How did we protect children against COVID-19 in Iran? Prevalence of COVID-19 and vaccination in the socio-economic context of COVID-19 epidemic.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic posed significant risks to children worldwide. This study aimed to assess the COVID-19 protection status of children and explored the relationship between household socio-economic status and COVID-19 morbidity and preventive measures, including vaccination and mask-wearing, in two cities in Iran. METHOD: A population-based cross-sectional study was conducted from July to October 2022 among 7 to 18-year-old children and their families in Tehran and Karaj. A total of 3,022 samples were selected using stratified multistage cluster sampling. Data were collected through interviews with children and adults, using questionnaires and was analyzed with Stata software version 14. RESULTS: The analysis focused on 2,878 children with a median age of 12. Over half (54%) reported that the pandemic negatively affected their family's financial status, with 45% describing its impact on children's needs as negative or very negative. Just under 50% of respondents consistently wore masks during the study period, and around 54% had received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. Reasons for not getting vaccinated included concerns about side effects, ineligibility for the target age group, and overcrowding at vaccination sites. The odds of not getting vaccinated were significantly lower for children aged 15-18, with boys more likely to refuse vaccination than girls. CONCLUSION: The financial impact of the pandemic in Iran affected families' ability to meet their children's needs. Moreover, low vaccination acceptance rates increased children's vulnerability to health problems and contributed to COVID-19 infections. Efforts should be made to increase vaccination acceptance, particularly among immigrant populations.

Machine learning to understand risks for severe COVID-19 outcomes: a retrospective cohort study of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, immunomodulatory medications, and comorbidities in a large US health-care system.

BACKGROUND: In the context of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs), COVID-19 outcomes are incompletely understood and vary considerably depending on the patient population studied. We aimed to analyse severe COVID-19 outcomes and to investigate the effects of the pandemic time period and the risks associated with individual IMIDs, classes of immunomodulatory medications (IMMs), chronic comorbidities, and COVID-19 vaccination status. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, clinical data were derived from the electronic health records of an integrated health-care system serving patients in 51 hospitals and 1085 clinics across seven US states (Providence St Joseph Health). Data were observed for patients (no age restriction) with one or more IMID and for unmatched controls without IMIDs. COVID-19 was identified with a positive nucleic acid amplification test result for SARS-CoV-2. Two timeframes were analysed: March 1, 2020-Dec 25, 2021 (pre-omicron period), and Dec 26, 2021-Aug 30, 2022 (omicron-predominant period). Primary outcomes were hospitalisation, mechanical ventilation, and mortality in patients with COVID-19. Factors, including IMID diagnoses, comorbidities, long-term use of IMMs, and COVID-19 vaccination status, were analysed with multivariable logistic regression (LR) and extreme gradient boosting (XGB). FINDINGS: Of 2 167 656 patients tested for SARS-CoV-2, 290 855 (13·4%) had confirmed COVID-19: 15 397 (5·3%) patients with IMIDs and 275 458 (94·7%) without IMIDs. In the pre-omicron period, 169 993 (11·2%) of 1 517 295 people who were tested for COVID-19 tested positive, of whom 23 330 (13·7%) were hospitalised, 1072 (0·6%) received mechanical ventilation, and 5294 (3·1%) died. Compared with controls, patients with IMIDs and COVID-19 had higher rates of hospitalisation (1176 [14·6%] vs 22 154 [13·7%]; p=0·024) and mortality (314 [3·9%] vs 4980 [3·1%]; p<0·0001). In the omicron-predominant period, 120 862 (18·6%) of 650 361 patients tested positive for COVID-19, of whom 14 504 (12·0%) were hospitalised, 567 (0·5%) received mechanical ventilation, and 2001 (1·7%) died. Compared with controls, patients with IMIDs and COVID-19 (7327 [17·3%] of 42 249) had higher rates of hospitalisation (13 422 [11·8%] vs 1082 [14·8%]; p<0·0001) and mortality (1814 [1·6%] vs 187 [2·6%]; p<0·0001). Age was a risk factor for worse outcomes (adjusted odds ratio [OR] from 2·1 [95% CI 2·0-2·1]; p<0·0001 to 3·0 [2·9-3·0]; p<0·0001), whereas COVID-19 vaccination (from 0·082 [0·080-0·085]; p<0·0001 to 0·52 [0·50-0·53]; p<0·0001) and booster vaccination (from 2·1 [2·0-2·2]; p<0·0001 to 3·0 [2·9-3·0]; p<0·0001) status were associated with better outcomes. Seven chronic comorbidities were significant risk factors during both time periods for all three outcomes: atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, heart failure, chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic liver disease, and cancer. Two IMIDs, asthma (adjusted OR from 0·33 [0·32-0·34]; p<0·0001 to 0·49 [0·48-0·51]; p<0·0001) and psoriasis (from 0·52 [0·48-0·56] to 0·80 [0·74-0·87]; p<0·0001), were associated with a reduced risk of severe outcomes. IMID diagnoses did not appear to be significant risk factors themselves, but results were limited by small sample size, and vasculitis had high feature importance in LR. IMMs did not appear to be significant, but less frequently used IMMs were limited by sample size. XGB outperformed LR, with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for models across different time periods and outcomes ranging from 0·77 to 0·92. INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that age, chronic comorbidities, and not being fully vaccinated might be greater risk factors for severe COVID-19 outcomes in patients with IMIDs than the use of IMMs or the IMIDs themselves. Overall, there is a need to take age and comorbidities into consideration when developing COVID-19 guidelines for patients with IMIDs. Further research is needed for specific IMIDs (including IMID severity at the time of SARS-CoV-2 infection) and IMMs (considering dosage and timing before a patient's first COVID-19 infection). FUNDING: Pfizer, Novartis, Janssen, and the National Institutes of Health.

