Serology of Viral Infections and Tuberculosis Screening in an IBD Population Referred to a Tertiary Centre of Southern Italy

Efficacy and Safety of Biological Therapies and JAK Inhibitors in Older Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease

With the introduction of more and more monoclonal antibodies selectively targeting various mediators of the immune system, together with Janus-Kinase (JAK)-inhibitors with variable affinities towards different JAK subtypes, the available therapeutic options for the treatment of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) have undergone an acceleration in the last five years. On the other hand, the prevalence of IBD patients over 65-years-old is steadily increasing, and, with this, there is a large population of patients that presents more comorbidities, polypharmacy, and, more frequently, frailty compared to younger patients, exposing them to potentially major risks for adverse events deriving from newer therapies, e.g., infections, cardiovascular risks, and malignancies. Unfortunately, pivotal trials for the commercialization of new therapies rarely include older IBD patients, and those with serious comorbidities are virtually excluded. In the present review, we focus on existing literature from pivotal trials and real-world studies, analyzing data on efficacy/effectiveness and safety of newer therapies in older IBD patients with special emphasis on comorbidities and frailty, two distinct but intercorrelated aspects of the older population since age by itself seems to be of minor importance.

Expert consensus on vaccination in patients with inflammatory bowel disease in Japan

Immunosuppressive therapies can affect the immune response to or safety of vaccination in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The appropriateness of vaccination should be assessed prior to the initiation of IBD treatment because patients with IBD frequently undergo continuous treatment with immunosuppressive drugs. This consensus was developed to support the decision-making process regarding appropriate vaccination for pediatric and adult patients with IBD and physicians by providing critical information according to the published literature and expert consensus about vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs) [excluding cervical cancer and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)] in Japan. This consensus includes 19 important clinical questions (CQs) on the following 4 topics: VPDs (6 CQs), live attenuated vaccines (2 CQs), inactivated vaccines (6 CQs), and vaccination for pregnancy, childbirth, and breastfeeding (5 CQs). These topics and CQs were selected under unified consensus by the members of a committee on intractable diseases with support by a Health and Labour Sciences Research Grant. Physicians should provide necessary information on VPDs to their patients with IBD and carefully manage these patients' IBD if various risk factors for the development or worsening of VPDs are present. This consensus will facilitate informed and shared decision-making in daily IBD clinical practice.

Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline for Immunizations in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD)-Part 2: Inactivated Vaccines

Background and Aims

The effectiveness and safety of vaccinations can be altered by immunosuppressive therapies, and perhaps by inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) itself. These recommendations developed by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and endorsed by the American Gastroenterological Association, aim to provide guidance on immunizations in adult and pediatric patients with IBD. This publication focused on inactivated vaccines.

Methods

Systematic reviews evaluating the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of vaccines in patients with IBD, other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, and the general population were performed. Critical outcomes included mortality, vaccine-preventable diseases, and serious adverse events. Immunogenicity was considered a surrogate outcome for vaccine efficacy. Certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Key questions were developed through an iterative online platform, and voted on by a multidisciplinary group. Recommendations were formulated using the Evidence-to-Decision framework. Strong recommendation means that most patients should receive the recommended course of action, whereas a conditional recommendation means that different choices will be appropriate for different patients.

Results

Consensus was reached on 15 of 20 questions. Recommendations address the following vaccines: Haemophilus influenzae type b, recombinant zoster, hepatitis B, influenza, pneumococcus, meningococcus, tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis, and human papillomavirus. Most of the recommendations for patients with IBD are congruent with the current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Canada’s National Advisory Committee on Immunization recommendations for the general population, with the following exceptions. In patients with IBD, the panel suggested Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine for patients older than 5 years of age, recombinant zoster vaccine for adults younger than 50 year of age, and hepatitis B vaccine for adults without a risk factor. Consensus was not reached, and recommendations were not made for 5 statements, due largely to lack of evidence, including double-dose hepatitis B vaccine, timing of influenza immunization in patients on biologics, pneumococcal and meningococcal vaccines in adult patients without risk factors, and human papillomavirus vaccine in patients aged 27–45 years.

Conclusions

Patients with IBD may be at increased risk of some vaccine-preventable diseases. Therefore, maintaining appropriate vaccination status in these patients is critical to optimize patient outcomes. In general, IBD is not a contraindication to the use of inactivated vaccines, but immunosuppressive therapy may reduce vaccine responses.

Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline for Immunizations in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD)-Part 2: Inactivated Vaccines

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The effectiveness and safety of vaccinations can be altered by immunosuppressive therapies, and perhaps by inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) itself. These recommendations developed by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and endorsed by the American Gastroenterological Association, aim to provide guidance on immunizations in adult and pediatric patients with IBD. This publication focused on inactivated vaccines.

