COVID-19 vaccine uptake before and after a vaccine mandate at a major academic hospital: Trends by race/ethnicity and level of patient contact

ObjectivesTo assess vaccine coverage rates before and after implementation of a COVID-19 vaccine mandate among Health care Personnel (HCP) and demographic characteristics associated with vaccine uptake Design, Setting, and Participants: Cohort study conducted among 10,889 hospital employees followed from Dec 16, 2020 - October 31, 2021, at a large academic hospital in Philadelphia. Main Outcome and Measures: Time to COVID-19 vaccination and vaccine series completion rates before and after implementation of a COVID-19 vaccine mandate based on age, gender, race/ethnicity, and level of patient contact/occupational group.ResultsThe vaccination series completion rate was 86.0% prior to mandate announcement, and increased to 98.7% after mandate implementation. Rates before mandate announcement were highest among Asians (96.2%), Whites (94.0%), males (89.7%), employees ≥ 65 years of age (95.2%), and employees with direct patient care (physicians, 99.0%, and nurses, 93.3%). Hospital educational initiatives (including Town Halls and discussions with Black and Hispanic employees with the lowest vaccination rates) appeared to improve uptake. The largest increase in series completion after mandate announcement occurred among Blacks, those of other/multiracial backgrounds, and Hispanics (35.6%, 22.4%, and 10.8%, respectively) as well as those with some or no direct patient contact (24.5% and 18.3%, respectively). Medical or religious exemptions were approved for 64 (<0.6%) employees and 38 (<0.4%) left their positions (8 voluntary, 30 involuntary) specifically due to the COVID-19 vaccine mandate. No clinically meaningful differences by age, gender, or race/ethnicity for those who were vaccinated under the mandate versus those who left their positions were noted.Conclusions and RelevanceThese results suggest that while mandates may be challenging to institutions and enforcement unpopular, they play an important role in reducing hesitancy and securing high vaccination rates among HCP, a group at high risk of COVID-19 given their employment and who can be a source of disease transmission to patients.     

Association between COVID-19 vaccination status,time elapsed since the last vaccine dose,morbidity, and absenteeism among healthcare personnel: A prospective,multicenter study

AimWe assessed the impact of COVID-19 vaccination status and time elapsed since the last vaccine dose on morbidity and absenteeism among healthcare personnel (HCP) in the context of a mandatory vaccination policy.MethodsWe followed 7592 HCP from November 15, 2021 through April 17, 2022. Full COVID-19 vaccination was defined as a primary vaccination series plus a booster dose at least six months later.ResultsThere were 6496 (85.6 %) fully vaccinated, 953 (12.5 %) not fully vaccinated, and 143 (1.9 %) unvaccinated HCP. A total of 2182 absenteeism episodes occurred. Of 2088 absenteeism episodes among vaccinated HCP with known vaccination status, 1971 (94.4 %) concerned fully vaccinated and 117 (5.6 %) not fully vaccinated. Fully vaccinated HCP had 1.6 fewer days of absence compared to those not fully vaccinated (8.1 versus 9.7; p-value < 0.001). Multivariable regression analyses showed that full vaccination was associated with shorter absenteeism compared to not full vaccination (OR: 0.56; 95 % CI: 0.36–0.87; p-value = 0.01). Compared to a history of ≤ 17.1 weeks since the last dose, a history of > 17.1 weeks since the last dose was associated with longer absenteeism (OR: 1.22, 95 % CI:1.02–1.46; p-value = 0.026) and increased risk for febrile episode (OR: 1.33; 95 % CI: 1.09–1.63; p-value = 0.004), influenza-like illness (OR: 1.53, 95 % CI: 1.02–2.30; p-value = 0.038), and COVID-19 (OR: 1.72; 95 % CI: 1.24–2.39; p-value = 0.001).ConclusionsThe COVID-19 pandemic continues to impose a considerable impact on HCP. The administration of a vaccine dose in less than four months before significantly protected against COVID-19 and absenteeism duration, irrespective of COVID-19 vaccination status. Defining the optimal timing of boosters is imperative.     

