Behaviorally Informed Text Message Nudges to Schedule COVID-19 Vaccinations: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Vaccine hesitancy, especially related to COVID-19 vaccinations among Veterans, may limit uptake. Behaviorally informed text-based messages have the potential to improve uptake of COVID-19 vaccinations. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of two different behaviorally informed text message nudges on COVID-19 vaccine scheduling and completion, compared to standard control message. DESIGN: Prospective, three-arm patient-level randomized quality improvement trial. PARTICIPANTS: Between March and May 2021, 20,523 Veterans were eligible for the initial series of COVID-19 vaccination, enrolled at two large Veterans Health Administration sites. INTERVENTION: Arm 1 (Control): standard scheduling message; Arm 2 (Social Good): standard message plus behaviorally informed text message "When you get a vaccine now, you help protect yourself, your family, and your community"; and Arm 3 (Scarcity): standard plus behaviorally informed text message "Only a limited number of vaccine appointments are available." MAIN MEASURES: Outcomes were vaccine scheduling and/or completion rate within 7 days of receipt of text message (primary), and within 14 days and 30 days after receipt of text message (secondary). KEY RESULTS: Veterans had an overall rate of 19% of scheduling or receiving a vaccination in 7 days. In our adjusted intention-to-treat analysis, we found no difference between intervention social good or scarcity (aOR 0.98, 95% CI, 0.88-1.09, for both arms) compared to standard scheduling message. We found no statistical differences in our secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: During the initial phases of vaccine roll-out, two behaviorally informed text messages did not increase COVID-19 vaccination rates among Veterans compared to a standard scheduling message.

How well do different COVID-19 vaccines protect against different viral variants? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

While the efficacy of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines has been evaluated in numerous trials, comprehensive evidence on how protection by different vaccines has varied over time remains limited. We aimed to compare protective effects of different vaccines against different viral variants. To achieve this, we searched Medline, Cochrane Library and Embase for randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines. Forest plots using Mantel-Haenszel and random-effects models were generated showing risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs by vaccines and variants. We included 36 studies with 90 variant-specific primary outcomes. We found a RR of 0.26 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.31) against all variants overall, with the highest protective effects against the wild-type (RR 0.13; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.18), followed by Alpha (RR 0.26; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.36), Gamma (RR 0.34; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.55), Delta (RR 0.39; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.56) and Beta (RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.40 to 0.62) variants. Nucleic acid vaccines showed the highest protection levels against all variants (RR 0.11; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.15), followed by protein subunit, inactivated virus and viral vector. In conclusion, we found high but heterogenous levels of protection for most COVID-19 vaccines, with decreasing protective effects for vaccines based on traditional technologies as SARS-CoV-2 variants emerged over time. Novel nucleic acid-based vaccines offered substantially higher and more consistent protection.

Cranial neuropathy following coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination in kidney transplant recipients.

Introduction: Understanding of adverse reactions to coronavirus disease 2019 vaccines remains limited. Case presentation: Case 1: A 52-year-old woman, post-kidney transplantation, experienced sudden vision loss in her left eye after receiving a second dose of coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine. She was diagnosed with ischemic optic neuropathy.Case 2: A 53-year-old woman, post-kidney transplantation, presented with worsening diplopia and left eye pain following the second dose of coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine. She was diagnosed with left abducens nerve palsy. Conclusion: Vigilance is essential for recognizing the potential for delayed cranial neuropathy in immunocompromised individuals after coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination.

COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness of Booster Doses Against Delta and Omicron Variants Over Follow-up Times Using Longitudinal Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is a viral disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2, leading to several variants. This study aimed to examine the effectiveness of booster doses against the Delta and Omicron variants over different follow-up times. Study Design: This was a longitudinal meta-analysis. METHODS: Searches were performed in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science databases, and eighty studies were selected for investigation. The analyses were separately performed on the unvaccinated control group (UNVCG) and the complete two doses of the vaccine control group (C2DCG) against Delta and Omicron variants. Three outcomes were examined, including symptomatic infection, hospitalization, and death. RESULTS: Vaccine effectiveness (VE) in UNVCG studies for symptomatic infection revealed a non-linear trend against Omicron with a peak of 67.3%, declining to 27.1% after 25 weeks after a booster dose. The mean of VE for hospitalization over time started to decrease after four weeks against Omicron and after eight weeks against Delta. The VE reached a peak at week eight (96.0%) and started to decline with a VE of 93.3% after 20 weeks after the booster dose against Delta. It was 90.8% at week four and decreased to 73.4% after 25 weeks after the booster dose against Omicron. VE in the C2DCG studies demonstrated more decreases in outcomes over time. CONCLUSION: Our findings showed a tendency to decrease effectiveness over time based on outcomes and variants. The early protection levels were lower in Omicron. Moreover, the VE decrease over time was stronger in Omicron compared to the Delta variant.

