protective responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in the context of certain therapies warrant current recommendations for a third primary dose in IMID patients treated with immunosuppressive drugs.

Biologics for Psoriasis During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a new form of acute infectious respiratory syndrome first reported in 2019, has rapidly spread worldwide and has been recognized as a pandemic by the WHO. It raised widespread concern about the treatment of psoriasis in this COVID-19 pandemic era, especially on the biologics use for patients with psoriasis. This review will summarize key information that is currently known about the relationship between psoriasis, biological treatments, and COVID-19, and vaccination-related issues. We also provide references for dermatologists and patients when they need to make clinical decisions. Currently, there is no consensus on whether biological agents increase the risk of coronavirus infection; however, current research shows that biological agents have no adverse effects on the prognosis of patients with COVID-19 with psoriasis. In short, it is not recommended to stop biological treatment in patients with psoriasis to prevent the infection risk, and for those patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, the decision to pause biologic therapy should be considered on a case-by-case basis, and individual risk and benefit should be taken into account. Vaccine immunization against SARS-CoV-2 is strictly recommendable in patients with psoriasis without discontinuation of their biologics but evaluating the risk-benefit ratio of maintaining biologics before vaccination is mandatory at the moment.

Immunogenicity and safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in adult patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases and in the general population: a multicentre study

INTRODUCTION

Vaccination represents a cornerstone in mastering the COVID-19 pandemic. Data on immunogenicity and safety of messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines in patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRD) are limited.

METHODS

A multicentre observational study evaluated the immunogenicity and safety of the two-dose regimen BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine in adult patients with AIIRD (n=686) compared with the general population (n=121). Serum IgG antibody levels against SARS-CoV-2 spike S1/S2 proteins were measured 2-6 weeks after the second vaccine dose. Seropositivity was defined as IgG ≥15 binding antibody units (BAU)/mL. Vaccination efficacy, safety, and disease activity were assessed within 6 weeks after the second vaccine dose.

RESULTS

Following vaccination, the seropositivity rate and S1/S2 IgG levels were significantly lower among patients with AIIRD versus controls (86% (n=590) vs 100%, p<0.0001 and 132.9±91.7 vs 218.6±82.06 BAU/mL, p<0.0001, respectively). Risk factors for reduced immunogenicity included older age and treatment with glucocorticoids, rituximab, mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), and abatacept. Rituximab was the main cause of a seronegative response (39% seropositivity). There were no postvaccination symptomatic cases of COVID-19 among patients with AIIRD and one mild case in the control group. Major adverse events in patients with AIIRD included death (n=2) several weeks after the second vaccine dose, non-disseminated herpes zoster (n=6), uveitis (n=2), and pericarditis (n=1). Postvaccination disease activity remained stable in the majority of patients.

CONCLUSION

mRNA BNTb262 vaccine was immunogenic in the majority of patients with AIIRD, with an acceptable safety profile. Treatment with glucocorticoids, rituximab, MMF, and abatacept was associated with a significantly reduced BNT162b2-induced immunogenicity.

Impact of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs on vaccine immunogenicity in patients with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases

Patients with rheumatic diseases are at increased risk of infectious complications; vaccinations are a critical component of their care. Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs may reduce the immunogenicity of common vaccines. We will review here available data regarding the effect of these medications on influenza, pneumococcal, herpes zoster, SARS-CoV-2, hepatitis B, human papilloma virus and yellow fever vaccines. Rituximab has the most substantial impact on vaccine immunogenicity, which is most profound when vaccinations are given at shorter intervals after rituximab dosing. Methotrexate has less substantial effect but appears to adversely impact most vaccine immunogenicity. Abatacept likely decrease vaccine immunogenicity, although these studies are limited by the lack of adequate control groups. Janus kinase and tumour necrosis factor inhibitors decrease absolute antibody titres for many vaccines, but do not seem to significantly impact the proportions of patients achieving seroprotection. Other biologics (interleukin-6R (IL-6R), IL-12/IL-23 and IL-17 inhibitors) have little observed impact on vaccine immunogenicity. Data regarding the effect of these medications on the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine immunogenicity are just now emerging, and early glimpses appear similar to our experience with other vaccines. In this review, we summarise the most recent data regarding vaccine response and efficacy in this setting, particularly in light of current vaccination recommendations for immunocompromised patients.

Vaccinations in Patients Receiving Systemic Drugs for Skin Disorders: What Can We Learn for SARS-Cov-2 Vaccination Strategies?

