U.S. public support for COVID-19 vaccine donation to low- and middle-income countries during the COVID-19 pandemic

As COVID-19 vaccines become available to the public, there will be a massive worldwide distribution effort. Vaccine distribution has historically been unequal primarily due to the inability of nations with developing economies to purchase enough vaccine to fully vaccinate their populations. Inequitable access to COVID-19 vaccines will not just cause humanitarian suffering, it will likely also be associated with increased economic suffering worldwide. This study focuses on the U.S. population and its beliefs about future COVID-19 vaccine donation by the U.S. to low- and middle-income countries.This study carried out a survey among 788 U.S. adults. Variables include demographics, COVID-19 vaccine priority status, COVID-19 vaccine donation beliefs, and Social Dominance Orientation.Analyses showed that older respondents were both less likely to endorse higher levels of COVID-19 vaccine donations and were more likely to want to wait until all in the U.S. who want the vaccine have received it; those who identified as Democrats were more likely to endorse higher levels of future COVID-19 vaccine donation than Republicans; and those scoring higher on SDO were both less likely to endorse higher levels of COVID-19 vaccine donations as well as more likely to want to wait until all in the U.S. who want the vaccine have received it. Policymakers, as well as healthcare providers and public health communication professionals, should give consideration to those messages most likely to engender support for global prevention efforts with each audience segment.     

Joining the herd? U.S. public opinion and vaccination requirements across educational settings during the COVID-19 pandemic

With effective and safe COVID-19 vaccines beginning to be distributed across the United States, questions about who should receive the vaccine first have been the focus of public discussions. Yet, over the long-term, questions about the order of distribution will be displaced by questions about how to achieve high levels of vaccination rates. Historically, absent incentives or mandates, Americans have shown ambivalence, if not general antipathy, towards vaccinations, and vaccination rates have generally been low for many vaccines. There is evidence that vaccination requirements across educational settings are an effective policy instrument to increase vaccination rates. We administered a large national survey to assess American’s attitudes towards vaccination requirements across three educational settings (daycare, K-12 schools, and universities) in general and for COVID-19 specifically. Partisanship, gender, race, rurality, and perceptions about the appropriate role schools should play in providing health services are substantive predictors of public opinion. While Americans generally support vaccination mandates across all three settings for both types of requirements, support is consistently and significantly lower for COVID19 requirements. The effect of partisanship is accentuated for COVID-19 requirements as compared to general requirements. Drop off in support between general and COVID-19 specific requirements are driven by partisanship, gender, political knowledge, rurality, and having children in the household. Nonetheless, mandates are supported by a majority of Americans. Assessing Americans’ opinions of vaccination requirements in educational settings offers an important opportunity to explore the potential of mandates as policy instrument in the government’s arsenal against COVID-19 and guide public policy on the issues.     

Baseline hepatitis B vaccination coverage among persons with diabetes before implementing a U.S. recommendation for vaccination

Background

Recent data suggest that adults with diabetes are at increased risk of incident hepatitis B infection and may suffer increased morbidity or mortality from chronic hepatitis B infection. In October 2011, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended hepatitis B vaccination (HepB) for persons with diabetes aged 19–59 years and stated that persons with diabetes aged 60 years and older should be considered for vaccination.

Objective

To determine HepB coverage among persons with diabetes aged ≥19 years prior to implementation of the new ACIP recommendation and to determine predictors for vaccination.

Methods

We used the 2009 National Health Interview Survey to determine weighted proportions of self-reported HepB coverage (≥1 and ≥3 doses) among persons with diabetes aged ≥19 years. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to determine factors independently associated with vaccination.

Results

Overall, 19.5% (95% CI: 17.4–21.6%) and 16.6% (14.7–18.6%) of persons with diabetes, aged ≥19 years, reported receiving ≥1 and ≥3 doses of HepB, respectively, compared with 30.3% (29.4–31.3%) and 26.5% (25.5–27.4%) among persons without diabetes. While unadjusted HepB coverage was higher among persons without diabetes, diabetes status was not associated with ≥1 or ≥3 dose vaccination. Among persons with diabetes, being a healthcare provider (OR 4.2, 2.5–7.0), ever tested for HIV (OR 2.6, 1.8–3.6), high-risk behaviors (OR 1.8, 1.0–3.4, P-value = 0.053) and having some college education (OR 1.7, 1.2–2.4) were all independently associated with vaccination.

