RESUMEN
BackgroundPatients with chronic inflammatory diseases (CID) have an increased risk for contracting infections. For patients with rheumatic diseases EULAR recommends protecting them from vaccine-preventable diseases.ObjectivesTo assess the knowledge and awareness of common vaccinations and extent of immunization among patients with CID in Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden (Nordics), and to identify gaps between the existing EULAR vaccination recommendations and current practice as experienced by patients.MethodsA structured anonymous online survey for patients with CID ((rheumatological disease (RD), inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and dermatological diseases (DD)) was conducted in 2022.The survey was answered by 1748 respondents (1031 patients with RD, 543 with IBD and 563 with DD).ResultsAmong respondents, 89% were female and 58% had disease duration of above 10 years. In total, 56% were treated in specialised and 32% in primary care. Majority had ongoing systemic immunosuppressive treatment (IT) (65%). Majority of RD (59%) and IBD (66%) patients were treated in specialised care whereas minority of DD patients (38%) were treated in specialised care.Forty-nine percent (49%) responded that their healthcare professional (HCP) did not inform them about the increased risk of infection – however, 55% of the respondents believed they are somewhat or much more likely to suffer from infections than those without CID or treatment, 33% thought there is no difference and 13% did not know there is a difference.In total 68% of respondents considered it important to get vaccinated due to CID or IT. The number was particularly high in RD group (74%), although 63% stated they had not received any information regarding vaccinations at the start of their treatment.Commonly recommended vaccinations by the HCP were COVID 19 (66%), influenza (63%) and pneumococcal (45%) vaccination. When comparing respondents ≥65 and <65 years, there was a difference in how often the influenza (71% vs. 57%) and pneumococcal (57% vs. 38%), but not COVID 19 vaccination (68% vs. 65%), were recommended. In addition, 74% and 75% of respondents receiving IT were recommended influenza and COVID 19 vaccination, respectively.In total, 22% had their vaccination status checked before initiating treatment;the lowest percentage was in DD (16%) and the highest in RD (25%). However, 44% of respondents received influenza vaccination before initiation of treatment. Moreover, 62% and 74% of respondents received influenza and COVID 19 vaccination while on treatment, respectively.Eighty-six percent (86%) did not receive a vaccination plan in relation to their CID and treatment. Moreover, 64% of the respondents (RD 57%;DD 71% and IBD 66%) did not have vaccination status assessed on a regular basis. Forty-three percent (43%) were dissatisfied with the follow-up of vaccination status by their HCP. Respondents of age ≥65 years were more satisfied than the younger ones (34% vs. 25% very satisfied) and respondents with RD were more satisfied than those with IBD or DD (33% vs. 25% vs. 20%).Forty-four percent (44%) responded that the information on vaccinations related to their CID and treatment was difficult to find and 71% would like to receive more information.The respondents with RD had different level of awareness regarding EULAR vaccination recommendations. The degree of awareness among patients with RD treated with IT are presented in Figure 1.ConclusionThis Nordic survey provides insights on patients' information needs, information sources and own experiences related to recommendations on vaccinations in relation to their CID and IT. The results confirm a gap between patients' expectations and needs vs. the information they actually receive. Our findings demonstrate a need for increased awareness among patients, providers and HCP regarding EULAR vaccination recommendations in patients with RD.Reference[1]Furer V, et al. 2019 update of EULAR recommendations for vaccination in adult patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases. Ann Rheum Dis 2020;79: 9–52.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsMeliha C Kapetanovic Grant/research support from: Received independent research grants from Roche and Pfizer, Randeep Mandla Shareholder of: Pfizer, Employee of: Current employee of Pfizer Norway, Maria Seddighzadeh Shareholder of: Pfizer, Employee of: Current employee of Pfizer Sweden, Susanne Thiesen Gren Shareholder of: Pfizer, Employee of: Current employee of Pfizer Denmark, Maaria Palmroth Consultant of: Employee of MedEngine Oy and contractor for Pfizer Oy, Employee of: Contractor for Pfizer Oy, Finland, Dan Henrohn Shareholder of: Pfizer, Employee of: Current employee of Pfizer AB, Sweden, Anne Grete Frostrup Shareholder of: Pfizer, Employee of: Current employee of Pfizer Denmark, Anna-Maria Hiltunen Consultant of: Pfizer. Employee of Nordic Healthcare Group, Jussi Ranta Consultant of: Pfizer. Employee of Nordic Healthcare Group, Anna-Kaisa Asikainen Consultant of: Pfizer. Employee of Nordic Healthcare Group, Veli-Jukka Anttila Speakers bureau: Lectures for Pfizer, MSD, Astellas, Roche, GSK, BMS, Biogen, Sandoz, Gilead, Unimedic Pharma, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Astra-Zeneca, Consultant of: Consultant for Pfizer and MSD.
RESUMEN
Background: Patients (pts) with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have an increased susceptibility to seasonal influenza and its complications.1 In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, there is a need to better understand acute respiratory viral RNA infections, such as influenza, in pts with RA. Objectives: To present a comprehensive summary of data on influenza adverse events (AEs) occurring in the tofacitinib RA clinical programme. Methods: Influenza AEs were evaluated in pts with RA from 21 Phase (P)1-3b/4 trials and two open-label, long-term extension (LTE) studies from 2005-2019. These were analysed as two cohorts: P2-3b/4 cohort (pts who received tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily [BID] as monotherapy or with conventional synthetic [cs]DMARDs, adalimumab, methotrexate or placebo, in P2-3b/4 controlled studies) and Overall cohort (pts who received ≥1 tofacitinib dose, as monotherapy or with csDMARDs, in P1-3b/4 and LTE studies;data were summarised by average tofacitinib dose [average tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg BID based on average total daily dose of <15 or ≥15 mg, respectively]). Incidence rates (IRs;unique pts with events/100 pt-years of exposure;censored at day of first event or up to last dose +28 days) were evaluated for influenza AEs, influenza complication AEs, influenza-like illness (all composites of several MedDRA preferred/verbatim terms) and overall influenza AEs (composite of all preferred/verbatim terms included under influenza AEs, influenza complication AEs and influenza-like illness). In the Overall cohort, the incidence of serious non-influenza AEs within 28 days of the start of an overall influenza AE and time taken to resolution of overall influenza AEs by action taken were summarised descriptively. Results: In total, 7964 pts were included;517 (6.5%) pts reported overall influenza AEs, three of which occurred outside the risk period. In the P2-3b/4 cohort (N=6690), IRs for influenza AEs, influenza-like illness and overall influenza AEs generally appeared similar across treatment arms (Figure 1a). In the Overall cohort, IRs for influenza AEs and influenza-like illness were similar between tofacitinib doses (Figure 1b), and IRs for overall influenza AEs were similar between tofacitinib doses and pt age groups (Figure 1c). No influenza complication AEs (eg pneumonia/encephalitis influenzal) were reported in either cohort. Among pts with overall influenza AEs, nine (1.7%) had serious overall influenza AEs (average tofacitinib 5 mg BID, n=6;average tofacitinib 10 mg BID, n=3). Of these pts, eight (1.5%) were hospitalised (average tofacitinib 5 mg BID, n=6;average tofacitinib 10 mg BID, n=2) and two (0.4%) died (average tofacitinib 5 mg BID, n=1;average tofacitinib 10 mg BID, n=1). Both deaths occurred in pts with H1N1 Influenza A. Twelve (2.3%) pts had a serious non-influenza AE within 28 days of the start of the overall influenza AE (average tofacitinib 5 mg BID, n=6;average tofacitinib 10 mg BID, n=6). The most common serious non-influenza AEs (one event each in average tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID groups) were acute respiratory distress syndrome and pneumonia. In most pts with overall influenza AEs, no change to tofacitinib treatment was made (70.2%, n=363) or treatment was stopped temporarily (28.2%, n=146) for a mean duration of 11.0 days. The mean number of days to resolution of overall influenza AEs was numerically similar, ranging from 10.4-11.8 days across tofacitinib doses, irrespective of these actions. Conclusion: This post hoc analysis of influenza AEs across the tofacitinib RA clinical programme, over 14-15 influenza seasons, showed generally similar rates between treatment groups, and between tofacitinib doses and pt age groups. Limitations include varying exposure across treatment arms in the P2-3b/4 cohort. Most influenza AEs were non-serious (98.3%), and were not associated with changes to tofacitinib treatment.