Large-scale vaccination strategies are currently being deployed against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-Cov-2). Whether systemic medication for skin diseases affects the efficacy of vaccination and whether temporary interruption or extension of the dosing interval is necessary is under debate. Most immunomodulating/immunosuppressive drugs only affect vaccine-induced immune responses to a limited or moderate extent, preserving sufficient immunity in most patients. Mycophenolate mofetil, Janus kinase inhibitors, and rituximab require a more cautious approach, and judicious timing of vaccination might be appropriate in patients receiving these treatments. It should be noted that, for most drugs except methotrexate, data on the length of the interruption period to restore vaccine-induced immune responses to normal levels are either very limited or absent. In these cases, only the drug half-life can be used as a practical guideline. In most patients, systemic medication can be continued through the vaccination process, although case-by-case decisions can be considered.

American College of Rheumatology Guidance for COVID-19 Vaccination in Patients With Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases: Version 3

Objective

To provide guidance to rheumatology providers on the use of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) vaccines for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).

Methods

A task force was assembled that included 9 rheumatologists/immunologists, 2 infectious disease specialists, and 2 public health physicians. After agreeing on scoping questions, an evidence report was created that summarized the published literature and publicly available data regarding COVID‐19 vaccine efficacy and safety, as well as literature for other vaccines in RMD patients. Task force members rated their agreement with draft consensus statements on a 9‐point numerical scoring system, using a modified Delphi process and the RAND/University of California Los Angeles Appropriateness Method, with refinement and iteration over 2 sessions. Consensus was determined based on the distribution of ratings.

Results

Despite a paucity of direct evidence, 74 draft guidance statements were developed by the task force and agreed upon with consensus to provide guidance for use of the COVID‐19 vaccines in RMD patients and to offer recommendations regarding the use and timing of immunomodulatory therapies around the time of vaccination.

Conclusion

These guidance statements, made in the context of limited clinical data, are intended to provide direction to rheumatology health care providers on how to best use COVID‐19 vaccines and to facilitate implementation of vaccination strategies for RMD patients.

American College of Rheumatology Guidance for COVID-19 Vaccination in Patients With Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases: Version 2

OBJECTIVE

To provide guidance to rheumatology providers on the use of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).

METHODS

A task force was assembled that included 9 rheumatologists/immunologists, 2 infectious disease specialists, and 2 public health physicians. After agreeing on scoping questions, an evidence report was created that summarized the published literature and publicly available data regarding COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and safety, as well as literature for other vaccines in RMD patients. Task force members rated their agreement with draft consensus statements on a 9-point numerical scoring system, using a modified Delphi process and the RAND/University of California Los Angeles Appropriateness Method, with refinement and iteration over 2 sessions. Consensus was determined based on the distribution of ratings.

RESULTS

Despite a paucity of direct evidence, 74 draft guidance statements were developed by the task force and agreed upon with consensus to provide guidance for use of the COVID-19 vaccines in RMD patients and to offer recommendations regarding the use and timing of immunomodulatory therapies around the time of vaccination.

CONCLUSION

These guidance statements, made in the context of limited clinical data, are intended to provide direction to rheumatology health care providers on how to best use COVID-19 vaccines and to facilitate implementation of vaccination strategies for RMD patients.

American College of Rheumatology Guidance for COVID-19 Vaccination in Patients With Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases: Version 1

OBJECTIVE

To provide guidance to rheumatology providers on the use of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).

METHODS

A task force was assembled that included 9 rheumatologists/immunologists, 2 infectious disease specialists, and 2 public health physicians. After agreeing on scoping questions, an evidence report was created that summarized the published literature and publicly available data regarding COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and safety, as well as literature for other vaccines in RMD patients. Task force members rated their agreement with draft consensus statements on a 9-point numerical scoring system, using a modified Delphi process and the RAND/University of California Los Angeles Appropriateness Method, with refinement and iteration over 2 sessions. Consensus was determined based on the distribution of ratings.

RESULTS

Despite a paucity of direct evidence, 74 draft guidance statements were developed by the task force and agreed upon with consensus to provide guidance for use of the COVID-19 vaccines in RMD patients and to offer recommendations regarding the use and timing of immunomodulatory therapies around the time of vaccination.

CONCLUSION

These guidance statements, made in the context of limited clinical data, are intended to provide direction to rheumatology health care providers on how to best use COVID-19 vaccines and to facilitate implementation of vaccination strategies for RMD patients.

National Psoriasis Foundation COVID-19 Task Force guidance for management of psoriatic disease during the pandemic: Version 2-Advances in psoriatic disease management, COVID-19 vaccines, and COVID-19 treatments

OBJECTIVE

To update guidance regarding the management of psoriatic disease during the COVID-19 pandemic.

