One year of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: comparison of infection between health care workers and general population before and after vaccination

Background:The Covid-19 pandemic in Italy has been characterized by three waves of infection during 2020. Vaccination of healthcare workers started in January 2021, earlier than that of other population groups. The main aim of this study is to compare the spread of the pandemic between HCW and the general population focusing on potential effects of the vaccination.Methods:The study consisted of a retrospective analysis of results of RT-PCR tests performed between 6 March 2020 and 4 April 2021 among HCWs from Bologna, Italy, and those of the general population of Emilia Romagna region. We calculated the crude proportion of positive RT-PCR tests over total tests and the crude prevalence of positive test in population; then, we conducted joinpoint analyses using the Joinpoint Regression Program of the National Cancer Institute.Results:The results of the joinpoint analysis show that both φ and ψ ratio indicators have a similar pattern, with a sharp increase during the early phase of the pandemic, and a strong decrease at the end of the first wave around week 15. In both indicators there are no significant changes in the trend after week 25. Pandemic spread among HCWs appeared earlier than in the general population, but it otherwise appeared to have comparable features. A decline in infection was apparent among HCWs after vaccination.Conclusions:Surveillance of HCWs would inform on the epidemic in the general population. The apparent effectiveness of the anti-SarsCoV2 vaccine will likely occur in the general population.     

Cohort study of Covid-19 vaccine effectiveness among healthcare workers in Finland,December 2020 - October 2021

Recently, Covid-19 vaccine effectiveness has decreased especially against mild disease due to emergence of the Delta variant and waning protection. In this register-based study among healthcare workers in Finland, the vaccine effectiveness of two-dose mRNA vaccine series against SARS-CoV-2 infection decreased from 82% (95% CI 79–85%) 14–90 days after vaccination to 53% (43–62%) after 6 months. Similar trend was observed for other series. Waning was not observed against Covid-19 hospitalization. These results facilitate decision-making of booster doses for healthcare workers.     

The impact of personal coaching on influenza vaccination among healthcare workers before and during COVID-19 pandemic

BackgroundWithout the implementation of mandatory vaccination, it was difficult to increase the influenza vaccination rate among healthcare workers. We described the strategy of personal coaching and assess its impact in increasing the influenza vaccination rate among healthcare workers in Hong Kong.MethodsPersonal coaching of individual staff led by the infection control officer (ICO) and senior nursing officer (SNO) from infection control team could overcome barriers and promote on-site vaccination. The influenza vaccination rates among different categories of staff in 2016/2017 (year 1, baseline), 2017/2018 (year 2, promotion using social media), and 2018/2019 to 2020/2021 (year 3–5, promotion using personal coaching) were analysed in a healthcare region with 8490 ± 206 staff during the study period.ResultsWith the implementation of personal coaching, the influenza vaccination rates increased significantly among medical (65.0% vs 57.0%, p = 0.048), nursing (30.6% vs 21.1%, p < 0.001), allied health (37.0% vs 27.4%, p < 0.001), care-related supporting staff (37.7% vs 27.3%, p < 0.001), and non-professional staff (27.3% vs 22.3%, p < 0.001) in year 3 compared with year 2, and also significantly increased among all staff in year 4 (38.0% vs 34.7%, p < 0.001) and year 5 (45.2% vs 38.0%, p < 0.001) when compared with the preceding year. The increase in vaccination rate was not apparent with social media promotion alone (26.4%, year 2 vs 25.6%, year 1, p = 0.305).ConclusionPersonal coaching led by ICO and SNO significantly increased the vaccination rates among healthcare workers in 3 consecutive years. This model could be promulgated to unit heads to establish a hospital culture conducive to vaccination.     

