Vaccinations in immunosuppressive-dependent pediatric inflammatory bowel disease

Navigating Reproductive Care in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Comprehensive Review

Inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] is often diagnosed in patients during their reproductive years. It is crucial that both healthcare providers and patients are adequately informed to avoid misguided decisions regarding family planning. One of the most important aspects during conception and pregnancy is to maintain disease remission, as disease activity is associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes. Apart from methotrexate, most conventional drugs used in IBD are considered low risk during conception and pregnancy. For newer agents, evidence is still limited. If needed, surgery must not be postponed and should ideally be performed in specialized centres. In most patients, delivery should be vaginal except for patients with complex perianal disease, with an ileoanal pouch anastomosis, or if there is an obstetric contraindication. In children exposed to biological treatments during pregnancy, the risk of infections appears to be low, and psychomotor development is probably not affected. Regarding immunizations, the standard vaccination schedule for inactivated vaccines should be followed for children exposed to biologics in utero. In the case of live vaccines, such as rotavirus, decisions should be individualized and take into consideration the risk-benefit ratio, particularly in developing countries. In this review, we provide a comprehensive and updated overview of aspects related to fertility, pregnancy, breastfeeding, and the impact on the care of children born to mothers with IBD. Both the available evidence and areas of uncertainty are discussed, with the goal of assisting healthcare professionals caring for IBD patients during this important stage of their lives.

Common Mistakes in Managing Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Introduction: Errors are very common in medical practice and in particular, in the healthcare of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD); however, most of these can be prevented. Aim: To address common errors in the management of IBD. Methods: Our approach to this problem consists in identifying mistakes frequently observed in clinical practice (according to our experience) in the management of patients with IBD, then reviewing the scientific evidence available on the subject, and finally proposing the most appropriate recommendation for each case. Results: The most common mistakes in the management of IBD include those related to diagnosis and differential diagnosis, prevention, nutrition and diet, treatment with different drugs (mainly 5-aminosalicylates, corticosteroids, thiopurines, and anti-TNF agents), extraintestinal manifestations, anemia, elderly patients, pregnancy, and surgery. Conclusions: Despite the availability of guidelines for both disease management and preventive aspects of IBD care, a considerable variation in clinical practice still remains. In this review, we have identified common mistakes in the management of patients with IBD in clinical practice. There is a clear need for a greater dissemination of clinical practice guidelines among gastroenterologists and for the implementation of ongoing training activities supported by scientific societies. Finally, it is desirable to follow IBD patients in specialized units, which would undoubtedly be associated with higher-quality healthcare and a lower likelihood of errors in managing these patients.

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.

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.

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.

Maintaining Hepatitis B Protection in Immunocompromised Pediatric Rheumatology and Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients

OBJECTIVE

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection remains a significant public health challenge, particularly for immunocompromised patients. Our aim was to evaluate the serologic immunity in immunocompromised rheumatology and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients, assess factors for serologic nonimmunity, and evaluate their response to 1 HBV booster dose.

METHODS

Immunocompromised rheumatology and IBD patients with completed HBV screening were identified. A chart review was performed to collect demographics, clinical information, baseline HBV serology results, and serologic response to booster vaccination. Serologic nonimmunity was defined as a negative/indeterminate hepatitis B surface antibody (anti-HBs) level.

RESULTS

Among 580 patients, 71% were nonimmune. The highest portion of nonimmune patients were 11-18 years old (P = 0.004). There was no significant difference between immune and nonimmune patients with regards to diagnosis (P = 0.34), age at diagnosis (P = 0.64), duration of treatment (P = 0.07), or type of medications (P = 0.08). Sixty-two percent of those who received a booster vaccine were rescreened, and most (68%) seroconverted. In those 18 years or older, only half seroconverted.

CONCLUSION

Results of this study support the benefit of HBV screening in immunosuppressed patients. Beginning at age 11 years, most patients lacked serologic immunity to HBV. Seroconversion for most patients 11-18 years occurred after 1 booster vaccine. Thus, for immunocompromised patients without recent HBV serologic data, obtaining the HBV serology beginning at age 11 years might be considered. Those 18 years and older were least likely to seroconvert after 1 booster, indicating that they may benefit from receiving the 3-dose HBV vaccine series.