Influenza vaccination in the time of COVID-19: A national U.S. survey of adults

IntroductionDecisions about influenza vaccination for fall-winter 2020 were made against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic. During May 2020, the authors examined intended vaccination in the next 12 months in relationship to demographic variables, healthcare attitudes, and personal COVID-19 experiences for two samples of adults--those who did not receive influenza vaccine during the prior 12 months, and those who did.MethodsIn May 2020, a cross-sectional online survey was conducted with a national US sample. Participants reported prior influenza vaccination (yes/no during prior 12 months) and anticipated vaccination (yes/no during next 12 months). Covariates included demographic characteristics (e.g., gender, race-ethnicity, political ideology), general beliefs (e.g., benefits of vaccines, altruistic attitudes), and COVID-19 health beliefs and experiences (COVID-19 worry and severity, perception of COVID-19 as a community threat, knowing someone with COVID-19). For each group, hierarchical multivariable logistic regression was conducted with intent to vaccinate as the outcome.ResultsAmong participants (n = 3502), 47% did not receive influenza vaccine in the prior 12 months and 53% had; 25.5% of non-vaccinators and 91.9% of vaccinators intended future vaccination. For non-vaccinators, odds of intending vaccination was associated with race/ethnicity (Hispanics were more likely to intend than white-NH; AOR = 1.74; 95% CI = 1.23–2.4), greater perceived benefits of vaccination (AOR = 2.19; 95% CI = 1.88–2.54), and perception of COVID-19 as a community threat (AOR = 1.91; 95% CI = 1.49–2.45). For vaccinators, odds of intending vaccination was associated with age (AOR = 1.04; 95% CI = 1.03–1.05), race/ethnicity (Black-NH and Other-NH were less likely to intend than white-NH, AOR = 0.60; 95% CI = 0.36–0.999; and AOR = 0.45; 95% CI = 0.24–0.84, respectively), greater perceived benefits of vaccination (AOR = 1.88; 95% CI = 1.45–2.45) and greater perception of collective benefits of vaccines (AOR = 1.48; 95% CI = 1.15–1.90).ConclusionsThe COVID-19 pandemic may have served as a cue to action for influenza vaccination intention among some prior non-vaccinators whereas intention among prior vaccinators is more related to positive attitudes toward vaccination.     

Antibody titers among healthcare workers for coronavirus disease 2019 at 6 months after BNT162b2 vaccination

BackgroundAntibody levels decrease substantially at 6 months after the BNT162b2 vaccine. The factors influencing titer of antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) among healthcare workers for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unclear.MethodsWe conducted a 6-month longitudinal prospective study in Japanese healthcare workers in a tertiary care hospital for COVID-19. Participants in the study were tested for the presence of anti-spike protein (SP) IgG antibodies before and at 1 and 6 months after the last vaccination dose.ResultsAmong 1076 healthcare workers, 794 received the vaccine, and 469 entered the study. Five were infected with SARS-CoV-2 (none among COVID-19 section workers) by the end of the study and 451 participants were finally analyzed (mean age, 42.5 years; 27.3 % male; 18.8 % COVID-19 section workers). Median SP IgG index values were 0.0, 44.4, and 5.5 before and at 1 and 6 months after the last dose, respectively. Regression analysis revealed a negative correlation of SP IgG antibody levels with age (P < 0.0001), and higher levels in COVID-19 section workers (P = 0.0185) and in females (P = 0.0201).ConclusionIn healthcare workers at a COVID-19 hospital, IgG antibody titer was substantially lower at 6 months after receipt of the last dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine compared with that 1 month after the last dose, but was better preserved among younger participants, COVID-19 section workers and females.     

