Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 44
Filtrar
1.
Rev Med Virol ; 34(1): e2515, 2024 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38282403

RESUMO

The Omicron variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is a new variant of concern (VOC) and an emerging subvariant that exhibits heightened infectivity, transmissibility, and immune evasion, escalating the incidence of moderate to severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). It resists monoclonal antibodies and diminishes vaccine efficacy. Notably, new sublineages have outpaced earlier predominant sublineages. Although the primary vaccination series and initial boosters were robust against previous VOCs, their efficacy waned against Omicron and its subvariants. In this systematic review, we assessed real-world evidence on the immunogenicity, clinical efficacy, and safety of a second booster or fourth COVID-19 vaccine dose against the Omicron VOC and its subvariants. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in Medline/PubMed, Google Scholar, bioRxiv, and medRxiv, and relevant studies published between 2022 and 30 May 2023 were reviewed. We found a total of 40 relevant articles focusing on a second booster dose for COVID-19, including clinical trials and observational studies, involving 3,972,856 patients. The results consistently revealed that an additional second booster dose restored and prolonged waning immunity, activating both humoral and cellular responses against Omicron and its subvariants. A second booster treatment correlated with enduring protection against COVID-19, notably preventing substantial symptomatic disease and mortality associated with severe Omicron infection. Both monovalent messenger RNA (mRNA) and nonmRNA vaccines demonstrated similar efficacy and safety, with bivalent mRNA vaccines exhibiting broader protection against emerging subvariants of Omicron. The safety profiles of second booster were favourable with only mild systemic and local symptoms reported in some recipients. In conclusion, this systematic review underscores the additional COVID-19 vaccine boosters, particularly with bivalent or multivalent mRNA vaccines, for countering the highly infectious emerging subvariants of Omicron.


Assuntos
Vacinas contra COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Humanos , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Vacinas contra COVID-19/uso terapêutico , Vacinas de mRNA , SARS-CoV-2 , Resultado do Tratamento
2.
J Pak Med Assoc ; 74(1): 134-137, 2024 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38219181

RESUMO

To determine the change in the occurrence of short-term vaccine reactions on the use of heterologous Covid-19 booster, a single centre short-term study of two months duration was conducted. It was designed as an interventional study with registered clinical trial number # SLCTR/2022/008. It was conducted on medical students and faculty of a National university of medical sciences, Rawalpindi affiliated public sector medical college. A total of 348 individuals were administered with Ad5-nCoV vaccine and 101 with mRNA-1273 vaccine. They all had been previously vaccinated with two doses of BBIBP-CorV. BBIBP-CorV reactogenicity was considered a control group. Vaccine reactions, including pain and redness at the injection site, fever, no observed reactions at all, myalgia, feeling cold, dizziness, paraesthesia in the arm, lightheadedness, had a significant change in their frequencies in comparison to homologous vaccine (BBIBP-CorV) reactogenicity. It was concluded that mixing and matching of COVID-19 vaccines result in an increase in frequency of post-vaccine short-term reactions.


Assuntos
Vacinas contra COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Humanos , Vacina de mRNA-1273 contra 2019-nCoV , Anticorpos Antivirais , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Vacinas contra COVID-19/efeitos adversos , Tontura , Mialgia
3.
Vaccine ; 42(5): 1004-1012, 2024 Feb 15.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38228438

RESUMO

The development of vaccines for COVID-19 occurred at an unprecedented pace, and 32 vaccines using a broad range of technologies had received authorization for use on an emergency basis by the end of 2021, from either a national regulatory authority or the World Health Organization. However, 27 of those 32 vaccines had little impact on the global course of the pandemic. Only five vaccines, from AstraZeneca, Pfizer/BioNTech, Sinovac, Moderna, and Sinopharm, were manufactured, authorized, and distributed in time to significantly impact the number of deaths worldwide. Together, these five vaccines averted an estimated 17 million deaths in the first year of the vaccination campaign. The shared characteristic of these five manufacturers was their ability to rapidly develop and scale up vaccine production to deliver the large manufacturing volumes required to immunize large segments of the global population. Because the development and manufacturing of these vaccines was generally on the critical path to authorization and supply, the technical activities involved with development, scale-up, testing, technology transfer, and full-scale manufacturing, as well as aspects of the Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls (CMC) regulatory interactions, are examined for each vaccine and technology for which information is available in the public domain to provide lessons learned and recommendations on proactive actions to better prepare us for a future pandemic response. The critical success factors include prior experience with commercialization and approval, robust quality systems, rigorous process development strategies, flexible manufacturing facilities with a skilled workforce, collaboration, access to consumables, reagents, and adjuvants (if relevant), and an equitable distribution of the global vaccine manufacturing network.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Vacinas contra Influenza , Humanos , Vacinas contra COVID-19 , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Organização Mundial da Saúde , Comércio
4.
Front Public Health ; 12: 1286891, 2024.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38496391

