MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4411884126 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.2025-0314.91

Prescription of Herpes Zoster Vaccine for Immunocompromised Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients in Routine Rheumatology Care

2025· article· en· W4411884126 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Stefanie Mongrain, Michel Zummer, Hanane Maames, Nicolas Richard

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHerpesvirus Infections and Treatments
Canadian institutionsHôpital Maisonneuve-RosemontUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRheumatoid arthritisInternal medicineRheumatologyHydroxychloroquineAbataceptRituximabMedical prescriptionVaccinationMethotrexateSurgeryImmunologyLymphomaDiseaseCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives Immunocompromised patients are at higher risk of herpes zoster (HZ).[1-3] The recombinant zoster vaccine was approved in Canada in 2017 and as of May 2023 it is free for individuals ≥75 years, and for immunocompromised individuals aged ≥18 in Quebec. This study aims to determine the vaccination rate in rheumatology care and identify patient characteristics associated with vaccination. Methods A retrospective chart review of consecutive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with a visit between January 2023 and October 2023 at the Hôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont was performed. Demographics, comorbidities, current immunomodulating agents, corticosteroids use, previous HZ episode and vaccination status were documented. Patients on no immunomodulating agents or hydroxychloroquine monotherapy were excluded. Descriptive statistics were used. P-value ≤ 0.05 was considered significant. Results A total of 251 patients were included. Of those,184 (73.3%) were female, mean age was 66.6 ± 14.5 years, and 15 (6.0%) patients had a previous HZ episode. Throughout the study period, 155 (61.8%) were exposed to methotrexate, 66 (26.3%) to other csDMARDs, 75 (29.9%) to a biologic agent (48 anti-TNF, 22 other biologics and 5 rituximab) and 15 (6.0%) to a JAK inhibitor. A total of 65 (25.9%) were vaccinated either prior or throughout the study period and 186 (74.1%) patients remained unvaccinated. Among vaccinated patients, 28 (43.1%) received it after the implementation of the provincial gratuity program. Exposition to corticosteroids was present in 17.1%, with a mean cumulative dose of 990.0 ±1036.6 mg in the non-vaccinated group vs 525.6 ± 614.3 mg in the vaccinated group (p<0.01). When comparing subjects receiving vaccination to those who remained unvaccinated, a higher proportion of patients on anti-TNF (27.7% vs 16.1%; p=0.04), other biologics (16.9% vs 5.1%; p<0.01) and JAK inhibitors (15.4% vs 2.7%; p<0.01) were vaccinated. No difference was seen between other immunomodulating agents. A total of 21.9% vaccinated and 64.1% unvaccinated patients were ≥50 years old (p=0.70) and 6.8% vaccinated and 24.3% unvaccinated patients were ≥75 years old (p=0.32). No differences were observed between age and medication subgroups in vaccination timing relative to the provincial gratuity program’s implementation. Conclusion Only a quarter of eligible RA patients received HZ vaccination during routine rheumatology care. It was administered more frequently in patients on advanced therapy, but not on those with other immunomodulating drugs or traditional risk factors. Public health measures should be strengthened to promote vaccination among at-risk populations and rheumatologists should offer adequate counseling on vaccination. [1.] McKay SL. Clin Infect Dis 2020;71(7):e125-34. [2.] Adelzadeh L. Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2014;28(7):846-52. [3.] Sánchez González CO. Reumatol Clin (Engl Ed) 2022;18(8):453-8.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Rheumatology→Same topicHerpesvirus Infections and Treatments→French-language works237,207→