Abstract
Vaccination is crucial for avoiding infection-associated morbidity and mortality among immunocompromised patients. However, immunocompromised patients respond less well to vaccinations compared to healthy people, and little is known about the relative efficacy of various vaccines among different immunocompromised states. A total of 54 systematic reviews (22 COVID-19; 32 non-COVID-19) published within the last 5 years in Pubmed® were reviewed. They demonstrated similar patterns within three seroconversion response categories: good (about >60% when compared to healthy controls), intermediate (~40–60%), and poor (about <40%). Good vaccine responses would be expected for patients with chronic kidney disease, human immunodeficiency virus infection (normal CD4 counts), immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, post-splenectomy states, and solid tumors. Intermediate vaccine responses would be expected for patients with anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 therapy, hematologic cancer, and human immunodeficiency virus infection (low CD4 counts). Poor vaccine responses would be expected for patients with B-cell-depleting agents (e.g., anti-CD20 therapy), hematopoietic stem-cell transplant, solid organ transplant, and liver cirrhosis. For all vaccine response categories, vaccination should be timed when patients are least immunosuppressed. For the intermediate and poor vaccine response categories, high-dose vaccine, revaccination when patients are less immunosuppressed, checking for seroconversion, additional booster doses, and long-acting monoclonal antibodies may be considered, supplemented by shielding measures.
Keywords: COVID-19, critical illness, immunocompromised host, influenza, human, sepsis, seroconversion
1. Introduction
Immunocompromised patients have weakened immune systems due to chronic illness (e.g., chronic kidney failure) or therapies that depress immunity (e.g., chemotherapy for cancer, immunomodulation for immune-mediated diseases, and anti-rejection drugs for organ transplantation). Consequently, immunocompromised patients suffer increased susceptibility to sepsis. Sepsis, which is the combination of severe infection with a dysregulated response to infection and organ dysfunction [1], is in turn associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and cost of care.
To improve the overall prognosis for immunocompromised patients, both downstream improvements of sepsis care and upstream prevention of infection are crucial. For the latter, vaccination against common pathogens is a key strategy which is recommended by major guidelines [2]. Common vaccine-preventable pathogens include those transmitted via the respiratory route (e.g., SARS-CoV-2, influenza, pneumococcus, and varicella-zoster virus) and those transmitted via other routes (e.g., viral hepatitis A and B, and yellow fever virus). Given the risk of proliferation of attenuated vaccine strains in immunocompromised patients [3], live virus vaccines are contraindicated in patients with active immunosuppression and are only allowed after careful balancing of benefit versus risk [4]. Concerns about vaccine-related relapse of inflammatory rheumatic diseases and post-vaccination allograft rejection exist; however, in general, these appear uncommon [5,6,7,8], and vaccinations should not be withheld on the basis of these concerns [2].
However, just as immunocompromised patients have deficient immunity to defend against infection, such patients may also have deficient immune responses to vaccination, rendering the latter less effective than expected from studies among healthy controls. Substantial reductions in vaccine efficacy (measured within controlled study environments) or effectiveness (measured in real-world studies) using standard vaccination regimes would necessitate enhanced vaccination strategies or the addition of non-vaccine-based preventive methods (e.g., shielding measures).
Systematic reviews on vaccination for the prevention of infection in immunocompromised patients are ideal for aggregating the published literature on individual vaccines and individual immunocompromising conditions. Given that immunocompromised patients are a heterogeneous group with varying levels of immunosuppression, subgroups of immunocompromising conditions with varying vaccine responses may be identified. Knowledge of these patient subgroups may help stratify preventive measures, with more intensive measures being provided for patients with the poorest vaccine response. A review of systematic reviews was, therefore, conducted to elucidate broad immunocompromised patient subgroups. In doing so, this paper can serve as a source of information for readers interested in an overview of studies, as well as stimulate further research into host-dependent classification of vaccine effectiveness.
2. Materials and Methods
Using a validated systematic review filter [9], a comprehensive search of Pubmed® (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) was performed (Table 1). To study contemporary and clinically relevant vaccines, the search was limited to papers published within 5 years of 13 April 2022. Studies were excluded if vaccination against infection was not studied, study outcome was not about vaccine efficacy/effectiveness, patients were not immunocompromised, or primary studies were not reviewed.
Table 1.
Study selection and reasons for exclusion.
| Study Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria | Number of Studies |
|---|---|
| Pubmed search performed on 13 April 2022, for articles published within the last 5 years. Search terms: (“vaccine” [MeSH] OR “vaccination” [MeSH] OR vaccine [All Fields] OR vaccination [All Fields] OR vaccine* [All Fields]) AND (“cancer” [MeSH] OR “cancer” OR “malignancy” OR “malign*” OR “immunocompromise” [All Fields] OR “immunocompromised” [All Fields] OR “immunodeficiency” [All Fields] OR “immunodeficient” [All Fields] OR “immunodef*” [All Fields] OR “immunocompr*” [All Fields] OR “chemotherapy” [All Fields] OR “chemo*” [All Fields] OR “immunosuppressed” [All Fields] OR “immunosuppression” [All Fields] OR “immunosupp*” [All Fields] OR “rheumatology” [All Fields] OR “rheumatic” [All Fields] OR “rheum*” [All Fields] OR “autoimmune” [All Fields] OR “autoimmunity” [All Fields] OR “transplant” [All Fields] OR “solid organ” [All Fields] OR steroids [MeSH] OR antineoplastic agents [MeSH] OR chemotherapy [MeSH] OR cytotoxicity [MeSH] OR immunologic [MeSH] OR antirheumatic agents [MeSH] OR immunosuppressive agents [MeSH] or steroid* or corticosteroid* or (antineoplastic* AND agent*) OR chemotherap* or cytotoxic*) AND ((“Meta-Analysis as Topic” [MeSH] OR meta analy* [TIAB] OR metaanaly* [TIAB] OR “Meta-Analysis” [PT] OR “Systematic Review” [PT] OR “Systematic Reviews as Topic” [MeSH] OR systematic review* [TIAB] OR systematic overview* [TIAB] OR “Review Literature as Topic” [MeSH]) OR (cochrane [TIAB] OR embase [TIAB] OR psychlit [TIAB] OR psyclit [TIAB] OR psychinfo [TIAB] OR psycinfo [TIAB] OR cinahl [TIAB] OR cinhal [TIAB] OR “science citation index” [TIAB] OR bids [TIAB] OR cancerlit [TIAB]) OR (reference list* [TIAB] OR bibliograph* [TIAB] OR hand-search* [TIAB] OR “relevant journals” [TIAB] OR manual search* [TIAB]) OR ((“selection criteria” [TIAB] OR “data extraction” [TIAB]) AND “Review” [PT])) NOT (“Comment” [PT] OR “Letter” [PT] OR “Editorial” [PT] OR (“Animals” [MeSH] NOT (“Animals” [MeSH] AND “Humans” [MeSH]))) | 979 |
| Exclusion 1: Vaccination against infection not studied | 590 |
| Exclusion 2: Study outcome was not about vaccine efficacy/effectiveness | 170 |
| Exclusion 3: Patients were not immunocompromised | 120 |
| Exclusion 4: Primary studies were not systematically reviewed | 45 |
| Included in final review | 54 |
Screening of titles and abstracts was conducted, and the following data fields were extracted from the full-text documents: vaccine type, number of adult and pediatric patients, number of studies, the reason for being immunocompromised, description of vaccine efficacy, and interventions to improve vaccine efficacy. A qualitative review of included studies was then performed to uncover a general understanding of the associations of various immunocompromising conditions with immune responses to vaccines, as well as construct vaccine seroconversion response categories. In addition, interventions to improve vaccine efficacy were reviewed to inform potential solutions for various vaccine seroconversion response categories.