RESUMO

Background: Although vaccination is one of the most effective means of controlling the spread of COVID-19, public concerns and indecision about vaccination still continue. Because pregnant and breastfeeding individuals are at high risk for severe outcomes in case of infections, determining their level of hesitation and attitude toward COVID-19 vaccines will guide the management of the disease. This study aimed to determine pregnant and breastfeeding women's levels of hesitation and attitude toward COVID-19 vaccines as well as their related factors. Methods: The sample of this descriptive research consisted of 103 pregnant or breastfeeding individuals who were seen at the obstetrics and gynecology outpatients clinic of a state hospital in Istanbul, Turkey. The data were collected using a 'demographic data form', the 'Vaccine Hesitancy Scale in Pandemic', and the 'Attitudes toward COVID-19 Vaccine Scale'. The research data were analyzed with appropriate statistical methods. Results: The mean age of the participants was 29.71 ± 4.75, 51% were pregnant, and 74.8% had received the COVID-19 vaccine. The mean score of the 'Vaccination Hesitancy Scale in Pandemic' was 30.83 ± 6.91, and the mean score for the 'Attitude Scale toward the COVID-19 Vaccine' was 25.50 ± 5.20. A significant difference was found between the total score of the 'Vaccine Hesitation Scale in the Pandemic' and the mean score of the 'Lack of Confidence' sub-dimension between the 'working status' and the 'influenza vaccination' status. In terms of the mean score of the 'Risk' sub-dimension, a significant difference was found between the 'period of vaccination' (p < 0.05). According to the mean total score of the 'Attitude Towards COVID-19 Vaccine Scale', there was a significant difference between the 'smoking' status. There was a significant difference in the 'Positive Attitude' sub-dimension in terms of the 'flu vaccination' status. There was a significant difference in the 'Negative Attitude' sub-dimension in terms of the 'chronic disease' status. A positive correlation was found between the total scores of the scales. Conclusion: It was concluded that although the participants had a high level of hesitation toward the COVID-19 vaccine, they had a positive attitude. The results obtained will be guided in determining the strategies to be developed for these specific groups in future pandemics.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Obstetrícia , Gravidez , Humanos , Feminino , Vacinas contra COVID-19 , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Aleitamento Materno , Instituições de Assistência Ambulatorial
5.
Therapie ; 2024 Mar 28.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38584049

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination campaign has resulted in numerous pharmacovigilance's safety reports which were recorded in the World Health Organization (WHO) pharmacovigilance database (VigiBase) and represent in July 2022 more than 10% of cases recorded. The information component (IC) is a statistical disproportionality measure based on the observed and expected numbers of case reports. A positive value of the lower endpoint of a 95% credibility interval for the information component (IC0.25) suggests a possible causal relationship between the drug and the adverse reaction. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the wave of COVID-19 vaccines safety declarations on IC0.25 from Vigilyze and thus illustrate with a concrete example the competition bias. METHODS: We arbitrarily selected 21 adverse drug reactions using Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) preferred terms (PTs), divided in two types: PTs known to be related to COVID-19 vaccines ("expected") and others (type "unexpected"). Data were extracted from VigiLyze. We created two groups: V+ (the full database, including COVID-19 vaccines reports) and V- (the same extraction without COVID-19 vaccine reports). IC0.25 was recomputed for the group V- and we compared the positive signal evolution in the two settings of selection (V+ and V- groups). RESULTS: The number of positive potential signals was significantly different in the groups V+ and V- for IC0.25. We observed that most of the "unexpected" PTs lost potential signal after the withdrawal of COVID-19 reports. On the contrary, the majority of 'expected' PTs had potential new signals after the withdrawal of COVID-19 reports. DISCUSSION: This study is one of the first to evaluate the effect of COVID-19 vaccines reporting on Automated Signal Detection of Pharmacovigilance. In this study, we observed that a wave of pharmacovigilance reporting can affect disproportionality estimators such as IC0.25 and then have an impact on automated signal detection; some signals disappear (almost with all PTs related to COVID-19 vaccines) and others appear (mostly with PTs not related to COVID-19 vaccines), illustrating the competition bias. CONCLUSION: We show that a health crisis involving a change in drug use can affect adverse drug reactions reporting and pharmacovigilance databases, leading to competition bias and a change in the disproportionality analyses. For health professionals who use quantitative disproportionality analysis, it is important not only to use the crude values of indicators but also the kind of PTs and the evolution of the signal over time (take into account major events such as crises).

