Can the vaccine adverse event reporting system be used to increase vaccine acceptance and trust?

Vaccine refusal has an impact on public health, and the human pappillomavirus (HPV) vaccine is particularly underutilized. Research suggests that it may be difficult to change vaccine-related attitudes, and there is currently no good evidence to recommend any particular intervention strategy. One reason for vaccine hesitancy is lack of trust that vaccine harms are adequately documented and reported, yet few communication strategies have explicitly attempted to improve this trust. This study tested the possibility that data from the vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS) can be used to increase trust that vaccine harms are adequately researched and that potential harms are disclosed to the public, and thereby improve perceptions of vaccines. In the study, participants were randomly assigned to one of three communication interventions. All participants read the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) vaccine information statement (VIS) for the HPV vaccine. Two other groups were exposed to additional information about VAERS, either summary data or full detailed reports of serious adverse events from 2013. Results showed that the CDC's VIS alone significantly increased perceptions of vaccine benefits and decreased perceived risks. Participants who were also educated about VAERS and given summary data about the serious adverse events displayed more trust in the CDC and greater HPV vaccine acceptance relative to the VIS alone. However, exposure to the detailed VAERS reports significantly reduced trust in the CDC and vaccine acceptance. Hence, general information about the VAERS data slightly increased trust in the CDC and improved vaccine acceptance, but the specific VAERS reports negatively influenced both trust and acceptance. Implications for communicating about vaccines are discussed.     

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.     

COVID-19 vaccine behaviour among citizens of the Métis Nation of Ontario: A qualitative study

BackgroundThe burden of the current COVID-19 pandemic is not shared equally in Canadian society, with Indigenous Peoples being disproportionately affected. Moreover, there is a lack of research pertaining to vaccination behaviour in Métis communities. This Métis-specific and Métis-led qualitative study endeavours to understand COVID-19 vaccine behaviour among citizens of the Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO).MethodsData was collected via one-on-one interviews. Participants were recruited via the MNO’s existing social media channels. Participants filled out a screening survey indicating their intention to vaccinate against COVID-19 as yes, no, or unsure. Sixteen participants (9 yes, 3 unsure, 4 no) were interviewed. Interviews averaged 30 min, and the questions and probes were developed in collaboration with the MNO. The interviewer received Métis-specific cultural safety training. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and uploaded to NVivo 12.ResultsA deductive analysis using the Social Ecological Model framework (SEM) for vaccine behaviour and two blinded coders was used to understand the data. An additional factor, COVID-19 public health measures, was added to the framework to better capture the experiences of participants during the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, the factors with the greatest number of coded references included Vaccine roll-out and availability, Organization of the public into priority groups, Public discourse, Interpersonal influences, Interface with health professionals, Knowledge state, Trust, and Vaccine risk perception. Bandwagoning (following others’ behaviour) and Freeloading (perceiving enough people have been vaccinated), both factors of the SEM, were not discussed. Yes, no, and unsure participant groups were compared to understand the influences of each factor based on COVID-19 vaccination intention.ConclusionsMNO citizens COVID-19 vaccine behaviour was negatively and positively influenced by a number of factors. This information will allow the MNO and public health units to better tailor their messaging for COVID-19 vaccine uptake campaigns and future pandemic emergencies.     

A large-scale field randomized trial demonstrates safety and efficacy of the vaccine LetiFend® against canine leishmaniosis

Canine leishmaniosis is a zoonotic disease caused by Leishmania infantum. Extensive research is currently ongoing to develop safe and effective vaccines to protect from disease development. The European Commission has granted a marketing authorization for LetiFend®, a new vaccine containing recombinant Protein Q. The efficacy of LetiFend® vaccination in a large-scale dog population of both sexes, different breeds and ages in endemic areas is reported in this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled field trial.Dogs (n = 549) living in France and Spain were randomly selected to receive a single subcutaneous dose of LetiFend® or placebo per year, and were naturally exposed to two L. infantum transmission seasons. Clinical examinations, blood and lymphoid organ sampling to evaluate serological, parasitological and disease status of the dogs were performed at different time points during the study.LetiFend® was very well tolerated and clearly reduced the incidence of clinical signs related to leishmaniosis. The number of confirmed cases of leishmaniosis was statistically significantly lower in the vaccine group. The number of dogs with parasites was close to be significantly reduced in the vaccine group (p = 0.0564). Re-vaccination of seropositive dogs demonstrated to be safe and not to worsen the course of the disease. The likelihood that a dog vaccinated with LetiFend® develops a confirmed case or clinical signs of leishmaniosis in areas with high pressure is, respectively, 5 and 9.8 time less than that for an unvaccinated dog. Thus, the overall efficacy of the LetiFend® vaccine in the prevention of confirmed cases of leishmaniosis in endemic areas with high disease pressure was shown to be 72%.In conclusion, this field trial demonstrates that LetiFend® is a novel, safe and effective vaccine for the active immunization of non-infected dogs from 6 months of age in reducing the risk of developing clinical leishmaniosis after natural infection with Leishmania infantum.     

