Search

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic not only adversely impacted physical health but also affected older adults' mental health. The first news on COVID-19 vaccination made a major breakthrough to the effect of improving older adults' mood, notwithstanding the fact that vaccinated individuals in this age group accounted only for 40.6% of the overall vaccination rollout in Poland. This study was aimed at assessing the level of anxiety regarding COVID-19 amongst older adults in Poland and assessing the attitude of older adults toward COVID-19 vaccination. Methods: The study sample encompassed a population of 800 individuals aged 60 years and older randomly picked up from a representative sample of all the residents in 16 voivodeship cities (50 individuals from each of the cities). The research method used in this study was a diagnostic survey, and its technique was based on an author-designed questionnaire and four standardised psychometric scales: the Fear of COVID-19 Scale (FCV-19S), Coronavirus Anxiety Scale (CAS), the Drivers of COVID-19 Vaccination Acceptance Scale (DrVac-COVID-19S), and the Scale to Measure the Perception of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines Acceptance (the VAC-COVID-19 Scale). Results: The degree of fear of SARS-CoV-2 among seniors equalled 1.03 ± 1.95 in terms of the CAS and 15.61 ± 5.75 in terms of the FCV-19S. Attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination have proven positive (DrVac-COVID-19S—61.23 ± 12.35; VAC-COVID-19—44.31 ± 7.20). Females scored higher than males to the extent of the scales under consideration. The older the respondents were, the higher the scale score. A group of individuals with higher educational status was characterized by substantially higher scores covering the Knowledge subscale (p < 0.001) and the Autonomy subscale (p = 0.038), as well as a higher total score in terms of the DrVac-COVID-19S (p < 0.001). A group of positive factors including the reasons for COVID-19 vaccination in terms of the VAC-COVID-19 Scale was the only case to prove statistically insignificant relationships between the population size of the city the respondents came from and the scale values under consideration (p = 0.790). Statistically significant relationships were proven between SARS-CoV-2 contraction and fear of COVID-19 as measured by means of the CAS (p < 0.001) as well as between SARS-CoV-2 contraction and the Values subscale (p = 0.017) and the Knowledge subscale (p < 0.001) within the framework of the DrVac-COVID-19S scale and the total score in terms of the DrVac-COVID-19S scale (p = 0.023). No relationship was detected between the Autonomy subscale scores in terms of the DrVac-COVID-19S and the Knowledge subscale scores in terms of the DrVac-COVID-19S. The remaining scales were correlated to the extent of statistical significance. Conclusions: A subjective fear of COVID-19 was measured to be low or moderate within the group under study depending on the scale under consideration, proving declining trends as compared to the results arising from previously conducted studies. Seniors have more often had positive attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination. The relationship between all of the sociodemographic features under consideration and the feeling of COVID-19 anxiety and between educational status, place of residence, SARS-CoV-2 contraction, COVID-19 vaccination, and the overall attitude toward COVID-19 vaccination indicator was proven to be statistically significant (depending on the scale under consideration). Furthermore, the correlation between the overall results arising from the standardised psychometric scales applied to this study was indicated to be statistically significant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: There are knowledge gaps about factors associated with acute kidney injury (AKI) among COVID-19 patients. To examine AKI predictors among COVID-19 patients, a retrospective longitudinal cohort study was conducted between January 2020 and December 2022. Logistic regression models were used to examine predictors of AKI, and survival analysis was performed to examine mortality in COVID-19 patients. RESULTS: A total of 742,799 veterans diagnosed with COVID-19 were included and 95,573 were hospitalized within 60 days following COVID-19 diagnosis. A total of 45,754 developed AKI and 28,573 AKI patients were hospitalized. Use of vasopressors (OR = 14.73; 95% CL 13.96-15.53), history of AKI (OR = 2.22; CL 2.15-2.29), male gender (OR = 1.90; CL 1.75-2.05), Black race (OR = 1.62; CL 1.57-1.65), and age 65+ (OR = 1.57; CL 1.50-1.63) were associated with AKI. Patients who were vaccinated twice and boosted were least likely to develop AKI (OR = 0.51; CL 0.49-0.53) compared to unvaccinated COVID-19 patients. Patients receiving two doses (OR = 0.77; CL = 0.72-0.81), or a single dose (OR = 0.88; CL = 0.81-0.95) were also less likely to develop AKI compared to the unvaccinated. AKI patients exhibited four times higher mortality compared to those without AKI (HR = 4.35; CL 4.23-4.50). Vaccinated and boosted patients had the lowest mortality risk compared to the unvaccinated (HR = 0.30; CL 0.28-0.31). CONCLUSION: Use of vasopressors, being unvaccinated, older age, male gender, and Black race were associated with post COVID-19 AKI. Whether COVID-19 vaccination, including boosters, decreases the risk of developing AKI warrants additional studies.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on every individual in the United States. The launch of the COVID-19 vaccines is estimated to have averted millions of deaths and reduced over 18 million COVID-19-related hospitalizations. In September 2023, the updated 2023–2024 COVID-19 vaccine, which includes a monovalent component that corresponds to the omicron variant XBB.1.5, reflecting the predominant circulating variant at the time of strain selection, was approved and was recommended for use in all people ≥ 6 months of age. Despite this recommendation, the US uptake of the updated COVID-19 vaccines over the 2023–2024 season has been far from optimal, placing many people at unnecessary risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes. This paper provides an overview of the current state of COVID-19 in 2023–2024 and barriers to vaccine uptake. With the continued evolution of the virus, the potential for more virulent variants, reduced public acceptance of vaccination, and the potential barriers that contributed to low vaccine uptake are explored to provide solutions for improving COVID-19 protection for future seasons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We developed and tested MivacunaLA/MyshotLA, a community-informed mobile phone intervention, to increase COVID-19 vaccination among Latino parents/caretakers of minors in under-resourced areas of Los Angeles by addressing misinformation and building trust. We recruited Latino parents/caregivers with at least one unvaccinated child in East and South Los Angeles in the summer of 2021 and evaluated MivacunaLA as a randomized controlled trial with a wait-list control group. A difference-in-difference analysis showed Latino parents/caregivers that participated in MivacunaLA (n = 246), in comparison to the control group, were 15 percentage points more likely (p = 0.04) to report vaccination of minors aged 12-17 years, and 12 percentage points more likely (p = 0.03) to report a positive intention to vaccinate minors aged 2-11 years (when COVID-19 vaccines became available). Mobile phone-delivered digital interventions using videos and culturally tailored educational material to promote COVID-19 vaccine confidence can be an effective way to combat misinformation and deliver timely information to marginalized communities. Community-based participatory research approaches are crucial to advance health equity among minority communities, especially immigrant Spanish-speaking underserved communities.