Veteran influenza vaccination acceptance rates after completion of the COVID-19 vaccination series among historical influenza vaccine refusers

BackgroundVaccine hesitancy remains an obstacle in disease prevention. The recent COVID-19 pandemic highlighted this issue and may influence acceptance of other recommended immunizations. The objective of this study was to determine the association between receiving the COVID-19 vaccination and the subsequent acceptance of the influenza vaccination in a Veteran population that historically declined influenza vaccination.MethodsInfluenza vaccination acceptance rates for the 2021–2022 influenza season were compared in patients who historically declined the influenza vaccine and either received or declined COVID-19 vaccinations. Logistic regression analysis was used to analyze factors associated with receiving influenza vaccination among vaccine hesitant individuals.ResultsA higher proportion of patients who had received the COVID-19 vaccination(s) subsequently accepted the influenza vaccination compared to the control group (37% vs. 11%, OR = 5.03; CI 3.15–8.26; p = 0.0001).ConclusionAmong previous influenza vaccine decliners, those who received COVID-19 vaccination had significantly higher odds of receiving subsequent influenza vaccination.     

Social cognitive predictors of vaccination status,uptake and mitigation behaviors in the Canadian COVID-19 Experiences survey

Emerging infectious diseases like COVID-19 will remain a concern for the foreseeable future, and determinants of vaccination and other mitigation behaviors are therefore critical to understand. Using data from the first two waves of the Canadian COVID-19 Experiences Survey (CCES; N = 1,958; 66.56 % female), we examined social cognitive predictors of vaccination status, transition to acceptance and mitigation behaviors in a population-representative sample. Findings indicated that all social cognitive variables were strong predictors of mitigation behavior performance at each wave, particularly among unvaccinated individuals. Among those who were vaccine hesitant at baseline, most social cognitive variables predicted transition to fully vaccinated status at follow-up. After controlling for demographic factors and geographic region, greater odds of transitioning from unvaccinated at CCES Wave 1 to fully vaccinated at CCES Wave 2 was predicted most strongly by a perception that one’s valued peers were taking up the vaccine (e.g., dynamic norms (OR = 2.13 (CI: 1.54,2.93)), perceived effectiveness of the vaccine (OR = 3.71 (CI: 2.43,5.66)), favorable attitudes toward the vaccine (OR = 2.80 (CI: 1.99,3.95)), greater perceived severity of COVID-19 (OR = 2.02 (CI: 1.42,2.86)), and stronger behavioral intention to become vaccinated (OR = 2.99 (CI: 2.16,4.14)). As a group, social cognitive variables improved prediction of COVID-19 mitigation behaviors (masking, distancing, hand hygiene) by a factor of 5 compared to demographic factors, and improved prediction of vaccination status by a factor of nearly 20. Social cognitive processes appear to be important leverage points for health communications to encourage COVID-19 vaccination and other mitigation behaviors, particularly among initially hesitant members of the general population.     

COVID-19 vaccination coverage and intent among women aged 18–49 years by pregnancy status,United States,April–November 2021

BackgroundPregnant and postpartum women are at increased risk for severe illness from COVID-19. We assessed COVID-19 vaccination coverage, intent, and attitudes among women of reproductive age overall and by pregnancy status in the United States.MethodsData from the National Immunization Survey Adult COVID Module collected during April 22-November 27, 2021, were analyzed to assess COVID-19 vaccination (receipt of ≥1 dose), intent for vaccination, and attitudes towards vaccination among women aged 18–49 years overall and by pregnancy status (trying to get pregnant, currently pregnant, breastfeeding, and not trying to get pregnant or currently pregnant or breastfeeding). Logistic regression and predictive marginals were used to generate unadjusted and adjusted prevalence ratios (PRs and aPRs). Trend analyses were conducted to assess monthly changes in vaccination and intent.ResultsOur analyses included 110,925 women aged 18–49 years. COVID-19 vaccination coverage (≥1 dose) was 63.2% overall (range from 53.3% in HHS Region 4 to 76.5% in HHS Region 1). Vaccination coverage was lowest among pregnant women (45.1%), followed by women who were trying to get pregnant (49.5%), women who were breastfeeding (51.5%), and all other women (64.9%). Non-Hispanic (NH) Black women who were pregnant or breastfeeding had significantly lower vaccination coverage (aPR: 0.74 and 0.66, respectively) than NH White women.DiscussionOur findings are consistent with other studies showing lower vaccination coverage among pregnant individuals, with substantially lower vaccination coverage among NH Black women who are pregnant or breastfeeding. Given the overlapping and disproportionate risks of COVID-19 and maternal mortality among Black women, it is critical that COVID-19 vaccination be strongly recommended for these populations and all women of reproductive age. Healthcare and public health providers may take advantage of every opportunity to encourage vaccination and enlist the assistance of community leaders, particularly in communities with low vaccination coverage.     

