Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 10.356
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Immunity ; 54(7): 1353-1362, 2021 07 13.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34260880

RESUMO

Development COVID-19 vaccines in a record time has been an unprecedented global scientific achievement. However, the world has failed to ensure equitable access to what should have been a global public good. What options remain available to African countries to ensure immunization of their populations and ultimately overcome the pandemic?


Assuntos
Vacinas contra COVID-19/provisão & distribuição , Acessibilidade aos Serviços de Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , SARS-CoV-2/imunologia , África/epidemiologia , COVID-19/epidemiologia , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Vacinas contra COVID-19/administração & dosagem , Vacinas contra COVID-19/classificação , Saúde Global , Acessibilidade aos Serviços de Saúde/organização & administração , Acessibilidade aos Serviços de Saúde/tendências , Humanos , Vacinação/estatística & dados numéricos , Vacinação/tendências
2.
Nature ; 623(7987): 588-593, 2023 Nov.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37914928

RESUMO

How people recall the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is likely to prove crucial in future societal debates on pandemic preparedness and appropriate political action. Beyond simple forgetting, previous research suggests that recall may be distorted by strong motivations and anchoring perceptions on the current situation1-6. Here, using 4 studies across 11 countries (total n = 10,776), we show that recall of perceived risk, trust in institutions and protective behaviours depended strongly on current evaluations. Although both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals were affected by this bias, people who identified strongly with their vaccination status-whether vaccinated or unvaccinated-tended to exhibit greater and, notably, opposite distortions of recall. Biased recall was not reduced by providing information about common recall errors or small monetary incentives for accurate recall, but was partially reduced by high incentives. Thus, it seems that motivation and identity influence the direction in which the recall of the past is distorted. Biased recall was further related to the evaluation of past political action and future behavioural intent, including adhering to regulations during a future pandemic or punishing politicians and scientists. Together, the findings indicate that historical narratives about the COVID-19 pandemic are motivationally biased, sustain societal polarization and affect preparation for future pandemics. Consequently, future measures must look beyond immediate public-health implications to the longer-term consequences for societal cohesion and trust.


Assuntos
Atitude Frente a Saúde , COVID-19 , Rememoração Mental , Motivação , Pandemias , Preconceito , Saúde Pública , Humanos , COVID-19/epidemiologia , Pandemias/prevenção & controle , SARS-CoV-2 , Risco , Vacinas contra COVID-19 , Vacinação/estatística & dados numéricos , Saúde Pública/métodos , Saúde Pública/tendências , Política de Saúde , Confiança , Preconceito/psicologia , Política , Opinião Pública , Planejamento em Desastres/métodos , Planejamento em Desastres/tendências
3.
Nature ; 613(7945): 704-711, 2023 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36482134

RESUMO

During the COVID-19 pandemic, sizeable groups of unvaccinated people persist even in countries with high vaccine access1. As a consequence, vaccination became a controversial subject of debate and even protest2. Here we assess whether people express discriminatory attitudes in the form of negative affectivity, stereotypes and exclusionary attitudes in family and political settings across groups defined by COVID-19 vaccination status. We quantify discriminatory attitudes between vaccinated and unvaccinated citizens in 21 countries, covering a diverse set of cultures across the world. Across three conjoined experimental studies (n = 15,233), we demonstrate that vaccinated people express discriminatory attitudes towards unvaccinated individuals at a level as high as discriminatory attitudes that are commonly aimed at immigrant and minority populations3-5. By contrast, there is an absence of evidence that unvaccinated individuals display discriminatory attitudes towards vaccinated people, except for the presence of negative affectivity in Germany and the USA. We find evidence in support of discriminatory attitudes against unvaccinated individuals in all countries except for Hungary and Romania, and find that discriminatory attitudes are more strongly expressed in cultures with stronger cooperative norms. Previous research on the psychology of cooperation has shown that individuals react negatively against perceived 'free-riders'6,7, including in the domain of vaccinations8,9. Consistent with this, we find that contributors to the public good of epidemic control (that is, vaccinated individuals) react with discriminatory attitudes towards perceived free-riders (that is, unvaccinated individuals). National leaders and vaccinated members of the public appealed to moral obligations to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake10,11, but our findings suggest that discriminatory attitudes-including support for the removal of fundamental rights-simultaneously emerged.


Assuntos
Vacinas contra COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Conhecimentos, Atitudes e Prática em Saúde , Internacionalidade , Preconceito , Recusa de Vacinação , Vacinação , Humanos , Direitos Civis/psicologia , Comportamento Cooperativo , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , COVID-19/psicologia , Alemanha , Conhecimentos, Atitudes e Prática em Saúde/etnologia , Hungria , Obrigações Morais , Pandemias/prevenção & controle , Política , Preconceito/psicologia , Preconceito/estatística & dados numéricos , Romênia , Estereotipagem , Estados Unidos , Vacinação/psicologia , Vacinação/estatística & dados numéricos , Recusa de Vacinação/psicologia , Recusa de Vacinação/estatística & dados numéricos
4.
Nature ; 606(7914): 542-549, 2022 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35650433