Vaccination is one of the essential measures in reducing transmission, morbidity, and mortality rates of a disease. However, the COVID-19 vaccination is facing hesitancy across the globe, Malawi included. A population-based cross-sectional study was conducted in Malawi to document knowledge, attitudes, and practices on COVID-19 vaccination. The study targeted the general adult population and employed a multi-stage sampling technique. The Census Enumeration Areas within the 16 selected districts served as a primary sampling unit. Among the total 3068 participants, 1947 (63.6%) were female. About 1039 (34.1%) participants had primary education, while only 169 (5.5%) had college education. A total of 2936 (95.7%) participants knew about the COVID-19 vaccine, and 2063 (68.4%) felt that the COVID-19 vaccine was effective. A total of 1180 (38.7%) got vaccinated. Knowledge of the COVID-19 vaccination was significantly associated with participants' education levels, location, occupation, marital status, household family income, and whether they were suffering from chronic illness or not. Overall, the level of knowledge and attitudes about the COVID-19 vaccination was good. This study has also established that different population groups have statistically different levels of knowledge and attitudes regarding COVID-19 vaccination. This study has also indicated a significant relationship between the rate of vaccination and several factors. Therefore, this calls for stakeholders to continue awareness and group-targeted tailored campaigns so as to increase COVID-19 vaccination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Prior research explores whether seasonal and childhood vaccines mitigate the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Although there are trials investigating COVID-19 infection in response to the effects of the oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV), there has been no prior research assessing COVID-19 outcomes in recently immunized adults with the inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV). Methods: SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 symptoms were analyzed across a cohort of 282 adults who received an IPV booster. Bivariate and multivariate regression models explored associations among variables related to vaccination histories and COVID-19 outcomes. Results: One year post-IPV inoculation, participants who had never received OPV were more likely to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 and experience COVID-19 symptoms, compared to those who had previously received OPV (OR = 3.92, 95%CI 2.22–7.03, p < 0.001; OR = 4.45, 95%CI 2.48–8.17, p < 0.001, respectively). Those who had never received OPV experienced COVID-19 symptoms for 6.17 days longer than participants who had previously received OPV (95%CI 3.68–8.67, p < 0.001). Multivariate regression modeling indicated COVID-19 vaccination did not impact SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 symptoms in this sample of adults who had recently received IPV. Discussion: Findings suggest IPV may boost mucosal immunity among OPV-primed individuals, and COVID-19 vaccination may not provide additional protection among those who had received IPV. Future, larger-scale studies should measure the extent of protective effects against COVID-19 to inform public health policies in resource-deficient settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following the World Health Organization's declaration that the COVID-19 pandemic is no longer a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC), COVID-19 remains an ongoing threat to human health and healthcare systems. Vaccination plays a crucial role in reducing the disease's incidence, mitigating its severity, and limiting transmission, contributing to long-term public health resilience. However, incomplete vaccination coverage and vaccine hesitancy exist. This narrative review investigates strategies at the system and physician levels aimed at sustaining awareness and uptake of COVID-19 vaccination in a post-PHEIC era. Through an examination of the existing literature, this review explores the effectiveness of diverse approaches utilized by healthcare systems and individual providers. These approaches address every component of the 5C model of vaccine hesitancy: confidence, complacency, constraints/convenience, calculation, and collective responsibility. Physician-level approaches include appropriate message framing, persuasive communication containing safety and personal/social benefit information, sharing of personal stories, creating a safe space for discussion, harnessing co-administration with annual influenza vaccines, and use of decision aids and visual messages. System-level approaches include messaging, mass media for health communication, on-site vaccine availability, pharmacist delivery, healthcare protocol integration, incentives, and chatbot use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study assessed IgG levels to influenza/pertussis and neutralizing antibody (Nab) responses of COVID-19 vaccines in blood of pregnant women following immunization with pertussis (Tdap), influenza, and COVID-19 vaccines. We prospectively collected 71 participants categorized by the following vaccine combinations: 3TI, 4TI, 3T, and 4T groups (three and four doses of COVID-19 vaccines plus Tdap/influenza or Tdap vaccines alone). Our findings have indicated that the 3TI group exhibited elevated IgG levels for influenza B compared to the 3T group (12.90 vs. 7.75 U, p = 0.001); this pattern was not observed for influenza A. Pertussis IgG levels remained uniform across all groups. The 4TI group demonstrated a greater Nab inhibition rate from COVID-19 vaccines compared to both the 3TI and 3T groups (61.34% vs. 22.5% and 15.16%, respectively, p = 0.001). We observed no correlation between Nab inhibition rate and IgG levels for Tdap/influenza, with the exception of a moderate correlation with influenza B in the 3TI group. The efficacy of Tdap vaccine in pregnant women remained consistent, regardless of the administration of COVID-19 or influenza vaccines. Interestingly, without the influenza vaccine, both three and four doses of the COVID-19 vaccine still offered protection against influenza A, but not B. Hence, co-administering COVID-19, influenza, and Tdap vaccines during prenatal care maintains immunogenicity and is highly advised to safeguard pregnant women fully. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The elderly are considered a high-risk group for severe outcomes and death from COVID-19 infection. Given the emergence of new COVID variants and the immunity provided by vaccines waning over time, booster doses of the vaccine have been advocated for those at risk to stay protected. This study aimed to determine the factors associated with hesitancy toward the second booster of the COVID-19 vaccine among the elderly residing in residential care homes. A cross-sectional study was conducted in 24 residential care homes in the Klang Valley using a face-to-face interview questionnaire. The study population included individuals aged 60 and above who had been fully vaccinated against COVID-19 up to the first booster dose. Second-booster hesitancy was assessed using the Oxford Vaccine Hesitancy Scale with seven items, the aggregate score of which ranges from seven to thirty-five; the higher the score, the greater the level of hesitancy. Multivariate linear regression was employed to determine factors associated with second-booster hesitancy, and a p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Data from 401 elderly individuals were included for analysis. The mean score of the Oxford Vaccine Hesitancy Scale was 21.6 ± 7.2. Predictors of second booster hesitancy were identified. Age, Indian ethnicity, being a recipient of the Sinovac vaccine as the first COVID-19 booster, experiencing the death of close friends or immediate family members following COVID-19 vaccination, and negative messages (indicating that taking a booster dose is harmful) from caregivers, friends, or family members were found to be associated with an increased second-booster-hesitancy score. Conversely, positive messages (indicating that taking a booster is helpful) from the government and caregivers, friends, or family members were identified as predictors associated with a reduction in the second-booster-hesitancy score. While vaccines effectively combat severe COVID-19, the majority of the elderly hesitate before taking the second booster. Their hesitancy, rooted in the perception of a low self risk and reliance on protection from the initial doses, emphasizes the need for intervention by relevant bodies. Taking into consideration the risk, albeit relatively low, of potentially serious side effects following COVID-19 vaccinations, it is imperative that transparent, appropriate, and positive messaging regarding booster vaccines, particularly in the context of the elderly from residential care homes, be available. Encouraging this high-risk group to embrace the second booster aligns with the goal of maximizing protection within the vulnerable elderly population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study explores COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among prison security staff and the extent to which they trust varied sources of information about the vaccines. Cross-sectional survey data were obtained from a state-wide sample of corrections officers (COs, hereafter; n = 1208) in February 2021. Group differences, disaggregated by demographic characteristics, were examined using F-tests and t-tests. Despite the comparatively limited risk of contracting the virus, non-security staff reported they would accept a COVID-19 vaccine at no cost (74%), compared to their more vulnerable CO counterparts (49%). We observed vaccine refusal correlations between COs reported gender, age, and length of time working as a CO, but none with their self-reported race. Vaccine refusal was more prevalent among womxn officers, younger officers, and those who had spent less time working as prison security staff. Our findings also suggest that the only trusted source of information about vaccines were family members and only for officers who would refuse the vaccine; the quality of trust placed in those sources, however, was not substantially positive and did not vary greatly across CO racial groups. By highlighting characteristics of the observed gaps in COVID-19 vaccine acceptance between COs and their non-security staff coworkers, as well as between corrections officers of varied demographic backgrounds, these findings can inform the development of responsive and accepted occupational health policies for communities both inside and intrinsically linked to prisons.

