Intentions to get vaccinated against Monkeypox in Healthcare workers in France and Belgium correlates with attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination (preprint)

Abstract text Background Front-line healthcare workers (HCWs) could be at-risk for Monkeypox infections. Vaccine hesitancy also affects HCWs and has an impact on their own attitudes toward vaccination. In the context of the exhaustion due to COVID-19 pandemic, we aimed to evaluate intentions to get vaccinated against Monkeypox in HCWs in France and Belgium. Methods We performed a cross-sectional study (snowball sampling) using a self-administered online questionnaire to evaluate intentions to get vaccinated against Monkeypox in HCWs if a recommendation for HCWs vaccination was made. We compared demographics characteristics, vaccine readiness, eagerness for COVID-19 vaccine, and confidence in HCW with Chi-square tests, student-t and performed a binary regression. Results Amon the 397 respondents, if a specific recommendation was made for HCWs vaccination against Monkeypox was made, 55.4 % will probably get the vaccine, while 79 % would accept the vaccine if recommended to the general population. COVID-19 vaccine eagerness and having concerns about Monkeypox epidemics were associated with favorable attitude toward Monkeypox vaccination in HCWs with respective adjusted odds ratio and 95 % Confidence Interval 2.5 (1.03-6.1), 2.6 (1.3-5.3). Forty-four HCWs (11 %) self-identified as at-risk for Monkeypox infections. Conclusion Acceptance of Monkeypox vaccination in HCWs is probably moderate, HCWs are probably complacent and did not perceive the risk of Monkeypox infections in the context of professional exposure.

Remdesivir for the treatment of hospitalised patients with COVID-19: final results from the DisCoVeRy randomised, controlled, open-label trial (preprint)

Background: The antiviral efficacy of remdesivir is still controversial. We aimed at evaluating its clinical effectiveness in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, with indication of oxygen and/or ventilator support. Following prior publication of preliminary results, here we present the final results after completion of data monitoring. Methods: In this European multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised, controlled trial (DisCoVeRy, NCT04315948, EudraCT2020-000936-23), participants were randomly allocated to receive usual standard of care (SoC) alone or in combination with remdesivir, lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir and IFN-beta-1a, or hydroxychloroquine. Adult patients hospitalised with COVID-19 were eligible if they had clinical evidence of hypoxemic pneumonia, or required oxygen supplementation. Exclusion criteria included elevated liver enzyme, severe chronic kidney disease, any contra-indication to one of the studied treatments or their use in the 29 days before randomization, or use of ribavirin, as well as pregnancy or breast-feeding. Here, we report results for remdesivir + SoC versus SoC alone. Remdesivir was administered as 200 mg infusion on day 1, followed by once daily infusions of 100 mg up to 9 days, for a total duration of 10 days. It could be stopped after 5 days if the participant was discharged. Treatment assignation was performed via web-based block randomisation stratified on illness severity and administrative European region. The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15 measured by the WHO 7-point ordinal scale, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Findings: Between March 22nd, 2020 and January 21st, 2021, 857 participants were randomised to one of the two arms in 5 European countries and 843 participants were included for the evaluation of remdesivir (control, n=423; remdesivir, n=420). At day 15, the distribution of the WHO ordinal scale was as follow in the remdesivir and control groups, respectively: Not hospitalized, no limitations on activities: 62/420 (14.8%) and 72/423 (17.0%); Not hospitalized, limitation on activities: 126/420 (30%) and 135/423 (31.9%); Hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen: 56/420 (13.3%) and 31/423 (7.3%); Hospitalized, requiring supplemental oxygen: 75/420 (17.9%) and 65/423 (15.4%); Hospitalized, on non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen devices: 16/420 (3.8%) and 16/423 (3.8%); Hospitalized, on invasive mechanical ventilation or ECMO: 64/420 (15.2%) and 80/423 (18.9%); Death: 21/420 (5%) and 24/423 (5.7%). The difference between treatment groups was not statistically significant (OR for remdesivir, 1.02, 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.70, P=0.93). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of Serious Adverse Events between treatment groups (remdesivir, n=147/410, 35.9%, versus control, n=138/423, 32.6%, p=0.29). Interpretation: Remdesivir use for the treatment of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 was not associated with clinical improvement at day 15. Funding: European Union Commission, French Ministry of Health, DIM One Health Ile-de-France, REACTing, Fonds Erasme-COVID-ULB; Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE), AGMT gGmbH, FEDER "European Regional Development Fund", Portugal Ministry of Health, Portugal Agency for Clinical Research and Biomedical Innovation. Remdesivir was provided free of charge by Gilead.

