Impact of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs on vaccine immunogenicity in patients with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Friedman MA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8494475 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesThe effectiveness of inactivated influenza vaccine in people with autoimmune rheumatic disease (AIRDs) is not known. We investigated whether the influenza vaccine is effective in preventing respiratory morbidity, mortality and all-cause mortality in AIRD patients.MethodsAdults with AIRDs treated with DMARDs prior to 1 September of each year between 2006 and 2009, and 2010 and 2015 were identified from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Exposure and outcome data were extracted. Data from multiple seasons were pooled. Propensity score (PS) for vaccination was calculated. Cox-proportional hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were calculated, and were (i) adjusted, (ii) matched for PS for vaccination.ResultsData for 30 788 AIRD patients (65.7% female, 75.5% with RA, 61.1% prescribed MTX) contributing 125 034 influenza cycles were included. Vaccination reduced risk of influenza-like illness [adjusted HR (aHR) 0.70], hospitalization for pneumonia (aHR 0.61) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations (aHR 0.67), and death due to pneumonia (aHR 0.56) on PS-adjusted analysis in the influenza active periods (IAPs). The associations were of similar magnitude and remained statistically significant on PS-matched analysis except for protection from influenza-like illness, which became non-significant. Sub-analysis restricted to pre-IAP, IAP and post-IAP did not yield evidence of residual confounding on influenza-like illness and death due to pneumonia. Vaccination reduced risk of all-cause mortality, although IAP-restricted analysis demonstrated residual confounding for this outcome.ConclusionInfluenza vaccine associates with reduced risk of respiratory morbidity and mortality in people with AIRDs. These findings call for active promotion of seasonal influenza vaccination in immunosuppressed people with AIRDs by healthcare professionals.
| S-EPMC7733714 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRD) are at increased risk for worse COVID-19 outcomes. Identifying whether mRNA vaccines differ in immunogenicity and examining the effects of immunomodulatory treatments may support COVID-19 vaccination strategies. We aimed to conduct a long-term, model-based comparison of the humoral immunogenicity following BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccination in a cohort of IRD patients. Patients from the Swiss IRD cohort (SCQM), who assented to mRNA COVID-19 vaccination were recruited between 3/2021-9/2021. Blood samples at baseline, 4, 12, and 24 weeks post second vaccine dose were tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike IgG (anti-S1). We examined differences in antibody levels depending on the vaccine and treatment at baseline while adjusting for age, disease, and past SARS-CoV-2 infection. 565 IRD patients provided eligible samples. Among monotherapies, rituximab, abatacept, JAKi, and TNFi had the highest odds of reduced anti-S1 responses compared to no medication. Patients on specific combination therapies showed significantly lower antibody responses than those on monotherapy. Irrespective of the disease, treatment, and past SARS-CoV-2 infection, the odds of higher antibody levels at 4, 12, and 24 weeks post second vaccine dose were, respectively, 3.4, 3.8, and 3.8 times higher with mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2 (p < 0.0001). With every year of age, the odds ratio of higher peak humoral immunogenicity following mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2 increased by 5% (p < 0.001), indicating a particular benefit for elderly patients. Our results suggest that in IRD patients, two-dose vaccination with mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2 results in higher anti-S1 levels, even more so in elderly patients.
| S-EPMC9606233 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundVaricella zoster virus (VZV)-specific cellular immunity is essential for viral control, and the incidence of VZV reactivation is increased in patients with rheumatic diseases. Because knowledge of the influence of antirheumatic drugs on specific cellular immunity is limited, we analyzed VZV-specific T cells in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and seronegative spondylarthritis (SpA), and we assessed how their levels and functionality were impacted by disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). A polyclonal stimulation was carried out to analyze effects on general effector T cells.MethodsCD4 T cells in 98 blood samples of patients with RA (n = 78) or SpA (n = 20) were quantified by flow cytometry after stimulation with VZV antigen and the polyclonal stimulus Staphylococcus aureus enterotoxin B (SEB), and they were characterized for expression of cytokines (interferon-γ, tumor necrosis factor [TNF]-α, interleukin [IL]-2) and markers for activation (CD69), differentiation (CD127), or functional anergy programmed death 1 molecule [PD-1], cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 [CTLA-4]. Results of patients with RA were stratified into subgroups receiving different antirheumatic drugs and compared with samples of 39 healthy control subjects. Moreover, direct effects of biological DMARDs on cytokine expression and proliferation of specific T cells were analyzed in vitro.ResultsUnlike patients with SpA, patients with RA showed significantly lower percentages of VZV-specific CD4 T cells (median 0.03%, IQR 0.05%) than control subjects (median 0.09%, IQR 0.16%; p < 0.001). Likewise, SEB-reactive CD4 T-cell levels were lower in patients (median 2.35%, IQR 2.85%) than in control subjects (median 3.96%, IQR 4.38%; p < 0.05); however, expression of cytokines and cell surface markers of VZV-specific T cells did not differ in patients and control subjects, whereas SEB-reactive effector T cells of patients showed signs of functional impairment. Among antirheumatic drugs, biological DMARDs had the most pronounced impact on cellular immunity. Specifically, VZV-specific CD4 T-cell levels were significantly reduced in patients receiving TNF-α antagonists or IL-6 receptor-blocking therapy (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, respectively), whereas SEB-reactive T-cell levels were reduced in patients receiving B-cell-depleting or IL-6 receptor-blocking drugs (both p < 0.05).ConclusionsDespite absence of clinical symptoms, patients with RA showed signs of impaired cellular immunity that affected both VZV-specific and general effector T cells. Strongest effects on cellular immunity were observed in patients treated with biological DMARDs. These findings may contribute to the increased susceptibility of patients with RA to VZV reactivation.
| S-EPMC6235212 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination is essential for patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRD) to reduce the risk of morbidity and mortality associated with serious COVID-19 infection. With endemicity, waning of vaccine- and infection-acquired immunity, and development of SARS-CoV-2 variants, the need for additional doses of vaccines against serious illness in high-risk immunocompromised persons remains imperative. This review examines how immunomodulatory therapies affect vaccine-induced immune response in patients with AIIRD. Glucocorticoids, methotrexate, azathioprine, calcineurin inhibitors, mycophenolate mofetil, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, and abatacept have been shown to variably attenuate both humoral and cellular immune responses to vaccination. Janus kinase inhibitors reduce humoral immune response. In contrast, sulfasalazine, leflunomide, belimumab, interleukin (IL)-17, IL-12/23, IL-6, and IL-1 inhibitors appear favorable, with mild or no impact on vaccine response. Although rituximab is known to profoundly diminish humoral immune response, cellular immunity is relatively preserved. Administering a third and subsequent vaccine dose or temporally coordinating the dosing of immunomodulatory drugs may improve vaccine effectiveness. Further research is needed to personalise vaccination strategies for AIIRD patients, considering their specific immunomodulatory treatments.
| S-EPMC10974321 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThis open-label study evaluated the immunogenicity, safety, and efficacy of sarilumab monotherapy in patients with active, moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inadequate response or intolerance to prior conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.MethodsAdults with RA (n = 132) were randomized to receive subcutaneous sarilumab (150 [n = 65] or 200 mg [n = 67]) every 2 weeks (q2w) for 24 weeks. Endpoints included incidence of antidrug antibodies (ADAs) at week 24, safety, and efficacy.ResultsPersistent ADAs occurred in eight patients (12.3%) receiving sarilumab 150 mg q2w, seven of whom (10.8%) had neutralizing antibodies (NAbs), and in four patients (6.1%) receiving sarilumab 200 mg q2w, two of whom (3.0%) had NAbs; all exhibited low antibody titers. Infections and neutropenia were the most common adverse events (AEs). There were three serious AEs, no reports of anaphylaxis, and few hypersensitivity reactions (e.g., rash) with no notable differences in hypersensitivity reactions in ADA-positive patients relative to ADA-negative patients. Changes in absolute neutrophil count, alanine aminotransferase level, and platelet count were consistent with interleukin-6 signaling blockade and in agreement with previous observations. At week 24, overall American College of Rheumatology 20%/50%/70% improvement criteria responses were 73.8%/53.8%/29.2%, respectively, with sarilumab 150 mg q2w and 71.6%/50.7%/29.9% with sarilumab 200 mg q2w. No patients with an ADA-positive response showed loss of efficacy.ConclusionsADA titers were low and persistent ADAs and NAbs occurred relatively infrequently in both sarilumab dose groups. ADA did not meaningfully impact the safety or efficacy of either dose of sarilumab over 24 weeks.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT02121210.FundingSanofi Genzyme and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Plain language summary available for this article.
| S-EPMC6702535 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose of reviewThis review will address the many uncertainties surrounding the medical use of cannabidiol (CBD). We will begin with an overview of the legal and commercial environment, examine recent preclinical and clinical evidence on CBD, explore questions concerning CBD raised by healthcare professionals and patients, investigate dosing regimens and methods of administration, and address current challenges in the accumulation of sound evidence.Recent findingsCBD has potential for relief of symptoms of pain, sleep, and mood disturbance in rheumatology patients, but sound clinical evidence is lacking. CBD is safe when accessed from a regulated source, whereas wellness products are less reliable regarding content and contaminants. Dosing for symptom relief has not yet been established. As many rheumatology patients are trying CBD as a self-management strategy, the healthcare community must urgently accrue sound evidence for effect.
| S-EPMC9062628 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose of reviewPatients on disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) remain concerned about potential risks of severe COVID-19 outcomes. Meanwhile, several DMARDs have been proposed as COVID-19 therapies.Recent findingsIn patients with autoimmune diseases, baseline glucocorticoid use is associated with severe COVID-19. While classes of DMARDs (e.g., conventional synthetic, targeted synthetic, and biologic) do not appear to be associated with higher risk, specific medications such as rituximab and sulfasalazine may be associated. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) show that glucocorticoids reduce mortality in severe COVID-19. RCTs suggest other agents, such as baricitinib, may improve COVID-19 outcomes in certain populations. Baseline glucocorticoid use raises the risk of severe COVID-19 in patients with autoimmune diseases, but glucocorticoids are an effective treatment for those with severe COVID-19. Further research is needed to inform DMARD management in autoimmune disease patients during the pandemic and the role of DMARDs in COVID-19 treatment.