6.
Vaccines (Basel) ; 12(6)2024 Jun 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38932356

RESUMO

In January 2021, Australia initiated a national COVID-19 vaccine rollout strategy but faced setbacks, leading to negative press and media controversy, which may have diminished vaccine confidence. This study aimed to assess the factors influencing vaccine confidence in Australian adults (≥18 years of age) following the administration of a COVID-19 vaccine. Conducted at Blacktown Hospital, Sydney, a cross-sectional survey with 1053 respondents gauged vaccine confidence and influencing factors. The results showed overall high confidence (mean score 33/40). Trusted sources included the Australian Department of Health (77.8%), NSW Health (76.7%), and general practitioners (53.7%), while social media was distrusted (5.9%). The motivations for vaccination varied: university-educated individuals prioritised personal health (X2 = 17.81; p < 0.001), while religious and/or older respondents (≥50 years of age) emphasised community (X2 = 11.69; p < 0.001) and family protection (X2 = 17.314; p < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression revealed use of the Australian Department of Health website as a trusted source of COVID-19 information as the strongest predictor of high confidence (>30; OR 1.43; p = 0.041), while exposure to fake news decreased confidence (OR 0.71; p = 0.025). The study underscores the importance of reliable health information sources in bolstering vaccine confidence and highlights the detrimental effects of misinformation. Promoting awareness of trustworthy health channels is crucial to combat vaccine hesitancy in Australia.

7.
Autoimmun Rev ; 23(3): 103508, 2024 Mar.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38160960

RESUMO

The complicated relationships between autoimmunity, COVID-19, and COVID-19 vaccinations are described, giving insight into their intricacies. Antinuclear antibodies (ANA), anti-Ro/SSA, rheumatoid factor, lupus anticoagulant, and antibodies against interferon (IFN)-I have all been consistently found in COVID-19 patients, indicating a high prevalence of autoimmune reactions following viral exposure. Furthermore, the discovery of human proteins with structural similarities to SARS-CoV-2 peptides as possible autoantigens highlights the complex interplay between the virus and the immune system in initiating autoimmunity. An updated summary of the current status of COVID-19 vaccines is presented. We present probable pathways underpinning the genesis of COVID-19 autoimmunity, such as bystander activation caused by hyperinflammatory conditions, viral persistence, and the creation of neutrophil extracellular traps. These pathways provide important insights into the development of autoimmune-related symptoms ranging from organ-specific to systemic autoimmune and inflammatory illnesses, demonstrating the wide influence of COVID-19 on the immune system.


Assuntos
Autoimunidade , Vacinas contra COVID-19 , COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humanos , COVID-19/imunologia , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , SARS-CoV-2/imunologia , Vacinas contra COVID-19/imunologia , Autoimunidade/imunologia , Doenças Autoimunes/imunologia , Autoantígenos/imunologia
8.
J Thromb Haemost ; 22(6): 1779-1797, 2024 Jun.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38503600

