1. Influenza vaccination for immunocompromised patients: systematic review and meta-analysis from a public health policy perspective.
- Author
-
Charles R Beck, Bruce C McKenzie, Ahmed B Hashim, Rebecca C Harris, Arina Zanuzdana, Gabriel Agboado, Elizabeth Orton, Laura Béchard-Evans, Gemma Morgan, Charlotte Stevenson, Rachel Weston, Mitsuru Mukaigawara, Joanne Enstone, Glenda Augustine, Mobasher Butt, Sophie Kim, Richard Puleston, Girija Dabke, Robert Howard, Julie O'Boyle, Mary O'Brien, Lauren Ahyow, Helene Denness, Siobhan Farmer, Jose Figureroa, Paul Fisher, Felix Greaves, Munib Haroon, Sophie Haroon, Caroline Hird, Rachel Isba, David A Ishola, Marko Kerac, Vivienne Parish, Jonathan Roberts, Julia Rosser, Sarah Theaker, Dean Wallace, Neil Wigglesworth, Liz Lingard, Yana Vinogradova, Hiroshi Horiuchi, Javier Peñalver, and Jonathan S Nguyen-Van-Tam
- Subjects
Medicine ,Science - Abstract
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 I(2) 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; pConclusions/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.
- Published
- 2011
- Full Text
- View/download PDF