STUDY DESIGN

The task force (TF) includes 18 physician voting members with expertise in dermatology, rheumatology, epidemiology, infectious diseases, and critical care. The TF was supplemented by nonvoting members, which included fellows and National Psoriasis Foundation staff. Clinical questions relevant to the psoriatic disease community were informed by inquiries received by the National Psoriasis Foundation. A Delphi process was conducted.

RESULTS

The TF updated evidence for the original 22 statements and added 5 new recommendations. The average of the votes was within the category of agreement for all statements, 13 with high consensus and 14 with moderate consensus.

LIMITATIONS

The evidence behind many guidance statements is variable in quality and/or quantity.

CONCLUSIONS

These statements provide guidance for the treatment of patients with psoriatic disease on topics including how the disease and its treatments affect COVID-19 risk, how medical care can be optimized during the pandemic, what patients should do to lower their risk of getting infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (including novel vaccination), and what they should do if they develop COVID-19. The guidance is a living document that is continuously updated by the TF as data emerge.

SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) vaccination in dermatology patients on immunomodulatory and biologic agents: Recommendations from the Australasian Medical Dermatology Group

As the phase III COVID-19 vaccine trials excluded patients on immunosuppressive treatments, or patients with significant autoimmunity, the Australasian Medical Dermatology Group make the following preliminary recommendations around COVID-19 vaccination in dermatology patients on immunomodulatory and/or biologic agents. Vaccination against COVID-19 is strongly encouraged for all patients on immunomodulatory drugs and/or biologic agents. There are currently insufficient data to recommend one COVID-19 vaccine or vaccine type (mRNA, recombinant, inactivated virus) over another. No specific additional risk in patients on immunomodulatory or biologic therapies has so far been identified. Data on vaccine efficacy in patients on immunomodulatory or biologic therapies are missing, so standard vaccination protocols are recommended until otherwise advised.

Safety and Efficacy of Vaccines during COVID-19 Pandemic in Patients Treated with Biological Drugs in a Dermatological Setting

The BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines, consisting of mRNA, have recently become available. The absolute novelty of these vaccines introduces questions about their safety and efficacy, especially in patients who are treated with biological drugs in dermatology. The aim of our review was to provide a broad overview of the current use of all available vaccinations in concomitance with biological therapy and to suggest indications for the new mRNA Covid-19 vaccines. We conducted a narrative review of the literature regarding the indications and safety of the various types of vaccines currently available in dermatological patients treated with biological therapy. The safety and efficacy of administering inactivated vaccines in patients undergoing biological therapy with inhibitors of TNF-α, IL-17, IL-12/23, and IL-4/13 was confirmed. Inactivated vaccines can be administered during therapy with inhibitors of IL-23 and IgE, taking into account that the level of evidence is lower due to the lack of specific studies. Live attenuated vaccines were contraindicated in concomitance with all biological therapies considered, except omalizumab. According to this evidence, we assume that there are currently no contraindications to the administration of the new Covid-19 BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines during biological therapy with inhibitors of TNF-α, IL-17, IL-12/23, IL-23, and IL-4/13, since these vaccines are comparable to inactivated ones. For patients with chronic urticaria or allergic asthma treated with omalizumab, we currently recommend caution in using the mRNA Covid-19 vaccines (30 min observation). The only contraindications were a previous history of hypersensitivity to the Covid-19 vaccines themself or to their excipients. In conclusion, further randomized clinical trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy of the antibody response in these patients.

A practical approach for vaccinations including COVID-19 in autoimmune/autoinflammatory rheumatic diseases: a non-systematic review

The COVID-19 pandemic has occupied the world agenda since December 2019. With no effective treatment yet, vaccination seems to be the most effective method of prevention. Recently developed vaccines have been approved for emergency use only and are currently applied to large populations. Considering both the underlying pathogenic mechanisms of autoimmune/autoinflammatory rheumatological diseases (AIIRDs) and the immunosuppressive drugs used in treatment, vaccination for COVID-19 deserves special attention in such patients. In this article, we aimed to give simple messages to the clinicians for COVID-19 vaccination in patients with AIIRDs based upon the current evidence regarding the use of other vaccines in this patient group. For this purpose, we conducted a "Pubmed search" using the following keywords: Influenza, Hepatitis B, Pneumococcal, and Shingles vaccines and the frequently used conventional and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Likewise, an additional search was performed for the COVID-19 immunization in patients with AIIRDs and considering such drugs. In summary, patients with AIIRDs should also be vaccinated against COVID-19, preferably when disease activity is under control and when there is no concurrent infection. Low-degree immunosuppression does not appear to decrease antibody responses to vaccines. Ideally, vaccinations should be done before the initiation of any biological DMARDs. Patients receiving rituximab should be vaccinated at least 4 weeks before or 6 months after treatment. Since tofacitinib may also reduce antibody responses, especially in combination with methotrexate, it may be appropriate to discontinue this drug before vaccination and to restart after 14 days of immunization. Key points • COVID-19 vaccinations should preferably be made during remission in patients with autoimmune/autoinflammatory rheumatological diseases. • Low-degree immunosuppression may not interfere with antibody response to vaccines. • Ideally, vaccinations should be made before the initiation of any biological DMARDs. • Timing of vaccination is especially important in the case of rituximab.