Conclusion

HepB coverage among persons with diabetes is low. These data can be used to provide a baseline for measuring future progress toward vaccination of persons with diabetes.     

Relationship between the use of nonpharmaceutical interventions and COVID-19 vaccination among U.S. child care providers: A prospective cohort study

BackgroundThe relationship between the use of nonpharmaceutical interventions and COVID-19 vaccination among U.S. child care providers remains unknown. If unvaccinated child care providers are also less likely to employ nonpharmaceutical interventions, then a vaccine mandate across child care programs may have larger health and safety benefits.MethodsTo assess and quantify the relationship between the use of nonpharmaceutical interventions and COVID-19 vaccination among U.S. child care providers, we conducted a prospective cohort study of child care providers (N = 20,013) from all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Child care providers were asked to complete a self-administered email survey in May-June 2020 assessing the use of nonpharmaceutical interventions (predictors) and a follow-up survey in May-June 2021 assessing COVID-19 vaccination (outcome). Nonpharmaceutical interventions were dichotomized as personal mitigation measures (e.g., masking, social distancing, handwashing) and classroom mitigation measures (e.g., temperature checks of staff/children, symptom screening for staff/children, cohorting).ResultsFor each unendorsed personal mitigation measure during 2020, the likelihood of vaccination in 2021 decreased by 7% (Risk Ratio = 0.93 [95% CI 0.93 – 0.95]). No significant association was found between classroom mitigation measures and child care provider vaccination (Risk Ratio = 1.01 [95% CI 1.00–1.01]).ConclusionsChild care providers who used fewer personal mitigation measures were also less likely to get vaccinated for COVID-19 as an alternative form of protection. The combined nonadherence to multiple types of preventative health behaviors, that is, both nonpharmaceutical interventions and vaccination, among some child care providers may support a role for mandatory vaccination to achieve pandemic control.     

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.     

Association between history of SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe systemic adverse events after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination among U.S. adults

BackgroundRisk of experiencing a systemic adverse event (AE) after mRNA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination may be greater among persons with a history of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection; data on serious events are limited. We assessed if adults reporting systemic AEs resulting in emergency department visits or hospitalizations during days 0–7 after mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose 1 were more likely to have a history of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with persons who reported no or non-severe systemic AEs.MethodsWe conducted a nested case-control study using v-safe surveillance data. Participants were ≥ 18 years and received dose 1 during December 14, 2020─May 9, 2021. Cases reported severe systemic AEs 0–7 days after vaccination. Three controls were frequency matched per case by age, vaccination date, and days since vaccination. Follow-up surveys collected SARS-CoV-2 histories.ResultsFollow-up survey response rates were 38.6 % (potential cases) and 56.8 % (potential controls). In multivariable analyses including 3,862 case-patients and 11,586 controls, the odds of experiencing a severe systemic AE were 2.4 (Moderna, mRNA-1273; 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 1.89, 3.09) and 1.5 (Pfizer-BioNTech, BNT162b2; 95 % CI: 1.17, 2.02) times higher among participants with pre-vaccination SARS-CoV-2 histories compared with those without. Medical attention of any kind for symptoms during days 0–7 following dose 2 was not common among case-patients or controls.ConclusionsHistory of SARS-CoV-2 infection was significantly associated with severe systemic AEs following dose 1 of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine; the effect varied by vaccine received. Most participants who experienced severe systemic AEs following dose 1 did not require medical attention of any kind for symptoms following dose 2. Vaccine providers can use these findings to counsel patients who had pre-vaccination SARS-CoV-2 infection histories, experienced severe systemic AEs following dose 1, and are considering not receiving additional mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses.     