Employer requirements and COVID-19 vaccination and attitudes among healthcare personnel in the U.S.: Findings from National Immunization Survey Adult COVID Module,August – September 2021

IntroductionEmployer vaccination requirements have been used to increase vaccination uptake among healthcare personnel (HCP). In summer 2021, HCP were the group most likely to have employer requirements for COVID-19 vaccinations as healthcare facilities led the implementation of such requirements. This study examined the association between employer requirements and HCP’s COVID-19 vaccination status and attitudes about the vaccine.MethodsParticipants were a national representative sample of United States (US) adults who completed the National Immunization Survey Adult COVID Module (NIS-ACM) during August–September 2021. Respondents were asked about COVID-19 vaccination and intent, requirements for vaccination, place of work, attitudes surrounding vaccinations, and sociodemographic variables. This analysis focused on HCP respondents. We first calculated the weighted proportion reporting COVID-19 vaccination for HCP by sociodemographic variables. Then we computed unadjusted and adjusted prevalence ratios for vaccination coverage and key indicators on vaccine attitudes, comparing HCP based on individual self-report of vaccination requirements.ResultsOf 12,875 HCP respondents, 41.5% reported COVID-19 vaccination employer requirements. Among HCP with vaccination requirements, 90.5% had been vaccinated against COVID-19, as compared to 73.3% of HCP without vaccination requirements—a pattern consistent across sociodemographic groups. Notably, the greatest differences in uptake between HCP with and without employee requirements were seen in sociodemographic subgroups with the lowest vaccination uptake, e.g., HCP aged 18–29 years, HCP with high school or less education, HCP living below poverty, and uninsured HCP. In every sociodemographic subgroup examined, vaccine uptake was more equitable among HCP with vaccination requirements than in HCP without. Finally, HCP with vaccination requirements were also more likely to express confidence in the vaccine’s safety (68.3% vs. 60.1%) and importance (89.6% vs 79.6%).ConclusionIn a large national US sample, employer requirements were associated with higher and more equitable HCP vaccination uptake across all sociodemographic groups examined. Our findings suggest that employer requirements can contribute to improving COVID-19 vaccination coverage, similar to patterns seen for other vaccines.     

COVID-19 vaccine confidence and reasons for vaccination among health care workers and household members

BackgroundThe majority of healthcare workers (HCW) in the US report being fully vaccinated against COVID-19, yet little is known about vaccine decision-making for their household members, including children.MethodsCross-sectional survey July–August 2021 of HCW and their household members in Minnesota.Results94 % of eligible participants were vaccinated with the most common reasons being wanting to protect oneself, family and loved ones. Safety concerns were the most commonly reported reasons for not being vaccinated; a significantly higher proportion of unvaccinated compared to vaccinated HCW (58 % vs 12 %, p = 0.0035) and household adults (25 % vs 5 %, p = 0.03) reported prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Nearly half of unvaccinated adults and two-thirds of unvaccinated children would be vaccinated if a vaccine mandate were in place.ConclusionsDespite high COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among HCWs, more research is required to identify and address the needs and concerns of healthcare workers who decline COVID-19 vaccination despite availability.     

Disparities in national and state estimates of COVID-19 vaccination receipt and intent to vaccinate by race/ethnicity,income, and age group among adults ≥ 18 years,United States

