Effect of abatacept on the immunogenicity of 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccination (PPSV23) in rheumatoid arthritis patients

Vaccination recommendations for adults receiving biologics and oral therapies for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis: Delphi consensus from the medical board of the National Psoriasis Foundation

BACKGROUND

For psoriatic patients who need to receive nonlive or live vaccines, evidence-based recommendations are needed regarding whether to pause or continue systemic therapies for psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate literature regarding vaccine efficacy and safety and to generate consensus-based recommendations for adults receiving systemic therapies for psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis receiving nonlive or live vaccines.

METHODS

Using a modified Delphi process, 22 consensus statements were developed by the National Psoriasis Foundation Medical Board and COVID-19 Task Force, and infectious disease experts.

RESULTS

Key recommendations include continuing most oral and biologic therapies without modification for patients receiving nonlive vaccines; consider interruption of methotrexate for nonlive vaccines. For patients receiving live vaccines, discontinue most oral and biologic medications before and after administration of live vaccine. Specific recommendations include discontinuing most biologic therapies, except for abatacept, for 2-3 half-lives before live vaccine administration and deferring next dose 2-4 weeks after live vaccination.

LIMITATIONS

Studies regarding infection rates after vaccination are lacking.

CONCLUSION

Interruption of antipsoriatic oral and biologic therapies is generally not necessary for patients receiving nonlive vaccines. Temporary interruption of oral and biologic therapies before and after administration of live vaccines is recommended in most cases.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Anti-Rheumatic Drugs and Pneumococcal Vaccine Immunogenicity in Inflammatory Arthritis

BACKGROUND

Pneumococcal pneumonia is an important cause of morbidity and mortality amongst patients with inflammatory arthritis. Vaccination is recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) but it remains unclear how vaccine efficacy is impacted by different immunosuppressive agents. Our objective was to compare the chance of a seroconversion following vaccination against pneumococcus in patients with inflammatory arthritis to that in the general population, as well as to compare the chance of seroconversion across different targeted therapies.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library databases from inception until 20 June 2023. We included randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Aggregate data were used to undertake a pairwise meta-analysis. Our primary outcome of interest was vaccine seroconversion. We accepted the definition of serological response reported by the authors of each study.

RESULTS

Twenty studies were identified in the systematic review (2807 patients) with ten reporting sufficient data to be included in the meta-analysis (1443 patients). The chance of seroconversion in patients receiving targeted therapies, relative to the general population, was 0.61 (95% CI 0.35 to 1.08). The reduced odds of response were skewed strongly by the effects of abatacept and rituximab with no difference between patients on TNF inhibitors (TNFis) or IL-6 inhibition and healthy controls. Within different inflammatory arthritis populations the findings remained consistent, with rituximab having the strongest negative impact on vaccine response. TNF inhibition monotherapy was associated with a greater chance of vaccine response compared with methotrexate (2.25 (95% CI 1.28 to 3.96)). JAK inhibitor (JAKi) studies were few in number and did not present comparable vaccine response endpoints to include in the meta-analysis. The information available does not suggest any significant detrimental effects of JAKi on vaccine response.

CONCLUSION

This updated meta-analysis confirms that, for most patients with inflammatory arthritis, pneumococcal vaccine can be administered with confidence and that it will achieve comparable seroconversion rates to the healthy population. Patients on rituximab were the group least likely to achieve a response and further research is needed to explore the value of multiple-course pneumococcal vaccination schedules in this population.

Réponse sérologique après vaccination contre le coronavirus chez les patients atteints de rhumatisme inflammatoire chronique traités par DMARDs : étude de cohorte et revue systématique avec méta-analyse

Introduction

La vaccination contre le coronavirus constitue l’une des pierres angulaires dans la gestion de la crise sanitaire liée au COVID-19. Alors que la vaccination confère une protection efficace chez les sujets immunocompétents, son immunogénicité dans la population atteinte de rhumatisme inflammatoire chronique (RIC) n’est pas clairement établie.

Méthodes

Nous avons conduit une étude monocentrique rétrospective évaluant la réponse sérologique après deux doses de vaccination contre le coronavirus chez des patients adultes atteints de RIC et traités par traitements ciblés ou biologiques (n = 123). Les titres d’anticorps IgG dirigés contre la protéine spike du coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) ont été mesurés après la seconde dose de vaccin. De plus, nous avons conduit une recherche systématique jusqu’au 31 septembre 2021 dans les bases de données PUBMED, preprint et littérature grise non encore publiée des études observationnelles des taux sérologiques après vaccination chez des patients atteints de RIC traités par médicaments ciblés ou biologiques (numéro d’enregistrement PROSPERO : CRD42021259410). Les études rapportant la taille d’échantillon, la date, le pays d’origine, le taux de séroconversion ont été incluses. Nous avons ensuite conduit une méta-analyse afin d’identifier des facteurs associés à la séroconversion.