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.     

Is vaccine confidence an unexpected victim of the COVID-19 pandemic?

Vaccines are among the safest and most effective primary prevention measures. Thanks to the synergistic global efforts of research institutions, pharmaceutical companies and national health services, COVID-19 vaccination campaigns were successfully rolled out less than a year after the start of the pandemic. While the unprecedented speed of development and approval of COVID-19 vaccines has been applauded as a public health success story, it also spurred considerable controversy and hesitancy even amongst individuals that did not previously hold anti-vaccination stances. This study aimed to compare pre- and post-pandemic vaccine confidence trends in different demographic groups by analysing the outcomes of two online surveys run respectively in November 2019 and January 2022 involving a total of 1009 participants.Non-parametric tests highlighted a statistically significant decline in vaccine confidence in the 2022 cohort compared to the 2019 cohort, with median Vaccine Confidence Score dropping from 22 to 20 and 23.8% of participants reporting that their confidence in vaccines had declined since the onset of the pandemic. While the majority of internal trends were comparable between the two surveys with regards to gender, graduate status and religious belief, vaccine confidence patterns showed considerable alterations with regards to age and ethnicity. Middle-aged participants were considerably more hesitant than younger groups in the 2019 cohort, however this was not the case in the 2022 survey. In both surveys White participants showed significantly higher vaccine confidence than those from Black backgrounds; in the 2022 cohort, unlike the pre-pandemic group, Asian participants showed significantly lower confidence than White ones.This study suggests that paradoxically, despite the success of COVID-19 vaccination campaigns, vaccine confidence has significantly declined since the onset of the pandemic; the comparison of a pre- and post-pandemic cohort sheds light on the differential effect that the pandemic had on vaccine confidence in different demographic groups.     

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.     

Can cancer risk information raise awareness without increasing anxiety? A randomized trial

OBJECTIVE: Promoting public awareness of cancer risk factors is an important public health goal, but there is concern that it could heighten anxiety. This study examined the impact of mailed information about colorectal cancer on awareness of risk factors, emotional well-being, and interest in attending screening in a population not previously exposed to screening. METHOD: Individuals (3,185) aged 45-66 years registered with general practitioners in South-West England in 2004 were randomized to (1) control group (no information), (2) information on colorectal cancer risk factors, or (3) information on risk factors and colorectal screening. All participants were sent a questionnaire assessing knowledge, anxiety, worry about colorectal cancer, and interest in screening. RESULTS: Questionnaires (1,945; 61%) were returned. As expected, participants receiving information had significantly greater knowledge than the control group. Anxiety scores were in the normal range and neither anxiety nor worry about cancer differed significantly between the groups. Ninety-three percent of respondents indicated they would be interested in screening, with equally high levels across groups. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that information leaflets can promote knowledge of cancer risk factors without increasing anxiety. Low-cost educational materials have the potential to contribute to public engagement with health promotion and disease prevention.     

Misinformation about vaccine safety and uptake of COVID-19 vaccines among adults and 5–11-year-olds in the United States

Despite increasing rates of vaccination for COVID-19 in the US, hesitancy continues to be a barrier to the full immunization of the eligible population. Hesitancy appears to be particularly pronounced among adults deciding whether to recommend that children be vaccinated against COVID-19. In this research, we tested whether embrace of misinformation about the safety of vaccination is associated with hesitancy to vaccinate oneself and to recommend vaccination of a 5–11-year-old child for COVID-19. In a national probability panel created in April 2021, we assessed belief in both general vaccination misinformation and misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines, in particular. As hypothesized, belief in general vaccination misinformation predicted the uptake in reported vaccination among adults through September 2021, and likelihood to recommend COVID-19 vaccination of children aged 5–11 in January 2022, three months after the approval of that vaccine. In addition, misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines that arose over time correlated highly with more general vaccination misinformation. For both outcomes, general vaccine misinformation predicted vaccination hesitancy beyond concerns about the health risks of contracting COVID-19 for one’s family and children ages 5–11. The findings indicate that continued efforts are needed to bolster beliefs about the safety of authorized and approved vaccines of many types and not just those for COVID-19. Some strategies to achieve this objective are suggested.     