RESUMO

Based on emerging evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic, the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) guidelines for antithrombotic treatment in COVID-19 were published in 2022. Since then, at least 16 new randomized controlled trials have contributed additional evidence, which necessitated a modification of most of the previous recommendations. We used again the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association methodology for assessment of level of evidence (LOE) and class of recommendation (COR). Five recommendations had the LOE upgraded to A and 2 new recommendations on antithrombotic treatment for patients with COVID-19 were added. Furthermore, a section was added to answer questions about COVID-19 vaccination and vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT), for which studies have provided some evidence. We only included recommendations with LOE A or B. Panelists agreed on 19 recommendations, 4 for nonhospitalized, 5 for noncritically ill hospitalized, 3 for critically ill hospitalized, and 2 for postdischarge patients, as well as 5 for vaccination and VITT. A strong recommendation (COR 1) was given for (a) use of prophylactic dose of low-molecular-weight heparin or unfractionated heparin in noncritically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19, (b) for select patients in this group, use of therapeutic-dose low-molecular-weight heparin/unfractionated heparin in preference to prophylactic dose, and (c) for use of antiplatelet factor 4 enzyme immunoassays for diagnosing VITT. A strong recommendation was given against (COR 3) the addition of an antiplatelet agent in hospitalized, noncritically ill patients. These international guidelines provide recommendations for countries with diverse healthcare resources and COVID-19 vaccine availability.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Fibrinolíticos , Humanos , COVID-19/complicações , Fibrinolíticos/uso terapêutico , Fibrinolíticos/administração & dosagem , SARS-CoV-2/imunologia , Tratamento Farmacológico da COVID-19 , Trombose/prevenção & controle , Trombose/tratamento farmacológico , Anticoagulantes/uso terapêutico , Anticoagulantes/administração & dosagem , Anticoagulantes/efeitos adversos , Vacinas contra COVID-19/administração & dosagem , Inibidores da Agregação Plaquetária/uso terapêutico , Inibidores da Agregação Plaquetária/administração & dosagem
9.
Am J Health Syst Pharm ; 81(16): 706-712, 2024 Aug 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38557904

RESUMO

PURPOSE: Substance use disorders (SUDs) increase the risk and severity of infectious diseases, including coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Adults with a co-occurring SUD and psychiatric disorder were studied to elucidate the association between SUD severity and (1) COVID-19 vaccination status, (2) receptivity to a one-session intervention with a pharmacist advocating the benefits of vaccination, and (3) acceptance of referral for vaccination following the intervention. METHODS: COVID-19 vaccination status was recorded in 460 adults with SUD (324 males and 136 females) upon entry into inpatient treatment. A 2-parameter item response theory (IRT) model quantified SUD severity. Pharmacist-delivered intervention, modeled after the screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) protocol, was offered to unvaccinated participants. RESULTS: Higher SUD severity was associated with a lower vaccination rate. Nicotine, opioid, and sedative use disorders were most frequently associated with unvaccinated status. SUD severity was not associated with receptivity to intervention advocating vaccination or subsequent acceptance of a referral for vaccination. The portion of the sample that received the intervention was over 7 times more likely to accept a referral for vaccination when compared to participants who rejected the intervention (20.8% vs 2.8%). CONCLUSION: Pharmacist-administered intervention produced motivation for vaccination in a number of recipients; however, receptivity to the intervention was not related to SUD severity.


Assuntos
Vacinas contra COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Farmacêuticos , Transtornos Relacionados ao Uso de Substâncias , Hesitação Vacinal , Humanos , Masculino , Feminino , Adulto , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , COVID-19/epidemiologia , Farmacêuticos/organização & administração , Vacinas contra COVID-19/administração & dosagem , Transtornos Relacionados ao Uso de Substâncias/epidemiologia , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Hesitação Vacinal/psicologia , Vacinação , Aceitação pelo Paciente de Cuidados de Saúde/psicologia , Aceitação pelo Paciente de Cuidados de Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Encaminhamento e Consulta , Índice de Gravidade de Doença
10.
J Thromb Haemost ; 22(4): 1046-1055, 2024 Apr.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38159648

