3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Vacunación de COVID-19 en grupos ginecológicos y obstétricos especiales Translated title: COVID-19 vaccination in special gynecological and obstetric groups

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Resumen La pandemia por COVID-19 y las serias repercusiones que está teniendo han hecho que se agilice el desarrollo de un arma terapéutica fundamental para comenzar a erradicarla: las vacunas. Son un instrumento fundamental de prevención primaria que se administrará inicialmente a los grupos más vulnerables o con alto riesgo de exposición, ampliando el abanico de administración a otro tipo de población en fases posteriores. Puede surgir controversia a la hora de vacunar a grupos ginecológicos específicos, como son las gestantes, mujeres lactantes o pacientes con cáncer ginecológico. El propósito de este artículo es analizar la información disponible con respecto a la vacunación en estos grupos.

          Translated abstract

          Abstract The COVID-19 pandemic and its serious repercussions are accelerating the development of a fundamental therapeutic strategy to begin eradicating this illness: vaccines. They are a fundamental instrument of primary prevention that will be administer initially to vulnerable groups or those with high risk of exposure, expanding in later phases the administration to another populations. There can be controversy in vaccinating some specific gynecological groups, like pregnant women, lactating women or patients with gynecological cancer. The purpose of this article is to analyze the information available regarding vaccination in these concrete groups.

          Related collections

          Most cited references21

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Influenza vaccines in immunosuppressed adults with cancer

          This is an update of the Cochrane review published in 2013, Issue 10. Immunosuppressed cancer patients are at increased risk of serious influenza‐related complications. Guidelines, therefore, recommend influenza vaccination for these patients. However, data on vaccine effectiveness in this population are lacking, and the value of vaccination in this population remains unclear. To assess the effectiveness of influenza vaccine in immunosuppressed adults with malignancies. The primary review outcome is all‐cause mortality, preferably at the end of the influenza season. Influenza‐like illness (ILI, a clinical definition), confirmed influenza, pneumonia, any hospitalisations, influenza‐related mortality and immunogenicity were defined as secondary outcomes. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS databases up to May 2017. We searched the following conference proceedings: ICAAC, ECCMID, IDSA (infectious disease conferences), ASH, ASBMT, EBMT (haematological), and ASCO (oncological) between the years 2006 to 2017. In addition, we scanned the references of all identified studies and pertinent reviews. We searched the websites of the manufacturers of influenza vaccine. Finally, we searched for ongoing or unpublished trials in clinical trial registry databases. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), prospective and retrospective cohort studies and case‐control studies were considered, comparing inactivated influenza vaccines versus placebo, no vaccination or a different vaccine, in adults (16 years and over) with cancer. We considered solid malignancies treated with chemotherapy, haematological cancer patients treated or not treated with chemotherapy, cancer patients post‐autologous (up to six months after transplantation) or allogeneic (at any time) haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data from included studies adhering to Cochrane methodology. Meta‐analysis could not be performed because of different outcome and denominator definitions in the included studies. We identified six studies with a total of 2275 participants: five studies comparing vaccination with no vaccination, and one comparing adjuvanted vaccine with non‐adjuvanted vaccine. Three studies were RCTs, one was a prospective observational cohort study and two were retrospective cohort studies. For the comparison of vaccination with no vaccination we included two RCTs and three observational studies, including 2202 participants. One study reported results in person‐years while the others reported results per person. The five studies were performed between 1993 and 2015 and included adults with haematological diseases (three studies), patients following bone marrow transplantation (BMT) (two studies) and solid malignancies (three studies). One RCT and two observational studies reported all‐cause mortality; the RCT showed similar mortality rates in both arms (odds ratio (OR) 1.25 (95% CI 0.43 to 3.62; 1 study, 78 participants, low‐certainty evidence)); and the observational studies demonstrated a significant association between vaccine receipt and lower risk of death, adjusted hazard ratio 0.88 (95% CI 0.78 to 1; 1 study, 1577 participants, very low‐certainty evidence) in one study and OR 0.42 (95% CI 0.24 to 0.75; 1 study, 806 participants, very low‐certainty evidence) in the other. One RCT reported a reduction in ILI with vaccination, while no difference was observed in one observational study. Confirmed influenza rates were lower with vaccination in one RCT and the three observational studies, the difference reaching statistical significance in one. Pneumonia was observed significantly less frequently with vaccination in one observational study, but no difference was detected in another or in the RCT. One RCT showed a reduction in hospitalisations following vaccination, while an observational study found no difference. No life‐threatening or persistent adverse effects from vaccination were reported. The strength of evidence was limited by the low number of included studies and by their low methodological quality and the certainty of the evidence for the mortality outcome according to GRADE was low to very low. For the comparison of adjuvanted vaccine with non‐adjuvanted vaccine, we identified one RCT, including 73 patients. No differences were found for the primary and all secondary outcomes assessed. Mortality risk ratio was 0.54 (95% CI 0.05 to 5.73; low‐certainty evidence) in the adjuvanted vaccine group. The quality of evidence was low due to the small sample size and the large confidence intervals for all outcomes. Observational data suggest lower mortality and infection‐related outcomes with influenza vaccination. The strength of evidence is limited by the small number of studies and low grade of evidence. It seems that the evidence, although weak, shows that the benefits overweigh the potential risks when vaccinating adults with cancer against influenza. However, additional placebo or no‐treatment controlled RCTs of influenza vaccination among adults with cancer is ethically questionable.There is no conclusive evidence regarding the use of adjuvanted versus non‐adjuvanted influenza vaccine in this population. Influenza (flu) vaccination for preventing influenza in adults with cancer Background 
 Adults with cancer are prone to serious complications from influenza, more than healthy adults. The influenza vaccine protects against influenza and its complications. However, its effectiveness among people with cancer is unclear, as immune dysfunction that accompanies cancer as a result of chemotherapy might lower immune response to the vaccine. People with cancer, therefore, do not have clear information on the importance and effectiveness of the vaccine. The aim of the review 
 This review focused on the effectiveness of influenza vaccination in adults with cancer who have a suppressed immune system because of cancer or chemotherapy. We searched the literature up to May 2017. What are the main findings? 
 We identified six clinical studies (2275 participants) addressing this question, half of which were randomised controlled trials, where patients were randomly selected to get or not to get the vaccine. Two other studies showed that adults with cancer who were vaccinated were found to have lower rates of death, but these studies were not randomised. One small randomised study showed a similar mortality rate in vaccinated and non‐vaccinated patients. Pooling (combining) results from the different studies was not possible because of different methods or different ways the results were reported. There was a lower rate of influenza‐like illness (any febrile respiratory illness), pneumonia, confirmed influenza and hospitalisation for any reason, among vaccinated people in at least one study. No side effects to the vaccine were reported in these studies. The review also included a trial comparing the regular vaccine to a vaccine containing an adjuvant that is supposed to increase the immune response. This randomised trial was small and did not find differences in all clinical outcomes examined. Quality of the evidence 
 The strength of evidence is limited by the low number of studies and by their low methodological quality (high risk of bias). What are the conclusions? 
 It is unlikely that there will be any future large‐scale controlled trials to investigate this issue. The current evidence, although weak, suggests a benefit for influenza vaccination amongst adults with cancer and the vaccine was not found to be harmful. Influenza vaccines given to adults with cancer contain an inactivated virus that cannot cause influenza or other viral infection.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found

