Vaccine-preventable infection morbidity of patients with chronic kidney disease and cocoon vaccination strategies

Vaccination against COVID-19 among healthcare workers as a cocoon strategy for people living with HIV

Introduction

Healthcare professionals working in infectious disease units are often engaged in the care of patients with HIV infection. A cocoon vaccination strategy may protect those who are immunocompromised from a severe course of COVID-19.

Methods

The research was conducted between January 2021 and June 2022. The study participants were 450 healthcare workers (HCWs) from the Hospital for Infectious Diseases in Warsaw who were vaccinated against COVID-19 with the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech) -, thefirst available type of vaccine in Poland. Sera were collected according to the schedule of the study. Statistical analyses were performed with non-parametric tests: Wilcoxon's test was used to compare dependent numerical variables, and Fisher's exact test and the Chi-squared test to compare categorical variables. A p value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Among the 450 HCWs working in the Hospital for Infectious Diseases in Warsaw 412 (91,5 %) were vaccinated against COVID-19. In total 170 (41,3 %) vaccinated HCWs were included in the final analysis. Their median age was 51 years [interquartile range (IQR): 41-60 years] and median body mass index (BMI) was 25.10 [IQR: 22.68-29.03]. Most of the cohort consisted of women (n = 137, 80.59 %), with the majority working directly with patients (n = 137, 73.21 %). It was found that as early as 14 days after the second dose of the vaccine, 100 % of the study participants achieved a positive result for SARS CoV-2 S-RBD antibodies. There were 168 subjects who had had a COVID-19 diagnosis before entering study and after vaccination 65 HCWs was diagnosed with COVID-19.

Conclusions

Due to the fact that people living with HIV with severe immunodeficiency may have an incomplete immune response to COVID vaccination and be at risk of a severe course of the disease, the cocoon strategy of vaccinating medical personnel may be beneficial for these patients.

Vaccination rates and the causes of vaccine hesitancy among patients with end stage renal disease

Aim: Chronic kidney disease creates a tendency to infections, and infections are the second most common reason for mortality following cardiovascular events in chronic kidney disease. Health authorities recommend vaccination against hepatitis B, annual influenza, pneumonia, zoster, tetanus, and new coronavirus disease for people with end-stage kidney disease. Vaccine-preventable diseases cause mortality in the adult population with chronic diseases. The primary purpose of this study is to investigate vaccination rates and awareness about vaccination among end-stage renal disease patients who were on renal replacement therapies in a single tertiary center in Turkey. Material and Method: 86 hemodialysis patients were included in this cross-sectional study. A questionnaire was used to investigate whether the patients were aware of the immunization schedule or not and whether they were vaccinated against hepatitis B virus, seasonal influenza virus, pneumonia, herpes zoster, tetanus, and SARS-CoV-2 or not. Results: Fifty-eight (67.4%) patients were vaccinated against SARS CoV2. 48(55.8%) patients were vaccinated against the Hepatitis B virus. 31 (36%) patients were vaccinated against Pneumococcus pneumonia. 48 (55.8%) patients have been vaccinated against the influenza virus annually. Only 14 (16.3%) patients were vaccinated against tetanus during the previous 10 years, and only 1 (1.2%) patient was vaccinated against Herpes zoster. Influenza vaccination rates were found to be higher in patients with a longer duration of hemodialysis when compared to the other group(p=0.03). SARS-CoV 2 vaccination rates were higher in patients who were older than 59 years of age when compared to the younger patients(p=0.03). Conclusion: Vaccination rates are far from the targets in patients with end-stage kidney disease. The most common reason to be unvaccinated is a lack of enough knowledge about the subject.