Vaccination Rates and Family Barriers Among Children with Inflammatory Bowel Disease

BACKGROUND

Many children with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are taking immunosuppressant medications that place them at risk for vaccine preventable diseases. Despite national guidelines, children with IBD have low vaccination rates. Adult data suggest that there is concern about the safety of vaccines. There are no current studies addressing perceived safety about vaccinations among families of children with IBD.

METHODS

A total of 108 caregivers of children (ages 10-25 years) were surveyed during their outpatient visit, with approximately half having a diagnosis of IBD. The survey consisted of validated questions regarding vaccine safety and opinions. After enrollment, state-wide vaccine registry data was collected. Demographics between the two groups were compared using Ch-square and the Wilcoxon rank-sum tests to analyze Likert scale questions.

RESULTS

The majority of children followed for IBD were Caucasian males, had Crohn's disease (68%) and were immunosuppressed. Results from the survey revealed a concern about vaccine safety (40% vs. 16%, p=0.03) and overall effectiveness (34% vs. 12%, p<0.01) in the IBD group compared to the non-IBD. Furthermore, more IBD families were worried that vaccines would worsen their child's symptoms (36% vs. 10%, p=<0.01). The majority of children were missing the flu and/or HPV vaccine. Finally, 96% of the children on a biologic for their IBD were missing the PPSV23 booster.

CONCLUSIONS

Caregivers of children with IBD are more concerned about vaccine safety and effectiveness than those with non-IBD diagnosis. Despite being on immunosuppressant medications, many patients were missing recommended vaccines.

Vaccination With Live Attenuated Vaccines in Four Children With Chronic Myeloid Leukemia While on Imatinib Treatment

Chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) in childhood and adolescence is a rare malignancy that can successfully be treated with the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) imatinib. According to the current experience, treatment is necessary for years and, in the majority of cases, a lifelong approach is required to control the malignant disease. To what extent imatinib causes immunosuppression in different age cohorts is a controversial discussion. According to general medical recommendations, live vaccines are contraindicated in individuals treated with imatinib. However, a recent increase in the number of globally reported cases of measles has been observed and continues to rise. Due to the high contagiousness of the virus, near-perfect vaccination coverage (herd immunity of 93 to 95%) is required to effectively protect against measles resurgence-a scenario that is not realistic in many countries. When four teenagers with CML (median age 13 years, range 12-15) who were enrolled into pediatric trial CML-paed II while on imatinib treatment (median treatment duration 36 months, range 11-84) were identified without protective measles and/or varicella titers, we carefully balanced the risks of a live vaccination under immunosuppressive TKI medication against the benefit of being protected. The patients underwent live vaccination with the live attenuated vaccines M-M-RVAX Pro® and Varivax® simultaneously (Patient #1), Priorix® and Varilix® consecutively (Patient #2), and Priorix® (Patients #3 and #4). While the first three patients were vaccinated while receiving TKI therapy, treatment with imatinib was interrupted in patient #4 for 1 week prior and 2 weeks after vaccination. Patients #1 and #3 reacted with stable long-term seroconversion. In Patient #2, serum titer conversion against measles and varicella could not be demonstrated and thus revaccination with Priorix® and Varilix® was performed 3 years later. However, protective titers did not develop or were lost again. Patient #4 also lost protective titers against measles when assessed 10 months after vaccination, but revaccination resulted in stable seroprotective titers over 12 months after the last vaccination during ongoing imatinib treatment. We conclude that in all patients, the safety of live vaccines could be documented, as no acute or late adverse events were observed. However, in line with observations that memory B-cells are lost under exposure to imatinib, revaccination may become necessary (two out of four patients in this small series lost their seroprotection). Considering that the number of cases is very small, we also suggest some criteria for decision-making regarding live vaccinations of CML patients treated with imatinib.