Safety of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines among persons 15- years and above in Ghana: A cohort event monitoring study.

INTRODUCTION: The development of COVID-19 vaccines during the pandemic occurred with an unprecedented speed, requiring extraordinary post-approval safety monitoring to facilitate ongoing evaluation of their benefit-risk profile. In Ghana, the Food and Drugs Authority granted emergency use authorization to six of these vaccines including the two mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, namely, Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. The objective of the study was to estimate the incidence of adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) and adverse events of special interest (AESIs) in persons vaccinated with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, and to identify factors associated with the development of AEFIs. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort event monitoring study in seven selected static vaccination center in six of Ghana's 16 regions. The choice of regions was based on their geographical locations and the incidence rate of COVID-19 at the time of the study. The study was conducted with people aged 15 years and older who were vaccinated with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, including pregnant women. Study participants were recruited starting in November 2021, with the last participant followed up in August 2022. Persons vaccinated were followed up on days 1, 7, and 28 post-dose 1 and up to 91 days after dose 2. AEFIs were described with the most specific, or lowest-level, term using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) version 26.1. Frequencies of AEFIs after each vaccine dose and vaccination center were determined. Cox-proportional hazard regression was used to assess the independent risk factors associated with the incidence of AEFI among the participants. RESULTS: Overall, 4678 persons who received Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines from the seven vaccination centers were enrolled in the study. The mean age of participants was 32.9 years (SD ± 14.4). A total of 17.4 % (95 % CI: 16.3 % to 18.5 %) of participants experienced AEFI, with a higher incidence among Moderna COVID-19 vaccine recipients (20.4 %) compared to Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine recipients (14.0 %). The top five common AEFIs included injection site pain, headache, dizziness, fatigue, and fever. No serious AEFIs were reported during the study. Factors such as vaccination center and history of chronic medical conditions influenced the risk of experiencing an AEFI. Cox-proportional hazard regression revealed a 37 % lower risk of AEFI with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine compared to the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine. CONCLUSION: The study on mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in Ghana showed that the vaccines are tolerated well with no significant safety concerns. Reports of systemic and local events were consistent with those reported in the summary of product characteristics of the two vaccines. The study's outcome showed that there were no safety issues with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in Ghana. The results of this study can be used as a crucial advocacy tool to address vaccine hesitancy as countries plan to routinize COVID-19 vaccines. Additionally, the active monitoring study serves as a model for such studies in low- to middle-income countries (LMICs) with weak pharmacovigilance systems during future pandemics.

Risk of major adverse cerebro-cardiovascular events following BNT162b2, CoronaVac, and ChAdOx1 vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 infection: A self-controlled case-series study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the potential risk of major adverse cerebro-cardiovascular events (MACCE) associated with COVID-19 vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: This self-controlled case series study used nationwide health database from Malaysia. The study included individuals aged ≥18 years who were hospitalised between 24 February 2021 and 30 June 2022. Outcomes were composite of MACCE: stroke, acute ischaemic heart disease, and cardiovascular death. Exposures were COVID-19 vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 infection. The risk period was day 1 to day 21 following exposure. Conditional Poisson regression model was used to estimate the incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and 95 % confidence interval (CI) comparing the outcomes in the risk and control periods. RESULTS: The risk of MACCE within 21 days after vaccination per 100,000 doses administered were 12.0 (95% CI 11.9-12.1) (BNT162b2), 9.2 (95% CI 9.1-9.3) (CoronaVac), and 6.8 (95% CI 6.6-7.0) (ChAdOx1). The incidence rate ratios showed no increased risk of MACCE associated with the first, second, or third doses of BNT162b2, CoronaVac, and ChAdOx1 vaccines for individuals without prior cardiovascular disease (CVD). This finding was consistent for individuals with CVD. Vaccine booster dose, whether in a homologous or heterologous schedule, did not show increased risk of MACCE. Analysis by ethnic groups detected a slightly elevated risk of MACCE in Indian after the first dose of ChAdOx1 (IRR 1.64; 95% CI 1.08-2.48) in those without CVD. No significant association were observed in other subgroup analyses. SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with significantly increased risk of MACCE in individuals without CVD (IRR 3.54; 95% CI 3.32-3.76) and with CVD (IRR 1.98; 95% CI 1.61-2.34). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the favourable safety profile of these COVID-19 vaccines and indicate that the overall benefit-risk ratio of the COVID-19 vaccines remains positive.

