Parental acceptance of an intranasal vaccine: Example of influenza vaccine

Acceptability for the influenza virus vector COVID-19 vaccine for intranasal spray: A cross-sectional survey in Beijing, China

The intranasal spray COVID-19 vaccine was made available for the first time in China, it is necessary to understand receivers' satisfaction and experience toward the vaccine to help optimize vaccination service. A self-administered multicenter cross-sectional questionnaire survey was conducted in Beijing, China, in December 2022. The vaccination experience was evaluated through three dimensions: immediate tolerance, smooth progress, and time-saving. Vaccine acceptability was measured by receivers' preference for the intranasal spray over intramuscular injection after vaccination and their recommendation willingness. Stepwise multinomial and binary logistic regression models were applied to investigate factors associated with vaccine acceptability. Among 10,452 participants included in the analysis, 92.6% felt no discomfort during the inoculation, 99.8% thought the vaccination process went well, and 89.4% deemed it a time-saving option. For vaccine acceptability, 5566 (53.3%) participants were willing to recommend the vaccine to others, 534 (5.1%) refused, and 4352 (41.6%) had not decided yet; 6142 (58.8%) participants preferred the intranasal spray, 873 (8.4%) preferred the intramuscular injection, and 3437 (32.9%) had no preferences. The most concerned aspects of the intranasal spray vaccine were vaccine effectiveness and safety. Receivers who perceived higher vaccine effectiveness or safety were more likely to recommend it to others (OR, 95%CI: 4.41, 3.24-6.00; 6.11, 4.52-8.27) or prefer it over intramuscular injection after vaccination (OR, 95%CI: 5.94, 4.62-7.65; 8.50, 6.70-10.78). Receivers showed good acceptability and experience toward the intranasal spray COVID-19 vaccine. Vaccine effectiveness and safety were the most concerned aspects, and corresponding publicity and education efforts may help improve vaccine acceptability.

Overcoming barriers to patient adherence: the case for developing innovative drug delivery systems

Poor medication adherence is a pervasive issue with considerable health and socioeconomic consequences. Although the underlying reasons are generally understood, traditional intervention strategies rooted in patient-centric education and empowerment have proved to be prohibitively complex and/or ineffective. Formulating a pharmaceutical in a drug delivery system (DDS) is a promising alternative that can directly mitigate many common impediments to adherence, including frequent dosing, adverse effects and a delayed onset of action. Existing DDSs have already positively influenced patient acceptability and improved rates of adherence across various disease and intervention types. The next generation of systems have the potential to instate an even more radical paradigm shift by, for example, permitting oral delivery of biomacromolecules, allowing for autonomous dose regulation and enabling several doses to be mimicked with a single administration. Their success, however, is contingent on their ability to address the problems that have made DDSs unsuccessful in the past.

Attitude towards Intranasal Vaccines and Psychological Determinants: Effects on the General Population in Northern Italy

Little is known about the use of intranasal vaccines, but some studies have shown that this innovative way of administration is preferred over needle injection as it is considered both less painful and intrusive to the body, equally effective, and associated with fewer side effects. This study aimed to investigate specific psychological determinants (intolerance of uncertainty, persecutory ideation, perceived control, vaccine hesitancy) of attitude toward nasal vaccine delivery. A convenience sample including 700 Italian participants took part in this cross-sectional study and completed an online questionnaire. A structural equation model with a latent variable was performed to study the relationship between psychological variables, vaccine hesitancy, and attitude toward nasal vaccine delivery. The results indicate that both a hesitant attitude toward vaccination (β = 0.20, p = 0.000) and low perceived control (β = -0.20, p = 0.005) may directly increase preference for nasal administration; furthermore, high levels of persecutory ideation may indirectly influence the propensity for intranasal vaccine. These findings suggest that pharmaceutical companies could implement nasal vaccines and provide detailed information on these vaccines through informational campaigns. Hesitant individuals with low levels of perceived control could more easily comply with these types of vaccines.

Adenovirus and RNA-based COVID-19 vaccines' perceptions and acceptance among healthcare workers in Saudi Arabia: a national survey

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the perception, confidence, hesitancy and acceptance rate of various COVID-19 vaccine types among healthcare workers (HCWs) in Saudi Arabia, a nation with Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus experience.

DESIGN

National cross-sectional, pilot-validated questionnaire.

SETTING

Online, self-administered questionnaire among HCWs.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 2007 HCWs working in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia participated; 1512 (75.3%) participants completed the survey and were included in the analysis.

INTERVENTION

Data were collected through an online survey sent to HCWs during 1-15 November 2020. The main outcome measure was HCW acceptance of COVID-19 candidate vaccines. The associated factors of vaccination acceptance were identified through a logistic regression analysis and via measurement of the level of anxiety, using the Generalised Anxiety Disorder 7 scale.

RESULTS

Among the 1512 HCWs who were included, 62.4% were women, 70.3% were between 21 and 40 years of age, and the majority (62.2%) were from tertiary hospitals. In addition, 59.5% reported knowing about at least one vaccine; 24.4% of the participants were sure about their willingness to receive the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine, and 20.9% were willing to receive the RNA BNT162b2 vaccine. However, 18.3% reported that they would refuse to receive the Ad5-vectored vaccine, and 17.9% would refuse the Gam-COVID-Vac vaccine. Factors that influenced the differential readiness of HCWs included their perceptions of the vaccine's efficiency in preventing the infection (33%), their personal preferences (29%) and the vaccine's manufacturing country (28.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Awareness by HCWs of the several COVID-19 candidate vaccines could improve their perceptions and acceptance of vaccination. Reliable sources on vaccine efficiency could improve vaccine uptake, so healthcare authorities should use reliable information to decrease vaccine hesitancy among frontline healthcare providers.

Summary of the NACI systematic review and recommendation on the use of live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) in HIV-infected individuals

Background

Annual influenza vaccination is recommended for all individuals six months of age and older, including those with HIV infection. Prior to this statement, the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) stated that live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) was contraindicated for all individuals with HIV infection. The objective of this article is to update NACI's guidance on the use of LAIV for HIV-infected individuals.

Methods

A systematic literature review of the use of LAIV in individuals with HIV was undertaken. The Canadian Adverse Events Following Immunization Surveillance System was searched for reports of adverse events following vaccination with LAIV in HIV-infected individuals. NACI approved the revised recommendations.

Results

NACI concluded that LAIV is immunogenic in children with HIV, and available data suggest that it is safe, although data were insufficient to detect possible uncommon adverse effects. LAIV may be considered as an option for vaccination of children 2-17 years old who meet the following criteria: 1) receiving highly active antiretroviral therapy for at least four months; 2) CD4 count of 500/µL or greater if age 2-5 years, or of 200/µL or greater if age 6-17 years; and 3) HIV plasma RNA less than 10,000 copies/mL. LAIV remains contraindicated for adults with HIV because of insufficient data. Intramuscular influenza vaccination is considered the standard for children living with HIV by NACI and the Canadian Paediatric & Perinatal HIV/AIDS Research Group, particularly for those without HIV viral load suppression (i.e. plasma HIV RNA is 40 copies/mL or greater). However, if intramuscular (IM) vaccination is not accepted by the patient or substitute decision-maker, LAIV would be reasonable for children meeting the criteria listed above.

Conclusion

LAIV may be considered as an option for annual vaccination of selected children with HIV.

A double-blind, randomized controlled trial to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of an intranasally administered trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine with the adjuvant LTh(αK): A phase II study

BACKGROUND

Intranasal influenza vaccines may provide protective efficacy by inducing both systemic antibodies and local secretory IgA. Live attenuated intranasal vaccines are not feasible for high-risk groups. A previously constructed inactivated vaccine with adjuvant revealed an association with neurological events in some studies. In this phase II trial, we aimed to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of an intranasal influenza vaccine with a novel adjuvant, heat-labile enterotoxin (LT)-derived from E. coli (LTh(αK)).

METHODS

This study is a multicenter, randomized controlled, double-blind, phase II trial of an intranasal influenza vaccine containing 22.5 μg of the hemagglutinin (HA) antigen of three influenza strains in combination with 2 different LTh(αK) adjuvant doses (group 1: 30 μg; group 2: 45 μg) in subjects 20-70 years old. The control vaccine was 22.5 μg of influenza HA antigen alone (group 3). The vaccine was intranasally administered on days 1 and 8. Serum anti-HA antibody and nasal secretory IgA were measured, and adverse events (AEs) were recorded prevaccination and 29 (±2) days postvaccination.

RESULTS

Of 354 participants randomized in the study, 340 received two vaccine doses. AEs were mostly mild, and there was no discontinuation related to the vaccine. Only a higher frequency of diarrhea after the first dose was noted among group 2 (11.5%) than among group 3 (2.8%), and there was no significant difference after the second dose. The three groups had comparable serum anti-HA antibody immunogenicity. However, the adjuvanted vaccines induced greater mucosal IgA antibody production than the control vaccine. In a subgroup analysis, group 1 participants achieved adequate immunogenicity among both 20- to 60- and 61- to 70-year-old participants.

CONCLUSION

The intranasal influenza vaccine adjuvanted with LTh(αK) is generally safe and could provide systemic and local antibody responses. Adjuvanted vaccines were significantly more immunogenic than the nonadjuvanted control vaccine in mucosal immunity. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03784885.