4.5 Article

Vaccination in adults with auto-immune disease and/or drug related immune deficiency: Results of the GEVACCIM Delphi survey

期刊

VACCINE
卷 27, 期 10, 页码 1523-1529

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2009.01.003

关键词

Vaccination; Immunocompromised adults; Auto-immune disease; Delphi survey; Immunosuppressants

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: There are insufficient data regarding the efficacy and safety of vaccination in patients with auto-immune disease (AID) and/or drug-related immune deficiency (DRID). The objective of this study was to obtain professional agreement on vaccine practices in these patients. : A Delphi Survey was carried out with physicians recognised for their expertise in vaccinology and/or the caring for adult patients with AID and/or DRID. For each proposed vaccination practice, the experts' opinion and level of agreement were evaluated. Results: The proposals relating to patients with AID specified: the absence of risk of AID relapse following vaccination; the possibility of administering live virus vaccines (LVV) to patients not receiving immunosuppressants: the pertinence of determining protective antibody titre before vaccination; the absence of need for specific monitoring following the vaccination. The proposals relating to patients with DRID specified that a 3-6 month delay is needed between the end of these treatments and the vaccination with LVV. There is no contraindication to administering LVV in patients receiving systemic corticosteroids prescribed for less than two weeks, regardless of their dose, or at a daily dose not exceeding 10 mg of prednisone, if this involves prolonged treatment. Out of 14 proposals, the level of agreement between the experts was very good for eleven, and good for the remaining three. Conclusion: Proposals for vaccine practices in patients with AID and/or DRID should aid with decision-making in daily medical practice and provide better vaccine coverage for these patients. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据