3. Results
Out of 979 studies extracted from Pubmed®, 54 systematic reviews (22 COVID-19; 32 non-COVID-19) were included (Table 1).
3.1. Systematic Reviews of COVID-19 Vaccines
A total of 22 systematic reviews focused on COVID-19 vaccines (Table 2). Most the COVID-19 vaccines were mRNA-based, while the remainder were viral vector-based and inactivated virus vaccines. Immunocompromised states studied included use of B-cell-depleting anti-CD20 therapy, chronic kidney failure, immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, malignancy, and solid organ transplant recipients.
Table 2.
Efficacy of COVID-19 vaccination among immunocompromised patients.
| Vaccine Type | Author (Year) [Ref] | Number of IC Patients (Studies) | Reason for being IC | Description of Vaccine Efficacy | Interventions to Improve Vaccine Efficacy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| COVID-19 (mRNA) | Akyol (2021) [10] |
1955 adults (18) | Dialysis and kidney transplant recipients | Pooled seroconversion rate of 27.2% for kidney transplantation, 88.5% for dialysis patients, and 100% for healthy controls after two doses of vaccine | Second vaccine dose |
| COVID-19 (various) | Becerril-Gaitan (2022) [21] |
8332 adults (35) | Malignancy | Pooled seroconversion rate in cancer patients of 51% after first dose vaccine and 73% after second dose vaccine. Seroconversion lower in patients with hematologic cancer versus solid tumors (65% vs. 94%) | Second vaccine dose |
| COVID-19 (various) |
Bhurwal (2022) [13] | 2484 adults (21) | Inflammatory bowel disease | Pooled seroconversion rate of 73.7% and 96.8% after one and two doses of vaccine respectively | Second vaccine dose |
| COVID-19 (mostly mRNA) | Cavanna (2021) [22] | 621 adults (6) | Malignancy | No reduced rate of seroconversion for patients with solid tumors compared with the control, but 38% reduced seroconversion for patients with hematologic cancer | Second vaccine dose |
| COVID-19 (various) | Corti (2022) [23] | 9260 adults (36) | Malignancy | Pooled seroconversion rate of 11–87.5% and 7.3–100% after one and two doses of vaccine, respectively. Exceptionally poor seroconversion for patients with hematologic cancer receiving B-cell-depleting agents within last 12 months | Second vaccine dose |
| COVID-19 (mRNA) | Efros (2022) [19] |
853 adults (7) | Solid organ transplant recipients | Pooled seroconversion rate of 50.3% after the third vaccine | Third vaccine dose |
| COVID-19 (various) | Gagelmann (2021) [24] |
11,086 adults (49) | Hematologic malignancies | Pooled seroconversion rate of 64% after 2 doses of mRNA or 1 dose of vector-based vaccines, versus 96% for solid cancer and 98% for healthy controls | Not studied |
| COVID-19 (various) | Galmiche (2022) [25] |
25,209 adults (162) | Malignancy, dialysis, transplant recipients, immune-mediated disease | No seroconversion among 18–100% of solid organ transplant recipients, 14–61% of patients with hematological malignancy, 2–36% of patients with cancer, and 2–30% of patients on dialysis | Not studied |
| COVID-19 (mRNA, viral vector) | Guven (2021) [27] |
1448 adults (17) | Malignancy | Cancer patients had significantly lower seroconversion rates than controls after first vaccine dose (37.3 vs. 74.1%) and after two doses (78.3 vs. 99.6%). The difference in seroconversion rates was more pronounced patients with hematologic cancer versus solid tumors | Second vaccine dose |
| COVID-19 (mRNA, viral vector) |
Guven (2022) [26] |
3187 adults (26) | Hematologic malignancies | Pooled seroconversion rate of 33.3% and 65.3% after one and two doses of vaccine, respectively; <70% seroconversion if on anti-CD20 or anti-CTLA-4 therapy | Second vaccine dose |
| COVID-19 (mRNA) | Jena (2022) [15] | 2286 adults (25) | Immune mediated inflammatory diseases | Pooled seroconversion rate 69.3% and 83.1%, after 1 and 2 doses of mRNA vaccination, respectively | Second dose vaccine |
| COVID-19 (various) | Jena (2022) [14] | 9447 adults (46) | Inflammatory bowel disease | Pooled seroconversion rate of 96% for complete vaccination. Decay of titers higher with anti-TNF immunomodulation | Not studied |
| COVID-19 (94% mRNA) | Lee (2022) [29] |
9974 adults (82) | Malignancy, immune-mediated inflammatory disorders, organ transplant recipients, HIV patients | Seroconversion 6–44% after 1 vaccine dose, 35–89% after 2 vaccine doses | Second vaccine dose |
| COVID-19 (99% mRNA) |
Ma (2022) [11] | 4264 adults (27) | Chronic kidney failure requiring kidney replacement therapy | After 2 vaccine doses, 44% decreased seropositivity compared to general population. Kidney transplant recipients had significantly lower seroconversion than patients on hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis (26.1 vs. 84.3% and 92.4%, respectively) | Not studied |
| COVID-19 (mRNA) | Manothum-metha (2022) [20] | 11,713 adults (29) | Solid organ transplant recipients | Mean seroconversion rate was 10.4% after 1 dose, 44.9% after 2 doses, and 63.1% after 3 doses. Lower response given older age, deceased donor status, and use of immunosuppression (antimetabolite, rituximab, and antithymocyte globulin) | Multiple (up to 4) vaccine doses |
| COVID-19 (various) |
Marra (2022) [30] |
45,040 adults (24) | Solid organ transplant recipients, malignancy, inflammatory rheumatic diseases | Mean seroconversion rate of 25.2% in solid organ transplant recipients, 68% in patients with malignancy, and 86% in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases. Overall vaccine effectiveness of 70.4% against symptomatic infection | Not studied |
| COVID-19 (various) |
Mehrabi (2022) [31] |
3207 adults (26) | Autoimmune conditions, malignancy, transplant recipients | A 48% lower rate of seroconversion after 2 doses, worse with transplant recipients | Not studied |
| COVID-19 (mostly mRNA) |
Sakuraba (2022) [17] |
1453 adults (16) | Malignancy | Pooled seroconversion rate of 54.2% and 87.7% after one and two doses of vaccine, respectively; lower rates with hematologic compared to solid organ malignancy | Second vaccine dose |
| COVID-19 (mostly mRNA) |
Sakuraba (2022) [16] | 5360 adults (25) | Immune-mediated inflammatory diseases | Pooled seroconversion rate of 73.2% and 83.4% after one and two doses of vaccine, respectively; lower rates with patients on anti-CD20 therapy | Second vaccine dose |
| COVID-19 (various) |
Schietzel (2022) [18] |
1342 adults (23) | Anti-CD20 therapy | Pooled seroconversion rate of 40% for complete vaccination; lower rates with kidney transplant recipients | Not studied |
| COVID-19 (various) |