IntroductionCOVID-19 morbidity and mortality has disproportionately affected vulnerable populations such as minority racial/ethnic groups. Understanding disparities in vaccine intentions and reasons for vaccine hesitancy are important for developing effective strategies for ameliorating racial/ethnic COVID-19 inequities.MethodsUsing six waves of the large, nationally representative Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey data from January 6-March 29, 2021 (n = 459,235), we examined national and state estimates for vaccination intent, defined as receipt of ≥ 1 dose of the COVID-19 vaccine or definite intent to be vaccinated, by race/ethnicity with stratification by household income and age group. In separate logistic regression models, we also examined the interaction between race/ethnicity and household income, and race/ethnicity and age group, and its association with vaccination intent. Lastly, we examined reasons for not vaccinating by race/ethnicity.ResultsVaccination intent differed by racial/ethnic group, household income, and age group nationally and by Health and Human Services (HHS) region and state. A significant interaction was observed between race/ethnicity and household income (F(8,72) = 4.50, p < 0.001), and race/ethnicity and age group (F(8,72) = 15.66, p < 0.001). Non-Hispanic Black adults with lower income (<$35,000) and younger age (18–49 years) were least likely to intend to vaccinate. Similar disparities across racial/ethnic groups were seen across most HHS regions and states. Concerns about possible side effects and effectiveness were significantly higher among all minority groups compared to non-Hispanic White adults.ConclusionDisparities in vaccination intent by racial/ethnic groups underscore the need for interventions and recommendations designed to improve vaccination coverage and confidence in underserved communities, such as younger and lower income racial/ethnic minority groups. Efforts to reduce disparities and barriers to vaccination are needed to achieve equity in vaccination coverage, and ultimately, to curb COVID-19 transmission.     

Social and demographic patterns of influenza vaccination coverage in Norway,influenza seasons 2014/15 to 2020/21

AimsTo examine influenza vaccination coverage among risk groups (RG) and health care workers (HCW), and study social and demographic patterns of vaccination coverage over time.MethodsVaccination coverage was estimated by self-report in a nationally representative telephone survey among 14 919 individuals aged 18–79 years over seven influenza seasons from 2014/15 to 2020/21. We explored whether belonging to an influenza RG (being >=65 years of age and/or having >=1 medical risk factor), being a HCW or educational attainment was associated with vaccination status using logistic regression.ResultsVaccination coverage increased from 27 % to 66 % among individuals 65–79 years, from 13 % to 33 % among individuals 18–64 years with >=1 risk factor, and from 9 % to 51 % among HCWs during the study period. Being older, having a risk factor or being a HCW were significantly associated with higher coverage in all multivariable logistic regression analyses. Higher education was also consistently associated with higher coverage, but the difference did not reach significance in all influenza seasons. Educational attainment was not significantly associated with coverage while coverage was at its lowest (2014/15–2017/18), but as coverage increased, so did the differences. Individuals with intermediate or lower education were less likely to report vaccination than those with higher education in season 2018/19, OR = 0.61 (95 % CI 0.46–0.80) and OR = 0.58 (95 % CI 0.41–0.83), respectively, and in season 2019/20, OR = 0.69 (95 % CI 0.55–0.88) and OR = 0.71 (95 % CI 0.53–0.95), respectively. When the vaccine was funded in the COVID-19 pandemic winter of 2020/21, educational differences diminished again and were no longer significant.ConclusionsWe observed widening educational differences in influenza vaccination coverage as coverage increased from 2014/15 to 2019/20. When influenza vaccination was funded in 2020/21, differences in coverage by educational attainment diminished. These findings indicate that economic barriers influence influenza vaccination decisions among risk groups in Norway.     

Intent to vaccinate against SARS-CoV-2 and its determinants across six ethnic groups living in Amsterdam,the Netherlands: A cross-sectional analysis of the HELIUS study

