Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Vacunas contra la gripe en adultos con cáncer e inmunodeprimidos

Information

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008983.pub3Copy DOI
Database:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Version published:
  1. 01 February 2018see what's new
Type:
  1. Intervention
Stage:
  1. Review
Cochrane Editorial Group:
  1. Cochrane Gynaecological, Neuro-oncology and Orphan Cancer Group

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2018 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Article metrics

Altmetric:

Cited by:

Cited 0 times via Crossref Cited-by Linking

Collapse

Authors

  • Roni Bitterman

    Correspondence to: Division of Infectious Diseases, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel

    [email protected]

  • Noa Eliakim‐Raz

    Department of Medicine E; and Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel‐Aviv University, Israel, Beilinson Hospital, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel

  • Inbal Vinograd

    Pharmacy, Schneider Children's Medical Centre of Israel, Petah‐Tikva, Israel

  • Anca Zalmanovici Trestioreanu

    Department of Family Medicine, Beilinson Hospital, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel

  • Leonard Leibovici

    Department of Medicine E, Beilinson Hospital, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel

  • Mical Paul

    Division of Infectious Diseases, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel

Contributions of authors

Current version

Roni Bitterman (RB) and Noa Eliakim Raz (NER) co‐ordinated the review, guided by Mical Paul (MP). Both RB and NER contributed equally to the review.
RB and MP were responsible for undertaking searches and organised retrieval of papers.
RB and MP were responsible for data collection, writing to study authors for additional information.
RB and MP were responsible for screening search results, screening retrieved papers against inclusion criteria and appraising quality of papers and abstracting data from papers (disagreement was settled by discussion).
RB was responsible for entering data into Review Manager 5.
All review authors participated in analysis and interpretation of data.
RB and NER were responsible for writing the review.

Prior version

Inbal Levi‐Vinograd (ILV) wrote the original protocol.
Noa Eliakim Raz (NER) co‐ordinated the review, guided by Mical Paul (MP).
NER and ILV were responsible for undertaking searches and organised retrieval of papers.
NER and ILV were responsible for data collection, writing to study authors for additional information.
NER, ILV, AZT, LL and MP were responsible for screening search results, screening retrieved papers against inclusion criteria and appraising quality of papers and abstracting data from papers (the latter review author was arbiter in case of disagreement).
NER was responsible for entering data into Review Manager 5.
All review authors participated in analysis and interpretation of data.
NER was responsible for writing the review.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • None, Other.

External sources

  • Beilinson Young Researcher Foundation, Israel.

  • Clalit Foundation, Israel.

Declarations of interest

None known.

Acknowledgements

We thank Jo Morrison for clinical and editorial advice, Jo Platt designing and running the searches and Gail Quinn, Clare Jess and Tracey Harrison for their contribution to the editorial process.

This project was supported by the National Institute for Health Research, via Cochrane Infrastructure funding to the Cochrane Gynaecological, Neuro‐oncology and Orphan Cancer Group. The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Systematic Reviews Programme, NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2018 Feb 01

Influenza vaccines in immunosuppressed adults with cancer

Review

Roni Bitterman, Noa Eliakim‐Raz, Inbal Vinograd, Anca Zalmanovici Trestioreanu, Leonard Leibovici, Mical Paul

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008983.pub3

2013 Oct 29

Influenza vaccines in immunosuppressed adults with cancer

Review

Noa Eliakim‐Raz, Inbal Vinograd, Anca Zalmanovici Trestioreanu, Leonard Leibovici, Mical Paul

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008983.pub2

2011 Feb 16

Influenza vaccines for prevention of influenza‐like illness and influenza in immunosuppressed cancer patients

Protocol

Inbal Levi‐Vinograd, Anca Zalmanovici Trestioreanu, Leonard Leibovici, Mical Paul

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008983

Differences between protocol and review

The primary protocol‐defined outcome was: 'Influenza‐like illness defined as: ILI definition in study or Pneumonia of any cause or influenza‐related death'. We have changed the primary outcome to 'all‐cause mortality' since ultimately this is the goal of influenza vaccination and the composite outcome of infections, hospitalisations, chemotherapy delays and other effects of influenza. All components of the former primary outcome are included as secondary outcomes.

In the previous version of this review it was not stated whether studies conducted on a mixed population of adults and children would be included. Though this is a review on an adult population, we believe mixed population studies should not be omitted. We thus specifically stated that only studies that included more than 30% children were excluded.

