1
|
Moscara L, Venerito V, Martinelli A, Di Lorenzo A, Toro F, Violante F, Tafuri S, Stefanizzi P. Safety profile and SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections among HCWs receiving anti-SARS-CoV-2 and influenza vaccines simultaneously: an Italian observational study. Vaccine 2023; 41:5655-5661. [PMID: 37544827 DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2023.07.043] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/28/2022] [Revised: 07/18/2023] [Accepted: 07/21/2023] [Indexed: 08/08/2023]
Abstract
In October/December 2021, World Health Organization and other international agencies recommended the offer of the third dose of anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. In this period, the routine offer of seasonal influenza vaccination was also guaranteed and simultaneous administration of the two vaccines was encouraged. This study aims to evaluate the safety profile and to estimate the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections in subjects receiving the anti-SARS-CoV-2 and influenza vaccines simultaneously. The study population was represented by healthcare workers (HCWs) of Bari Policlinico General Hospital who received the influenza (Flucelvax Tetra®) and/or anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination (BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, Comirnaty®) either in coadministration or separately in October 2021. Reports of adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) were investigated to study the safety of both vaccines in coadministration and in separate-instance administration. Post-vaccination SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection was also studied. 942 HCWs accepted to join our study. 610/942 received both vaccines simultaneously. 25.26 % subjects (238/942) were only vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2, while the remaining 94 HCWs received the influenza vaccination first and subsequently received the anti-SARS-CoV2 booster dose. 717 HCWs reported AEFIs (Reporting Rate 76.1 per 100 subjects). Simultaneous administration of the two vaccines was not related with an increase of the rate of AEFIs compared to the single administration of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, but the AEFIs' rate was lower among subjects who received only influenza vaccine. Post-vaccination SARS-CoV-2 infections were notified for 41.5 % of enrolled subjects (391/942). Incidence of breakthrough infection and symptomatic disease was not significantly different between the simultaneous administration group and other subjects. Our data suggests that simultaneous administration of a quadrivalent influenza vaccine and an mRNA anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine neither affected the safety of said products nor was associated with a higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- L Moscara
- Hygiene Unit - Interdisciplinary Department of Medicine; University of Bari "Aldo Moro", Italy
| | - V Venerito
- Rheumatology Unit - Department of Precision and Regenerative Medicine - Jonic Area, University of Bari "Aldo Moro", Italy
| | - A Martinelli
- Hygiene Unit - Interdisciplinary Department of Medicine; University of Bari "Aldo Moro", Italy
| | - A Di Lorenzo
- Hygiene Unit - Interdisciplinary Department of Medicine; University of Bari "Aldo Moro", Italy
| | - F Toro
- Hygiene Unit - Interdisciplinary Department of Medicine; University of Bari "Aldo Moro", Italy
| | - F Violante
- Hygiene Unit - Interdisciplinary Department of Medicine; University of Bari "Aldo Moro", Italy
| | - S Tafuri
- Hygiene Unit - Interdisciplinary Department of Medicine; University of Bari "Aldo Moro", Italy
| | - P Stefanizzi
- Hygiene Unit - Interdisciplinary Department of Medicine; University of Bari "Aldo Moro", Italy.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Baral P, Ahmed T, Amor Fernandez P, Peters MA, Drouard SHP, Muhoza P, Mwinnyaa G, Mwansambo C, Nzelu C, Tassembedo M, Uddin MH, Wesseh CS, Yansane ML, Bergeron JR, Karibwami AD, Lopez Chicheri TIODZ, Ogunlayi MIA, Sieleunou I, Hashemi T, Hansen PM, Shapira G. Vaccine hesitancy among healthcare workers in low- and middle-income countries during the COVID-19 pandemic: Results from facility surveys across six countries. PLoS One 2023; 18:e0288124. [PMID: 37418435 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288124] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/18/2022] [Accepted: 06/20/2023] [Indexed: 07/09/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Vaccine hesitancy remains a critical barrier in mitigating the effects of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The willingness of health care workers (HCWs) to be vaccinated, and, in turn, recommend the COVID-19 vaccine for their patient population is an important strategy. This study aims to understand the uptake of COVID-19 vaccines and the reasoning for vaccine hesitancy among facility-based health care workers (HCWs) in LMICs. METHODS We conducted nationally representative phone-based rapid-cycle surveys across facilities in six LMICs to better understand COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. We gathered data on vaccine uptake among facility managers, their perceptions of vaccine uptake and hesitancy among the HCWs operating in their facilities, and their perception