A behavior change model to address caregiver hesitancy around COVID-19 vaccination in pediatrics

IntroductionMany families express hesitancy around immunizing their children against COVID-19. We sought to better understand the perspectives of vaccine hesitant caregivers, and develop targeted recommendations for health care workers and policymakers to engage in more effective vaccine discussions.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with 23 caregivers recruited from a pediatric infectious diseases clinic, including a subset of patients referred to discuss vaccine hesitancy. Thematic analysis of the interviews identified themes that were mapped using behavior change models to identify perceived barriers and facilitators towards COVID-19 immunization.ResultsBarriers and facilitators were mapped to the WHO (World Health Organization) 3C’s (confidence, complacency, convenience) model of vaccine hesitancy as well as the COM-B (capability, opportunity, motivation) behavior change model. Barriers included mistrust in authorities, misperception of the risk of COVID-19 in children, and perceived health contraindications and negative previous vaccine experiences. Facilitators included positive relationships with healthcare workers, the promise of a “return to normal”, and societal pressures to immunize.ConclusionsEfforts to increase vaccine uptake in the pediatric population must target specific barriers and facilitators to immunization expressed by caregivers. To address these concerns, we suggest: 1. Educating hesitant caregivers by highlighting the long-term pandemic effects on children and the threat of COVID-19 to children’s health, 2. Building on the trust caregivers have in healthcare workers by involving frontline workers in public health policy, and 3. Harnessing the power of peer pressure by mobilization of societal pressures and establishing COVID-19 vaccination as the norm in children.     

Barriers to COVID-19 vaccination of migrant populations: A qualitative interview study of immunisation providers in Victoria,Australia

IntroductionThis study aimed to understand barriers and enablers, future strategies, communication approaches and resources needed for COVID-19 vaccination among migrant communities in Melbourne, Australia.Material and methodsWe interviewed 24 immunisation providers who deliver immunisation services to migrant populations in Melbourne. We used the WHO Behavioural and Social Drivers framework (underlined) to organise barriers and enablers to COVID-19 vaccination.ResultsParticipants believed migrants had concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy and saw vaccines as minimally beneficial in the ‘low COVID-19′ environment of Australia (what people think and feel). Healthcare providers with established relationships within migrant communities played key roles in vaccine advocacy (social processes). Migrants’ vaccine motivation was mediated by health literacy, institutional trust and previous experiences with health services. Practical issues included perceived lack of information on vaccine booking process and accessibility challenges.ConclusionsStrategies to increase migrant vaccine coverage should utilise immunisation providers with community links and trusted local vaccine ambassadors to engage and address community vaccine concerns.     

Disparities in COVID-19 vaccine uptake among health care workers

BackgroundCOVID-19 vaccine uptake by healthcare workers (HCWs) is critical to protect HCWs, the patients they care for, and the healthcare infrastructure. Our study aims to examine the actual COVID-19 vaccination rate among HCWs and identify risk factors associated with vaccine nonacceptance.Study Design and MethodsA retrospective analysis of COVID-19 vaccinations for HCWs at a large multi-site US academic medical center from 12/18/2020 through 05/04/2021. Comparisons between groups were performed using unpaired student t-test for continuous variables and the chi-square test for categorical variables. A logistic regression analysis was used to assess the associations between vaccine uptake and risk factor(s).ResultsOf the 65,270 HCWs included in our analysis, the overall vaccination rate was 78.6%. Male gender, older age, White and Asian race, and direct patient care were associated with higher vaccination rates (P <.0001). Significant differences were observed between different job categories. Physicians and advanced practice staff, and healthcare professionals were more likely to be vaccinated than nurses and support staff.ConclusionsOur data demonstrated higher initial vaccination rates among HCWs than the general population national average during the study period. We observed significant disparities among different high-risk HCWs groups, especially among different job categories, black HCWs and younger HCWs despite their high risk of contracting the infection. Interventions to address lower vaccination rate and vaccine hesitancy should be built with these disparities and differences in mind to create more targeted interventions.     