COVID-19 vaccination intention and behavior in a large,diverse, U.S. refugee population

IntroductionRefugees often face increased risk of exposure to COVID-19 due to their disproportionate representation in the essential workforce and crowded household conditions. There is a paucity of data about risk factors for under-immunization for COVID-19 among refugees.MethodsRefugees were surveyed in two phases that corresponded to before and after wide availability of COVID-19 vaccines. Participants were asked about their attitudes, and perceptions about COVID-19, previous acceptance of vaccines, sources utilized to obtain trusted health information, and intent to get vaccinated. The overall participant vulnerability was assessed using the social vulnerability index. In-depth semi-structured interviews were completed with key stakeholders through snowball sampling.ResultsOf 247 refugees, 244 agreed to participate in the initial survey. Among those, 140 (57.4%) intended to get vaccinated, 43 (17.6%) were unsure, and 61 (25%) did not intend to get vaccinated. In the follow up survey, all 215 who were reached, agreed to provide information about their vaccination status. Among those respondents, 141 (65.6%) were either vaccinated or expressed intent to do so, and 74 (34.4%) remained hesitant. We did not observe any significant correlation between socio-demographic variables, country of origin, and vaccination status/intent. Among those who initially intended to get vaccinated, nearly 1 in 5 changed their mind and decided to forego vaccination, and among those who initially did not plan getting vaccinated, 1 in 3 changed their mind and got vaccinated. Fears related to the vaccine, concerns that the vaccine is religiously prohibited, “wait and see” how others did with the vaccine, communication and transportation barriers were commonly cited as reason not to get vaccinated.ConclusionsOver a third of refugees in our study were hesitant to get vaccinated. Refugees desired additional education about the benefits and safety of vaccines along with easier access to vaccination clinics in their communities.     

Inequalities in infant vaccination coverage during the COVID-19 pandemic: A population-based study in Peru

ObjectiveTo identify the associated factors and assess the inequalities of full vaccination coverage (FVC) among Peruvian infants aged 12–23 months during the COVID-19 pandemic in a nationally representative sample.MethodsWe carried out a population-based cross-sectional study based on a secondary data analysis using the 2021 Peruvian Demographic Health Survey (DHS) in infants aged 12 to 23 months. The sampling design was probabilistic, multistage, stratified, and independent at both departmental and area of residence levels. FVC was defined according to the WHO definition. We performed generalized linear models (GLM) Poisson family log link function to estimate crude (aPR) and adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR). Also, for inequality assessment, we calculated the concentration curve (CC), concentration index (CI), and Erreygers normalized concentration index (ECI).ResultsWe included 4,189 infants in our analysis. Nationwide, the prevalence of FVC was 66.19% (95% CI: 64.33–68). Being younger, having a mother with no education or primary education, belonging to a large family, having no access to mass media, having had six or fewer ANC visits, and having a mother whose age was under 20 at first delivery were inversely associated with FVC. Meanwhile, living in the Highlands or on the rest of the coast, and living in rural areas were directly associated with FVC. We found a pro-rich inequality in FVC based on wealth-ranked households (CI: 0.0066; ECI: 0.0175).ConclusionFVC has dropped among Peruvian infants aged between 12 and 23 months. There were several factors associated with FVC. It was more concentrated among the better-off infants, although in low magnitude.     

Pneumococcal vaccination coverage among adults newly diagnosed with underlying medical conditions and regional variation in the U.S.

