Bias-Adjusted Predictions of County-Level Vaccination Coverage from the COVID-19 Trends and Impact Survey.

BACKGROUND: The potential for selection bias in nonrepresentative, large-scale, low-cost survey data can limit their utility for population health measurement and public health decision making. We developed an approach to bias adjust county-level COVID-19 vaccination coverage predictions from the large-scale US COVID-19 Trends and Impact Survey. DESIGN: We developed a multistep regression framework to adjust for selection bias in predicted county-level vaccination coverage plateaus. Our approach included poststratification to the American Community Survey, adjusting for differences in observed covariates, and secondary normalization to an unbiased reference indicator. As a case study, we prospectively applied this framework to predict county-level long-run vaccination coverage among children ages 5 to 11 y. We evaluated our approach against an interim observed measure of 3-mo coverage for children ages 5 to 11 y and used long-term coverage estimates to monitor equity in the pace of vaccination scale up. RESULTS: Our predictions suggested a low ceiling on long-term national vaccination coverage (46%), detected substantial geographic heterogeneity (ranging from 11% to 91% across counties in the United States), and highlighted widespread disparities in the pace of scale up in the 3 mo following Emergency Use Authorization of COVID-19 vaccination for 5- to 11-y-olds. LIMITATIONS: We relied on historical relationships between vaccination hesitancy and observed coverage, which may not capture rapid changes in the COVID-19 policy and epidemiologic landscape. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis demonstrates an approach to leverage differing strengths of multiple sources of information to produce estimates on the time scale and geographic scale necessary for proactive decision making. IMPLICATIONS: Designing integrated health measurement systems that combine sources with different advantages across the spectrum of timeliness, spatial resolution, and representativeness can maximize the benefits of data collection relative to costs. HIGHLIGHTS: The COVID-19 pandemic catalyzed massive survey data collection efforts that prioritized timeliness and sample size over population representativeness.The potential for selection bias in these large-scale, low-cost, nonrepresentative data has led to questions about their utility for population health measurement.We developed a multistep regression framework to bias adjust county-level vaccination coverage predictions from the largest public health survey conducted in the United States to date: the US COVID-19 Trends and Impact Survey.Our study demonstrates the value of leveraging differing strengths of multiple data sources to generate estimates on the time scale and geographic scale necessary for proactive public health decision making.

An equity-focused approach to improving access to COVID-19 vaccination using mobile health clinics.

This article describes the implementation of an equity-focused strategy to increase the uptake of COVID-19 vaccination among communities of color and in traditionally underserved geographic areas using mobile health clinics (MHCs). The MHC Vaccination Program was implemented through a large integrated healthcare system in North Carolina using a grassroots development and engagement strategy along with a robust model for data-informed decision support to prioritize vulnerable communities. Several valuable lessons from this work can replicated for future outreach initiatives and community-based programming: •Health systems can no longer operate under the assumption that community members will come to them, particularly those experiencing compounding social and economic challenges. The MHC model had to be a proactive outreach to community members, rather than a responsive delivery mechanism. •Barriers to access included financial, legal, and logistical challenges, in addition to mistrust among historically underserved and marginalized communities. •A MHC model can be adaptable and responsive to data-informed decision-making approaches for targeted service delivery. •A MHC model is not a one-dimensional solution to access, but part of a broader strategy to create diverse points of entry into the healthcare system that fall within the rhythm of life of community members.

Twin pandemics, intertwined (intergroup) solutions: Support for mitigating racism benefits vaccine hesitancy.