Could "Empathetic Refutation" Help Clinicians Sway Vaccine Skeptics?

This Medical News article discusses an intervention that uses empathy to address vaccine hesitancy in the clinic.

COVID-19 Vaccination and Incidence of Pediatric SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Hospitalization.

Importance: A SARS-CoV-2 vaccine was approved for adolescents aged 12 to 15 years on May 10, 2021, with approval for younger age groups following thereafter. The population level impact of the pediatric COVID-19 vaccination program has not yet been established. Objective: To identify whether California's pediatric COVID-19 immunization program was associated with changes in pediatric COVID-19 incidence and hospitalizations. Design, Setting, and Participants: A case series on COVID-19 vaccination including children aged 6 months to 15 years was conducted in California. Data were obtained on COVID-19 cases in California between April 1, 2020, and February 27, 2023. Exposure: Postvaccination evaluation periods spanned 141 days (June 10 to October 29, 2021) for adolescents aged 12 to 15 years, 199 days (November 29, 2021, to June 17, 2022) for children aged 5 to 11 years, and 225 days (July 17, 2022, to February 27, 2023) for those aged 6 to 59 months. During these periods, statewide vaccine coverage reached 53.5% among adolescents aged 12 to 15 years, 34.8% among children aged 5 to 11 years, and 7.9% among those aged 6 to 59 months. Main Outcomes and Measures: Age-stepped implementation of COVID-19 vaccination was used to compare observed county-level incidence and hospitalization rates during periods when each age group became vaccine eligible to counterfactual rates predicted from observations among other age groups. COVID-19 case and hospitalization data were obtained from the California reportable disease surveillance system. Results: Between April 1, 2020, and February 27, 2023, a total of 3 913 063 pediatric COVID-19 cases and 12 740 hospitalizations were reported in California. Reductions of 146 210 cases (95% prediction interval [PI], 136 056-158 948) were estimated among adolescents aged 12 to 15 years, corresponding to a 37.1% (35.5%-39.1%) reduction from counterfactual predictions. Reductions of 230 134 (200 170-265 149) cases were estimated among children aged 5 to 11 years, corresponding to a 23.7% (20.6%-27.3%) reduction from counterfactual predictions. No evidence of reductions in COVID-19 cases statewide were found among children aged 6 to 59 months (estimated averted cases, -259; 95% PI, -1938 to 1019), although low transmission during the evaluation period may have limited the ability to do so. An estimated 168 hospitalizations (95% PI, 42-324) were averted among children aged 6 to 59 months, corresponding to a 24.4% (95% PI, 6.1%-47.1%) reduction. In meta-analyses, county-level vaccination coverage was associated with averted cases for all age groups. Despite low vaccination coverage, pediatric COVID-19 immunization in California averted 376 085 (95% PI, 348 355-417 328) reported cases and 273 (95% PI, 77-605) hospitalizations among children aged 6 months to 15 years over approximately 4 to 7 months following vaccination availability. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this case series analysis of 3 913 063 cases suggest reduced pediatric SARS-CoV-2 transmission following immunization. These results support the use of COVID-19 vaccines to reduce COVID-19 incidence and hospitalization in pediatric populations.

