Parental COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Little is known about parents' willingness to vaccinate their children against COVID-19. We assessed the prevalence of vaccine hesitancy among parents with a child or adolescent aged 12-15 years, examined predictors of parents' COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, their reasons for resisting a pediatric COVID-19 vaccine, and the correlation between parents' intentions to vaccinate their child and the acceptance of a vaccine for themselves. METHODS: We conducted a national online survey of 637 parents of a child or adolescent aged 12-15 years in March 2021, before COVID-19 vaccines had been approved for this age group. We assessed univariate predictors of vaccine hesitancy, and we used logistic regression analysis to assess independent effects of variables on vaccine hesitancy. RESULTS: Nearly one-third (28.9%; 95% CI, 25.5%-32.5%) of respondents reported pediatric vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine-hesitant parents were less knowledgeable about vaccines, more accepting of vaccine conspiracies, and less worried about COVID-19 risks to their child's health than vaccine-accepting parents were. Vaccine hesitancy was higher among female (vs male), single (vs married/living as married), older (vs younger), low income (vs high income), non-college graduates (vs college graduates), and Republican (vs Democrat) parents. The primary concerns expressed by vaccine-hesitant parents pertained to vaccine safety rather than vaccine effectiveness. One-quarter of vaccine-hesitant parents preferred that their child obtain immunity through infection rather than vaccination. Non-vaccine-hesitant parents' reasons for vaccinating focused on protecting the health of their child and others. Childhood COVID-19 vaccine acceptance was strongly associated with parents' intentions to get the vaccine for themselves. CONCLUSION: A messaging strategy for effective public health interventions that includes educating the public about vaccination, countering misinformation about vaccine development and safety, and stressing the safety of approved COVID-19 vaccines may boost vaccine acceptance among vaccine-hesitant parents.

Conservative Media Use and Childhood COVID-19 Vaccine Information: A Test of the Contradictory Health Information Processing Model.

The Contradictory Health Information Processing (CHIP) model explains individuals' processing of conflicting health claims. Tests of the model, while highly supportive, have been experimental and have relied upon low-familiar topics. Accordingly, a survey of parents with a child aged <12 years (N = 510) was conducted to test the application of the CHIP model to the controversial issue of childhood COVID-19 vaccination; such a vaccine had not yet been approved for this age group at the time of the survey. As hypothesized, reliance upon conservative news was associated with the perception that media information contradicted official guidance to vaccinate children, which led to issue uncertainty. Issue uncertainty prompted negative appraisals and decision uncertainty. Specifically, decision uncertainty partially mediated the effect of issue uncertainty on negative appraisals of vaccination, which in turn aroused threat emotions. However, threat emotions did not predict information-seeking, as specified in the model. This result may have been due to respondents having already decided to vaccinate their child, or not - a reflection of the partisan nature of the topic and the extensive coverage it had received. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Impaired exercise capacity in post-COVID-19 syndrome: the role of VWF-ADAMTS13 axis.

Post-COVID syndrome (PCS), or long COVID, is an increasingly recognized complication of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, characterized by persistent fatigue, reduced exercise tolerance, chest pain, shortness of breath, and cognitive slowing. Acute COVID-19 is strongly linked with an increased risk of thrombosis, which is a prothrombotic state quantified by an elevated von Willebrand factor (VWF) antigen (Ag)/ADAMTS13 ratio that is associated with severity of acute COVID-19 infection. We investigated whether patients with PCS also had evidence of a prothrombotic state associated with symptom severity. In a large cohort of patients referred to a dedicated post-COVID-19 clinic, thrombotic risk, including VWF(Ag)/ADAMTS13 ratio, was investigated. An elevated VWF(Ag)/ADAMTS13 ratio (≥1.5) was present in nearly one-third of the cohort and was 4 times more likely to be present in patients with impaired exercise capacity, as evidenced by desaturation ≥3% and/or an increase in lactate level >1 from baseline on a 1-minute sit-to-stand test and/or a 6-minute walk test (P < .0001). Of 276 patients, 56 (20%) had impaired exercise capacity, of which 55% (31/56) had a VWF(Ag)/ADAMTS13 ratio ≥1.5 (P < .0001). Factor VIII and VWF(Ag) were elevated in 26% and 18%, respectively, and support a hypercoagulable state in some patients with PCS. These findings suggest possible ongoing microvascular/endothelial dysfunction in the pathogenesis of PCS and suggest a role for antithrombotic therapy in the treatment of these patients.

Myocardial Perfusion Imaging After Severe COVID-19 Infection Demonstrates Regional Ischemia Rather Than Global Blood Flow Reduction.