Effectiveness of the 10-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine among girls,boys, preterm and low-birth-weight infants – Results from a randomized,double-blind vaccine trial

BackgroundSeveral studies have shown differences in susceptibility to infections and immune response to vaccines by sex. Prematurely born infants are at higher risk for pneumococcal diseases, with lower effectiveness for some vaccines compared to term infants. We have reported the effectiveness of the 10-valent pneumococcal non-typeable Haemophilus influenzae protein D conjugate vaccine (PHiD-CV10) on several endpoints in the Finnish Invasive Pneumococcal disease (FinIP) vaccine trial. Now, we present the results of a post-hoc analysis evaluating PHiD-CV10 effectiveness in subgroups by sex, gestational age, and birth weight.MethodsThe FinIP trial was a phase III/IV cluster-randomized, double-blind trial. Infants enrolled < 7 months of age received PHiD-CV10 in two thirds of clusters (3 + 1 or 2 + 1 schedule) and hepatitis B vaccine as control in remaining third. Outcome data included invasive pneumococcal disease, pneumonia, tympanostomy tube placements, and antimicrobial purchases collected through national, routinely used health registers. Negative binomial model was used in the incidence and vaccine effectiveness estimation, and differences in incidences between subgroups were tested among control children.ResultsOf the 30,527 infants enrolled 51% were boys. The incidences of hospital-diagnosed pneumonia and otitis-related outcomes were higher among boys in control groups. There were no significant sex differences in the vaccine effectiveness estimates.Altogether, 1519 (5%) infants were born before 37th gestational week. The incidences of pneumonia outcomes were higher among premature infants when compared to term infants.The vaccine effectiveness estimates among preterm infants were not statistically significant except for antimicrobial purchases, but all point estimates were at the same level among preterm infants as among term infants. There was no significant difference between 2 + 1 and 3 + 1 schedules in any of the subgroups analysed.ConclusionPHiD-CV10 had a similar effectiveness in both sexes, and seemed to be protective in preterm infants.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00861380 and NCT00839254     

Does a major change to a COVID-19 vaccine program alter vaccine intention? A qualitative investigation

BackgroundOn 8th April 2021, the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) made the Pfizer-BioNtech (Comirnaty) vaccine the “preferred” vaccine for adults in Australia aged < 50 years due to a risk of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) following AstraZeneca vaccination. We sought to understand whether this impacted COVID-19 vaccine intentions.MethodWe undertook qualitative interviews from February – April 2021 before and after the program change with 28 adults in Perth, Western Australia. Using our COVID-19 vaccine intentions model, we assessed changes in participants’ COVID-19 vaccine intention before and after the program change. Participants were classified as 1) ‘acceptors’: no concerns about COVID-19 vaccine safety, efficacy, access and would accept whatever vaccine is offered, 2) ‘cautious acceptors’: some concerns and would prefer a particular vaccine brand but would accept whatever is offered, 3) ‘Wait awhile’: for more data, easier access, for another vaccine brand, a greater perceived COVID-19 threat or until mandatory, or 4) ‘refuser’: no intention to vaccinate due to concerns about safety and/or efficacy.ResultsBefore the change, 7/18 of those aged < 50 years were ‘acceptors,’ 10/18 were ‘cautious acceptors’ and 1/18 was ‘wait awhile.’ Overall, 14/18 participants had the same COVID-19 vaccine intention after the change; 4/18 became more concerned. For those aged ≥ 50 years and before the change, 5/10 were ‘acceptors’ and 5/10 were ‘cautious acceptors.’ After the change, 8/10 still had the same COVID-19 vaccine intention; 2/10 became more cautious. The major concern before the program change was COVID-19 vaccines having different vaccine efficacy; the concern pivoted to safety.ConclusionThe majority of participants were ‘cautious acceptors’ who intended on being vaccinated; many had this intention before and after the program change. The Australian government, health care providers and media need to better address COVID-19 vaccine concerns to assist those with COVID-19 vaccine intentions receive a vaccine.     