Nirmatrelvir for Vaccinated or Unvaccinated Adult Outpatients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Nirmatrelvir in combination with ritonavir is an antiviral treatment for mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). The efficacy of this treatment in patients who are at standard risk for severe Covid-19 or who are fully vaccinated and have at least one risk factor for severe Covid-19 has not been established. METHODS: In this phase 2-3 trial, we randomly assigned adults who had confirmed Covid-19 with symptom onset within the past 5 days in a 1:1 ratio to receive nirmatrelvir-ritonavir or placebo every 12 hours for 5 days. Patients who were fully vaccinated against Covid-19 and who had at least one risk factor for severe disease, as well as patients without such risk factors who had never been vaccinated against Covid-19 or had not been vaccinated within the previous year, were eligible for participation. Participants logged the presence and severity of prespecified Covid-19 signs and symptoms daily from day 1 through day 28. The primary end point was the time to sustained alleviation of all targeted Covid-19 signs and symptoms. Covid-19-related hospitalization and death from any cause were also assessed through day 28. RESULTS: Among the 1296 participants who underwent randomization and were included in the full analysis population, 1288 received at least one dose of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (654 participants) or placebo (634 participants) and had at least one postbaseline visit. The median time to sustained alleviation of all targeted signs and symptoms of Covid-19 was 12 days in the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group and 13 days in the placebo group (P = 0.60). Five participants (0.8%) in the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group and 10 (1.6%) in the placebo group were hospitalized for Covid-19 or died from any cause (difference, -0.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -2.0 to 0.4). The percentages of participants with adverse events were similar in the two groups (25.8% with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and 24.1% with placebo). In the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group, the most commonly reported treatment-related adverse events were dysgeusia (in 5.8% of the participants) and diarrhea (in 2.1%). CONCLUSIONS: The time to sustained alleviation of all signs and symptoms of Covid-19 did not differ significantly between participants who received nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and those who received placebo. (Supported by Pfizer; EPIC-SR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05011513.).

Racial/ethnic differences in the associations between trust in the U.S. healthcare system and willingness to test for and vaccinate against COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Trust in the healthcare system may impact adherence to recommended healthcare practices, including willingness to test for and vaccinate against COVID-19. This study examined racial/ethnic differences in the associations between trust in the U.S. healthcare system and willingness to test for and vaccinate against COVID-19 during the first year of the pandemic. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used data from the REACH-US study, a nationally representative online survey conducted among a diverse sample of U.S. adults from January 26, 2021-March 3, 2021 (N = 5,121). Multivariable logistic regression estimated the associations between trust in the U.S. healthcare system (measured as "Always", "Most of the time", "Sometimes/Almost Never", and "Never") and willingness to test for COVID-19, and willingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Racial/ethnic differences in these associations were examined using interaction terms and multigroup analyses. RESULTS: Always trusting the U.S. healthcare system was highest among Hispanic/Latino Spanish Language Preference (24.9%) and Asian (16.7%) adults and lowest among Multiracial (8.7%) and Black/African American (10.7%) adults. Always trusting the U.S. healthcare system, compared to never, was associated with greater willingness to test for COVID-19 (AOR: 3.20, 95% CI: 2.38-4.30) and greater willingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccine (AOR: 2.68, 95% CI: 1.97-3.65). CONCLUSIONS: Trust in the U.S. healthcare system was associated with greater willingness to test for COVID-19 and receive the COVID-19 vaccine, however, trust in the U.S. healthcare system was lower among most marginalized racial/ethnic groups. Efforts to establish a more equitable healthcare system that increases trust may encourage COVID-19 preventive behaviors.

