Analysis of serological treatment response to doxycycline versus benzathine penicillin in syphilis infections, a retrospective single-center study.

Doxycilicine is the second-line treatment of choice for infectious syphilis when treatment with penicillin G is not feasible. To date, difficulties in the penicillin supply chain make it necessary to evaluate and resort to antibiotic therapies which are currently considered a second-line choice. Moreover, systematic studies comparing the two treatments in affected patients are still few, and many do not consider late and indeterminate latent infections. The objective of this study was to assess the differences in the serological response of the treatment of syphilis infections with benzathine penicillin compared with doxycycline. We built an in-house database with all patients diagnosed with syphilis infection from January 2010 to January 2020 in the STD Centre of the S.Orsola-Malpighi Polyclinic of the University of Bologna, located in the North-east of Italy. We recorded all the principal independent (demographic, social status, reinfection rare, HIV infections, comorbidities, sexual behaviors, and initial TPHA values) and dependent variables (RPR values). We then extrapolated all patients treated with doxycycline (100 mg of doxycycline twice daily for 14 days for infections diagnosed within the first year and a 28 days course for infections older than 1 year or undetermined) and matched in 1:1 ratio numbers with a homogeneous group of patients treated with penicillin G (2.4 million units in a single dose intramuscularly for infections diagnosed within the first year and a cycle consisting in of 2.4 million units administered in a single dose per week for 3 weeks for infections older than 1 year or undetermined) We then analyzed the serological trends and outcomes in the primary, secondary and early latent groups versus late latent and undetermined infections. We retrieved 41 patients for each group with homogeneous initial characteristics. At the end of the 24-month observation period, a slight difference in a valid RPR reduction rate emerged, with a greater success rate emerged in patients receiving penicillin than those with doxycycline (26 vs. 22, p 0.615). Indeed, patients with latent or indeterminate syphilis treated with doxycycline appear to have a higher rate of serofast than those treated with penicillin. Linear regression analysis showed no strong correlation between the analyzed independent variables and the observed outcomes. Doxycycline had a slightly lower, though not statistically different, success rate when compared with penicillin in treating primary syphilis, but appeared to have a reduced success rate in attaining resolution in late and undetermined syphilis infection.

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy and Misinformation Endorsement among a Sample of Native Spanish-Speakers in the US: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Research on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and misinformation endorsement among Spanish-speaking Americans is limited. This cross-sectional study used a Spanish-language survey from May-August 2021 among 483 Spanish speakers living in the US and Puerto Rico. We applied multivariable Poisson regression with robust error variances to assess the association between independent variables and binary outcomes for vaccine acceptance versus hesitance, as well as misinformation endorsement. Vaccine acceptance was associated with COVID-19 risk perception score (PR = 1.7 high vs. low perceived risk), opinion of government transparency (PR = 2.2 very transparent vs. not transparent), and trust in vaccine information (PR = 1.8 high vs. low). There was also an interaction between time spent on social media and social media as a main source of COVID-19 information (p = 0.0484). Misinformation endorsement was associated with opinion about government transparency (PR = 0.5 moderately vs. not transparent), trust in vaccine information (PR = 0.5 high vs. low trust), social media impact on vaccine confidence (PR = 2.1 decreased vs. increased confidence), distrust vaccines (PR = 1.9 distrust vs. trust), using vaccine information from Facebook (PR = 1.4 yes vs. no), and time spent on social media by those using social media as main source of COVID-19 vaccine information (p = 0.0120). Vaccine acceptance in respondents with high misinformation endorsement scores was 0.7 times those with low scores. These findings highlight the importance of effective information dissemination, the positive role of social media, and government transparency in boosting vaccine uptake among Spanish speakers in the US.

The Role of Needle Fear in Pediatric Flu Vaccine Hesitancy: A Cross-Sectional Study in Bologna Metropolitan Area.

(1) Background: vaccination is the most effective way to prevent influenza and reduce its complications. The main aim of the study is to assess a possible increase of parents'/caregivers' pediatric flu vaccination adherence due to a nasal administration as an alternative to injection in Bologna. (2) Methods: 169 parents/guardians of children who were joining the COVID-19 pediatric vaccination session in Bologna were interviewed. The results were summarized using descriptive statistics. A multiple logistic regression model was used to assess the determinants of the change in flu vaccine uptake if offered without injection administration. All analyses were conducted using STATA and R-Studio software. (3) Results: Only 29.0% of parents were informed about pediatric flu vaccination by pediatricians, and 32.5% heard about pediatric flu vaccination. Almost 72.2% of parents declared that they would not have their children vaccinated against influenza. Thus, 40.2% of them changed their opinion after being informed about the existence of a non-injective vaccine. Needle fear in children turned out to be a determinant of this opinion change (OR = 3.79; 95% CI = 1.63-9.43; p = 0.003). (4) Conclusions: the study has confirmed that needle fear is a determinant of vaccine hesitancy and that a different method of administration may increase parents'/guardians' adherence.