Résultats

Sur nos 123 patients (âge médian 66 ans écart interquartile (EI) 57–75), 69,9 % ont séroconverti après 2 doses de vaccination. Les patients ayant eu une séroconversion étaient plus âgés que ceux qui n’en ont pas eu. Les patients traités par rituximab sont ceux qui ont le moins répondu à la vaccination. Nous avons identifié 20 études de séroprévalence en plus de notre cohorte, représentant un total de 4423 patients dans 11 pays. La méta-analyse a confirmé un impact négatif sur le taux de séroconversion du rituximab et dans une moindre mesure de l’abatacept, du léflunomide et du méthotrexate.

Conclusion

Le rituximab diminue la réponse sérologique à la vaccination contre le SARS-Cov2 chez les patients atteints de RIC. Ce travail suggère également un impact négatif de l’abatacept, du méthotrexate ou du léflunomide particulièrement en cas d’association à un médicament biologique.

Serological Response to BNT162b2 Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination in Patients with Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases: Results From the RHEUVAX Cohort

Objective

In the light of the current COVID-19 epidemic and the availability of effective vaccines, this study aims to identify factors associated with non-response to anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines as immunological alteration associated with immune rheumatic diseases (IRD) and immunosuppressive medications may impair the response to vaccination.

Methods

Volunteers in the health profession community with IRD, age, and sex-matched controls (CTRL) who underwent vaccination with two doses of BNT162b2 were recruited for this study. Anti-Trimeric Spike protein antibodies were assayed eight ± one weeks after the second vaccine dose. Univariate and logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors independently associated with non-response and low antibody titers.

Results

Samples were obtained from 237 IRD patients (m/f 73/164, mean age 57, CI 95% [56-59]): 4 autoinflammatory diseases (AI), 62 connective tissue diseases (CTD), 86 rheumatoid arthritis (RA), 71 spondylarthritis (SpA) and 14 vasculitis (Vsc). 232 CTRL were recruited (m/f 71/161, mean age 57, CI 95% [56-58]). Globally, IRD had a lower seroconversion rate (88.6% vs 99.6%, CI 95% OR [1.61-5.73], p<0.001) and lower antibody titer compared to controls (median (IQR) 403 (131.5-1012) versus 1160 (702.5-1675), p<0.001). After logistic regression, age, corticosteroid (CCS), Abatacept and Mycophenolate Mofetil (MMF) use were associated with non-response. Lower antibody titer was associated with the use of MMF, ABA, CCS, Rituximab, tumor necrosis factor inhibitor, JAK inhibitors, and higher age.

Conclusion

The response to anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is often impaired in IRD patients under treatment and may pose them at higher risk of severe COVID-19. Specific vaccination protocols are desirable for these patients.

Vaccinations in Children and Adolescents Treated With Immune-Modifying Biologics: Update and Current Developments

Treatment with immune-modifying biologics has positively impacted disease control and quality of life in many patients with immune-mediated disorders. However, the higher susceptibility to common and opportunistic pathogens is of concern. Thus, immunization strategies to control vaccine-preventable diseases represent a critical issue in this population. However, limited data exist on the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of available vaccines in patients on biologics, particularly in children. Here, according to published literature and real-life experience and practice, we report the interim indications of the Italian Society of Pediatric Allergology and Immunology (SIAIP) Vaccine Committee and of the Italian Primary Immunodeficiency Network (IPINet) Centers on immunization of children and adolescents receiving biologics. Our aim is to provide a practical guidance for the clinician to ensure optimal protection for patients and the community.

Serological response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease treated with disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs: a cohort study and a systematic review with meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Vaccination is considered as a cornerstone of the management of COVID-19 pandemic. However, while vaccines provide a robust protection in immunocompetent individuals, the immunogenicity in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRD) is not well established.

METHODS

A monocentric observational study evaluated the immunogenicity of a two-dose regimen vaccine in adult patients with IRD (n=123) treated with targeted or biological therapies. Serum IgG antibody levels against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike proteins were measured after the second vaccination. In addition, a search for observational studies performed in IRD under biologic or targeted therapies up to September 31, 2021 (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021259410) was undertaken in publication databases, preprint servers, and grey literature sources. Studies that reported sample size, study date, location, and seroprevalence estimate were included. A meta-analysis was conducted to identify demographic differences in the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.

RESULTS

Of 123 patients (median age 66 IQR 57-75), 69.9% have seroconverted after vaccination. Seroconverted patients were older than non-seroconverted ones in our cohort. Rituximab was associated with a significantly low antibody response. Besides, we identified 20 seroprevalence studies in addition to our cohort including 4423 participants in 11 countries. Meta-analysis confirmed a negative impact of rituximab on seroconversion rate and suggested a less substantial effect of abatacept, leflunomide and methotrexate.

CONCLUSION

Rituximab impairs serological response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with IRD. This work suggests also a negative impact of abatacept, methotrexate or leflunomide especially when associated to biological therapy.

Detection of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid and Spike Antibodies in Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Japan

OBJECTIVES

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Serological testing for anti-SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N) antibodies (Abs) and anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) Abs is performed to detect prior COVID-19 infection. It is still controversial which antibodies are the most sensitive and specific, and which can be detected earliest after infection. Here, we evaluated the results of serological tests of anti-SARS-CoV-2 N and S Abs in Japan.