The present research examines the potential that support for efforts aimed at mitigating systemic racism might have beneficial consequences related to vaccination attitudes (e.g., vaccine willingness). Specifically, the present research examines the hypothesis that Black Lives Matter (BLM) support is related to reduced vaccine hesitancy, and that prosocial intergroup attitudes are a theoretical mechanism. It tests these predictions across social group lines. Study 1 examined state-level indicators tied to BLM protests and discourse (i.e., Google searches, news reports) and COVID-19 vaccine attitudes among US adult racial/ethnic minority (N = 81,868) and White (N = 223,353) respondents. Then, Study 2 investigated, respondent-level, BLM support (measured at time 1) and general vaccine attitudes (measured at time 2) among US adult racial/ethnic minority (N = 1,756) and White (N = 4,994) respondents. It tested a theoretical process model that included prosocial intergroup attitudes as a mediator. Study 3 tested a replication of the theoretical mediation model using a different sample of US adult racial/ethnic minority (N = 2,931) and White (N = 6,904) respondents. Across studies and social groups (i.e., racial/ethnic minority and White respondents), as well as controlling for demographic and structural covariates, BLM support and state-level indicators were found to be related to lower vaccine hesitancy. And, Studies 2-3 provided some evidence that prosocial intergroup attitudes are a theoretical mechanism; the studies provided evidence of partial mediation. Holistically, the findings have the potential to advance understandings of how support and discourse related to BLM and/or other anti-racism efforts can be associated with positive public health outcomes such as reductions in vaccine hesitancy.

Serological response after anti-SARS-CoV-2 BNT162b2 vaccine in IBD patients on biological therapy: a monocentric case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients on biological therapy are receiving vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, it is unclear if IBD therapy could influence the response to this vaccine. In a case-control study, we assessed the antibody profiling after anti-SARS-CoV-2 BNT162b2 vaccine in IBD patients on biological therapy. METHODS: We analyzed seroprevalence and antibody titer, after 14 weeks from the first BNT162b2 vaccine dose, in IBD patients on biological therapy and health care workers (HCWs). In IBD patients, medical history and disease data were recorded. RESULTS: Eighty-two subjects were enrolled in this study. Among them, 40 were IBD patients on biological therapy and 42 were HCWs. All subjects developed an IgG anti-Spike antibody titer above the cut-off. IBD patients on biological therapy developed a lower antibody titer than HCWs (P<0.00001). No differences were reported in patients who received at least one dose of the vaccine within a period of 7 days from the last biological drug administration, compared to all other IBD patients. A difference was found between patients who were on concomitant immunosuppressive therapy and patients on sole biological therapy (P=0.0287). Patients with presence of any sign of disease activity (clinical, endoscopic or laboratory) showed a higher development of antibody titer compared to those in complete disease remission (P=0.0468). CONCLUSIONS: Our data indicate that in IBD patients, treatment with biological therapies do not affect the seroprevalence but leads to a lower antibody titer development after anti-SARS-CoV-2 BNT162b2 vaccine.

Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines on hospitalization and death in Guilan, Iran: a test-negative case-control study.

OBJECTIVES: The present study was conducted to estimate the effectiveness of (BBIBP)-CorV (Sinopharm), ChAdOx1-S/nCoV-19 (AZD1222, Oxford-AstraZeneca), rAd26-rAd5 (Gam-COVID-Vac, Sputnik V), and BIV1-CovIran (COVIran Barekat) and BBV152 COVAXIN (Bharat Biotech) vaccines against hospitalization and death of COVID-19 in Guilan Province of Iran from May 22 to December 21, 2021. METHODS: This test-negative case-control study was conducted on the population aged 5 years and above by extracting information from local databases (The Medical Care Monitoring Center and The Integrated Health System). A logistic regression analysis was performed to estimate the effectiveness of the vaccines against COVID-19 hospitalization and death. RESULTS: The total study population was 42,084, including 19,500 cases (with a positive Reverse Transcriptase-Polymerase Chain Reaction test admitted to hospitals in Guilan Province) and 22,586 controls (with a negative Reverse Transcriptase-Polymerase Chain Reaction test). Among the admitted patients, 1887 deaths occurred. The maximum effectiveness of BBIBP-CorV (Sinopharm) in preventing temporary hospitalization and regular hospitalization was observed 151 days after receiving the second dose, 95% (95% CI: 67-99.4%) and 85% (95% CI: 77-91%) respectively. The maximum effectiveness of the BBIBP-CorV (Sinopharm) vaccine 91-120 days after receiving the second dose against death was showed 56% (95% CI: 33-71%). The maximum effectiveness of ChAdOx1-S/nCoV-19 (AZD1222, Oxford-AstraZeneca) and BIV1-CovIran (COVIran Barekat) in preventing regular hospitalization and death was observed 121-150 and 61-90 days (respectively) after receiving the second dose, reaching 98% (95% CI: 94-99%) and 92% (95% CI: 48-99%), respectively for ChAdOx1-S/nCoV-19 and 95% (95% CI: 91-97%) and 89% (95% CI: 55-98%) respectively, for BIV1-CovIran. CONCLUSION: For almost all vaccines, the study observed an increase in effectiveness against hospitalization and death over time.