Individual factors influencing COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in between and during pandemic waves (July–December 2020)

BackgroundA year after the start of the COVID-19 outbreak, the global rollout of vaccines gives us hope of ending the pandemic. Lack of vaccine confidence, however, poses a threat to vaccination campaigns. This study aims at identifying individuals’ characteristics that explain vaccine willingness in Flanders (Belgium), while also describing trends over time (July–December 2020).MethodsThe analysis included data of 10 survey waves of the Great Corona Survey, a large-scale online survey that was open to the general public and had 17,722–32,219 respondents per wave. Uni- and multivariable general additive models were fitted to associate vaccine willingness with socio-demographic and behavioral variables, while correcting for temporal and geographical variability.ResultsWe found 84.2% of the respondents willing to be vaccinated, i.e., respondents answering that they were definitely (61.2%) or probably (23.0%) willing to get a COVID-19 vaccine, while 9.8% indicated maybe, 3.9% probably not and 2.2% definitely not. In Flanders, vaccine willingness was highest in July 2020 (90.0%), decreased over the summer period to 80.2% and started to increase again from late September, reaching 85.9% at the end of December 2020. Vaccine willingness was significantly associated with respondents’ characteristics: previous survey participation, age, gender, province, educational attainment, household size, financial situation, employment sector, underlying medical conditions, mental well-being, government trust, knowing someone with severe COVID-19 symptoms and compliance with restrictive measures. These variables could explain much, but not all, variation in vaccine willingness.ConclusionsBoth the timing and location of data collection influence vaccine willingness results, emphasizing that comparing data from different regions, countries and/or timepoints should be done with caution. To maximize COVID-19 vaccination coverage, vaccination campaigns should focus on (a combination of) subpopulations: aged 31–50, females, low educational attainment, large households, difficult financial situation, low mental well-being and labourers, unemployed and self-employed citizens.     

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

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

Acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine based on the health belief model: A population-based survey in Hong Kong

BackgroundVaccines for COVID-19 are anticipated to be available by 2021. Vaccine uptake rate is a crucial determinant for herd immunity. We examined factors associated with acceptance of vaccine based on (1). constructs of the Health Belief Model (HBM), (2). trust in the healthcare system, new vaccine platforms and manufacturers, and (3). self-reported health outcomes.MethodsA population-based, random telephone survey was performed during the peak of the third wave of COVID-19 outbreak (27/07/2020 to 27/08/2020) in Hong Kong. All adults aged ≥ 18 years were eligible. The survey included sociodemographic details; self-report health conditions; trust scales; and self-reported health outcomes. Multivariable regression analyses were applied to examine independent associations. The primary outcome is the acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine.ResultsWe conducted 1200 successful telephone interviews (response rate 55%). The overall vaccine acceptance rate after adjustment for population distribution was 37.2% (95% C.I. 34.5–39.9%). The projected acceptance rates exhibited a “J-shaped” pattern with age, with higher rates among young adults (18–24 years), then increased linearly with age. Multivariable regression analyses revealed that perceived severity, perceived benefits of the vaccine, cues to action, self-reported health outcomes, and trust in healthcare system or vaccine manufacturers were positive correlates of acceptance; whilst perceived access barriers and harm were negative correlates. Remarkably, perceived susceptibility to infection carried no significant association, whereas recommendation from Government (aOR = 10.2, 95% C.I. 6.54 to 15.9, p < 0.001) was as the strongest driving factor for acceptance. Other key obstacles of acceptance included lack of confidence on newer vaccine platforms (43.4%) and manufacturers without track record (52.2%), which are of particular relevance to the current context.ConclusionsGovernmental recommendation is an important driver, whereas perceived susceptibility is not associated with acceptance of COVID-19 vaccine. These HBM constructs and independent predictors inform evidence-based formulation and implementation of vaccination strategies.     

