Did the European suspension of the AstraZeneca vaccine decrease vaccine acceptance during the COVID-19 pandemic?

On March 11, 2021, the AstraZeneca vaccine against COVID-19 was suspended in three Nordic countries and, on subsequent days, in other European countries. Using data on vaccine acceptance in eight Western countries obtained on a daily basis, we show that these decisions - and associated news - decreased public vaccine acceptance in several countries and part of this decrease happened in response to suspensions in other countries. The findings demonstrate the importance of international coordination between health authorities during a pandemic such that local authorities are able to put the decisions of foreign authorities into perspective.     

Vaccination or NPI? A conjoint analysis of German citizens' preferences in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic

The European Journal of Health Economics - This research uses discrete choice-based conjoint analysis that elicits the preference structure of German citizens when it comes to their timely...     

“On the last day of the last month,I will go”: A qualitative exploration of COVID-19 vaccine confidence among Ivoirian adults

The authorization of several high-efficacy vaccines for use against the novel SARS-CoV2 virus signals a transition in the global COVID-19 response. Vaccine acceptance is critical for pandemic control and has a variety of context- specific drivers that operate at the individual, group, and sociopolitical levels. Social and behavior change interventions can influence individual knowledge, attitudes, and intentions as well as community norms to facilitate widespread vaccine uptake. While considerable research has been done to explore vaccine confidence in high-income populations as well as with respect to childhood vaccinations, much work remains to be done in understanding attitudes and intentions in low and middle income countries for adult or novel vaccines. We conducted in-depth interviews with individuals who had recovered from COVID-19 (n = 8), people who had lost a family member to COVID-19 (n = 4), and health providers (n = 17). We also conducted focus group discussions with members of the general population (n = 24 groups) to explore social norms and community perceptions related to COVID-19, including prevention behaviors, stigma, and vaccines. Researchers collected data in Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire, in November 2020. In considering whether to accept a future COVID-19 vaccine or not, individuals in the study weighed perceived risk of the vaccine against the severity of the disease. Perceived severity of rumored side effects or safety issues of vaccines were also a factor. Convenience was a secondary, albeit also important, consideration. While concerns about vaccine safety tended to produce an expressed intention to delay vaccination, conspiracy theories about those developing and promoting vaccines and their motives led people to say they would opt out entirely. Behavior change interventions must raise awareness and address misunderstandings about the purpose of vaccines, transparently communicate about vaccine safety and development processes, and engage trusted influencers to build an enabling environment for COVID-19 vaccine roll out.     

Did the COVID-19 pandemic change the willingness to pay for an early warning system for infectious diseases in Europe?

The COVID-19 pandemic highlights the need for effective infectious disease outbreak prevention. This could entail installing an integrated, international early warning system, aiming to contain and mitigate infectious diseases outbreaks. The amount of resources governments should spend on such preventive measures can be informed by the value citizens attach to such a system. This was already recognized in 2018, when a contingent valuation willingness to pay (WTP) experiment was fielded, eliciting the WTP for such a system in six European countries. We replicated that experiment in the spring of 2020 to test whether and how WTP had changed during an actual pandemic (COVID-19), taking into account differences in infection rates and stringency of measures by government between countries. Overall, we found significant increases in WTP between the two time points, with mean WTP for an early warning system increasing by about 50% (median 30%), from around €20 to €30 per month. However, there were marked differences between countries and subpopulations, and changes were only partially explained by COVID-19 burden. We discuss possible explanations for and implication of our findings.

     

Can BCG be useful to mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic? A Canadian perspective

There is ample evidence from in vitro, animal and human studies that the Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) vaccine epigenetically reprograms innate immunity to provide “off target” protection against pathogens other than mycobacteria. This process has been termed “trained immunity”. Although recent ecological studies suggested an association between BCG policies and the frequency or severity of COVID-19 in different countries, the interpretation of these results is challenging. For this reason, a case-control study aiming to test this hypothesis has been initiated in Quebec. Several phase III clinical trials are underway, including one in Canada, to assess the efficacy of BCG against SARS-CoV-2 infection (results expected in 2021). In the past, BCG has been widely used in Canada but current indications are restricted to high-risk individuals and communities experiencing TB outbreaks as well as for the treatment of bladder cancer. The potential implication of BCG as an interim measure to mitigate COVID-19 is the subject of widespread discussion in the scientific community and can be considered for the vulnerable population in Canada. To conclude, BCG vaccination should be placed on the agenda of research funding agencies, scientific advisory committees on immunization and federal/provincial/territorial public health authorities.     

Does there exist an obesity paradox in COVID-19? Insights of the international HOPE-COVID-19-registry