Review of COVID-19 Therapeutics by Mechanism: From Discovery to Approval.

The global research and pharmaceutical community rapidly mobilized to develop treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Existing treatments have been repurposed and new drugs have emerged. Here we summarize mechanisms and clinical trials of COVID-19 therapeutics approved or in development. Two reviewers, working independently, reviewed published data for approved COVID-19 vaccines and drugs, as well as developmental pipelines, using databases from the following organizations: United States Food and Drug Administration (US-FDA), European Medicines Agency (EMA), Japanese Pharmaceutical and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA), and ClinicalTrials.gov. In all, 387 drugs were found for initial review. After removing unrelated trials and drugs, 66 drugs were selected, including 17 approved drugs and 49 drugs under development. These drugs were classified into six categories: 1) drugs targeting the viral life cycle 2) Anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 Monoclonal Antibodies, 3) immunomodulators, 4) anti-coagulants, 5) COVID-19-induced neuropathy drugs, and 6) other therapeutics. Among the 49 drugs under development are the following: 6 drugs targeting the viral life cycle, 12 immunosuppression drugs, 2 immunostimulants, 2 HIF-PHD targeting drugs, 3 GM-CSF targeting drugs, 5 anti-coagulants, 2 COVID-19-induced neuropathy drugs, and 17 others. This review provides insight into mechanisms of action, properties, and indications for COVID-19 medications.

Incidence and outcome of COVID-19 following vaccine and hybrid immunity in patients on immunosuppressive therapy: identification of protective post-immunisation anti-RBD antibody levels in a prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess incidence, severity and predictors of COVID-19, including protective post-vaccination levels of antibodies to the receptor-binding domain of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (anti-RBD), informing further vaccine strategies for patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) on immunosuppressive medication. METHODS: IMIDs on immunosuppressives and healthy controls (HC) receiving SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were included in this prospective observational study. COVID-19 and outcome were registered and anti-RBD antibodies measured 2-5 weeks post-immunisation. RESULTS: Between 15 February 2021 and 15 February 2023, 1729 IMIDs and 350 HC provided blood samples and self-reported COVID-19. The incidence of COVID-19 was 66% in patients and 67% in HC, with re-infection occurring in 12% of patients. Severe COVID-19 was recorded in 22 (2%) patients and no HC. No COVID-19-related deaths occurred. Vaccine-induced immunity gave higher risk of COVID-19 (HR 5.89 (95% CI 4.45 to 7.80)) than hybrid immunity. Post-immunisation anti-RBD levels <6000 binding antibody units/mL were associated with an increased risk of COVID-19 following three (HR 1.37 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.74)) and four doses (HR 1.28 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.62)), and of COVID-19 re-infection (HR 4.47 (95% CI 1.87 to 10.67)). CONCLUSION: Vaccinated patients with IMID have a low risk of severe COVID-19. Hybrid immunity lowers the risk of infection. High post-immunisation anti-RBD levels protect against COVID-19. These results suggest that knowledge on COVID-19 history, and assessment of antibody levels post-immunisation can help individualise vaccination programme series in high-risk individuals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04798625.