BackgroundThe Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends pneumococcal vaccination for adults with chronic or immunocompromising conditions to prevent pneumococcal disease, yet vaccination rates are low and have limited information on regional variation. This study examines factors associated with pneumococcal vaccination in adults with underlying conditions and describes regional variation in vaccination across the U.S.MethodsUsing IBM MarketScan Commercial Database and Medicare Supplemental Database, this retrospective cohort study included adults ages 19–64 newly diagnosed with chronic (i.e. diabetes, chronic heart, lung, or liver disease, alcohol or tobacco dependence) or immunocompromising (i.e. cancer, chronic renal disease, organ transplant, HIV/AIDS, and asplenia) conditions in 2013. Adults were followed up until the time of pneumococcal vaccination, death, or December 31, 2019, whichever came first. Cox proportional hazards model was used to examine factors associated with vaccination. Vaccination rate was calculated by metropolitan statistical area (MSA) and visually represented on a U.S. map.Results255,330 adults were included. Vaccination rate increased from 6.0% to 21.1% among adults with one year and five years of follow-up, respectively. It took 2.4 years on average for adults to receive vaccination after initial diagnosis. Adults ages 50–64, 35–49 (relative to 19–34) or receiving influenza vaccination were more likely to receive pneumococcal vaccinations. Adults with HIV/AIDS were more likely and those with other conditions were less likely to be vaccinated than those with diabetes. Adults being diagnosed by other providers were less likely to be vaccinated than those diagnosed by primary care providers. Vaccination rate varied largely across MSAs, ranging from 0.0% (Ames, IA; Cheyenne, WY) to 34.0% (Ann Arbor, MI).ConclusionPneumococcal vaccination remains low and most adults with underlying conditions are unvaccinated. Insights into factors associated with vaccination, including regional variability, can help to increase pneumococcal vaccination.     

Predictive analysis of COVID-19 eradication with vaccination in India,Brazil, and U.S.A

The most important question and concern in these circumstances of COVID-19 epidemic outspread is when will the pandemic end? Vaccination is the only solution to restore life to normalcy in the fastest and safest possible manner. Therefore, we have carried out a predictive analysis for realistic timescale estimates for overcoming the epidemic considering vaccination rate effect on the dynamics of COVID-19 control. In particular we discuss the worst affected large countries like India, Brazil and USA for estimating effect of vaccination rate in expediting the end of the COVID-19 epidemic. We analytically simulated the dynamic evolution of active cases of these countries in the last nine months using the modified SIR model and then included the effect of vaccination to forecast the proliferation dynamics. We hence obtained the transmission parameters, the variation in the reproduction numbers and the impact of the different values of the vaccination shots in the expected curves of active cases in the coming times to predicted the timescales of the end of the epidemic.     

Factors impacting parental uptake of COVID-19 vaccination for U.S. Children ages 5–17

COVID-19 vaccination of U.S. children lags behind adult vaccination, but remains critical in mitigating the pandemic. Using a subset of a nationally representative survey, this study examined factors contributing to parental uptake of COVID-19 vaccine for children ages 12–17 and 5–11, stratified by parental COVID-19 vaccination status. Among vaccinated parents, uptake was higher for 12–17-year-olds (78.6%) than 5–11-year-olds (50.7%); only two unvaccinated parents vaccinated their children. Child influenza vaccination was predictive of uptake for both age groups, while side effect concerns remained significant only for younger children. Although parents were more likely to involve adolescents in vaccine decision-making than younger children, this was not predictive of vaccine uptake. These results highlight the importance of addressing the unique and shared concerns parents have regarding COVID-19 vaccination for children of varying ages. Future work should further explore adolescent/child perspectives of involvement in COVID-19 vaccination decision-making to support developmentally appropriate involvement.     

Addressing Barriers to COVID-19 Vaccination Among Older U.S. Veterans

Efforts are being made to ensure that COVID-19 vaccination among older adults is as complete as possible. Dialogue-based interventions tailored to patients’ specific concerns have shown potential for effectiveness in promoting vaccination. We implemented a quality improvement project intended to help patients in an outpatient geriatrics clinic overcome barriers to COVID-19 vaccination. We offered tailored conversations by telephone in which we discussed the barriers to vaccination that the patients were facing and offered to provide relevant information and/or logistical assistance. Of the 184 patients reached by phone, 125 (68%) endorsed having already been vaccinated and 59 (32%) did not. About one third of the unvaccinated patients were willing to participate in tailored conversations (20 patients?=?34% of the unvaccinated). In follow-up calls 30 days after the intervention we found that four of these 20 patients had received COVID-19 vaccination, one patient was scheduled for vaccination, 10 continued to be deciding about vaccination, four had decided against it and one could not be reached. Dialogue-based interventions that are conducted by telephone and are tailored to the specific barriers to vaccination being faced by older adults may have some effectiveness in encouraging vaccination against COVID-19. The effectiveness of such interventions may be decreased in populations that already have high vaccination rates and in which many patients have already formed strong opinions regarding vaccination against COVID-19. Completion of Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles is a feasible way to design, implement and work to optimize quality improvement efforts related to COVID-19 vaccination.