METHODS

Symptomatic COVID-19 patients (n = 84) and control patients with rheumatoid arthritis (n = 93) were recruited at Tokyo National Hospital. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 N and S Abs were measured by commercial electrochemiluminescence immunoassays.

RESULTS

The fraction of patients positive for anti-SARS-CoV-2 N and S Abs was highest >14 days after symptom onset. The frequency of anti-SARS-CoV-2 S Ab positivity at this time (80.4%) tended to be slightly but not significantly lower than anti-SARS-CoV-2 N Ab positivity (84.8%). Optimized cut-off levels for anti-SARS-CoV-2 N and S Ab positivity were lower than the manufacturer's recommended cut-off levels. Using multiple linear regression analyzes with anti-SARS-CoV-2 N and S Abs, we created an Ab-index with high sensitivity.

CONCLUSION

To increase the sensitivity of serological diagnostic tests for COVID-19, it is suggested that both anti-SARS-CoV-2 N and S Abs should be measured and cut-off levels decreased.

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.

Current Take on Systemic Sclerosis Patients' Vaccination Recommendations

Systemic sclerosis (SSc) is a rare autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic disease. The prevalence of SSc ranges from 7 to 700 cases per million worldwide. Due to multiple organ involvement and constant inflammatory state, this group of patients presents an increased risk of infectious diseases. This paper aimed to gather the up-to-date evidence on vaccination strategies for patients with SSc and to be a useful tool for the prevention and management of infectious diseases. The authors conducted a scoping review in which each paragraph presents data on a specific vaccine’s safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy. The work deals with the following topics: SARS-CoV-2, seasonal influenza, S. pneumoniae, HAV, HBV, HZV, N. meningitidis, H. influenzae, HPV, and diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis.

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.

SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses in solid organ transplant recipients

Antibody responses among immunocompromised solid organ transplant recipients (SOT) infected with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) may be diminished compared to the general population and have not been fully characterized. We conducted a cohort study at our transplant center to investigate the rate of seroconversion for SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies among SOT recipients who were diagnosed with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and underwent serum SARS-CoV-2 IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) testing. The 61 patients who were included in the final analysis underwent initial SARS-CoV-2 IgG testing at a median of 62 days (Interquartile range 55.0-75.0) from symptom onset. Note that, 51 of 61 patients (83.6%) had positive SARS-CoV-2 IgG results, whereas 10 (16.4%) had negative IgG results. Six (60%) out of 10 seronegative patients underwent serial IgG testing and remained seronegative up to 17 weeks post-diagnosis. Use of belatacept in maintenance immunosuppression was significantly associated with negative IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 both in univariate and multivariate analyses (Odds ratio 0.04, p = .01). In conclusion, the majority of organ transplant recipients with COVID-19 in our study developed SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Further longitudinal studies of the durability and immunologic role of these IgG responses and the factors associated with lack of seroconversion are needed.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 Infection and Autoimmunity 1 Year Later: The Era of Vaccines

Impressive efforts have been made by researchers worldwide in the development of target vaccines against the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) and in improving the management of immunomodulating agents. Currently, different vaccine formulations, such as viral vector, mRNA, and protein-based, almost all directed toward the spike protein that includes the domain for receptor binding, have been approved. Although data are not conclusive, patients affected by autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs) seem to have a slightly higher disease prevalence, risk of hospitalization, and death from coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) than the general population. Therefore, ARD patients, under immunosuppressive agents, have been included among the priority target groups for vaccine administration. However, specific cautions are needed to optimize vaccine safety and effectiveness in these patients, such as modification in some of the ongoing immunosuppressive therapies and the preferential use of mRNA other than vector-based vaccines. Immunomodulating agents can be a therapeutic opportunity for the management of COVID-19 patients; however, their clinical impact depends on how they are handled. To place in therapy immunomodulating agents in the correct window of opportunity throughout the identification of surrogate markers of disease progression and host immune response is mandatory to optimize patient's outcome.

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.

How to Manage COVID-19 Vaccination in Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases: An Expert Opinion by IMIDs Study Group

Since March 2020, the outbreak of Sars-CoV-2 pandemic has changed medical practice and daily routine around the world. Huge efforts from pharmacological industries have led to the development of COVID-19 vaccines. In particular two mRNA vaccines, namely the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and the mRNA-1273 (Moderna), and a viral-vectored vaccine, i.e. ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AstraZeneca), have recently been approved in Europe. Clinical trials on these vaccines have been published on the general population showing a high efficacy with minor adverse events. However, specific data about the efficacy and safety of these vaccines in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) are still lacking. Moreover, the limited availability of these vaccines requires prioritizing some vulnerable categories of patients compared to others. In this position paper, we propose the point of view about the management of COVID-19 vaccination from Italian experts on IMIDs and the identification of high-risk groups according to the different diseases and their chronic therapy.