Ethical review of COVID-19 vaccination requirements for transplant center staff and patients

Transplant centers seeking to increase coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine coverage may consider requiring vaccination for healthcare workers or for candidates. The authors summarize current data to inform an ethical analysis of the harms, benefits, and individual and societal impact of mandatory vaccination, concluding that vaccine requirements for healthcare workers and transplant candidates are ethically justified by beneficence, net utility, and fiduciary duty to patients and public health. Implementation strategies should mitigate concerns about respect for autonomy and transparency for both groups. We clarify how the same arguments might be applied to related questions of caregiver vaccination, allocation of other healthcare resources, and mandates for non-COVID-19 vaccines. Finally, we call for effort to achieve global equity in vaccination as soon as possible.

COVID-19 vaccine development from the perspective of cancer patients

Currently, many companies around the world are actively developing COVID-19 vaccines. Fourteen vaccines with reliable safety and effectiveness are being successfully distributed to the public. However, there is no specific clinical trial data of the vaccines currently on the market on cancer patients at various stages, so the safety and effectiveness on cancer patients is unknown. This mini-review aims to discuss the impact of COVID-19 on cancer patients, and the urgent need of COVID-19 vaccines for cancer patients. In this review, we described the current status of the COVID-19 vaccine usages in cancer patients, as well as discussed potential problems in the use of vaccine. In addition, we included an original survey of the acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccines in 209 cancer patients and their family members. COVID-19 vaccine can provide cancer patients with social and medical benefits; therefore, clinical trials of vaccines on cancer patients are in great need.

Cocooning against COVID-19: The argument for vaccinating caregivers of patients with cancer

Current national COVID‐19 vaccination guidelines and recommendations focus vaccine guidance on patients with cancer. In this COVID‐19 vaccination race, “cocoon vaccination” strategies, which include informal caregivers and household contacts as priority groups for SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccination, could be an additional strategy used to protect patients with cancer who may have limited immune responses to current vaccinations. Medical systems specializing in cancer care should support education and vaccination campaigns which target informal caregivers and household contacts in addition to cancer patients.

Cocoon vaccination for influenza in patients with a solid tumor: a retrospective study

Purpose

Oncological patients are susceptible to various severe viral infections, including influenza. Vaccinating oncological patients and their household contacts (“cocoon vaccination”) may protect these patients from contracting influenza. To understand the potential of cocoon vaccination in oncological patients, this study assesses the influenza vaccination status of oncological patients and their household contacts and their considerations regarding the vaccination.

Methods

In this retrospective study, oncological patients with a solid tumor were asked to fill in a questionnaire about their own and their household contacts’ influenza vaccination status in the influenza season of 2018–2019.

Results

Ninety-eight patients were included (response rate 88%). The influenza vaccination rates of oncological patients and their first household contacts were 43.9% and 44.9%, respectively. The majority of vaccinated patients and vaccinated first household contacts had been advised by their general practitioner to get the vaccination. A minority of the first household contacts reported getting vaccinated specifically because of the patient’s vulnerability. Unvaccinated patients and unvaccinated household contacts mainly believed the vaccination was unnecessary or were afraid of side effects. None of the included patients had been hospitalized with influenza.

Conclusion

The oncological patients’ and first household contacts’ vaccination rates in this study were lower than the vaccination rates of the general Dutch population of over 60 years old, possibly due to a lack of knowledge and misconceptions about the vaccination. Further research is required to establish whether cocoon vaccination can contribute to protecting oncological patients from contracting an influenza infection.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00520-020-05883-2.

Current Knowledge of Vaccinations in Chronic Kidney Disease Patients

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients are at high risk for infectious complications. This is partly due to their dysfunctional immune system, especially in advanced CKD stages. Vaccination represents an important prevention strategy in these patients, as several studies have reported lower infection rates and significantly reduced morbidity and mortality in hospitals adopting vaccination protocols. However, vaccination rates are particularly low in these patients, and the diminished immune responsiveness remains the main issue of vaccination in CKD patients. Besides, there are various immunization protocols across the world in the absence of optimal vaccination policies. This paper aims to discuss the current knowledge of vaccination in this immunocompromised group of patients based on recent evidence and recommendations.

