Trust of Italian healthcare professionals in COVID-19 (anti-SARS-COV-2) vaccination.

ABSTRACT: Background. Vaccination is one of the most effective tools available to Public Health. Its potential usefulness is threatened by the rise of vaccine hesitancy among the general population, which has grown as much as to prompt the World Health Organization to express its concerns on the matter. The risk posed by vaccine hesitancy is even more concerning in the light of the efforts to curb the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which focus mainly on mass vaccination campaigns. This holds especially true when applied to healthcare professionals, among whom vaccine hesitancy can be particularly detrimental. For these reasons, our study focuses on potential determinants of vaccine hesitancy among healthcare professionals. Study design. The study is a cross-sectional study. Methods. Data were collected from January 1st to February 16th, by means of a self-administered online questionnaire in a cohort of Italian healthcare professionals. Results. Overall, 10,898 questionnaires were collected. Among the respondents, 1.1% expressed vaccine hesitancy. Hesitancy was less frequent in professionals involved in Primary Care and in the Clinical Scien-ces/Public Health group. Among clinicians, paediatricians, oncologists, and geriatrists showed especially accepting attitudes towards vaccination. Lower hesitancy rates were also registered among the respondents who already had received influenza vaccination and who never had any adverse effects following vaccination. Higher hesitancy rates were observed among individuals who had family members aged >65 years and with a history of severe adverse reactions to vaccination. Conclusion. Vaccine hesitancy rates were extremely low among participants in our study. Some medical specialties shown were particularly accepting towards vaccination. The potential predictors and protective factors pointed out by our analysis might allow more refined targets.

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy and Early Adverse Events Reported in a Cohort of 7,881 Italian Physicians.

Background: The COVID-19 vaccination campaign began in Italy at the end of December 2020, with the primary aim of immunizing healthcare professionals, using the EMA approved mRNA vaccines (Comirnaty® by Pfizer/BioNTech; mRNA-1273 by Moderna) and recombinant adenoviral vaccine (Vaxzevria® by AstraZeneca). The study aimed at evaluating the prevalence and motivations underlying Vaccine Hesitancy, as well as the incidence and type of adverse events associated with COVID-19 vaccination. Methods: Cross-sectional study. Data were collected January 1st to 28th 2021 using a purposely created online self-administered questionnaire from a selected cohort of Italian physicians. Results: Overall, 7,881 questionnaires were analyzed: 6,612 physicians had received one dose, and 1,670 two doses of Comirnaty®; 30 had received one dose of mRNA-1273. Vaccine Hesitancy rate was 3.6%; it correlated with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, diabetes, Adverse Eventss at previous vaccinations and refusal of 2020 flu vaccine, and was mainly motivated by concerns about vaccine Adverse Events. Typical Adverse Events were pain/itching/paresthesia at the inoculation site, followed by headache, fever, fatigue and myalgia/arthralgia occurring more frequently after the second dose (77.8 vs 66.9%; p<0.001), and in subjects with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Conclusion: Adherence to COVID-19 vaccination is high among physicians. Adverse Events are typically mild and more frequent in people with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The pharmacological stimulation of GLP-1 receptors is associated with an increase in heart rate. A pooled analysis of patient-level data from phase III trials with albiglutide revealed a significant increase in the risk of atrial fibrillation. Aim of the present meta-analysis is to summarize all available evidence on the effects of individual GLP-1 receptor agonists (RA), and of the whole class, on the incidence of atrial fibrillation. METHODS: A Medline search for GLP-1 RA (exenatide, liraglutide, lixisenatide, albiglutide, dulaglutide, or semaglutide) was performed, collecting all randomized clinical trials with a duration ≥12 weeks, enrolling patients with type 2 diabetes and comparing a GLP-1 RA with placebo or any other non-GLP-1 RA drug. RESULTS: Of the 113 trials fulfilling the inclusion criteria, 19 did not report information on atrial fibrillation, whereas 63 reported zero events in all treatment groups. In the remaining trials (enrolling 17,966 and 15,305 patients in GLP-1 RA and comparator arms, respectively, 55.3% women, with a mean age of 57.0 ± 3.8 years), treatment with GLP-1 RA was not associated with a significant increase in the incidence of atrial fibrillation [Mantel-Haenszel OR (95% CI) 0.87 (0.71-1.05), p = 0.15]. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, available data suggest that GLP-1 RA is not associated with atrial fibrillation, with the only possible exception of albiglutide. Newly onset atrial fibrillation deserves to be investigated as an event of special interest in future trials with GLP-1 RA.

CO2 laser for the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers with exposed bone. A consecutive series of type 2 diabetic patients.

AIM: The treatment of foot ulcers with exposed bone is challenging, because of the risk of infection and of difficulties in the development of granulation tissue. A CO2 laser beam could be used to produce discontinuities in periosteum, allowing the exposure of blood containing multipotent stem cells, capable of initiating the healing process. The local application of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been proposed as a therapeutic tool for accelerating healing in foot ulcers, including those in patients with diabetes. Aim of the present pilot, proof-of-concept study is the assessment of the therapeutic potential of CO2 laser treatment, either alone or combined with PRP, in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers with exposed bone. METHODS: We performed a pilot, uncontrolled 3-month observation study on a consecutive series of 9 type two diabetic patients and foot ulcers with exposed bone. A CO2-laser was used for producing nine discontinuities on periosteum for each cm2, by directing the focused laser beam on the bone until bleeding. The procedure was repeated up to 6 times, at a distance of 1 week and ulcers assessed weekly until the end of the study (3 months). In the last 5 of the 14 patients, the treatment described above was associated with PRP. RESULTS: Of the nine patients treated, four healed, and one more patient developed granulation tissue covering entirely bone surface. Out of the four patients who did not heal, one underwent minor amputation. Among the five patients treated with a combination of CO2 laser and PRP, two healed within 3 months, and two more patients developed granulation tissue covering entirely bone surface; the fifth patient did not show any improvement and underwent amputation. CONCLUSIONS: The present pilot experience represents a novelty in this field showing a possible use of CO2-laser in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers.

A meta-analysis of the hypoglycaemic risk in randomized controlled trials with sulphonylureas in patients with type 2 diabetes.

AIM: To assess hypoglycaemic risk with sulphonylureas in comparison with other drugs in randomized controlled trials. METHODS: Randomized trials with a duration ≥ 24 weeks, enrolling patients with type 2 diabetes, comparing sulphonylureas with placebo or active drugs different from other sulphonylureas. The principal outcome was the effect of sulphonylureas on the incidence of any or severe hypoglycaemia. Cumulative incidence of hypoglycaemia was estimated combining sulphonylurea groups of different trials with a random effect model and used for meta-regression analyses. RESULTS: The incidence of severe hypoglycaemia in patients treated with sulphonylureas was 1.2 [1.0-1.6]%. The overall risk of severe hypoglycaemia was increased more than threefold with sulphonylureas than with comparators. The proportion of patients with at least one hypoglycaemia while on sulphonylureas was 17.4 [14.5-20.8]%. The overall risk (Mantel-Haenszel Odds Ratio) of any hypoglycaemia with sulphonylureas versus comparators was 3.69 [3.47-3.93] (p < 0.001). Meta-regression analysis suggested that the incidence of any hypoglycaemia was higher in trials enrolling patients with higher body mass index (BMI) and lower haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, hypoglycaemia, including severe hypoglycaemia, is frequent in patients treated with sulphonylureas, particularly when baseline HbA1c levels are lower and BMI levels higher. Further studies are needed to characterize predictors for the identification of patients at higher risk.