Use of complementary medicine and its association with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal cohort study.

AIMS OF THE STUDY: Patients are increasingly using and requesting complementary medicine therapies, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, it remains unclear whether they use them in conjunction with conventional medicine or to replace vaccination or other approaches and whether they discuss them with their physicians as part of shared decision-making. This study aimed to evaluate the use and initiation of complementary medicine during the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on the association between complementary medicine use and COVID-19 vaccination status. METHODS: This study is a part of the longitudinal cohort of the CoviCare program, which follows all outpatients tested for COVID-19 at the Geneva University Hospitals. Outpatients tested for COVID-19 were contacted 12 months after their positive or negative test between April and December 2021. Participants were asked about their vaccination status and if they had used complementary medicine in the past 12 months. Complementary medicine use was defined based on a specific list of therapies from which participants could choose the options they had used. Logistic regression models adjusting for age, sex, education, profession, severe acute respiratory system coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, and pre-existing conditions were used to evaluate the association between being unvaccinated and complementary medicine use. SARS-CoV-2 infection status was evaluated for effect modification in the association between being unvaccinated and complementary medicine use. RESULTS: This study enrolled 12,246 individuals (participation proportion = 17.7%). Their mean age was 42.8 years, 59.4% were women, and 63.7% used complementary medicine. Complementary medicine use was higher in women, the middle-aged, and those with a higher education level, a SARS-CoV-2 infection, or pre-existing comorbidities. A third of cases initiated complementary medicine therapies as prevention against COVID-19. Being unvaccinated was associated with complementary medicine use (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.22 [1.09-1.37]), and more specifically when these therapies were used for COVID-19 prevention (aOR 1.61 [1.22-2.12]). Being unvaccinated was associated with the use of zinc (aOR 2.25 [1.98-2.55]), vitamin D (aOR 1.45 [1.30-1.62]), and vitamin C (aOR 1.59 [1.42-1.78]), and more specifically when these therapies were used for COVID-19 prevention. Only 4% of participants discussed using complementary medicine with their primary care physicians. CONCLUSION: While complementary medicine is increasingly used, it is rarely discussed with primary care physicians. Complementary medicine use, especially for COVID-19 prevention, is associated with COVID-19 vaccination status. Communication between physicians, patients, and complementary medicine therapists is encouraged to facilitate a truly holistic approach to making a shared decision based on the best available information.

Acceptance of coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination among postpartum women during delivery hospitalization.

OBJECTIVE: The immediate postpartum period, during delivery hospitalization, represents a unique opportunity to offer coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination to those who did not previously receive it. In this study, we evaluated patient characteristics associated with acceptance of vaccination in this group. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study evaluated all unvaccinated patients who were offered postpartum COVID-19 vaccination during delivery hospitalization between May 2021 and September 2021 at seven hospitals within a large integrated health system in New York. During the study period, each hospitalized, unvaccinated obstetrical patient was offered the vaccine prior to discharge. Patients with positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing during hospitalization were excluded. Medical records were reviewed to obtain sociodemographic characteristics and to confirm administration of COVID-19 vaccination. Multiple logistic regression was performed to model the probability of receiving postpartum vaccination. RESULTS: A total of 8,281 unvaccinated postpartum patients were included for analysis and 412 (5%) received a COVID-19 vaccine before hospital discharge. Patients who received the vaccine were more likely to be older, have private insurance, decline to answer questions about religious affiliation, and deliver in the final two months of the study period. Likelihood of receiving postpartum vaccination was not affected by race-ethnicity, preferred language, marital status, parity, body mass index, or neighborhood socioeconomic conditions. Patients who declined vaccination were more likely to have positive SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing at delivery compared to those who received vaccination (49 vs. 29%; p < .001). CONCLUSION: Only 5% of unvaccinated postpartum patients received a COVID-19 vaccine before hospital discharge. It is concerning that patients with public health insurance were less likely to receive vaccination. This may be due to variation in vaccine counseling or other unmeasured factors. Despite the low acceptance rate in our study population, COVID-19 vaccination should be offered in a variety of clinical settings to maximize opportunities for administration.