of vaccine hesitancy among the patient population served by the facility. RESULTS 1,148 unique public health facilities participated in the study, with vaccines being almost universally offered to facility-based respondents across five out of six countries. Among facility respondents who have been offered the vaccine, more than 9 in 10 survey respondents had already been vaccinated at the time of data collection. Vaccine uptake among other HCWs at the facility was similarly high. Over 90% of facilities in Bangladesh, Liberia, Malawi, and Nigeria reported that all or most staff had already received the COVID-19 vaccine when the survey was conducted. Concerns about side effects predominantly drive vaccine hesitancy in both HCWs and the patient population. CONCLUSION Our findings indicate that the opportunity to get vaccinated in participating public facilities is almost universal. We find vaccine hesitancy among facility-based HCWs, as reported by respondents, to be very low. This suggests that a potentially effective effort to increase vaccine uptake equitably would be to channel promotional activities through health facilities and HCWs.However, reasons for hesitancy, even if limited, are far from uniform across countries, highlighting the need for audience-specific messaging.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Prativa Baral
- The World Bank, United States of America
- Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, United States of America
| | - Tashrik Ahmed
- Global Financing Facility for Women, Children, and Adolescents, United States of America
| | | | | | | | | | - George Mwinnyaa
- Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, United States of America
- Global Financing Facility for Women, Children, and Adolescents, United States of America
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Julie Ruel Bergeron
- Global Financing Facility for Women, Children, and Adolescents, United States of America
| | - Alain-Desire Karibwami
- Global Financing Facility for Women, Children, and Adolescents, United States of America
| | | | | | - Isidore Sieleunou
- Global Financing Facility for Women, Children, and Adolescents, United States of America
| | - Tawab Hashemi
- Global Financing Facility for Women, Children, and Adolescents, United States of America
| | - Peter M Hansen
- Global Financing Facility for Women, Children, and Adolescents, United States of America
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Joe-Ikechebelu NN, Umeh UM, Eleje GU, Igbodike EP, Ogbuefi EO, Akanwa AO, Echendu ST, Ngene WO, Okpala AN, Okolo OC, Okechukwu CE, Akabuike JC, Agu HO, Okpala VO, Nwazor OC, Nnedum AOU, Esimone CC, Agwaniru HN, Ezeabasili EI, Joe-Ikechebelu BB. Acceptability rate and barriers to COVID-19 vaccination among healthcare workers in Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu University Teaching Hospital, Amaku-Awka, Nigeria. Ther Adv Infect Dis 2023; 10:20499361231174776. [PMID: 37954403 PMCID: PMC10637133 DOI: 10.1177/20499361231174776] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/24/2022] [Accepted: 04/21/2023] [Indexed: 11/14/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Healthcare workers were at the forefront of the COVID-19 pandemic. The acceptability and uptake of COVID-19 vaccines among healthcare workers was an important strategy in halting the spread of the virus as well as the antecedent implications on global health and the world economy. Objectives This study aims to determine the acceptability rate and barriers to COVID-19 vaccination of frontline healthcare workers in Awka, Nigeria. Design This is an analytical cross-sectional study. Methods An online cross-sectional survey was conducted from February 2022 to April 2022 to obtain the data for this study. One hundred healthcare workers were studied. Acceptability rate and barriers to uptake of COVID-19 vaccination were outcome measures. Results The COVID-19 vaccination rate was 45.0% among healthcare workers in study area of Awka metropolis. Ages 30-39 years had the highest acceptance rate of COVID-19 vaccination, 19 (47.5%; p = 0.262) with a more female preponderance of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance compared to males [26 (41.3%) vs 16 (42.2%), p = 0.721]. The place of residence of respondents (urban vs rural) and their marital status (married vs single) appeared not to influence the acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination [(38 (42.2%) vs 3 (33.3%); p = 0.667; 25 (36.8% vs 17 (54.8%); p = 0.433)]. Years of work experience (<10 years vs >10 years) significantly affected COVID-19 vaccine acceptance [27 (45.8%) vs 12 (52.2%); p = 0.029]. Educational status and monthly income appeared not to influence vaccine uptake (p > 0.05, for both). A significant number of respondents were not sure why they should or should not take the COVID-19 vaccine [49 (92.5%) vs 35 (83.3%); p = 0.001]. Conclusion The COVID-19 vaccination rate is still poor among healthcare workers in Awka metropolis. The majority of respondents do not know why they should or should not take COVID-19 vaccine. We therefore recommend robust awareness campaigns that will explain in clear terms the essence and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccination in order to improve vaccine acceptance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ngozi Nneka Joe-Ikechebelu