When the original review was published adjuvanted influenza vaccines were not commercially available and no studies were conducted on people with cancer. However, as adjuvanted vaccines are now more prevalent we have added them to the updated review.

Though not stated specifically in the original protocol, studies evaluating different dosing regimens were excluded. In this version we stated this clearly.

Keywords

MeSH

PICOs

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

The PICO model is widely used and taught in evidence-based health care as a strategy for formulating questions and search strategies and for characterizing clinical studies or meta-analyses. PICO stands for four different potential components of a clinical question: Patient, Population or Problem; Intervention; Comparison; Outcome.

See more on using PICO in the Cochrane Handbook.

Study flow diagram.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram.

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 2

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 3

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Comparison 1 Influenza vaccine versus none, Outcome 1 All‐cause mortality.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Influenza vaccine versus none, Outcome 1 All‐cause mortality.

Comparison 1 Influenza vaccine versus none, Outcome 2 Influenza‐like illness.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Influenza vaccine versus none, Outcome 2 Influenza‐like illness.

Comparison 1 Influenza vaccine versus none, Outcome 3 Confirmed influenza.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Influenza vaccine versus none, Outcome 3 Confirmed influenza.

Comparison 1 Influenza vaccine versus none, Outcome 4 Pneumonia.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Influenza vaccine versus none, Outcome 4 Pneumonia.

Comparison 1 Influenza vaccine versus none, Outcome 5 Any hospitalisation.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Influenza vaccine versus none, Outcome 5 Any hospitalisation.

Comparison 1 Influenza vaccine versus none, Outcome 6 Influenza‐related mortality.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Influenza vaccine versus none, Outcome 6 Influenza‐related mortality.

Comparison 2 Adjuvanted vaccine versus non‐adjuvanted vaccine, Outcome 1 All‐cause mortality.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Adjuvanted vaccine versus non‐adjuvanted vaccine, Outcome 1 All‐cause mortality.

Comparison 2 Adjuvanted vaccine versus non‐adjuvanted vaccine, Outcome 2 Confirmed influenza.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Adjuvanted vaccine versus non‐adjuvanted vaccine, Outcome 2 Confirmed influenza.

Comparison 2 Adjuvanted vaccine versus non‐adjuvanted vaccine, Outcome 3 Any hospitalisation.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Adjuvanted vaccine versus non‐adjuvanted vaccine, Outcome 3 Any hospitalisation.

Summary of findings for the main comparison. Influenza vaccine compared to no vaccine for immunosuppressed adults with cancer

Influenza vaccine compared to no vaccine for immunosuppressed adults with cancer

Patient or population: immunosuppressed adults with cancer
Setting: outpatients
Intervention: influenza vaccine
Comparison: no vaccine

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

№ of participants
(studies)

Certainty of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with no vaccine

Risk with influenza vaccine

All‐cause mortality, solid cancers
Follow‐up: range 4 months to 12 months

Study population

OR 0.88
(0.78 to 1.00)

1577
(1 observational study)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW 1 2 3

Earle 2003

417 per 1,000

387 per 1,000
(359 to 417)

All‐cause mortality, solid and haematological malignancies
Follow‐up: range 5 months to 7 months

Study population

OR 0.42
(0.24 to 0.75)

806
(1 observational study)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW 3 4

Vinograd 2013

456 per 1,000

260 per 1,000
(167 to 386)

All‐cause mortality, allogeneic BMT
Follow‐up: mean 6 months

Study population

OR 1.25
(0.43 to 3.62)

78
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOW 5 6

Ambati 2015

211 per 1,000

250 per 1,000
(103 to 491)

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

BMT: bone marrow transplantation; CI: Confidence interval; OR: Odds ratio; RCT: randomised controlled trial

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High certainty: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate certainty: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low certainty: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low certainty: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

1 observational study, low Newcastle Ottawa score

2 confidence interval up to 1

3 observational study

4 observational study, high Newcastle Ottawa score

5 reporting bias‐ no trial registry, vague description of outcomes in methods, small numbers

6 wide confidence interval crossing 1

Figures and Tables -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Influenza vaccine compared to no vaccine for immunosuppressed adults with cancer
Summary of findings 2. Adjuvanted influenza vaccine compared to non‐adjuvanted influenza vaccine in immunosuppressed adults with cancer

Adjuvanted influenza vaccine compared to non‐adjuvanted influenza vaccine in immunosuppressed adults with cancer