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccines have been widely used to control the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. In individuals receiving replication-incompetent, adenovirus vector-based COVID-19 vaccines (eg, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 [AstraZeneca] or Ad26.COV2.S [Johnson & Johnson/Janssen] vaccines), a very rare but serious adverse reaction has been reported and described as vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT). The exact mechanism of VITT following Ad26.COV2.S vaccination is under investigation. Antibodies directed against human platelet factor 4 (PF4) are considered critical in the pathogenesis of VITT, suggesting similarities with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. It has been postulated that components of these vaccines mimic the role of heparin by binding to PF4, triggering production of these anti-PF4 antibodies. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate the potential interaction between human PF4 and Ad26.COV2.S vaccine using several biophysical techniques. METHODS: Direct interaction of PF4 with Ad26.COV2.S vaccine was investigated using dynamic light scattering, biolayer interferometry, and surface plasmon resonance. For both biosensing methods, the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine was immobilized to the sensor surface and PF4 was used as analyte. RESULTS: No direct interactions between PF4 and Ad26.COV2.S vaccine could be detected using dynamic light scattering and biolayer interferometry. Surface plasmon resonance technology was shown to be unsuitable to investigate these types of interactions. CONCLUSION: Our findings make it very unlikely that direct binding of PF4 to Ad26.COV2.S vaccine or components thereof is driving the onset of VITT, although the occurrence of such interactions after immunization (potentially facilitated by unknown plasma or cellular factors) cannot be excluded. Further research is warranted to improve the understanding of the full mechanism of this adverse reaction.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Púrpura Trombocitopênica Idiopática , Trombocitopenia , Vacinas , Humanos , Ad26COVS1 , Fator Plaquetário 4 , Vacinas contra COVID-19/efeitos adversos , ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , SARS-CoV-2 , Fatores Imunológicos
11.
Vaccine ; 42(3): 441-447, 2024 01 25.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38184391

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Building on a Canadian study associating unvaccinated individuals to increased car accidents, we examined the relationship between COVID-19 vaccination status and US preventive care practices. METHODS: We queried the 2021 National Health Interview Survey. First, we fitted a model to identify respondent-level factors associated with receipt of at least one COVID-19 vaccination. Second, we fitted a survey-weighted logistic regression model adjusted for respondent-level characteristics to examine whether the receipt of at least one COVID-19 vaccination predicted the receipt of preventive care services. Preventive care services assessed included serum cholesterol, glucose, and blood pressure measurements, as well as guideline-concordant cancer screening including breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening. RESULTS: Factors predicting receipt of COVID-19 vaccination were age (adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR) 1.03; 95 % confidence interval (CI) [1.03-1.03]), Hispanic (aOR 1.25; 95 % CI [1.08-1.44]), and non-Hispanic Asian (aOR 3.52; 95 % CI [2.74-4.52]) ethnicity/race, and history of cancer (aOR 1.61; 95 % CI [1.13-2.30]). Unvaccinated respondents were less likely to have received serum cholesterol (aOR 0.69; 95 % CI [0.50-0.70), serum glucose (aOR 0.65; 95 % CI [0.56-0.75]), or blood pressure measurements (aOR 0.47; 95 % CI [0.33-0.66]); and were less likely to have received breast cancer (aOR 0.35; 95 % CI [0.25-0.48]), colorectal cancer (aOR 0.52; 95 % CI [0.46-0.60]) and prostate cancer screening (aOR 0.61; 95 % CI [0.48-0.76]). There was no significant association between unvaccinated respondents receiving cervical cancer screening (aOR 0.96; 95 % CI [0.81-1.13]; p = 0.616). CONCLUSION: Non-receipt of COVID-19 vaccination was associated with non-receipt of preventive care services including cancer screening. Further studies are needed to assess if this association is due to system-level factors or reflects a general distrust of medical preventive care amongst this population.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Neoplasias da Próstata , Neoplasias do Colo do Útero , Masculino , Feminino , Humanos , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Detecção Precoce de Câncer , Vacinas contra COVID-19 , Pandemias , Neoplasias da Próstata/diagnóstico , Neoplasias da Próstata/epidemiologia , Neoplasias da Próstata/prevenção & controle , COVID-19/epidemiologia , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Canadá , Antígeno Prostático Específico , Glucose , Colesterol
12.
Vaccine ; 42(6): 1372-1382, 2024 Feb 27.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38326132