An open-label randomized, controlled trial of the effect of lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir plus IFN-β-1a and hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 – Final results from the DisCoVeRy trial (preprint)

Objectives We evaluated the clinical, virological and safety outcomes of lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-interferon (IFN)-β-1a, hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir in comparison to standard of care (control) in COVID-19 inpatients requiring oxygen and/or ventilatory support. While preliminary results were previously published, we present here the final results, following completion of the data monitoring. Methods We conducted a phase 3 multi-centre open-label, randomized 1:1:1:1:1, adaptive, controlled trial (DisCoVeRy), add-on trial to Solidarity ( NCT04315948 , EudraCT2020-000936-23). The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15, measured by the WHO 7-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes included SARS-CoV-2 quantification in respiratory specimens, pharmacokinetic and safety analyses. We report the results for the lopinavir/ritonavir-containing arms and for the hydroxychloroquine arm, which were stopped prematurely. Results The intention-to-treat population included 593 participants (lopinavir/ritonavir, n=147; lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-β-1a, n=147; hydroxychloroquine, n=150; control, n=149), among whom 421 (71.0%) were male, the median age was 64 years (IQR, 54-71) and 214 (36.1%) had a severe disease. The day 15 clinical status was not improved with investigational treatments: lopinavir/ritonavir versus control, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.82, (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54-1.25, P=0.36); lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-β-1a versus control, aOR 0.69 (95%CI 0.45-1.05, P=0.08); hydroxychloroquine versus control, aOR 0.94 (95%CI 0.62-1.41, P=0.76). No significant effect of investigational treatment was observed on SARS-CoV-2 clearance. Trough plasma concentrations of lopinavir and ritonavir were higher than those expected, while those of hydroxychloroquine were those expected with the dosing regimen. The occurrence of Serious Adverse Events was significantly higher in participants allocated to the lopinavir/ritonavir-containing arms. Conclusion In adults hospitalized for COVID-19, lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-ß-1a and hydroxychloroquine did not improve the clinical status at day 15, nor SARS-CoV-2 clearance in respiratory tract specimens.

Users' Reactions on Announced Vaccines against COVID-19 Before Marketing in France: Analysis of Twitter posts (preprint)

Background: Within a few months, the COVID-19 pandemic has spread to many countries and has been a real challenge for health systems all around the world. This unprecedented crisis has led to a surge of online discussions about potential cures for the disease. Among them, vaccines have been at the heart of the debates, and have faced lack of confidence before marketing in France. Objective: This study aims to identify and investigate the opinion of French Twitter users on the announced vaccines against COVID-19 through sentiment analysis. Methods: This study was conducted in two phases. First, we filtered a collection of tweets related to COVID-19 from February to August 2020 with a set of keywords associated with vaccine mistrust using word embeddings. Second, we performed sentiment analysis using deep learning to identify the characteristics of vaccine mistrust. The model was trained on a hand labeled subset of 4,548 tweets. Results: A set of 69 relevant keywords were identified as the semantic concept of the word "vaccin" (vaccine in French) and focus mainly on conspiracies, pharmaceutical companies, and alternative treatments. Those keywords enabled to extract nearly 350k tweets in French. The sentiment analysis model achieved a 0.75 accuracy. The model then predicted 16% of positive tweets, 41% of negative tweets and 43% of neutral tweets. This allowed to explore the semantic concepts of positive and negative tweets and to plot the trends of each sentiment. The main negative rhetoric identified from users' tweets was that vaccines are perceived as having a political purpose, and that COVID-19 is a commercial argument for the pharmaceutical companies. Conclusions: Twitter might be a useful tool to investigate the arguments of vaccine mistrust as it unveils a political criticism contrasting with the usual concerns on adverse drug reactions. As the opposition rhetoric is more consistent and more widely spread than the positive rhetoric, we believe that this research provides effective tools to help health authorities better characterize the risk of vaccine mistrust.