Factors affecting COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among healthcare providers in 23 countries

BackgroundSeveral early COVID-19 studies aimed to assess the potential acceptance of a vaccine among healthcare providers, but relatively few studies of this population have been published since the vaccines became widely available. Vaccine safety, speed of development, and low perceived disease risk were commonly cited as factors for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among this group.Purpose and methodsIn a secondary analysis based on a cross-sectional, structured survey, the authors aimed to assess the associations between self-reported vaccine hesitancy and a number of sociodemographic and COVID-19 vaccine perception factors using data from 3,295 healthcare providers (physicians, nurses, community health workers, other healthcare providers) in 23 countries.Findings494 (15.0%) of the participants reported vaccine hesitancy, of whom 132 (4.0%) would outright refuse to accept a COVID-19 vaccine. Physicians were the least hesitant. Vaccine hesitancy was more likely to occur among those with less than the median income and, to a lesser degree, younger age. Safety and risk concerns and lack of trust that vaccines would be equitably distributed were strongly associated with hesitancy, less so were concerns about the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines.InterpretationFindings suggest a need to address safety and risk concerns through tailored messaging, training, and/or incentive approaches among healthcare providers, as well as the need for international and national vaccination efforts to ensure equitable distribution.     

Effect of the 2020/21 season influenza vaccine on SARS-CoV-2 infection in a cohort of Italian healthcare workers

ObjectivesHealthcare workers (HCWs) are a priority group for seasonal influenza vaccination (SIV). The 2020/21 SIV campaign was conducted during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Vaccines, including SIV, may exert non-specific protective effects on other infectious diseases which may be ascribable to the concept of trained immunity. The aim of this study was to explore the association between 2020/21 SIV and SARS-CoV-2 positivity in a cohort of Italian HCWs.MethodsIn this observational study, a cohort of HCWs employed by a large (ca 5000 employees) referral tertiary acute-care university hospital was followed up retrospectively until the start of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign. The independent variable of interest was the 2020/21 SIV uptake. Both egg-based and cell culture-derived quadrivalent SIVs were available. The study outcome was the incidence of new SARS-CoV-2 infections, as determined by RT-PCR. Multivariable Cox regression was applied in order to discern the association of interest.ResultsThe final cohort consisted of 2561 HCWs who underwent ≥1 RT-PCR test and accounted for a total of 94,445 person-days of observation. SIV uptake was 35.6%. During the study period, a total of 290 new SARS-CoV-2 infections occurred. The incidence of new SARS-CoV-2 was 1.62 (95% CI: 1.22–2.10) and 3.91 (95% CI: 3.43–4.45) per 1000 person-days in vaccinated and non-vaccinated HCWs, respectively, with an adjusted non-proportional hazard ratio of 0.37 (95% CI: 0.22–0.62). E-values suggested that unmeasured confounding was unlikely to explain the association.ConclusionsA lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection was observed among SIV recipients.     

新型冠状病毒疫苗接种对成都市境外输入病例流行病学及临床特征的影响分析

目的:分析新型冠状病毒（新冠病毒）疫苗接种对成都市境外输入病例流行病学及临床特征的影响,为新型冠状病毒肺炎疫情防控提供参考依据。方法:截至2021年4月15日,经成都市入境的新冠病毒感染病例,根据新冠病毒疫苗接种史被分为疫苗接种组和疫苗未接种组。回顾性收集和分析病例的流行病学及临床特征资料。实验室检测项目包括新冠病毒核...     

SARS-CoV-2 infection risk among 77,587 healthcare workers: a national observational longitudinal cohort study in Wales,United Kingdom,April to November 2020

