Human Papillomavirus, Herpes Zoster, and Hepatitis B Vaccinations in Immunocompromised Patients: An Update for Pharmacists

2020 ◽  
pp. 089719002095826
Author(s):  
Michelle R. Paulsen ◽  
Nikitha R. Patel ◽  
Carol Sulis ◽  
Francis A. Farraye ◽  
Shubha Bhat
Keyword(s):  
Human Papillomavirus ◽  
Herpes Zoster ◽  
Hepatitis B ◽  
Organ Transplant ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Solid Organ ◽  
Cell Transplant ◽  
Immunocompromised Patients ◽  
Hematopoietic Stem ◽  
Increased Risk

Purpose: Current evidence regarding efficacy and safety of human papillomavirus 9-valent (9vHPV), recombinant zoster (RZV), and CpG-adjuvanted recombinant hepatitis B (HepB-CpG) vaccines in adults with human immunodeficiency virus, inflammatory bowel disease, solid organ transplant, and allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant is reviewed. Summary: Patients immunocompromised due to underlying disease or treatment are at increased risk for infections; however, insufficient understanding of various vaccines’ efficacy, safety, indications, and contraindications in this population has led to suboptimal vaccination rates. The Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) published guidelines on vaccines in immunocompromised populations in 2013. Since then, several advances have been made including an expanded indication with 9vHPV for use in males and females 9 to 45 years old, and the introduction of new vaccines for herpes zoster (RZV) and hepatitis B (HepB-CpG). Pharmacists are instrumental to vaccination efforts and may benefit from a review of recent vaccine updates. Conclusion: The 9vHPV can be used in men and women ages 9 to 45 years old regardless of immune status. RZV safety and efficacy in several immunocompromised populations has been demonstrated; however, manufacturers and major societies have yet to update their recommendations. HepB-CpG may be used in most immunocompromised patients yet remains under-utilized.

scholarly journals AB1158 VACCINATION BARRIERS IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATIC DISEASES

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1869.2-1870
Author(s):  
G. Figueroa-Parra ◽  
A. Moreno-Salinas ◽  
L. Santoyo-Fexas ◽  
C. M. Gamboa-Alonso ◽  
A. L. De-Leon-Ibarra ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Human Papillomavirus ◽  
Herpes Zoster ◽  
Hepatitis B ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Rheumatic Diseases ◽  
Demographic Characteristics ◽  
Specific Patient ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Rheumatic Patients ◽  
Vaccination Barriers

Background:Patients with rheumatic diseases (RD) are at increased risk of infections, attributed to the underlying RD, comorbidities and immunosuppressive therapy, including glucocorticoids, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, etc. (1). While many infectious diseases can generally be prevented by vaccines, immunization rates in this specific patient population remain suboptimal (2). Despite being recognized as one of the most successful public health measures, vaccination is perceived as unsafe and unnecessary by a growing number of individuals. Lack of confidence in vaccines is now considered a threat to the success of vaccination programs (3).Objectives:To describe the main causes of non-vaccination in patients with RD.Methods:A self-questionnaire was applied to a sample of patients with RD in the rheumatology clinic of the university hospital “Dr. Jose Eleuterio Gonzalez” in Monterrey, Mexico between September and December 2019. The questionnaire evaluated demographic characteristics (age, gender, diagnosis) and the vaccination status for Influenza (last year), pneumococcal (last 5 years), Herpes zoster (ever), Human papillomavirus (any dose) and Hepatitis B (any dose). It also includes a question asking: If you didn’t receive any of the previous vaccines, what was the reason? (multiple-choice are shown in Table 2). Results are shown in frequencies and percentages.Table 2.Vaccination barriersN=82If you didn’t receive any of the previous vaccines,what was the reason? n (%)1)Did not was recommended22 (26.8)2) Lack of availability21 (25.6)3) Vaccines don’t work13 (15.8)4) Fear of adverse events8 (9.7)5) Previous adverse event3 (3.6)6) Other reason- Own decision8 (9.7)- Disinformation7 (8.5)Results:102 patients were evaluated: Mean age was 51.27 (SD 14.68) years; 84 (82.4%) were females; 71 (69.6%) had rheumatoid arthritis, 13 (12.7%) had systemic lupus erythematosus, 6 (5.8%) had other autoimmune diseases and 12 (11.8%) had osteoarthritis. The rate of vaccination for Influenza was 49 (48%), for pneumococcal 25 (24.5%), for Herpes zoster 5 (4.9%), for Human papillomavirus 9 (8.8%), for Hepatitis B 14 (13.7%) (Table 1). 82 (80.3%) patients reported some barriers in vaccination, from these: 22 (26.8%) did not get the recommendation from the rheumatologist, 21 (25.6%) did not found available the vaccine, 13 (15.8%) believes that vaccines don’t work, 8 (9.7%) had fear of adverse events, 3 (3.6%) reported previous adverse events, and 15 (18.2%) reported other reasons, that we classified as own decision 8 (9.7%) and disinformation 7 (8.5%) (Table 2).Table 1.Demographic characteristicsN= 102Age, years, mean (SD)51.27 (14.68)Female, n (%)84 (82.4)Diagnosis, n (%)-RA71 (69.6)-SLE13 (12.7)-OA12 (11.8)-Other AID6 (5.8)Conclusion:The main barriers in vaccination of rheumatic patients reported were the lack of availability of the indicated vaccines and the medical and patient disinformation. This problem must be combated to ensure the complete vaccination of rheumatic patients.References:[1]Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79:39-52.[2]J Rheumatol. 2019;46(7):751-754[3]Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2013;9(8):1763-73.Disclosure of Interests:None declared

scholarly journals Comparative Evaluation of QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube and QuantiFERON-TB Gold Plus in Diagnosis of Latent Tuberculosis Infection in Immunocompromised Patients

2018 ◽  
Vol 56 (11) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mi Ra Ryu ◽  
Min-Seung Park ◽  
Eun Hye Cho ◽  
Chul Won Jung ◽  
Kihyun Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Latent Tuberculosis Infection ◽  
Organ Transplant ◽  
Latent Tuberculosis ◽  
Tuberculosis Infection ◽  
Clinical Approach ◽  
Solid Organ ◽  
Immunocompromised Patients ◽  
Necrosis Factor Alpha ◽  
Hematopoietic Stem ◽  
The Difference

ABSTRACT QuantiFERON-TB Gold Plus (QFT-Plus) is a new-generation QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube (QFT-GIT) assay which has two antigen-coated tubes called TB1, which contains long peptides derived from ESAT-6 and CFP-10, and TB2, which contains the same components as TB1 and additional short peptides which potentially stimulate CD8+ T cells through the presentation of major histocompatibility complex class I. This is the first study to compare QFT-Plus and QFT-GIT for use in the diagnosis of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) among immunocompromised patients in the Republic of Korea. Among 317 consecutive patients who underwent screening for LTBI before solid organ or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitor treatment, LTBI was identified in 92 (29.0%) and 88 (27.8%) patients by QFT-GIT and QFT-Plus, respectively. The rate of concordance between QFT-GIT and QFT-Plus was 93.7% (κ value, 0.860), and the indeterminate rate (3.2%) was similar between QFT-GIT and QFT-Plus. Of 20 (6.3%) samples with discordant results, 11 (55.0%) and 7 (35.0%) were positive by QFT-GIT alone and QFT-Plus alone, respectively, and 2 (15.0%) were indeterminate by each assay. The interferon gamma level in samples with discordant results ranged from 0.39 to 1.10 IU/ml, except for one sample, in which the gamma interferon level was 2.97 IU/ml only in TB2. Conclusively, there was a high degree of agreement between the results of QFT-GIT and QFT-Plus for the screening of immunocompromised patients for LTBI. The reactivity in TB2 contributed substantially to the difference between QFT-GIT and QFT-Plus, particularly in solid organ transplant candidates. The significance of the discrete responses in TB1 and TB2 of QFT-Plus needs to be explored further by means of an immunological and clinical approach in different patient groups and clinical settings.

scholarly journals How I treat posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorders

Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (20) ◽  
pp. 2274-2283 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daan Dierickx ◽  
Thomas Tousseyn ◽  
Olivier Gheysens
Keyword(s):  
Current Knowledge ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Immune Surveillance ◽  
Organ Transplant ◽  
Solid Organ ◽  
Cell Transplant ◽  
Treatment Optimization ◽  
Hematopoietic Stem ◽  
Barr Virus ◽  
The Impact

AbstractPosttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD) is a potentially fatal disorder arising after solid organ transplant (SOT) or hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT). Iatrogenically impaired immune surveillance and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) primary infection/reactivation are key factors in the pathogenesis. However, current knowledge on all aspects of PTLD is limited due to its rarity, morphologic heterogeneity, and the lack of prospective trials. Furthermore, the broad spectrum of underlying immune disorders and the type of graft represent important confounding factors. Despite these limitations, several reviews have been written aimed at offering a guide for pathologists and clinicians in diagnosing and treating PTLD. Rather than providing another classical review on PTLD, this “How I Treat” article, based on 2 case reports, focuses on specific challenges, different perspectives, and novel insights regarding the pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment of PTLD. These challenges include the wide variety of PTLD presentation (making treatment optimization difficult), the impact of EBV on pathogenesis and clinical behavior, and the controversial treatment of Burkitt lymphoma (BL)-PTLD.

Checkpoint inhibition in immunosuppressed or immunocompromised patients with advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC): Data from prospective CemiplimAb-rwlc Survivorship and Epidemiology (C.A.S.E.) study.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9547-9547
Author(s):  
Guilherme Rabinowits ◽  
Soo J Park ◽  
David M. Ellison ◽  
Francis P. Worden ◽  
Rhonda W. Gentry ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Hematologic Malignancy ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Organ Transplant ◽  
Immunosuppressed Patient ◽  
Solid Organ ◽  
Immunocompromised Patients ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Initial Cohort

9547 Background: Immunosuppressed and/or immunocompromised patients are at increased risk for solid tumors and cutaneous malignancies. Limited data exist on the safety and effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in these patients because they are frequently excluded from clinical trials. Here, we describe the safety and effectiveness results from the initial cohort of immunosuppressed and/or immunocompromised patients with advanced CSCC enrolled in the C.A.S.E. study (NCT03836105). Methods: C.A.S.E. is a prospective, real-world, multi-center, longitudinal study evaluating the effectiveness, safety, quality of life, and survivorship in patients with advanced CSCC treated with cemiplimab. Patients received cemiplimab 350 mg intravenously every 3 weeks per routine standard of care. Patient demographics, disease characteristics, immunosuppression, and relevant medical history were collected. Immunosuppressive regimens varied amongst patients. Investigator assessment of objective response rate (ORR), safety, and tolerability was conducted. Data from 26 immunosuppressed and/or immunocompromised patients with advanced CSCC treated with cemiplimab are presented. Recruitment is ongoing. Results: As of November 17, 2020, 121 patients were enrolled in the C.A.S.E. study, of which 26 patients (median age: 74 years [IQR: 71-84]; 85% male; 89% Caucasian) were designated as immunocompromised or immunosuppressed due to a history of solid organ transplant (n = 6), autoimmune disorder (n = 11), or hematologic malignancy (n = 9). Median duration of cemiplimab exposure was 14 months (IQR: 9.1–42, range: 0, 67). Among 19 immunocompromised or immunosuppressed patients who enrolled in C.A.S.E. prior to their third dose of cemiplimab, ORR per investigator assessment was 47% (95% CI: 24–71); 1 (5%) patient had complete response; 8 (42%) had partial response. One patient had a treatment-related serious adverse reaction of organ transplant rejection. One (3.8%) patient discontinued treatment due to increased alanine aminotransferase (not treatment-related). Immune-related AEs (irAEs) occurred in 23% of patients. No treatment-related AEs led to death. Conclusions: The safety, tolerability, and effectiveness of cemiplimab in this initial cohort of immunosuppressed and/or immunocompromised patients with advanced CSCC appear to be consistent with those observed in clinical trials that excluded these patients. Further follow-up and additional data would add to our general understanding of safety and effectiveness of anti-PD1 therapy in immunocompromised and/or immunosuppressed patient populations overall. Clinical trial information: NCT03836105.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document