METHODS

Systematic reviews evaluating the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of vaccines in patients with IBD, other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, and the general population were performed. Critical outcomes included mortality, vaccine-preventable diseases, and serious adverse events. Immunogenicity was considered a surrogate outcome for vaccine efficacy. Certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Key questions were developed through an iterative online platform, and voted on by a multidisciplinary group. Recommendations were formulated using the Evidence-to-Decision framework. Strong recommendation means that most patients should receive the recommended course of action, whereas a conditional recommendation means that different choices will be appropriate for different patients.

RESULTS

Consensus was reached on 15 of 20 questions. Recommendations address the following vaccines: Haemophilus influenzae type b, recombinant zoster, hepatitis B, influenza, pneumococcus, meningococcus, tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis, and human papillomavirus. Most of the recommendations for patients with IBD are congruent with the current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Canada's National Advisory Committee on Immunization recommendations for the general population, with the following exceptions. In patients with IBD, the panel suggested Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine for patients older than 5 years of age, recombinant zoster vaccine for adults younger than 50 year of age, and hepatitis B vaccine for adults without a risk factor. Consensus was not reached, and recommendations were not made for 5 statements, due largely to lack of evidence, including double-dose hepatitis B vaccine, timing of influenza immunization in patients on biologics, pneumococcal and meningococcal vaccines in adult patients without risk factors, and human papillomavirus vaccine in patients aged 27-45 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with IBD may be at increased risk of some vaccine-preventable diseases. Therefore, maintaining appropriate vaccination status in these patients is critical to optimize patient outcomes. In general, IBD is not a contraindication to the use of inactivated vaccines, but immunosuppressive therapy may reduce vaccine responses.

Impact of Epstein-Barr virus infection on inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) clinical outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the role of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) on the intestinal mucosa in the evolution of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), to investigate the risk factors for EBV infection and the frequency of EBV-associated lymphoproliferative disorders in IBD patients.

METHODS

Intestinal biopsies of IBD patients with available EBV status determined by Epstein-Barr-encoding RNA (EBER) in situ hybridization were searched in the Pathology Database of our center. Clinical information, including phenotypic characteristics of IBD, previous treatments, diagnosis of lymphoma, and patient outcome, were reviewed for all cases.

RESULTS

56 patients with IBD (28 Crohn´s disease, 27 ulcerative colitis and one unclassified colitis) were included. EBV in intestinal mucosa was positive in 26 patients (46%), in one case associated to a lymphoproliferative syndrome. EBV positivity was associated with severe histological activity (52% vs. 17.2%; p 0.007), presence of a lymphoplasmacytic infiltrate (50% vs. 33.3%; p 0.03) and active steroid treatment (61.5% vs. 33.3%; p 0.03). Multivariate analyses only found association between EBV and lymphoplasmacytosis (p 0.001). Escalation in previous treatment was significantly more frequent in the EBER+ group (53.8% vs. 26.7%; p 0.038). No cases developed lymphoma in the follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

EBV on the intestinal mucosa is associated with a poor outcome of IBD and the need for escalation in therapy. Lymphoplasmacytic infiltrate is associated with EBV infection. EBER+ patients used steroids more frequently compared with EBER- patients. No EBER+ patients developed a lymphoma during follow-up.

A Decade of Varicella Screening Within a Paediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease Population

INTRODUCTION

Increased risk of opportunistic infection-e.g., varicella zoster infection-secondary to therapies is a cause of morbidity in inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] patients. The UK vaccination schedule does not include varicella immunisation. We aimed to evaluate the varicella screening and immunisation programme in a paediatric IBD population.

METHODS

Data regarding IBD diagnosis, varicella status, and consequent immunisations/treatment interventions were collected retrospectively from the records of patients diagnosed with IBD over a 10-year period [2009-2018].

RESULTS

In all, 520 IBD patients were diagnosed; 505/520 [97%] had varicella testing; 46/505 [9%] were naïve. Of 501 patients, 391[78%] were tested before or within 7 days of diagnosis; this increased in the second 5-year period compared with the first (229/268 [85%] versus 162/233 [70%]; p <0.00001). Median diagnosis age of naïve patients was lower [8.3 years versus 12.8 years; p <0.00001]. Where vaccination was feasible, 21/31 [68%] had two and 7/31 [23%] one immunisation. Prednisolone induction led to lower rates of vaccination (5/13 [39%] versus 23/33 [70%] for other induction therapies; p =0.02). Of 28 vaccinated patients, 5 [18%] had suspected breakthrough varicella; and 6/18 [33%] unimmunised patients required post-exposure prophylaxis or treatment for varicella. Immunisation was associated with a decrease in patients requiring post-exposure prophylaxis (0/28 [0%] versus 5/18 [28%]; p =0.0006) and varicella-related hospital admission (1/28 [4%] versus 4/18 [22%]; p =0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

High rates of varicella screening and immunisation within a PIBD population are possible, resulting in a reduction in hospital admissions for varicella treatment. Varicella immunisation may be of increasing importance within the PIBD population with the emergence of novel therapeutic strategies.