            COVID-19 and Cancer: From basic mechanisms to vaccine development using nanotechnology

            Highlights • Shows updated understanding of SARS-CoV-2, including the interaction between ACE 2 and the viral spike protein. • More effective vaccines are required for immunocompromised cancer patients. • Cancer alters the immune system through different levels of D-Dimer, albumin, prothrombin, and neutrophils. • Nanomaterials assist vaccine delivery, including viral vector and mRNA vaccines with lipid nanoparticles.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              COVID-19 and cancer: what we know so far

              Infection with SARS-CoV-2, resulting in coronavirus disease (COVID-19), can lead to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) requiring admission to an intensive care unit (ICU), and sometimes death, in a subset of patients. So far, we know that individuals ≥60 years of age and/or those with a supressed immune system are particularly vulnerable to COVID-19, although how these risks apply to patients with cancer remains unclear. Several reports are beginning to emerge. First, patients with cancer seem to be more likely to be diagnosed with COVID-19. Among 1,524 patients admitted to the Department of Radiation and Medical Oncology of Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, 12 (0.79%) had COVID-19, versus 0.37% of the general population of Wuhan during the same period of time (OR 2.31, 95% CI 1.89–3.02). In the same study, patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) seemed to have a higher incidence of COVID-19, especially those >60 years of age (4.3% versus 1.8% in those aged ≤60 years with NSCLC). fpm/Getty Second, patients with cancer seem to have more severe COVID-19 symptoms than those without. In a retrospective analysis, the outcomes of 28 patients with cancer and COVID-19 admitted to one of three hospitals in Wuhan for quarantine and treatment of COVID-19 have been described. Of these patients, 10 (35.7%) had stage IV disease at the time of admission; lung cancer was the most common cancer type, in 7 patients (25%). As of February 26th, 15 patients (53.6%) had developed severe clinical events (those requiring mechanical ventilation or ICU admission), 10 patients (35.7%) had life-threatening complications and 8 (28.6%) had died. Most deaths (5) were caused by ARDS; other causes of death included pulmonary embolism, septic shock, and acute myocardial infarction. By comparison, among the general population with confirmed COVID-19, 4.7% had severe clinical events and 2.3% of patients died. Receiving the most recent cancer treatment within 14 days (HR 4.1, 95% CI 1.09–15.32; P = 0.037) and patchy consolidation on chest CT (HR 5.44, 95% CI 1.50–19.75; P = 0.010) were both associated with severe clinical events among those with cancer. These findings are supported by a nationwide analysis of data from 2,007 cases of COVID-19 from 575 hospitals across China. In this cohort, the 18 patients with COVID-19 and cancer had a higher incidence of severe events (39% vs 8%; P = 0.0003), and receiving chemotherapy or surgery in the past month was found to further increase this risk following adjustment for other variables (OR 5.34, 95% CI 1.80–16.18; P = 0.0026). Despite many limitations, including low numbers of patients, the retrospective nature of the evidence and the limited follow-up durations, these data provide early insights into how the management of patients with cancer might be affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Notably, patients with cancer seem to be both more likely to be diagnosed with COVID-19 and have more severe symptoms. In this scenario, oncologists need to weigh up the balance of risks versus benefits carefully when planning normally routine cancer treatments and follow-up appointments.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                jonnpr
                Journal of Negative and No Positive Results
                JONNPR
                Research and Science S.L. (Madrid, Madrid, Spain )
                2529-850X
                2021
                : 6
                : 2
                : 434-441
                Affiliations
                [1] orgnameSESCAM orgdiv1Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Albacete España
                Article
                S2529-850X2021000200013 S2529-850X(21)00600200013
                10.19230/jonnpr.4187
                8f52983b-25fd-4abf-8f4e-67d9cb66422c

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

                History
                : 05 January 2021
                : 12 January 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 21, Pages: 8
                Product

                SciELO Spain

                Categories
                Revisión

                lactancia,cáncer ginecológico,COVID-19,coronavirus,pregnancy,lactation,breastfeeding covid,vaccine,pandemic,gynecological cancer,embarazo,vacuna,pandemia

                Comments

                Comment on this article