Search

As respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine distribution gains traction in Europe and Italy, healthcare workers (HCWs) can strategize about vaccine promotion to increase uptake among patients at risk of RSV consequences, such cardiac patients. This cross-sectional survey investigated the knowledge about and attitude towards RSV and RSV vaccines, and the intention to recommend vaccination within a cardiological hospital in Italy. To explore factors associated with the outcomes of interest, multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted. Of 197 invited HCWs, 78.2% returned the survey. The knowledge about market authorisation for new RSV vaccines for older adults (present in 46.9% of respondents) was significantly associated with the HCWs’ age, education, and previous update on vaccinations. HCWs with a higher educational level and those with a positive attitude towards RSV vaccines safety reported a higher attitude towards the importance of vaccinating people at risk. The willingness of recommending RSV vaccination to patients (70.5% of respondents) was more likely in HCWs who were knowledgeable about market authorisation for RSV vaccines and in physicians. This tempestive research sheds light on current factors influencing the strategies of cardiac HCWs regarding RSV vaccination. The results suggest the need for training events on the protective role of RSV vaccination in cardiac patients.

Background and Objectives: Cardiac patients are particularly at risk of herpes zoster (HZ), which is associated with a higher risk of major cardiovascular events. This research aimed to analyze the knowledge, attitudes and practices towards recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) among cardiac healthcare professionals (HPs). Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted in a cardiological hospital in Italy. Multivariate regression models were built to identify factors associated with the outcomes of interest. Results: The response rate was 78.2% (154/197). Overall, age > 50 years and immunosuppression were recognized as risk factors for HZ by 38.3% and 75.3% of respondents, respectively. Regarding RZV, 29.1% of the HPs correctly responded about its schedule and 57.6% about the possibility of administration in immunocompromised individuals. This knowledge was significantly higher in HPs with a higher educational level (odds ratio (OR) = 4.42; 95%CI 1.70–11.47), in those who knew that HZ could cause postherpetic neuralgia (OR = 2.56; 95%CI 1.05–6.25) or major cardiovascular events (OR = 4.23; 95%CI 1.50–11.91), in those who had participated in professional updates on vaccinations (OR = 3.86; 95%CI 1.51–9.87) and in those who stated the need for further information about the RZV (OR = 6.43; 95%CI 1.42–29.98). Younger HPs (coefficient (β) = −0.02; 95%CI −0.04–−0.01), those with a positive attitude toward RZV safety (β = 2.92; 95%CI 2.49–3.36) and those who had previously cared for patients with HZ (β = 0.45; 95%CI 0.03–0.88) reported a more positive attitude toward RZV effectiveness. The practice of recommending vaccination was more prevalent in younger HPs (OR = 0.94; 95%CI 0.89–0.99), in those who had a master’s degree or higher education (OR = 7.21; 95%CI 1.44–36.08), in those with more positive attitudes toward RZV effectiveness (OR = 7.17; 95%CI 1.71–30.03) and in HPs who had already recommended the vaccine to patients in the past (OR = 4.03; 95%CI 1.08–14.96). Conclusions: Despite being a single-center study, our research brings attention to factors that currently impact cardiac HPs’ approaches to RZV. The findings indicate potential measures to enhance HPs’ awareness and practices, ultimately aiming to improve vaccination adherence and reduce the burden associated with HZ.

The successful deployment of safe and effective vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been crucial in reducing the global disease burden. Owing to the need for vaccination series over time, continuous observational studies are needed to estimate the COVID-19 vaccine response in real-world conditions. In particular, the detection, assessment, and understanding of adverse effects following immunization (AEFI) with a COVID-19 vaccine are crucial to better address vaccination strategies. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the risk of repeated AEFI post-administration of a booster dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in a sample of healthcare workers (HCWs) in an Italian teaching hospital. The data on any local and systemic AEFI were studied in multivariate Poisson regression analyses to model the association between the incidence of each postvaccination symptom and its prior reporting after the administration of the previous doses. Overall, compared with the primary vaccination series, the majority of post-third dose AEFI were less reported. The results from multivariable models showed that the likelihood of reporting an AEFI after the third dose was higher in those who experienced the same postvaccination symptom after the second dose (all AEFI except for itch at injection site) and, although not significant for all AEFI, after the first dose. Any associations with age, gender, smoking habits, previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and other characteristics, as well as the health impact of AEFI were also assessed. Taken together, the results from this research support reframe AEFI symptoms as signals of a robust postvaccination reaction as well as of common vaccine response, and they add important data to inform booster vaccination strategies in HCWs and, extensively, in the adult population.

This longitudinal observational study investigated the risk of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection up to 6 months after a booster dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in infection-naïve vs. previously infected healthcare workers (HCWs), and whether this difference varied over time. A Cox proportional hazard regression model with Aalen’s additive analysis was fitted to examine the association between the risk of infections and predictor variables. Overall, we observed an incidence rate of 2.5 cases per 1000 person-days (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.0–3.0), which dropped at 0.8 per 1000 person-days (95% CI 0.3–2.0) in recipients with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. The fitted analysis indicated an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.32 (95% CI 0.13–0.80; p-value = 0.01) for those with hybrid immunity with a slope that became steeply negative roughly starting from day 90. No difference was seen according to participants’ smoking habits. Characteristics of infected HCWs were also described. Our study quantifies the time-varying effects of vaccine-induced and hybrid immunity after the booster dose (during the Omicron variant predominance in Italy) and observed that the protection waned more rapidly in infection-naïve recipients starting from the third month. The results add important evidence that can be used to inform COVID-19 vaccination strategies.