Trust in Health Institutions Across Racial Groups: Implications for Dual Flu-Coronavirus Vaccine Adoption.

This study investigates the factors that influence individuals' willingness to accept a combined COVID-19 and flu vaccine. The primary focus is on examining the impact of trust in health institutions, frequency of flu vaccine uptake, and COVID-19 vaccine uptake. The analysis further delves into racial differences to better understand variations among different racial groups. METHODS: This study employs t-tests to compare the means of trust in health institutions, frequency of flu vaccine uptake, and COVID-19 vaccine uptake between individuals who are willing and unwilling to accept the combined vaccine. Additionally, a weighted logistic regression analysis is conducted to predict the likelihood of individuals to receive the combined vaccine, considering key independent and control variables. RESULTS: The t-test results reveal that individuals who are willing to accept the combined vaccine exhibit higher levels of trust in health institutions, more frequent flu vaccine uptake, and higher COVID-19 vaccine uptake. This pattern holds true across all racial groups. The logistic regression analysis demonstrates that trust in health institutions, frequency of flu vaccine uptake, and COVID-19 vaccine uptake significantly predict individuals' willingness to accept the combined vaccine. Partisanship and demographic characteristics also exert influence on vaccine acceptance. CONCLUSION: Trust in health institutions plays a pivotal role in vaccine acceptance among individuals from all racial groups. Encouraging routine vaccination practices and leveraging existing vaccination campaigns can facilitate the adoption of combined vaccines. It is imperative to address racial disparities and tailor communication strategies to specific demographic groups to enhance vaccine uptake.

Lipschütz ulcer following first dose of COVID-19 tozinameran vaccine: Report of a case and review of a World Health Organization pharmacovigilance database.

Lipschütz ulcer (LU) is a condition known for painful vulvar ulcers, typically affecting young women and often linked to infectious agents. Recent reports have indicated a potential connection between LU and COVID-19 vaccination, particularly after the second or booster doses. This study presents a case of LU following the first dose of tozinameran in a young woman who had a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and investigates similar cases globally. An 18-year-old woman experienced vulvar pain and ulcers 2-days after her initial COVID-19 vaccine dose. After ruling out infections through serological tests, a diagnosis of LU was made, and her symptoms resolved after 10 days. A literature search and VigiBase® analysis revealed 11 cases of LU following COVID-19 vaccination, and 519 vulvovaginal ulcer cases associated with these vaccines were identified in Vigibase®, with a median onset of 2 days. Most LU cases occurred after the second dose or booster shots. The primary hypothesis for this association is a type 3 hypersensitivity reaction mediated by immune complexes, possibly triggered by prior exposure, as many cases occurred after the second dose. Interestingly, the presented case suggests that prior COVID-19 infection could serve as sensitization. In conclusion, this study highlights the potential occurrence of LU after the initial COVID-19 vaccine dose in young patients with prior COVID-19 infection. While the risk of recurrence after subsequent vaccinations or infections remains uncertain, the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks. Clinicians and patients should be aware of this potential issue to make informed decisions regarding vaccination.

Incidence of ischemic stroke after COVID-19 bivalent booster vaccination in an integrated health system.

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of Kaiser Permanente Northwest patients 18 years and older who were vaccinated with the COVID-19 bivalent vaccine between September 1, 2022 and March 1, 2023. We replicated the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) rapid cycle analysis protocol to identify cases of ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) in the 21 days following vaccination using ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes in the primary position. The incidence of ischemic stroke or TIA was 34.3 per 100,000 (95 % CI, 17.7-59.9) in patients 65 years or older who received the bivalent Pfizer vaccine. Although a safety signal was detected in this study, further investigation is warranted to validate an association between COVID-19 vaccination and risk of ischemic stroke. Replication of the VSD case definition confirmed the exceptionally high positive predictive value in identifying ischemic stroke or TIA within 21 days of Pfizer bivalent vaccination in individuals 65 years and older. Two physician adjudication with chart review and confirmation of ischemic stroke cases allowed accurate absolute incidence estimates of stroke per 100,000 vaccine recipients and is helpful in calculation of net benefit for policy recommendations and shared decision-making.