Patient or population: immunosuppressed adults with cancer
Setting: outpatients
Intervention: adjuvanted influenza vaccine
Comparison: non‐adjuvanted influenza vaccine

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

№ of participants
(studies)

Certainty of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with non‐adjuvanted influenza vaccine

Risk with adjuvanted influenza vaccine

All‐cause mortality, allogeneic BMT,
Follow‐up: mean 6 months

Study population

RR 0.54
(0.05 to 5.73)

73
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOW 1

Natori 2017

53 per 1,000

28 per 1,000
(3 to 302)

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

CI: Confidence interval; RCT: randomised controlled trial; RR: Risk ratio

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High certainty: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate certainty: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low certainty: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low certainty: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

1 Small sample size, large confidence intervals

Figures and Tables -
Summary of findings 2. Adjuvanted influenza vaccine compared to non‐adjuvanted influenza vaccine in immunosuppressed adults with cancer
Table 1. Influenza frequency and related outcomes in HSCT recipients and adults with cancer

Ref.

Type of malignancy (influenza years)

No of cases

Influenza cases

Outcome

Ljungman 2001

Allogeneic BMT/HSCT recipients (1997 to 1998)

819

1.7%

Deaths 29%

Autologous BMT/HSCT recipients (1997 to 1998)

1154

0.2%

Deaths 0%

Allogeneic BMT/HSCT recipients (1997 to 2000)

>819

 

Deaths 23%

Autologous BMT/HSCT recipients (1997 to 2000)

>1154

 

Deaths 22%

Hassan 2003

Allogeneic BMT/HSCT recipients (1996 to 2001)

230

2.2%

Deaths 20%

Autologous BMT/HSCT recipients (1996 to 2001)

396

0%

 

Nichols 2004

HSCT  recipients (within 120 days  after transplantation) (1989 to 2002)

4797

1.3%

Deaths 10%

Pneumonia 29%

Machado 2003

HSCT recipients (URTI symptoms present) (2001 to 2002)

179

23%

Deaths 0%

Chemaly 2006

HSCT  recipients AND haematologic malignancies (retrospective study of patients with laboratory‐confirmed viral respiratory infection) (2000 to 2002)

343

33%

Deaths 4%

Pneumonia 30%

HSCT recipients

230

29%

 

Leukaemia

61

33%

 

Lymphoma

37

51%

 

Multiple myeloma

15

40%

 

Yousuf 1997

CLL /acute leukaemia (hospitalised patients) (1993 to 1994)

45

33%

Deaths 27%

Pneumonia 80%

Elting 1995

CLL /acute leukaemia (1991 to 1992)

37

11%

Deaths 25%

Pneumonia 75%

Redelman‐Sidi 2010

Solid cancers (H1N1 2009 pandemic)

226

7%

0% Deaths

Haematologic malignancies (H1N1 2009 pandemic)

167 (96 HSCT)

17% (22%)

0% Deaths

Ljungman 2011

HSCT recipients (prospective study of patients with laboratory‐confirmed H1N1 infection) (H1N1 2009 pandemic)

286

Deaths 6%

Pneumonia 33%

Chemaly 2012

Solid cancers (retrospective study of patients with laboratory‐confirmed H1N1 infection) (H1N1 2009 pandemic)

115

Deaths 9.5%

Pneumonia 23%

BMT: bone marrow transplantation; CLL: chronic lymphocytic leukaemia; HSCT: haematopoietic stem cell transplantation; URTI: upper respiratory tract infection

Figures and Tables -
Table 1. Influenza frequency and related outcomes in HSCT recipients and adults with cancer
Table 2. Newcastle‐Ottawa Grading

Selection

Comparability

Outcome

Total stars score

Representativeness of the exposed cohort

Selection of the non‐exposed cohort

Ascertainment of exposure

Demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at start of study

Comparability * 

Assessment of outcome

Was follow‐up long enough for outcomes to occur?