Background: Acute myocardial damage is common in severe COVID-19. Post-mortem studies have implicated microvascular thrombosis, with cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) demonstrating a high prevalence of myocardial infarction and myocarditis-like scar. The microcirculatory sequelae are incompletely characterized. Perfusion CMR can quantify the stress myocardial blood flow (MBF) and identify its association with infarction and myocarditis. Objectives: To determine the impact of the severe hospitalized COVID-19 on global and regional myocardial perfusion in recovered patients. Methods: A case-control study of previously hospitalized, troponin-positive COVID-19 patients was undertaken. The results were compared with a propensity-matched, pre-COVID chest pain cohort (referred for clinical CMR; angiography subsequently demonstrating unobstructed coronary arteries) and 27 healthy volunteers (HV). The analysis used visual assessment for the regional perfusion defects and AI-based segmentation to derive the global and regional stress and rest MBF. Results: Ninety recovered post-COVID patients {median age 64 [interquartile range (IQR) 54-71] years, 83% male, 44% requiring the intensive care unit (ICU)} underwent adenosine-stress perfusion CMR at a median of 61 (IQR 29-146) days post-discharge. The mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 67 ± 10%; 10 (11%) with impaired LVEF. Fifty patients (56%) had late gadolinium enhancement (LGE); 15 (17%) had infarct-pattern, 31 (34%) had non-ischemic, and 4 (4.4%) had mixed pattern LGE. Thirty-two patients (36%) had adenosine-induced regional perfusion defects, 26 out of 32 with at least one segment without prior infarction. The global stress MBF in post-COVID patients was similar to the age-, sex- and co-morbidities of the matched controls (2.53 ± 0.77 vs. 2.52 ± 0.79 ml/g/min, p = 0.10), though lower than HV (3.00 ± 0.76 ml/g/min, p< 0.01). Conclusions: After severe hospitalized COVID-19 infection, patients who attended clinical ischemia testing had little evidence of significant microvascular disease at 2 months post-discharge. The high prevalence of regional inducible ischemia and/or infarction (nearly 40%) may suggest that occult coronary disease is an important putative mechanism for troponin elevation in this cohort. This should be considered hypothesis-generating for future studies which combine ischemia and anatomical assessment.

Post-COVID-19 assessment in a specialist clinical service: a 12-month, single-centre, prospective study in 1325 individuals.

INTRODUCTION: Post-COVID-19 complications require simultaneous characterisation and management to plan policy and health system responses. We describe the 12-month experience of the first UK dedicated post-COVID-19 clinical service to include hospitalised and non-hospitalised patients. METHODS: In a single-centre, observational analysis, we report the demographics, symptoms, comorbidities, investigations, treatments, functional recovery, specialist referral and rehabilitation of 1325 individuals assessed at the University College London Hospitals post-COVID-19 service between April 2020 and April 2021, comparing by referral route: posthospitalised (PH), non-hospitalised (NH) and post emergency department (PED). Symptoms associated with poor recovery or inability to return to work full time were assessed using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: 1325 individuals were assessed (PH: 547, 41.3%; PED: 212, 16%; NH: 566, 42.7%). Compared with the PH and PED groups, the NH group were younger (median 44.6 (35.6-52.8) years vs 58.3 (47.0-67.7) years and 48.5 (39.4-55.7) years), more likely to be female (68.2%, 43.0% and 59.9%), less likely to be of ethnic minority (30.9%, 52.7% and 41.0%) or seen later after symptom onset (median (IQR): 194 (118-298) days, 69 (51-111) days and 76 (55-128) days; all p<0.0001). All groups had similar rates of onward specialist referral (NH 18.7%, PH 16.1% and PED 18.9%, p=0.452) and were more likely to require support for breathlessness (23.7%, 5.5% and 15.1%, p<0.001) and fatigue (17.8%, 4.8% and 8.0%, p<0.001). Hospitalised patients had higher rates of pulmonary emboli, persistent lung interstitial abnormalities and other organ impairment. 716 (54.0%) individuals reported <75% optimal health (median 70%, IQR 55%-85%). Less than half of employed individuals could return to work full time at first assessment. CONCLUSION: Post-COVID-19 symptoms were significant in PH and NH patients, with significant ongoing healthcare needs and utilisation. Trials of interventions and patient-centred pathways for diagnostic and treatment approaches are urgently required.

Patterns of myocardial injury in recovered troponin-positive COVID-19 patients assessed by cardiovascular magnetic resonance.

