Vaccination in immunocompromised children

Author(s):  
Marloes Heijstek ◽  
Mario Abinun ◽  
Nico Wulffraat

Can immunocompromised children be safely and effectively vaccinated? This chapter discusses the recommendations from the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) for the immunization of immunocompromised patients. Patients with rheumatic or autoinflammatory diseases treated with high-dose glucocorticoids, high-dose disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), or biologicals are considered immunocompromised. Safe and effective vaccination is crucial in these patients, given their increased risk of infection. Safe vaccination implies that vaccination has no effect on disease activity and has only mild adverse effects. Effective vaccination denotes that patients are protected against infections after immunization. Particularly in severely immunosuppressed patients, concerns arise on the safety of (live-attenuated) vaccines and on the detrimental effect of immunosuppressive treatment on the immunogenicity of vaccines. Overall, vaccinations do not increase disease activity and do not cause severe adverse events. Although non-live vaccines are safe, it is recommended to withhold live-attenuated vaccines in patients on high-dose immunosuppressive drugs and biologicals. However, booster vaccinations can be considered when essential. Generally, immunogenicity of vaccines is good with some exceptions: responses are reduced in patients on high-dose glucocorticoids and rituximab; methotrexate reduces responses to (pneumococcal) polysaccharide vaccines; and anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNFα‎) may lower vaccine-induced antibody concentrations. Offering vaccination before immunosuppressive drugs and/or measuring antibodies after immunization is recommended.

Author(s):  
Marloes Heijstek ◽  
Mario Abinun ◽  
Nico Wulffraat

Can immunocompromised children be safely and effectively vaccinated? This chapter discusses the recommendations from the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) for the immunization of immunocompromised patients. Patients with rheumatic or autoinflammatory diseases treated with high-dose glucocorticoids, high-dose disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), or biologicals are considered immunocompromised. Safe and effective vaccination is crucial in these patients, given their increased risk of infection. Safe vaccination implies that vaccination has no effect on disease activity and has only mild adverse effects. Effective vaccination denotes that patients are protected against infections after immunization. Particularly in severely immunosuppressed patients, concerns arise on the safety of (live-attenuated) vaccines and on the detrimental effect of immunosuppressive treatment on the immunogenicity of vaccines. Overall, vaccinations do not increase disease activity and do not cause severe adverse events. It is recommended to withhold live-attenuated vaccines in patients on high-dose immunosuppressive drugs and biologicals, but booster vaccinations can be considered when essential. Generally, immunogenicity of vaccines is good with some exceptions: responses are reduced in patients on high-dose glucocorticoids and rituximab; methotrexate reduces responses to (pneumococcal) polysaccharide vaccines; and tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNFα‎‎) may lower vaccine-induced antibody concentrations and may cause accelerated waning of immunity. Offering vaccination before immunosuppressive drugs and/or measuring antibodies after immunization is recommended.


Author(s):  
Marloes Heijstek ◽  
Mario Abinun ◽  
Nico Wulffraat

Can immunocompromised children be safely and effectively vaccinated? This chapter discusses the recommendations from the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) for the immunization of immunocompromised patients. Patients with rheumatic or autoinflammatory diseases treated with high-dose glucocorticoids, high-dose disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), or biologicals are considered immunocompromised. Safe and effective vaccination is crucial in these patients, given their increased risk of infection. Safe vaccination implies that vaccination has no effect on disease activity and has only mild adverse effects. Effective vaccination denotes that patients are protected against infections after immunization. Particularly in severely immunosuppressed patients, concerns arise on the safety of (live-attenuated) vaccines and on the detrimental effect of immunosuppressive treatment on the immunogenicity of vaccines. Overall, vaccinations do not increase disease activity and do not cause severe adverse events. It is recommended to withhold live-attenuated vaccines in patients on high-dose immunosuppressive drugs and biologicals, but booster vaccinations can be considered when essential. Generally, immunogenicity of vaccines is good with some exceptions: responses are reduced in patients on high-dose glucocorticoids and rituximab; methotrexate reduces responses to (pneumococcal) polysaccharide vaccines; and tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNFα‎) may lower vaccine-induced antibody concentrations and may cause accelerated waning of immunity. Offering vaccination before immunosuppressive drugs and/or measuring antibodies after immunization is recommended.


Author(s):  
Sander van Assen ◽  
Marc Bijl

This chapter addresses all important questions regarding vaccination of patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRD). First, the incidence of vaccine-preventable infections in these patients is discussed. Pulmonary infections, including influenza and pneumococcal infection, occur more often in AIIRD patients; herpes zoster and human papillomavirus are also more frequent. The efficacy of vaccination for all European registered vaccines is discussed. Treatment with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biologicals (in particular TNFα‎‎-blocking agents) do not hamper, or only slightly hamper, the immune responses to most vaccines. Rituximab is an exception, severely reducing humoral responses following influenza and pneumococcal vaccination, at least during the first 6 months after administration. Safety of vaccination is an important issue in patients with autoimmune diseases, since increased disease activity of the underlying disease as a result of vaccination is theoretically possible. The available evidence is summarized, suggesting that vaccination is safe in AIIRD patients. Live vaccines, however, are contraindicated in immunosuppressed patients with AIIRD. Finally, the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations are highlighted, summarizing the ’do’s’ and ’don’ts’ of vaccination in adults with AIIRD.


Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 1617-1617 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maja Ølholm Vase ◽  
Eva Maksten ◽  
Knud Bendix ◽  
Stephen Jacques Hamilton-Dutoit ◽  
Claus Andersen ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: PTLD comprises a diverse spectrum of hematological conditions, ranging from early lesions, characterized by reactive-like proliferations, to monomorphic lesions, resembling overt lymphoma. Â In most cases, the lesions are believed to arise as the result of reduced immune surveillance secondary to the use of immunosuppressive drugs post-transplant. This view is supported by the observation that PTLDs, particularly those characterized by early or polymorphic lesions, may regress spontaneously upon reduction of the immunosuppressive treatment. Studies in sporadic lymphomas have identified distinct microenvironmental characteristics, predictive of the clinical behavior, but data is scarce in the immunocompromised setting. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the tumor microenvironment in a population-based cohort of PTLD. Methods: We identified 108 PTLD patients diagnosed in the period 1994-2011. Of these, 62 cases had adequate tissue for tissue microarray construction. All biopsies were reviewed and classified according to the WHO 2008 criteria. Immunohistochemically stained sections were digitally quantified using Tissuemorph (Visiopharm Integrator System 4.0.3.0, Visiopharm, Denmark). Determination of optimal cut-off values of the area fraction (AF) was established by a ROC-curve. ROC analyses were performed in every disease entity and used for endpoint analyses. Results: Themedian age was 45 yrs (range 2-77 yrs) with a M/F ratio of 3:1. The majority presented in stage I-II (61%), and B symptoms and extranodal disease were common features (40% and 42%, respectively). Most tissue samples were EBV-positive (85%). The EBV latency pattern was predominantly latency II (41%) or III (43%). The AF of galectin-1 (gal-1) positive cells was clearly correlated to latency type (p=0.0001), whereas FOXP3 and programmed death-1 (PD-1) did not show such correlation (fig 1). Overall survival (OS) was significantly higher in cases with high levels of PD-1 expression, with 5-yrs OS of 39% (23-55%) and 69% (47-83%) for low and high levels, respectively (p=0.01). Expression levels of FOXP3 and gal-1 had no impact on OS in the total cohort (fig 1). In the monomorphic setting, a low AF of FOXP3 positive cells was associated with an increased risk of progression (OR 6.1; 95% CI: 1.4-26.0). This did not, however, translate into an inferior OS (p=0.163). To specifically characterize the tumor microenvironmental features of DLBCL-type PTLD with respect to cell of origin (COO), 30 evaluable cases were analyzed according to the Hans classifier; 10 (33%) were germinal center (GC) type and 20 (67%) of non-GC type. Cases of non-GC subtype had a significantly shorter time to PTLD of 1.16 yrs (CI: 0.64- 2.11), than those of GC-subtype (3.66 yrs; CI: 1.64- 8.16) (p=0.023) and a lower AF of gal-1 positive cells (p=0.042). The 5-yrs OS was 58% (32-77%) and 0% for non-GC versus GC-tumors, respectively (p=0.075). High levels of FOXP3 expression were associated with superior OS in the non-GC sub-group (p=0.04); gal-1 and PD-1 had no influence in the COO setting. Conclusion: The present study is one of the few attempts to describe tumor microenvironmental features in PTLD and relate them to outcome. In a population-based PTLD cohort, we found that specific immune cell subsets were variably expressed in different PTLD subtypes, and that high expression of PD-1 (whole cohort) and FOXP3 (non-GC DLBCL only) correlated with significantly better outcome. Â N(%) pts in TMA Organ tx(%) Kidney Heart Lung 47(75.8) 9(14.5) 6(9.7) Type PTLD(%) Early/polymorphic lesions Monomorphic PTLD Diffuse large B-cell lymphomaPeripheral T-cel lymphomal, NOS*T-Anaplastic large cell lymphomaBurkitt lymphomaHodgkin lymphoma-type PTLD Marginal zone lymphoma 18(29.0) 38(61.2) 32(51.6) 1(1.6) 3(4.8) 2(3.2) 4(6.5) 2(3.2) Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cheryl L. Tran ◽  
David T. Selewski ◽  
Gia J. Oh ◽  
Jonathan P. Troost ◽  
Susan F. Massengill ◽  
...  

Background: Children with nephrotic syndrome (NS) are at high risk for vaccine-preventable infections due to the immunological effects from the disease and concurrent treatment with immunosuppressive medications. Immunizations in these patients may be deferred due to their immunosuppressive treatment which may increase the risk for vaccine-preventable infections. Immunization practices in children with NS continue to vary among pediatric nephrologists. This raises the question of whether children with NS are receiving the recommended vaccinations at appropriate times. Therefore, it is critical to understand the practices and patient education provided by physicians to patients on the topic of vaccinations.Methods: After informed consent, parents/guardians of 153 pediatric patients (<18 years old) diagnosed with NS from 2005 to 2018 and 50 pediatric nephrologists from 11 participating centers completed anonymous surveys to evaluate immunization practices among pediatric nephrologists, assess the vaccine education provided to families of children with NS, assess the parental knowledge of immunization recommendations, and assess predictors of polysaccharide pneumococcal vaccine adherence. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Immunization 2019 Guideline for those with altered immunocompetence was used to determine accuracy of vaccine knowledge and practices.Results: Forty-four percent of providers self-reported adherence to the ACIP guidelines for inactive vaccines and 22% to the guidelines for live vaccines. Thirty-two percent of parents/guardians reported knowledge that aligned with the ACIP guidelines for inactive vaccines and 1% for live vaccines. Subjects residing in the Midwest and provider recommendations for vaccines were positive predictors of vaccine adherence (p < 0.001 and p 0.02, respectively).Conclusions: Vaccine recommendation by medical providers is paramount in vaccine adherence among pediatric patients with NS. This study identifies potential educational opportunities for medical subspecialty providers and family caregivers about immunization recommendations for immunosuppressed patients.


Author(s):  
Sander van Assen ◽  
Marc Bijl

This chapter addresses all important questions regarding vaccination of patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRD). First, the incidence of vaccine-preventable infections in these patients is discussed. Pulmonary infections, including influenza and pneumococcal infection, occur more often in AIIRD patients; herpes zoster and human papillomavirus are also more frequent. The efficacy of vaccination for all European registered vaccines is discussed. Treatment with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biologicals (in particular TNFα‎-blocking agents) do not hamper, or only slightly hamper, the immune responses to most vaccines. Rituximab is an exception, severely reducing humoral responses following influenza and pneumococcal vaccination, at least during the first 6 months after administration. Safety of vaccination is an important issue in patients with autoimmune diseases, since increased disease activity of the underlying disease as a result of vaccination is theoretically possible. The available evidence is summarized, suggesting that vaccination is safe in AIIRD patients. Live vaccines, however, are contraindicated in immunosuppressed patients with AIIRD. Finally, the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations are highlighted, summarizing the 'do's' and 'don'ts' of vaccination in adults with AIIRD.


2019 ◽  
Vol 79 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernhard Hellmich ◽  
Ana Agueda ◽  
Sara Monti ◽  
Frank Buttgereit ◽  
Hubert de Boysson ◽  
...  

BackgroundSince the publication of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of large vessel vasculitis (LVV) in 2009, several relevant randomised clinical trials and cohort analyses have been published, which have the potential to change clinical care and therefore supporting the need to update the original recommendations.MethodsUsing EULAR standardised operating procedures for EULAR-endorsed recommendations, the EULAR task force undertook a systematic literature review and sought opinion from 20 experts from 13 countries. We modified existing recommendations and created new recommendations.ResultsThree overarching principles and 10 recommendations were formulated. We recommend that a suspected diagnosis of LVV should be confirmed by imaging or histology. High dose glucocorticoid therapy (40–60 mg/day prednisone-equivalent) should be initiated immediately for induction of remission in active giant cell arteritis (GCA) or Takayasu arteritis (TAK). We recommend adjunctive therapy in selected patients with GCA (refractory or relapsing disease, presence of an increased risk for glucocorticoid-related adverse events or complications) using tocilizumab. Methotrexate may be used as an alternative. Non-biological glucocorticoid-sparing agents should be given in combination with glucocorticoids in all patients with TAK and biological agents may be used in refractory or relapsing patients. We no longer recommend the routine use of antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy for treatment of LVV unless it is indicated for other reasons.ConclusionsWe have updated the recommendations for the management of LVV to facilitate the translation of current scientific evidence and expert opinion into better management and improved outcome of patients in clinical practice.


2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 175-192
Author(s):  
Giovanni Casella ◽  
Fabio Ingravalle ◽  
Adriana Ingravalle ◽  
Claudio Monti ◽  
Fulvio Bonetti ◽  
...  

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is an immune-mediated disease, which often require lifetime treatment with immunomodulators and immunosuppressive drugs. Both IBD and its treatments are associated with an increased risk of infectious disease and mortality. Several of these diseases are vaccine preventable and could be avoided, reducing morbidity and mortality. However, vaccination rates among patients with IBD are lower than in the general population and both patients and doctors are not fully aware of the problem. Education campaigns and well planned vaccination schemes are necessary to improve vaccination coverage in patients with IBD. Immunomodulators and immunosuppressive drugs may reduce the seroprotection levels. For this reason, new vaccination schemes are being studied in patients with IBD. It is therefore important to understand which and when vaccines can be administrated based on immunocompetence or immunosuppression of patients. Usually, live-attenuated vaccines should be avoided in immunosuppressed patients, so assessing vaccination status and planning vaccination before immunosuppressive treatments are pivotal to reduce infection risk. The aim of this review is to increase the awareness of the problem and provide a quick reference for vaccination plan tailoring, especially for gastroenterologists and primary care physicians, who have the skills and knowledge to implement vaccination strategies.


2020 ◽  
pp. bjophthalmol-2020-316586 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zheng Xian Thng ◽  
Marc D De Smet ◽  
Cecilia S Lee ◽  
Vishali Gupta ◽  
Justine R Smith ◽  
...  

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in December 2019 in Wuhan city, Hubei province, China. This is the third and largest coronavirus outbreak since the new millennium after SARS in 2002 and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) in 2012. Over 3 million people have been infected and the COVID-19 has caused more than 217 000 deaths. A concern exists regarding the vulnerability of patients who have been treated with immunosuppressive drugs prior or during this pandemic. Would they be more susceptible to infection by the SARS-CoV-2 and how would their clinical course be altered by their immunosuppressed state? This is a question the wider medical fraternity—including ophthalmologists, rheumatologists, gastroenterologist and transplant physicians among others—must answer. The evidence from the SARS and MERS outbreak offer some degree of confidence that immunosuppression is largely safe in the current COVID-19 pandemic. Preliminary clinical experiences based on case reports, small series and observational studies show the morbidity and mortality rates in immunosuppressed patients may not differ largely from the general population. Overwhelmingly, current best practice guidelines worldwide recommended the continuation of immunosuppression treatment in patients who require them except for perhaps high-dose corticosteroid therapy and in patients with associated risk factors for severe COVID-19 disease.


2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rawnak Houli ◽  
Samia Barbouch ◽  
Cherni Nadia ◽  
Hajji Mariem ◽  
Amira Sakay ◽  
...  

Abstract Background and Aims Since its outbreak in December 2019,novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become one of physicians top concerns worldwide. Special attention is payed to immunocompromised patients with whom the virus is feared to be more aggressive . Our aim was to assess outcomes in patients receiving immunosuppressive therapy who presented with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS- CoV-2) infection. Method we monitored patients undergoing immunosuppressive regimens who presented with SARS- CoV-2 infection during a four months period from September to December 2020 in the Nephrology department of Charles Nicolle’s Teaching Hospital. The diagnosis was made through nasopharyngygeal swabs. Kidney transplant patients were not included. Results we identified 9 patients who presented a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (details are shown in figure 1). Age varied from 32 to 67 years. Gender ratio was 0,8. Six patients had hypertension and one patient had diabetes. Seven patients suffered from chronic kidney disease stage 4 (2 patients) and stage 5 (5 patients). Active smoking was noted in 4 patients. Indications for immunosuppressive therapy were vasculitis (5patients) , lupus nephritis (1 patient) , scleroderma (1patient), cryoglubulinemia (1 patient) and multiple myeloma (1 patient). Therapies used included corticosteroids alone (2 patients) or in association with cyclophosphamide (6 patients) and in one case bortezomib.COVID-19 symptoms included fever (6 patients), fatigue (7 patients), joint pain (3 patients), dry cough (all patients)and diarrhea ( one patient). Medium duration under immunosuppressive treatment was of 42,1 days when COVID-19 diagnosis was made Among the patients, six had a mild COVID-19 presentation and displayed favorable outcomes; whereas the remaining three had severe symptoms requiring high dose oxygen and died. As for the renal outcomes, we observed no detioration of kidney function following the COVID-19 infection in any of the patients .All of the patients were treated with antibiotics, heparin and vitamins. Conclusion SARS- CoV-2 infection is a serious condition that can threaten prognosis especially in patients receiving immunosuppressive drugs responsible for a weaker immune response. Further work on a larger group of patients is necessary to establish whether this group is more prone to contract the COVID-19 infection and have poorer outcomes.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document