Immunogenicity and safety of high-dose versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine in rheumatoid arthritis patients: a randomised, double-blind, active-comparator trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis have increased risk of seasonal influenza and influenza-related complications but have reduced vaccine immunogenicity. It is unknown whether patients with rheumatoid arthritis would benefit from more immunogenic vaccine formulations. This study investigated the immunogenicity and safety of a high-dose trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (HD-TIV) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis compared to a standard-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine (SD-QIV).

METHODS

This study was a treatment-stratified, randomised, double-blind trial to compare the immunogenicity and safety of SD-QIV (15 μg of haemagglutinin [HA] per strain) versus HD-TIV (60 μg of HA per strain) in adults with rheumatoid arthritis who are positive for rheumatoid factor or anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide, or both, recruited during the 2016-17 and 2017-18 influenza seasons at three hospitals affiliated with McGill University (Montreal, QC, Canada). Participants had received treatment for rheumatoid arthritis with conventional or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) or biological DMARDs, or combinations of them, were still on treatment at the time of enrolment, and their treatment had not been modified during the 3 months before enrolment. They were stratified into one of three groups according to treatment. Patients who, at enrolment, were taking conventional or targeted synthetic DMARDs (methotrexate, hydroxychloroquine, and sulfasalazine) as monotherapy or in combination were stratified to group 1; those who were taking a biological DMARD (anti-tumour necrosis factor or anti-interleukin 6), with or without methotrexate, hydroxychloroquine, or sulfasalazine (or a combination thereof) were stratified to group 2; and those who were taking abatacept, tofacitinib, or rituximab, with or without methotrexate, hydroxychloroquine, or sulfasalazine (or a combination thereof) were stratified to group 3. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive the SD-QIV or HD-TIV vaccine. Randomisation was based on a computer-generated allocation sequence, and participants, investigators, and research nurses responsible for safety assessments were masked to vaccine assignment. The primary outcome was the seroconversion rate (as measured by haemagglutination-inhibition assay) per strain at day 28. Analysis was done in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included all randomly assigned participants for whom seroconversion status was available. Safety was assessed throughout the surveillance period (day 0-186). This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02936180.

FINDINGS

Between Oct 24, 2016, and Dec 6, 2017, 696 patients with rheumatoid arthritis were invited to participate in the study and 279 were randomly assigned and vaccinated (140 [50%] received SD-QIV and 139 [50%] HD-TIV). 136 patients who received SD-QIV and 138 who received HD-TIV were included in the modified intention-to-treat anaysis. Patients who received HD-TIV were more likely to seroconvert than those who received SD-QIV: the odds ratio was 2·99 (95% CI 1·46-6·11) for seroconversion to strain A/H3N2, 1·95 (1·19-3·22) for seroconversion to strain B/Bris, 3·21 (1·57-6·56) for seroconversion to strain A/H1N1 (in 2016-2017), and 2·44 (1·18-5·06) for seroconversion to strain A/H1N1 (in 2017-2018). Similar results were observed in patients from groups 1 and 2; the number of individuals in group 3 was insufficient to draw conclusions. Local and systemic adverse events were similar in both vaccine groups, no serious adverse events were reported between days 0 and 28 in any group, and neither vaccine increased rheumatoid arthritis disease activity.

INTERPRETATION

Our data suggest that in patients with seropositive rheumatoid arthritis, HD-TIV is safe and more immunogenic than SD-QIV. These results are the first evidence to support the use of the HD-TIV in these patients.

FUNDING

The Arthritis Society-Canada.

Barriers to vaccination service delivery within general practice: opportunity to make a sustainable difference in Aboriginal child health?

OBJECTIVE

To identify behavioural barriers of service provision within general practice that may be impacting the vaccination coverage rates of Aboriginal children in Perth, Western Australia (WA).

METHODS

A purposive developed survey was distributed to 316 general practices across Perth and three key informant interviews were conducted using a mixed-methods approach.

RESULTS

Of the surveyed participants (n=101), 67.4% were unaware of the low vaccination coverage in Aboriginal children; 64.8% had not received cultural sensitivity training in their workplace and 46.8% reported having inadequate time to follow up overdue child vaccinations. Opportunistic vaccination was not routinely performed by 30.8% of participants. Key themes identified in the interviews were awareness, inclusion and cultural safety.

CONCLUSION

Inadequate awareness of the current rates, in association with a lack of cultural safety training, follow-up and opportunistic practice, may be preventing greater vaccination uptake in Aboriginal children in Perth. Cultural safety is a critical component of the acceptability and accessibility of services; lack of awareness may restrict the development of strategies designed to equitably address low coverage.

IMPLICATIONS

The findings of this study provide an opportunity to raise awareness among clinicians in general practice and inform future strategies to equitably deliver targeted vaccination services to Aboriginal children.

Vaccination in Chronic Kidney Disease

Infections after cardiovascular disease are the second most common cause of death in the chronic kidney disease population. Vaccination is an important component of maintaining health and wellness in patients with kidney disease. There is a changing epidemiologic landscape for several vaccine-preventable illnesses from childhood to adulthood and unfounded public perception of safety concerns. Several mechanisms have been proposed to cause inadequate vaccine protection in this high-risk group with chronic kidney disease. These have led to recent advances in new designs for vaccination strategies in kidney disease. In this article, we discuss the current evidence and recommendations for vaccination in those with kidney disease and needing renal replacement therapy (dialysis and transplant).

Vaccination practices in dialysis patients: A narrative review

In a period of turmoil concerning vaccination practices, there is a serious conflict between scientifically reasonable, evidence-based guidelines and the far-fetched rumors or misconceptions concerning the vaccination practices in the general population. When a significant portion of the medical and paramedical personnel may be deliberately unvaccinated against common biological agents, achieving effective vaccination rates in the dialysis population may be complicated. Vaccination rates are unacceptably low in dialysis patients and seroconversion rates are even lower; further, serological follow-up is generally poor. The particularly anergic immune system of the advanced chronic kidney disease patients is partly a cause of both high rates of infection and low rates of seroconversions. This narrative review is an effort to summarize current knowledge concerning the vaccination practices in dialysis patients with some specific recommendations based on these facts. Of particular interest is a new vaccine, the Zoster Recombinant, Adjuvanted Vaccine (Shingrix), which we will include in our discussion.

Incomplete vaccination coverage in European children with end-stage kidney disease prior to renal transplantation

BACKGROUND

Because infections constitute a major cause of morbidity and mortality in paediatric renal allograft recipients, avoidance of preventable systemic infections by vaccination before transplantation is of utmost importance. However, data on the completeness of vaccinations and factors associated with incomplete vaccination coverage are scarce.

METHODS

Within the framework of the Cooperative European Paediatric Renal Transplant Initiative (CERTAIN), we therefore performed a multi-centre, multi-national, retrospective study investigating the vaccination coverage before transplantation of 254 European children with end-stage renal disease (mean age 10.0 ± 5.6 years).

RESULTS

Only 22 out of 254 patients (8.7%) presented complete vaccination coverage. In particular, the respective vaccination coverage against human papillomavirus (27.3%), pneumococci (42.0%), and meningococci (47.9%) was low. Patients with complete pneumococcal vaccination coverage had numerically less lower respiratory tract infections during the first 3 years post-transplant than children without vaccination or with an incomplete status (16.4% vs 27.7%, p = 0.081). Vaccine-preventable diseases post-transplant were 4.0 times more frequently in unvaccinated than in vaccinated patients. Factors associated with an incomplete vaccination coverage were non-Caucasian ethnicity (OR 9.21, p = 0.004), chronic dialysis treatment before transplantation (OR 6.18, p = 0.001), and older age at transplantation (OR 1.33, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The vaccination coverage in paediatric kidney transplant candidates is incomplete. Paediatric nephrologists, together with primary-care staff and patients' families, should therefore make every effort to improve vaccination rates before kidney transplantation.