Maternity care provider acceptance of a future Group B Streptococcus vaccine – A qualitative study in three countries

IntroductionThere are vaccines in clinical trials that target the bacterium Group B Streptococcus (GBS). When approved, GBS vaccines will be intended for administration to pregnant women to prevent infection in their infants. The success of any vaccine will depend on its’ uptake in the population. Experience with prior maternal vaccines, e.g. influenza, Tdap and COVID-19 vaccines, teaches us that acceptance of vaccines, especially if novel, is challenging for pregnant women, and that provider recommendation is a key driver of vaccine uptake.MethodsThis study investigated attitudes of maternity care providers towards the introduction of a GBS vaccine in three countries (the United States (US), Ireland, and the Dominican Republic (DR)) with different GBS prevalence and prevention practices. Semi-structured interviews with maternity care providers were transcribed and coded for themes. The constant comparative method, and inductive theory building were used to develop conclusions.ResultsThirty-eight obstetricians, 18 general practitioners and 14 midwives participated. There was variability in provider attitudes towards a hypothetical GBS vaccine. Responses ranged from enthusiasm to doubts over the need for a vaccine. Attitudes were influenced by perceived additional benefits of a vaccine over current strategy and confidence in the safety of vaccines during pregnancy. Knowledge, experience and approaches to GBS prevention differed geographically and according to provider type, and influenced how participants assessed the risks and benefits of a GBS vaccine.ConclusionMaternity care providers are engaged in the topic of GBS management and there is opportunity to leverage attitudes and beliefs that will support a strong recommendation for a GBS vaccine. However, knowledge of GBS, and of the limitations of current prevention strategies vary among providers in different regions, and between different provider types. Targeted educational efforts with antenatal providers should focus on highlighting safety data the potential benefits of vaccination over current strategies.     

Evaluation of mortality risk after COVID-19 vaccination,Utah 2021

IntroductionIn order to evaluate trends in death after COVID-19 vaccination we analyzed the timing of death relative to vaccination date and the causes of death in vaccinated Utahns in 2021.MethodsWe matched people in the Utah immunization registry with documented COVID-19 vaccinations between December 18, 2020 and December 31, 2021 to Utah’s 2021 vital statistics death records. Vaccinated people were categorized as having one, two, or ≥ three COVID-19 vaccine doses in a time-updated metric. We examined crude mortality rates by dosing groups in two-week intervals for all deaths, and by COVID-19 versus non-COVID-19 causes, within the 44 weeks following receipt of the most recent vaccine.ResultsWe identified 2,072,908 individuals who received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine of whom 10,997 died in 2021. Only 17.5 % of the total vaccinated population was age 65+, while 80.9 % of those who died were over 65. In the four weeks following the first or second vaccination, all-cause mortality was low and then stabilized for the remainder of the evaluation period at a bi-weekly average of 33.0 and 39.0 deaths/100,000 people for one and two doses, respectively. Typical seasonal variation in death was observed among those with two doses. Small sample size precluded analysis of those with ≥ three doses, but trends were similar.ConclusionsMortality rates in the 44 weeks following the COVID-19 vaccination did not show trends suggesting an increase in mortality related to COVID-19 vaccination, reinforcing the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. This represents an accessible approach for local evaluation.     

Influenza vaccination uptake among Canadian adults before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: An analysis of the Canadian Longitudinal study on Aging (CLSA)

IntroductionUnderstanding how influenza vaccine uptake changed during the 2020/2021 influenza season compared to previous pre-pandemic seasons is a key priority, as is identifying the relationship between prior influenza vaccination and COVID-19 vaccine willingness.MethodsWe analyzed data from a large, nationally representative cohort of Canadian residents aged 50 and older to assess influenza vaccination status three times between 2015 and 2020. We investigated: 1) changes in self-reported influenza vaccine uptake, 2) predictors of influenza vaccine uptake in 2020/2021, and 3) the association between influenza vaccination history and self-reported COVID-19 vaccine willingness using logistic regression models.ResultsAmong 23,385 participants analyzed for aims 1–2, influenza vaccination increased over time: 14,114 (60.4%) in 2015–2018, 15,692 (67.1%) in 2019/2020, and 19,186 (82.0%; combining those already vaccinated and those planning to get a vaccine) in 2020/2021. After controlling for socio-demographics, history of influenza vaccination was most strongly associated with influenza vaccination in 2020/2021 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 147.9 [95% CI: 120.9–180.9]); this association remained after accounting for multiple health and pandemic-related factors (aOR 140.3 [95% CI: 114.5–171.8]). To a lesser degree, those more concerned about COVID-19 were also more likely to report influenza vaccination in fall 2020, whereas those reporting a very negative impact of the pandemic were less likely to get vaccinated. Among 23,819 participants with information on COVID-19 vaccine willingness during the last quarter of 2020 (aim 3), prior influenza vaccination was most strongly associated with willingness to get a COVID-19 vaccine (aOR 15.1 [95% CI: 13.5–16.8] for those who had received influenza vaccine at all previous timepoints versus none).ConclusionsOur analysis highlights the importance of previous vaccination in driving vaccination uptake and willingness. Efforts to increase vaccination coverage for influenza and COVID-19 should target individuals who do not routinely engage with immunization services regardless of demographic factors.     