Pediatric COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among pregnant and post-partum women: A mixed-method study.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to understand factors contributing to pediatric COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among pregnant and postpartum adults. METHOD: The study used targeted intercept advertising on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram to recruit a panel of 3600 pregnant and postpartum US adults. Data were collected between December 2021 and April 2022 (i.e., before the introduction of pediatric COVID-19 vaccines in the U.S.). We used logistic regression to understand factors associated with pregnant and postpartum women's hesitancy towards getting children <5 vaccinated against COVID-19. Poststratification weights were applied to analyses to promote the representativeness of the sample. We also conducted a qualitative thematic analysis to determine the reasons for pediatric vaccine hesitancy. RESULTS: Nearly half (45.6 %) of pregnant or postpartum women were hesitant to vaccinate their child against COVID-19. Vaccine hesitancy was lower among those who had a high perceived susceptibility to COVID-19, had increased perceived severity of COVID-19, and increased perceived benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine. Perceived barriers related to long-term side effects of vaccines were positively associated with hesitancy to vaccinate children. Older women, women in urban areas, and those born outside the US were less likely to be hesitant to vaccinate children <5 against COVID-19. Compared to respondents with a high school education or less, the odds of pediatric vaccine hesitancy were higher among respondents with some college. Pregnant and postpartum women who were hesitant about getting children <5 vaccinated cited the following reasons for hesitancy: concerns about the vaccine, lack of evidence on vaccine safety, and the COVID-19 vaccine is not necessary for children. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that public health messages to promote the COVID-19 vaccine for young children should focus on the risks and consequences of the disease and share data on the effectiveness of the vaccine in preventing severe COVID-19-related outcomes.

Gender differences in adverse effects following the second dose of AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine: a cross-sectional study among healthcare workers.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination in pandemic diseases, in addition to positive effects on controlling the prevalence and reducing the resulting socioeconomic effects, can have adverse effects with different intensity based on gender, type and dose of vaccine. We aimed to investigate gender differences in adverse effects following the second dose of AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine among healthcare workers (HWs). METHOD: This cross-sectional study was conducted on 780 HWs who worked in two educational hospitals in Kermanshah city, western Iran, and had received the second dose of AstraZeneca vaccine. The duration of the investigation of the adverse effects was a maximum of one month after receiving the second dose of AstraZeneca vaccine. RESULTS: The overall proportion of adverse effects following the second dose of the AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine was higher in female participants, but it was not significant (OR=1.83, p=0.056). The results of adjusted logistic regression showed that the odds of chills (OR=2.17, p=0.001), nausea (OR=2.98, p=0.012), and gastrointestinal symptoms (OR=2.1, p=0.001), runny nose (OR=1.5, p=0.047), fever (OR=1.64, p=0.002), body pain (OR=1.4, p=0.04), and fatigue (OR=1.85, p=0.001) were significantly higher in females than in males. The maximum gap of 15% (attributable risk) was shown for fever adverse between genders. CONCLUSION: The higher occurrence rate of side effects after second dose of AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine in women, indicates that gender factors influence the response to the vaccine, consequently, it is imperative that women undergo further examination to mitigate the risk of complications arising from injection procedures.

Health of Saudi Women in the Post-Pandemic Era: Candidiasis Incidence and Post COVID-19 and COVID-19-Vaccination.

Introduction: Candidiasis, commonly known as yeast infection, affects people worldwide due to the overgrowth of Candida species. Of several types, genital candidiasis, particularly vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC), primarily caused by C. albicans is frequently observed in females of reproductive age. Candidiasis has also become a serious issue in the post-pandemic era, as it occurs as a secondary infection in COVID-19 patients during or after the course of viral illness. Therefore, this study investigated the incidence of C. albicans infections in women of reproductive age, and its relationship with the incidence of COVID-19 and vaccination in Saudi Arabia. Objective: Additionally, this study aimed to determine the awareness of women on candidiasis and its subsequent impact on the occurrence of infection. A survey-based quantitative study was conducted in which primary data were collected from participants using a self-reported questionnaire. Methods: A total of 200 women aged 18-45 were selected through random sampling. Apart from their sociodemographic characteristics, the history of COVID-19 incidence, COVID-19 vaccination, and candidiasis occurrences among respondents were recorded. Their level of awareness and knowledge of candidiasis, along with their perceptions of strategies for mitigating the risk of incidence, were also evaluated. The collected data were analysed using different statistical tools. Results: The findings of this study revealed a positive correlation between candidiasis, viral infection, and vaccination, regardless of the type and dosage of vaccine administered. Furthermore, both COVID-19 incidence and vaccination had a positive and significant impact on the occurrence of candidiasis among Saudi women. Conclusion: Despite certain limitations, this study has theoretical and managerial implications for improved management of candidiasis in the post-COVID era.

