Adherence to guidelines across different specialties to prevent infections in patients undergoing immunosuppressive therapies

BMC Infect Dis. 2020 May 20;20(1):359. doi: 10.1186/s12879-020-05082-8.

Abstract

Background: Substantial numbers of patients are now receiving either immunosuppressive therapies or chemotherapy. There are significant risks in such patients of developing opportunistic infections or re-activation of latent infections, with higher associated morbidity and mortality. The aim of this quality improvement project was to determine how effective 5 different specialties were in assessing and mitigating risks of developing opportunistic infections or re-activation of latent infections in patients undergoing immunosuppressive therapies.

Methods: This was a single centre audit where records of patients attending clinics providing immunosuppressive therapies were reviewed for the following: evidence of screening for blood-borne virus [BBV] infections, varicella and measles immunity, latent/active TB or hypogammaglobulinaemia, and whether appropriate vaccines had been advised or various infection risks discussed. These assessments were audited against both national and international guidelines, or a cross-specialty consensus guideline where specific recommendations were lacking. Two sub-populations were also analysed separately: patients receiving more potent immunosuppression and black and minority ethnic [BME] patients,.

Results: For the 204 patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria, BBV, varicella/measles and latent TB screening was inconsistent, as was advice for vaccinations, with few areas complying with specialty or consensus guidelines. Less than 10% of patients in one specialty were tested for HIV. In BME patients screening for HIV [60%], measles [0%] and varicella [40%] immunity and latent [30%] or active [20%] TB was low. Only 38% of patients receiving potent immunosuppression received Pneumocystis prophylaxis, with 3 of 4 specialties providing less than 15% of patients in this category with prophylaxis.

Conclusions: Compliance with guidelines to mitigate risks of infection from immunosuppressive therapies was either inconsistent or poor for most specialties. New approaches to highlight such risks and assist appropriate pre-immunosuppression screening are needed.

Keywords: Biologic; Chemotherapy; Immunocompromised; Immunosuppression; Infection; Prophylaxis; Reactivation; Vaccine.

MeSH terms

  • Adult
  • Chickenpox / diagnosis
  • Chickenpox / prevention & control
  • Communicable Disease Control
  • Communicable Diseases / diagnosis*
  • Communicable Diseases / etiology
  • England
  • Female
  • Guideline Adherence*
  • Hospitals / statistics & numerical data
  • Humans
  • Immunocompromised Host
  • Immunosuppression Therapy / adverse effects*
  • Immunosuppressive Agents
  • Male
  • Measles / diagnosis
  • Measles / prevention & control
  • Middle Aged
  • Pneumonia, Pneumocystis / diagnostic imaging
  • Pneumonia, Pneumocystis / prevention & control
  • Retrospective Studies
  • Vaccination
  • Virus Diseases / diagnosis
  • Virus Diseases / prevention & control

Substances

  • Immunosuppressive Agents