BackgroundObesity has been described as a protective factor in cardiovascular and other diseases being expressed as ‘obesity paradox’. However, the impact of obesity on clinical outcomes including mortality in COVID-19 has been poorly systematically investigated until now. We aimed to compare clinical outcomes among COVID-19 patients divided into three groups according to the body mass index (BMI).MethodsWe retrospectively collected data up to May 31^st, 2020. 3635 patients were divided into three groups of BMI (<25 kg/m²; n = 1110, 25?30 kg/m²; n = 1464, and >30 kg/m²; n = 1061). Demographic, in-hospital complications, and predictors for mortality, respiratory insufficiency, and sepsis were analyzed.ResultsThe rate of respiratory insufficiency was more recorded in BMI 25?30 kg/m² as compared to BMI < 25 kg/m² (22.8% vs. 41.8%; p < 0.001), and in BMI > 30 kg/m² than BMI < 25 kg/m², respectively (22.8% vs. 35.4%; p < 0.001). Sepsis was more observed in BMI 25?30 kg/m² and BMI > 30 kg/m² as compared to BMI < 25 kg/m², respectively (25.1% vs. 42.5%; p = 0.02) and (25.1% vs. 32.5%; p = 0.006). The mortality rate was higher in BMI 25?30 kg/m² and BMI > 30 kg/m² as compared to BMI < 25 kg/m², respectively (27.2% vs. 39.2%; p = 0.31) (27.2% vs. 33.5%; p = 0.004). In the Cox multivariate analysis for mortality, BMI < 25 kg/m² and BMI > 30 kg/m² did not impact the mortality rate (HR 1.15, 95% CI: 0.889?1.508; p = 0.27) (HR 1.15, 95% CI: 0.893?1.479; p = 0.27). In multivariate logistic regression analyses for respiratory insufficiency and sepsis, BMI < 25 kg/m² is determined as an independent predictor for reduction of respiratory insufficiency (OR 0.73, 95% CI: 0.538?1.004; p = 0.05).ConclusionsHOPE COVID-19-Registry revealed no evidence of obesity paradox in patients with COVID-19. However, Obesity was associated with a higher rate of respiratory insufficiency and sepsis but was not determined as an independent predictor for a high mortality.     

How do COVID-19 vaccine mandates affect attitudes toward the vaccine and participation in mandate-affected activities? Evidence from the United States

The spread of COVID-19 has prompted many governments, schools, and companies to institute vaccine mandates. Proponents suggest that mandates will enhance public health and increase vaccination rates. Critics suggest that evidence of mandates’ effectiveness is unclear and warn that mandates risk increasing societal inequalities if unvaccinated minority groups opt out of educational, commercial, and social activities where mandates are required. We conduct an original survey experiment on a nationally representative sample of 1,245 Americans to examine the efficacy and effect of COVID-19 mandates. Our findings suggest that mandates are unlikely to change vaccination behavior overall. Further, they may increase the likelihood that sizable percentages of the population opt out of activities where vaccines are mandated. We conclude that mandates that do go into effect should be accompanied by persuasive communications targeted to specific information needs and identities.     

Does having a seasonal influenza program facilitate pandemic preparedness? An analysis of vaccine deployment during the 2009 pandemic

BackgroundNational seasonal influenza programs have been recommended as a foundation for pandemic preparedness. During the 2009 pandemic, WHO aimed to increase Member States’ equitable access to influenza vaccines through pandemic vaccine donation.MethodsThis analysis explores whether the presence of a seasonal influenza program contributed to more rapid national submission of requirements to receive vaccine during the 2009 influenza pandemic. Data from 2009 influenza vaccine donation, deployment, and surveillance initiatives were collected during May-September 2018 from WHO archival material. Data about the presence of seasonal influenza vaccine programs prior to 2009 were gathered from the WHO-UNICEF Joint Reporting Form. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess the relationship between presence of a seasonal influenza program and time to submission of a national deployment and vaccination plan and to vaccine delivery.FindingOf 97 countries eligible to receive WHO-donated vaccine, 83 (86%) submitted national deployment and vaccination plans and 77 (79%) received vaccine. Countries with a seasonal influenza vaccine program were more likely to submit a national deployment and vaccination plan (hazards ratio [HR] 2.1; 95% confidence interval [CI]. Countries with regulatory delays were less likely to receive vaccine than those without these delays (HR 0.4, 95% CI: 0.2–0.6).InterpretationDuring the 2009 pandemic, eligible countries with a seasonal influenza vaccine program were more ready to receive and use donated vaccines than those without a program. Our findings suggest that robust seasonal influenza vaccine programs increase national familiarity with the management of influenza vaccines and therefore enhance pandemic preparedness.FundingN/A.     

Is stronger religious faith associated with a greater willingness to take the COVID-19 vaccine? Evidence from Israel and Japan

The European Journal of Health Economics - Achieving high vaccination rates is important for overcoming an epidemic. This study investigates the association between religious faith and intentions...     

Imperfect messengers? An analysis of vaccine confidence among primary care physicians

BackgroundGrowing narratives emphasize using primary care physicians as leaders in efforts to promote COVID-19 vaccination among the vaccine hesitant. Critically however, little is known about vaccine confidence among primary care physicians themselves. The objective of this study was to assess both physician confidence that in general, vaccines are safe, effective, and important, as well as physician confidence in each COVID-19 vaccine in the United States.MethodsWe rely on data from a national survey of primary care physicians conducted from May 14-May 25, 2021. We assess the influence of demographic, social, and political factors on physician beliefs that in general, vaccines are safe, effective, and important, as well as physician confidence in the safety of the Moderna, Pfizer, and Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccines.Results10.1% of primary care physicians do not agree that, in general, vaccines are safe, 9.3% do not agree they are effective, and 8.3% do not agree they are important. While 68.7% of physicians were ‘very confident’ in the safety of the Moderna vaccine and 72.7% were ‘very confident’ in the safety of the Pfizer vaccine, only 32.1% of physicians were ‘very confident’ in the safety of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine.ConclusionA troubling proportion of primary care physicians lack high levels of vaccine confidence. These physicians may not be well positioned to actively promote COVID-19 vaccination even as political and media narratives push physicians to lead this effort. Interventions aimed at improving vaccine confidence among some physicians may be needed so that all physicians can fulfill needed roles as trusted vaccine communicators.