ObjectivesTo better understand the risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among healthcare workers, leading to recommendations for the prioritisation of personal protective equipment, testing, training and vaccination.DesignObservational, longitudinal, national cohort study.SettingOur cohort were secondary care (hospital-based) healthcare workers employed by NHS Wales (United Kingdom) organisations from 1 April 2020 to 30 November 2020.ParticipantsWe included 577,756 monthly observations among 77,587 healthcare workers. Using linked anonymised datasets, participants were grouped into 20 staff roles. Additionally, each role was deemed either patient-facing, non-patient-facing or undetermined. This was linked to individual demographic details and dates of positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests.Main outcome measuresWe used univariable and multivariable logistic regression models to determine odds ratios (ORs) for the risk of a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test.ResultsPatient-facing healthcare workers were at the highest risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection with an adjusted OR (95% confidence interval [CI]) of 2.28 (95% CI 2.10–2.47). We found that after adjustment, foundation year doctors (OR 1.83 [95% CI 1.47–2.27]), healthcare support workers [OR 1.36 [95% CI 1.20–1.54]) and hospital nurses (OR 1.27 [95% CI 1.12–1.44]) were at the highest risk of infection among all staff groups. Younger healthcare workers and those living in more deprived areas were at a higher risk of infection. We also observed that infection rates varied over time and by organisation.ConclusionsThese findings have important policy implications for the prioritisation of vaccination, testing, training and personal protective equipment provision for patient-facing roles and the higher risk staff groups.     

COVID-19 vaccine uptake and its associated factors among Palestinian healthcare workers: Expectations beaten by reality

BackgroundIn response to this extraordinary outbreak, many countries and companies rush to develop an effective vaccine, authorize, and deliver it to all people across the world. Despite these extensive efforts, curbing this pandemic relies highly upon vaccination coverage. This study aimed to determine SARS-COV-2 vaccine uptake among Palestinian healthcare workers, the factors that influence vaccination uptake, and the motivators and barriers to vaccination.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted using an online anonymous self-administered questionnaire during April and May 2021, after the Palestinian Ministry of Health launched the COVID-19 vaccination campaign.The questionnaire collected socio-demographic characteristics, vaccination attitude and vaccination uptake status, and motivators and barriers towards vaccination. In addition, multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify the influencing factors of vaccination uptake.ResultsThe study included 1018 participants from different professions, including 560 (55.0%) females. Of the participants, 677 (66.5%; 95% CI: 63.5–69.4%) received the vaccine. Higher uptake was observed among males (aOR = 1.5; 95 %CI: 1.1–2.1), single HCWs (aOR = 1.3; 95 %CI: 1.1–1.8), HCWs working in the non-governmental sector (aOR = 1.6; 95 %CI: 1.2–2.4), higher monthly income (aOR = 1.9; 95 %CI: 1.4–2.8) and smoking (aOR = 1.5; 95 %CI: 1.1–3.5). The lower level of negative vaccination attitudes predicted higher intake; mistrust of vaccine belief (aOR = 1.6; 95 %CI: 1.4–1.7) and worries over unforeseen future effects (aOR = 1.2; 95 %CI: 1.1–1.3).ConclusionIn conclusion, the COVID-19 vaccination uptake was comparable to other studies worldwide but still needs to be improved, especially in the context of this ongoing global pandemic. It is imperative to invest resources to promote vaccination uptake and target all the vaccine misconceptions and fears.     

Reducing the rates of household transmission: The impact of COVID-19 vaccination in healthcare workers with a known household exposure

ObjectiveTo determine the impact of COVID-19 vaccination on infection rates in healthcare workers (HCWs) with a household exposure.MethodsRetrospective cohort study 8410 HCWs (400 fully vaccinated, 1645 partially vaccinated, 6365 unvaccinated), employed by a large integrated healthcare system in the southeastern United States, tested for SARS-CoV-2 between January 1 and February 26, 2021.ResultsBenefit of vaccination persisted even with household exposure, with unvaccinated HCWs being 3.7 to 7.7 times more likely to be infected than partially or fully vaccinated HCW with positive household contacts respectively (partial OR = 3.73, 95% CI 2.17 – 6.47; full OR = 7.67, CI 2.75 – 21.35). Whereas 89.4% of unvaccinated COVID-positive HCWs with known household exposures were symptomatic, 50% of fully vaccinated HCWs had symptoms, reducing risk of secondary spread from and between HCWs.ConclusionsCOVID-19 vaccination provided protection against infection even amongst healthcare workers with close household contact, and after adjusting for community prevalence.     