- Department of Community Medicine and Primary Health Care, Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu University, Amaku-Awka, Anambra State 420110, Nigeria
| | - Uche Marian Umeh
- Department of Community Medicine and Primary Health Care, Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu University, Awka, Nigeria
| | - George Uchenna Eleje
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Nigeria
| | - Emeka Philip Igbodike
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Nigeria
- Evercare Hospital, Lagos, Nigeria
| | - Emmanuel Okwudili Ogbuefi
- Department of Parasitology and Entomology, Faculty of Biosciences, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Nigeria
| | - Angela Oyilieze Akanwa
- Department of Environmental Management, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu University, Uli, Nigeria
| | | | | | - Augusta Nkiruka Okpala
- Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Nnamdi Azikiwe University Teaching Hospital, Nnewi, Nigeria
| | | | | | | | - Helen Obioma Agu
- Department of Food Science and Technology, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Nigeria
| | | | - Onyinye Chinenye Nwazor
- Department of Community Medicine and Primary Health Care, Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu University Teaching Hospital, Awka, Nigeria
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Chico-Sánchez P, Gras-Valentí P, Algado-Sellés N, Jiménez-Sepúlveda N, Vanaclocha H, Peiró S, Burgos JS, Berenguer A, Navarro D, Sánchez-Payá J. The effectiveness of mRNA vaccines to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection and hospitalisation for COVID-19 according to the time elapsed since their administration in health professionals in the Valencian Autonomous Community (Spain). Prev Med 2022; 163:107237. [PMID: 36057393 PMCID: PMC9433063 DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2022.107237] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/14/2022] [Revised: 07/29/2022] [Accepted: 08/28/2022] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
The objective was to understand the effectiveness of the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 in health professionals(HPs) in the Valencian Autonomous Community(Spain) who had completed a full vaccination regimen, both in terms of preventing infections and avoiding hospitalisations, according to the time elapsed since the vaccine administration. Case-controlled study with negative test results. HPs who had undergone at least one PCR or antigen(Ag) active infection diagnostic test(AIDT) to rule out SARS-CoV-2 infection between 25 January and 18 July 2021 were included. HPs with positive AIDT result were considered as cases and those with a negative result controls. Adjusted vaccine effectiveness(VEa) to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection and its 95% confidence interval(95% CI) were calculated using the formula VEa = (1 - OR) × 100. The VEa for the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection 12 to 120 days after completing the full two-dose vaccine regimen was 91.6%(95%CI[89.6%,93.2%]) for the BNT162b2 vaccine and 95.2%(95%CI[88.3%,98.1%]) for the mRNA-1273 vaccine. After 120 days the VEa was 71.5%(95%CI[67.0%,75.5%]) for the BNT162b2 vaccine and 88.3%(95%CI[75.7,94.4%]) for the mRNA-1273 vaccine. The VEa for prevention of hospitalisation for COVID-19 for the complete two-dose regimen of mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273) was 96.8%(95%CI[76.1%,99.6%]). The administration of the complete regimen of the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 was highly effective for the prevention of COVID-19 cases in HPs when 12 to 120 days had elapsed since the second dose. However, said effectiveness decreased as time from the vaccine administration elapsed, although it was maintained for the prevention of hospitalisation of HPs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pablo Chico-Sánchez
- Epidemiology Unit, Preventive Medicine Service, Dr. Balmis General University Hospital, Alicante Institute for Health and Biomedical Research (ISABIAL), Alicante, Spain
| | - Paula Gras-Valentí
- Epidemiology Unit, Preventive Medicine Service, Dr. Balmis General University Hospital, Alicante Institute for Health and Biomedical Research (ISABIAL), Alicante, Spain
| | - Natividad Algado-Sellés
- Epidemiology Unit, Preventive Medicine Service, Dr. Balmis General University Hospital, Alicante Institute for Health and Biomedical Research (ISABIAL), Alicante, Spain
| | - Natali Jiménez-Sepúlveda
- Epidemiology Unit, Preventive Medicine Service, Dr. Balmis General University Hospital, Alicante Institute for Health and Biomedical Research (ISABIAL), Alicante, Spain
| | | | - Salvador Peiró
- Foundation for the promotion of health and biomedical research of the Valencian Community (FISABIO), Valencia, Spain
| | | | | | - David Navarro
- Microbiology Service, Clinic University Hospital, INCLIVA Health Research Institute, Valencia, Spain; Department of Microbiology, School of Medicine, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain
| | - José Sánchez-Payá
- Epidemiology Unit, Preventive Medicine Service, Dr. Balmis General University Hospital, Alicante Institute for Health and Biomedical Research (ISABIAL), Alicante, Spain.
| | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Lecce M, Biganzoli G, Agnello L, Belisario I, Cicconi G, D'Amico M, De Giorgi F, Ferilli A, Ferraguzzi G, Guzzardi F, Lanzillotti D, Lattanzio R, Marrocu C, Noto ME, Piccinelli S, Sabatelli N, Santisteban S, Sharma S, Tognaccini L, Castaldi S. COVID-19 and Influenza Vaccination Campaign in a Research and University Hospital in Milan, Italy. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022; 19:6500. [PMID: 35682083 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19116500] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/16/2022] [Revised: 05/22/2022] [Accepted: 05/24/2022] [Indexed: 02/04/2023]
Abstract
Background: Healthcare workers (HCWs) are a historical key target of influenza vaccination programs. For the 2021–2022 season, WHO considered the coadministration of a flu and a COVID-19 vaccine as acceptable and recommended it to allow for higher uptake of both vaccines. The aim of this study was to investigate demographic and occupational features of vaccinated HCWs, reasons behind flu vaccine acceptance and a possible effect of the coadministration of a COVID-19 vaccine, in order to potentially draw general conclusions on HCWs’ attitude towards flu vaccination and inform further strategies for consistent improvement of vaccine acceptance. Methods: a promotional and educational campaign, a gaming strategy, and vaccination delivery through both a large central hub and on-site ambulatories, were the implemented strategies. In the central hub, the flu/COVID-19 vaccine coadministration was offered. Statistical descriptive analysis, multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) and logistic regression models were performed. Results: 2381 HCWs received the flu vaccine, prompting a vaccination coverage rate (VCR) of 52.0% versus 43.1% in the 2020–2021 campaign. Furthermore, 50.6% vaccinated HCWs belonged to the 18–39 years-old age group. The most expressed reasons for vaccine uptake were “Vaccination is the most effective strategy of prevention” (n = 1928, 81.0%), “As HCW it’s my duty to get vaccinated to protect my patients” (n = 766, 32.2%), and the group of COVID-19-related reasons (n = 586, 24.6%). In addition, 23.3% HCWs received the flu vaccine in the current campaign but not in the previous one (newly vaccinated) and the flu/COVID-19 vaccine coadministration was more frequent in this group. A total of 51.0% HCWs were hesitant towards the coadministration, while residents and nurses showed the highest propensity to receive it. Conclusions: in the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Fondazione’s influenza VCR continued to increase, with the greatest participation among HCWs aged 18–39 years. A potential propelling role of the COVID-19 vaccine coadministration was highlighted.
Collapse
|
6
|
Vimercati L, De Maria L, Quarato M, Caputi A, Gesualdo L, Migliore G, Cavone D, Sponselli S, Pipoli A, Inchingolo F, Scarano A, Lorusso F, Stefanizzi P, Tafuri S. Association between Long COVID and Overweight/Obesity. J Clin Med 2021; 10:4143. [PMID: 34575251 DOI: 10.3390/jcm10184143] [Citation(s) in RCA: 56] [Impact Index Per Article: 18.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/20/2021] [Revised: 08/31/2021] [Accepted: 09/06/2021] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: Long COVID is a syndrome characterized by the persistence of SARS-CoV-2 infection symptoms. Among HCWs, prolonged COVID symptoms could lead to the inability to perform work tasks. The aim of this study is to investigate 35-day long-COVID (35-LC) characteristics and risk factors in a one-year period. Methods: We carried out a retrospective cohort study during the COVID-19 pandemic at University Hospital of Bari. A total of 5750 HCWs were tested for close contact with a confirmed case, in the absence of personal protective equipment, or for symptom development. Results: Each positive HCW was investigated for cardiovascular risk factors or respiratory diseases. An amount of 352 HCWs (6.1%) were infected by SARS-CoV-2, and 168 cases evolved to long COVID. The 35-LC group showed mean BMI values higher than the non-35-LC group (25.9 kg/m2 vs. 24.8 kg/m2, respectively), and this difference was significant (p-value: 0.020). Moreover, HCWs who suffered from pulmonary disease (OR = 3.7, CL 95%: 1.35–10.53; p-value = 0.007) or overweight (OR = 1.6 CL 95%: 1.05–2.56; p-value = 0.029) had an increased risk of developing 35-LC. Conclusions: Long COVID is an emerging problem for hospital managers as it may reduce the number of HCWs deployed in the fight against COVID-19. High BMI and previous pulmonary disease could be risk factors for 35-LC development in exposed HCWs.
Collapse
|