Swai (2022) [12] | 2789 adults (27) | Chronic kidney failure | Hemodialysis patients’ proportions of humoral (antibody) and cellular (T-helper cell) immune responses varied from 87.3% to 88.8% and from 62.9% to 85.8%, respectively, comparable to healthy control responses. Kidney transplant patients’ humoral and cellular immune responses ranged from 2.6% to 29.9% and from 5.1% to 59.8%, respectively, significantly lower than healthy control responses | Not studied |
| COVID-19 (various) |
Teh (2022) [28] |
7064 adults (44) | Hematologic malignancies | Overall seroconversion rate 37–51% after 1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine and 62–66% after 2 doses | Second vaccine dose |
CTLA-4: cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4; HIV: human immunodeficiency virus; IC: immunocompromised; mRNA: messenger ribonucleic acid; Ref: reference; TNF: tumor necrosis factor. Various vaccine types included mRNA, viral vector-based, and inactivated virus vaccines.
The COVID-19 vaccine systematic reviews predominantly used seroconversion as a marker for vaccine efficacy. In general, the studies showed that patients with chronic kidney failure on dialysis (not requiring organ transplantation) [10,11,12], immune-mediated inflammatory diseases [13,14,15,16], and solid tumors [17] had seroconversion rates that were high and similar to healthy controls (seroconversion rates among patients ranged from about 83% to 97%). In contrast, patients with receipt of anti-CD20 therapy [18] and solid organ transplants [11,19,20] (thus requiring anti-rejection immunosuppression) had markedly low vaccine seroconversion rates (rates ranged from about 26% to 45% after two vaccine doses). Patients with hematologic cancers had intermediate seroconversion rates (rates ranged from about 54% to 65%) [21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28]. An intervention that improved vaccine efficacy was the use of additional booster vaccine doses [20].
3.2. Systematic Reviews of Non-COVID-19 Vaccines
A total of 32 systematic reviews focused on non-COVID-19 vaccines (Table 3). Several vaccines were studied, including inactivated hepatitis A vaccine [32], recombinant hepatitis B vaccine [33,34,35,36,37,38], recombinant human papillomavirus vaccines [39,40], inactivated influenza vaccine [41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51], live-attenuated measles vaccine (given post hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation [52] and in children living with human immunodeficiency virus [53]), pneumococcal conjugate and polysaccharide vaccines [46,49,54,55,56], live-attenuated and recombinant subunit zoster vaccines [57,58], live-attenuated yellow fever vaccine [59], and others [60,61,62,63]. Immunocompromised states studied included use of B-cell-depleting anti-CD20 therapy, chronic kidney failure, human immunodeficiency virus infection, immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, liver cirrhosis, malignancy, post-splenectomy status, and solid organ transplant recipients.
Table 3.
Efficacy of non-COVID-19 vaccination among immunocompromised patients.
| Vaccine Type | Author (Year) [Ref] | Number of IC Patients (Studies) | Reason for Being IC | Description of Vaccine Efficacy | Interventions to Improve Vaccine Efficacy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HAV | Garcia (2019) [32] | 1332 adults (17) | Organ transplant recipients, or chronic inflammatory conditions | In organ transplant recipients, seroconversion was 0–67% after 1 dose and 0–97% after 2 doses. In patients with chronic inflammatory conditions, seroconversion was 6–100% after 1 dose and 48–100% after 2 doses | Second vaccine dose |
| HBV | Jiang (2017) [33] | 1688 adults (13) | Inflammatory bowel disease | Pooled seroconversion response rate 61%, better for younger patients, when vaccinated during disease remission or when not on immunosuppression | Vaccination ideally done before starting immune-suppression or during disease remission |
| HBV | Kochhar (2021) [34] | 2375 adults (14) | Inflammatory bowel disease | Pooled proportion of adequate immune response 64%, with 87% reduced odds of response vs. healthy controls | Not studied |
| HBV | Lee (2020) [35] | 914 adults, 56 children (9) | HIV | 99% increased odds of vaccine seroconversion response among patients who received a double (40 mcg) vs. standard (20 mcg) dose | Double better than single dose |
| HBV | Rodrigues (2019) [36] | Not stated (24) | Liver disease requiring transplant | Seroconversion 20–54% for cirrhotic patients vs. 74–97% for healthy controls. No seroconversion superiority between the accelerated (3 months) vs. conventional (6 months) immunization schedules | Accelerated immunization schedules |
| HBV | Tian (2021) [37] | 1821 adults (17) | HIV | Pooled seroconversion rate of 71.5%, worse with lower CD4 counts | Double better than single dose. Four-dose schedule better than three-dose schedule |
| HBV | Singh (2022) [38] |
2602 adults (21) | Inflammatory bowel disease | 62% adequate immune response (>10 IU/L) and 42% effective immune response (>100 IU/L), worsened with immunosuppression | Not studied |
| HPV | Mavundza (2020) [39] | 916 adults, 126 children (5) | HIV | 96–100% seroconversion rate for both bivalent and quadrivalent vaccines | Not studied |
| HPV | Zizza (2021) [40] | 950 adults/children (4) | HIV | ~100% seroconversion rate for all 3 vaccines studied | Not studied |
| Influenza | Bitterman (2018) [41] | 2275 adults (6) | Cancer | Generally decreased mortality, influenza-like illness and pneumonia | Adjuvanted vaccine (inconclusive) |
| Influenza | Chong (2018) [42] | 943 adults/children (7) | Organ transplant recipients | Seroconversion (7–63.9%) rates for influenza antigens were low and not improved by intradermal or adjuvanted influenza vaccines. Some benefit from high dose (60 mcg) vaccine and booster doses, compared to standard single dose (15 mcg) |
Alternative vaccine strategies (intradermal; adjuvanted; high-dose; booster doses) |
| Influenza | Huang (2017) [43] | 886 adults (13) | Rheumatoid arthritis | Similar seroconversion compared to healthy controls, and 44–49% lower for patients receiving non-steroid immunosuppression | Adjuvanted vaccine more immunogenic than non-adjuvanted |
| Influenza (trivalent) | Lai (2019) [44] | 888 adults, 132 children (8) | Transplant or chemo-therapy recipients | High-dose vaccine (60 mcg) increased seroconversion over standard dose (15 mcg) by 13% for A/H1N1 strains, and was well-tolerated | High vs. standard dose |