RESUMO

The World Health Organisation and many health experts have regarded vaccine nationalism, a "my country first" approach to vaccines procurement, as a critical pandemic response failure. However, few studies have considered public opinion in this regard. This study gauged public support for vaccine nationalism and vaccine internationalism in a representative survey in New Zealand (N = 1,135). Support for vaccine internationalism (M (mean rating) = 3.64 on 5-point scales) was significantly stronger than for vaccine nationalism (M = 3.24). Additionally, support for openly sharing COVID-19 vaccine manufacturing knowledge and technology (M = 4.17 on 5-point scales) was significantly stronger than support for safeguarding vaccine manufacturers' intellectual property (M = 2.66). The public also supported a utilitarian approach that would see distributions based on need (M = 3.76 on 5-point scales) over an equal proportional international distribution (M = 3.16). Akin to the few preceding studies, the present observations suggest that the public is likely to be more supportive of pandemic responses that are globally equitable and long-term orientated. Our findings have substantial implications for pandemic preparedness as the congruence or lack thereof of public vaccine-related values with government policies can affect public trust, which, in turn, can affect public cooperation. It may pay for governments to invest in proactive public engagement efforts before and during a pandemic to discuss critical ethical issues and inequities in global vaccine procurement and distributions.


Assuntos
Vacinas contra COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Humanos , Opinião Pública , Nova Zelândia/epidemiologia , COVID-19/epidemiologia , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Políticas
13.
Vaccine ; 42(3): 645-652, 2024 Jan 25.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38143200

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Adults who are hesitant toward routinely recommended vaccines for adults may also be hesitant toward COVID-19 vaccines. However, the distribution and differences in hesitancy between routinely recommended vaccines and COVID-19 vaccines, and the association of hesitancy regarding routinely recommended vaccines and hesitancy with COVID-19 vaccination status and intent, is unknown. METHODS: Using the Research and Development Survey (RANDS) during COVID-19, Round 3, a probability-sampled, nationally representative, web and phone survey fielded from May 17 - June 30, 2021 (n = 5,434), we examined the distribution and difference in prevalence of hesitancy towards COVID-19 and vaccines in general, beliefs associated with vaccine hesitancy, and factors impacting plans to be vaccinated against COVID-19. RESULTS: Reported hesitancy towards COVID-19 vaccines (42.2%) was 6-percentage points higher than hesitancy towards vaccines in general (35.7%). Populations who were most hesitant toward COVID-19 vaccines were younger adults, non-Hispanic Black adults, adults with lower education or income, and adults who were associated with a religion. Beliefs in the social benefit and the importance of vaccination, and the belief that COVID-19 vaccines lower risk for infection, were strongly associated with COVID-19 vaccination and intent to be vaccinated. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccine hesitancy for both COVID-19 vaccines and vaccines in general is common. Health providers and public health officials should utilize strategies to address vaccine hesitancy, including providing strong clear recommendations for needed vaccines, addressing safety and effectiveness concerns, and utilizing trusted messengers such as religious and community leaders to improve vaccine confidence.


Assuntos
Vacinas contra COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Hesitação Vacinal , Adulto , Humanos , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Estados Unidos
14.
Vaccines (Basel) ; 12(5)2024 Apr 27.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38793717

RESUMO

In the current COVID-19 landscape dominated by Omicron subvariants, understanding the timing and efficacy of vaccination against emergent lineages is crucial for planning future vaccination campaigns, yet detailed studies stratified by subvariant, vaccination timing, and age groups are scarce. This retrospective study analyzed COVID-19 cases from December 2021 to January 2023 in Catalonia, Spain, focusing on vulnerable populations affected by variants BA.1, BA.2, BA.5, and BQ.1 and including two national booster campaigns. Our database includes detailed information such as dates of diagnosis, hospitalization and death, last vaccination, and cause of death, among others. We evaluated the impact of vaccination on disease severity by age, variant, and vaccination status, finding that recent vaccination significantly mitigated severity across all Omicron subvariants, although efficacy waned six months post-vaccination, except for BQ.1, which showed more stable levels. Unvaccinated individuals had higher hospitalization and mortality rates. Our results highlight the importance of periodic vaccination to reduce severe outcomes, which are influenced by variant and vaccination timing. Although the seasonality of COVID-19 is uncertain, our analysis suggests the potential benefit of annual vaccination in populations >60 years old, probably in early fall, if COVID-19 eventually exhibits a major peak similar to other respiratory viruses.