Convalescent plasma improves overall survival in patients with B-cell lymphoid malignancies and COVID-19: a longitudinal cohort and propensity score analysis (preprint)

Patients with hematological malignancies and COVID-19 display a high mortality rate. In such patients, immunosuppression due to underlying disease and previous specific treatment impair humoral response, limiting viral clearance. Thus, COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) therapy appears as a promising approach through the transfer of neutralizing antibodies specific to SARS-CoV-2. We report the effect of CCP in a cohort of 112 patients with hematological malignancies and COVID-19 and a propensity score analysis on subgroups of patients with B-cell lymphoid disease treated (n=81) or not (n=120) with CCP between 1 May 2020 and 1 April 2021. The overall survival of the whole cohort was 65% [56-74.9] and 77.5% [68.5-87.7] for patients with B-cell neoplasm. Prior anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies therapy was associated with better overall survival whereas age, high blood pressure, and COVID-19 severity were associated with a poor outcome. After an inverse probability of treatment weighting approach, we observed in anti-CD20-exposed patients with B-cell lymphoid disease a decreased mortality of 63% (95% CI=31%-80%) in the CCP-treated group compared to the CCP-untreated subgroup, confirmed in the other sensitivity analyses. Convalescent plasma may be beneficial in COVID-19 patients with B-cell neoplasm who are unable to mount a humoral immune response.

Modeling remdesivir antiviral efficacy in COVID-19 hospitalized patients of the randomized, controlled, open-label DisCoVeRy trial (preprint)

Despite several clinical studies, the antiviral efficacy of remdesivir in COVID-19 hospitalized patients remains controversial. We analyzed nasopharyngeal normalized viral loads collected in the 29 days following randomization from 665 hospitalized patients included in the DisCoVeRy trial, allocated to either standard of care (SoC, N=329) or SoC + remdesivir for 10 days (N=336). We used a mathematical model to reconstruct viral kinetic profiles and estimate the antiviral efficacy of remdesivir in reducing viral production. To identify factors associated with viral kinetics, additional analyses were conducted stratified either on time of treatment initiation ([≤] or > 7 days since symptom onset) or viral load at randomization (< or [≥] 3.5 log10 copies/104 cells). In our model, remdesivir reduced viral production by 2-fold on average (95%CI: 1.5-3.2). Using the estimated parameter of the model, simulations predict that remdesivir reduces time to viral clearance by 0.7 day compared to SoC, with large inter-individual variabilities (Inter-Quartile Range, IQR: 0.0-1.3 days). Exploratory analyses suggest that remdesivir had a larger impact in patients with a high viral load at randomization, reducing viral production by 5-fold on average (95%CI: 2.8-25), leading to a predicted median reduction in the time to viral clearance of 2.4 days (IQR: 0.9-4.5 days). In summary, our model shows that remdesivir reduces viral production from infected cells by a factor 2, leading to a median reduction of 0.7 days in the time to viral clearance compared to SoC. The efficacy was larger in patients with high level of viral load at treatment initiation. One sentence summaryRemdesivir reduces the time to SARS-CoV-2 clearance by 1 day in hospitalized patients, and up to 3 days in those with high viral load at admission.