Implementation of COVID-19 vaccination services in prison in six European countries: translating emergency intervention into routine life-course vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Evidence has shown that the risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is much higher in prisons than in the community. The release of the COVID-19 vaccine and the recommendation by WHO to include prisons among priority settings have led to the inclusion of prisons in national COVID-19 vaccination strategies. Evidence on prison health and healthcare services provision is limited and often focuses on a single country or institution due to the multiple challenges of conducting research in prison settings. The present study was done in the framework of the EU-founded project RISE-Vac. It aimed to analyse the best practices and challenges applied in implementing COVID-19 universal vaccination services during the pandemic to support future expansion of routine life course vaccination services for people living in prison (PLP). METHODS: Two online cross-sectional surveys were designed and piloted: survey1 on prison characteristics and (non-COVID-19) immunisation practices; survey2 on the implementation and coverage of COVID-19 vaccination with open-ended questions for thematic analysis. Each RISE-Vac project partner distributed the questionnaire to one or two prisons in their country. Answers were collected from eight European prisons' directors or medical directors between November 2021-May 2022. RESULTS: According to our findings, the implementation modalities of COVID-19 vaccination services in the surveyed prisons were effective in improving PLP vaccination coverage. Strategies for optimal management of the vaccination campaign included: periodic time slot for PLP vaccination; new staff recruitment and task shifting; distribution of informational material both to PLP and prison staff. Key challenges included continuity of care after release, immunisation information system, and vaccine hesitancy. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study describing the implementation of COVID-19 vaccination services in European prisons, suggesting that the expansion of vaccination provision in prison is possible. There is no unique solution that will fit every country but commonalities likely to be important in the design and implementation of future vaccination campaigns targeting PLP emerged. Increased availability of vaccination services in prison is not only possible, but feasible and highly desirable, and can contribute to the reduction of health inequalities.

Response of Unvaccinated US Adults to Official Information About the Pause in Use of the Johnson & Johnson-Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine: Cross-Sectional Survey Study.

Using a rapid response web-based survey, we identified gaps in public understanding of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's messaging about the pause in use of the Johnson & Johnson-Janssen COVID-19 vaccine and estimated changes in vaccine hesitancy using counterfactual questions.

Perceptions of Racial-Ethnic Inequities in COVID-19 Healthcare and Willingness to Receive the COVID-19 Vaccine.

BACKGROUND: Perceptions of the US healthcare system can impact individuals' healthcare utilization, including vaccination intentions. This study examined the association between perceived racial-ethnic inequities in COVID-19 healthcare and willingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. METHODS: This study used data from REACH-US, a nationally representative online survey of a large, diverse sample of U.S. adults (N=5145 January 26, 2021-March 3, 2021). Confirmatory factor and regression analyses examined a latent factor of perceived racial-ethnic inequities in COVID-19 healthcare, whether the factor was associated with willingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, and whether associations varied across racial-ethnic groups reported as probit estimates (B) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Perceived racial-ethnic inequities in COVID-19 healthcare were highest among Black/African American adults (mean latent factor score: 0.65 ± 0.43) and lowest among White adults (mean latent factor score: 0.04 ± 0.67). Black/African American (B = -0.08; 95% CI = -0.19, 0.03) and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (B = -0.08; 95% CI = -0.23, 0.07) adults who perceived greater racial-ethnic inequities in COVID-19 healthcare were less willing than participants who perceived lower inequities. In contrast, American Indian/Alaska Native (B = 0.15; 95% CI = -0.01, 0.30), Asian (B = 0.20; 95% CI = 0.08, 0.31), Hispanic/Latino (English language preference) (B = 0.22; 95% CI = 0.01, 0.43), Multiracial (B = 0.23; 95% CI = 0.09, 0.36), and White (B = 0.31; 95% CI = 0.19, 0.43) adults who perceived greater racial-ethnic inequities in COVID-19 healthcare were more willing to receive the COVID-19 vaccine than participants perceiving higher inequities. CONCLUSIONS: Greater perceived racial-ethnic inequities in COVID-19 healthcare were associated with less willingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccine among Black/African American and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander adults.

Interpretations of Studies on SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination and Post-acute COVID-19 Sequelae.

This article discusses causal interpretations of epidemiologic studies of the effects of vaccination on sequelae after acute severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. To date, researchers have tried to answer several different research questions on this topic. While some studies assessed the impact of postinfection vaccination on the presence of or recovery from post-acute coronavirus disease 2019 syndrome, others quantified the association between preinfection vaccination and postacute sequelae conditional on becoming infected. However, the latter analysis does not have a causal interpretation, except under the principal stratification framework-that is, this comparison can only be interpreted as causal for a nondiscernible stratum of the population. As the epidemiology of coronavirus disease 2019 is now nearly entirely dominated by reinfections, including in vaccinated individuals, and possibly caused by different Omicron subvariants, it has become even more important to design studies on the effects of vaccination on postacute sequelae that address precise causal questions and quantify effects corresponding to implementable interventions.

Reaching Diverse Communities During a Local Public Health COVID-19 Vaccination Response Through a Mobile Clinic Compared to Mass Vaccination Sites.

During the COVID-19 vaccine rollout, local public health agencies were responsible for vaccinating a wide variety of communities. Dakota County Public Health (Dakota County, Minnesota) implemented a program that offered COVID-19 vaccines in a variety of settings, such as county public health buildings, community sites, in-home, mass vaccination clinics, and a mobile clinic unit. The purpose of this analysis is to compare the demographics of vaccinations administered at Dakota County COVID-19 vaccination clinics based on clinic site. More than half (52.5%) of vaccinations administered at mobile clinic sites were administered to Hispanic or Latino clients, while at the mass vaccination clinic site, 5.4% of vaccinations were administered to Hispanic or Latino clients. In addition, 59.6% of in-home vaccinations were administered to adults 65 years and older. Offering COVID-19 vaccination clinics in a variety of clinic settings strategically throughout the community helped increase vaccine reach to diverse communities.

A CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY ON COVID-19 VACCINATION HESITATION AMONG UNIVERSITY STUDENTS.

Students serve as ambassadors, conveying effective messages to encourage the adoption of promotes healthy behaviors. Recognizing their consciousness about corona illness 2019 (COVID-19), desires to utilize the COVID-19 vaccines, and other associated variables will aid in developing viable vaccination promotion tactics for the present COVID-19 pandemic. A transverse-segment internet poll of university students in the healthcare and non-healthcare industries was conducted to analyze their motivations to be vaccinated against the coronavirus. To recruit research participants, a random snowball sampling approach was utilized using digital media sites and mails. The contestants were chosen from throughout India, including several main geographic areas, between Nov-2020 and Jan-2021, prior to the release of the COVID-19 vaccination. There were descriptive metrics utilized to illustrate the research participants' socio-demographics and vaccine-related behaviors. Using logistic regression modeling, key characteristics that are expected to influence vaccination uptake among students were modeled. p 0.06 was judged substantial in each study. 656 students participated in the study, with 48.4% coming from the healthcare sector & 51.5% from other fields. Of these 655 students, 43.6 and 22.4% came from India's northern and eastern areas. Graduate students accounted for 41.1% of the total population, and graduates for around 43.2%. The age range of 56.0% of the students was 18 to 25. Women made up 62% of the population, and 69.5% of them were unmarried. Seventy-eight percent of the students were from the medium socioeconomic level. Concerns about side effects and safety, distrust of government officials, and questions about the vaccine's efficacy were among the reasons given by students in this study for their reluctance to get vaccinated. It is essential to remember that these investigations were carried out at various times and in various nations; thus, the conclusions may not apply to all college students throughout the globe. According to the findings of this research, Indian university students showed rather a great deal of motivating desire to acquire COVID-19 immunizations. The people were either doubtful or reluctant to get the vaccination, which suggests possible vaccine aversion. There is a need for information campaigns and other actions to lessen vaccine hesitancy in order to promote the usage of COVID-19 vaccines.

Can hospitalists improve COVID-19 vaccination rates?

Three years after the start of the SARS-CoV-2 virus (COVID-19) pandemic, its effects continue to affect society and COVID-19 vaccination campaigns continue to be a topic of controversy and inconsistent practice. After experiencing spikes in COVID-19 cases, our University of California Davis Health Division of Hospital Medicine sought to understand the reasons underlying the low COVID-19 vaccination rates in our county and find approaches to improve the number of vaccinations among adults admitted to the inpatient setting. This quality improvement project aimed to increase COVID-19 primary and booster vaccine efforts through a multi-pronged approach of increased collaboration with specialised staff and optimisation of use of our electronic health record system.Our key interventions focused on developing a visual reminder of COVID-19 vaccine status using the functionality of our electronic medical record (EMR), standardising documentation of COVID-19 vaccine status and enhancing team-based vaccination discussions through team huddles and partnering with inpatient care coordinators. While our grassroots approach enhanced COVID-19 vaccination rates in the inpatient setting and had additional benefits such as increased collaboration among teams, system-level efforts often made a greater impact at our healthcare centre. For other institutions interested in increasing COVID-19 vaccination rates, our top three recommendations include integrating vaccination into pre-existing workflows, optimising EMR functionality and increasing vaccine accessibility in the inpatient setting.

What the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic Has Taught Us About Immunosuppression, Vaccinations, and Immune Dysregulation: The Rheumatology Experience.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review reflects on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the field of rheumatology, emphasizing resulting insights related to the risks of viral infections in immunosuppressed patients, vaccine immunogenicity in immunocompromised patients, and immune dysregulation in the setting of viral infection. RECENT FINDINGS: During the pandemic, global patient registries provided real-time insights into the risk factors associated with severe COVID-19 outcomes in rheumatology patients. Updated evidence-based recommendations from the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guided rheumatology practice during a time of considerable uncertainty. Studies on COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised populations enhanced our understanding of specific immunosuppressive therapies on vaccine efficacy. The immune dysregulation seen in severe COVID-19 underscored a role for immunomodulation in this and other severe infections. Furthermore, novel post-infectious conditions, namely multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) and Long COVID, reshaped our understanding of post-viral syndromes and revealed novel pathological mechanisms. Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrate the power of collaborative research. The scientific revelations from this dreadful time will, nonetheless, benefit the practice of rheumatology for years to come.

Telehealth Preferences Among Patients With Advanced Cancer in the Post COVID-19 Vaccine Era.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined patient preferences for telehealth in palliative care after the availability of COVID-19 vaccines. We examined patient preferences for video versus in-person visits and factors contributing to preferences in the postvaccine era. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional survey of patients who were seen at our palliative care clinic between April 2021 and March 2022. Patients were surveyed directly their preference for either video or in-person visits for outpatient palliative care (primary outcome). We also surveyed preferences including convenience, cost, wait time, and perceptions of COVID-19 safety regarding their palliative virtual-video visit. We examined clinical factors associated with preferences with multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: About 200 patients completed the survey. 132 (67%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 60%, 74%) preferred virtual-video, while 16 (8%) preferred in-person visits during the COVID-19 pandemic. About 120 (61%, 95%CI: 54%, 68%) preferred virtual-video after the pandemic. Patients perceived virtual-video favorably regarding travel and related costs (179 [91%]), convenience (175 [88%]), and wait time (136 [69%]). Multivariable analysis showed concerns for catching COVID-19 from healthcare providers (odds ratio [OR]: 4.20; 95%CI: 1.24-14.25; P = 0.02) and feeling comfortable with computers or mobile devices (OR: 4.59; 95%CI: 1.02, 20.60; P = 0.047) were significantly associated with preferring virtual-video. Patients who were of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (OR: 0.25; 95%CI: 0.09, 0.71) and had increased dypsnea (OR: 0.74; 95%CI: 0.59, 0.93) were less likely to prefer video over in-person. CONCLUSION: Patients expressed strong preference for video over in-person visits in the outpatient palliative care setting.

Stroke Risk After COVID-19 Bivalent Vaccination Among US Older Adults.

Importance: In January 2023, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the US Food and Drug Administration noted a safety concern for ischemic stroke among adults aged 65 years or older who received the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2; WT/OMI BA.4/BA.5 COVID-19 bivalent vaccine. Objective: To evaluate stroke risk after administration of (1) either brand of the COVID-19 bivalent vaccine, (2) either brand of the COVID-19 bivalent plus a high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccine on the same day (concomitant administration), and (3) a high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccine. Design, Setting, and Participants: Self-controlled case series including 11 001 Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older who experienced stroke after receiving either brand of the COVID-19 bivalent vaccine (among 5 397 278 vaccinated individuals). The study period was August 31, 2022, through February 4, 2023. Exposures: Receipt of (1) either brand of the COVID-19 bivalent vaccine (primary) or (2) a high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccine (secondary). Main Outcomes and Measures: Stroke risk (nonhemorrhagic stroke, transient ischemic attack, combined outcome of nonhemorrhagic stroke or transient ischemic attack, or hemorrhagic stroke) during the 1- to 21-day or 22- to 42-day risk window after vaccination vs the 43- to 90-day control window. Results: There were 5 397 278 Medicare beneficiaries who received either brand of the COVID-19 bivalent vaccine (median age, 74 years [IQR, 70-80 years]; 56% were women). Among the 11 001 beneficiaries who experienced stroke after receiving either brand of the COVID-19 bivalent vaccine, there were no statistically significant associations between either brand of the COVID-19 bivalent vaccine and the outcomes of nonhemorrhagic stroke, transient ischemic attack, nonhemorrhagic stroke or transient ischemic attack, or hemorrhagic stroke during the 1- to 21-day or 22- to 42-day risk window vs the 43- to 90-day control window (incidence rate ratio [IRR] range, 0.72-1.12). Among the 4596 beneficiaries who experienced stroke after concomitant administration of either brand of the COVID-19 bivalent vaccine plus a high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccine, there was a statistically significant association between vaccination and nonhemorrhagic stroke during the 22- to 42-day risk window for the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2; WT/OMI BA.4/BA.5 COVID-19 bivalent vaccine (IRR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.01-1.42]; risk difference/100 000 doses, 3.13 [95% CI, 0.05-6.22]) and a statistically significant association between vaccination and transient ischemic attack during the 1- to 21-day risk window for the Moderna mRNA-1273.222 COVID-19 bivalent vaccine (IRR, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.06-1.74]; risk difference/100 000 doses, 3.33 [95% CI, 0.46-6.20]). Among the 21 345 beneficiaries who experienced stroke after administration of a high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccine, there was a statistically significant association between vaccination and nonhemorrhagic stroke during the 22- to 42-day risk window (IRR, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.02-1.17]; risk difference/100 000 doses, 1.65 [95% CI, 0.43-2.87]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older who experienced stroke after receiving either brand of the COVID-19 bivalent vaccine, there was no evidence of a significantly elevated risk for stroke during the days immediately after vaccination.

Evolution of the data and methods in real-world COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness studies on mortality: a scoping review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Early evidence on COVID-19 vaccine efficacy came from randomised trials. Many important questions subsequently about vaccine effectiveness (VE) have been addressed using real-world studies (RWS) and have informed most vaccination policies globally. As the questions about VE have evolved during the pandemic so have data, study design, and analytical choices. This scoping review aims to characterise this evolution and provide insights for future pandemic planning-specifically, what kinds of questions are asked at different stages of a pandemic, and what data infrastructure and methods are used? METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will identify relevant studies in the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health VIEW-hub database, which curates both published and preprint VE RWS identified from PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, the WHO COVID Database, MMWR, Eurosurveillance, medRxiv, bioRxiv, SSRN, Europe PMC, Research Square, Knowledge Hub, and Google. We will include RWS of COVID-19 VE that reported COVID-19-specific or all-cause mortality (coded as 'death' in the 'effectiveness studies' data set).Information on study characteristics; study context; data sources; design and analytic methods that address confounding will be extracted by single reviewer and checked for accuracy and discussed in a small group setting by methodological and analytic experts. A timeline mapping approach will be used to capture the evolution of this body of literature.By describing the evolution of RWS of VE through the COVID-19 pandemic, we will help identify options for VE studies and inform policy makers on the minimal data and analytic infrastructure needed to support rapid RWS of VE in future pandemics and of healthcare strategies more broadly. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As data is in the public domain, ethical approval is not required. Findings of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations, and working-papers to policy makers. REGISTRATION: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/ZHDKR.