RESUMO

The reluctance of people to get vaccinated represents a fundamental challenge to containing the spread of deadly infectious diseases1,2, including COVID-19. Identifying misperceptions that can fuel vaccine hesitancy and creating effective communication strategies to overcome them are a global public health priority3-5. Medical doctors are a trusted source of advice about vaccinations6, but media reports may create an inaccurate impression that vaccine controversy is prevalent among doctors, even when a broad consensus exists7,8. Here we show that public misperceptions about the views of doctors on the COVID-19 vaccines are widespread, and correcting them increases vaccine uptake. We implement a survey among 9,650 doctors in the Czech Republic and find that 90% of doctors trust the vaccines. Next, we show that 90% of respondents in a nationally representative sample (n = 2,101) underestimate doctors' trust; the most common belief is that only 50% of doctors trust the vaccines. Finally, we integrate randomized provision of information about the true views held by doctors into a longitudinal data collection that regularly monitors vaccination status over 9 months. The treatment recalibrates beliefs and leads to a persistent increase in vaccine uptake. The approach demonstrated in this paper shows how the engagement of professional medical associations, with their unparalleled capacity to elicit individual views of doctors on a large scale, can help to create a cheap, scalable intervention that has lasting positive impacts on health behaviour.


Assuntos
Vacinas contra COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Consenso , Educação em Saúde , Conhecimentos, Atitudes e Prática em Saúde , Médicos , Vacinação , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Vacinas contra COVID-19/administração & dosagem , República Tcheca , Comportamentos Relacionados com a Saúde , Humanos , Saúde Pública , Opinião Pública , Sociedades Médicas , Inquéritos e Questionários , Confiança , Vacinação/estatística & dados numéricos , Hesitação Vacinal/psicologia , Hesitação Vacinal/estatística & dados numéricos
5.
Nature ; 607(7918): 351-355, 2022 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35584773

RESUMO

SARS-CoV-2 Delta and Omicron are globally relevant variants of concern. Although individuals infected with Delta are at risk of developing severe lung disease, infection with Omicron often causes milder symptoms, especially in vaccinated individuals1,2. The question arises of whether widespread Omicron infections could lead to future cross-variant protection, accelerating the end of the pandemic. Here we show that without vaccination, infection with Omicron induces a limited humoral immune response in mice and humans. Sera from mice overexpressing the human ACE2 receptor and infected with Omicron neutralize only Omicron, but not other variants of concern, whereas broader cross-variant neutralization was observed after WA1 and Delta infections. Unlike WA1 and Delta, Omicron replicates to low levels in the lungs and brains of infected animals, leading to mild disease with reduced expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines and diminished activation of lung-resident T cells. Sera from individuals who were unvaccinated and infected with Omicron show the same limited neutralization of only Omicron itself. By contrast, Omicron breakthrough infections induce overall higher neutralization titres against all variants of concern. Our results demonstrate that Omicron infection enhances pre-existing immunity elicited by vaccines but, on its own, may not confer broad protection against non-Omicron variants in unvaccinated individuals.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Proteção Cruzada , SARS-CoV-2 , Vacinação , Animais , Anticorpos Neutralizantes/imunologia , Anticorpos Antivirais/imunologia , COVID-19/imunologia , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , COVID-19/virologia , Vacinas contra COVID-19/administração & dosagem , Proteção Cruzada/imunologia , Citocinas , Humanos , Camundongos , SARS-CoV-2/classificação , SARS-CoV-2/imunologia , Vacinação/estatística & dados numéricos
6.
Nature ; 607(7918): 356-359, 2022 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35523247

RESUMO

The extent to which Omicron infection1-9, with or without previous vaccination, elicits protection against the previously dominant Delta (B.1.617.2) variant is unclear. Here we measured the neutralization capacity against variants of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in 39 individuals in South Africa infected with the Omicron sublineage BA.1 starting at a median of 6 (interquartile range 3-9) days post symptom onset and continuing until last follow-up sample available, a median of 23 (interquartile range 19-27) days post symptoms to allow BA.1-elicited neutralizing immunity time to develop. Fifteen participants were vaccinated with Pfizer's BNT162b2 or Johnson & Johnson's Ad26.CoV2.S and had BA.1 breakthrough infections, and 24 were unvaccinated. BA.1 neutralization increased from a geometric mean 50% focus reduction neutralization test titre of 42 at enrolment to 575 at the last follow-up time point (13.6-fold) in vaccinated participants and from 46 to 272 (6.0-fold) in unvaccinated participants. Delta virus neutralization also increased, from 192 to 1,091 (5.7-fold) in vaccinated participants and from 28 to 91 (3.0-fold) in unvaccinated participants. At the last time point, unvaccinated individuals infected with BA.1 had low absolute levels of neutralization for the non-BA.1 viruses and 2.2-fold lower BA.1 neutralization, 12.0-fold lower Delta neutralization, 9.6-fold lower Beta variant neutralization, 17.9-fold lower ancestral virus neutralization and 4.8-fold lower Omicron sublineage BA.2 neutralization relative to vaccinated individuals infected with BA.1. These results indicate that hybrid immunity formed by vaccination and Omicron BA.1 infection should be protective against Delta and other variants. By contrast, infection with Omicron BA.1 alone offers limited cross-protection despite moderate enhancement.