Public opinion on a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy in France: a cross sectional survey (preprint)

Objectives Reaching the last pockets of unvaccinated people is challenging, and has led to consider COVID-19 mandatory vaccination. Our aim was to assess attitudes toward COVID-19 mandatory vaccination in France before the announcement and factors associated with opposition to this type of policy. Methods Between the 10th and the 23rd of May 2021, we conducted a cross-sectional online survey among a representative sample of the French population aged 18 and over and a specific sample of the French Senior Population over 65. Results Among 3,056 respondents, 1,314 (43.0 %) were in favor of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination, 1,281 (41.9 %) were opposed to such a policy, and 461 (15.1 %) were undecided. Among opponents to COVID-19 mandatory vaccination for the general population, 385 (30.05 %) were in favor of a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination for healthcare workers (HCWs). In multivariate analysis, age groups 18-24 years, and 25-34 years were significantly more opposed than the reference group (>75 years old) with respective adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95 % confidence interval (95 % CI) 4.67 (1.73-12.61) and 3.74 (1.57-8.93). No intention of getting COVID-19 vaccine was strongly associated with opposition to mandatory vaccination with aOR 10.67 (95 % CI 6.41-17.76). In comparison with partisans of the center, partisans of the far left and green parties were more likely to be opposed to COVID-19 mandatory vaccine with respective aOR (95 % CI) 1;89 (1.06-3.38) and 2.08 (1.14-3.81). Conclusion Attitudes toward mandatory COVID-19 vaccination are split in the French general population, and the debate might become politicized.

Quantifying Healthcare Worker's Preferences Around COVID-19 Vaccination: A Single-Profile DCE Study in France (preprint)

Background: Healthcare workers (HCWs) are prioritised for COVID-19 vaccination. Analysing their vaccination preferences is crucial to understand suboptimal uptake and identify levers to increase acceptance among those hesitating.Methods: We administered an online single-profile discrete choice experiment among a snowballing sample of French HCWs, recruited December 2020 through January 2021. Respondents in three random blocks chose between accepting or rejecting COVID-19 vaccination across eight hypothetical scenarios. Vaccine eagerness was derived from decision certainty.Results: Among 4346 participants, 61·1% made uniform decisions, including 17·2% always refusing vaccination across all scenarios (serial non-demanders). Among 1691 respondents making variable decisions, a strong negative impact on acceptance was observed with 50% vaccine efficacy (compared to 90% efficacy: odds ratio 0·05, 95%-CI 0.04-0.06), and the mention of a positive benefit-risk balance (compared to absence of severe and frequent side effects: OR 0·40, 0·34-0·46. The highest positive impact was the prospect of safely meeting older people and contributing to epidemic control (compared to no indirect protection: OR 4·10, 3·49-4·82 and 2·87, 2·34-3·50, respectively. Predicted acceptance was 93·8% for optimized communication on mRNA vaccines and 16·0% for vector-based vaccines recommended to ≥55-year-old persons. Vaccine eagerness among serial non-demanders slightly but significantly increased with the prospect of safely meeting older people and epidemic control; and reduced with lower vaccine efficacy.Discussion: Vaccine promotion towards HCWs who hesitate or refuse vaccination, should avoid the notion of benefit-risk balance, while indirect protection effects with individual utility can lever acceptance. Vaccines with limited efficacy will unlikely achieve high uptake.Funding: This study was conducted with financial support from French Public Health Agency (SantéPublique France).Declaration of Interest: None to declare. Ethical Approval: The study protocol was approved by the IRB of CHU St Etienne (N° IRBN1092021/CHUSTE ) and the database was registered by EHESP French School of Public Health according to the GRDP regulation. Because the data collection was observational, collected no sensitive and only self-declared biomedical information, no informed consent was required. Participants visiting the study website saw the complete study information and agreed to study participation before starting the questionnaire. Study participation was anonymous without any risk of indirect identification.

Remdesivir for the Treatment of Hospitalised Patients with COVID-19 (DisCoVeRy): A Randomised, Controlled, Open-Label Trial (preprint)

Background: The antiviral efficacy of remdesivir is still controversial. We aimed at evaluating its clinical effectiveness in patients with COVID-19 requiring oxygen and/or ventilator support.Methods: In this European multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised, controlled trial in adults hospitalised with COVID-19 (DisCoVeRy, NCT04315948; EudraCT2020-000936-23), participants were randomly allocated to receive usual standard of care alone or in combination with intravenous remdesivir (200 mg on day 1, then 100 mg once-daily for 9 days or until discharge). Treatment assignation was performed via web-based randomisation stratified on illness severity and administrative European region. The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15 measured by the WHO 7-point ordinal scale, assessed in the intention-to-treat population.Findings: Between March 22nd, 2020 and January 21st, 2021, 857 participants were randomised to one of the two arms in 5 European countries and 832 participants were included for the evaluation of remdesivir (control, n=418; remdesivir, n=414). There was no difference in the clinical status neither at day 15 between treatment groups (OR for remdesivir, 0.98, 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.25, P=0.85) nor at day 29. The proportion of deaths at day 28 was not significantly different between control (8.9%) and remdesivir (8.2%) treatment groups (OR for remdesivir, 0.93 95%CI 0.57 to 1.52, P=0.77). There was also no difference on SARS-CoV-2 viral kinetics (effect of remdesivir on viral load slope, -0.004 log10 cp/10,000 cells/day, 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.02, P=0.75). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of Serious Adverse Events between treatment groups.Interpretation: The use of remdesivir for the treatment of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 was not associated with clinical improvement at day 15 or day 29, nor with a reduction in mortality, nor with a reduction in SARS-CoV-2 RNA.Trial Registration: DisCoVeRy, NCT04315948; EudraCT2020-000936-23Funding: European Union Commission, French Ministry of Health, DIM One Health Île-de-France, REACTing, Fonds Erasme-COVID-ULB; Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE)Declaration of Interests: Dr. Costagliola reports grants and personal fees from Janssen, personal fees from Gilead, outside the submitted work. Dr. Mentré reports grants from INSERM Reacting (French Government), grants from Ministry of Health (French Government), grants from European Commission, during the conduct of the study; grants from Sanofi, grants from Roche, outside the submitted work. Dr. Hites reports grants from The Belgian Center for Knowledge (KCE), grants from Fonds Erasme-COVID-ULB, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Gilead, outside the submitted work. Dr. Mootien reports non-financial support from GILEAD, outside the submitted work. Dr. Gaborit reports non-financial support from Gilead, non- financial support from MSD, outside the submitted work. Dr. Botelho-Nevers reports other from Pfizer, other from Janssen, outside the submitted work. Dr. Lacombe reports personal fees and non-financial support from Gilead, personal fees and non-financial support from Janssen, personal fees and non-financial support from MSD, personal fees and non-financial support from ViiV Healthcare, personal fees and non-financial support from Abbvie, during the conduct of the study. Dr. Wallet reports personal fees and non-financial support from Jazz pharmaceuticals, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis, personal fees and nonPage financial support from Kite-Gilead, outside the submitted work. Dr. Kimmoun reports personal fees from Aguettan, personal fees from Aspen, outside the submitted work. Dr. Thiery reports personal fees from AMGEN, outside the submitted work. Dr. Burdet reports personal fees from Da Volterra, personal fees from Mylan Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. Dr. Poissy reports personal fees from Gilead for lectures, outside the submitted work. Dr. Goehringer reports personal fees from Gilead Sciences, non-financial support from Gilead Sciences, grants from Biomerieux, non-financial support from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. Dr. Peytavin reports personal fees from Gilead Sciences, personal fees from Merck France, personal fees from ViiV Healthcare, personal fees from TheraTechnologies, outside the submitted work. Dr. Danion reports personal fees from Gilead, outside the submitted work. Dr. Raffi reports personal fees from Gilead, personal fees from Janssen, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Abbvie, personal fees from ViiV Healthcare, personal fees from Theratechnologies, personal fees from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. Dr. Gallien reports personal fees from Gilead, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from ViiV, personal fees from MSD, outside the submitted work; and has received consulting fee from Gilead in August 2020 to check the registration file of remdesivir for the French administration. Dr. Nseir reports personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Gilead, personal fees from Biomérieux, personal fees from BioRad, outside the submitted work. Dr. Lefèvre reports personal fees from Mylan, personal fees from Gilead, outside the submitted work. Dr. Guedj reports personal fees from Roche, outside the submitted work. Other authors have nothing to disclose.Ethics Approval Statement: The trial was approved by the Ethics Committee (CPP Ile-de-France-III, approval #20.03.06.51744), and is sponsored by the Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale (Inserm, France); it was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consent was obtained from all included participants (or their legal representatives if unable to consent). The present analysis is based on the protocol v11.0 of December 12th, 2020.