Factors associated with COVID-19 vaccination during June–October 2021: A multi-site prospective study

IntroductionVaccine hesitancy presents a challenge to COVID-19 control efforts. To identify beliefs associated with delayed vaccine uptake, we developed and implemented a vaccine hesitancy survey for the COVID-19 Community Research Partnership.MethodsIn June 2021, we assessed attitudes and beliefs associated with COVID-19 vaccination using an online survey. Self-reported vaccination data were requested daily through October 2021. We compared responses between vaccinated and unvaccinated respondents using absolute standardized mean differences (ASMD). We assessed validity and reliability using exploratory factor analysis and identified latent factors associated with a subset of survey items. Cox proportional hazards models and mediation analyses assessed predictors of subsequent vaccination among those initially unvaccinated.ResultsIn June 2021, 29,522 vaccinated and 1,272 unvaccinated participants completed surveys. Among those unvaccinated in June 2021, 559 (43.9 %) became vaccinated by October 31, 2021. In June, unvaccinated participants were less likely to feel “very concerned” about getting COVID-19 than vaccinated participants (10.6 % vs. 43.3 %, ASMD 0.792). Among those initially unvaccinated, greater intent to become vaccinated was associated with getting vaccinated and shorter time to vaccination. However, even among participants who reported no intention to become vaccinated, 28.5 % reported vaccination before study end. Two latent factors predicted subsequent vaccination—being ‘more receptive’ was derived from motivation to protect one’s own or others’ health and resume usual activities; being ‘less receptive’ was derived from concerns about COVID-19 vaccines. In a Cox model, both factors were partially mediated by vaccination intention.ConclusionThis study characterizes vaccine hesitant individuals and identifies predictors of eventual COVID-19 vaccination through October 31, 2021. Even individuals with no intention to be vaccinated can shift to vaccine uptake. Our data suggest factors of perceived severity of COVID-19 disease, vaccine safety, and trust in the vaccine development process are predictive of vaccination and may be important opportunities for ongoing interventions.     

Characteristics associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: A nationwide survey of 1000 patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases

ObjectivesTo identify potential predictors of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy (C19-VH) in adults with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMID).MethodsA total of 1000 IMID patients were enrolled in this web-based cross-sectional study. A standardised and self-administered survey was designed by members of the Brazilian Society of Rheumatology Steering Committee for Infectious and Endemic diseases and distributed to IMID patients spread across Brazil.ResultsOf the 908 (90.8%) respondents eligible for analysis, 744 (81.9%) were willing to get vaccinated against COVID-19. In our multivariable logistic regression model, concurrent malignancy, fibromyalgia, hydroxychloroquine use, and recent corticosteroid pulse therapy were independently associated with higher odds of C19-VH. The short duration of COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials was the main reason for C19-VH.ConclusionWe identified novel characteristics potentially associated with C19-VH among adults with IMID. Greater awareness on the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines is needed for both IMID patients and attending physicians.     