| Influenza (trivalent) | Leibovici (2021) [45] | 41,313 adults (3) | Older adults ≥65 years and IC | 24% decreased risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza for high-dose (60 mcg) vs. low-dose (15 mcg) vaccine | High dose (4×) trivalent vaccine |
| Influenza | Muller (2022) [46] |
644 adults (7) | Inflammatory bowel disease | No differences in antibody responses were observed compared to non-immunosuppressed patients | Not studied |
| Influenza | Nguyen (2021) [47] | 332 adults (9) | Multiple sclerosis on treatment | No difference in antibody response in multiple sclerosis patients vs. healthy controls | Not studied |
| Influenza | Spagnolo (2021) [48] | 986 adults (8) | Immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for cancer | Seroconversion rate 52–65% from one study. No differences in terms of antibody titers compared with healthy age-matched controls from another study | Not studied |
| Influenza | Subesinghe (2018) [49] | 350 adults (7) | Rheumatoid arthritis | Influenza vaccine humoral responses preserved with methotrexate and tumor necrosis factor inhibitor exposure. Combined methotrexate and tocilizumab/tofacitinib associated with reduced pneumococcal and influenza vaccine humoral responses | Not studied |
| Influenza | Vijenthira (2021) [50] | 222 adults (13) | Anti-CD20 therapy | Pooled seroconversion 3% after 1 pandemic influenza vaccine dose, 95% less than healthy controls | Not studied |
| Influenza | Zhang (2018) [51] | 2015 adults (13) | HIV | Adjuvanted 7.5 mcg booster and 60 mcg single vaccine strategies provided 2–3 times better seroconversion and seroprotection outcomes, than single 15 mcg vaccine | High dose (4×) vaccine; adjuvanted vaccine |
| Measles (live attenuated) | Groeneweg (2021) [52] | 319 children (10) | Transplant recipients | Seroconversion rates 41–100% after 1 dose and 73–100% after 2 doses in solid organ transplant recipients; 33–100% after 1 dose and 100% after 2 doses in hematopoietic stem-cell transplant recipients | Not studied |
| Measles | Mehtani (2019) [53] | 335 children (12) | HIV | 30–56% decreased seroconversion in HIV-infected children vs. uninfected controls | Not studied |
| Pneumococcal | Adawi (2019) [54] | 571 adults, 30 children (18) | SLE | Protective antibody titers 36–97.6%, lower with high erythrocyte sedimentation rate, older age, earlier SLE onset, high disease activity, and immunosuppressive therapy | Not studied |
| Pneumococcal | Lenzing (2022) [55] |
2430 adults (21) | Post-splenectomy | No differences in antibody responses were observed compared to healthy controls | Optimal vaccination timing but results were uncertain |
| Pneumococcal | Muller (2022) [46] |
785 adults (5) | Inflammatory bowel disease | No decreased seropositivity with non-anti-TNF therapy and 72% decreased seropositivity with anti-TNF therapy, compared to non-immunosuppressed patients | Not studied |
| Pneumococcal | Subesinghe (2018) [49] | 141 adults (2) | Rheumatoid arthritis | Methotrexate associated with reduced pneumococcal vaccine humoral response. Combined methotrexate and tocilizumab/tofacitinib associated with reduced pneumococcal and influenza vaccine humoral responses | Not studied |
| Pneumococcal | van Aalst (2018) [56] | 1623 adults (22) | Autoimmune disease receiving immuno-suppression | After PCV vaccination, 26% seroconversion among patients vs. 47% among controls. After PPSV, seroconversion 37% among patients vs. 50% among controls | Not studied |
| VZV (ZVL or VZVsub) | Hamad (2021) [57] | 404,561 adults (8) | Chronic kidney failure including transplant patients | 45% lower risk of VZV in vaccinated patients vs. controls, but no effect for the subgroup of transplant patients | Not studied |
| VZV (VZVsub) | Racine (2020) [58] | 1389 adults (6) | Various patient groups e | Humoral immune response 50–93%; 52% for patients with hematological malignancy. Vaccine efficacy against infection was 67–72% in hematopoietic stem-cell transplant patients | Not studied |
| Yellow fever (live attenuated) | Martin (2021) [59] | 561 adults, 18 children (10) | HIV | 97.6% seroconversion | Not studied |
| Various a | Adeto-kunboh (2019) [60] | 66,220 children (14) | HIV | Pneumococcal vaccine efficacy (to prevent disease) 32% for HIV-infected vs. 78% for HIV-uninfected. BCG protection 0% for HIV-infected vs. 59% for HIV-uninfected. Hib protection 44% for HIV-infected vs. 97% for HIV-uninfected. Rotavirus vaccines similar protection for HIV-infected and HIV-uninfected | Not studied |
| Various b | Dembinski (2020) [61] | 1130 patients, 10–24 years (20) | Inflammatory bowel disease | Immunogenicity of vaccinations not altered by IBD status or use of immunosuppression | Not studied |
| Various c | Keller (2022) [62] |
2571 children (37) | Juvenile autoimmune rheumatic diseases on immune-suppressive treatment | 9 studies showed seroconversion rates lower in children with juvenile autoimmune rheumatic diseases on immune-suppressive treatment compared with control children, but many other studies were underpowered to demonstrate differences | Not studied |
| Various d,e | Tse (2020) [63] | 2468 children (37) | Children with autoimmune diseases on immune modulatory drug therapy | Patients on biologics mounted adequate seroprotective responses, but antibody titers tended to be lower. Patients on steroids had decreased seroconversion (60% for influenza vaccine). Patients on cyclophosphamide had decreased seroconversion (50% for HPV vaccine) | Not studied |
a Included 9-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, BCG, Hib; b included diphtheria, HAV, HBV, HPV, influenza, pertussis, pneumococcus, and VZV vaccines; c included diphtheria, HAV, HBV, HPV, influenza, measles, mumps, meningococcal C, pneumococcus, rubella, tetanus, and VZV vaccines; d included HAV, HBV, HPV, influenza, measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, and VZV vaccines; e included patients with autologous stem-cell transplant, hematological cancer, HIV infection, renal transplant, and solid tumor under chemotherapy. BCG: Bacillus Calmette–Guérin; HAV: hepatitis A virus; HBV: hepatitis B virus; Hib: Haemophilus influenzae type b; HIV: human immunodeficiency virus; HPV: human papillomavirus; IC: immunocompromised; PCV: pneumococcal conjugate vaccine; PPSV: pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine; Ref: reference; SLE: systemic lupus erythematosus; TNF: tumor necrosis factor; VZV: varicella-zoster virus; ZVL, live-attenuated zoster vaccine; VZVsub, recombinant subunit zoster vaccine.