COVID19 infection and vaccination and the risk of pituitary apoplexy: an entangled yarn.

PURPOSE: Pituitary apoplexy (PA) has been increasingly reported in association with both infection from and vaccination for COVID19. Our aim was to analyse the available published cases and compare the clinical characteristics in the two groups (infection vs vaccination). METHODS: We systematically reviewed the published literature for all cases of PA associated with COVID19 infection or vaccination. We also presented two cases managed at our Centre. RESULTS: Collectively, fortythree cases were analysed. Patients with PA after COVID19 vaccination (n = 7), compared with patients with PA after COVID19 infection (n = 36), were significantly younger (p = 0.009) and had a more abrupt onset of PA (p = 0.022), but showed a milder hormonal involvement (p = 0.008) and a lower rate of persistent hypopituitarism during follow-up (p = 0.001). Patients in the vaccination group did not have clinical risk factors for PA, although this difference did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: PA associated with COVID19 is a rare but clinically significant entity, although pathophysiological details of this association are lacking. Given the significantly different clinical presentation, we could speculate that PA induced by COVID19 vaccination might represent a distinct clinical entity, with different pathophysiological mechanism, compared to PA from COVID19 infection.

Nanomedicine Therapies for Pediatric Diseases.

In 2020, the top 10 causes of death among children and adolescents between the ages of 1 and 19 years old included cancer, congenital anomalies, heart disease, and chronic respiratory disease; all these conditions are potentially treatable with medical intervention. However, children exhibit specific physiological and developmental characteristics that can significantly impact drug pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety profile. These factors illustrate the importance of a heightened focus on pediatric drug development. Traditional drugs lack proper circulation, permeability, targeting, accumulation, and release, and they often require dose adjustments or modifications, which can result in suboptimal therapeutic outcomes and increased risks of adverse effects in pediatric patients. Nanomedicines have emerged as efficient drug delivery systems because of their unique properties, which can improve the solubility and stability of drugs by encapsulating them in different forms of nanoparticles. This review discusses the challenges of pediatric therapy, and the current state of nanomedicines for pediatric diseases in terms of Food and Drug Administration-approved nanomedicines, the types of diseases treated or diagnosed, and preclinical studies that have the potential to be translated to the clinic. In summary, nanomedicine holds significant potential for addressing the unique and pressing challenges associated with diagnosing and treating pediatric diseases.

COVID-19 vaccination in patients with multiple sclerosis: what you need to know - a review.

Background: The appearance of severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) initiated the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in millions of confirmed cases and numerous fatalities. In response, rapid vaccine development efforts were launched to mitigate the pandemic's impact. Despite the high efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, they are also associated with several common side effects/complications, some of them specific to the multiple sclerosis population. Our goal is to review various types of COVID-19 vaccines, assessing their efficacy, adverse events, their association with an MS relapse following vaccination, and the influence of disease modifying therapies (DMTs) on vaccines' efficacy. Methods: The review was based on a database search that included PubMed/Medline, Embase, Scopus, and the Web of Science conducted from January 2020 to July 2024 using the following MeSH terms: MS, COVID-19, COVID-19 vaccination, vaccine side effects, and vaccine hesitancy. Results: Receiving any type of COVID-19 vaccine is a safer and more reliable approach to building immunity compared to becoming infected with the virus. Complications tend to be mild to moderate, occasionally severe. DMTs could affect the humoral response to the COVID-19 vaccine. Among all DMTs, a notable reduction in the humoral response has been observed in patients who received anti-CD20 and sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P) receptor modulator drugs after their COVID-19 vaccination. Conclusion: Despite certain drawbacks, the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine significantly outweigh the associated risks, making it a recommended course of action for people with multiple sclerosis (pwMS). However, physicians need to be mindful of potential complications especially in patients undergoing anti CD20 and manage them appropriately.

Case report of secondary T-cell deficiency following the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine.

We present a case of secondary T-cell deficiency particularly affecting CD4 T cells, along with the emergence of chronic spontaneous urticaria in a patient following COVID-19 vaccination. The condition was partially managed with omalizumab after initial first-line therapy proved ineffective.

Erythroderma Following Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccination in a Patient With Atopic Dermatitis: A Case Report.

Cutaneous adverse reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in patients with preexisting dermatologic disease include bullous eruptions, pityriasis rubra pilaris, dermatomyositis, and granuloma annulare. Erythroderma is a rare but severe adverse reaction not previously seen. This case report describes the development of erythroderma in a 73-year-old male with a history of atopic dermatitis, with widespread erythema and scaling covering 95% of his body surface area, which developed sequentially after receiving each dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) COVID-19 vaccination. The patient's condition improved significantly with appropriate dermatologic treatment, including systemic and topical corticosteroids and dupilumab. Thus, it is imperative to recognize erythroderma as a potential side effect of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, particularly in patients with preexisting dermatologic conditions. Early diagnosis and treatment are vital for managing this potentially life-threatening reaction and preventing severe complications.

Relative Effectiveness and Waning of a Third Dose of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine in Medicare Beneficiaries Aged 65 Years and Older during the BA.1/BA.2 Omicron Period.

BACKGROUND: We assessed the added benefit and waning effectiveness of a third COVID-19 vaccine dose (original formula) for preventing COVID-19-related outcomes. METHODS: We used Medicare claims data to conduct a retrospective cohort study in U.S. community-dwelling Medicare Fee-for-Service beneficiaries aged ≥65 years during the BA.1/BA.2 Omicron period (December 19, 2021 - March 26, 2022). We estimated relative vaccine effectiveness (RVE) of 3 versus 2 doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines using marginal structural Cox regression models. RESULTS: Among 8,135,020 eligible beneficiaries, 73.3% were 3-dose vaccinated by March 26, 2022. At 14-60 days since vaccination, a third dose provided significant added benefit against COVID-19-related hospitalization for Moderna (RVE: 77.2%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 76.0%, 78.4%) and Pfizer-BioNTech (RVE: 72.5%; 95% CI: 70.8%, 74.0%). Added benefit was lower >120 days. For those with prior medically attended COVID-19 diagnoses, Pfizer-BioNTech provided an added benefit for 120 days, while Moderna provided some added benefit >120 days. Added benefit for either vaccine was higher against death compared to less severe outcomes, which still decreased >120 days. CONCLUSIONS: A third dose COVID-19 vaccine provided significant added benefit against COVID-19-related hospitalization and death, even for beneficiaries with prior medically attended COVID-19 diagnoses. This added benefit decreased after 4 months.

Effective integration of COVID-19 vaccination with routine immunization: A case study from Kinshasa, DRC.

BACKGROUND: In response to the challenge of maintaining COVID-19 vaccination coverage amidst the pandemic, VillageReach, in collaboration with the Ministry of Public Health Prevention and Hygiene in Kinshasa, DRC, integrated COVID-19 vaccination with routine immunization services at two primary healthcare facilities. This initiative, launched in July 2022, represented the first of its kind in the DRC, aiming to assess the effectiveness and scalability of a multimodal vaccination approach. METHODS: Through a rapid appraisal involving key informant interviews and analysis of pre- and post-integration service delivery data, this case study explores the operational dynamics and outcomes of integrating COVID-19 and routine immunizations. RESULTS: Results demonstrated that the integrated approach not only maintained COVID-19 vaccine coverage but also significantly enhanced routine immunization uptake, particularly among under-immunized and zero-dose children. Overall, the vaccination sites, outreach, and integrated health facilities administered 229,983 (33 %) of COVID-19 vaccines in Kinshasa, of which 53 % were referred by community health workers. Additionally, 998 under-immunized children received routine immunizations, of whom 126 were zero-dose children. Key success factors included sustained community health worker engagement, neighborhood-specific strategies, accessible vaccination points, and robust data management. The findings suggest that such integrative strategies can effectively bolster immunization coverage in urban poor communities, offering valuable insights for similar initiatives in the DRC and beyond. CONCLUSION: This study advocates for sustained investment in innovative immunization models to strengthen primary healthcare systems post-pandemic.

Corrigendum: Six-month humoral immune response to inactivated COVID-19 vaccine among people living with HIV.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.988304.].