Immunogenicity of the Currently Recommended Pneumococcal Vaccination Schedule in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease

BACKGROUND

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are at increased risk of invasive pneumococcal infections. Therefore, vaccination with the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) followed by 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) 2 months later is recommended. However, the level of immunogenicity induced by this vaccination schedule in IBD patients with and without immunosuppressive medication remains unclear.

METHODS

We prospectively assessed the immunogenicity of PCV13 followed by PPSV23 in IBD patients by measuring serotype-specific pneumococcal immunoglobulin G antibody concentrations at baseline and 4-8 weeks postvaccination. Response to vaccination was defined as a postvaccination antibody concentration ≥1.3 μg/mL for 70% of the measured serotypes. We analyzed the immunogenic effect of 4 different medication regimens: (1) conventional immunomodulators (ie, oral prednisolone >10 mg/day, thiopurines, methotrexate); (2) anti-tumor necrosis factor agents; (3) combination therapy; and (4) no treatment with immunosuppressive agents (control group).

RESULTS

One hundred forty-one IBD patients were included, of whom 37 were controls. Adequate response to vaccination was 59% (61/104) in patients using immunosuppressive agents (groups 1-3) vs 81% (30/37) in controls (odds ratio, 0.33 [95% confidence interval, .13-.82]). A combination of different immunosuppressive drugs most severely impaired the immune response to pneumococcal vaccination (response, 52% [15/29]).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the sequential vaccination schedule of PCV13 followed by PPSV23 is safe, immunogenic, and thus beneficial in the majority of IBD patients, those receiving immunosuppressive agents, and especially those receiving combination therapy, have an impaired immune response compared to controls. Therefore, preferably, vaccinations should be administered before the initiation of immunosuppressive therapy.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

Dutch trial register #6315.

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.

The use of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for inflammatory arthritis in Korea: results of a Korean Expert Consensus

Biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) are highly effective agents for the treatment of inf lammatory arthritis; however, they also possess a potential risk for serious infection. Recently, with the rapid expansion of the bDMARDs market in Korea, reports of serious adverse events related to the agents have also increased, necessitating guidance for the use of bDMARDs. Current work entitled, "Expert consensus for the use of bDMARDs drugs for inflammatory arthritis in Korea," is the first to describe the appropriate use of bDMARDs in the management of inflammatory arthritis in Korea, with an aim to provide guidance for the local medical community to improve the quality of clinical care. Twelve consensus statements regarding the use of bDMARDs for the management of rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis were generated. In this review, we provide detailed guidance on bDMARDs use based on expert consensus, including who should prescribe, the role of education, indications for use, and monitoring strategies for safety.

2019 update of EULAR recommendations for vaccination in adult patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases

To update the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for vaccination in adult patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRD) published in 2011. Four systematic literature reviews were performed regarding the incidence/prevalence of vaccine-preventable infections among patients with AIIRD; efficacy, immunogenicity and safety of vaccines; effect of anti-rheumatic drugs on the response to vaccines; effect of vaccination of household of AIIRDs patients. Subsequently, recommendations were formulated based on the evidence and expert opinion. The updated recommendations comprise six overarching principles and nine recommendations. The former address the need for an annual vaccination status assessment, shared decision-making and timing of vaccination, favouring vaccination during quiescent disease, preferably prior to the initiation of immunosuppression. Non-live vaccines can be safely provided to AIIRD patients regardless of underlying therapy, whereas live-attenuated vaccines may be considered with caution. Influenza and pneumococcal vaccination should be strongly considered for the majority of patients with AIIRD. Tetanus toxoid and human papilloma virus vaccination should be provided to AIIRD patients as recommended for the general population. Hepatitis A, hepatitis B and herpes zoster vaccination should be administered to AIIRD patients at risk. Immunocompetent household members of patients with AIIRD should receive vaccines according to national guidelines, except for the oral poliomyelitis vaccine. Live-attenuated vaccines should be avoided during the first 6 months of life in newborns of mothers treated with biologics during the second half of pregnancy. These 2019 EULAR recommendations provide an up-to-date guidance on the management of vaccinations in patients with AIIRD.

Secondary Hypogammaglobulinemia: An Increasingly Recognized Complication of Treatment with Immunomodulators and After Solid Organ Transplantation

Secondary hypogammaglobulinemia is a common development in patients treated with immunomodulatory agents for autoimmune, connective tissue, and malignant diseases. It has been observed in the medical management of patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell and solid organ transplantation. Some patients have preexisting immunodeficiency associated with these illnesses; immunosuppressive treatment magnifies their immune defect. This article reviews immunosuppressive medications, including biological treatments that cause secondary hypogammaglobulinemia. It summarizes risk factors for rituximab-induced hypogammaglobulinemia, such as preexisting low immunoglobulin G levels, CD19 levels, host factors, and additive effect of all immunomodulatory drugs used. The evaluation and management of secondary hypogammaglobulinemia are discussed.

[Infections]

The individual risk assessment concerning infections in patients with rheumatic diseases is based on the detailed personalized documentation of relevant risk factors, such as the underlying disease itself, the intensity of immunosuppressive therapy and the severity of any comorbidities. From the perspective of infectiology, the history of repeated and severe infections as well as previous illnesses, such as (latent) tuberculosis and chronic hepatitis B or C need to be considered. In some instances prophylactic antibiotic therapy might be required, which should otherwise be avoided in order to prevent selection of resistant pathogens. Furthermore, vaccinations are particularly suitable to specifically minimize the risk for frequent infectious diseases.

Efficacy, immunogenicity and safety of vaccination in adult patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases: a systematic literature review for the 2019 update of EULAR recommendations

Aim

To present a systematic literature review (SLR) on efficacy, immunogenicity and safety of vaccination in adult patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRD), aiming to provide a basis for updating the EULAR evidence-based recommendations.

Methods

An SLR was performed according to the standard operating procedures for EULAR-endorsed recommendations. Outcome was determined by efficacy, immunogenicity and safety of vaccination in adult patients with AIIRD, including those receiving immunomodulating therapy. Furthermore, a search was performed on the effect of vaccinating household members of patients with AIIRD on the occurrence of vaccine-preventable infections in patients and their household members (including newborns). The literature search was performed using Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library (October 2009 to August 2018).

Results

While most investigated vaccines were efficacious and/or immunogenic in patients with AIIRD, some were less efficacious than in healthy control subjects, and/or in patients receiving immunosuppressive agents. Adverse events of vaccination were generally mild and the rates were comparable to those in healthy persons. Vaccination did not seem to lead to an increase in activity of the underlying AIIRD, but insufficient power of most studies precluded arriving at definite conclusions. The number of studies investigating clinical efficacy of vaccination is still limited. No studies on the effect of vaccinating household members of patients with AIIRD were retrieved.

Conclusion

Evidence on efficacy, immunogenicity and safety of vaccination in patients with AIIRD was systematically reviewed to provide a basis for updated recommendations.

Evaluation of pneumococcal and tetanus vaccine responses in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving baricitinib: results from a long-term extension trial substudy

Background

Clinical guidelines recommend pneumococcal and tetanus vaccinations in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Baricitinib is an oral, selective Janus kinase (JAK) 1/JAK 2 inhibitor and is approved for the treatment of moderately to severely active RA in adults in over 50 countries including European countries, the USA, and Japan. This substudy evaluated pneumococcal conjugate and tetanus toxoid vaccine (TTV) responses in patients with RA receiving baricitinib. These vaccines elucidate predominantly T cell-dependent humoral antibody response.

Methods

Eligible RA patients receiving baricitinib 2 mg or 4 mg with or without concomitant methotrexate (MTX) were enrolled in a phase 3 long-term extension trial (RA-BEYOND; ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01885078) in USA/Puerto Rico. Patients were vaccinated with 13-serotype pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV-13) and TTV. Primary endpoints were the proportion of patients achieving a satisfactory humoral response for PCV-13 (≥ 2-fold increase in anti-pneumococcal antibody concentrations in ≥ 6 serotypes) and TTV (≥ 4-fold increase in anti-tetanus concentrations) at 5 weeks post-vaccination. Secondary endpoints included humoral responses at 12 weeks and functional responses of serotypes 4, 6B, 14, and 23F (twofold and fourfold increases in opsonic indexes at 5 and 12 weeks).

Results

Of 106 patients with a mean duration of RA of approximately 12 years, 80% were female, 30% were taking corticosteroids, and 89% (N = 94) were taking baricitinib plus MTX; most patients (97% PCV-13/96% TTV) completed the evaluations. Overall, 68% (95% CI 58.4, 76.2) of patients achieved a satisfactory response to PCV-13, 43% (34.0, 52.8) achieved a ≥ 4-fold increase in anti-tetanus concentrations, and 74% (64.2, 81.1) achieved a ≥ 2-fold increase. PCV-13 response was similar for patients taking corticosteroids (71%; 53.4, 83.9) vs those not (67%; 55.2, 76.5). The percentage of sera with a ≥ 2-fold increase in post-vaccination opsonic indexes at week 5 ranged from 47% (serotype 14) to 76% (serotype 6B). Through 12 weeks post-vaccination, seven patients (6.6%) reported injection-site events. There were no deaths during the substudy, and three patients experienced a serious adverse event.

Conclusions

Approximately two thirds of patients on long-term baricitinib achieved satisfactory humoral and functional responses to PCV-13 vaccination, while TTV responses were less robust. PCV-13 response was not diminished in those taking concomitant corticosteroids.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01885078. Registered on 24 June 2013.

Special Article: 2018 American College of Rheumatology/National Psoriasis Foundation Guideline for the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To develop an evidence-based guideline for the pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), as a collaboration between the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF).

METHODS

We identified critical outcomes in PsA and clinically relevant PICO (population/intervention/comparator/outcomes) questions. A Literature Review Team performed a systematic literature review to summarize evidence supporting the benefits and harms of available pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies for PsA. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology was used to rate the quality of the evidence. A voting panel, including rheumatologists, dermatologists, other health professionals, and patients, achieved consensus on the direction and the strength of the recommendations.

RESULTS

The guideline covers the management of active PsA in patients who are treatment-naive and those who continue to have active PsA despite treatment, and addresses the use of oral small molecules, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, interleukin-12/23 inhibitors (IL-12/23i), IL-17 inhibitors, CTLA4-Ig (abatacept), and a JAK inhibitor (tofacitinib). We also developed recommendations for psoriatic spondylitis, predominant enthesitis, and treatment in the presence of concomitant inflammatory bowel disease, diabetes, or serious infections. We formulated recommendations for a treat-to-target strategy, vaccinations, and nonpharmacologic therapies. Six percent of the recommendations were strong and 94% conditional, indicating the importance of active discussion between the health care provider and the patient to choose the optimal treatment.

CONCLUSION

The 2018 ACR/NPF PsA guideline serves as a tool for health care providers and patients in the selection of appropriate therapy in common clinical scenarios. Best treatment decisions consider each individual patient situation. The guideline is not meant to be proscriptive and should not be used to limit treatment options for patients with PsA.

2018 American College of Rheumatology/National Psoriasis Foundation Guideline for the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis

Objective:

To develop an evidence-based guideline for the pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), as a collaboration between the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF).

Methods:

We identified critical outcomes in PsA and clinically relevant PICO (population/intervention/comparator/outcomes) questions. A Literature Review Team performed a systematic literature review to summarize evidence supporting the benefits and harms of available pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies for PsA. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology was used to rate the quality of the evidence. A voting panel, including rheumatologists, dermatologists, other health professionals, and patients, achieved consensus on the direction and the strength of the recommendations.

Results:

The guideline covers the management of active PsA in patients who are treatment-naive and those who continue to have active PsA despite treatment, and addresses the use of oral small molecules, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, interleukin-12/23 inhibitors (IL-12/23i), IL-17 inhibitors, CTLA4-Ig (abatacept), and a JAK inhibitor (tofacitinib). We also developed recommendations for psoriatic spondylitis, predominant enthesitis, and treatment in the presence of concomitant inflammatory bowel disease, diabetes, or serious infections. We formulated recommendations for a treat-to-target strategy, vaccinations, and nonpharmacologic therapies. Six percent of the recommendations were strong and 94% conditional, indicating the importance of active discussion between the health care provider and the patient to choose the optimal treatment.

Conclusion:

The 2018 ACR/NPF PsA guideline serves as a tool for health care providers and patients in the selection of appropriate therapy in common clinical scenarios. Best treatment decisions consider each individual patient situation. The guideline is not meant to be proscriptive and should not be used to limit treatment options for patients with PsA.

Special Article: 2018 American College of Rheumatology/National Psoriasis Foundation Guideline for the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To develop an evidence-based guideline for the pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), as a collaboration between the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF).

METHODS

We identified critical outcomes in PsA and clinically relevant PICO (population/intervention/comparator/outcomes) questions. A Literature Review Team performed a systematic literature review to summarize evidence supporting the benefits and harms of available pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies for PsA. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology was used to rate the quality of the evidence. A voting panel, including rheumatologists, dermatologists, other health professionals, and patients, achieved consensus on the direction and the strength of the recommendations.

RESULTS

The guideline covers the management of active PsA in patients who are treatment-naive and those who continue to have active PsA despite treatment, and addresses the use of oral small molecules, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, interleukin-12/23 inhibitors (IL-12/23i), IL-17 inhibitors, CTLA4-Ig (abatacept), and a JAK inhibitor (tofacitinib). We also developed recommendations for psoriatic spondylitis, predominant enthesitis, and treatment in the presence of concomitant inflammatory bowel disease, diabetes, or serious infections. We formulated recommendations for a treat-to-target strategy, vaccinations, and nonpharmacologic therapies. Six percent of the recommendations were strong and 94% conditional, indicating the importance of active discussion between the health care provider and the patient to choose the optimal treatment.

CONCLUSION

The 2018 ACR/NPF PsA guideline serves as a tool for health care providers and patients in the selection of appropriate therapy in common clinical scenarios. Best treatment decisions consider each individual patient situation. The guideline is not meant to be proscriptive and should not be used to limit treatment options for patients with PsA.

Vaccination Guidelines for Patients With Immune-Mediated Disorders on Immunosuppressive Therapies

BACKGROUND:

Patients with immune-mediated diseases on immunosuppressive therapies have more infectious episodes than healthy individuals, yet vaccination practices by physicians for this patient population remain suboptimal.

OBJECTIVES:

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of vaccines in individuals exposed to immunosuppressive therapies and provide evidence-based clinical practice recommendations.

METHODS:

A literature search for vaccination safety and efficacy in patients on immunosuppressive therapies (2009-2017) was conducted. Results were assessed using the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system.

RESULTS:

Several immunosuppressive therapies attenuate vaccine response. Thus, vaccines should be administered before treatment whenever feasible. Inactivated vaccines can be administered without treatment discontinuation. Similarly, evidence suggests that the live zoster vaccine is safe and effective while on select immunosuppressive therapy, although use of the subunit vaccine is preferred. Caution regarding other live vaccines is warranted. Drug pharmacokinetics, duration of vaccine-induced viremia, and immune response kinetics should be considered to determine appropriate timing of vaccination and treatment (re)initiation. Infants exposed to immunosuppressive therapies through breastmilk can usually be immunized according to local guidelines. Intrauterine exposure to immunosuppressive agents is not a contraindication for inactivated vaccines. Live attenuated vaccines scheduled for infants and children ⩾12 months of age, including measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella, can be safely administered as sufficient time has elapsed for drug clearance.

CONCLUSIONS:

Immunosuppressive agents may attenuate vaccine responses, but protective benefit is generally maintained. While these recommendations are evidence based, they do not replace clinical judgment, and decisions regarding vaccination must carefully assess the risks, benefits, and circumstances of individual patients.

The effect of immunosuppressive agents on immunogenicity of pneumococcal vaccination: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Patients with a weakened immune system due to immunosuppressive treatment are at increased risk of infection with Streptococcus pneumoniae. Although pneumococcal vaccination is highly recommended for those patients, the effectiveness of pneumococcal vaccination in this population remains largely unknown. Therefore, the objective of this PROSPERO-registered systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of the most commonly prescribed immunosuppressive agents such as azathioprine, methotrexate, anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor α (TNFα), or rituximab, on the initial serologic response to pneumococcal vaccination in patients with auto-immune disease.

METHODS

We included 22 articles comprising 2077 patients, of whom 1623 were treated with immunosuppressive agents, and 454 were controls.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The findings of our systematic review indicate that, in patients treated with immunosuppressive medication and compared to controls, the initial serologic response to pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) and pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV) are impaired. Moreover, this impaired response was more profound after PCV than after PPSV. We hypothesize that the immunosuppressive medication mainly compromises the cellular immunity, explaining the more severely reduced response rate to PCV (which induces a T-cell dependent immune response), compared to PPSV. Treatment with TNFα blocking agents was associated with a more favorable response, compared to patients treated with other immunosuppressive medication. Targeted research applying uniform correlates of protection is needed to bridge the knowledge gap in vaccination immunology in this patient group. PROSPERO registration: CRD42017058364.

Immunogenicity and persistence of a prime-boost re-vaccination strategy for pneumococcal vaccines in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are at an increased risk of Pneumococcal infections. Immunogenicity and persistence of a prime-boost revaccination strategy using 13-valent/23-valent anti-pneumococcal vaccines was evaluated in patients with RA treated by Methotrexate (MTX) and anti-TNF.

METHOD

Twenty-four patients with RA received one dose of PCV13 (Prevenar13®; Pfizer) followed two months later by one dose of PPV23 (Pneumovax®, Merck). Concentrations of IgG specific for 7 serotypes common to both vaccines and 3 uncommon serotypes, included only in the PPV23 were measured by ELISA and Opsonophagocytic Assay (OPA) at baseline and after 4, 12 and 24 months post-vaccine.

RESULTS

Similar percentages of protection were found at 4 months (63% vs. 55%), 12 months (54% vs. 50%) and 24 months (52% vs. 55%) for the 7 common and 3 uncommon serotypes when antibody titers were assayed by ELISA. Based on functional antibody measurements by OPA, a decrease of protected patients was observed 24 months after vaccine with only 19% of patients protected compared to 29% at baseline.

CONCLUSION

Although the combined pneumococcal revaccination strategy induces good protection in the short term in RA patients, this protection does not persist beyond two years with levels of functional antibody decreasing below pre-vaccine levels. We did not observe a higher efficacy of the conjugate vaccine compared to the polysaccharide vaccine. Our results clearly question the advantage of the prime-boost strategy as it highlight the possible hyporesponse induced by PPV23 against the immune response elicited by the primo-injection of the PCV13 vaccine.

A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis of Antirheumatic Drugs and Vaccine Immunogenicity in Rheumatoid Arthritis

OBJECTIVE

Vaccination is a key strategy to reduce infection risk in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and is advocated in internationally recognized rheumatology society guidelines. The aim was to evaluate to the effect of antirheumatic drugs on influenza and pneumococcal vaccine immunogenicity.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review and metaanalysis comparing the humoral response to influenza (pandemic and seasonal trivalent subunit vaccines) and pneumococcal (23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine, 7- and 13-valent pneumococcal conjugated vaccines) vaccination in adult patients with RA treated with antirheumatic drugs. Vaccine immunogenicity was assessed by seroprotection rates measured 3 to 6 weeks postimmunization. Risk ratios (RR) and 95% CI were pooled.

RESULTS

Nine studies were included in the metaanalysis (7 studies investigating antirheumatic drug exposures and influenza humoral response, 2 studies investigating pneumococcal vaccine response). Influenza vaccine responses to all subunit strains (H1N1, H3N2, B strain) were preserved with methotrexate (MTX) and tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) drug exposure. MTX but not TNFi drug exposure was associated with reduced 6B and 23F serotype pneumococcal vaccine response (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.28-0.63 vs RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.58-1.67); however, limited data were available to draw any firm conclusions. Combination of MTX with tocilizumab or tofacitinib was associated with reduced pneumococcal and influenza vaccine responses.

CONCLUSION

Antirheumatic drugs may limit humoral responses to vaccination as evidenced by pneumococcal responses with MTX exposure; however, they are safe and should not preclude immunization against vaccine-preventable disease. Vaccination should be considered in all patients with RA and encouraged as part of routine care. (Systematic review registration number: PROSPERO 2016: CRD42016048093.).

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Initial Serological Response after Prime-boost Pneumococcal Vaccination in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the initial serological responses to pneumococcal vaccination with the 13-valent protein-conjugated pneumococcal vaccine (PCV13) followed by the 23-valent polysaccharide pneumococcal vaccine (PPV23) among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD) according to dosing and intervals between immunizations.

METHODS

Investigator-initiated clinical trial. Patients with RA receiving bDMARD were randomized (1:1:1) to immunization with single dose PCV13 followed by PPV23 after 16 or 24 weeks, or double dose PCV13 followed by PPV23 after 16 weeks. A comparison group of patients with RA treated with conventional synthetic (cs)DMARD received single dose PCV13 followed by PPV23 16 weeks later. Pneumococcal antibodies were collected before and 4 weeks after each vaccination. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants responding to ≥ 6/12 pneumococcal serotypes 4 weeks after both vaccinations.

RESULTS

Sixty-five participants receiving bDMARD and 35 participants receiving csDMARD were included. After PPV23 vaccination, 87% (95% CI 0.76-0.94) and 94% (95% CI 0.77-0.99), respectively, of participants treated with bDMARD and csDMARD had reached the primary endpoint. There was no significant difference in primary endpoint between the 3 randomization arms. The response for rituximab-treated participants was 25% compared to ≥ 89% in participants treated with bDMARD with other mode of action.

CONCLUSION

The early serological response to prime-boost vaccination with PCV13 followed by PPV23 was very similar among participants receiving bDMARD and csDMARD. However, notable differences in response were observed according to individual bDMARD. It is important to consider the RA treatment when planning pneumococcal vaccination in patients with RA.

Safety and Efficacy of Biological Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs in Older Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients: Staying the Distance

The population of older individuals with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is rapidly expanding, mainly due to increased life expectancy. While targeted biological therapies are well established for the treatment of this disease, their use may be lower in older patients (age > 65 years) and very old patients (age > 75 years) as a result of perceived higher risks for adverse events in this population, taking into account comorbidity, polypharmacy, and frailty. In this review, we discuss the available evidence for the use of biological therapies in this growing patient group with specific attention towards the eventual reasons for biological treatment failure or withdrawal. The majority of data is found in secondary analyses of clinical trials and in retrospective cohorts. The most information available is on tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers. Older patients seem to have a less robust response to anti-TNF agents than a younger population, but drug survival as a proxy for efficacy does not seem to be influenced by age. Despite an overall rate of adverse effects comparable to that in younger patients, older RA patients are at higher risk of serious infections. Other biologics appear to have an efficacy similar to anti-TNF agents, also in older RA patients. Again, the drug survival rates for tocilizumab, rituximab, and abatacept resemble those in young RA patients with good general tolerability and safety profiles. The cardiovascular risk and the risk of cancer, increased in RA patients and in the older RA patients, do not appear to be strongly influenced by biologicals.

Immunization in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases

Immunization represents the most efficient and simplest intervention to prevent certain viral and bacterial infections in the general population as well as in the vulnerable population of patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases treated with immunosuppressives. Here, we present an updated review of literature data regarding the safety and efficacy of immunizations against different pathogens in rheumatic patients treated with conventional immunosuppressives or the newer biologic agents while at the same time we provide practical guidance for the appropriate vaccine administration in this patient population.

The Saudi Thoracic Society pneumococcal vaccination guidelines-2016

Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumococcus) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Saudi Arabia is a host to millions of pilgrims who travel annually from all over the world for Umrah and the Hajj pilgrimages and are at risk of developing pneumococcal pneumonia or invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD). There is also the risk of transmission of S. pneumoniae including antibiotic resistant strains between pilgrims and their potential global spread upon their return. The country also has unique challenges posed by susceptible population to IPD due to people with hemoglobinopathies, younger age groups with chronic conditions, and growing problem of antibiotic resistance. Since the epidemiology of pneumococcal disease is constantly changing, with an increase in nonvaccine pneumococcal serotypes, vaccination policies on the effectiveness and usefulness of vaccines require regular revision. As part of the Saudi Thoracic Society (STS) commitment to promote the best practices in the field of respiratory diseases, we conducted a review of S. pneumoniae infections and the best evidence base available in the literature. The aim of the present study is to develop the STS pneumococcal vaccination guidelines for healthcare workers in Saudi Arabia. We recommend vaccination against pneumococcal infections for all children <5 years old, adults ≥50 years old, and people ≥6 years old with certain risk factors. These recommendations are based on the presence of a large number of comorbidities in Saudi Arabia population <50 years of age, many of whom have risk factors for contracting pneumococcal infections. A section for pneumococcal vaccination before the Umrah and Hajj pilgrimages is included as well.