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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.).

Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines among children 6-11 years against hospitalization during Omicron predominance in Malaysia.

There is currently limited data on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines for children aged 6-11 years in Malaysia. This study aims to determine vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19-related hospitalization after receipt of one- and two-doses of BNT162b2 mRNA (Comirnaty-Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccine over a duration of almost 1 year in the predominantly Omicron period of BA.4/BA.5 and X.B.B sub lineages. This study linked administrative databases between May 2022 and March 2023 to evaluate real-world vaccine effectiveness (VE) for the BNT162b2 mRNA (Comirnaty-Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccine against COVID-19-related hospitalization in the Omicron pre-dominant period with BA.4/BA.5 and X.B.B sub lineages. During the Omicron-predominant period, the cumulative hospitalization rate was almost two times higher for unvaccinated children (9.6 per million population) compared to vaccinated children (6 per million population). The estimated VE against COVID-19 hospitalization for one dose of BNT162b2 was 27% (95% CI - 1%, 47%) and 38% (95% CI 27%, 48%) for two doses. The estimated VE against hospitalization remained stable when stratified by time. VE for the first 90 days was estimated to be 45% (95% CI 33, 55%), followed by 47% (95% CI 34, 56%) between 90 and 180 days, and 36% (95% CI 22, 45%) between 180 and 360 days. Recent infection within 6 months does not appear to modify the impact of vaccination on the risk of hospitalization, subject to the caveat of potential underestimation. In our pediatric population, BNT162b2 provided moderate-non-diminishing protection against COVID-19 hospitalization over almost 1 year of Omicron predominance.

Humoral and cellular immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following vaccination with non-mRNA vaccines in adolescent/young adults with cancer: A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Data on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine responsiveness in adolescent/young adult (AYA) cancer patients are sparse. The present study assessed humoral and cellular immune responses post-vaccination in this population. METHODS: In this prospective study, patients aged 12-30 years undergoing cancer therapy ("on therapy") and survivors ("off therapy") were recruited. Anti-receptor binding domain (RBD) protein IgG levels were measured at baseline, four weeks post-first vaccine dose (T1), and six weeks post-second dose (T2). Cellular immunity was assessed using activation-induced markers and intracellular cytokine staining in a patient subset. The primary outcome was to quantify humoral responses in both cohorts at T2 compared to baseline. Clinical predictors of log antibody titres at T2 were identified. RESULTS: Between April-December 2022, 118 patients were recruited of median age 15.4 years. Among them, 77 (65.2 %) were in the "on therapy" group, and 77 (65.2 %) had received the BBV152 vaccine. At baseline, 108 (91.5 %) patients were seropositive for anti-RBD antibody. The log anti-RBD titre rose from baseline to T2 (p-value = 0.001) in the whole cohort; this rise was significant from baseline-T1 (p-value < 0.001), but not from T1 to T2 (p-value = 0.842). A similar pattern was seen in the "on therapy" cohort. BECOV-2 vaccine was independently associated with higher log anti-RBD titres than BBV152 (regression coefficient: 0.41; 95 % CI: 0.10-0.73; p = 0.011). Cellular immune responses were similar in the "on-" and "off therapy" groups at the three time points. CONCLUSION: Among AYA cancer patients, a single non-mRNA vaccine dose confers robust hybrid humoral immunity with limited benefit from a second dose.

Association of anti-diabetic drugs and COVID-19 outcomes in patients with diabetes mellitus type 2 and cardiomyopathy.

There is a scarcity of information on the population with diabetes mellitus type 2 and cardiomyopathy (PDMC) in COVID-19, especially on the association between anti-diabetic medications and COVID-19 outcomes. Study is designed as a retrospective cohort analysis covering 2020 and 2021. Data from National Diabetes Registry (CroDiab) were linked to hospital data, primary healthcare data, the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination database, and the SARS-CoV-2 test results database. Study outcomes were cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 positivity, COVID-19 hospitalizations, and COVID-19 deaths. For outcome predictors, logistic regression models were developed. Of 231 796 patients with diabetes mellitus type 2 in the database, 14 485 patients had cardiomyopathy. The two2-year cumulative incidence of all three studies' COVID-19 outcomes was higher in PDMC than in the general diabetes population (positivity 15.3% vs. 14.6%, p = 0.01; hospitalization 7.8% vs. 4.4%, p < 0.001; death 2.6% vs. 1.2%, p < 0.001). Sodium-Glucose Transporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors therapy was found to be protective of SARS-CoV-2 infections [OR 0.722 (95% CI 0.610-0.856)] and COVID-19 hospitalizations [OR 0.555 (95% CI 0.418-0.737)], sulfonylureas to be risk factors for hospitalization [OR 1.184 (95% CI 1.029-1.362)] and insulin to be a risk factor for hospitalization [OR 1.261 (95% CI 1.046-1.520)] and death [OR 1.431 (95% CI 1.080-1.897)]. PDMC are at greater risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection and having worse outcomes than the general diabetic population. SGLT-2 inhibitors therapy was a protective factor against SARS-CoV-2 infection and against COVID-19 hospitalization, sulfonylurea was the COVID-19 hospitalization risk factor, while insulin was a risk factor for all outcomes. Further research is needed in this diabetes sub-population.

Lessons learned from COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among pregnant and lactating women from two districts in Kenya to inform demand generation efforts for future maternal RSV vaccines.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a leading cause of acute lower respiratory infections globally, with most RSV-related deaths occurring in infants < 6 months of age. The highest burden of RSV is in low-and-middle income countries, and in sub-Saharan Africa, RSV may be responsible for almost half of all hospital admissions with severe or very severe pneumonia among infants under 1 year. There is a maternal RSV vaccine on the horizon. Our study objective was to better understand how lessons learned from the COVID-19 vaccine experience rollout among pregnant and lactating people in Kenya could inform future maternal RSV vaccine rollout. METHODS: This qualitative study interviewed 16 healthcare providers including doctors, nurses, midwives, community health workers, and vaccinators. Participants were recruited from two counties in Kenya and included healthcare providers that served diverse communities. A grounded theory approach was used to analyze the data. RESULTS: As healthcare providers interviewed were instrumental in COVID-19 vaccine rollout among pregnant women in Kenya, they provided lessons learned from the COVID-19 vaccine experience to inform future maternal RSV vaccine rollout. Community sensitization emerged as the most critical lesson learned, including communication, mobilization, and education. Using communication to ensure community awareness of RSV, community awareness of RSV harms and benefits of RSV maternal vaccines, and providing up-to-date, clear information about maternal RSV vaccines emerged as lessons. Related to mobilization, participants identified the need for healthcare providers and community leaders to gain the trust of communities, and the importance of routinizing the vaccine. Finally, for education, participants outlined critical questions patients would have about a maternal RSV vaccine, including those related to vaccine safety concerns, duration of protection, and vaccine dosing. CONCLUSIONS: This is one of the first studies that has examined how lessons learned from the COVID-19 vaccine rollout for pregnant and lactating women can inform the rollout of future maternal vaccines, including an RSV maternal vaccine. As healthcare providers are directly involved in vaccine rollout, their perspectives are crucial for successful vaccine acceptance.

Current German Recommendations and International Research on the Use of COVID-19 Boosters among Health Care Providers in 2024: A Narrative Review.

While the World Health Organization (WHO) has de-escalated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) from a global health emergency, ongoing discussions persist as new viral variants. This article aimed to consolidate German recommendations and international research to offer health care providers (HCPs) a comprehensive guide on COVID-19 boosters in 2024. The review outlines key recommendations from the German Robert Koch Institute. HCPs should receive COVID-19 boosters at least 12 months after their last vaccination or COVID-19 infection, contingent on the prevalent viral variant(s) in the region. However, excessive doses and/or frequent boosters, especially with mRNA vaccines, may lead to immune imprinting, T-cell exhaustion, and immunoglobulin (Ig) switching. Notably, this review highlights the significance of Ig, particularly IgA and IgG subclasses, in influencing infection risk and disease progression. Furthermore, it explores the implications of mRNA vaccine technology and potential adverse effects related to excessive dosing. In conclusion, this article provides a comprehensive analysis of COVID-19 vaccine boosters for HCPs, synthesising current recommendations, scientific debates, and considerations for optimising protection against SARS-CoV-2 in the evolving landscape of the post-pandemic era.