Barriers and activities to implementing or expanding influenza vaccination programs in low- and middle-income countries: A global survey

IntroductionDespite considerable global burden of influenza, few low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have national influenza vaccination programs. This report provides a systematic assessment of barriers to and activities that support initiating or expanding influenza vaccination programs from the perspective of in-country public health officials.MethodsPublic health officials in LMICs were sent a web-based survey to provide information on barriers and activities to initiating, expanding, or maintaining national influenza vaccination programs. The survey primarily included Likert-scale questions asking respondents to rank barriers and activities in five categories.ResultsOf 109 eligible countries, 62% participated. Barriers to influenza vaccination programs included lack of data on cost-effectiveness of influenza vaccination programs (87%) and on influenza disease burden (84%), competing health priorities (80%), lack of public perceived risk from influenza (79%), need for better risk communication tools (77%), lack of financial support for influenza vaccine programs (75%), a requirement to use only WHO-prequalified vaccines (62%), and young children require two vaccine doses (60%). Activities for advancing influenza vaccination programs included educating healthcare workers (97%) and decision-makers (91%) on the benefits of influenza vaccination, better estimates of influenza disease burden (91%) and cost of influenza vaccination programs (89%), simplifying vaccine introduction by focusing on selected high-risk groups (82%), developing tools to prioritize target populations (80%), improving availability of influenza diagnostic testing (79%), and developing collaborations with neighboring countries for vaccine procurement (74%) and regulatory approval (73%). Responses varied by country region and income status.ConclusionsLocal governments and key international stakeholders can use the results of this survey to improve influenza vaccination programs in LMICs, which is a critical component of global pandemic preparedness for influenza and other pathogens such as coronaviruses. Additionally, strategies to improve global influenza vaccination coverage should be tailored to country income level and geographic location.     

Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines at preventing emergency department or urgent care encounters and hospitalizations among immunocompromised adults: An observational study of real-world data across 10 US states from August-December 2021

BackgroundImmunocompromised (IC) persons are at increased risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes and are less protected by 1–2 COVID-19 vaccine doses than are immunocompetent (non-IC) persons. We compared vaccine effectiveness (VE) against medically attended COVID-19 of 2–3 mRNA and 1–2 viral-vector vaccine doses between IC and non-IC adults.MethodsUsing a test-negative design among eight VISION Network sites, VE against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19–associated emergency department (ED) or urgent care (UC) events and hospitalizations from 26 August-25 December 2021 was estimated separately among IC and non-IC adults and among specific IC condition subgroups. Vaccination status was defined using number and timing of doses. VE for each status (versus unvaccinated) was adjusted for age, geography, time, prior positive test result, and local SARS-CoV-2 circulation.ResultsWe analyzed 8,848 ED/UC events and 18,843 hospitalizations among IC patients and 200,071 ED/UC events and 70,882 hospitalizations among non-IC patients. Among IC patients, 3-dose mRNA VE against ED/UC (73% [95% CI: 64–80]) and hospitalization (81% [95% CI: 76–86]) was lower than that among non-IC patients (ED/UC: 94% [95% CI: 93–94]; hospitalization: 96% [95% CI: 95–97]). Similar patterns were observed for viral-vector vaccines. Transplant recipients had lower VE than other IC subgroups.ConclusionsDuring B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant predominance, IC adults received moderate protection against COVID-19–associated medical events from three mRNA doses, or one viral-vector dose plus a second dose of any product. However, protection was lower in IC versus non-IC patients, especially among transplant recipients, underscoring the need for additional protection among IC adults.     

A broad assessment of covid-19 vaccine safety using tree-based data-mining in the vaccine safety datalink

BackgroundExcept for spontaneous reporting systems, vaccine safety monitoring generally involves pre-specifying health outcomes and post-vaccination risk windows of concern. Instead, we used tree-based data-mining to look more broadly for possible adverse events after Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Janssen COVID-19 vaccination.MethodsVaccine Safety Datalink enrollees receiving ≥1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine in 2020–2021 were followed for 70 days after Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna and 56 days after Janssen vaccination. Incident diagnoses in inpatient or emergency department settings were analyzed for clustering within both the hierarchical ICD-10-CM code structure and the post-vaccination follow-up period. We used the self-controlled tree-temporal scan statistic and TreeScan software. Monte Carlo simulation was used to estimate p-values; p = 0.01 was the pre-specified cut-off for statistical significance of a cluster.ResultsThere were 4.1, 2.6, and 0.4 million Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Janssen vaccinees, respectively. Clusters after Pfizer-BioNTech vaccination included: (1) unspecified adverse effects, (2) common vaccine reactions, such as fever, myalgia, and headache, (3) myocarditis/pericarditis, and (4) less specific cardiac or respiratory symptoms, all with the strongest clusters generally after Dose 2; and (5) COVID-19/viral pneumonia/sepsis/respiratory failure in the first 3 weeks after Dose 1. Moderna results were similar but without a significant myocarditis/pericarditis cluster. Further investigation suggested the fifth signal group was a manifestation of mRNA vaccine effectiveness after the first 3 weeks. Janssen vaccinees had clusters of unspecified or common vaccine reactions, gait/mobility abnormalities, and muscle weakness. The latter two were deemed to have arisen from confounding related to practices at one site.ConclusionsWe detected post-vaccination clusters of unspecified adverse effects, common vaccine reactions, and, for the mRNA vaccines, chest pain and palpitations, as well as myocarditis/pericarditis after Pfizer-BioNTech Dose 2. Unique advantages of this data mining are its untargeted nature and its inherent adjustment for the multiplicity of diagnoses and risk intervals scanned.     

A phase III,observer-blind,randomized, placebo-controlled study of the efficacy,safety, and immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 inactivated vaccine in healthy adults aged 18–59 years: An interim analysis in Indonesia

BackgroundThe WHO declared COVID-19 a pandemic on March 11th, 2020. This serious outbreak and the precipitously increasing numbers of deaths worldwide necessitated the urgent need to develop an effective severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine. The development of COVID-19 vaccines has moved quickly. In this study, we assessed the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of an inactivated (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine.MethodsWe conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and its lot-to-lot consistency. A total of 1620 healthy adults aged 18–59 years were randomly assigned to receive 2 injections of the trial vaccine or placebo on a day 0 and 14 schedule. This article was based on an interim report completed within 3 months following the last dose of study vaccine. The interim analysis includes safety and immunogenicity data for 540 participants in the immunogenicity subset and an efficacy analysis of the 1620 subjects. For the safety evaluation, solicited and unsolicited adverse events were collected after the first and second vaccination within 14 and 28 days, respectively. Blood samples were collected for an antibody assay before and 14 days following the second dose.ResultsMost of the adverse reactions were in the solicited category and were mild in severity. Pain at the injection site was the most frequently reported symptom. Antibody IgG titer determined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay was 97.48% for the seroconversion rate. Using a neutralization assay, the seroconversion rate was 87.15%. The efficacy in preventing symptomatic confirmed cases of COVID-19 occurring at least 14 days after the second dose of vaccine using an incidence rate was 65.30%.ConclusionsFrom the 3-month interim analysis, the vaccine exhibited a 65.30% efficacy at preventing COVID-19 illness with favorable safety and immunogenicity profiles.     

Tree-based data mining for safety assessment of first COVID-19 booster doses in the Vaccine Safety Datalink