A practical approach for vaccinations including COVID-19 in autoimmune/autoinflammatory rheumatic diseases: a non-systematic review

The COVID-19 pandemic has occupied the world agenda since December 2019. With no effective treatment yet, vaccination seems to be the most effective method of prevention. Recently developed vaccines have been approved for emergency use only and are currently applied to large populations. Considering both the underlying pathogenic mechanisms of autoimmune/autoinflammatory rheumatological diseases (AIIRDs) and the immunosuppressive drugs used in treatment, vaccination for COVID-19 deserves special attention in such patients. In this article, we aimed to give simple messages to the clinicians for COVID-19 vaccination in patients with AIIRDs based upon the current evidence regarding the use of other vaccines in this patient group. For this purpose, we conducted a “Pubmed search” using the following keywords: Influenza, Hepatitis B, Pneumococcal, and Shingles vaccines and the frequently used conventional and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Likewise, an additional search was performed for the COVID-19 immunization in patients with AIIRDs and considering such drugs. In summary, patients with AIIRDs should also be vaccinated against COVID-19, preferably when disease activity is under control and when there is no concurrent infection. Low-degree immunosuppression does not appear to decrease antibody responses to vaccines. Ideally, vaccinations should be done before the initiation of any biological DMARDs. Patients receiving rituximab should be vaccinated at least 4 weeks before or 6 months after treatment. Since tofacitinib may also reduce antibody responses, especially in combination with methotrexate, it may be appropriate to discontinue this drug before vaccination and to restart after 14 days of immunization.

Key points • COVID-19 vaccinations should preferably be made during remission in patients with autoimmune/autoinflammatory rheumatological diseases. • Low-degree immunosuppression may not interfere with antibody response to vaccines. • Ideally, vaccinations should be made before the initiation of any biological DMARDs. • Timing of vaccination is especially important in the case of rituximab.

Vaccinations in Patients with Rheumatic Disease: Consider Disease and Therapy

Patients with rheumatic diseases are susceptible to infections due to their underlying disease states as well as from immunosuppressive medications, highlighting the importance of vaccination, these same factors also pose challenges to vaccine efficacy, safety, and uptake. This article reviews the impact of immunosuppressive therapies and rheumatic disease on vaccine efficacy in this vulnerable patient population as well as discusses best practices.

Immune Response to Vaccination in Patients with Psoriasis Treated with Systemic Therapies

Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory skin disease usually treated with immunomodulatory/immunosuppressive agents. The use of these agents has been associated with an increased susceptibility to infections. Vaccination might represent a critical aspect in the management of patients with psoriasis treated with immunomodulatory/immunosuppressive therapies. This narrative review aimed to provide an overview on the immune response to vaccines in subjects treated with systemic agents used to treat patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. Publications appearing in PubMed, Scopus, and ISI–Web of Knowledge database were selected using Medical Subject Headings key terms. Overall, published data confirmed that vaccination with attenuated live vaccines during therapy with immunomodulatory/immunosuppressive therapies should be avoided. For nonlive vaccines, a more favorable safety profile of biologic agents compared to conventional systemic agents is described as the humoral response to vaccines is in general well-preserved. Treatment with cyclosporine and methotrexate is associated with lower antibody titers to vaccines, and thus these agents are better discontinued during vaccination. In contrast, treatment with biological agents is not associated with lower antibody response and can thus be continued safely.

Do immunosuppressive agents hamper the vaccination response in patients with rheumatic diseases? A review of the literature

Patients with auto-immune disease are more susceptible to infection than similar populations without auto-immune disease. Vaccination seems to be one of the most effective methods to prevent patients from possible infections, but may be impaired by concomitant immunomodulators. The aim of this review was to evaluate the effect of immunosuppressive drugs on vaccination efficiency. We found that the majority of studies confirms that neither the use of corticosteroids and conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) nor the use of biological agents, except rituximab, reduce the efficacy of inactivated vaccines such as pneumococcal and influenza vaccines. Even if rituximab has been shown to reduce humoral responses following influenza and pneumococcal vaccination, this response can be modestly restored 6-10 months after rituximab administration. To sum up, treatment guidelines recommending routine use of pneumococcal and influenza vaccines for immune compromised patients should be followed in order to avoid severe infections.