The non-COVID-19 vaccine systematic reviews predominantly used seroconversion as a marker for vaccine efficacy. In general, the studies showed that patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases [33,34,38,43,46,47,49,61], human immunodeficiency virus infection [35,37,39,40], post-splenectomy status [55], and solid tumors [48] had seroconversion rates that were high and similar to healthy controls (seroconversion rates among patients ranged from about 61% to 100%). In contrast, patients with receipt of anti-CD20 therapy [50], solid organ transplants [32,42], and liver cirrhosis [36] had markedly low vaccine seroconversion rates (rates ranged from about 3% to 49%). Patients with hematologic cancers [58] had intermediate seroconversion rates (about 52%). Systematic reviews involving children [35,39,40,42,44,52,53,54,59,60,61,62,63] demonstrated findings consistent with those involving adults. An intervention that improved vaccine efficacy was the use of high-dose vaccines [35,37,42,44,45,51].
4. Discussion
4.1. Overview of Results
According to the humoral responses to vaccines of various immunocompromising conditions, the systematic reviews for COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 vaccines demonstrated similar patterns. Given the absence of any validated guidelines or recommendations for classification of vaccine seroconversion, three seroconversion response categories were arbitrarily constructed from the data: good (about >60% when compared to healthy controls), intermediate (~40–60%), and poor (about <40%) (Table 4). Good vaccine responses would be expected for patients with chronic kidney disease, human immunodeficiency virus infection with normal CD4 counts, immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, post-splenectomy states, and solid tumors. Intermediate vaccine responses would be expected for patients with anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 therapy, hematologic cancer, and human immunodeficiency virus infection with low CD4 counts. Poor vaccine responses would be expected for patients with B-cell-depleting agents (e.g., anti-CD20 therapy), hematopoietic stem-cell transplant, solid organ transplant, and liver cirrhosis.
Table 4.
Vaccine seroconversion response categories.
| Category | General Seroconversion Rates | IC Types | Suggested Management |
|---|---|---|---|
| Good response | About >60% compared to healthy controls |
|
|
| Intermediate response | About 40–60% compared to healthy controls |
|
|
| Poor response | About <40% compared to healthy controls |
|
|
a Examples include face mask use, hand hygiene, and physical distancing for respiratory pathogens; b examples include tixagevimab–cilgavimab for COVID-19. CTLA-4: cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4; HIV: human immunodeficiency virus; IC: immunocompromised; RA: rheumatoid arthritis; SLE: systemic lupus erythematosus.
For all vaccine response categories, vaccination should be timed when patients are least immunosuppressed (e.g., before initiating immunosuppressive treatment) and when immunosuppressive disease states are optimally treated [64]. For the intermediate and poor vaccine response categories, methods to improve vaccine response include the use of high-dose vaccine and revaccination when patients are less immunosuppressed. These vaccine-based methods should also be supplemented by non-vaccine methods such as shielding measures (e.g., face mask use, hand hygiene, and physical distancing for respiratory pathogens). For the poor vaccine response category, given possible vaccine nonresponse, seroconversion may be checked. If nonresponse is demonstrated, additional booster doses may be considered [11,20,65]. Alternatively, long-acting monoclonal antibodies for pre-exposure prophylaxis may be considered in patients at high risk of acquiring serious infection [66].
4.2. Limitations of the Current Study
Firstly, this review only analyzed systematic reviews included in Pubmed®, which would not encompass systematic reviews included in other databases such as Embase©. Nonetheless, the individual systematic reviews would have included papers from both Pubmed®-listed and non-Pubmed®-listed journals, and missing important data are, hence, unlikely. Secondly, this review was limited to the last 5 years of publication, which would exclude older systematic reviews covering other vaccines. However, this would avoid the inclusion of noncontemporary vaccines, which might affect the overall pattern of vaccine efficacy among immunocompromised patients. Thirdly, this review did not include a quality assessment of individual systematic reviews, as it was the intention to be as inclusive as possible. Nevertheless, the studies all showed fairly consistent results, and stratification by study quality would not have affected the overall interpretation of the current findings. Fourthly, given the heterogeneity of studies, statistical pooling of the results could not be performed, although the current results may serve as a source of information for readers interested in an overview of studies. Lastly, systematic reviews were not available for studying the interaction of immune-mediated diseases and many immunosuppressive medications or for studying combinations of immunocompromised states. Logically, the vaccine response is expected to worsen with greater doses or number of immunosuppressive medications and with coexisting immunocompromised states.
4.3. Limitations of the Included Systematic Reviews
Although a substantial number of non-COVID-19 vaccine systematic reviews contained data from children [35,39,40,42,44,52,53,54,59,60,61,62,63] (13 out of 32), none of the COVID-19 vaccine systematic reviews included pediatric studies. Furthermore, none of the systematic reviews had long-term vaccine efficacy or effectiveness results, and none were performed for oral vaccines (e.g., oral rotavirus, oral cholera, oral polio, and oral typhoid). These important knowledge gaps could potentially be filled once more primary studies are available.
4.4. Future Directions
Vaccine development is often a long process involving multiple rounds of preclinical studies and clinical trials. Even for clinically successful vaccines, eventual vaccine efficacy would be dependent on both pathogen and host [67,68]. From this study, according to the systematic reviews focusing on vaccines targeting a variety of pathogens, the type of immunosuppression in the host appears to play an important role. This review provides a broad overview of various vaccine studies, leading to the construction of three seroconversion response categories. Further studies, which include prediction of vaccination efficacy using baseline measures of circulating B cells [69], could be performed to refine these categories and to highlight exceptions within these categories. These categories should also be validated against long-term serological protection and clinical effectiveness data. In addition, interventions to improve vaccine efficacy are limited and more studies are required to investigate novel methods such as heterologous prime-boost techniques [70] and long-acting preventive antibody therapy [66].
