Risk of nosocomial respiratory syncytial virus infection and effectiveness of control measures to prevent transmission events: a systematic review.

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) causes a significant public health burden, and outbreaks among vulnerable patients in hospital settings are of particular concern. We reviewed published and unpublished literature from hospital settings to assess: (i) nosocomial RSV transmission risk (attack rate) during outbreaks, (ii) effectiveness of infection control measures. We searched the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, together with key websites, journals and grey literature, to end of 2012. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool or Newcastle-Ottawa scale. A narrative synthesis was conducted. Forty studies were included (19 addressing research question one, 21 addressing question two). RSV transmission risk varied by hospital setting; 6-56% (median: 28·5%) in neonatal/paediatric settings (n = 14), 6-12% (median: 7%) in adult haematology and transplant units (n = 3), and 30-32% in other adult settings (n = 2). For question two, most studies (n = 13) employed multi-component interventions (e.g. cohort nursing, personal protective equipment (PPE), isolation), and these were largely reported to be effective in reducing nosocomial transmission. Four studies examined staff PPE; eye protection appeared more effective than gowns and masks. One study reported on RSV prophylaxis for patients (RSV-Ig/palivizumab); there was no statistical evidence of effectiveness although the sample size was small. Overall, risk of bias for included studies tended to be high. We conclude that RSV transmission risk varies widely during hospital outbreaks. Although multi-component control strategies appear broadly successful, further research is required to disaggregate the effectiveness of individual components including the potential role of palivizumab prophylaxis.

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.

Influenza vaccination for immunocompromised patients: systematic review and meta-analysis by etiology.

Many national guidelines recommend annual influenza vaccination of immunocompromised patients, although the decision to vaccinate is usually at clinical discretion. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses to assess the evidence for influenza vaccination in this group, and we report our results by etiology. Meta-analyses showed significantly lower odds of influenza-like illness after vaccination in patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, patients with cancer, and transplant recipients and of laboratory-confirmed influenza in HIV-positive patients, compared with patients receiving placebo or no vaccination. Pooled odds of seroconversion and seroprotection were typically lower in HIV-positive patients, patients with cancer, and transplant recipients, compared with immunocompetent controls. Vaccination was generally well tolerated, with variation in mild adverse events between etiological groups. Limited evidence of a transient increase in viremia and a decrease in the percentage of CD4(+) cells in HIV-positive patients was found although not accompanied by worsening of clinical symptoms. Clinical judgment remains important when discussing the benefits and safety profile with immunocompromised patients.

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.