BackgroundImmunocompromised patients are vulnerable to severe or complicated influenza infection. Vaccination is widely recommended for this group. This systematic review and meta-analysis assesses influenza vaccination for immunocompromised patients in terms of preventing influenza-like illness and laboratory confirmed influenza, serological response and adverse events.Methodology/Principal FindingsElectronic databases and grey literature were searched and records were screened against eligibility criteria. Data extraction and risk of bias assessments were performed in duplicate. Results were synthesised narratively and meta-analyses were conducted where feasible. Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 and publication bias was assessed using Begg's funnel plot and Egger's regression test. Many of the 209 eligible studies included an unclear or high risk of bias. Meta-analyses showed a significant effect of preventing influenza-like illness (odds ratio [OR] = 0.23; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.16–0.34; p<0.001) and laboratory confirmed influenza infection (OR = 0.15; 95% CI = 0.03–0.63; p = 0.01) through vaccinating immunocompromised patie nts compared to placebo or unvaccinated controls. We found no difference in the odds of influenza-like illness compared to vaccinated immunocompetent controls. The pooled odds of seroconversion were lower in vaccinated patients compared to immunocompetent controls for seasonal influenza A(H1N1), A(H3N2) and B. A similar trend was identified for seroprotection. Meta-analyses of seroconversion showed higher odds in vaccinated patients compared to placebo or unvaccinated controls, although this reached significance for influenza B only. Publication bias was not detected and narrative synthesis supported our findings. No consistent evidence of safety concerns was identified.Conclusions/SignificanceInfection prevention and control strategies should recommend vaccinating immunocompromised patients. Potential for bias and confounding and the presence of heterogeneity mean the evidence reviewed is generally weak, although the directions of effects are consistent. Areas for further research are identified.
Background During the initial COVID-19 pandemic, young United Kingdom (UK) kidney patients underwent lockdown and those with increased vulnerabilities socially isolated or ‘shielded’ at home. The experiences, information needs, decision-making and support needs of children and young adult (CYA) patients or their parents during this period is not well known. Methods A UK-wide online survey co-produced with patients was conducted in May 2020 amongst CYA aged 12–30, or parents of children aged < 18 years with any long-term kidney condition. Participants answered qualitative open text alongside quantitative closed questions. Thematic content analysis using a three-stage coding process was conducted. Results One-hundred and eighteen CYA (median age 21) and 197 parents of children (median age 10) responded. Predominant concerns from CYA were heightened vigilance about viral (68%) and kidney symptoms (77%) and detrimental impact on education or work opportunities (70%). Parents feared the virus more than CYA (71% vs. 40%), and had concerns that their child would catch the virus from them (64%) and would have an adverse impact on other children at home (65%). CYA thematic analysis revealed strong belief of becoming seriously ill if they contracted COVID-19; lost educational opportunities, socialisation and career development; and frustration with the public for not following social distancing rules. Positive outcomes included improved family relationships and community cohesion. Only a minority (14–21% CYA and 20–31% parents, merged questions) desired more support. Subgroup analysis identified greater negative psychological impact in the shielded group. Conclusions This survey demonstrates substantial concern and need for accurate tailored advice for CYA based on individualised risks to improve shared decision making. Graphical abstract
Vaccination of immunocompromised patients is recommended in many national guidelines to protect against severe or complicated influenza infection. However, due to uncertainties over the evidence base, implementation is frequently patchy and dependent on individual clinical discretion. We conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis to assess the evidence for influenza vaccination in this patient group. Healthcare databases and grey literature were searched and screened for eligibility. Data extraction and assessments of risk of bias were undertaken in duplicate, and results were synthesised narratively and using meta‐analysis where possible. Our data show that whilst the serological response following vaccination of immunocompromised patients is less vigorous than in healthy controls, clinical protection is still meaningful, with only mild variation in adverse events between aetiological groups. Although we encountered significant clinical and statistical heterogeneity in many of our meta‐analyses, we advocate that immunocompromised patients should be targeted for influenza vaccination.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.