     

Hepatitis B vaccination coverage among high-risk adults 18-49 years, U.S., 2009

Background

Approximately 43,000 new hepatitis B virus (HBV) infections occurred in 2007. Although hepB vaccination has been recommended for adults at high-risk for incident HBV infection for many years, coverage remains low.

Methods

We used the 2009 National Health Interview Survey to assess self-reported HepB vaccine uptake (≥1 dose), series completion (≥3 dose), and independent predictors of vaccination among high-risk adults aged 18-49 years. High-risk adults were defined as those reporting male sex with men; injection drug use; hemophilia with receipt of clotting factors; sexually transmitted disease in prior five years; sex for money or drugs; HIV positive; sex with persons having any above risk factors; or who “felt they were at high risk for HIV”. Persons with none of the aforementioned risk factors were considered non-high risk. Bivariate analysis was conducted to assess vaccination coverage. Independent predictors of vaccine uptake and series completion were determined using a logistic regression.

Results

Overall, 7.0% adults aged 18-49 years had high-risk behaviors. Unadjusted coverage with ≥1 dose was 50.5% among high-risk compared to 40.5% among non-high-risk adults (p-values <0.001) while series completion (≥3 doses) was 41.8% and 34.2%, respectively (p-values <0.001). On multivariable analysis, ≥1 dose coverage, but not series completion, was higher (Risk Ratio 1.1, 95% CI = 1.0-1.2, p-value = 0.021) among high-risk compared to non-high risk adults. Other characteristics independently associated with a higher likelihood of HepB vaccination among persons 18-49 years included younger age groups, females, higher education, ≥2 physician contacts in the past year, ever tested for HIV, health care personnel, received influenza vaccination in the previous year, and ever received hepatitis A vaccination. Vaccine uptake with ≥1 dose increased by 5.1% (p = 0.047) among high-risk adults between 2004 and 2009.

Conclusions

A small increase in ≥1 dose HepB vaccination coverage among high-risk adults compared with non-high risk adults was documented for the first time in 2009. Higher coverage among persons 18-30 years may reflect aging of persons vaccinated when they were children and adolescents. To improve protection against hepatitis B among high-risk adults, healthcare providers should offer hepatitis B vaccination to persons at high risk and those who seek vaccination to protect themselves and facilitate timely completion of the three (3) dose HepB series.     

Individual-level factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among U.S. patients with cancer

IntroductionVaccine hesitancy in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic is a major public health concern in the US. Cancer patients are especially vulnerable to adverse COVID-19 outcomes and require targeted prevention efforts against COVID-19.MethodsWe used longitudinal survey data from patients seen at Moffitt Cancer Center to identify attitudes, beliefs, and sociodemographic factors associated with COVID-19 vaccination acceptance among cancer patients. Patients with confirmed invasive cancer diagnosis through Cancer Registry data were asked about vaccine acceptance through the question “Now that a COVID-19 vaccine is available, are you likely to get it?” and dichotomized into high accepters (already received it, would get it when available) and low accepters (waiting for a doctor to recommend it, waiting until more people received it, not likely to get it).ResultsMost patients (86.8% of 5,814) were high accepters of the COVID-19 vaccine. High accepters had more confidence in the effectiveness and safety of the vaccine than low accepters. Multivariable logistic regression showed older individuals (70–89 vs.18–49: OR:2.57, 95% CI:1.33–4.86), those with greater perceived severity of COVID-19 infection (very serious vs. not at all serious: OR:2.55, 95% CI:1.76–3.70), practicing more risk mitigation behaviors (per one standard deviation OR:1.75, 95% CI:1.57–1.95), and history of receiving the flu shot versus not (OR:6.56, 95% CI:5.25–8.20) had higher odds of vaccine acceptance. Individuals living with more than one other person (vs. alone: OR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.35, 0.79) and those who were more socioeconomically disadvantaged (per 10 percentile points: OR: 0.89, 95 %CI: 0.85, 0.93) had lower odds of reporting vaccine acceptance.ConclusionMost patients with cancer have or would receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Those who are less likely to accept the vaccine have more concerns regarding effectiveness and side effects, are younger, more socioeconomically disadvantaged, and have lower perceptions of COVID-19 severity.     

Evaluation of potential adverse events following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination among adults aged 65 years and older: Two self-controlled studies in the U.S.

BackgroundOur near-real-time safety monitoring of 16 adverse events (AEs) following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination identified potential elevation in risk for six AEs following primary series and monovalent booster dose administration. The crude association with AEs does not imply causality. Accordingly, we conducted robust evaluation of potential associations.MethodsWe conducted two self-controlled case series studies of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273) in U.S. Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥ 65 years. Adjusted incidence rate ratio (IRRs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated following primary series doses for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), pulmonary embolism (PE), immune thrombocytopenia (ITP), disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC); and following monovalent booster doses for AMI, PE, ITP, Bell’s Palsy (BP) and Myocarditis/Pericarditis (Myo/Peri).ResultsThe primary series study included 3,360,981 individuals who received 6,388,542 primary series doses; the booster study included 6,156,100 individuals with one monovalent booster dose. The AMI IRR following BNT162b2 primary series and booster was 1.04 (95 % CI: 0.91 to 1.18) and 1.06 (95 % CI: 1.003 to 1.12), respectively; for mRNA-1273 primary series and booster, 1.01 (95 % CI: 0.82 to 1.26) and 1.05 (95 % CI: 0.998 to 1.11), respectively. The hospital inpatient PE IRR following BNT162b2 primary series and booster was 1.19 (95 % CI: 1.03 to 1.38) and 0.86 (95 % CI: 0.78 to 0.95), respectively; for mRNA-1273 primary series and booster, 1.15 (95 % CI: 0.94 to 1.41) and 0.87 (95 % CI: 0.79 to 0.96), respectively. The studies’ results do not support that exposure to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines elevate the risk of ITP, DIC, Myo/Peri, and BP.ConclusionWe did not find an increased risk for AMI, ITP, DIC, BP, and Myo/Peri and there was not consistent evidence for PE after exposure to COVID-19 mRNA primary series or monovalent booster vaccines. These results support the favorable safety profile of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines administered in the U.S. elderly population.     

Prevalence and factors of influenza vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic among university students in China

BackgroundPrevious outbreaks of emerging infectious diseases (e.g., SARS) had increased the uptake of influenza vaccination (IV). It is uncertain whether such was also true for COVID-19. This study hence investigated prevalence of IV behavior/intention prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic and associated cognitive factors.MethodsA self-administered, online, and anonymous cross-sectional survey was conducted among 6,922 university students of five provinces in China during November 1–28, 2020 (response rate: 72.3%).ResultsOf all the participants, 35.1% self-reported behavioral intention of IV (next 12 months), while 62.9% reported an increased intention of IV due to COVID-19. However, only 4.7% and 2.9% had taken up IV during the 12-month period prior to the outbreak (1/2019–12/2019) and during the COVID-19 outbreak (1–11/2020), respectively. Adjusted for the background factors, the multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that in general the COVID-19 related perceptions (perceived susceptibility, perceived severity, and perceived chance of having another wave of COVID-19 outbreak) were significantly and positively associated the IV behavior (during the COVID-19 outbreak) and intention of IV uptake in the next 12 months.ConclusionsThe COVID-19 pandemic may have influenced actual behavior and intention of IV uptake among university students during the pandemic. Efforts are warranted to reduce the intention-behavior gap of IV uptake; modification of perceived susceptibility and perceived severity regarding COVID-19 may help. Future longitudinal and intervention studies are needed to confirm the findings of this study and explore other factors affecting IV uptake during the COVID-19 period.