| S-EPMC8065312 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Current recommendations advocate treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) in all patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We investigated the frequency of and reasons for inconsistent DMARD use among patients in a clinical rheumatology cohort.Patients in the Brigham Rheumatoid Arthritis Sequential Study were studied for DMARD use (any or none) at each semiannual study timepoint during the first 2 study years. Inconsistent use was defined as DMARD use at ? 40% of study timepoints. Characteristics were compared between inconsistent and consistent users (> 40%), and factors associated with inconsistent DMARD use were determined through multivariate logistic regression. A medical record review was performed to determine the reasons for inconsistent use.Of 848 patients with ? 4 out of 5 visits recorded, 55 (6.5%) were inconsistent DMARD users. Higher age, longer disease duration, and rheumatoid factor negativity were statistically significant correlates of inconsistent use in the multivariate analyses. The primary reasons for inconsistent use identified through chart review, allowing for up to 2 co-primary reasons, were inactive disease (n = 28, 50.9%), intolerance to DMARD (n = 18, 32.7%), patient preference (n = 7, 12.7%), comorbidity (n = 6, 10.9%), DMARD not being effective (n = 3, 5.5%), and pregnancy (n = 3, 5.5%). During subsequent followup, 14/45 (31.1%) inconsistent users with sufficient data became consistent users of DMARD.A small proportion of patients with RA in a clinical rheumatology cohort were inconsistent DMARD users during the first 2 years of followup. While various patient factors correlate with inconsistent use, many patients re-start DMARD and become consistent users over time.
| S-EPMC4843119 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBrazil faced a yellow fever(YF) outbreak in 2016-2018 and vaccination was considered for autoimmune rheumatic disease patients(ARD) with low immunosuppression due to YF high mortality.ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate, prospectively for the first time, the short-term immunogenicity of the fractional YF vaccine(YFV) immunization in ARD patients with low immunossupression.Methods and resultsA total of 318 participants(159 ARD and 159 age- and sex-matched healthy controls) were vaccinated with the fractional-dose(one fifth) of 17DD-YFV. All subjects were evaluated at entry(D0), D5, D10, and D30 post-vaccination for clinical/laboratory and disease activity parameters for ARD patients. Post-vaccination seroconversion rate(83.7%vs.96.6%, p = 0.0006) and geometric mean titers(GMT) of neutralizing antibodies[1143.7 (95%CI 1012.3-1292.2) vs.731 (95%CI 593.6-900.2), p<0.001] were significantly lower in ARD compared to controls. A lower positivity rate of viremia was also identified for ARD patients compared to controls at D5 (53%vs.70%, p = 0.005) and the levels persisted in D10 for patients and reduced for controls(51%vs.19%, p = 0.0001). The viremia was the only variable associated with seroconvertion. No serious adverse events were reported. ARD disease activity parameters remained stable at D30(p>0.05).ConclusionFractional-dose 17DD-YF vaccine in ARD patients resulted in a high rate of seroconversion rate(>80%) but lower than controls, with a longer but less intense viremia. This vaccine was immunogenic, safe and did not induce flares in ARD under low immunosuppression and may be indicated in YF outbreak situations and for patients who live or travel to endemic areas.Trial registrationThis clinical trial was registered with Clinicaltrials.gov (#NCT03430388).
| S-EPMC8659329 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To describe patterns of disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) use during pregnancy in a population-based cohort, and to evaluate the association between autoimmune disease, DMARDs, corticosteroids, and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and preeclampsia.Using health care utilization databases from British Columbia (1997-2006), we compared the risk for preeclampsia among 44,786 women with and without autoimmune disease with study drug dispensings before pregnancy (past users) and before and during the first 20 gestational weeks (continuous users). Relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were estimated.Only 414 women (0.1%) had a DMARD dispensing during pregnancy. The incidence of preeclampsia was 2.3% for past DMARD users, 2.7% for past corticosteroid users, and 2.9% for past NSAID users. Compared to past users, the continuous DMARD user RR was 2.29 (95% CI 0.81-6.44), and was 0.89 (95% CI 0.51-1.56) for corticosteroid and 0.84 (95% CI 0.63-1.10) for NSAID users. Compared to women without autoimmune disease, the delivery year-adjusted RR was 2.02 (95% CI 1.11-3.64) for women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). The DMARD results were attenuated when antimalarials were excluded, and the delivery year-adjusted RR was 0.95 (95% CI 0.25-3.55) when the DMARD analysis was restricted to women with autoimmune disease.Few women were exposed to DMARDs during pregnancy. We observed a 2-fold increased risk of preeclampsia among women with SLE and a nonsignificant increase in risk in DMARD users. The DMARD and preeclampsia association was attenuated when antimalarials were excluded and null when restricted to women with autoimmune disease, which suggests the association is likely due to greater autoimmune disease severity in DMARD users.
| S-EPMC3514881 | biostudies-literature