Adverse Events Following One Dose of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination Among US Nursing Home Residents With and Without a Previous SARS-CoV-2 Infection

ObjectivesTo compare rates of adverse events following Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination among nursing home residents with and without previous severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection.DesignProspective cohort.Setting and ParticipantsA total of 20,918 nursing home residents who received the first dose of messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccine from December 18, 2020, through February 14, 2021, in 284 facilities within Genesis Healthcare, a large nursing home provider spanning 24 US states.MethodsWe screened the electronic health record for adverse events, classified by the Brighton Collaboration, occurring within 15 days of a resident’s first COVID-19 vaccine dose. All events were confirmed by physician chart review. To obtain risk ratios, multilevel logistic regression model that accounted for clustering (variability) across nursing homes was implemented. To balance the probability of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (previous positive test or diagnosis by the International Classification of Diseases, 10^th Revision, Clinical Modification) more than 20 days before vaccination, we used inverse probability weighting. To adjust for multiplicity of adverse events tested, we used a false discovery rate procedure.ResultsStatistically significant differences existed between those without (n = 13,163) and with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection [symptomatic (n = 5617) and asymptomatic (n = 2138)] for all baseline characteristics assessed. Only 1 adverse event was reported among those with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection (asymptomatic), venous thromboembolism [46.8 per 100,000 residents 95% confidence interval (CI) 8.3–264.5], which was not significantly different from the rate reported for those without previous infection (30.4 per 100,000 95% CI 11.8–78.1). Several other adverse events were observed for those with no previous infection, but were not statistically significantly higher than those reported with previous infection after adjustments for multiple comparisons.Conclusions and ImplicationsAlthough reactogenicity increases with preexisting immunity, we did not find that vaccination among those with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection resulted in higher rates of adverse events than those without previous infection. This study stresses the importance of monitoring novel vaccines for adverse events in this vulnerable population.     

Healthcare worker perspectives on COVID-19 vaccines: Implications for increasing vaccine acceptance among healthcare workers and patients

ObjectiveTo understand COVID-19 vaccine perspectives among healthcare workers serving diverse communities.MethodsA dual English/Spanish survey was distributed to healthcare workers in the United States from 3/12/2021–4/22/2021 by the Migrant Clinicians Network, Society of Refugee Healthcare Providers, a Federally Qualified Healthcare Center, and social media advertisement to general primary care workers.Results517 responses were at least 50% complete and included in the analysis. Among these, 88% (457/517) indicated vaccine acceptance. Factors associated with acceptance included not reporting any vaccine concerns, identifying as male, ≥65 years of age, being a physician or advanced practice provider, and interacting directly with patients from refugee, immigrant, and migrant (RIM) communities. Participants identified educational information as most helpful for themselves when making a vaccine decision, but a healthcare provider’s recommendation as most helpful for their patients.ConclusionHealthcare workers, especially those serving RIM communities, are vaccine accepting. Tailoring vaccine-related information to healthcare workers may improve vaccine confidence for both themselves and patients who rely on them for information.     

Motivating factors for high rates of influenza vaccination among healthcare workers

Background

Recent guidance from related regulatory agencies and medical societies supports mandatory vaccination of healthcare workers (HCW) against influenza. At St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, a pediatric oncology referral center, more than 90% of HCWs receive vaccine each year without a policy mandating immunization. Factors associated with HCW uptake of influenza vaccines have not previously been evaluated in a high compliance rate setting.

Methods

A structured, anonymous, electronic questionnaire was distributed in August 2010 to employees (HCW and non-HCW). Demographics, prior receipt of influenza vaccines, reasons for acceptance or refusal of seasonal and 2009 H1N1 pandemic vaccine, and attitudes on mandatory vaccination were assessed.