Myocarditis after the COVID-19 vaccine is one of the important adverse events following immunization, observed mainly after mRNA-based vaccines. Importantly, post-vaccination myocarditis was less common than myocarditis after SARS-CoV-2 infection, as it was scored at 19.7 per 1,000,000 doses and 2.76 per 1000 infections. Predominantly, its course was benign and, compared with the myocarditis after COVID-19 infection, significantly fewer patients developed heart failure or died among patients with post-vaccination myocarditis. The group at highest risk of myocarditis related to COVID-19 vaccination were young males who received a second dose of an mRNA vaccine. It was observed that, among mRNA vaccines, specifically mRNA-1273 was associated with a higher risk of myocarditis. The mechanism underlying myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination is still under investigation and certain processes are being considered. Currently, some follow-up assessments of patients who developed vaccine-induced myocarditis are available and suggest a favorable prognosis. The aim of this review is to discuss the most recent data on myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination considering its epidemiology, clinical presentation, diagnosis, management, relative risk of myocarditis compared with SARS-CoV-2 infection, potential underlying mechanism, and follow-up data of patients who developed post-vaccination myocarditis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: COVID-19 vaccines were rapidly developed and deployed on a large scale during a global crisis. A range of deployment strategies were used globally to maximize vaccine uptake. In this scoping review, we identify and analyze the main healthcare system and policy factors that guided and influenced COVID-19 vaccination deployment and uptake globally. Materials and Methods: JBI guidelines, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR), and the population, concept, and context (PCC) framework were applied. Studies on individual COVID-19 vaccination factors, such as vaccine hesitancy, were excluded. The search was last conducted in May 2024 yielding 26,686 articles from PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, and COVID-19 websites. A total of 47 articles and 3 guidance documents were included. The results of the thematic analysis were mapped to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Results: The results found the following healthcare system and policy factors as integral to COVID-19 vaccination: types of vaccine products, healthcare workforce capacity, procurement strategies, distribution and cold-chain capacity, partnership, coordination, and leadership, information, communication, and registration strategies, delivery models, organizations, the existing health systems and policies on prioritization of at-risk groups and deployment plans. Discussion: Globally, COVID-19 vaccination programs responded to the pandemic by leveraging and reforming the existing healthcare systems, relying on strong leadership and global cooperation (such as the COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access Initiative). Deployment was enabled by effective communication and adoption of innovative technologies using data-driven policies to create high vaccine demand while overcoming limited vaccine supply and rapidly adapting to uncertainties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A rise in absenteeism among healthcare workers (HCWs) was recorded during the COVID-19 pandemic, mostly attributed to SARS-CoV-2 infections. However, evidence suggests that COVID-19 vaccine-related side effects may have also contributed to absenteeism during this period. This study aimed to synthesize the evidence on the prevalence of absenteeism related to COVID-19 vaccine side effects among HCWs. Methods: The inclusion criteria for this review were original quantitative studies of any design, written in English, that addressed absenteeism related to the side effects of COVID-19 vaccines among HCWs. Four databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and the Web of Science) were searched for eligible articles on 7 June 2024. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale. Narrative synthesis and a meta-analysis were used to synthesize the evidence. Results: Nineteen observational studies with 96,786 participants were included. The pooled prevalence of absenteeism related to COVID-19 vaccine side effects was 17% (95% CI: 13–20%), while 83% (95% CI: 80–87%) of the vaccination events did not lead in any absenteeism. Study design, sex, vaccination dose, region, and vaccine type were identified as significant sources of heterogeneity. Conclusions: A non-negligible proportion of HCWs were absent from work after reporting side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine. Various demographic factors should be considered in future vaccination schedules for HCWs to potentially decrease the burden of absenteeism related to vaccine side effects. As most studies included self-reported questionnaire data, our results may be limited due to a recall bias. Other: The protocol of the study was preregistered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42024552517). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the need for effective community-based interventions to promote disease prevention and reach high-risk, underserved communities. Trusted community leaders like barbers and stylists may serve as effective conduits for intervention implementation. This study aimed to explore the perceived acceptability of an intervention to promote COVID-19 testing and vaccination delivered by barbers in South Carolina. Methods: We conducted exploratory in-depth interviews to ascertain barbers' and stylists' perceptions and identify potential barriers and facilitators. Data analysis used a deductive coding approach to identify themes and was guided by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. Results: Sixteen participants were interviewed. Participants expressed positive reactions towards the interventions. Acceptability was influenced by strong trust relationships with clients, perceived community influence, self-efficacy in providing the intervention, and a shared sense of responsibility for community health. However, potential barriers included declining public concern about COVID-19, vaccine hesitancy, and limited COVID-19 knowledge among barbers and stylists. Participants emphasized the need for training and incentives for effective and sustained intervention delivery. Conclusions: Barbers and stylists are well-positioned to promote COVID-19 testing and vaccination due to their trusted roles and community influence. Given the complacency from the waning perceived COVID-19 threat and the historical mistrust in health interventions, vaccine hesitancy must be addressed through supportive communication strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

At the beginning of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, persons ≥65 years of age and healthcare personnel represented the most vulnerable groups with respect to risk of infection, severe illness, and death. However, as the pandemic progressed, there was an increasingly detrimental effect on young children and adolescents. Severe disease and hospitalization increased over time in pediatric populations, and containment measures created substantial psychosocial, educational, and economic challenges for young people. Vaccination of children against COVID-19 has been shown to reduce severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections and severe outcomes in pediatric populations and may also help to prevent the spread of variants of concern and improve community immunity. This review discusses the burden of COVID-19 on children throughout the pandemic, the role of children in disease transmission, and the impact of COVID-19 vaccination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Vaccine hesitancy poses a significant threat to the health of individuals across all age groups, which has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. In this cross-sectional study, an extension of the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) was applied to investigate psychosocial variables predicting intention to vaccinate children under 12 against COVID-19 in a sample of 420 Italian parents (Mean age = 40.4, SD = 5.9; Women = 78.1%). Hierarchical regression analysis revealed that, among the TPB variables, cognitive attitude, descriptive norms, and perceived behavioral control significantly predicted parents' vaccination intention. Furthermore, including trust in the institutions' ability to manage the vaccination campaign in the model significantly increased the explained variance in intention. These findings suggest that campaigns promoting childhood COVID-19 vaccination should not only emphasize the safety and effectiveness of vaccines for children but also focus on reducing barriers to vaccination. Additionally, attention should be given to enhancing the perception that this behavior is widespread among other parents, thus leveraging the power of social influence. Finally, and not less important, significant efforts should be directed toward building and reinforcing trust in the system of actors promoting and managing the COVID-19 vaccination campaign. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Various vaccine platforms, including emerging platforms, have been applied in the development of COVID-19 vaccines. Biotechnology startups often lead the development of new medical technologies, whereas major pharmaceutical companies and public institutions have long contributed to vaccine development. In this study, vaccine platforms and developers involved in COVID-19 vaccine development were analyzed, elucidating the trends of vaccine platforms used, the country distribution of the developers, and differences in the profiles of developers by vaccine platform technologies and country. The analysis revealed that conventional, established, and emerging vaccine platforms have been widely used and that older platforms are more advanced in clinical development. It also demonstrated the emergence of China, in addition to the U.S., while many pharmerging countries have been engaged in development. Startups have significantly contributed to the development of viral vector and RNA-based vaccines, suggesting their important role in the application of novel technologies. The major developers differ by country and region. Alliances, including international collaborations, have progressed in late clinical development. Based on these results, future perspectives of pandemic vaccine development and implications for policy and corporate strategies are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