Assuntos
Anticorpos Neutralizantes , Anticorpos Antivirais , Vacinas contra COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Proteção Cruzada , SARS-CoV-2 , Vacinação , Ad26COVS1/imunologia , Anticorpos Neutralizantes/imunologia , Anticorpos Antivirais/imunologia , Vacina BNT162/imunologia , COVID-19/imunologia , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , COVID-19/virologia , Vacinas contra COVID-19/imunologia , Proteção Cruzada/imunologia , Humanos , SARS-CoV-2/classificação , SARS-CoV-2/genética , SARS-CoV-2/imunologia , Vacinação/estatística & dados numéricos
7.
Nature ; 589(7842): 415-419, 2021 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33328634

RESUMO

The safe, highly effective measles vaccine has been recommended globally since 1974, yet in 2017 there were more than 17 million cases of measles and 83,400 deaths in children under 5 years old, and more than 99% of both occurred in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)1-4. Globally comparable, annual, local estimates of routine first-dose measles-containing vaccine (MCV1) coverage are critical for understanding geographically precise immunity patterns, progress towards the targets of the Global Vaccine Action Plan (GVAP), and high-risk areas amid disruptions to vaccination programmes caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)5-8. Here we generated annual estimates of routine childhood MCV1 coverage at 5 × 5-km2 pixel and second administrative levels from 2000 to 2019 in 101 LMICs, quantified geographical inequality and assessed vaccination status by geographical remoteness. After widespread MCV1 gains from 2000 to 2010, coverage regressed in more than half of the districts between 2010 and 2019, leaving many LMICs far from the GVAP goal of 80% coverage in all districts by 2019. MCV1 coverage was lower in rural than in urban locations, although a larger proportion of unvaccinated children overall lived in urban locations; strategies to provide essential vaccination services should address both geographical contexts. These results provide a tool for decision-makers to strengthen routine MCV1 immunization programmes and provide equitable disease protection for all children.


Assuntos
Países Desenvolvidos/estatística & dados numéricos , Mapeamento Geográfico , Sarampo/epidemiologia , Sarampo/prevenção & controle , Vacinação/estatística & dados numéricos , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Disparidades em Assistência à Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Internacionalidade , Sarampo/imunologia , Saúde da População Rural/estatística & dados numéricos , Incerteza , Saúde da População Urbana/estatística & dados numéricos , Recusa de Vacinação/estatística & dados numéricos
8.
Nature ; 597(7876): 404-409, 2021 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34340242

RESUMO

Enhancing vaccine uptake is a critical public health challenge1. Overcoming vaccine hesitancy2,3 and failure to follow through on vaccination intentions3 requires effective communication strategies3,4. Here we present two sequential randomized controlled trials to test the effect of behavioural interventions on the uptake of COVID-19 vaccines. We designed text-based reminders that make vaccination salient and easy, and delivered them to participants drawn from a healthcare system one day (first randomized controlled trial) (n = 93,354 participants; clinicaltrials number NCT04800965) and eight days (second randomized controlled trial) (n = 67,092 individuals; clinicaltrials number NCT04801524) after they received a notification of vaccine eligibility. The first reminder boosted appointment and vaccination rates within the healthcare system by 6.07 (84%) and 3.57 (26%) percentage points, respectively; the second reminder increased those outcomes by 1.65 and 1.06 percentage points, respectively. The first reminder had a greater effect when it was designed to make participants feel ownership of the vaccine dose. However, we found no evidence that combining the first reminder with a video-based information intervention designed to address vaccine hesitancy heightened its effect. We performed online studies (n = 3,181 participants) to examine vaccination intentions, which revealed patterns that diverged from those of the first randomized controlled trial; this underscores the importance of pilot-testing interventions in the field. Our findings inform the design of behavioural nudges for promoting health decisions5, and highlight the value of making vaccination easy and inducing feelings of ownership over vaccines.


Assuntos
Agendamento de Consultas , Vacinas contra COVID-19/administração & dosagem , Comportamentos Relacionados com a Saúde , Programas de Imunização/métodos , Propriedade , Vacinação/psicologia , Vacinação/estatística & dados numéricos , Adulto , Idoso , California , Feminino , Humanos , Intenção , Estimativa de Kaplan-Meier , Masculino , Saúde Pública , Sistemas de Alerta
9.
Nature ; 600(7890): 701-706, 2021 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34673755

RESUMO

Following severe adverse reactions to the AstraZeneca ChAdOx1-S-nCoV-19 vaccine1,2, European health authorities recommended that patients under the age of 55 years who received one dose of ChAdOx1-S-nCoV-19 receive a second dose of the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine as a booster. However, the effectiveness and the immunogenicity of this vaccination regimen have not been formally tested. Here we show that the heterologous ChAdOx1-S-nCoV-19 and BNT162b2 combination confers better protection against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection than the homologous BNT162b2 and BNT162b2 combination in a real-world observational study of healthcare workers (n = 13,121). To understand the underlying mechanism, we conducted a longitudinal survey of the anti-spike immunity conferred by each vaccine combination. Both combinations induced strong anti-spike antibody responses, but sera from heterologous vaccinated individuals displayed a stronger neutralizing activity regardless of the SARS-CoV-2 variant. This enhanced neutralizing potential correlated with increased frequencies of switched and activated memory B cells that recognize the SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain. The ChAdOx1-S-nCoV-19 vaccine induced a weaker IgG response but a stronger T cell response than the BNT162b2 vaccine after the priming dose, which could explain the complementarity of both vaccines when used in combination. The heterologous vaccination regimen could therefore be particularly suitable for immunocompromised individuals.


Assuntos
Vacina BNT162/administração & dosagem , Vacina BNT162/imunologia , COVID-19/imunologia , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , ChAdOx1 nCoV-19/administração & dosagem , ChAdOx1 nCoV-19/imunologia , SARS-CoV-2/imunologia , Vacinação/estatística & dados numéricos , Adulto , Anticorpos Neutralizantes/sangue , Anticorpos Neutralizantes/imunologia , Feminino , França/epidemiologia , Hospitais Universitários , Humanos , Memória Imunológica/imunologia , Incidência , Masculino , Células B de Memória/imunologia , Células T de Memória/imunologia , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Glicoproteína da Espícula de Coronavírus/imunologia
10.
Nature ; 600(7890): 695-700, 2021 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34880504

RESUMO

Surveys are a crucial tool for understanding public opinion and behaviour, and their accuracy depends on maintaining statistical representativeness of their target populations by minimizing biases from all sources. Increasing data size shrinks confidence intervals but magnifies the effect of survey bias: an instance of the Big Data Paradox1. Here we demonstrate this paradox in estimates of first-dose COVID-19 vaccine uptake in US adults from 9 January to 19 May 2021 from two large surveys: Delphi-Facebook2,3 (about 250,000 responses per week) and Census Household Pulse4 (about 75,000 every two weeks). In May 2021, Delphi-Facebook overestimated uptake by 17 percentage points (14-20 percentage points with 5% benchmark imprecision) and Census Household Pulse by 14 (11-17 percentage points with 5% benchmark imprecision), compared to a retroactively updated benchmark the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published on 26 May 2021. Moreover, their large sample sizes led to miniscule margins of error on the incorrect estimates. By contrast, an Axios-Ipsos online panel5 with about 1,000 responses per week following survey research best practices6 provided reliable estimates and uncertainty quantification. We decompose observed error using a recent analytic framework1 to explain the inaccuracy in the three surveys. We then analyse the implications for vaccine hesitancy and willingness. We show how a survey of 250,000 respondents can produce an estimate of the population mean that is no more accurate than an estimate from a simple random sample of size 10. Our central message is that data quality matters more than data quantity, and that compensating the former with the latter is a mathematically provable losing proposition.


Assuntos
Vacinas contra COVID-19/administração & dosagem , Pesquisas sobre Atenção à Saúde , Vacinação/estatística & dados numéricos , Benchmarking , Viés , Big Data , COVID-19/epidemiologia , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Conjuntos de Dados como Assunto/normas , Feminino , Pesquisas sobre Atenção à Saúde/normas , Humanos , Masculino , Projetos de Pesquisa , Tamanho da Amostra , Mídias Sociais , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Hesitação Vacinal/estatística & dados numéricos
11.
Lancet ; 403(10441): 2307-2316, 2024 May 25.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38705159

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: WHO, as requested by its member states, launched the Expanded Programme on Immunization (EPI) in 1974 to make life-saving vaccines available to all globally. To mark the 50-year anniversary of EPI, we sought to quantify the public health impact of vaccination globally since the programme's inception. METHODS: In this modelling study, we used a suite of mathematical and statistical models to estimate the global and regional public health impact of 50 years of vaccination against 14 pathogens in EPI. For the modelled pathogens, we considered coverage of all routine and supplementary vaccines delivered since 1974 and estimated the mortality and morbidity averted for each age cohort relative to a hypothetical scenario of no historical vaccination. We then used these modelled outcomes to estimate the contribution of vaccination to globally declining infant and child mortality rates over this period. FINDINGS: Since 1974, vaccination has averted 154 million deaths, including 146 million among children younger than 5 years of whom 101 million were infants younger than 1 year. For every death averted, 66 years of full health were gained on average, translating to 10·2 billion years of full health gained. We estimate that vaccination has accounted for 40% of the observed decline in global infant mortality, 52% in the African region. In 2024, a child younger than 10 years is 40% more likely to survive to their next birthday relative to a hypothetical scenario of no historical vaccination. Increased survival probability is observed even well into late adulthood. INTERPRETATION: Since 1974 substantial gains in childhood survival have occurred in every global region. We estimate that EPI has provided the single greatest contribution to improved infant survival over the past 50 years. In the context of strengthening primary health care, our results show that equitable universal access to immunisation remains crucial to sustain health gains and continue to save future lives from preventable infectious mortality. FUNDING: WHO.


Assuntos
Mortalidade da Criança , Programas de Imunização , Vacinação , Humanos , Lactente , Pré-Escolar , Vacinação/estatística & dados numéricos , Mortalidade da Criança/tendências , Mortalidade Infantil/tendências , Criança , Saúde Global , Recém-Nascido , Adulto , Adolescente , História do Século XX , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Modelos Estatísticos , Saúde Pública , Adulto Jovem
12.
N Engl J Med ; 387(2): 109-119, 2022 07 14.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35731908

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Infants younger than 6 months of age are at high risk for complications of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) and are not eligible for vaccination. Transplacental transfer of antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) after maternal Covid-19 vaccination may confer protection against Covid-19 in infants. METHODS: We used a case-control test-negative design to assess the effectiveness of maternal vaccination during pregnancy against hospitalization for Covid-19 among infants younger than 6 months of age. Between July 1, 2021, and March 8, 2022, we enrolled infants hospitalized for Covid-19 (case infants) and infants hospitalized without Covid-19 (control infants) at 30 hospitals in 22 states. We estimated vaccine effectiveness by comparing the odds of full maternal vaccination (two doses of mRNA vaccine) among case infants and control infants during circulation of the B.1.617.2 (delta) variant (July 1, 2021, to December 18, 2021) and the B.1.1.259 (omicron) variant (December 19, 2021, to March 8, 2022). RESULTS: A total of 537 case infants (181 of whom had been admitted to a hospital during the delta period and 356 during the omicron period; median age, 2 months) and 512 control infants were enrolled and included in the analyses; 16% of the case infants and 29% of the control infants had been born to mothers who had been fully vaccinated against Covid-19 during pregnancy. Among the case infants, 113 (21%) received intensive care (64 [12%] received mechanical ventilation or vasoactive infusions). Two case infants died from Covid-19; neither infant's mother had been vaccinated during pregnancy. The effectiveness of maternal vaccination against hospitalization for Covid-19 among infants was 52% (95% confidence interval [CI], 33 to 65) overall, 80% (95% CI, 60 to 90) during the delta period, and 38% (95% CI, 8 to 58) during the omicron period. Effectiveness was 69% (95% CI, 50 to 80) when maternal vaccination occurred after 20 weeks of pregnancy and 38% (95% CI, 3 to 60) during the first 20 weeks of pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: Maternal vaccination with two doses of mRNA vaccine was associated with a reduced risk of hospitalization for Covid-19, including for critical illness, among infants younger than 6 months of age. (Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.).


Assuntos
Vacinas contra COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Hospitalização , Complicações Infecciosas na Gravidez , Vacinas de mRNA , COVID-19/epidemiologia , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Vacinas contra COVID-19/efeitos adversos , Vacinas contra COVID-19/uso terapêutico , Feminino , Hospitalização/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Lactente , Mães , Gravidez , Complicações Infecciosas na Gravidez/epidemiologia , Complicações Infecciosas na Gravidez/prevenção & controle , SARS-CoV-2 , Vacinação/estatística & dados numéricos , Vacinas Sintéticas , Vacinas de mRNA/efeitos adversos , Vacinas de mRNA/uso terapêutico
13.
Nature ; 569(7758): 663-671, 2019 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31142858

RESUMO

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) is a growing health problem, but little is known about its early disease stages, its effects on biological processes or the transition to clinical T2D. To understand the earliest stages of T2D better, we obtained samples from 106 healthy individuals and individuals with prediabetes over approximately four years and performed deep profiling of transcriptomes, metabolomes, cytokines, and proteomes, as well as changes in the microbiome. This rich longitudinal data set revealed many insights: first, healthy profiles are distinct among individuals while displaying diverse patterns of intra- and/or inter-personal variability. Second, extensive host and microbial changes occur during respiratory viral infections and immunization, and immunization triggers potentially protective responses that are distinct from responses to respiratory viral infections. Moreover, during respiratory viral infections, insulin-resistant participants respond differently than insulin-sensitive participants. Third, global co-association analyses among the thousands of profiled molecules reveal specific host-microbe interactions that differ between insulin-resistant and insulin-sensitive individuals. Last, we identified early personal molecular signatures in one individual that preceded the onset of T2D, including the inflammation markers interleukin-1 receptor agonist (IL-1RA) and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (CRP) paired with xenobiotic-induced immune signalling. Our study reveals insights into pathways and responses that differ between glucose-dysregulated and healthy individuals during health and disease and provides an open-access data resource to enable further research into healthy, prediabetic and T2D states.


Assuntos
Biomarcadores/metabolismo , Biologia Computacional , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/microbiologia , Microbioma Gastrointestinal , Interações entre Hospedeiro e Microrganismos/genética , Estado Pré-Diabético/microbiologia , Proteoma/metabolismo , Transcriptoma , Adulto , Idoso , Antibacterianos/administração & dosagem , Biomarcadores/análise , Estudos de Coortes , Conjuntos de Dados como Assunto , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/genética , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/metabolismo , Feminino , Glucose/metabolismo , Voluntários Saudáveis , Humanos , Inflamação/metabolismo , Vacinas contra Influenza/imunologia , Insulina/metabolismo , Resistência à Insulina , Estudos Longitudinais , Masculino , Microbiota/fisiologia , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estado Pré-Diabético/genética , Estado Pré-Diabético/metabolismo , Infecções Respiratórias/genética , Infecções Respiratórias/metabolismo , Infecções Respiratórias/microbiologia , Infecções Respiratórias/virologia , Estresse Fisiológico , Vacinação/estatística & dados numéricos
14.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A ; 119(6)2022 02 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35105809

RESUMO

Encouraging vaccination is a pressing policy problem. To assess whether text-based reminders can encourage pharmacy vaccination and what kinds of messages work best, we conducted a megastudy. We randomly assigned 689,693 Walmart pharmacy patients to receive one of 22 different text reminders using a variety of different behavioral science principles to nudge flu vaccination or to a business-as-usual control condition that received no messages. We found that the reminder texts that we tested increased pharmacy vaccination rates by an average of 2.0 percentage points, or 6.8%, over a 3-mo follow-up period. The most-effective messages reminded patients that a flu shot was waiting for them and delivered reminders on multiple days. The top-performing intervention included two texts delivered 3 d apart and communicated to patients that a vaccine was "waiting for you." Neither experts nor lay people anticipated that this would be the best-performing treatment, underscoring the value of simultaneously testing many different nudges in a highly powered megastudy.


Assuntos
Programas de Imunização , Vacinas contra Influenza/administração & dosagem , Farmácias , Vacinação/métodos , Idoso , COVID-19 , Feminino , Humanos , Influenza Humana/prevenção & controle , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Farmácias/estatística & dados numéricos , Sistemas de Alerta , Envio de Mensagens de Texto , Vacinação/estatística & dados numéricos
15.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A ; 119(3)2022 01 18.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35012976

RESUMO

COVID-19 remains a stark health threat worldwide, in part because of minimal levels of targeted vaccination outside high-income countries and highly transmissible variants causing infection in vaccinated individuals. Decades of theoretical and experimental data suggest that nonspecific effects of non-COVID-19 vaccines may help bolster population immunological resilience to new pathogens. These routine vaccinations can stimulate heterologous cross-protective effects, which modulate nontargeted infections. For example, immunization with Bacillus Calmette-Guérin, inactivated influenza vaccine, oral polio vaccine, and other vaccines have been associated with some protection from SARS-CoV-2 infection and amelioration of COVID-19 disease. If heterologous vaccine interventions (HVIs) are to be seriously considered by policy makers as bridging or boosting interventions in pandemic settings to augment nonpharmaceutical interventions and specific vaccination efforts, evidence is needed to determine their optimal implementation. Using the COVID-19 International Modeling Consortium mathematical model, we show that logistically realistic HVIs with low (5 to 15%) effectiveness could have reduced COVID-19 cases, hospitalization, and mortality in the United States fall/winter 2020 wave. Similar to other mass drug administration campaigns (e.g., for malaria), HVI impact is highly dependent on both age targeting and intervention timing in relation to incidence, with maximal benefit accruing from implementation across the widest age cohort when the pandemic reproduction number is >1.0. Optimal HVI logistics therefore differ from optimal rollout parameters for specific COVID-19 immunizations. These results may be generalizable beyond COVID-19 and the US to indicate how even minimally effective heterologous immunization campaigns could reduce the burden of future viral pandemics.


Assuntos
Vacinas contra COVID-19/imunologia , COVID-19/imunologia , Modelos Teóricos , SARS-CoV-2/imunologia , Estações do Ano , Vacinação/métodos , Algoritmos , Vacina BCG/administração & dosagem , Vacina BCG/imunologia , COVID-19/epidemiologia , COVID-19/virologia , Vacinas contra COVID-19/administração & dosagem , Mortalidade Hospitalar , Hospitalização/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva/estatística & dados numéricos , Pandemias/prevenção & controle , Admissão do Paciente/estatística & dados numéricos , SARS-CoV-2/fisiologia , Taxa de Sobrevida , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Vacinação/estatística & dados numéricos
16.
Emerg Infect Dis ; 30(5): 916-925, 2024 May.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38573160

RESUMO

During the 2022 multicountry mpox outbreak, the United Kingdom identified cases beginning in May. UK cases increased in June, peaked in July, then rapidly declined after September 2022. Public health responses included community-supported messaging and targeted mpox vaccination among eligible gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM). Using data from an online survey of GBMSM during November-December 2022, we examined self-reported mpox diagnoses, behavioral risk modification, and mpox vaccination offer and uptake. Among 1,333 participants, only 35 (2.6%) ever tested mpox-positive, but 707 (53%) reported behavior modification to avoid mpox. Among vaccine-eligible GBMSM, uptake was 69% (95% CI 65%-72%; 601/875) and was 92% (95% CI 89%-94%; 601/655) among those offered vaccine. GBMSM self-identifying as bisexual, reporting lower educational qualifications, or identifying as unemployed were less likely to be vaccinated. Equitable offer and provision of mpox vaccine are needed to minimize the risk for future outbreaks and mpox-related health inequalities.


Assuntos
Homossexualidade Masculina , Vacinação , Humanos , Masculino , Reino Unido/epidemiologia , Adulto , Homossexualidade Masculina/estatística & dados numéricos , Vacinação/estatística & dados numéricos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Adulto Jovem , Minorias Sexuais e de Gênero/estatística & dados numéricos , Adolescente , Surtos de Doenças/prevenção & controle , Comportamento de Redução do Risco , Inquéritos e Questionários , Bissexualidade
17.
Emerg Infect Dis ; 30(5): 947-955, 2024 May.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38666615

RESUMO

During December 11, 2020-March 29, 2022, the US government delivered ≈700 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine to vaccination sites, resulting in vaccination of ≈75% of US adults during that period. We evaluated accessibility of vaccination sites. Sites were accessible by walking within 15 minutes by 46.6% of persons, 30 minutes by 74.8%, 45 minutes by 82.8%, and 60 minutes by 86.7%. When limited to populations in counties with high social vulnerability, accessibility by walking was 55.3%, 81.1%, 86.7%, and 89.4%, respectively. By driving, lowest accessibility was 96.5% at 15 minutes. For urban/rural categories, the 15-minute walking accessibility between noncore and large central metropolitan areas ranged from 27.2% to 65.1%; driving accessibility was 79.9% to 99.5%. By 30 minutes driving accessibility for all urban/rural categories was >95.9%. Walking time variations across jurisdictions and between urban/rural areas indicate that potential gains could have been made by improving walkability or making transportation more readily available.


Assuntos
Vacinas contra COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Acessibilidade aos Serviços de Saúde , SARS-CoV-2 , Vacinação , Humanos , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , COVID-19/epidemiologia , Vacinas contra COVID-19/administração & dosagem , SARS-CoV-2/imunologia , Acessibilidade aos Serviços de Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Vacinação/estatística & dados numéricos , População Rural , Caminhada , População Urbana
18.
Br J Cancer ; 130(12): 1951-1959, 2024 Jun.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38643338

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Experts have proposed an 'EVEN FASTER' concept targeting age-groups maintaining circulation of human papillomavirus (HPV). We explored effects of the vaccination component of these proposals compared with cervical cancer (CC) screening-based interventions on age-standardized incidence rate (ASR) and CC elimination (<4 cases/100,000) timing in Norway. METHODS: We used a model-based approach to evaluate HPV vaccination and CC screening scenarios compared with a status-quo scenario reflecting previous vaccination and screening. For cohorts ages 25-30 years, we examined 6 vaccination scenarios that incrementally increased vaccination coverage from current cohort-specific rates. Each vaccination scenario was coupled with three screening strategies that varied screening frequency. Additionally, we included 4 scenarios that alternatively increased screening adherence. Population- and cohort-level outcomes included ASR, lifetime risk of CC, and colposcopy referrals. RESULTS: Several vaccination strategies coupled with de-intensified screening frequencies lowered ASR, but did not accelerate CC elimination. Alternative strategies that increased screening adherence could both accelerate elimination and improve ASR. CONCLUSIONS: The vaccination component of an 'EVEN FASTER' campaign is unlikely to accelerate CC elimination in Norway but may reduce population-level ASR. Alternatively, targeting under- and never-screeners may both eliminate CC faster and lead to greater health benefits compared with vaccination-based interventions we considered.


Assuntos
Detecção Precoce de Câncer , Infecções por Papillomavirus , Vacinas contra Papillomavirus , Neoplasias do Colo do Útero , Vacinação , Humanos , Neoplasias do Colo do Útero/prevenção & controle , Neoplasias do Colo do Útero/epidemiologia , Neoplasias do Colo do Útero/diagnóstico , Neoplasias do Colo do Útero/virologia , Noruega/epidemiologia , Feminino , Detecção Precoce de Câncer/métodos , Adulto , Vacinas contra Papillomavirus/administração & dosagem , Infecções por Papillomavirus/prevenção & controle , Infecções por Papillomavirus/epidemiologia , Vacinação/estatística & dados numéricos , Incidência , Programas de Rastreamento/métodos
19.
BMC Med ; 22(1): 186, 2024 May 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38702767

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Migrants in the UK and Europe face vulnerability to vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs) due to missed childhood vaccines and doses and marginalisation from health systems. Ensuring migrants receive catch-up vaccinations, including MMR, Td/IPV, MenACWY, and HPV, is essential to align them with UK and European vaccination schedules and ultimately reduce morbidity and mortality. However, recent evidence highlights poor awareness and implementation of catch-up vaccination guidelines by UK primary care staff, requiring novel approaches to strengthen the primary care pathway. METHODS: The 'Vacc on Track' study (May 2021-September 2022) aimed to measure under-vaccination rates among migrants in UK primary care and establish new referral pathways for catch-up vaccination. Participants included migrants aged 16 or older, born outside of Western Europe, North America, Australia, or New Zealand, in two London boroughs. Quantitative data on vaccination history, referral, uptake, and sociodemographic factors were collected, with practice nurses prompted to deliver catch-up vaccinations following UK guidelines. Focus group discussions and in-depth interviews with staff and migrants explored views on delivering catch-up vaccination, including barriers, facilitators, and opportunities. Data were analysed using STATA12 and NVivo 12. RESULTS: Results from 57 migrants presenting to study sites from 18 countries (mean age 41 [SD 7.2] years; 62% female; mean 11.3 [SD 9.1] years in UK) over a minimum of 6 months of follow-up revealed significant catch-up vaccination needs, particularly for MMR (49 [86%] required catch-up vaccination) and Td/IPV (50 [88%]). Fifty-three (93%) participants were referred for any catch-up vaccination, but completion of courses was low (6 [12%] for Td/IPV and 33 [64%] for MMR), suggesting individual and systemic barriers. Qualitative in-depth interviews (n = 39) with adult migrants highlighted the lack of systems currently in place in the UK to offer catch-up vaccination to migrants on arrival and the need for health-care provider skills and knowledge of catch-up vaccination to be improved. Focus group discussions and interviews with practice staff (n = 32) identified limited appointment/follow-up time, staff knowledge gaps, inadequate engagement routes, and low incentivisation as challenges that will need to be addressed. However, they underscored the potential of staff champions, trust-building mechanisms, and community-based approaches to strengthen catch-up vaccination uptake among migrants. CONCLUSIONS: Given the significant catch-up vaccination needs of migrants in our sample, and the current barriers to driving uptake identified, our findings suggest it will be important to explore this public health issue further, potentially through a larger study or trial. Strengthening existing pathways, staff capacity and knowledge in primary care, alongside implementing new strategies centred on cultural competence and building trust with migrant communities will be important focus areas.


Assuntos
Medicina Geral , Migrantes , Vacinação , Humanos , Projetos Piloto , Masculino , Adolescente , Feminino , Adulto , Reino Unido , Adulto Jovem , Vacinação/estatística & dados numéricos , Medicina Geral/estatística & dados numéricos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade
20.
Am Heart J ; 272: 23-36, 2024 Jun.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38460754

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Yearly influenza vaccination is strongly recommended for older adults and patients with chronic diseases including cardiovascular disease (CVD); however, vaccination rates remain suboptimal, particularly among younger patients. Electronic letters incorporating behavioral nudges are highly scalable public health interventions which can potentially increase vaccination, but further research is needed to determine the most effective strategies and to assess effectiveness across different populations. The purpose of NUDGE-FLU-CHRONIC and NUDGE-FLU-2 are to evaluate the effectiveness of electronic nudges delivered via the Danish governmental electronic letter system in increasing influenza vaccination among patients with chronic diseases and older adults, respectively. METHODS: Both trials are designed as pragmatic randomized implementation trials enrolling all Danish citizens in their respective target groups and conducted during the 2023/2024 influenza season. NUDGE-FLU-CHRONIC enrolls patients aged 18-64 years with chronic diseases. NUDGE-FLU-2 builds upon the NUDGE-FLU trial conducted in 2022/2023 and aims to expand the evidence by testing both previously successful and new nudges among adults ≥65 years during a subsequent influenza season. Persons with exemptions from the electronic letter system are excluded from both trials. In both trials, participants are randomized in a 2.45:1:1:1:1:1:1 ratio to either receive no electronic letter (usual care) or to receive one of 6 different behaviorally informed electronic letters. NUDGE-FLU-CHRONIC has randomized 299,881 participants with intervention letters delivered on September 24, 2023, while NUDGE-FLU-2 has randomized 881,373 participants and delivered intervention letters on September 13, 2023. Follow-up is currently ongoing. In both trials, the primary endpoint is receipt of influenza vaccination on or before January 1, 2024, and the secondary endpoint is time to vaccination. Clinical outcomes including respiratory and cardiovascular hospitalizations, all-cause hospitalization, and mortality are included as prespecified exploratory endpoints. Prespecified individual-level pooled analyses will be conducted across NUDGE-FLU, NUDGE-FLU-CHRONIC, and NUDGE-FLU-2. DISCUSSION: NUDGE-FLU-CHRONIC is the first nationwide randomized trial of electronic nudges to increase influenza vaccination conducted among 18-64-year-old high-risk patients with chronic diseases. NUDGE-FLU-2 will provide further evidence on the effectiveness of electronic nudges among older adults ≥65 years. Collectively, the NUDGE-FLU trials will provide an extensive evidence base for future public health communications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NUDGE-FLU-CHRONIC: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT06030739, registered September 11, 2023, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06030739. NUDGE-FLU-2: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT06030726, registered September 11, 2023, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06030726.


Assuntos
Vacinas contra Influenza , Influenza Humana , Humanos , Influenza Humana/prevenção & controle , Influenza Humana/epidemiologia , Vacinas contra Influenza/administração & dosagem , Doença Crônica , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Adulto , Idoso , Masculino , Feminino , Adulto Jovem , Dinamarca/epidemiologia , Vacinação/métodos , Vacinação/estatística & dados numéricos , Adolescente
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA