Search

Objectives: To determine factors associated with intention to receive recommended COVID-19 booster vaccines in 2023-2024., Methods: A cross-sectional study of 1,256 individuals at Minnesota State and County fairs was conducted to assess their intention to receive a COVID-19 booster vaccine in the coming year if recommended. The association between booster intention and multiple factors believed to influence willingness to receive the vaccine, including perceived vaccine safety, perceived risk of COVID-19, public health knowledge, fear of future pandemics, and political affiliation, were analyzed using ordinal logistic regression and adjusted odds ratios (aOR)., Results: Intention to receive a COVID-19 booster vaccine was high among our participants with 56% reporting they were extremely likely to receive the vaccine this year and another 15% reporting that they were likely to do the same. A strong association with getting a booster vaccine was found between perceived vaccine safety (aOR: 15.3, 95% CI: 10.6-22.2), perceived COVID-19 risk (aOR: 3.5, 95% CI: 2.4-5.1), pandemic fear (aOR: 3.4, 95% CI: 2.4-4.8), public health knowledge (aOR: 1.3, 95% CI: 0.9-1.8), and democrat political affiliation (aOR: 2.8, 95%CI: 1.8-4.4)., Conclusions: Our study emphasizes the importance of perceived vaccine safety as a predictor of intention to accept COVID-19 vaccines and highlights the continued need to effectively communicate with the public about the safety of vaccines., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) enters the respiratory tract, where it infects the alveoli epithelial lining. However, patients have sequelae that extend well beyond the alveoli into the pulmonary vasculature and, perhaps, beyond to the brain and other organs. Because of the dynamic events within blood vessels, histology does not report platelet and neutrophil behavior. Because of the rapid nontranscriptional response of these cells, neither single-cell RNA sequencing nor proteomics report robustly on their critical behaviors. We used intravital microscopy in level-3 containment to examine the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 within 3 organs in mice expressing human angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE-2) ubiquitously (CAG-AC-70) or on epithelium (K18-promoter). Using a neon-green SARS-CoV-2, we observed both the epithelium and endothelium infected in AC70 mice but only the epithelium in K18 mice. There were increased neutrophils in the microcirculation but not in the alveoli of the lungs of AC70 mice. Platelets formed large aggregates in the pulmonary capillaries. Despite only neurons being infected within the brain, profound neutrophil adhesion forming the nidus of large platelet aggregates were observed in the cerebral microcirculation, with many nonperfused microvessels. Neutrophils breached the brain endothelial layer associated with a significant disruption of the blood-brain-barrier. Despite ubiquitous ACE-2 expression, CAG-AC-70 mice had very small increases in blood cytokine, no increase in thrombin, no infected circulating cells, and no liver involvement suggesting limited systemic effects. In summary, our imaging of SARS-CoV-2-infected mice gave direct evidence that there is a significant perturbation locally in the lung and brain microcirculation induced by local viral infection leading to increased local inflammation and thrombosis in these organs., (© 2023 by The American Society of Hematology. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), permitting only noncommercial, nonderivative use with attribution. All other rights reserved.)

The increase in online learning brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic will likely result in a greater availability of online and hybrid course offerings. In this study, students enrolled in parallel sections of a microbiology lab course with in-person labs and either face-to-face (F2F) or all-online lectures (hybrid, H). Course material and method of assessment in the two sections were identical; student demographics were similar. In the first year, F2F students scored significantly higher on two out of four exams. In the second year, two interventions were introduced: team-building activities (in both sections) and online group discussions (H only). Students in both the F2F and H sections reported similar positive teamwork reviews based on Comprehensive Assessment of Team Member Effectiveness (catme.org) and survey data. Although the COVID-19 pandemic eventually forced all learning online, exam scores from the two sections in the first half of the semester were similar, suggesting that the interventions were effective. In both sections, exam scores were positively correlated with entering grade point averages. This study adds to the body of literature supporting the effectiveness of hybrid learning.

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, telehealth rapidly emerged as an essential health care service and became particularly important for patients with cancer and chronic conditions. However, the benefits of telehealth have not been fully realized for some of the most vulnerable populations due to inequitable access to telehealth capable technology., Purpose: This study aimed to assess accessibility and satisfaction with telehealth technology by vulnerable patients with cancer and pulmonary disease., Methodology: A paper survey and internet-based survey were developed and administered to adult (≥18 years) cancer and pulmonary clinic patients (July 1, 2020 to October 30, 2020)., Results: Descriptive statistics and Fisher exact test were performed. Two hundred eleven patients completed the survey. Adults ≥50 years old (older) had reduced access to smartphone video capability and internet connection compared with adults less than 50 years old (59% vs. 90%, p < .01). Older adults reported more challenges with telehealth visits compared with younger adults (50.3%, 28.6%; p < .01). No difference in access to technology and preferences for telehealth versus in-person care was found by race, gender, or education level., Conclusions: Nearly all patients (95%) who had a previous experience with a telehealth visit felt confident in the quality of care they received via telehealth. Younger adults preferred video visits compared with older adults (75% vs. 50.6%, p < .01). Older adults were less likely to have access to smartphones with internet access, have more challenges with telehealth visits, and were less likely to prefer audio-video telehealth visits compared with younger adults., Implications: Ensuring equitable access to all health care delivery modalities by telehealth, including audio-only visits for patients across the age continuum, is paramount., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 American Association of Nurse Practitioners.)

Background: Vaccination is an important preventive health measure to protect against symptomatic and severe COVID-19. Impaired immunity secondary to an underlying malignancy or recent receipt of antineoplastic systemic therapies can result in less robust antibody titers following vaccination and possible risk of breakthrough infection. As clinical trials evaluating COVID-19 vaccines largely excluded patients with a history of cancer and those on active immunosuppression (including chemotherapy), limited evidence is available to inform the clinical efficacy of COVID-19 vaccination across the spectrum of patients with cancer., Patients and Methods: We describe the clinical features of patients with cancer who developed symptomatic COVID-19 following vaccination and compare weighted outcomes with those of contemporary unvaccinated patients, after adjustment for confounders, using data from the multi-institutional COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19)., Results: Patients with cancer who develop COVID-19 following vaccination have substantial comorbidities and can present with severe and even lethal infection. Patients harboring hematologic malignancies are over-represented among vaccinated patients with cancer who develop symptomatic COVID-19., Conclusions: Vaccination against COVID-19 remains an essential strategy in protecting vulnerable populations, including patients with cancer. Patients with cancer who develop breakthrough infection despite full vaccination, however, remain at risk of severe outcomes. A multilayered public health mitigation approach that includes vaccination of close contacts, boosters, social distancing, and mask-wearing should be continued for the foreseeable future., Competing Interests: Disclosure ALS reports non-financial support from Astellas, non-financial support from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. CL reports research support from Genentech/imCORE, outside the submitted work. ZB reports non-financial support from Bristol Myers Squibb, grants from Genentech/imCORE, personal fees from UpToDate, outside the submitted work. CYH reports personal fees from NashBio, outside the submitted work. SAB reports personal fees from Exelixis, personal fees from Seattle Genetics, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, outside the submitted work. CRF reports research grants from the Merck Foundation and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)/Pfizer, outside the submitted work. EAG reports personal fees and other from Alexion Pharmaceuticals, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis Pharmaceuticals, personal fees, non-financial support and other from Astex/Otsuka Pharmaceuticals, other from Apellis Pharmaceuticals, personal fees, non-financial support, and other from Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, grants and personal fees from AbbVie/Genentech, other from Celldex Therapeutics, personal fees from Boston Biomedical, outside the submitted work. JEH reports research funding paid to her institution from Dendreon Pharmaceuticals LLC, research funding paid to her institution from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, personal fees from Genzyme, personal fees from Seagen, outside the submitted work. RRM reports grants and personal fees from Bayer, grants from Pfizer, grants from Tempus, personal fees from AVEO, personal fees from Caris, personal fees from Bristol Myers Squib, personal fees from Exelixis, personal fees from Janssen, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Sanofi, personal fees from Tempus, personal fees from Dendreon, personal fees from Vividion, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Calithera, personal fees from Merck, outside the submitted work. OAP reports personal fees from International Consulting Associates, Inc., outside the submitted work. EMW-B reports personal fees from Astellas, personal fees from AVEO Oncology, personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, other from Exelixis, grants from Pfizer Global Medical Grants, other from Nektar, other from Immunomedics, outside the submitted work. SM reports personal fees from National Geographic, outside the submitted work. DF reports a grant from Merck to study COVID-19 in immunocompromised patients, outside of the submitted work. YS reports personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Janssen, personal fees from Eisai, personal fees from AstraZeneca, outside of the submitted work. JLW reports personal fees from Westat, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Melax Tech, personal fees from Flatiron Health, other from HemOnc.org LLC (ownership), outside the submitted work. TKC reports institutional and personal, paid and unpaid support for research, advisory boards, consultancy, and honoraria from AstraZeneca, Aravive, Aveo, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKline, IQVIA, Ipsen, Kanaph, Lilly, Merck, Nikang, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi/Aventis, Takeda, Tempest, UpToDate, CME events (Peerview, OncLive and others), outside the submitted work. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Non-Hispanic Black individuals experience a higher burden of COVID-19 than the general population; hence, there is an urgent need to characterize the unique clinical course and outcomes of COVID-19 in Black patients with cancer., Objective: To investigate racial disparities in severity of COVID-19 presentation, clinical complications, and outcomes between Black patients and non-Hispanic White patients with cancer and COVID-19., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium registry from March 17, 2020, to November 18, 2020, to examine the clinical characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 in Black patients with cancer. Data analysis was performed from December 2020 to February 2021., Exposures: Black and White race recorded in patient's electronic health record., Main Outcomes and Measures: An a priori 5-level ordinal scale including hospitalization intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, and all-cause death., Results: Among 3506 included patients (1768 women [50%]; median [IQR] age, 67 [58-77] years), 1068 (30%) were Black and 2438 (70%) were White. Black patients had higher rates of preexisting comorbidities compared with White patients, including obesity (480 Black patients [45%] vs 925 White patients [38%]), diabetes (411 Black patients [38%] vs 574 White patients [24%]), and kidney disease (248 Black patients [23%] vs 392 White patients [16%]). Despite the similar distribution of cancer type, cancer status, and anticancer therapy at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, Black patients presented with worse illness and had significantly worse COVID-19 severity (unweighted odds ratio, 1.34 [95% CI, 1.15-1.58]; weighted odds ratio, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.11-1.33])., Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that Black patients with cancer experience worse COVID-19 outcomes compared with White patients. Understanding and addressing racial inequities within the causal framework of structural racism is essential to reduce the disproportionate burden of diseases, such as COVID-19 and cancer, in Black patients.

Around the world, over 5.3 million students were engaged in international education in 2017. In Australia, international students made a significant contribution to the country's economy and its society. However, there is a paucity in theory and of empirical research on the effects of field experience on international preservice teachers (IPSTs). Addressing this gap, the paper contributes to an understanding of the changes to the identities of IPSTs engaged in field experiences. Drawing on a single case study of a group of first-year IPSTs undertaking a non-assessed field experience, the concept of 'transcultural' is employed to understand the links between culture, place and identity that the cohort experience in the host education sites. This paper shows the emergence of how IPSTs understand how children learn and its connection with pedagogy as part of them becoming transcultural. While this study occurs before COVID-19, it argues for shared responsibility between universities, education sites and teachers to enable the transcultural meanings to be established within the field experience, thereby creating inclusive conditions central to IPSTs' contribution to the existing cultural and linguistic diversities in education settings. This is even more vital under the changed circumstances of COVID-19.