Giuseppe
Emeritus
[Source: PLoS ONE, full text: (LINK). Abstract, edited.]
Influenza Vaccination for Immunocompromised Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis from a Public Health Policy Perspective
Charles R. Beck<SUP>1</SUP><SUP>*</SUP>, Bruce C. McKenzie<SUP>1</SUP>, Ahmed B. Hashim<SUP>1</SUP>, Rebecca C. Harris<SUP>2</SUP>, Arina Zanuzdana<SUP>3</SUP>, Gabriel Agboado<SUP>4</SUP>, Elizabeth Orton<SUP>5</SUP>, Laura B?chard-Evans<SUP>6</SUP>, Gemma Morgan<SUP>7</SUP>, Charlotte Stevenson<SUP>8</SUP>, Rachel Weston<SUP>9</SUP>, Mitsuru Mukaigawara<SUP>2</SUP>, Joanne Enstone<SUP>1</SUP>, Glenda Augustine<SUP>10</SUP>, Mobasher Butt<SUP>11</SUP>, Sophie Kim<SUP>12</SUP>, Richard Puleston<SUP>1</SUP>, Girija Dabke<SUP>13</SUP>, Robert Howard<SUP>14</SUP>, Julie O'Boyle<SUP>14</SUP>, Mary O'Brien<SUP>15</SUP>, Lauren Ahyow<SUP>10</SUP>, Helene Denness<SUP>16</SUP>, Siobhan Farmer<SUP>17</SUP>, Jose Figureroa<SUP>18</SUP>, Paul Fisher<SUP>19</SUP>, Felix Greaves<SUP>20</SUP>, Munib Haroon<SUP>21</SUP>, Sophie Haroon<SUP>22</SUP>, Caroline Hird<SUP>22</SUP>, Rachel Isba<SUP>23</SUP>, David A. Ishola<SUP>24</SUP>, Marko Kerac<SUP>25</SUP>, Vivienne Parish<SUP>26</SUP>, Jonathan Roberts<SUP>7</SUP>, Julia Rosser<SUP>27</SUP>, Sarah Theaker<SUP>28</SUP>, Dean Wallace<SUP>28</SUP>, Neil Wigglesworth<SUP>29</SUP>, Liz Lingard<SUP>30</SUP>, Yana Vinogradova<SUP>5</SUP>, Hiroshi Horiuchi<SUP>31</SUP>, Javier Pe?alver<SUP>6</SUP>, Jonathan S. Nguyen-Van-Tam<SUP>1</SUP>
1 Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom, 2 Global Influenza Programme, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 3 Department of Public Health Medicine, University of Bielefeld, Bielefeld, Germany, 4 Public Health Directorate, National Health Services Blackpool, Blackpool, United Kingdom, 5 Division of Primary Care, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom, 6 Freelance, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 7 South West (North) Health Protection Unit, Health Protection Agency, Gloucester, United Kingdom, 8 Cumbria and Lancashire Health Protection Unit, Health Protection Agency, Chorley, United Kingdom, 9 Health Protection Agency Yorkshire and Humber, Health Protection Agency, Leeds, United Kingdom, 10 Public Health Directorate, National Health Services Leicestershire County, Leicester, United Kingdom, 11 Department of Medicine, Brighton and Sussex University Hospital National Health Services Trust, Brighton, United Kingdom, 12 Law School, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America, 13 Hampshire and Isle Of Wight Health Protection Unit, Health Protection Agency, Fareham, United Kingdom, 14 Public Health Directorate, National Health Services, Nottingham City, Nottingham, United Kingdom, 15 Public Health, Wessex Deanery, Winchester, United Kingdom, 16 Public Health Directorate, National Health Services Derbyshire County, Chesterfield, United Kingdom, 17 Public Health, Mersey Deanery, Liverpool, United Kingdom, 18 Medical School, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America, 19 Public Health Directorate, Solihull National Health Services Primary Care Trust, Solihull, United Kingdom, 20 School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom, 21 Childrens Services, Leicester Partnership Trust, Leicester, United Kingdom, 22 Health Protection Agency East Midlands, Health Protection Agency, Nottingham, United Kingdom, 23 Medical School, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom, 24 Department of Infection and Population Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom, 25 Centre for International Health and Development, University College London, London, United Kingdom, 26 Public Health Directorate, National Health Services Northamptonshire, Northampton, United Kingdom, 27 Public Health Directorate, National Health Services Halton and St. Helens, Widnes, United Kingdom, 28 Public Health Directorate, NHS Nottinghamshire County, Mansfield, United Kingdom, 29 Public Health Directorate, NHS East Lancashire, Nelson, United Kingdom, 30 Health Protection Agency North East, Health Protection Agency, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom, 31 Faculty of Medicine, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan
Abstract
Background
Immunocompromised 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 Findings
Electronic 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 I<SUP>2</SUP> 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/Significance
Infection 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.
Citation: Beck CR, McKenzie BC, Hashim AB, Harris RC, Zanuzdana A, et al. (2011) Influenza Vaccination for Immunocompromised Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis from a Public Health Policy Perspective. PLoS ONE 6(12): e29249. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0029249
Editor: Benjamin J. Cowling, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Received: September 7, 2011; Accepted: November 23, 2011; Published: December 22, 2011
Copyright: ? 2011 Beck et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Funding: This study was commissioned by the Global Influenza Programme, World Health Organization. The University of Nottingham Health Protection Research Group (JSN-V-T, CRB, BCM, ABH, JE, RP) is an official WHO Collaborating Centre for pandemic influenza and research. It receives limited funding from WHO in support of specific activities. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The University of Nottingham Health Protection Research Group is currently in receipt of research funds from GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). The group has recently accepted an unrestricted educational grant for influenza research from F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Research on influenza funded by an unrestricted educational grant from Astra Zeneca is also underway. The aforementioned funding received from GSK, F. Hoffmann-La Roche and Astra Zeneca did not support any aspect of this study. JSN-V-T has received funding to attend influenza related meetings, lecture and consultancy fees and research funding from several influenza antiviral drug and vaccine manufacturers. All forms of personal remuneration ceased in September 2010, but influenza-related research funding from GlaxoSmithKline, F. Hoffmann-La Roche and Astra-Zeneca remains current. He is a former employee of SmithKline Beecham plc. (now GlaxoSmithKline), Roche Products Ltd, and Aventis-Pasteur MSD (now Sanofi-Pasteur MSD), al l prior to 2005, with no outstanding pecuniary interests by way of shareholdings, share options or accrued pension rights. AZ has received fees for participating in review activities from the Global Influenza Programme, World Health Organization. JE has received consultancy fees from GSK. This does not alter our adherence to all the PLoS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.
* E-mail: charles.beck@nottingham.ac.uk
- ------Charles R. Beck<SUP>1</SUP><SUP>*</SUP>, Bruce C. McKenzie<SUP>1</SUP>, Ahmed B. Hashim<SUP>1</SUP>, Rebecca C. Harris<SUP>2</SUP>, Arina Zanuzdana<SUP>3</SUP>, Gabriel Agboado<SUP>4</SUP>, Elizabeth Orton<SUP>5</SUP>, Laura B?chard-Evans<SUP>6</SUP>, Gemma Morgan<SUP>7</SUP>, Charlotte Stevenson<SUP>8</SUP>, Rachel Weston<SUP>9</SUP>, Mitsuru Mukaigawara<SUP>2</SUP>, Joanne Enstone<SUP>1</SUP>, Glenda Augustine<SUP>10</SUP>, Mobasher Butt<SUP>11</SUP>, Sophie Kim<SUP>12</SUP>, Richard Puleston<SUP>1</SUP>, Girija Dabke<SUP>13</SUP>, Robert Howard<SUP>14</SUP>, Julie O'Boyle<SUP>14</SUP>, Mary O'Brien<SUP>15</SUP>, Lauren Ahyow<SUP>10</SUP>, Helene Denness<SUP>16</SUP>, Siobhan Farmer<SUP>17</SUP>, Jose Figureroa<SUP>18</SUP>, Paul Fisher<SUP>19</SUP>, Felix Greaves<SUP>20</SUP>, Munib Haroon<SUP>21</SUP>, Sophie Haroon<SUP>22</SUP>, Caroline Hird<SUP>22</SUP>, Rachel Isba<SUP>23</SUP>, David A. Ishola<SUP>24</SUP>, Marko Kerac<SUP>25</SUP>, Vivienne Parish<SUP>26</SUP>, Jonathan Roberts<SUP>7</SUP>, Julia Rosser<SUP>27</SUP>, Sarah Theaker<SUP>28</SUP>, Dean Wallace<SUP>28</SUP>, Neil Wigglesworth<SUP>29</SUP>, Liz Lingard<SUP>30</SUP>, Yana Vinogradova<SUP>5</SUP>, Hiroshi Horiuchi<SUP>31</SUP>, Javier Pe?alver<SUP>6</SUP>, Jonathan S. Nguyen-Van-Tam<SUP>1</SUP>
1 Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom, 2 Global Influenza Programme, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 3 Department of Public Health Medicine, University of Bielefeld, Bielefeld, Germany, 4 Public Health Directorate, National Health Services Blackpool, Blackpool, United Kingdom, 5 Division of Primary Care, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom, 6 Freelance, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 7 South West (North) Health Protection Unit, Health Protection Agency, Gloucester, United Kingdom, 8 Cumbria and Lancashire Health Protection Unit, Health Protection Agency, Chorley, United Kingdom, 9 Health Protection Agency Yorkshire and Humber, Health Protection Agency, Leeds, United Kingdom, 10 Public Health Directorate, National Health Services Leicestershire County, Leicester, United Kingdom, 11 Department of Medicine, Brighton and Sussex University Hospital National Health Services Trust, Brighton, United Kingdom, 12 Law School, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America, 13 Hampshire and Isle Of Wight Health Protection Unit, Health Protection Agency, Fareham, United Kingdom, 14 Public Health Directorate, National Health Services, Nottingham City, Nottingham, United Kingdom, 15 Public Health, Wessex Deanery, Winchester, United Kingdom, 16 Public Health Directorate, National Health Services Derbyshire County, Chesterfield, United Kingdom, 17 Public Health, Mersey Deanery, Liverpool, United Kingdom, 18 Medical School, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America, 19 Public Health Directorate, Solihull National Health Services Primary Care Trust, Solihull, United Kingdom, 20 School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom, 21 Childrens Services, Leicester Partnership Trust, Leicester, United Kingdom, 22 Health Protection Agency East Midlands, Health Protection Agency, Nottingham, United Kingdom, 23 Medical School, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom, 24 Department of Infection and Population Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom, 25 Centre for International Health and Development, University College London, London, United Kingdom, 26 Public Health Directorate, National Health Services Northamptonshire, Northampton, United Kingdom, 27 Public Health Directorate, National Health Services Halton and St. Helens, Widnes, United Kingdom, 28 Public Health Directorate, NHS Nottinghamshire County, Mansfield, United Kingdom, 29 Public Health Directorate, NHS East Lancashire, Nelson, United Kingdom, 30 Health Protection Agency North East, Health Protection Agency, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom, 31 Faculty of Medicine, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan
Abstract
Background
Immunocompromised 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 Findings
Electronic 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 I<SUP>2</SUP> 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/Significance
Infection 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.
Citation: Beck CR, McKenzie BC, Hashim AB, Harris RC, Zanuzdana A, et al. (2011) Influenza Vaccination for Immunocompromised Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis from a Public Health Policy Perspective. PLoS ONE 6(12): e29249. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0029249
Editor: Benjamin J. Cowling, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Received: September 7, 2011; Accepted: November 23, 2011; Published: December 22, 2011
Copyright: ? 2011 Beck et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Funding: This study was commissioned by the Global Influenza Programme, World Health Organization. The University of Nottingham Health Protection Research Group (JSN-V-T, CRB, BCM, ABH, JE, RP) is an official WHO Collaborating Centre for pandemic influenza and research. It receives limited funding from WHO in support of specific activities. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The University of Nottingham Health Protection Research Group is currently in receipt of research funds from GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). The group has recently accepted an unrestricted educational grant for influenza research from F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Research on influenza funded by an unrestricted educational grant from Astra Zeneca is also underway. The aforementioned funding received from GSK, F. Hoffmann-La Roche and Astra Zeneca did not support any aspect of this study. JSN-V-T has received funding to attend influenza related meetings, lecture and consultancy fees and research funding from several influenza antiviral drug and vaccine manufacturers. All forms of personal remuneration ceased in September 2010, but influenza-related research funding from GlaxoSmithKline, F. Hoffmann-La Roche and Astra-Zeneca remains current. He is a former employee of SmithKline Beecham plc. (now GlaxoSmithKline), Roche Products Ltd, and Aventis-Pasteur MSD (now Sanofi-Pasteur MSD), al l prior to 2005, with no outstanding pecuniary interests by way of shareholdings, share options or accrued pension rights. AZ has received fees for participating in review activities from the Global Influenza Programme, World Health Organization. JE has received consultancy fees from GSK. This does not alter our adherence to all the PLoS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.
* E-mail: charles.beck@nottingham.ac.uk