15.
Arch Argent Pediatr ; 122(5): e202310281, 2024 10 01.
Artigo em Inglês, Espanhol | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38787914

RESUMO

Introduction. During adolescence, individuals start to make autonomous decisions about their health. Vaccination involves contextual, group, and vaccine-specific dimensions. We sought to know the information, trust, and decision to receive the COVID-19 vaccine among adolescents who attended a healthcare center in Buenos Aires. Objectives. To identify settings and channels through which adolescents accessed information about the COVID-19 vaccine at a healthcare center in Buenos Aires. To describe their opinions about the different statements on vaccination. To describe their participation in COVID-19 vaccination. To identify barriers and facilitators to COVID-19 vaccination in this population. Population and methods. Qualitative study. Semi-structured interviews with adolescents who attended this healthcare facility. The sample was heterogeneous; the sample size was estimated by theoretical saturation. A thematic analysis of data was done. Results. A total of 14 interviews were conducted. Interviewees obtained information about the COVID-19 vaccine from their families, TV, and social media. All received information from both official campaigns and anti-vaccine communications. They analyzed the information they received and formed their own opinion. Their decision about the vaccine was not always respected. Hesitancy, a low perception of risk, fear of needles, administrative and geographic barriers were reasons for not receiving the vaccine. Conclusions. Communication strategies targeted at adolescents are required that encourage their involvement in access to vaccination.


Introducción. En la adolescencia, se comienzan a tomar decisiones autónomas sobre la salud. En la vacunación intervienen dimensiones contextuales, grupales y relativas a cada vacuna. Se busca conocer el proceso de información, confianza y decisión de vacunarse contra COVID-19 en adolescentes usuarios de un centro de salud en Buenos Aires. Objetivos. Identificar ámbitos y canales a través de los cuales los adolescentes accedieron a información sobre la vacuna contra COVID-19 en un centro de salud de Buenos Aires. Describir sus opiniones respecto a los distintos discursos sobre vacunación. Describir su participación en la vacunación contra COVID-19. Identificar barreras y facilitadores respecto del acceso a la vacunación contra COVID-19 en esta población. Población y métodos. Investigación cualitativa. Se hicieron entrevistas semiestructuradas a adolescentes usuarios del efector. La muestra fue heterogénea; su tamaño se definió por saturación teórica. Se realizó un análisis temático de los datos. Resultados. Se realizaron 14 entrevistas. Los entrevistados recibieron información sobre la vacuna contra COVID-19 de sus familias, la televisión y las redes sociales. Todos recibieron tanto publicidad oficial como discursos reticentes a la vacunación. Analizaron la información recibida y formaron opinión autónoma. Su decisión sobre vacunarse no siempre fue respetada. La desconfianza, la baja percepción del riesgo, el temor a las inyecciones, las barreras administrativas y geográficas fueron motivos de no vacunación. Conclusiones. Se requieren estrategias de comunicación destinadas a adolescentes que promuevan su participación en el acceso a la vacunación.


Assuntos
Vacinas contra COVID-19 , Pesquisa Qualitativa , Confiança , Humanos , Adolescente , Vacinas contra COVID-19/administração & dosagem , Argentina , Masculino , Feminino , Vacinação/psicologia , Vacinação/estatística & dados numéricos , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Hesitação Vacinal/psicologia , Hesitação Vacinal/estatística & dados numéricos , Entrevistas como Assunto , Acessibilidade aos Serviços de Saúde , Aceitação pelo Paciente de Cuidados de Saúde/psicologia , Aceitação pelo Paciente de Cuidados de Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Adulto Jovem , Instalações de Saúde , Tomada de Decisões
16.
Vaccines (Basel) ; 12(2)2024 Jan 26.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38400109

RESUMO

Our objective was to know the COVID-19 vaccination coverage in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients and its factors associated. A retrospective cohort study was carried out. Patients seen at the MS unit of the University Clinical Hospital of Zaragoza between 2017 and 2021 were included. Variables were obtained by reviewing the specialized and primary care records. Associations between receiving COVID-19 full primo-vaccination, as well as one booster dose since autumn 2022, and the other variables were analyzed using bivariate analysis and multiple logistic regression models. Of the 359 included patients, 90.3% received the COVID-19 full primo-vaccination. Having been born in Spain (aOR = 3.40) and having received the 2020-2021 influenza vaccine (aOR = 6.77) were associated with receiving the COVID-19 full primo-vaccination. Vaccination with a COVID-19 booster dose was detected in 141 patients (39.3%). Sex (man) (aOR = 2.36), age (60 years or over) (aOR = 6.82), type of MS (Primary Progressive/Secondary Progressive) (aOR = 3.94), and having received the 2022-2023 influenza vaccine (aOR = 27.54) were associated with receiving such a booster dose. The COVID-19 booster dose was administered at the same time as the 2022-2023 influenza vaccine in 57.8% (67/116) of the patients vaccinated with both vaccines. The COVID-19 full primo-vaccination coverage is higher than in other countries. However, the decrease in vaccination coverage with the booster dose makes it necessary to develop strategies to improve it that are not limited to administering the flu vaccine together with the COVID-19 booster dose. Such strategies should be in focus, especially for women under 60 years of age.