BackgroundEthnic minority groups experience a disproportionately high burden of infections, hospitalizations and mortality due to COVID-19, and therefore should be especially encouraged to receive SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. This study aimed to investigate the intent to vaccinate against SARS-CoV-2, along with its determinants, in six ethnic groups residing in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.MethodsWe analyzed data of participants enrolled in the population-based multi-ethnic HELIUS cohort, aged 24 to 79 years, who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and answered questions on vaccination intent from November 23, 2020 to March 31, 2021. During the study period, SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in the Netherlands became available to individuals working in healthcare or > 75 years old. Vaccination intent was measured by two statements on a 7-point Likert scale and categorized into low, medium, and high. Using ordinal logistic regression, we examined the association between ethnicity and lower vaccination intent. We also assessed determinants of lower vaccination intent per ethnic group.ResultsA total of 2,068 participants were included (median age 56 years, interquartile range 46–63). High intent to vaccinate was most common in the Dutch ethnic origin group (369/466, 79.2%), followed by the Ghanaian (111/213, 52.1%), South-Asian Surinamese (186/391, 47.6%), Turkish (153/325, 47.1%), African Surinamese (156/362, 43.1%), and Moroccan ethnic groups (92/311, 29.6%). Lower intent to vaccinate was more common in all groups other than the Dutch group (P < 0.001). Being female, believing that COVID-19 is exaggerated in the media, and being < 45 years of age were common determinants of lower SARS-CoV-2 vaccination intent across most ethnic groups. Other identified determinants were specific to certain ethnic groups.ConclusionsLower intent to vaccinate against SARS-CoV-2 in the largest ethnic minority groups of Amsterdam is a major public health concern. The ethnic-specific and general determinants of lower vaccination intent observed in this study could help shape vaccination interventions and campaigns.     

COVID-19 vaccine uptake in mental healthcare users: Czech nationwide register study

BackgroundThe excessive covid-related mortality of psychiatric patients was reduced by vaccination. The vaccine uptake in patients diagnosed with different mental health disorders is, however, not fully described.AimsA nationwide, record-based retrospective cross-sectional study examines the effect of substance use, psychotic, affective, anxiety, and personality disorders on COVID-19 vaccination rates in August and December 2021. Further, it quantifies the effect of receiving mental healthcare on vaccine uptake.MethodsThe COVID-19 vaccine rates of mental healthcare users in August and December 2021 were examined using logistic regression models adjusted for sex and age on a sample of 7,235,690 adult inhabitants of the Czech Republic. The probability of vaccine uptake in the week following mental healthcare appointment or hospitalization on any day in the fall 2021 was compared to the general probability of getting vaccinated during that week.ResultsThe vaccination rate in August 2021 was related to history of hospitalization due to substance use (OR = 0.71), personality (OR = 0.87), psychotic (OR = 0.92), and anxiety (OR = 1.15) disorders, while mood disorders had no effect (OR = 1.00). Compared to general population, mental healthcare users were undervaccinated in August but not in December 2021. Vaccine uptake was low in those with history of psychiatric hospitalizations but higher in those utilizing inpatient or outpatient mental healthcare recently, predominantly for affective disorders. Increased vaccine uptake was observed following utilization of mental healthcare as well as in those with repeated psychiatric hospitalizations.ConclusionsThe vaccination rates of mental healthcare users relative to general population largely differ across nosological categories and during the vaccination campaign. Psychiatrists were successful in promoting vaccination against COVID-19.     

Perceived impacts of COVID-19 on wellbeing among US working-age adults with ADL difficulty

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately impacted people with disabilities. Working-age adults with ADL difficulty may face unique challenges and heightened health risks because of the pandemic. It is critical to better understand the impacts of COVID-19 on social, financial, physical, and mental wellbeing among people with disabilities to inform more inclusive pandemic response policies.ObjectiveThis study compares perceived COVID-19 physical and mental health, social, and financial impacts for US working-age adults with and without ADL difficulty.MethodsWe analyzed data from a national survey of US working-age adults (aged 18–64) conducted in February and March 2021 (N = 3697). We used logistic regression to compare perceived COVID-19-related impacts on physical and mental health, healthcare access, social relationships, and financial wellbeing among those with and without ADL difficulty.ResultsAdults with ADL difficulty were more likely to report negative COVID-19 impacts for many but not all outcomes. Net of covariates, adults with ADL difficulty had significantly greater odds of reporting COVID-19 infection (OR = 2.1) and hospitalization (OR = 6.7), negative physical health impacts (OR = 2.0), and negative impacts on family relationships (OR = 1.6). However, they had significantly lower odds of losing a friend or family member to COVID-19 (OR = 0.7). There were no significant differences in perceived impacts on mental health, ability to see a doctor, relationships with friends, or financial wellbeing.ConclusionsWorking-age adults with ADL difficulty experienced disproportionate health and social harm due to the COVID-19 pandemic. To address these disparities, public health response efforts and social policies supporting pandemic recovery must include disability perspectives.     