BackgroundThe Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) has been performing safety surveillance for COVID-19 vaccines since their earliest authorization in the United States. Complementing its real-time surveillance for pre-specified health outcomes using pre-specified risk intervals, the VSD conducts tree-based data-mining to look for clustering of a broad range of health outcomes after COVID-19 vaccination. This study’s objective was to use this untargeted, hypothesis-generating approach to assess the safety of first booster doses of Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2), Moderna (mRNA-1273), and Janssen (Ad26.COV2.S) COVID-19 vaccines.MethodsVSD enrollees receiving a first booster of COVID-19 vaccine through April 2, 2022 were followed for 56 days. Incident diagnoses in inpatient or emergency department settings were analyzed for clustering within both the hierarchical ICD-10-CM code structure and the follow-up period. The self-controlled tree-temporal scan statistic was used, conditioning on the total number of cases for each diagnosis. P-values were estimated by Monte Carlo simulation; p = 0.01 was pre-specified as the cut-off for statistical significance of clusters.ResultsMore than 2.4 and 1.8 million subjects received Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna boosters after an mRNA primary series, respectively. Clusters of urticaria/allergy/rash were found during Days 10–15 after the Moderna booster (p = 0.0001). Other outcomes that clustered after mRNA boosters, mostly with p = 0.0001, included unspecified adverse effects, common vaccine-associated reactions like fever and myalgia, and COVID-19. COVID-19 clusters were in Days 1–10 after booster receipt, before boosters would have become effective. There were no noteworthy clusters after boosters following primary Janssen vaccination.ConclusionsIn this untargeted data-mining study of COVID-19 booster vaccination, a cluster of delayed-onset urticaria/allergy/rash was detected after the Moderna booster, as has been reported after Moderna vaccination previously. Other clusters after mRNA boosters were of unspecified or common adverse effects and COVID-19, the latter evidently reflecting immunity to COVID-19 after 10 days.     

Spontaneously reported adverse events following COVID-19 basic and booster immunizations in the Netherlands

IntroductionThe rapid roll-out of novel COVID-19 vaccines made near real-time post-marketing safety surveillance essential to identify rare and long-term adverse events following immunization (AEFIs). In light of the ongoing booster vaccination campaigns, it is key to monitor changes in observed safety patterns post-vaccination. The effect of sequential COVID-19 vaccinations, as well as heterologous vaccination sequences, on the observed post-vaccination safety pattern, remains largely unknown.MethodsThe primary objective of this study was to describe the profile of spontaneously reported AEFIs following COVID-19 vaccination in the Netherlands, including the primary and booster series. Reports from consumers and healthcare professionals were collected via a COVID-19 vaccine-tailored online reporting form by the National Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb (Lareb) between 6 January 2021 and 31 August 2022. The data were used to describe the most frequently reported AEFIs per vaccination moment, the consumer experienced burden per AEFI, and differences in AEFIs reported for homologous and heterologous vaccination sequences.ResultsLareb received 227,884 spontaneous reports over a period of twenty months. Overall, a high degree of similarity in local and systemic AEFIs per vaccination moment was observed, with no apparent change in the number of reports of serious adverse events after multiple COVID-19 vaccinations. No differences in the pattern of reported AEFIs per vaccination sequence was observed.ConclusionSpontaneous reported AEFIs demonstrated a similar reporting pattern for homologous and heterologous primary and booster series of COVID-19 vaccination in the Netherlands.     

COVID-19 vaccination among different types of US Healthcare Personnel

BackgroundIncreasing vaccine coverage remains the best way to control the COVID-19 pandemic. Healthcare personnel (HCP) have long been the most credible and frequently used source of vaccine information for the public, and an HCP recommendation is a strong predictor of vaccination.MethodsA survey of HCP was conducted in September 2021 via a double opt-in network panel. Responses to survey items were summarized and stratified by HCP type and adjusted logistic regression models were fitted.Results>94% of the 1074 HCP surveyed reported receiving at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine or intending to soon, with vaccinating most common among pediatricians (98%), followed by family medicine doctors (96%), pharmacists (94%), and nurses/nurse practitioners/physician assistants (88%). HCP with high trust in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had 26 times the odds of vaccinating of HCP with low trust (95%CI: 9, 74). Nearly half of unvaccinated HCP (47%) were concerned about side effects, and one third of unvaccinated HCP (33%) were concerned the vaccine was developed too quickly. About three quarters of HCP reported strongly recommending the Pfizer-BioNTech (75%) and Moderna (70%) vaccines to their patients, compared to about one quarter (24%) strongly recommending Johnson & Johnson.ConclusionsAlthough most HCP are vaccinated against COVID-19 and strongly recommend vaccination to their patients, some harbor similar concerns to the public. Additional resources – regularly updated to explain the progressing scientific landscape and address ever evolving public concerns – are needed to further improve vaccine coverage among HCP and aid them in supporting the decision-making of their patients.