Association of COVID-19 vs Influenza With Risk of Arterial and Venous Thrombotic Events Among Hospitalized Patients.

Importance: The incidence of arterial thromboembolism and venous thromboembolism in persons with COVID-19 remains unclear. Objective: To measure the 90-day risk of arterial thromboembolism and venous thromboembolism in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 before or during COVID-19 vaccine availability vs patients hospitalized with influenza. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study of 41 443 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 before vaccine availability (April-November 2020), 44 194 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 during vaccine availability (December 2020-May 2021), and 8269 patients hospitalized with influenza (October 2018-April 2019) in the US Food and Drug Administration Sentinel System (data from 2 national health insurers and 4 regional integrated health systems). Exposures: COVID-19 or influenza (identified by hospital diagnosis or nucleic acid test). Main Outcomes and Measures: Hospital diagnosis of arterial thromboembolism (acute myocardial infarction or ischemic stroke) and venous thromboembolism (deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism) within 90 days. Outcomes were ascertained through July 2019 for patients with influenza and through August 2021 for patients with COVID-19. Propensity scores with fine stratification were developed to account for differences between the influenza and COVID-19 cohorts. Weighted Cox regression was used to estimate the adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for outcomes during each COVID-19 vaccine availability period vs the influenza period. Results: A total of 85 637 patients with COVID-19 (mean age, 72 [SD, 13.0] years; 50.5% were male) and 8269 with influenza (mean age, 72 [SD, 13.3] years; 45.0% were male) were included. The 90-day absolute risk of arterial thromboembolism was 14.4% (95% CI, 13.6%-15.2%) in patients with influenza vs 15.8% (95% CI, 15.5%-16.2%) in patients with COVID-19 before vaccine availability (risk difference, 1.4% [95% CI, 1.0%-2.3%]) and 16.3% (95% CI, 16.0%-16.6%) in patients with COVID-19 during vaccine availability (risk difference, 1.9% [95% CI, 1.1%-2.7%]). Compared with patients with influenza, the risk of arterial thromboembolism was not significantly higher among patients with COVID-19 before vaccine availability (adjusted HR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.97-1.11]) or during vaccine availability (adjusted HR, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.00-1.14]). The 90-day absolute risk of venous thromboembolism was 5.3% (95% CI, 4.9%-5.8%) in patients with influenza vs 9.5% (95% CI, 9.2%-9.7%) in patients with COVID-19 before vaccine availability (risk difference, 4.1% [95% CI, 3.6%-4.7%]) and 10.9% (95% CI, 10.6%-11.1%) in patients with COVID-19 during vaccine availability (risk difference, 5.5% [95% CI, 5.0%-6.1%]). Compared with patients with influenza, the risk of venous thromboembolism was significantly higher among patients with COVID-19 before vaccine availability (adjusted HR, 1.60 [95% CI, 1.43-1.79]) and during vaccine availability (adjusted HR, 1.89 [95% CI, 1.68-2.12]). Conclusions and Relevance: Based on data from a US public health surveillance system, hospitalization with COVID-19 before and during vaccine availability, vs hospitalization with influenza in 2018-2019, was significantly associated with a higher risk of venous thromboembolism within 90 days, but there was no significant difference in the risk of arterial thromboembolism within 90 days.

Analysis of Postvaccination Breakthrough COVID-19 Infections Among Adults With HIV in the United States.

Importance: Recommendations for additional doses of COVID-19 vaccines for people with HIV (PWH) are restricted to those with advanced disease or unsuppressed HIV viral load. Understanding SARS-CoV-2 infection risk after vaccination among PWH is essential for informing vaccination guidelines. Objective: To estimate the rate and risk of breakthrough infections among fully vaccinated PWH and people without HIV (PWoH) in the United States. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used the Corona-Infectious-Virus Epidemiology Team (CIVET)-II (of the North American AIDS Cohort Collaboration on Research and Design [NA-ACCORD], which is part of the International Epidemiology Databases to Evaluate AIDS [IeDEA]), collaboration of 4 prospective, electronic health record-based cohorts from integrated health systems and academic health centers. Adult PWH who were fully vaccinated prior to June 30, 2021, were matched with PWoH on date of full vaccination, age, race and ethnicity, and sex and followed up through December 31, 2021. Exposures: HIV infection. Main Outcomes and Measures: COVID-19 breakthrough infections, defined as laboratory evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 diagnosis after a patient was fully vaccinated. Results: Among 113 994 patients (33 029 PWH and 80 965 PWoH), most were 55 years or older (80 017 [70%]) and male (104 967 [92%]); 47 098 (41%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 43 218 (38%) were non-Hispanic White. The rate of breakthrough infections was higher in PWH vs PWoH (55 [95% CI, 52-58] cases per 1000 person-years vs 43 [95% CI, 42-45] cases per 1000 person-years). Cumulative incidence of breakthroughs 9 months after full vaccination was low (3.8% [95% CI, 3.7%-3.9%]), albeit higher in PWH vs PWoH (4.4% vs 3.5%; log-rank P < .001; risk difference, 0.9% [95% CI, 0.6%-1.2%]) and within each vaccine type. Breakthrough infection risk was 28% higher in PWH vs PWoH (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.19-1.37]). Among PWH, younger age (<45 y vs 45-54 y), history of COVID-19, and not receiving an additional dose (aHR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.58-0.88]) were associated with increased risk of breakthrough infections. There was no association of breakthrough with HIV viral load suppression, but high CD4 count (ie, ≥500 cells/mm3) was associated with fewer breakthroughs among PWH. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, COVID-19 vaccination, especially with an additional dose, was effective against infection with SARS-CoV-2 strains circulating through December 31, 2021. PWH had an increased risk of breakthrough infections compared with PWoH. Expansion of recommendations for additional vaccine doses to all PWH should be considered.

Consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on lung cancer care and patient health in a German lung cancer center: results from a cross-sectional questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: The novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 has caused a global COVID-19 pandemic, leading to worldwide changes in public health measures. In addition to changes in the public sector (lockdowns, contact restrictions), hospitals modified care to minimize risk of infection and to mobilize resources for COVID-19 patients. Our study aimed to assess the impact of these measures on access to care and behaviour of patients with thoracic malignancies. METHODS: Thoracic oncology patients were surveyed in October 2020 using paper-based questionnaires to assess access to ambulatory care services and tumor-directed therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, behaviour regarding social distancing and wearing of face masks were assessed, as well as COVID-19 exposure, testing and vaccination. Results are presented as absolute and relative frequencies for categorical variables and means with standard deviation for numerical variables. We used t-test, and ANOVA to compare differences in metric variables and Chi2-test to compare proportions between groups. RESULTS: 93 of 245 (38%) patients surveyed completed the questionnaire. Respiration therapy and physical therapy were unavailable for 57% to 70% of patients during March/April. Appointments for tumor-directed therapy, tumor imaging, and follow-up care were postponed or cancelled for 18.9%, 13.6%, and 14.8% of patients, respectively. Patients reported their general health as mostly unaffected. The majority of patients surveyed did not report reducing their contacts with family. The majority reduced contact with friends. Most patients wore community masks, although a significant proportion reported respiratory difficulties during prolonged mask-wearing. 74 patients (80%) reported willingness to be vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. CONCLUSIONS: This survey provides insights into the patient experience during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Munich, Germany. Most patients reported no negative changes to cancer treatments or general health; however, allied health services were greatly impacted. Patients reported gaps in social distancing, but were prepared to wear community masks. The willingness to get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 was high. This information is not only of high relevance to policy makers, but also to health care providers.

Sex-tailored pharmacology and COVID-19: Next steps towards appropriateness and health equity.

Making gender bias visible allows to fill the gaps in knowledge and understand health records and risks of women and men. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has shown a clear gender difference in health outcomes. The more severe symptoms and higher mortality in men as compared to women are likely due to sex and age differences in immune responses. Age-associated decline in sex steroid hormone levels may mediate proinflammatory reactions in older adults, thereby increasing their risk of adverse outcomes, whereas sex hormones and/or sex hormone receptor modulators may attenuate the inflammatory response and provide benefit to COVID-19 patients. While multiple pharmacological options including anticoagulants, glucocorticoids, antivirals, anti-inflammatory agents and traditional Chinese medicine preparations have been tested to treat COVID-19 patients with varied levels of evidence in terms of efficacy and safety, information on sex-targeted treatment strategies is currently limited. Women may have more benefit from COVID-19 vaccines than men, despite the occurrence of more frequent adverse effects, and long-term safety data with newly developed vectors are eagerly awaited. The prevalent inclusion of men in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with subsequent extrapolation of results to women needs to be addressed, as reinforcing sex-neutral claims into COVID-19 research may insidiously lead to increased inequities in health care. The huge worldwide effort with over 3000 ongoing RCTs of pharmacological agents should focus on improving knowledge on sex, gender and age as pillars of individual variation in drug responses and enforce appropriateness.

Potential Therapeutic Targets and Vaccine Development for SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 Pandemic Management: A Review on the Recent Update.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a highly pathogenic novel virus that has caused a massive pandemic called coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) worldwide. Wuhan, a city in China became the epicenter of the outbreak of COVID-19 in December 2019. The disease was declared a pandemic globally by the World Health Organization (WHO) on 11 March 2020. SARS-CoV-2 is a beta CoV of the Coronaviridae family which usually causes respiratory symptoms that resemble common cold. Multiple countries have experienced multiple waves of the disease and scientific experts are consistently working to find answers to several unresolved questions, with the aim to find the most suitable ways to contain the virus. Furthermore, potential therapeutic strategies and vaccine development for COVID-19 management are also considered. Currently, substantial efforts have been made to develop successful and safe treatments and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Some vaccines, such as inactivated vaccines, nucleic acid-based, and vector-based vaccines, have entered phase 3 clinical trials. Additionally, diverse small molecule drugs, peptides and antibodies are being developed to treat COVID-19. We present here an overview of the virus interaction with the host and environment and anti-CoV therapeutic strategies; including vaccines and other methodologies, designed for prophylaxis and treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection with the hope that this integrative analysis could help develop novel therapeutic approaches against COVID-19.

A recommended paradigm for vaccination of rheumatic disease patients with the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.

Autoimmune and autoinflammatory rheumatic disorders (ARD) are treated with antimetabolites, calcineurin inhibitors and biologic agents either neutralizing cytokines [Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF), Interleukin (IL)-1, IL-6, IL-17, B-cell activating factor] or being directed against B-cells (anti-CD-20), costimulatory molecules or JAK kinases. Similarly for the influenza or pneumococcal vaccines, there is limited data on the effectiveness of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 prevention for this susceptible patient population. Moreover, preliminary data from vaccinated organ transplanted, inflammatory bowel and connective tissue disease patients suggests only limited immunogenicity after the first vaccine dose, particularly in patients on immunosuppressive regimens. Herein a set of recommendations for the vaccination of immune suppressed patients with the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is proposed aimed at achieving optimal vaccine benefit without interfering with disease activity status. Moreover, rare autoimmune adverse events related to vaccinations are discussed.

Chitosan, alginate, hyaluronic acid, gums, and ß-glucan as potent adjuvants and vaccine delivery systems for viral threats including SARS-CoV-2: A review.

Pathogen transmission is a widespread threat to global human health. Vaccines are very important during the outbreak of a pandemic. Destructive fractures caused by a sudden outbreak of COVID-19 have spurred vaccine production at an unprecedented rate. The strategy of an effective vaccine delivery system is opening up novel probabilities to make more immunization. Indeed, vaccination is the most successful way to prevent deaths from infectious diseases. In order to optimal immune response production or improvement in the effectiveness of vaccines, delivery systems or adjuvants are required. Natural polymers such as chitosan, alginate, hyaluronic acid, gums, and ß-glucan with antiviral activity have good potential as adjuvant or delivery systems for vaccine formulation development and design vaccine delivery devices. According to the antiviral performance and immunomodulation of these biopolymers, they will play significant characters in the anti-COVID-19 field. In this mini-review, the recent progress in vaccine development by using biopolymers is presented which, provides a reference for their research on anti-COVID-19 drugs and vaccines.