17.
Prev Med Rep ; 36: 102508, 2023 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38116276

RESUMO

Despite the growing availability of effective COVID-19 vaccines in rural communities in the United States, widespread vaccine hesitancy delays COVID-19 vaccine coverage in rural communities and threatens to worsen pre-pandemic rural-urban disparities in other vaccination rates, including influenza and routine pediatric immunizations. Therefore, there is an urgent need to develop communication-based interventions to improve vaccine confidence in rural America. This study demonstrates the efficacy of a community-engaged approach to developing social media campaign messages in promoting COVID-19 vaccine uptake and pro-vaccine social diffusion among rural adults. Using a community-engaged approach, we developed social media campaign videos varying in (a) featured messengers (clinicians versus community leaders) and (b) the presence of personal testimonials. We conducted a national online experiment (N = 1,364 rural adults) in spring 2022. We found that videos featuring clinicians serving rural communities and their testimonials increased (a) vaccination intentions in the unvaccinated group (4-point scale, b = 0.23, p =.015) and (b) intention to discuss the messages with others (4-point scale, b = 0.14, p =.037), share the message (4-point scale, b = 0.15, p =.026), and promote the vaccines to others (9-point scale, b = 0.48, p =.013). Results suggest that vaccine promotional social media campaigns targeting rural populations can benefit from including clinician testimonials.

18.
J Law Med Ethics ; 51(S2): 41-45, 2023.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38433676

RESUMO

The NIH-Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccine's steep price increase raises concerns that this will be the new anchor for continued price hikes and underscores the need for upstream government intervention to enable greater accountability and stewardship of public biomedical research investment.


Assuntos
Pesquisa Biomédica , COVID-19 , Humanos , Vacinas contra COVID-19 , COVID-19/epidemiologia , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Governo , Investimentos em Saúde
19.
Immun Inflamm Dis ; 11(12): e1116, 2023 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38156395

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of immunization against an airborne pathogen depends in part on its ability to induce antibodies at the major entry site of the virus, the mucosa. Recent studies have revealed that mucosal immunity is poorly activated after vaccination with messenger RNA vaccines, thus failing in blocking virus acquisition upon its site of initial exposure. Little information is available about the induction of mucosal immunity by inactivated and recombinant coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. This study aims to investigate this topic. METHODS: Saliva and plasma samples from 440 healthy Congolese were collected including (1) fully vaccinated 2 month postvaccination with either an inactivated or a recombinant COVID-19 vaccine and (2) nonvaccinated control group. Total anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 receptor-binding domain IgG and IgA antibodies were assessed using in-house enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for both specimens. FINDINGS: Altogether, the positivity of IgG was significantly higher in plasma than in saliva samples both in vaccinated and nonvaccinated control groups. Inversely, IgA positivity was slightly higher in saliva than in plasma of vaccinated group. The overall IgG and IgA levels were respectively over 103 and 14 times lower in saliva than in plasma samples. We found a strong positive correlation between IgG in saliva and plasma also between IgA in both specimens (r = .70 for IgG and r = .52 for IgA). Interestingly, contrary to IgG, the level of salivary IgA was not different between seropositive control group and seropositive vaccinated group. No significant difference was observed between recombinant and inactivated COVID-19 vaccines in total IgG and IgA antibody concentration release 2 months postvaccination both in plasma and saliva. CONCLUSION: Inactivated and recombinant COVID-19 vaccines in use in the Republic of Congo poorly activated mucosal IgA-mediated antibody response 2 months postvaccination.


Assuntos
Vacinas contra COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Humanos , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Imunoglobulina A , Mucosa , Imunoglobulina G
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA