[Immunization in children and adolescents with rheumatic diseases]

Vaccination coverage of children with rheumatic diseases compared with healthy controls: a retrospective case-control study

OBJECTIVE

To reveal the vaccination status of patients with pediatric rheumatic disease (PedRD) and to compare this with healthy controls.

METHODS

The electronic health records of the Ministry of Health regarding the vaccination status of children with PedRD followed in a tertiary hospital were analyzed cross-sectionally and compared with their healthy controls. The missing vaccines were reported according to individual, age-appropriate schedule and causes of skipped vaccines in both groups were investigated with an online survey.

RESULTS

The vaccination rate of patients in the last examination was 71.4% (90/126) and 95.7% (110/115) in healthy controls (p < 0.001). Measles-mumps-rubella vaccine, diphtheria, the administration rates of the second dose of tetanus-acellular pertussis-inactivated polio and Haemophilus influenzae type B, chickenpox, and hepatitis A vaccines were significantly lower in patients than in controls (p values 0.004, 0.02, 0.01, 0.013, respectively). The pre-diagnosis incomplete vaccination proportion was significantly higher in the patient group (16.6%) than in healthy controls (4.3%) (p = 0.002). In the patient group, the proportion of incomplete live-attenuated vaccines after diagnosis (25%) was more than pre-diagnosis (61.1%) (p = 0.04), while the proportion of incomplete non-live vaccines before and after diagnosis was similar (47.2% and 50%, respectively) (p = 0.73). The major reasons for missed vaccines were physicians' recommendations (15.6%), the presence of PedRD diagnosis (12.5%), and the drugs used (12.5%).

CONCLUSION

Vaccination coverage of PedRD patients has been shown to lag behind the routine vaccination schedule (71.4%). In addition to new recommendations, electronic health system records for vaccination may be appropriate for the follow-up of these patients, and the addition of reminder alerts may be useful to reduce the rate of missed vaccinations.

Vaccination coverage in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis, inflammatory bowel diseases, and healthy peers: Cross-sectional electronic survey data

BACKGROUND

Patients with immune-mediated diseases, such as juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are at increased risk of developing infections, due to disease-related immune dysfunction and applying of immunosuppressive drugs.

AIM

To evaluate vaccine coverage in patients with IBD and JIA, and compare it with healthy children.

METHODS

In the cross-sectional study we included the data from a questionnaire survey of 190 Legal representatives of children with JIA (n = 81), IBD (n = 51), and healthy children (HC, n = 58). An electronic online questionnaire was created for the survey.

RESULTS

There were female predominance in JIA patients and younger onset age. Parents of JIA had higher education levels. Employment level and family status were similar in the three studied groups. Patients with JIA and IBD had lower vaccine coverage, without parental rejection of vaccinations in IBD, compare to JIA and healthy controls. The main reason for incomplete vaccination was medical conditions in IBD and JIA. IBD patients had a lower rate of normal vaccine-associated reactions compared to JIA and HC. The encouraging role of physicians for vaccinations was the lowest in JIA patients. IBD patients had more possibilities to check antibodies before immune-suppressive therapy and had more supplementary vaccinations compared to JIA and HC.

CONCLUSION

JIA and IBD patients had lower vaccine coverage compared to HC. Physicians' encouragement of vaccination and the impossibility of discus about future vaccinations and their outcomes seemed the main factors for patients with immune-mediated diseases, influencing vaccine coverage. Further investigations are required to understand the reasons for incomplete vaccinations and improve vaccine coverage in both groups, especially in rheumatic disease patients. The approaches that stimulate vaccination in healthy children are not always optimal in children with immune-mediated diseases. It is necessary to provide personalized vaccine-encouraging strategies for parents of chronically ill children with the following validation of these technics.

Evaluation of pediatric rheumatologists’ knowledge, attitudes, and behavior regarding vaccination in pediatric rheumatic diseases

Aim: Developments in diagnostic methods and advances in the treatment of pediatric rheumatic diseases (PRDs) have improved the quality of life in this patient group. However, vaccine-preventable infectious diseases are still outstanding causes of morbidity and mortality in immunocompromised patients more than in healthy population. Pediatric rheumatologists play a critical role in increasing vaccination rates since they have ample opportunity to administer vaccinations. The aim of this study is to determine the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of pediatric rheumatologists about vaccination in rheumatic diseases. Material and Method: Between March 2022-May 2022, an online questionnaire of 20 items was used to evaluate the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of pediatric rheumatologists in Turkey with respect to vaccination. Results: A total of 81 participants answered all survey questions completely. The ages of the study group ranged from 30 to 48 years, at a mean of 37.5±3.8 years. Most of the pediatric rheumatologists (n:76, 93.8%) were working in a tertiary pediatric hospital; 27.2% did not consider themselves primarily responsible for the vaccination of children with PRDs, and 30.9% did not refer their patients to the department that administers the vaccine either before or during immunosuppressive therapy. In addition, it was found that only 14.8% regularly questioned the vaccination history of patients at each outpatient visit. One-third of study group recommended the implementation of non-scheduled vaccines and the most recommended non-scheduled vaccine was seasonal influenza (n:48, 59.3%). The comparative analysis between pediatric rheumatology residents and staff physicians showed no statistically significant difference in the level of knowledge except in the question concerning live vaccines. Conclusion: This study revealed that there are still serious problems in clinical practice about the vaccination of PRDs patients. For this purpose, pediatric rhematologists’ awareness and knowledge about vaccination should be increased with a special education program.

Vaccinology in pediatric rheumatology: Past, present and future

With the introduction of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), the treatment of pediatric patients with autoimmune/inflammatory rheumatic diseases (pedAIIRD) has advanced from the "Stone Age" to modern times, resulting in much better clinical outcomes. However, everything comes with a price, and use of new bDMARDs has resulted in an increased risk of infections. Therefore, preventing infections in pedAIIRD patients is one of the top priorities. The most effective preventive measure against infection is vaccination. The first study on humoral immunity after vaccination in pediatric rheumatology was published in 1974 and on safety in 1993. For many years, data about safety and immunogenicity in pedAIIRD patients were available only for non-live vaccines and the first studies on live-attenuated vaccines in pedAIIRD patients treated with immunosuppressive therapy were available only after 2007. Even today the data are limited, especially for children treated with bDMARDs. Vaccinations with non-live vaccines are nowadays recommended, although their long-term immunogenicity and efficacy in pedAIIRD patients are still under investigation. Vaccinations with live-attenuated vaccines are not universally recommended in immunosuppressed patients. However, measles-mumps-rubella booster and varicella zoster virus vaccination can be considered under specific conditions. Additional research is needed to provide more evidence on safety and immunogenicity, especially regarding live-attenuated vaccines in immunosuppressed patients with pedAIIRD. Due to the limited number of these patients, well-designed, prospective, international studies are needed. Further challenges were presented by the COVID-19 pandemic. This mini review article reviews past and present data and discusses the future of vaccinology in pediatric rheumatology.

Immunogenicity and safety of routine vaccines in children and adolescents with rheumatic diseases on immunosuppressive treatment - a systematic review

The immunogenicity of vaccines in children with juvenile autoimmune rheumatic diseases (JARDs) can be reduced, there are additional safety concerns around vaccination, and there is a potential for worsening in disease activity. In this systematic review, we summarise studies that investigated the immunogenicity and safety of routine vaccines in children and adolescents with JARD on immunosuppressive treatment. We identified 37 studies investigating 2571 children and adolescents with JARD on immunosuppressive treatment and 4895 control children. Of the 56 geometric mean antibody titres measured, 19 (34%) were lower, six (11%) higher, and 31 (55%) similar; of the 39 seroprotection rates measured, 10 (26%) were lower, two (5%) higher, and 27 (69%) similar; and of the 27 seroconversion rates measured, nine (33%) were lower, two (8%) higher, and 16 (59%) similar in children with JARD on immunosuppressive treatment compared with control children. However, many of the studies were underpowered, and not designed to show non-inferiority between children with JARD and controls. Subgroup analysis for different types of immunosuppressive treatments was not feasible, as most studies did not report results by treatment. Severe adverse events were reported in 38 children (33 with juvenile idiopathic arthritis, four with systemic lupus erythematosus, and one in a healthy child); most of them were likely not related to the vaccination (e.g. elective hospitalisation or surgery). A worsening in disease activity was reported in 44 (2%) children with JARD; again, many of them were likely not related to the vaccination. There were no safety concerns with live attenuated vaccines; however, only few studies reported results for this.

CONCLUSION

Vaccination in children with JARD on immunosuppressive treatment is safe and should be promoted, especially since these children are at increased risk for infection. The importance for the completion of vaccination schedules should be stressed. Strategies to compensate for the lower vaccine responses, which are found in approximately one-third of these children, include measuring antibody levels to determine the optimal timing for the administration of additional booster doses.

WHAT IS KNOWN

• Children with juvenile autoimmune rheumatic diseases (JARDs) are at higher risk for infections, due to their underlying disease and their immunosuppressive treatment. • In children with JARD, the immunogenicity of vaccines might be reduced, and concerns about safety or the potential for worsening in disease activity after vaccination exist.

WHAT IS NEW

• Our systematic review shows that vaccines in children with JARDs on immunosuppressive treatment are safe and immunogenic. • There are several limitations of the currently published studies, including random timing of measuring vaccine responses and age differences between children with JARD and control groups. Many of the studies were underpowered, and not designed to show non-inferiority between children with JARD and controls.

Vaccination completeness in children with rheumatic diseases: A longitudinal, observational multicenter cohort study in Switzerland

INTRODUCTION

Children with pediatric inflammatory rheumatic diseases (PRD) have an increased infection risk. Vaccinations are effective to avoid vaccine-preventable diseases. This study aimed to assess the vaccination completeness in Swiss PRD patients stratified by immunosuppressive treatment (IST).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This multicenter observational cohort study of PRD patients was performed in Basel, Geneva, Lucerne, Lausanne, and Zurich in PRD patients aged < 18 years included in the Juvenile Inflammatory Rheumatism Cohort. Completeness was assessed for i) the overall vaccination status (Swiss national immunization program (NIP) and specific additional PRD-recommended vaccinations), ii) for all and each vaccination of the NIP at PRD diagnosis and reference date (RefD) and iii) all and each specific additional PRD-recommended vaccination at RefD. Completeness was assessed over the disease course and stratified by IST.

RESULTS

Of 616 eligible patients, 234 children were analyzed. Of these, 147 (63%) were girls. Median age at PRD diagnosis was 6.5 years (IQR 2.9-10.3) and 10.9 years at RefD (6.9-14.3). The median follow-up since PRD diagnosis was 3 years (1.1-5.5). 120/234 children received IST. At RefD, overall vaccination completeness was 3.8% (9/234 children), completeness for the NIP vaccinations was 70.1% (164/234 children; IST 65%, no IST: 75.4%) and for all specific additional PRD-recommended vaccinations was 3.8% (9/234 children; IST 2.5%; no IST 5.3%). Vaccination completeness against pneumococcal disease, hepatitis B virus, and human papilloma virus (HPV) was 50.4, 20, 37.9%, respectively. In 25/35 children with negative varicella zoster virus history vaccination status was complete (IST: 94.4%, no IST: 47%). Annual non-live influenza vaccination was complete in 24.2% of children during IST; adherence decreased over the disease course.

DISCUSSION

This study identified a low overall vaccination completeness in children with PRD. Particularly, the completeness of specific additional PRD-recommended vaccinations was low. If not performed early after PRD diagnosis, vaccination status remained frequently incomplete. Close collaboration between pediatrician and rheumatologist to improve vaccination completeness is essential. Exchange of vaccination records, standardized assessment of specific PRD-recommended vaccinations and those of the NIP, and annual reminder for influenza vaccination are crucial to improve vaccination completeness in this vulnerable pediatric population.

The vaccine coverage and vaccine immunity status and risk factors of non-protective levels of antibodies against vaccines in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: cross-sectional Russian tertiary Centre study

BACKGROUND

Immunosuppressive drugs, incomplete vaccine coverage, immune system dysregulation might be factors of a low level of anti-vaccine antibodies in JIA patients. The study aimed to evaluate vaccine coverage, post-vaccine immunity, and risk factors of non-protective levels of antibodies against measles, mumps, rubella, hepatitis B, and diphtheria in JIA patients.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study included 170 children diagnosed with JIA aged 2 to 17 years who received routine vaccinations against measles, rubella, mumps (MMR), diphtheria, and hepatitis B national vaccine schedule. In all patients, the levels of post-vaccination antibodies (IgG) for measles, rubella, mumps, hepatitis B, and diphtheria were measured with ELISA.

