Over one million people in The Netherlands are estimated having an immunodeficiency, of which the majority has an acquired immunodeficiency due to immunosuppressive medication. These patients are at risk for a more severe course of common infections, and also for opportunistic infections and viral reactivations. The following topics are discussed: types of immunodeficiency and how to estimate its severity; commonly seen infections in immunocompromised patients; recommended screening before start of immunosuppressive medication; pitfalls in clinical clues and diagnostics, and safety and immunogenicity of vaccination in these patients. Conclusively, recognition of an immunodeficiency and awareness of the risks and preventive measures are required. This article attempts to provide a pragmatic classification on the infection risk per type of immunosuppressive medication for clinical practice.
Immunocompromised Host , Opportunistic Infections , Humans , Netherlands , Opportunistic Infections/prevention & control , Vaccination
BACKGROUND: Specific vaccines are indicated for immunocompromised patients (ICPs) due to their vulnerability to infections. Recommendation of these vaccines by healthcare professionals (HCPs) is a crucial facilitator for vaccine uptake. Unfortunately, the responsibilities to recommend and administer these vaccines are not clearly allocated among HCPs involved in the care of adult ICPs. We aimed to evaluate HCPs' opinions on directorship and their role in facilitating the uptake of medically indicated vaccines as a basis to improve vaccination practices. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was performed among in-hospital medical specialists (MSs), general practitioners (GPs), and public health specialists (PHSs) in the Netherlands to assess their opinion on directorship and the implementation of vaccination care. Additionally, perceived barriers, facilitators, and possible solutions to improve vaccine uptake were investigated. RESULTS: In total, 306 HCPs completed the survey. HCPs almost unanimously (98%) reported that according to them, the primary treating physician is responsible for recommending medically indicated vaccines. Administering these vaccines was seen as a more shared responsibility. The most important barriers experienced by HCPs in recommending and administering were reimbursement problems, a lack of a national vaccination registration system, insufficient collaboration among HCPs, and logistical problems. MSs, GPs and PHSs all mentioned the same three solutions as important strategies to improve vaccination practices, i.e., reimbursement of vaccines, reliable and easily accessible registration of received vaccines, and arrangements for collaboration among the different HCPs that are involved in care. CONCLUSION: The improvement in vaccination practices in ICPs should focus on better collaboration among MSs, GPs, and PHSs, who should know each other's expertise; clear agreement on responsibility; reimbursement for vaccines; and the availability of clear registration of vaccination history.
Background: Cognitive functions are altered in patients with CKD. However, it is suggested that cognitive functions improve after kidney transplantation, at least partially. A possible cause for this improvement could be the reduction of uremic retention solutes after transplantation. This study assessed the association between the changes in uremic toxin concentration with the changes in cognitive function in patients after kidney transplantation. Methods: Ten recipients of kidney transplants were compared with 18 controls (nine patients on hemodialysis, and nine patients with CKD stage 4 or 5 [eGFR <30 ml/min per 1.73 m2] who were not on dialysis). An extensive neuropsychological assessment, covering the five major cognitive domains (i.e., memory, attention and concentration, information processing speed, abstract reasoning, and executive function), was done before transplantation, at 1 week post-transplant, and 3 months after transplantation. Similarly, assessments of the 18 matched, control patients were performed longitudinally over a period of 3-5 months. Concentrations of 16 uremic retention solutes (indoxyl glucuronide, p-cresyl glucuronide, phenylglucuronide, 3-carboxy-4-methyl-5-propyl-2-furanpropanoic acid, indoxyl sulfate, p-cresyl sulfate, hippuric acid, phenyl sulfate, kynurenine, tryptophan, kynurenic acid, tyrosine, indole-3-acetic acid, phenylalanine, trimethylamine N-oxide, and phenylacetylglutamine) were measured in serum samples collected at the time of the neuropsychological assessments. Results: A significant improvement in cognitive function was only found in the processing-speed domain, and this was observed in both patients who received a transplant and patients with CKD. No significant differences between patients who received a transplant and the control groups were seen in the other cognitive domains. As expected, the serum concentration of most uremic toxins decreased significantly within 1 week after kidney transplantation. Conclusions: There was no significant improvement in cognitive function that could be specifically related to kidney transplantation in the first 3 months after the procedure. These data do not support the notion that uremic toxins exert an immediate effect on cognitive function.
Kidney Transplantation , Uremia , Cognition , Humans , Kidney Transplantation/adverse effects , Renal Dialysis , Uremic Toxins