5. Conclusions
In conclusion, this review of 54 systematic reviews demonstrated three vaccine seroconversion response categories among immunocompromised patients: good (about >60% when compared to healthy controls), intermediate (~40–60%), and poor (about <40%). For all vaccine response categories, vaccination should be timed when patients are least immunosuppressed. For the intermediate and poor vaccine response categories, high-dose vaccine, revaccination when patients are less immunosuppressed, checking for seroconversion, additional booster doses, and long-acting monoclonal antibodies may be considered, supplemented by shielding measures.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
Data supporting this review are available in the reference section.
Conflicts of Interest
The author declares no conflict of interest.
Funding Statement
This research received no external funding.
Footnotes
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.Singer M., Deutschman C.S., Seymour C.W., Shankar-Hari M., Annane D., Bauer M., Bellomo R., Bernard G.R., Chiche J.D., Coopersmith C.M., et al. The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (sepsis-3) JAMA. 2016;315:801–810. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.0287. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Rubin L.G., Levin M.J., Ljungman P., Davies E.G., Avery R., Tomblyn M., Bousvaros A., Dhanireddy S., Sung L., Keyserling H., et al. 2013 idsa clinical practice guideline for vaccination of the immunocompromised host. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2014;58:309–318. doi: 10.1093/cid/cit816. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Schrauder A., Henke-Gendo C., Seidemann K., Sasse M., Cario G., Moericke A., Schrappe M., Heim A., Wessel A. Varicella vaccination in a child with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. Lancet. 2007;369:1232. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60567-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Huber F., Ehrensperger B., Hatz C., Chappuis F., Buhler S., Eperon G. Safety of live vaccines on immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory therapy-a retrospective study in three swiss travel clinics. J. Travel Med. 2018;25:tax082. doi: 10.1093/jtm/tax082. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Del Bello A., Marion O., Delas A., Congy-Jolivet N., Colombat M., Kamar N. Acute rejection after anti-SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination in a patient who underwent a kidney transplant. Kidney Int. 2021;100:238–239. doi: 10.1016/j.kint.2021.04.025. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Dos Santos G., Haguinet F., Cohet C., Webb D., Logie J., Ferreira G.L., Rosillon D., Shinde V. Risk of solid organ transplant rejection following vaccination with seasonal trivalent inactivated influenza vaccines in england: A self-controlled case-series. Vaccine. 2016;34:3598–3606. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.05.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Stevens E., Weinblatt M.E., Massarotti E., Griffin F., Emani S., Desai S. Safety of the zoster vaccine recombinant adjuvanted in rheumatoid arthritis and other systemic rheumatic disease patients: A single center’s experience with 400 patients. ACR Open Rheumatol. 2020;2:357–361. doi: 10.1002/acr2.11150. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Nakafero G., Grainge M.J., Myles P.R., Mallen C.D., Zhang W., Doherty M., Nguyen-Van-Tam J.S., Abhishek A. Association between inactivated influenza vaccine and primary care consultations for autoimmune rheumatic disease flares: A self-controlled case series study using data from the clinical practice research datalink. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 2019;78:1122–1126. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-215086. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Avau B., Van Remoortel H., De Buck E. Translation and validation of pubmed and embase search filters for identification of systematic reviews, intervention studies, and observational studies in the field of first aid. J. Med. Libr. Assoc. 2021;109:599–608. doi: 10.5195/jmla.2021.1219. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Akyol M., Cevik E., Ucku D., Tanriover C., Afsar B., Kanbay A., Covic A., Ortiz A., Basile C., Kanbay M. Immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 mrna vaccine in dialysis and kidney transplant patients: A systematic review. Tuberk. Toraks. 2021;69:547–560. doi: 10.5578/tt.20219612. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Ma B.M., Tam A.R., Chan K.W., Ma M.K.M., Hung I.F.N., Yap D.Y.H., Chan T.M. Immunogenicity and safety of COVID-19 vaccines in patients receiving renal replacement therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front. Med. 2022;9:827859. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2022.827859. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Swai J., Gui M., Long M., Wei Z., Hu Z., Liu S. Humoral and cellular immune response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 vaccination in haemodialysis and kidney transplant patients. Nephrology. 2022;27:7–24. doi: 10.1111/nep.13974. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Bhurwal A., Mutneja H., Bansal V., Goel A., Arora S., Attar B., Minacapelli C.D., Kochhar G., Chen L.A., Brant S., et al. Effectiveness and safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in inflammatory bowel disease patients: A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2022;55:1244–1264. doi: 10.1111/apt.16913. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Jena A., James D., Singh A.K., Dutta U., Sebastian S., Sharma V. Effectiveness and durability of COVID-19 vaccination in 9447 patients with ibd: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2022 doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2022.02.030. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Jena A., Mishra S., Deepak P., Kumar M.P., Sharma A., Patel Y.I., Kennedy N.A., Kim A.H.J., Sharma V., Sebastian S. Response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in immune mediated inflammatory diseases: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Autoimmun. Rev. 2022;21:102927. doi: 10.1016/j.autrev.2021.102927. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Sakuraba A., Luna A., Micic D. Serologic response to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterology. 2022;162:88–108.e109. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.09.055. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Sakuraba A., Luna A., Micic D. Serologic response following SARS-CoV2 vaccination in patients with cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Hematol. Oncol. 2022;15:15. doi: 10.1186/s13045-022-01233-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Schietzel S., Anderegg M., Limacher A., Born A., Horn M.P., Maurer B., Hirzel C., Sidler D., Moor M.B. Humoral and cellular immune responses on SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with anti-cd20 therapies: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 1342 patients. RMD Open. 2022;8:e002036. doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2021-002036. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Efros O., Anteby R., Halfon M., Meisel E., Klang E., Soffer S. Efficacy and safety of third dose of the COVID-19 vaccine among solid organ transplant recipients: A systemic review and meta-analysis. Vaccines. 2022;10:95. doi: 10.3390/vaccines10010095. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Manothummetha K., Chuleerarux N., Sanguankeo A., Kates O.S., Hirankarn N., Thongkam A., Dioverti-Prono M.V., Torvorapanit P., Langsiri N., Worasilchai N., et al. Immunogenicity and risk factors associated with poor humoral immune response of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in recipients of solid organ transplant: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Netw. Open. 2022;5:e226822. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.6822. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Becerril-Gaitan A., Vaca-Cartagena B.F., Ferrigno A.S., Mesa-Chavez F., Barrientos-Gutierrez T., Tagliamento M., Lambertini M., Villarreal-Garza C. Immunogenicity and risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection after coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in patients with cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. J. Cancer. 2022;160:243–260. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2021.10.014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Cavanna L., Citterio C., Toscani I. COVID-19 vaccines in cancer patients. Seropositivity and safety. Systematic review and meta-analysis. Vaccines. 2021;9:1048. doi: 10.3390/vaccines9091048. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Corti C., Antonarelli G., Scotte F., Spano J.P., Barriere J., Michot J.M., Andre F., Curigliano G. Seroconversion rate after vaccination against COVID-19 in patients with cancer-a systematic review. Ann. Oncol. 2022;33:158–168. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.10.014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Gagelmann N., Passamonti F., Wolschke C., Massoud R., Niederwieser C., Adjalle R., Mora B., Ayuk F., Kroger N. Antibody response after vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in adults with haematological malignancies: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Haematologica. 2021 doi: 10.3324/haematol.2021.280163. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Galmiche S., Luong Nguyen L.B., Tartour E., de Lamballerie X., Wittkop L., Loubet P., Launay O. Immunological and clinical efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised populations: A systematic review. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2022;28:163–177. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2021.09.036. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Guven D.C., Sahin T.K., Akin S., Uckun F.M. Impact of therapy in patients with hematologic malignancies on seroconversion rates after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Oncologist. 2022;27:e357–e361. doi: 10.1093/oncolo/oyac032. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Guven D.C., Sahin T.K., Kilickap S., Uckun F.M. Antibody responses to COVID-19 vaccination in cancer: A systematic review. Front. Oncol. 2021;11:759108. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.759108. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Teh J.S.K., Coussement J., Neoh Z.C.F., Spelman T., Lazarakis S., Slavin M.A., Teh B.W. Immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines in patients with hematologic malignancies: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Blood Adv. 2022;6:2014–2034. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2021006333. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Lee A., Wong S.Y., Chai L.Y.A., Lee S.C., Lee M.X., Muthiah M.D., Tay S.H., Teo C.B., Tan B.K.J., Chan Y.H., et al. Efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised patients: Systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2022;376:e068632. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2021-068632. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Marra A.R., Kobayashi T., Suzuki H., Alsuhaibani M., Tofaneto B.M., Bariani L.M., Auler M.A., Salinas J.L., Edmond M.B., Doll M., et al. Short-term effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised patients: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. J. Infect. 2022;84:297–310. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2021.12.035. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Mehrabi Nejad M.M., Moosaie F., Dehghanbanadaki H., Haji Ghadery A., Shabani M., Tabary M., Aryannejad A., SeyedAlinaghi S., Rezaei N. Immunogenicity of COVID-19 mrna vaccines in immunocompromised patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. J. Med. Res. 2022;27:23. doi: 10.1186/s40001-022-00648-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Garcia Garrido H.M., Veurink A.M., Leeflang M., Spijker R., Goorhuis A., Grobusch M.P. Hepatitis a vaccine immunogenicity in patients using immunosuppressive drugs: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Travel Med. Infect. Dis. 2019;32:101479. doi: 10.1016/j.tmaid.2019.101479. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Jiang H.Y., Wang S.Y., Deng M., Li Y.C., Ling Z.X., Shao L., Ruan B. Immune response to hepatitis b vaccination among people with inflammatory bowel diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Vaccine. 2017;35:2633–2641. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.03.080. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Kochhar G.S., Mohan B.P., Khan S.R., Chandan S., Kassab L.L., Ponnada S., Desai A., Caldera F., Dulai P.S., Farraye F.A. Hepatitis-b vaccine response in inflammatory bowel disease patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Inflamm. Bowel Dis. 2021;27:1610–1619. doi: 10.1093/ibd/izaa353. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Lee J.H., Hong S., Im J.H., Lee J.S., Baek J.H., Kwon H.Y. Systematic review and meta-analysis of immune response of double dose of hepatitis b vaccination in hiv-infected patients. Vaccine. 2020;38:3995–4000. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.04.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Rodrigues I.C., Silva R., Felicio H.C.C., Silva R.F.D. New immunization schedule effectiveness against hepatitis b in liver transplantation patients. Arq. Gastroenterol. 2019;56:440–446. doi: 10.1590/s0004-2803.201900000-77. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Tian Y., Hua W., Wu Y., Zhang T., Wang W., Wu H., Guo C., Huang X. Immune response to hepatitis b virus vaccine among people living with hiv: A meta-analysis. Front Immunol. 2021;12:745541. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.745541. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Singh A.K., Jena A., Mahajan G., Mohindra R., Suri V., Sharma V. Meta-analysis: Hepatitis b vaccination in inflammatory bowel disease. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2022;55:908–920. doi: 10.1111/apt.16880. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Mavundza E.J., Wiyeh A.B., Mahasha P.W., Halle-Ekane G., Wiysonge C.S. A systematic review of immunogenicity, clinical efficacy and safety of human papillomavirus vaccines in people living with the human immunodeficiency virus. Hum. Vaccin. Immunother. 2020;16:426–435. doi: 10.1080/21645515.2019.1656481. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Zizza A., Banchelli F., Guido M., Marotta C., Di Gennaro F., Mazzucco W., Pistotti V., D’Amico R. Efficacy and safety of human papillomavirus vaccination in hiv-infected patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2021;11:4954. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-83727-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Bitterman R., Eliakim-Raz N., Vinograd I., Zalmanovici Trestioreanu A., Leibovici L., Paul M. Influenza vaccines in immunosuppressed adults with cancer. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2018;2:CD008983. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008983.pub3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Chong P.P., Handler L., Weber D.J. A systematic review of safety and immunogenicity of influenza vaccination strategies in solid organ transplant recipients. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2018;66:1802–1811. doi: 10.1093/cid/cix1081. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Huang Y., Wang H., Tam W.W.S. Is rheumatoid arthritis associated with reduced immunogenicity of the influenza vaccination? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 2017;33:1901–1908. doi: 10.1080/03007995.2017.1329140. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Lai J.J., Lin C., Ho C.L., Chen P.H., Lee C.H. Alternative-dose versus standard-dose trivalent influenza vaccines for immunocompromised patients: A meta-analysis of randomised control trials. J. Clin. Med. 2019;8:590. doi: 10.3390/jcm8050590. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Leibovici Weissman Y., Cooper L., Sternbach N., Ashkenazi-Hoffnung L., Yahav D. Clinical efficacy and safety of high dose trivalent influenza vaccine in adults and immunosuppressed populations—A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Infect. 2021;83:444–451. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2021.08.028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Muller K.E., Dohos D., Sipos Z., Kiss S., Dembrovszky F., Kovacs N., Solymar M., Eross B., Hegyi P., Sarlos P. Immune response to influenza and pneumococcal vaccines in adults with inflammatory bowel disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 1429 patients. Vaccine. 2022;40:2076–2086. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.02.027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Nguyen J., Hardigan P., Kesselman M.M., Demory Beckler M. Immunogenicity of the influenza vaccine in multiple sclerosis patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Mult. Scler. Relat. Disord. 2021;48:102698. doi: 10.1016/j.msard.2020.102698. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Spagnolo F., Boutros A., Croce E., Cecchi F., Arecco L., Tanda E., Pronzato P., Lambertini M. Influenza vaccination in cancer patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors: A systematic review. Eur. J. Clin. Investig. 2021;51:e13604. doi: 10.1111/eci.13604. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Subesinghe S., Bechman K., Rutherford A.I., Goldblatt D., Galloway J.B. A systematic review and metaanalysis of antirheumatic drugs and vaccine immunogenicity in rheumatoid arthritis. J. Rheumatol. 2018;45:733–744. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.170710. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Vijenthira A., Gong I., Betschel S.D., Cheung M., Hicks L.K. Vaccine response following anti-cd20 therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 905 patients. Blood Adv. 2021;5:2624–2643. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2021004629. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Zhang W., Sun H., Atiquzzaman M., Sou J., Anis A.H., Cooper C. Influenza vaccination for hiv-positive people: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Vaccine. 2018;36:4077–4086. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.05.077. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Groeneweg L., Loeffen Y.G.T., Versluys A.B., Wolfs T.F.W. Safety and efficacy of early vaccination with live attenuated measles vaccine for hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients and solid organ transplant recipients. Vaccine. 2021;39:3338–3345. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.04.049. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Mehtani N.J., Rosman L., Moss W.J. Immunogenicity and safety of the measles vaccine in hiv-infected children: An updated systematic review. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2019;188:2240–2251. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwz144. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Adawi M., Bragazzi N.L., McGonagle D., Watad S., Mahroum N., Damiani G., Conic R., Bridgewood C., Mahagna H., Giacomelli L., et al. Immunogenicity, safety and tolerability of anti-pneumococcal vaccination in systemic lupus erythematosus patients: An evidence-informed and prisma compliant systematic review and meta-analysis. Autoimmun. Rev. 2019;18:73–92. doi: 10.1016/j.autrev.2018.08.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Lenzing E., Rezahosseini O., Burgdorf S.K., Nielsen S.D., Harboe Z.B. Efficacy, immunogenicity, and evidence for best-timing of pneumococcal vaccination in splenectomized adults: A systematic review. Expert Rev. Vaccines. 2022;21:723–733. doi: 10.1080/14760584.2022.2049250. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.van Aalst M., Langedijk A.C., Spijker R., de Bree G.J., Grobusch M.P., Goorhuis A. The effect of immunosuppressive agents on immunogenicity of pneumococcal vaccination: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Vaccine. 2018;36:5832–5845. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.07.039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Hamad M.A., Allam H., Sulaiman A., Murali K., Cheikh Hassan H.I. Systematic review and meta-analysis of herpes zoster vaccine in patients with ckd. Kidney Int. Rep. 2021;6:1254–1264. doi: 10.1016/j.ekir.2021.02.024. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Racine E., Gilca V., Amini R., Tunis M., Ismail S., Sauvageau C. A systematic literature review of the recombinant subunit herpes zoster vaccine use in immunocompromised 18–49 year old patients. Vaccine. 2020;38:6205–6214. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.07.049. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Martin C., Domingo C., Bottieau E., Buonfrate D., De Wit S., Van Laethem Y., Dauby N. Immunogenicity and duration of protection after yellow fever vaccine in people living with human immunodeficiency virus: A systematic review. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2021;27:958–967. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2021.03.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Adetokunboh O.O., Ndwandwe D., Awotiwon A., Uthman O.A., Wiysonge C.S. Vaccination among hiv-infected, hiv-exposed uninfected and hiv-uninfected children: A systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence related to vaccine efficacy and effectiveness. Hum. Vaccin Immunother. 2019;15:2578–2589. doi: 10.1080/21645515.2019.1599677. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Dembinski L., Dziekiewicz M., Banaszkiewicz A. Immune response to vaccination in children and young people with inflammatory bowel disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Pediatr. Gastroenterol. Nutr. 2020;71:423–432. doi: 10.1097/MPG.0000000000002810. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.Keller M., Pittet L.F., Zimmermann P. Immunogenicity and safety of routine vaccines in children and adolescents with rheumatic diseases on immunosuppressive treatment—A systematic review. Eur. J. Pediatr. 2022;181:1329–1362. doi: 10.1007/s00431-021-04283-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63.Tse H.N., Borrow R., Arkwright P.D. Immune response and safety of viral vaccines in children with autoimmune diseases on immune modulatory drug therapy. Expert Rev. Vaccines. 2020;19:1115–1127. doi: 10.1080/14760584.2021.1875825. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64.Soy M., Keser G., Atagunduz P., Mutlu M.Y., Gunduz A., Koybasi G., Bes C. A practical approach for vaccinations including COVID-19 in autoimmune/autoinflammatory rheumatic diseases: A non-systematic review. Clin. Rheumatol. 2021;40:3533–3545. doi: 10.1007/s10067-021-05700-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65.Ludwig H., Boccadoro M., Moreau P., San-Miguel J., Cavo M., Pawlyn C., Zweegman S., Facon T., Driessen C., Hajek R., et al. Recommendations for vaccination in multiple myeloma: A consensus of the european myeloma network. Leukemia. 2021;35:31–44. doi: 10.1038/s41375-020-01016-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66.Bruel T., Hadjadj J., Maes P., Planas D., Seve A., Staropoli I., Guivel-Benhassine F., Porrot F., Bolland W.H., Nguyen Y., et al. Serum neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 omicron sublineages ba.1 and ba.2 in patients receiving monoclonal antibodies. Nat. Med. 2022 doi: 10.1038/s41591-022-01792-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67.Langwig K.E., Gomes M.G.M., Clark M.D., Kwitny M., Yamada S., Wargo A.R., Lipsitch M. Limited available evidence supports theoretical predictions of reduced vaccine efficacy at higher exposure dose. Sci. Rep. 2019;9:3203. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-39698-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68.Dhakal S., Klein S.L. Host factors impact vaccine efficacy: Implications for seasonal and universal influenza vaccine programs. J. Virol. 2019;93:e00797-19. doi: 10.1128/JVI.00797-19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69.Diks A.M., Overduin L.A., van Leenen L.D., Slobbe L., Jolink H., Visser L.G., van Dongen J.J.M., Berkowska M.A. B-cell immunophenotyping to predict vaccination outcome in the immunocompromised—A systematic review. Front. Immunol. 2021;12:690328. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.690328. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70.Palgen J.L., Feraoun Y., Dzangue-Tchoupou G., Joly C., Martinon F., Le Grand R., Beignon A.S. Optimize prime/boost vaccine strategies: Trained immunity as a new player in the game. Front. Immunol. 2021;12:612747. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.612747. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
Data supporting this review are available in the reference section.