COVID-19 vaccines have reduced the negative health and economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic by preventing severe disease, hospitalizations and deaths. In the new socio-economic normality, the COVID-19 vaccination strategy can be universal or high-risk and seasonal or not seasonal, and different vaccines can be used. The universal vaccination strategy can achieve greater health and herd immunity effects and is associated with greater costs than the high-risk vaccination strategy. In each country, the optimal COVID-19 vaccination strategy must be decided by considering the advantages and disadvantages and assessing the costs, health effects and cost-effectiveness of the universal and high-risk vaccination strategies. The universal vaccination strategy should be implemented when the objective of the vaccination program is to achieve the greatest health benefits from COVID-19 vaccination and when its incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is lower than EUR 30,000−50,000 per QALY or LYG. The use of adapted vaccines targeting currently circulating variants of SARS-CoV-2 is necessary to avoid the immune escape of emerging variants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This multi-site retrospective analysis with a control group was devised to evaluate the impact of prophylactic SARS-CoV-2 vaccination the on outcomes of myocardial infarction (MI) patients with confirmed COVID-19. Methods: An overall of 129 subjects who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 and MI were included in the analysis and were divided into the study group (44 vaccinated patients) and the control group (85 non-vaccinated comparable patients). The primary outcome measure was defined as the time until in-hospital death, while the secondary outcome measure was defined as the time until death outside the hospital setting. Results: According to in-hospital mortality analysis, 1 (2.27%) subject died in the study group, whereas a total of 19 (22.4%) subjects died among the controls (OR = 0.08; CI: 0.001–0.553; p = 0.023). The impact of vaccination on the in-hospital outcomes of patients treated for COVID-19 and MI was further confirmed using Cox regression analysis (HR: 0.1 CI: 0.01–0.77; p = 0.026). The observed difference was the absence of respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation in the study group, whereas it was observed in 14 (16.47%) patients in the control group. During out-of-hospital observation, there were no observed differences in mortality (OR: 1.56; 95% CI: 0.21–11.52; p = 0.66). Conclusions: The complete prophylactic SARS-CoV-2 vaccination course demonstrates a protective role in patients undergoing treatment for MI with confirmed COVID-19 during in-hospital observation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, identifying reliable biomarkers for predicting disease severity and patient outcomes in unvaccinated individuals is essential. This study evaluates the efficacy of key hematological markers, including leukocyte and neutrophil counts, Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio (NLR), and cytokine profiles (IL-6, INF-γ, TNF-α, IL-17A, CCL2, and CXCL10) for predicting the necessity for mechanical ventilation and assessing survival probabilities. Methods: We conducted an in-depth analysis on a cohort of COVID-19 patients, emphasizing the relationship between NLR, cytokine profiles, and clinical outcomes, utilizing routine leukocyte counting and cytokine quantification by flow cytometry. Results: Elevated leukocyte and neutrophil counts, increased NLR, and significant cytokine elevations such as IL-6 and IL-10 were strongly associated with the need for mechanical ventilation, reflecting a pronounced systemic inflammatory response indicative of severe disease outcomes. Conclusion: Integrating hematological markers, particularly NLR and cytokine profiles, is crucial in predicting mechanical ventilation needs and survival in non-vaccinated COVID-19 patients. Our findings provide critical insights into the pathophysiology of COVID-19, supporting the development of more targeted clinical interventions and potentially informing future strategies for managing infectious disease outbreaks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aside from the general population, the COVID-19 pandemic has also affected a group of patients in palliative oncology care. In this study, long-term immune responses against SARS-CoV-2 after vaccination were monitored in a cohort of patients in palliative oncology care. This non-randomized, prospective, and open-label pilot study recruited patients from the Palliative Oncology Program and included 147 patients, of which 80 were females (54.4%) and 67 males (45.6%). The overall evaluation included current health status, SARS-CoV-2 anti-S IgG titer, and neutralizing antibodies using the SARS-CoV-2 virus neutralization test (VNT). Anti-S IgG antibody analysis revealed high (H) antibody levels in 35.7% (n = 10) and very high (VH) levels in 39.3% (n = 11) of patients after the second vaccination dose. Similarly, after the third dose, H was found in 29.6% (n = 32) and VH in 55.5% (n = 60) of patients. High and very high anti-S IgG antibody levels were consistent with high VNT titers (>2560) and H antibody levels in 17.1% (n = 12) or VH in 82.9% (n = 58) of patients. Patients with two or more doses showed H and VH antibody levels at a median of 451 and 342 days after vaccination, respectively. In this clinical trial, patients showed high and very high levels of anti-S IgG antibodies over a longer period of time. These patients did not show reduced immunological responses to the COVID-19 vaccine challenge. We can assume that prevention through vaccination can reduce the risk of complications or death from COVID-19 in patients in early palliative oncology care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is minimal knowledge regarding the durability of neutralization capacity and level of binding antibody generated against the highly transmissible circulating Omicron subvariants following SARS-CoV-2 infection in children with acute COVID-19 and those diagnosed with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) in the absence of vaccination. In this study, SARS-CoV-2 neutralization titers against the ancestral strain (WA1) and Omicron sublineages were evaluated in unvaccinated children admitted for COVID-19 (n = 32) and MIS-C (n = 32) at the time of hospitalization (baseline) and at six to eight weeks post-discharge (follow-up) between 1 April 2020, and 1 September 2022. In addition, antibody binding to the spike receptor binding domain (RBD) from WA1, BA.1, BA.2.75, and BA.4/BA.5 was determined using surface plasmon resonance (SPR). At baseline, the children with MIS-C demonstrated two-fold to three-fold higher binding and neutralizing antibodies against ancestral WA1 compared to those with COVID-19. Importantly, in children with COVID-19, the virus neutralization titers against the Omicron subvariants at six to eight weeks post-discharge reached the same level as those with MIS-C had at baseline but were higher than titers at 6–8 weeks post-discharge for MIS-C cases. Cross-neutralization capacity against recently emerged Omicron BQ.1, BQ.1.1, and XBB.1 variants was very low in children with either COVID-19 or MIS-C at all time points. These findings about post-infection immunity in children with either COVID-19 or MIS-C suggest the need for vaccinations in children with prior COVID-19 or MIS-C to provide effective protection from emerging and circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Given the increase in COVID-19 emergency department visits and hospitalizations during the winter of 2023–2024, identifying groups that have a high prevalence of COVID-19 cases, severity, and long-term symptoms can help increase efforts toward reducing disparities and prevent severe COVID-19 outcomes. Using data from the 2022 National Health Interview Survey (n = 27,651), we assessed the prevalence of COVID-19 outcomes (prior diagnosis, moderate/severe COVID-19, and long COVID) by sociodemographic characteristics and factors associated with each COVID-19 outcome. Approximately one third of adults reported a prior COVID-19 diagnosis (30.7%), while one half (51.6%) who had COVID-19 reported moderate or severe symptoms, and one fifth (19.7%) who had COVID-19 symptoms reported long COVID. The following were associated with higher odds of moderate/severe COVID-19 and long COVID: havinga high-risk condition (aOR = 1.20, OR = 1.52); having anxiety or depression (OR = 1.46, OR = 1.49); having a disability (OR = 1.41, OR = 1.60); and having a food insecurity (OR = 1.37, OR = 1.50) compared to a lack of these conditions. Having two or more COVID-19 vaccinations was associated with lower odds of a COVID-19 diagnosis (OR = 0.75), moderate/severe COVID-19 (OR = 0.86), and long COVID (OR = 0.82). Improving vaccination coverage and reducing disparities in COVID-19 outcomes could advance health equities and protect against future resurgence of disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 pandemic presented an unprecedented challenge to public health as well as an extraordinary burden on health systems worldwide. COVID-19 vaccines were attributed as a key tool to control the pandemic, with healthcare workers (HCWs) as a priority group to receive the vaccine. Healthcare workers are considered one of the most trusted sources of information on vaccines and vaccination. This study was conducted to evaluate the acceptability of the COVID-19 vaccine among HCWs in four different provinces of Indonesia. An anonymous cross-sectional study was conducted online among HCWs between December 2020 and February 2021. Out of 2732 participants, 80.39% stated that they would accept the COVID-19 vaccine, while 19.61% were hesitant to receive the vaccine. Concerns about the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines and potential side-effects after vaccination were the main reasons among the participants to refuse the vaccine. Male gender, single status, higher education level, and higher risk perception increased the acceptability of the COVID-19 vaccine. Other motivators of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance include a high level of trust in the government and increased confidence in vaccine safety and efficacy studies. Dissemination of information in a timely manner as well as training programs for HCWs are crucial to increasing confidence in the COVID-19 vaccination program. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The risk of COVID-19 increases in any occupation entailing intense social interactions. This study aimed to investigate the impact of COVID-19 among civil servants of Trieste city council (northeastern Italy) over the entire pandemic. Methods: The crude incidence rate of COVID-19 was estimated from 1 March 2020 to 31 January 2023 by explanatory factors, expressing the estimate as COVID-19 events x 10,000 person-days (P-d) at risk. A multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression model was fitted to examine the risk of primary COVID-19 infection and reinfections, reporting adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Results: The cohort of Trieste city council was mainly composed of administrative clerks (48.5%), nursery teachers (33%), technicians (9.9%) and local police officers (8.5%). Between 1 March 2020 and 31 January 2023, 1444 (62.4%) employees tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 at least once and 18.1% (=262/1444) at least twice. By the end of this study, 55% (N = 1272) of employees had received at least three doses of COVID-19 vaccine, whereas 19.7% (N = 457) remained unvaccinated. At multiple Cox regression analysis, the adjusted risk of primary COVID-19 events during the entire study period increased in employees aged 40–49 years (aHR = 1.65; 95% CI: 1.01; 2.71), females (aHR = 1.28; 95%CI: 1.12; 1.45), local police officers (aHR = 1.82; 95%CI: 1.50; 2.22) and nursery teachers (aHR = 1.27; 95%CI: 1.13; 1.43). However, whilst the risk of primary infections in police officers increased already during the Alpha transmission period (aHR = 6.82; 95%CI: 4.48; 10.40), progressively reducing across subsequent variants, for nursery teachers, it increased during the Delta wave (aHR = 2.42; 1.70; 3.44), reducing with Omicron (aHR = 1.23; 95%CI: 1.07; 1.40). Compared to unvaccinated colleagues, during the entire study period the risk of primary infections was significantly lower in employees immunized with three (aHR = 0.42; 95%CI: 0.36; 0.47) or four (aHR = 0.30; 95%CI: 0.23; 0.40) doses of COVID-19 vaccine, for a vaccine effectiveness (VE) of 58% and 70%, respectively. The protective effect of vaccination against primary infections was confirmed in the sub-group analysis by main pandemic waves, for a VE of 75% for one dose against 99% for two doses during the Alpha transmission period, slightly reducing to 59% and 70% in Delta time, respectively. During the Omicron wave, the risk of primary SARS-CoV-2 infections diminished significantly with three (aHR = 0.42; 95%CI: 0.36; 0.49) or four vaccine doses (aHR = 0.09; 95%CI: 0.05; 0.16), for a VE of 58% and 91%, respectively. Moreover, the risk of primary SARS-CoV-2 reinfections during the entire study period reduced with one (aHR = 0.47; 95%CI: 0.27; 0.82), two (aHR = 0.42; 95%CI: 0.30; 0.58), three (aHR = 0.32; 95%CI: 0.24; 0.44) or four vaccine doses (aHR = 0.14; 95%CI: 0.05; 0.46), for a VE of 53%, 58%, 68% and 86% against reinfections, respectively. No significant difference in VE was associated with heterologous versus homologous triple vaccination, both against primary infections or reinfections. Conclusions: Primary SARS-CoV-2 infections were more likely among nursery teachers and local police officers. The risk of both primary infections and reinfections reduced with higher number of doses of COVID-19 vaccine, regardless of the pandemic wave. Since city council civil servants were swab tested on demand or for contact tracing, the estimation of COVID-19 risk and VE largely missed aymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections. On the one hand, the present study confirmed the protective effect of COVID-19 vaccination against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections; on the other hand, it highlighted not only the importance of continuous booster doses to keep up the humoral immunity over time but also the importance of updated vaccine formulations to prevent and control the spread of a highly mutable virus. Moreover, the protective effect of the first two doses against reinfections confirmed the efficacy of hybrid immunity during Omicron time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the mass availability of COVID-19 vaccines in the United States, many Americans are still reluctant to take a vaccine as an outcome from exposure to misinformation. Additionally, while scholars have paid attention to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, the influence of general vaccine hesitancy for important viruses such as the flu has largely been ignored. Using nationally representative data from Pew Research Center's American Trends Panel survey (Wave 79), this study examined the relationship between perceived misinformation exposure, COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, flu vaccine acceptance, political ideology, and demographic trends. The findings suggest that those who accepted the flu vaccine were less likely to be COVID-19 vaccine-hesitant. In addition, moderation analyses showed that perceived misinformation exposure increases COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy for conservatives and moderates but not for liberals. However, perceived misinformation exposure influences COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among conservatives only if they are also flu vaccine-hesitant. Perceived misinformation exposure has no role in COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy if individuals (irrespective of political ideology) are regular with their flu vaccine. The results suggest that the effect of misinformation exposure on negative attitudes toward COVID-19 may be associated with generalized vaccine hesitancy (e.g., flu). The practical and theoretical implications are discussed.

The COVID-19 pandemic, with over 775 million cases and 7 million deaths by May 2024, has drastically impacted global public health and exacerbated existing healthcare inequalities. The swift development and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines have been critical in combating the virus, yet disparities in access to and administration of the vaccine have highlighted deep-seated inequities at global, regional, and national levels. Wealthier nations have benefited from early access to vaccines, while low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have faced persistent shortages. Initiatives such as COVAX aimed to address these disparities, but challenges persist. Socioeconomic factors, education, ethnic identity, and the healthcare infrastructure play crucial roles in vaccine equity. For example, lower-income individuals often face barriers such as poor access to healthcare, misinformation, and logistical challenges, particularly in rural areas. Addressing these inequities requires a multifaceted approach, integrating national policies with local strategies to enhance vaccines' accessibility, counter misinformation, and ensure equitable distribution. Collaborative efforts at all levels are essential to promote vaccine equity and effectively control the pandemic, ensuring that all populations have fair access to life-saving vaccines. This review explores these complex issues, offering insights into the barriers and facilitators of vaccine equity and providing recommendations to promote more equitable and effective vaccination programs. With a focus on the different levels at which vaccination policies are planned and implemented, the text provides guidelines to steer vaccination strategies, emphasizing the role of international cooperation and local policy frameworks as keys to achieving equitable vaccination coverage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the availability of COVID-19 vaccines, Nigeria still faces significant COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, with only 60.7% of the eligible population fully vaccinated as of 20 March 2023. Our study, part of a community-based effort to improve knowledge and uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine in the Gwagwalada Area Council of Abuja, the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) of Nigeria, utilized the WHO's Behavioral and Social Drivers (BeSDs)-of-vaccination framework to examine the drivers of COVID-19 vaccination among eligible adults. This was a mixed-method study with focus group discussions (FGDs) and in-depth interviews (IDIs) involving 40 purposively sampled participants. We triangulate qualitative findings with data from a household survey of 1512 eligible adults identified using a two-stage systematic cluster sampling approach. All data were collected from the 1–18 November 2022. The household survey showed 46% COVID-19 vaccine uptake, with Pearson chi-square and Fisher's exact test showing significant associations between vaccine uptake and gender, religion, and education. Multivariate logistic regression showed that confidence in vaccine safety, knowing vaccination sites and family/friends' endorsement of COVID-19 vaccination were the strongest items associated with vaccine uptake in the thinking-and-feeling, practical-issue, and social-process domains, respectively. Multiple items measuring these domains aligned with BeSD priority question, demonstrating the robustness of the pared-down framework. Qualitative data corroborated these findings. To address vaccine hesitancy and increase uptake, community-driven approaches to improve trust in vaccine safety and benefits and promote positive vaccination norms are needed. In addition, service delivery strategies to make vaccination services easily accessible and identifiable should be developed and tailored to community needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Breakthrough COVID-19 (occurring in fully vaccinated people) has been described. Data on its characteristics among immune-mediated rheumatic disease (IMRD) patients are scarce. This study describes breakthrough COVID-19 occurring in IMRD patients participating in the SAFER-study, a Brazilian multicentric cohort evaluating the safety, effectiveness, and immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with autoimmune diseases. A descriptive analysis of the population and a binary logistic regression model were performed to evaluate the predictors of COVID-19-related hospitalization. A p-value < 0.05 was significant. The included 160 patients were predominantly females (83.1%), with a mean (SD) age of 40.23 (13.19) years. The patients received two (19%), three (70%), or four (11%) vaccine doses. The initial two-dose series was mainly with ChAdOx1 (Oxford/AstraZeneca) (58%) or BBIBP-CorV (Sinopharm-Beijing) (34%). The first booster (n = 150) was with BNT162b2 (BioNtech/Fosun Pharma/Pfizer) (63%) or ChAdOx1 (29%). The second booster (n = 112) was with BNT162b2 (40%) or ChAdOx1 (26%). The COVID-19 hospitalization rate was 17.5%. IMRD moderate/high activity (OR: 5.84; CI: 1.9–18.5; p = 0.002) and treatment with corticosteroids (OR: 2.94; CI: 1.02–8.49; p = 0.0043) were associated with higher odds of hospitalization, while increasing the number of vaccine doses was protective (OR: 0.37; CI: 0.15–0.9; p = 0.032). These findings, along with previous reassuring results about the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines, argue in favor of booster vaccination in IMRD patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prior to the introduction of COVID-19 vaccines, patients with severe mental illness (SMI) were at greater risk of COVID-19-related outcomes than the general population. It is not yet clear whether COVID-19 vaccines have reduced the risk gap. We systematically searched nine international databases and three Chinese databases to identify relevant studies from December 2020 to December 2023 to compare the risk of COVID-19-related outcomes for SMI patients to those without SMI after vaccination. Random effects meta-analysis was performed to estimate the pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias analysis were conducted with R software 4.3.0. A total of 11 observational studies were included. Compared with controls, SMI patients were associated with a slightly increased risk of infection (pooled OR = 1.10, 95% CI, 1.03–1.17, I2 = 43.4%), while showing a 2-fold higher risk of hospitalization (pooled OR = 2.66, 95% CI, 1.13–6.22, I2 = 99.6%), even after both groups have received COVID-19 vaccines. Limited evidence suggests a higher mortality risk among SMI patients compared to controls post vaccination, but the findings did not reach statistical significance. SMI patients remain at increased risk compared to their peers in COVID-19-related outcomes even after vaccination. Vaccination appears an effective approach to prevent severe COVID-19 illness in SMI patients, and actions should be taken by healthcare providers to improve vaccination coverage in these vulnerable groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

COVID-19 vaccines have been shown to be effective in preventing severe illness, including among pregnant persons. The vaccines appear to be safe in pregnancy, supporting a continuously favorable overall risk/benefit profile, though supportive data for the U.S. over different periods of variant predominance are lacking. We sought to analyze the association of adverse pregnancy outcomes with COVID-19 vaccinations in the pre-Delta, Delta, and Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variants' dominant periods (constituting 50% or more of each pregnancy) for pregnant persons in a large, nationally sampled electronic health record repository in the U.S. Our overall analysis included 311,057 pregnant persons from December 2020 to October 2023 at a time when there were approximately 3.6 million births per year. We compared rates of preterm births and stillbirths among pregnant persons who were vaccinated before or during pregnancy to persons vaccinated after pregnancy or those who were not vaccinated. We performed a multivariable Poisson regression with generalized estimated equations to address data site heterogeneity for preterm births and unadjusted exact models for stillbirths, stratified by the dominant variant period. We found lower rates of preterm birth in the majority of modeled periods (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR] range: 0.42 to 0.85; p-value range: <0.001 to 0.06) and lower rates of stillbirth (IRR range: 0.53 to 1.82; p-value range: <0.001 to 0.976) in most periods among those who were vaccinated before or during pregnancy compared to those who were vaccinated after pregnancy or not vaccinated. We largely found no adverse associations between COVID-19 vaccination and preterm birth or stillbirth; these findings reinforce the safety of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy and bolster confidence for pregnant persons, providers, and policymakers in the importance of COVID-19 vaccination for this group despite the end of the public health emergency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Objectives: This study aimed to assess the reactogenicity and immunogenicity of various SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and compare their protective effects against COVID-19 among healthcare workers (HCWs) during the Omicron outbreak in Taiwan. Methods: Conducted from March 2021 to July 2023, this prospective observational study included healthy HCWs without prior COVID-19 immunization. Participants chose between adenovirus-vectored (AstraZeneca), mRNA (Moderna, BioNTech-Pfizer), and protein-based (Medigen, Novavax) vaccines. Blood samples were taken at multiple points to measure neutralizing antibody (nAb) titers, and adverse events (AEs) were recorded via questionnaires. Results: Of 710 HCWs, 668 (94.1%) completed three doses, and 290 (40.8%) received a fourth dose during the Omicron outbreak. AEs were more common with AstraZeneca and Moderna vaccines, while Medigen caused fewer AEs. Initial nAb titers were highest with Moderna but waned over time regardless of the vaccine. Booster doses significantly increased nAb titers, with the highest levels observed in Moderna BA1 recipients. The fourth dose significantly reduced COVID-19 incidence, with Moderna BA1 being the most effective. Conclusions: Regular booster doses, especially with mRNA and adjuvant-protein vaccines, effectively enhance nAb levels and reduce infection rates, providing critical protection for frontline HCWs during variant outbreaks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Routine childhood vaccination, e.g., for diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (DTP), might provide additional protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection. This concept of heterologous immunity was explored in healthy children receiving both DTP and inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed on 154 healthy children aged 6–8 years old in Jakarta, Indonesia. Their vaccination status for the DTP (including a diphtheria–tetanus booster vaccine at 5 years old) and CoronaVac (from 6 years old) vaccines were recorded. Peripheral blood samples were collected from all participants, in which anti-diphtheria toxoid IgG and anti-SARS-CoV-2 S-RBD antibodies and T cell-derived IFN-γ were measured. Results: The study participants with complete DTP vaccination had significantly higher titers of anti-diphtheria toxoid IgG than the ones without (median = 0.9349 versus 0.2113 IU/mL; p < 0.0001). Upon stratification based on DTP and CoronaVac vaccination statuses, the participants with complete DTP and CoronaVac vaccinations had the highest titer of anti-SARS-CoV-2 S-RBD antibodies (median = 1196 U/mL) and the highest concentration of SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell-derived IFN-γ (median = 560.9 mIU/mL) among all the groups. Conclusions: Healthy children aged 6–8 years old with complete DTP and CoronaVac vaccinations exhibited stronger SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immune responses. This might suggest an additional benefit of routine childhood vaccination in generating protection against novel pathogens, presumably via heterologous immunity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

COVID-19 vaccines have reduced the negative health and economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic by preventing severe disease, hospitalizations and deaths. In the new socio-economic normality, the COVID-19 vaccination strategy can be universal or high-risk and seasonal or not seasonal, and different vaccines can be used. The universal vaccination strategy can achieve greater health and herd immunity effects and is associated with greater costs than the high-risk vaccination strategy. In each country, the optimal COVID-19 vaccination strategy must be decided by considering the advantages and disadvantages and assessing the costs, health effects and cost-effectiveness of the universal and high-risk vaccination strategies. The universal vaccination strategy should be implemented when the objective of the vaccination program is to achieve the greatest health benefits from COVID-19 vaccination and when its incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is lower than EUR 30,000−50,000 per QALY or LYG. The use of adapted vaccines targeting currently circulating variants of SARS-CoV-2 is necessary to avoid the immune escape of emerging variants.

Myocarditis after the COVID-19 vaccine is one of the important adverse events following immunization, observed mainly after mRNA-based vaccines. Importantly, post-vaccination myocarditis was less common than myocarditis after SARS-CoV-2 infection, as it was scored at 19.7 per 1,000,000 doses and 2.76 per 1000 infections. Predominantly, its course was benign and, compared with the myocarditis after COVID-19 infection, significantly fewer patients developed heart failure or died among patients with post-vaccination myocarditis. The group at highest risk of myocarditis related to COVID-19 vaccination were young males who received a second dose of an mRNA vaccine. It was observed that, among mRNA vaccines, specifically mRNA-1273 was associated with a higher risk of myocarditis. The mechanism underlying myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination is still under investigation and certain processes are being considered. Currently, some follow-up assessments of patients who developed vaccine-induced myocarditis are available and suggest a favorable prognosis. The aim of this review is to discuss the most recent data on myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination considering its epidemiology, clinical presentation, diagnosis, management, relative risk of myocarditis compared with SARS-CoV-2 infection, potential underlying mechanism, and follow-up data of patients who developed post-vaccination myocarditis.

This is a retrospective observational study including all COVID-19 patients admitted at our Institute throughout three successive pandemic waves, from January 2021 to June 2023. The main in-hospital outcomes (clinical progression [CP], defined as admission to Intensive Care Unit [ICU]/death, and death within 28 days) were compared among participants unvaccinated (NV), fully vaccinated (FV), with one (FV&B1) and two (FV&B2) booster doses. Vaccinated participants were stratified into recently and waned FV/FV&B1/FV&B2, depending on the time elapsed from last dose (≤ and >120 days, respectively). There were 4488 participants: 2224 NV, 674 FV, 1207 FV&B1, and 383 FV&B2. Within 28 days, there were 604 ICU admissions, 396 deaths, and 737 CP. After adjusting for the main confounders, the risk of both in-hospital outcomes was reduced in vaccinated individuals, especially in those who received the booster dose (approximately by 36% for FV and >50% for FV&B1 and FV&B2 compared to NV). Similarly, after restricting the analysis to vaccinated participants only, we observed a risk reduction of approximately 40% for FV&B1 and 50% for FV&B2, compared to FV, regardless of the distance since the last dose. Our data confirm the vaccine’s effectiveness in preventing severe COVID-19 and support the efforts to increase the uptake of booster doses, mainly among older and frailer individuals, still at a greater risk of clinical progression.

Breakthrough COVID-19 (occurring in fully vaccinated people) has been described. Data on its characteristics among immune-mediated rheumatic disease (IMRD) patients are scarce. This study describes breakthrough COVID-19 occurring in IMRD patients participating in the SAFER-study, a Brazilian multicentric cohort evaluating the safety, effectiveness, and immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with autoimmune diseases. A descriptive analysis of the population and a binary logistic regression model were performed to evaluate the predictors of COVID-19-related hospitalization. A p-value < 0.05 was significant. The included 160 patients were predominantly females (83.1%), with a mean (SD) age of 40.23 (13.19) years. The patients received two (19%), three (70%), or four (11%) vaccine doses. The initial two-dose series was mainly with ChAdOx1 (Oxford/AstraZeneca) (58%) or BBIBP-CorV (Sinopharm-Beijing) (34%). The first booster (n = 150) was with BNT162b2 (BioNtech/Fosun Pharma/Pfizer) (63%) or ChAdOx1 (29%). The second booster (n = 112) was with BNT162b2 (40%) or ChAdOx1 (26%). The COVID-19 hospitalization rate was 17.5%. IMRD moderate/high activity (OR: 5.84; CI: 1.9–18.5; p = 0.002) and treatment with corticosteroids (OR: 2.94; CI: 1.02–8.49; p = 0.0043) were associated with higher odds of hospitalization, while increasing the number of vaccine doses was protective (OR: 0.37; CI: 0.15–0.9; p = 0.032). These findings, along with previous reassuring results about the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines, argue in favor of booster vaccination in IMRD patients.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on every individual in the United States. The launch of the COVID-19 vaccines is estimated to have averted millions of deaths and reduced over 18 million COVID-19-related hospitalizations. In September 2023, the updated 2023–2024 COVID-19 vaccine, which includes a monovalent component that corresponds to the omicron variant XBB.1.5, reflecting the predominant circulating variant at the time of strain selection, was approved and was recommended for use in all people ≥ 6 months of age. Despite this recommendation, the US uptake of the updated COVID-19 vaccines over the 2023–2024 season has been far from optimal, placing many people at unnecessary risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes. This paper provides an overview of the current state of COVID-19 in 2023–2024 and barriers to vaccine uptake. With the continued evolution of the virus, the potential for more virulent variants, reduced public acceptance of vaccination, and the potential barriers that contributed to low vaccine uptake are explored to provide solutions for improving COVID-19 protection for future seasons.

Early studies have found that the initial COVID-19 vaccination series was protective against severe symptoms and long COVID. However, few studies have explored the association of booster doses on severe disease outcomes and long COVID. This cross-sectional analysis used data from the 2022 US National Health Interview Survey data to investigate how vaccination status correlates with COVID-19 infection severity and long COVID among previously infected individuals. Participants were categorized into three groups: those who had received at least one booster, those with only the initial complete vaccination series, and those with either an incomplete series or no vaccinations. Out of 9521 survey respondents who reported a past positive COVID-19 test, 51.2% experienced moderate/severe infections, and 17.6% experienced long COVID. Multivariable regression models revealed that receiving at least one booster shot was associated with lower odds of experiencing moderate/severe symptoms (aOR = 0.78, p < 0.001) compared to those unvaccinated or with an incomplete series. Additionally, having at least one booster reduced long COVID odds by 24% (aOR = 0.76, p = 0.003). Completing only the primary vaccine series did not significantly decrease the likelihood of severe illness or long COVID. These findings support the continued promotion of booster vaccinations to mitigate long COVID risks in vulnerable populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

COVID-19 vaccination rates are lower in women of reproductive age (WRA), including pregnant/postpartum women, despite their poorer COVID-19-related outcomes. We evaluated the vaccination experiences of 3568 U.K. WRA, including 1983 women (55.6%) experiencing a pandemic pregnancy, recruited through the ZOE COVID Symptom Study app. Two staggered online questionnaires (Oct–Dec 2021: 3453 responders; Aug–Sept 2022: 2129 responders) assessed reproductive status, COVID-19 status, vaccination, and attitudes for/against vaccination. Descriptive analyses included vaccination type(s), timing relative to age-based eligibility and reproductive status, vaccination delay (first vaccination >28 days from eligibility), and rationale, with content analysis of free-text comments. Most responders (3392/3453, 98.2%) were vaccinated by Dec 2021, motivated by altruism, vaccination supportiveness in general, low risk, and COVID-19 concerns. Few declined vaccination (by Sept/2022: 20/2129, 1.0%), citing risks (pregnancy-specific and longer-term), pre-existing immunity, and personal/philosophical reasons. Few women delayed vaccination, although pregnant/postpartum women (vs. other WRA) received vaccination later (median 3 vs. 0 days after eligibility, p < 0.0001). Despite high uptake, concerns included adverse effects, misinformation (including from healthcare providers), ever-changing government advice, and complex decision making. In summary, most women in this large WRA cohort were promptly vaccinated, including pregnant/post-partum women. Altruism and community benefit superseded personal benefit as reasons for vaccination. Nevertheless, responders experienced angst and received vaccine-related misinformation and discouragement. These findings should inform vaccination strategies in WRA.

Despite the availability of COVID-19 vaccines, Nigeria still faces significant COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, with only 60.7% of the eligible population fully vaccinated as of 20 March 2023. Our study, part of a community-based effort to improve knowledge and uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine in the Gwagwalada Area Council of Abuja, the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) of Nigeria, utilized the WHO’s Behavioral and Social Drivers (BeSDs)-of-vaccination framework to examine the drivers of COVID-19 vaccination among eligible adults. This was a mixed-method study with focus group discussions (FGDs) and in-depth interviews (IDIs) involving 40 purposively sampled participants. We triangulate qualitative findings with data from a household survey of 1512 eligible adults identified using a two-stage systematic cluster sampling approach. All data were collected from the 1–18 November 2022. The household survey showed 46% COVID-19 vaccine uptake, with Pearson chi-square and Fisher’s exact test showing significant associations between vaccine uptake and gender, religion, and education. Multivariate logistic regression showed that confidence in vaccine safety, knowing vaccination sites and family/friends’ endorsement of COVID-19 vaccination were the strongest items associated with vaccine uptake in the thinking-and-feeling, practical-issue, and social-process domains, respectively. Multiple items measuring these domains aligned with BeSD priority question, demonstrating the robustness of the pared-down framework. Qualitative data corroborated these findings. To address vaccine hesitancy and increase uptake, community-driven approaches to improve trust in vaccine safety and benefits and promote positive vaccination norms are needed. In addition, service delivery strategies to make vaccination services easily accessible and identifiable should be developed and tailored to community needs.

Introduction. The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted global health, with Eastern Europe experiencing notable excess morbidity and mortality and vaccine hesitancy. This study utilized the Behavior Integration (BI) framework to identify barriers and motivators for COVID-19 vaccination and develop strategies to increase vaccine demand and confidence in Moldova, North Macedonia, and Serbia. Methods. A mixed-methods approach was employed, including qualitative interviews and quantitative surveys. The BI framework was used to integrate human behaviors with technical and operational considerations throughout the project. Results. A total of 2742 online surveys were collected in Moldova and Serbia, revealing significant barriers such as vaccine safety concerns (OR = 1.839, 95% CI: 1.328–2.547 in urban Moldova; OR = 1.990, 95% CI: 1.351–2.931 in urban Serbia), logistical challenges, and lack of institutional trust. Conversely, motivators included personal health concerns, recommendations from health care providers, and the desire to travel. The proposed social and behavior change strategy included a continuing medical education course that trained 2403 medical providers, with post-test results showing a 99% improvement in knowledge and confidence in applying the information, and collective engagement workshops for 3260 chronic disease patients and 842 pregnant women, of which 7% were vaccinated against COVID-19. Conclusions. The BI approach effectively identified and addressed vaccination barriers and motivators, leading to tailored strategies that increased vaccine uptake. Continuous stakeholder engagement, adaptive learning processes, and local organizations are crucial for refining program implementation, ensuring sustainability, and promoting public health.

Introduction: As the COVID-19 pandemic becomes an endemic state, still many questions remain regarding the risks and impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) who were excluded from the phase 3 COVID-19 vaccination trials. Methods: The BELCOMID study collected patient data and serological samples from a large, multicentric IMID patient cohort that was prospectively followed during sequential stages of the pandemic. Patients were stratified according to vaccination status into five groups across three sampling periods. Interactions between SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 vaccination status, IMID-treatment modalities and IMID course were explored. Results: In total, 2165 patients with IBD, a dermatological or rheumatological IMID participated. SARS-CoV-2 infection rates increased over the course of the pandemic and were highest in IMID patients that had refused every vaccine. After baseline COVID-19 vaccination, serologic spike (S)-antibody responses were attenuated by particular types of immune-modulating treatment: anti-TNF, rituximab, JAKi, systemic steroids, combined biologic/immunomodulator treatment. Nonetheless, S-antibody concentration increased progressively in patients who received a booster vaccination, reaching 100% seroconversion rate in patients who had received two booster vaccines. Previous SARS-CoV-2 infection was found as a predictor of higher S-antibody response. Patients who had refused every vaccine showed the lowest rates of S-seroconversion (53.8%). Multiple logistic regression did not identify previous SARS-CoV-2 infection as a risk factor for IMID flare-up. Furthermore, no increased risk of IMID flare-up was found with booster vaccination. Conclusions: Altogether, the BELCOMID study provides evidence for the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccination and confirms the importance of repeated booster vaccination in IMID patients.

Objectives: Vaccination is the best preventive measure for SARS-CoV-2 infection; however, efficacy is lower in cancer patients. During the pandemic period, Mexico was characterized by the use of seven different COVID-19 vaccine platforms, and oncologic patients were not prioritized for vaccination. We report the outcomes of COVID-19 in cancer patients after the beginning of the national vaccine campaign in Mexico. Methods: All patients with cancer and COVID-19 diagnosed at Instituto Nacional de Cancerología from 14 February 2021 to 28 February 2022 were included. Primary outcomes were the proportion of individuals who required hospital admission and/or invasive mechanical ventilation, according to the vaccination status; 30-day mortality; the period of infection; and other cancer-related variables. Results: A total of 691 patients were included; 524 (76%) had solid tumors (STs), and 167 (24%) had hematologic malignancies (HMs). Patients infected in the first two periods, had lower rates of vaccination and higher rates of mortality and hospitalization compared to those infected in the Omicron period. In the multivariate analysis, vaccination status was independently associated with hospitalization in patients with STs (aOR 0.38, 95%CI 0.19–0.75, p = 0.005), but it was not associated with invasive mechanical ventilation and 30-day mortality. In those with HMs, vaccination status was not associated with any outcome; in this group, only recent chemotherapy and time of infection were associated with invasive ventilation. Conclusions: Vaccination significantly reduced hospital admissions in patients with STs. Infections occurring during the Omicron period were associated with improved outcomes in both ST and HM patients. Despite having a lesser impact in immunosuppressed patients, vaccination is an essential strategy, and access to vaccination campaigns in patients with cancer needs to be prioritized.

Purpose: This study investigates the impact of varying degrees of immunosuppression on the clinical outcomes of immunocompromised individuals, particularly those with autoimmune diseases or post-solid organ transplant statuses, in the context of COVID-19. By focusing on these highly vulnerable populations, the study underscores the significant health inequalities faced by immunocompromised patients, who experience disproportionately worse outcomes in comparison to the general population. Methods: A retrospective cohort analysis of the K-COV-N dataset was conducted, comparing the effects of immunosuppression in autoimmune and transplant groups with matched control groups. Propensity score matching was employed to minimize inequalities in baseline characteristics, ensuring a more equitable comparison between immunocompromised and non-immunocompromised individuals. Outcomes included COVID-19-related in-hospital mortality, 28-day mortality, ICU admissions, and the need for respiratory support among 323,890 adults in the Republic of Korea. Patients with cancer or other immunosuppressive conditions, such as HIV, were excluded. Subgroup analyses assessed the influence of specific immunosuppressive medications and vaccination extent. Results: Significantly elevated in-hospital mortality was found for patients with autoimmune diseases (adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR] 2.749) and transplant recipients (aOR 7.567), with similar patterns in other outcomes. High-dose steroid use and a greater number of immunosuppressant medications markedly increased the risk of poor outcomes. Vaccination emerged as a protective factor, with a single dose substantially improving outcomes for autoimmune patients and at least two doses necessary for transplant recipients. Conclusions: Immunocompromised patients, particularly those with autoimmune diseases and transplant recipients, are highly vulnerable to severe COVID-19 outcomes. High-dose steroid use and multiple immunosuppressants further increase risks. Vaccination significantly improves outcomes, with at least one dose benefiting autoimmune patients and two doses necessary for transplant recipients. Personalized vaccination schedules based on immunosuppression levels are essential to mitigate healthcare inequalities and improve outcomes, particularly in underserved populations, informing both clinical and public health strategies.

Background: A rise in absenteeism among healthcare workers (HCWs) was recorded during the COVID-19 pandemic, mostly attributed to SARS-CoV-2 infections. However, evidence suggests that COVID-19 vaccine-related side effects may have also contributed to absenteeism during this period. This study aimed to synthesize the evidence on the prevalence of absenteeism related to COVID-19 vaccine side effects among HCWs. Methods: The inclusion criteria for this review were original quantitative studies of any design, written in English, that addressed absenteeism related to the side effects of COVID-19 vaccines among HCWs. Four databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and the Web of Science) were searched for eligible articles on 7 June 2024. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale. Narrative synthesis and a meta-analysis were used to synthesize the evidence. Results: Nineteen observational studies with 96,786 participants were included. The pooled prevalence of absenteeism related to COVID-19 vaccine side effects was 17% (95% CI: 13–20%), while 83% (95% CI: 80–87%) of the vaccination events did not lead in any absenteeism. Study design, sex, vaccination dose, region, and vaccine type were identified as significant sources of heterogeneity. Conclusions: A non-negligible proportion of HCWs were absent from work after reporting side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine. Various demographic factors should be considered in future vaccination schedules for HCWs to potentially decrease the burden of absenteeism related to vaccine side effects. As most studies included self-reported questionnaire data, our results may be limited due to a recall bias. Other: The protocol of the study was preregistered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42024552517).

While approved vaccines for COVID-19 provide protection against severe disease and death, they have limited efficacy in the prevention of infection and virus transmission. Mucosal immunity is preferred over systemic immunity to provide protection at the point of entry against pathogens such as SARS-CoV-2. VaxForm has developed an oral vaccine delivery platform that elicits mucosal and systemic immune responses by targeting immune cells in the gut through C-type lectin receptors. The technology consists of microencapsulating the vaccine with an enteric polymer, which also results in enhanced thermostability. This article describes the formulation development and in vivo testing of a novel protein-based oral COVID-19 vaccine using this technology. Results demonstrate successful induction of immune response in mice and showed that the particle size of the vaccines following administration can impact the ratio of mucosal to systemic response. Immunogenicity and thermostability of liquid suspension and dry powder versions of the vaccine were compared in mice. The liquid suspension vaccine showed excellent heat resistance by maintaining immunogenicity after 14 days of storage at 60 °C. While further investigation is needed to determine correlates of protection and duration of response for mucosal immunity, this study demonstrates the vaccine’s potential as a COVID-19 booster to enhance mucosal protection in humans and improve global access by lowering the cost of production, removing cold-chain requirements, and allowing self-administration.

Introduction: COVID-19 vaccines were rapidly developed and deployed on a large scale during a global crisis. A range of deployment strategies were used globally to maximize vaccine uptake. In this scoping review, we identify and analyze the main healthcare system and policy factors that guided and influenced COVID-19 vaccination deployment and uptake globally. Materials and Methods: JBI guidelines, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR), and the population, concept, and context (PCC) framework were applied. Studies on individual COVID-19 vaccination factors, such as vaccine hesitancy, were excluded. The search was last conducted in May 2024 yielding 26,686 articles from PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, and COVID-19 websites. A total of 47 articles and 3 guidance documents were included. The results of the thematic analysis were mapped to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Results: The results found the following healthcare system and policy factors as integral to COVID-19 vaccination: types of vaccine products, healthcare workforce capacity, procurement strategies, distribution and cold-chain capacity, partnership, coordination, and leadership, information, communication, and registration strategies, delivery models, organizations, the existing health systems and policies on prioritization of at-risk groups and deployment plans. Discussion: Globally, COVID-19 vaccination programs responded to the pandemic by leveraging and reforming the existing healthcare systems, relying on strong leadership and global cooperation (such as the COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access Initiative). Deployment was enabled by effective communication and adoption of innovative technologies using data-driven policies to create high vaccine demand while overcoming limited vaccine supply and rapidly adapting to uncertainties.

Background: Preventing COVID-19 in Gaza is crucial due to the devastation of advanced health services infrastructure by war. Despite the high protection offered by COVID-19 vaccines against severe disease, a 2021 survey in Gaza found only half of the population was vaccinated, and one-third was vaccine-hesitant. This follow-up study conducted in March 2023 aimed to re-evaluate vaccination levels, hesitancy, exposure to vaccine promotion efforts, and other risk factors in Gaza. Methods: A community-based cross-sectional survey with multistage stratified sampling was used. Associations of primary exposures and other determinants with vaccine status and hesitancy were quantified using bivariate and multivariable logistic regression. Results: In 2023, 63.5% of adults received at least one vaccine dose compared to 49.1% in 2021 (p < 0.001). Vaccine hesitancy prevalence was 31.7% in 2023 versus 34.1% in 2021 (p = 0.395). Adjusted odds of vaccination were 4.2 times higher among those referred by health workers compared to those not referred. Adjusted odds of vaccine hesitancy among those who received information on the vaccine from health workers were 0.3 times that of people who did not receive information. Conclusions: Results suggest health workers could play a crucial role in future vaccination strategies, as their vaccine promotion efforts were linked to better vaccine outcomes. Investing in the skills development of community health workers to contribute to these efforts is recommended.

Background/Objectives: This retrospective cohort study evaluated the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of two bivalent (original/Omicron BA.4/BA.5) vaccines mRNA-1273.222 versus the BNT162b2 Bivalent in preventing COVID-19-related outcomes in adults with underlying medical conditions associated with increased risk for severe COVID-19. Methods: In a linked electronic health record/claims dataset, US adults (≥18 years) with ≥1 underlying medical condition of interest who received either the bivalent vaccine between 31 August 2022 and 28 February 2023 were identified. The inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to adjust for cohort differences. Cohorts were followed up for COVID-19-related hospitalizations and outpatient encounters until 31 May 2023. Hazard ratios and rVEs were estimated using Cox regression. Subgroup analyses were performed on individuals with pre-specified comorbid conditions. Results: 757,572 mRNA-1273.222 and 1,204,975 BNT162b2 Bivalent recipients were identified. The adjusted rVE over a median follow-up of 198 days was 10.9% (6.2%–15.2%) against COVID-19-related hospitalization and 3.2% (1.7%–4.7%) against COVID-19-related outpatient encounters. rVE estimates for COVID-19 hospitalizations among subgroups with comorbid conditions were as follows: diabetes 15.1% (8.7%–21.0%), cerebro- and cardiovascular disease 14.7% (9.0%–20.1%), chronic lung disease 11.9% (5.1%–18.2%), immunocompromised 15.0% (7.2%–22.2%), chronic kidney disease 8.4% (0.5%–15.7%). Conclusions: Overall, among adults with underlying medical conditions, mRNA-1273.222 was more effective than BNT162b2 Bivalent, especially in preventing COVID-19-related hospitalizations.