Immunocompromise among vaccinated versus unvaccinated COVID-19 cases admitted to critical care in Ireland,July to October 2021

As the COVID-19 pandemic progressed, so too did the proportion of cases admitted to critical care in Ireland who were fully vaccinated. Reporting of this observation has public health implications as incorrect interpretation may affect public confidence in COVID-19 vaccines. A potential explanation is the reduced ability of those who are immunocompromised to produce an adequate, sustained immune response to vaccination. We conducted an analysis of the association between COVID-19 vaccination status and underlying degree of immunocompromise among a cohort of critical care patients all with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 admitted to critical care between July and October 2021. Multinomial logistic regression was used to estimate an odds ratio of immunocompromise among vaccinated COVID-19 cases in critical care compared to unvaccinated cases. In this study, we found a statistically significant association between the vaccination status of severe COVID-19 cases requiring critical care admission and underlying immunocompromise. Fully vaccinated patients were significantly more likely to be highly (OR = 19.3, 95 % CI 7.7–48.1) or moderately immunocompromised (OR = 9.6, 95 % CI 5.0–18.1) compared to unvaccinated patients with COVID-19. These findings support our hypothesis, that highly immunocompromised patients are less likely to produce an adequate and sustained immune response to COVID-19 vaccination, and are therefore more likely to require critical care admission for COVID-19 infection.     

Association of a third vaccination with antibody levels and side reactions in essential workers: A prospective cohort study

ObjectiveTo evaluate the relationship between the change of titer and adverse events after the third vaccination for COVID-19 among healthcare workers.Design and setting: This was a prospective cohort study, and the follow-up period was from December 2021 to November 2023.Participants: A total of 392 healthcare workers aged over 20 years who worked at the facility and wished to have vaccine antibody titers measured participated in this study.Exposures: A third dose of BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine was administered to healthcare workers working at the hospital, and we evaluated the changes in antibody titers before and after the vaccine, as well as adverse reactions after vaccination.Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary endpoints were adverse reactions within 7 days after the third dose of COVID-19 vaccine and the rate of increase in COVID-19 vaccine antibody titer at 4 weeks.ResultsA total of 392 people participated in the study, of whom 358 participants had their antibody titers measured before and after the booster vaccination. The overall IgG geometric mean was 609 U/mL (561–663) before booster vaccination and increased to 18,735 U/mL (17,509–20,049) at 4 weeks after vaccination (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed no statistically significant relationship between the primary endpoints, such as a change in antibody titer due to the presence of fever after vaccination or a change in antibody titer due to swelling at the vaccination site. Factors affecting the rate of increase in antibody titer, evaluated as secondary endpoints, were suggested to be age (1.02 (95 % confidence interval (CI): 1.01–1.03)) and hypertension (0.66 (95 % CI: 0.47–0.93)).Conclusions and RelevanceIn relation to the booster effect of the third dose of COVID-19 vaccination, there was no statistically significant difference in the presence of fever or use of antipyretic or other drugs.     

Trends in COVID-19 vaccination intent and factors associated with deliberation and reluctance among adult homeless shelter residents and staff, 1 November 2020 to 28 February 2021 – King County,Washington

IntroductionLittle is known about COVID-19 vaccination intent among people experiencing homelessness. This study assesses surveyed COVID-19 vaccination intent among adult homeless shelter residents and staff and identifies factors associated with vaccine deliberation (responded “undecided”) and reluctance (responded “no”), including time trends.MethodsFrom 11/1/2020–2/28/21, we conducted repeated cross-sectional surveys at nine shelters in King County, WA as part of ongoing community-based SARS-CoV-2 surveillance. We used a multinomial model to identify characteristics associated with vaccine deliberation and reluctance.ResultsA total of 969 unique staff (n = 297) and residents (n = 672) participated and provided 3966 survey responses. Among residents, 53.7% (n = 361) were vaccine accepting, 28.1% reluctant, 17.6% deliberative, and 0.6% already vaccinated, whereas among staff 56.2% were vaccine accepting, 14.1% were reluctant, 16.5% were deliberative, and 13.1% already vaccinated at their last survey. We observed higher odds of vaccine deliberation or reluctance among Black/African American individuals, those who did not receive a seasonal influenza vaccine, and those with lower educational attainment. There was no significant trend towards vaccine acceptance.ConclusionsStrong disparities in vaccine intent based on race, education, and prior vaccine history were observed. Increased vaccine intent over the study period was not detected. An intersectional, person-centered approach to addressing health inequities by public health authorities planning vaccination campaigns in shelters is recommended.Clinical Trial Registry Number: NCT04141917.     