RESULTS

Protective level of antibodies were 50% against hepatitis B, 52% - diphtheria, 58% - measles, 80% - mumps, 98% rubella. MMR's best coverage had patients with enthesitis-related arthritis-85%, compared to oligoarthritis-70%, polyarthritis-69%, systemic arthritis-63%. Diphtheria coverage was 50, 51, 46, 63%, respectively. Incomplete MMR vaccination had 39% patients, treated with biologics, 22% with methotrexate and 14% with NSAID (p = 0.025), and 61, 46, 36% for diphtheria (p = 0.021). Incomplete vaccination was a risk factor of non-protective level of antibodies against measles (HR = 2.03 [95%CI: 1.02; 4.0], p = 0.042), mumps (HR = 6.25 [95%CI: 2.13; 17.9], p = 0.0008) and diphtheria (HR = 2.39 [95%CI: 1.18; 4.85], p = 0.016) vaccines, as well as JIA category, biologics, corticosteroids and long-term methotrexate treatment for distinct vaccines. One-third part of JIA patients continued vaccination against MMR and diphtheria without serious adverse events and JIA flare. There were no differences between patients who continued MMR vaccination or denied in the means of JIA category and treatment options. Patients, continued diphtheria vaccination rare received methotrexate (p = 0.02), biologics (p = 0.004), but had higher levels of anti-diphtheria antibodies (p = 0.024) compare who omitted vaccination. Methotrexate (OR = 9.5 [95%CI: 1.004; 90.3]) and biologics (OR = 4.4 [95%CI: 1.6; 12.1]) were predictors of omitted diphtheria revaccination.

CONCLUSION

Children with JIA may have lower anti-vaccine antibody levels and required routine checks, especially in children with incomplete vaccination, biologics, systemic arthritis, and long-term methotrexate treatment. Revaccination of JIA patients was safe and effective.

Immunization of children with secondary immunodeficiency

The main causes of secondary immunodeficiency at a pediatric age include infectious diseases (mainly HIV infection), malignancies, haematopoietic stem cell or solid organ transplantation and autoimmune diseases. Children with secondary immunodeficiency have an increased risk of severe infectious diseases that could be prevented by adequate vaccination coverage, but vaccines administration can be associated with reduced immune response and an increased risk of adverse reactions. The immunogenicity of inactivated and recombinant vaccines is comparable to that of healthy children at the moment of vaccination, but it undergoes a progressive decline over time, and in the absence of a booster, the patients remain at risk of developing vaccine-preventable infections. However, the administration of live attenuated viral vaccines is controversial because of the risk of the activation of vaccine viruses. A specific immunization program should be administered according to the clinical and immunological status of each of these conditions to ensure a sustained immune response without any risks to the patients' health.

[Medicinal prophylaxis during intensified immunosuppression in children and adolescents : part 2]

The goal of modern antirheumatic therapy is to achieve an optimized disease control. This is individually achieved by an intensified immunosuppression (IS) frequently combining different immunosuppressive agents. Intensified IS should be accompanied by a standardized protocol to monitor immunological changes in the patient. This should include checklists (see Part 1 Screening during intensified IS in children and adolescents). An individual risk stratification according to the planned IS allows a prediction of infectious disease risks for the patient and, thus, individual infection prophylaxis. In addition, standardized management of patients with fever while receiving intensified IS may prevent further complications.

[Practical problems by implementation of vaccination recommendations]

Patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases are known to have an increased risk of infections due to the rheumatic disease itself and due to therapy with immunosuppressive agents. The most important procedure to prevent infections is vaccinations, which are usually well-tolerated. The German National Commission for Immunization ( STIKO) has published recommendations for patients with an immunodeficiency. The German Society of Rheumatology (DGRh) has generally implemented these recommendations for patients with chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases. The immunization status of patients with rheumatic diseases is of increasing importance in routine patient care because some of the recently approved drugs may influence the strength of the immune response to vaccination. However, there is almost no information about the current immunization status and the willingness of patients with rheumatic diseases to undergo vaccination procedures in Germany. There are also no epidemiologic data on the implementation of recommendations for immunization at the level of general practitioners. Here we present the results of a prospective study on the efficacy of standardized recommendations for immunization given to different patient groups with rheumatic diseases treated in a hospital specialized in rheumatology.

Vaccination of children and adolescents with rheumatic diseases

Children with rheumatic diseases (RDs) are at greater risk of infection because of their aberrant immunity and frequent use of immunosuppressive drugs. However, the use of vaccinations in such children is debated by many experts who think that the patients' immune response is insufficient to assure protection; some of them are also afraid that vaccines could trigger a persistent autoimmune response and lead to severe clinical problems including a relapse of the RD. This review describes the available data regarding the risks of vaccine administration, and the immunogenicity, efficacy and tolerability of the vaccines usually recommended for children with RDs. The data not only show that the schedule suggested for otherwise healthy children should be followed, but also that pneumococcal and influenza vaccinations should be strongly recommended because of the known risk of severe infections in patients with RD. However, there are areas in which further research is urgently required.

Vaccination coverage in immunosuppressed patients: results of a regional health services research study

BACKGROUND

Patients with chronic inflammatory diseases are at elevated risk of infections that can be prevented by vaccination. This elevated risk is due not just to these patients' primary illnesses, but also to the immunosuppressive treatment that they often receive. We studied the vaccination rate in a random sample of patients with two types of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), namely, Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. In particular, we asked unvaccinated patients why they had re-fused the vaccine.

METHODS

From April to September 2009, we gave a 38-item questionnaire to 203 consecutive patients with IBD (57% with Crohn's disease, 63% female, median age 36 years) who had not received vaccination counseling for at least one year, and inspected the patients' vaccination cards. We compared the findings to the current recommendations of the German Federal Standing Committee on Vaccination (Ständige Impfkommission).

RESULTS

83% of the patients had a vaccination card. Substantial deficiencies in vaccination were found. Only 67% of the patients had been immunized against tetanus in the previous 10 years, and only 21% against pertussis. Only 28% were vaccinated against seasonal influenza in 2008, and only 9% had ever received anti-pneumococcal vaccine. A subgroup analysis in which we compared 39 patients taking TNF-blockers to 67 patients who never had any type of immunosuppressive treatment revealed no difference in vaccination rates. 80% of all patients said they were willing to receive all of the officially recommended vaccinations. 22% of all patients said they avoided vaccinations for fear of side effects, while 15% said they did so because their immune system was supposedly "not intact", and 9% because they feared vaccination would worsen their IBD.

CONCLUSION

In this random sample, the vaccination rate fell far behind the recommendations. In particular, there was a marked discrepancy between patients' willingness to be vaccinated and the actual provision of vaccination. These findings imply that physicians need to be more aware of the possibly inadequate vaccination state of their immunosuppressed patients.

Efficacy of measles, mumps and rubella revaccination in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis treated with methotrexate and etanercept

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the influence of low-dose MTX and etanercept treatment on efficacy of measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) revaccination in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

METHODS

A prospective nested case-control study was performed to investigate markers of MMR revaccination induced humoral and cell-mediated immunity in 15 patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (ages 6-17 yrs), treated with either low-dose MTX therapy alone or in combination with etanercept. The control group consisted of 22 healthy children. Production of IFN-gamma by T memory cells upon in vitro stimulation with measles, mumps and rubella antigens and seroprevalence of virus-specific IgG antibodies were assessed. Medication use, disease activity and patients' comments on side-effects were observed during the period of 6 months before and after revaccination.

RESULTS

Low-dose MTX therapy following MMR vaccination proved not to hamper T-cell mediated immunity in vitro. Neither low-dose MTX nor etanercept treatment, given simultaneously with revaccination, markedly interfered with generation of long-lived virus-restricted T cells and protective levels of virus-specific IgG antibodies. No increase in disease activity or medication use was seen within 6 months after MMR revaccination, including JIA patients using etanercept. No overt measles, mumps, rubella or secondary severe infections were noted.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose MTX and etanercept treatment do not seem to interfere with intended outcome of MMR revaccination in children with JIA.

Vaccination safety update

INTRODUCTION

In Germany, a large number of biased reports against vaccination have recently been published in all of the news media, and particularly on the internet. This paper discusses the safety profile of modern vaccines and their continuous surveillance and shows why the current criticism of vaccination on safety grounds is unjustified.

METHODS

The authors have performed a selective literature search to enable a proper distinction to be drawn between scientifically justified and unjustified reports on the potential adverse effects of vaccination.

RESULTS

At present, the safety of a new vaccine must be demonstrated in large-scale clinical trials before the product is licensed. After licensing, the safety of new vaccines is constantly monitored, and the results of monitoring are published.

DISCUSSION

An examination of these data reveals that the expressed doubts about the safety of vaccines are unjustified.