COVID-19 vaccine and boosted immunity: Nothing ad interim to do?

Today, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a global public health emergency and vaccination measures to counter its diffusion are deemed necessary. Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the etiological agent of the disease, unleashes a T-helper 2 immune response in those patients requiring intensive care. Here, we illustrate the immunological mechanism to train the immune system towards a more effective and less symptomatic T-helper 1 immune response, to be exploited against SARS-CoV-2.     

Will donations to their learned college increase surgeons' participation in surveys? A randomized trial

Effective strategies to maximize response rates to self-administered surveys of clinicians are crucial to minimize response bias. Offers of charitable donations have been assessed for their potential to promote participation of community samples but not in the context of medical specialist samples. We randomized all Australian colorectal surgeons (n = 219) to whom we mailed a survey about clinical practice guidelines to receive either a standard covering letter or one promising a donation to their peak professional organization upon our receipt of their completed survey. Contrary to expectations, surgeons advised that their participation would secure a donation to their college were significantly less likely to return their questionnaire (84.3%, 95% CI 76.0-90.5%) than those receiving a standard letter (93.7%, 95% CI 87.4-97.4%). They also were more tardy in their response (Hazard Ratio = 0.75, 95% CI 0.57-1.00) (P = 0.047). In this context, offering donations to surgeons was counterproductive in enhancing response rates.     

Acceptability of a COVID-19 vaccine among adults in the United States: How many people would get vaccinated?

BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic in March 2020. Several prophylactic vaccines against COVID-19 are currently in development, yet little is known about people’s acceptability of a COVID-19 vaccine.MethodsWe conducted an online survey of adults ages 18 and older in the United States (n = 2,006) in May 2020. Multivariable relative risk regression identified correlates of participants’ willingness to get a COVID-19 vaccine (i.e., vaccine acceptability).ResultsOverall, 69% of participants were willing to get a COVID-19 vaccine. Participants were more likely to be willing to get vaccinated if they thought their healthcare provider would recommend vaccination (RR = 1.73, 95% CI: 1.49–2.02) or if they were moderate (RR = 1.09, 95% CI: 1.02–1.16) or liberal (RR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.07–1.22) in their political leaning. Participants were also more likely to be willing to get vaccinated if they reported higher levels of perceived likelihood getting a COVID-19 infection in the future (RR = 1.05, 95% CI: 1.01–1.09), perceived severity of COVID-19 infection (RR = 1.08, 95% CI: 1.04–1.11), or perceived effectiveness of a COVID-19 vaccine (RR = 1.46, 95% CI: 1.40–1.52). Participants were less likely to be willing to get vaccinated if they were non-Latinx black (RR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.74–0.90) or reported a higher level of perceived potential vaccine harms (RR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.92–0.98).ConclusionsMany adults are willing to get a COVID-19 vaccine, though acceptability should be monitored as vaccine development continues. Our findings can help guide future efforts to increase COVID-19 vaccine acceptability (and uptake if a vaccine becomes available).     

Can distance learning improve smoking cessation advice in family practice? A randomized trial

INTRODUCTION: Family physicians (FPs) underuse opportunities to provide smoking cessation advice during routine consultations with patients who smoke. Distance learning is a promising approach to continuing medical education, particularly for FPs practicing in rural and remote areas. We developed a distance learning module, conducting a randomized trial to assess its educational impact on knowledge, attitudes and skills ("competence"), self-rated competence, confidence, and readiness to change. METHODS: Volunteer FPs were randomly allocated to receive either a distance learning module or a preventive care guideline. Self-administered questionnaires were completed at baseline and post-test. RESULTS: Fifty-three FPs enrolled in the study. There were no changes in knowledge or attitudes. Change in skills was limited to a reduction in use of one ineffective technique, namely "nicotine fading." Change in self-rated competence between baseline and post-test was significantly greater for the intervention than for the control group, however (p = .03). Although self-ratings of confidence increased significantly between baseline and post-test in both groups, the magnitude of change was no greater in the intervention than the control group (p = .3). Both groups demonstrated only nonsignificant shifts in readiness to change. DISCUSSION: These modest changes are of uncertain educational value, inviting caution before recommending distance learning approaches to promote smoking cessation advice in family practice.