Occupation,Worker Vulnerability,and COVID-19 Vaccination Uptake: Analysis of the Virus Watch prospective cohort study

BackgroundOccupational disparities in COVID-19 vaccine uptake can impact the effectiveness of vaccination programmes and introduce particular risk for vulnerable workers and those with high workplace exposure. This study aimed to investigate COVID-19 vaccine uptake by occupation, including for vulnerable groups and by occupational exposure status.MethodsWe used data from employed or self-employed adults who provided occupational information as part of the Virus Watch prospective cohort study (n = 19,595) and linked this to study-obtained information about vulnerability-relevant characteristics (age, medical conditions, obesity status) and work-related COVID-19 exposure based on the Job Exposure Matrix. Participant vaccination status for the first, second, and third dose of any COVID-19 vaccine was obtained based on linkage to national records and study records. We calculated proportions and Sison-Glaz multinomial 95% confidence intervals for vaccine uptake by occupation overall, by vulnerability-relevant characteristics, and by job exposure.FindingsVaccination uptake across occupations ranged from 89-96% for the first dose, 87–94% for the second dose, and 75–86% for the third dose, with transport, trade, service and sales workers persistently demonstrating the lowest uptake. Vulnerable workers tended to demonstrate fewer between-occupational differences in uptake than non-vulnerable workers, although clinically vulnerable transport workers (76%-89% across doses) had lower uptake than several other occupational groups (maximum across doses 86%–96%). Workers with low SARS-CoV-2 exposure risk had higher vaccine uptake (86%-96% across doses) than those with elevated or high risk (81–94% across doses).InterpretationDifferential vaccination uptake by occupation, particularly amongst vulnerable and highly-exposed workers, is likely to worsen occupational and related socioeconomic inequalities in infection outcomes. Further investigation into occupational and non-occupational factors influencing differential uptake is required to inform relevant interventions for future COVID-19 booster rollouts and similar vaccination programmes.     

Number of COVID-19 hospitalisations averted by vaccination: Estimates for the Netherlands,January 6, 2021 through August 30, 2022

BackgroundVaccines against COVID-19 have proven effective in preventing COVID-19 hospitalisation. In this study, we aimed to quantify part of the public health impact of COVID-19 vaccination by estimating the number of averted hospitalisations. We present results from the beginning of the vaccination campaign (‘entire period’, January 6, 2021) and a subperiod starting at August 2, 2021 (‘subperiod’) when all adults had the opportunity to complete their primary series, both until August 30, 2022.MethodsUsing calendar-time specific vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates and vaccine coverage (VC) by round (primary series, first booster and second booster) and the observed number of COVID-19 associated hospitalisations, we estimated the number of averted hospitalisations per age group for the two study periods. From January 25, 2022, when registration of the indication of hospitalisation started, hospitalisations not causally related to COVID-19 were excluded.ResultsIn the entire period, an estimated 98,170 (95 % confidence interval (CI) 96,123–99,928) hospitalisations were averted, of which 90,753 (95 % CI 88,790–92,531) were in the subperiod, representing 57.0 % and 67.9 % of all estimated hospital admissions. Estimated averted hospitalisations were lowest for 12–49-year-olds and highest for 70–79-year-olds. More admissions were averted in the Delta period (72.3 %) than in the Omicron period (63.4 %).ConclusionCOVID-19 vaccination prevented a large number of hospitalisations. Although the counterfactual of having had no vaccinations while maintaining the same public health measures is unrealistic, these findings underline the public health importance of the vaccination campaign to policy makers and the public.