Results

95.0% of 925 HCWs and 63.1% of all 3227 qualifying employees responded to the survey. 93.8% and 75.2% of HCW reported receiving seasonal and 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccines, respectively, in the 2009-2010 season. Benefits to self and/or patients were cited as the most frequent reasons for accepting seasonal (83.5% and 78.3%, respectively) and 2009 H1N1 (85.9% and 81.1%, respectively) vaccination. 36.6% of HCWs opposed mandating influenza vaccination; 88.2% and 59.9% of whom reported receiving the seasonal and 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccines, respectively. Violation of freedom of choice and personal autonomy were the most frequently reported reasons for opposition.

Conclusion

In this cohort of HCWs with a high influenza vaccination rate, realistic assessments of the potential benefits of vaccination appear to have driven the choice to accept immunization. Despite this, mandating vaccination was viewed unfavorably by a significant minority of vaccinated individuals. Employee concerns over autonomy should be addressed as institutions transition to mandatory vaccination policies.     

Safety and immunogenicity of heterologous ChAdOx1-nCoV19 and BNT162b2 vaccination: A meta-analysis of the heterologous COVID-19 vaccination outcomes

IntroductionHere, we systematically assessed the safety and immunogenicity of the heterologous ChAd/BNT vaccination regimens.Materials and methodsWe evaluated the immunogenicity by the geometric mean titers ratio (GMTR) of the neutralizing antibody and anti-spike IgG. The safety of heterologous ChAd/BNT vaccination was evaluated using the pooled risk ratios (RRs) calculated by the random-effects model about the adverse events. Our study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021265165.ResultsEleven studies were included in the analyses. Compared to the homologous ChAd/ChAd vaccination, the heterologous ChAd/BNT vaccination showed significantly higher immunogenicity in terms of the neutralizing antibody and GMTR of anti-spike IgG, but at the same time displayed higher incidence of total adverse reactions, especially for the local adverse reactions. Moreover, heterologous ChAd/BNT vaccination showed similar immunogenicity to the homologous BNT/BNT vaccination (GMTR of neutralizing antibody and anti-spike IgG) and similar safety.DiscussionHeterologous ChAd/BNT vaccination showed robust immunogenicity and tolerable safety.     

From COVID-19 vaccine candidates to compulsory vaccination: The attitudes of Italian citizens in the key 7-month of vaccination campaign

IntroductionThe aim of the study is to understand the evolution of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance over the key 7-month vaccine campaign in Italy, a period in which the country moved from candidate vaccines to products administered to the public. The research focus points to evaluate COVID-19 vaccine attitudes in adults and their children, propension towards compulsory vaccination, past and present adherence to anti-flu and anti-pneumococcal vaccines, and the reasons for trust/mistrust of vaccines.MethodsItalian residents aged 16->65 years were invited to complete an online survey from September 2020 to April 2021. The survey contained 13 questions: 3 on demographic data; 8 on vaccine attitudes; and 2 open-ended questions about the reasons of vaccine confidence/refusal. A preliminary word frequency analysis has been conducted, as well as a statistical bivariate analysis.ResultsOf 21.537 participants, the confidence of those in favor of the COVID-19 vaccine increases of 50 % and the number of people who wanted more information decreases by two-third. Willingness to vaccinate their children against COVID-19 also increased from 51 % to 66.5 %. Only one-third of the strong vaccine-hesitant participants, i.e. 10 %, remained hostile. Compulsory vaccination showed a large and increasing favor by participants up to 78 %, in a way similar to their propensity for children’s mandatory vaccination (70.6 %). Respondents’ past and present adherence to anti-flu and anti-pneumococcal vaccines does not predict their intentions to vaccinate against COVID-19. Finally, a semantic analysis of the reasons of acceptance/refusal of COVID-19 vaccination suggests a complex decision-making process revealed by the participants’ use of common words in pro-and-cons arguments.ConclusionThe heterogeneity in the COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, determinants and opinions detected at different ages, genders and pandemic phases suggests that health authorities should avoid one-size-fits-all vaccination campaigns. The results emphasize the long-term importance of reinforcing vaccine information, communication and education needs.     

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.     

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.