Antiviral drugs in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 - the DisCoVeRy trial (preprint)

Background: Lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-interferon (IFN)-beta-1a and hydroxychloroquine efficacy for COVID-19 have been evaluated, but detailed evaluation is lacking. Objective: To determine the efficacy of lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-beta-1a, hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir for improving the clinical, virological outcomes in COVID-19 inpatients. Design: Open-label, randomized, adaptive, controlled trial. Setting: Multi-center trial with patients from France. Participants: 583 COVID-19 inpatients requiring oxygen and/or ventilatory support Intervention: Standard of care (SoC, control), SoC plus lopinavir/ritonavir (400 mg lopinavir and 100 mg ritonavir every 12h for 14 days), SoC plus lopinavir/ritonavir plus IFN-beta-1a (44 micrograms of subcutaneous IFN-beta-1a on days 1, 3, and 6), SoC plus hydroxychloroquine (400 mg twice on day 1 then 400 mg once daily for 9 days) or SoC plus remdesivir (200 mg intravenously on day 1 then 100 mg once-daily for hospitalization duration or 10 days). Measurements: The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15, measured by the WHO 7-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes included SARS-CoV-2 quantification in respiratory specimens and safety analyses. Results: Adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR) for the WHO 7-point ordinal scale were not in favor of investigational treatments: lopinavir/ritonavir versus control, aOR 0.83, 95%CI, 0.55 to 1.26, P=0.39; lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-beta-1a versus control, aOR 0.69, 95%CI, 0.45 to 1.04, P=0.08; hydroxychloroquine versus control, aOR 0.93, 95%CI, 0.62 to 1.41, P=0.75. No significant effect on SARS-CoV-2 RNA clearance in respiratory tract was evidenced. Lopinavir/ritonavir-containing treatments were significantly associated with more SAE. Limitations: Not a placebo-controlled, no anti-inflammatory agents tested. Conclusion: No improvement of the clinical status at day 15 nor SARS-CoV-2 RNA clearance in respiratory tract specimens by studied drugs. This comforts the recent Solidarity findings. Registration: NCT04315948. Funding: PHRC 2020, Dim OneHealth, REACTing

Intention to participate in a COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial and to get vaccinated against COVID-19 in France during the pandemic (preprint)

BackgroundThe world is facing the COVID-19 pandemic. Development of vaccine is challenging. AimTo determine the proportion of people who intend to get vaccinated against COVID-19 in France or to participate in a vaccine clinical trial. MethodsWe conducted an anonymous on-line survey from the 26th of March to the 20th of April 2020. Primary endpoints were the intention to get vaccinated against COVID-19 if a vaccine was available or participate in a vaccine clinical trial. ResultsThree thousand two hundred and fifty nine individuals answered the survey; women accounted for 67.4 % of the responders, 670 (20.6 %) were under 30 years of age, 1,502 (46.1 %) between 30-49 years, 803 (24.6 %) between 50-64 years, 271 (8.3%) between 65-80 years, 13 (0.4%) over 80 years of age. According to their statements, 2.512 participants (77.6%, 95 % CI 76.2-79 %) will certainly or probably agree to get vaccinated against COVID-19. Older age, male gender, fear about COVID-19, being healthcare workers and individual perceived risk were associated with COVID-19 vaccine acceptance Vaccine hesitancy was associated with a decrease in COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. One thousand and five hundred and fifty responders (47.6 % 95 % CI 45.9-49.3 %) will certainly or probably agree to participate in a COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial. Conclusions and RelevanceNearly 75 % and 48 % of the survey responders were likely to accept vaccination or participation in a clinical trial against COVID-19. Vaccine hesitancy will be the major barrier to COVID-19 vaccine uptake.