Prevalence and determinants of undetected dementia in the community: a systematic literature review and a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Detection of dementia is essential for improving the lives of patients but the extent of underdetection worldwide and its causes are not known. This study aimed to quantify the prevalence of undetected dementia and to examine its correlates. METHODS/SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: A systematic search was conducted until October 2016 for studies reporting the proportion of undetected dementia and/or its determinants in either the community or in residential care settings worldwide. Random-effects models calculated the pooled rate of undetected dementia and subgroup analyses were conducted to identify determinants of the variation. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcome measures of interest were the prevalence and determinants of undetected dementia. RESULTS: 23 studies were eligible for inclusion in this review. The pooled rate of undetected dementia was 61.7% (95% CI 55.0% to 68.0%). The rate of underdetection was higher in China and India (vs Europe and North America), in the community setting (vs residential/nursing care), age of <70 years, male gender and diagnosis by general practitioner. However, it was lower in the studies using Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) diagnosis criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of undetected dementia is high globally. Wide variations in detecting dementia need to be urgently examined, particularly in populations with low socioeconomic status. Efforts are required to reduce diagnostic inequality and to improve early diagnosis in the community.

Influenza vaccination for immunocompromised patients: summary of a systematic review and meta-analysis.

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.

Multi-centre observational study of transplacental transmission of influenza antibodies following vaccination with AS03(A)-adjuvanted H1N1 2009 vaccine.

INTRODUCTION: Illness and death from influenza increase during pregnancy. In the United Kingdom pregnant women were targeted in a national programme for vaccination during the H1N1 2009-10 pandemic. METHODS: In this study, pregnant women were recruited in labour from November 9, 2009 to March 10, 2010. Pandemic vaccination status was determined. Venous cord blood collected at delivery was evaluated for transplacental transfer of antibodies by measurement of haemagglutination inhibition and microneutralization titres. RESULTS: Samples were collected from 77 vaccinated and 27 unvaccinated women. Seroprotection (HI titre ≥1:40) was detected in 58 (75.3%, 95% CI 64.2-84.4) cord blood samples from vaccinated women and 5 (18.5%, 95% CI 6.3-38.1) from unvaccinated women (P<0.0001). There was evidence of transplacental seroprotection 8 days after maternal immunization (77.9%, 95 CI 66.2-87.1), maintained in most cases for at least 16 weeks. DISCUSSION: Immunization of pregnant women with AS03(A)-adjuvanted vaccine is followed by transplacental transfer of passive immunity at titres consistent with clinical protection in three-quarters of new-born infants. The findings support national and international pandemic H1N1 2009 recommendations for immunization during pregnancy.

Influenza vaccination for immunocompromised patients: systematic review and meta-analysis from a public health policy perspective.

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(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; 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.