Adequacy of follow‐up of cohorts **

Earle 2003

c

a

a

a

No

d ***

a

a

5

Machado 2005

c

a

a

a

No

b

a

a

6

Vinograd 2013

b

a

a+b

a

a+b

b+c

a

a

10

* The most important factor to control for was the cancer stage. The second most important factor was functional capacity

** A follow‐up rate of >=80% was considered adequate

*** Procedure was described but considered inadequate (through billing accounts and other administrative databases)

Figures and Tables -
Table 2. Newcastle‐Ottawa Grading
Table 3. Summary of Main Outcomes ‐ vaccine versus no vaccine

Outcome

Design

All‐cause mortality

Influenza‐like‐ illness

Influenza‐ related mortality

Confirmed influenza

Pneumonia

Any hospitalisation

Chemotherapy interruptions

GMT

Vaccination status

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Earle 2003

Retrospective observational

Cox adjusted HR 0.88 (95% CI 0.78 to 1), 626 versus 951 py *

0/626 py

2/951 py

0/626 py

3/951 py

7/626 py *

33/951 py *

mean days 15.6, 95% CI 13.3 to 17.8 (N = 626 py)

mean days 16.4, 95% CI 14.3 to 18.4 (N = 951 py)

mean 5.06 days (N = 626 py) **

mean 6.04 days (N = 951 py) **

Machado 2005

Retrospective case‐control

2/19 *

12/24 *

Musto 1997

Randomised, open‐label

8/25 *

18/25 *

0/25

2/25

0/25

4/25

2/25 *

12/25 *

Vinograd 2013

Prospective observational

MV adjusted OR 0.42 (95% CI 0.24 to 0.75) (387 versus 419p); MV adjusted OR in propensity‐matched cohort 0.42 (95% CI 0.24 to 0.76) (218p versus 218p)

134/387

137/419

2/387

4/419

81/387

78/419

183/387

205/419

97/387

116/419

Ambati 2015

Randomised, open‐label

OR 1.25 (95%CI 0.43‐3.62)

2/40

2/38

3/40

4/38

15*,

30*,

110

***

10*, 12.5*, 60

***

py= persons years

* denoted statistically significant difference, P < 0.05

** mean interval between chemotherapy bills

*** data is for A/H1N1, A/H3N2 and B respectively

CI: confidence interval;GMT: geometric mean titre. (Data are for 30 days post vaccination); HR: hazard ratio; OR: odds ratio;

Figures and Tables -
Table 3. Summary of Main Outcomes ‐ vaccine versus no vaccine
Table 4. Summary of Main Outcomes ‐ adjuvanted versus non‐adjuvanted

Outcome

Design

All‐cause mortality

Influenza‐related mortality

Confirmed influenza

Any hospitalisation

GMT

Vaccination status

Adjuvanted

Non‐adjuvanted

Adjuvanted

Non‐adjuvanted

Adjuvanted

Non‐adjuvanted

Adjuvanted

Non‐adjuvanted

Adjuvanted

Non‐adjuvanted

Natori 2017

Randomised, open‐label

1/35

2/38

0/35

0/38

5/35

3/38

8/35

11/38

319.6, 480.7, 298.9

*

195.9, 359.3, 240.5 *

* data is for A/H1N1, A/H3N2 and B respectively

GMT: geometric mean titre. (Data are for 30 days post vaccination).

Figures and Tables -
Table 4. Summary of Main Outcomes ‐ adjuvanted versus non‐adjuvanted
Comparison 1. Influenza vaccine versus none

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 All‐cause mortality Show forest plot

3

Odds Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 Non‐randomised, adjusted, events/person‐years

1

Odds Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.2 Non‐randomised, adjusted, events/person

1

Odds Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.3 Randomised, events/person

1

Odds Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Influenza‐like illness Show forest plot

2

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.1 Randomised, events/person

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.2 Non‐randomised, unadjusted, events/person

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3 Confirmed influenza Show forest plot

4

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.1 Non‐randomised, unadjusted, events/person‐years

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3.2 Non‐randomised, unadjusted, events/persons with ILI

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3.3 Non‐randomised, unadjusted, events/persons

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3.4 Randomised, events/person

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4 Pneumonia Show forest plot

3

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4.1 Randomised, events/person

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4.2 Non‐randomised, unadjusted, events/person‐years

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4.3 Non‐randomised, unadjusted, events/person

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5 Any hospitalisation Show forest plot

2

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

5.1 Randomised, events/person

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5.2 Non‐randomised, unadjusted, events/person

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6 Influenza‐related mortality Show forest plot

3

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

6.1 Randomised, events/person

2

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6.2 Non‐randomised, unadjusted, events/person‐years

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 1. Influenza vaccine versus none
Comparison 2. Adjuvanted vaccine versus non‐adjuvanted vaccine

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 All‐cause mortality Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2 Confirmed influenza Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3 Any hospitalisation Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 2. Adjuvanted vaccine versus non‐adjuvanted vaccine