BACKGROUND: Troponin elevation is common in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, but underlying aetiologies are ill-defined. We used multi-parametric cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) to assess myocardial injury in recovered COVID-19 patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: One hundred and forty-eight patients (64 ± 12 years, 70% male) with severe COVID-19 infection [all requiring hospital admission, 48 (32%) requiring ventilatory support] and troponin elevation discharged from six hospitals underwent convalescent CMR (including adenosine stress perfusion if indicated) at median 68 days. Left ventricular (LV) function was normal in 89% (ejection fraction 67% ± 11%). Late gadolinium enhancement and/or ischaemia was found in 54% (80/148). This comprised myocarditis-like scar in 26% (39/148), infarction and/or ischaemia in 22% (32/148) and dual pathology in 6% (9/148). Myocarditis-like injury was limited to three or less myocardial segments in 88% (35/40) of cases with no associated LV dysfunction; of these, 30% had active myocarditis. Myocardial infarction was found in 19% (28/148) and inducible ischaemia in 26% (20/76) of those undergoing stress perfusion (including 7 with both infarction and ischaemia). Of patients with ischaemic injury pattern, 66% (27/41) had no past history of coronary disease. There was no evidence of diffuse fibrosis or oedema in the remote myocardium (T1: COVID-19 patients 1033 ± 41 ms vs. matched controls 1028 ± 35 ms; T2: COVID-19 46 ± 3 ms vs. matched controls 47 ± 3 ms). CONCLUSIONS: During convalescence after severe COVID-19 infection with troponin elevation, myocarditis-like injury can be encountered, with limited extent and minimal functional consequence. In a proportion of patients, there is evidence of possible ongoing localized inflammation. A quarter of patients had ischaemic heart disease, of which two-thirds had no previous history. Whether these observed findings represent pre-existing clinically silent disease or de novo COVID-19-related changes remain undetermined. Diffuse oedema or fibrosis was not detected.

Predictors of intention to vaccinate against COVID-19: Results of a nationwide survey.

BACKGROUND: Public polling indicates that vaccine uptake will be suboptimal when COVID-19 vaccines become available. Formative research seeking an understanding of weak vaccination intentions is urgently needed. METHODS: Nationwide online survey of 804 U.S. English-speaking adults. Compensated participants were recruited from the U.S. through an internet survey panel of 2.5 million residents developed by a commercial survey firm. Recruitment was based on quota sampling to produce a U.S. Census-matched sample representative of the nation with regard to region of residence, sex, and age. RESULTS: COVID-19 vaccination intentions were weak, with 14.8% of respondents being unlikely to get vaccinated and another 23.0% unsure. Intent to vaccinate was highest for men, older people, individuals who identified as white and non-Hispanic, the affluent and college-educated, Democrats, those who were married or partnered, people with pre-existing medical conditions, and those vaccinated against influenza during the 2019-2020 flu season. In a multiple linear regression, significant predictors of vaccination intent were general vaccine knowledge (ß = 0.311, p < .001), rejection of vaccine conspiracies (ß = -0.117, p = .003), perceived severity of COVID-19 (ß = 0.273, p < .001), influenza vaccine uptake (ß = 0.178, p < .001), having ≥ 5 pre-existing conditions (ß = 0.098, p = .003), being male (ß = 0.119, p < .001), household income of ≥ $120,000 (ß = 0.110, p = .004), identifying as a Democrat (ß = 0.075, p < .029), and not relying upon social media for virus information (ß = -0.090, p ã€ˆ002). Intent to vaccinate was lower for Fox News (57.3%) than CNN/MSNBC viewers (76.4%) (χ2(1) = 12.68, p < .001). Political party differences in threat appraisals and vaccine conspiracy beliefs are described. CONCLUSIONS: Demographic characteristics, vaccine knowledge, perceived vulnerability to COVID-19, risk factors for COVID-19, and politics likely contribute to vaccination hesitancy.

The hematology laboratory's response to the COVID-19 pandemic: A scoping review.

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound worldwide impact on the laboratory hematology community. Nevertheless, the pace of COVID-19 hematology-related research has continued to accelerate and has established the role of laboratory hematology data for many purposes including disease prognosis and outcome. The purpose of this scoping review was to assess the current state of COVID-19 laboratory hematology research. A comprehensive search of the literature published between December 1, 2019, and July 3, 2020, was performed, and we analyzed the sources, publication dates, study types, and topics of the retrieved studies. Overall, 402 studies were included in this scoping review. Approximately half of these studies (n = 202, 50.37%) originated in China. Retrospective cohort studies comprised the largest study type (n = 176, 43.89%). Prognosis/ risk factors, epidemiology, and coagulation were the most common topics. The number of studies published per day has increased through the end of May. The studies were heavily biased in favor of papers originating in China and on retrospective clinical studies with limited use of and reporting of laboratory data. Despite the major improvements in our understanding of the role of coagulation, automated hematology, and cell morphology in COVID-19, there are gaps in the literature, including biosafety and the laboratory role in screening and prevention of COVID-19. There is a gap in the publication of papers focused on guidelines for the laboratory. Our findings suggest that, despite the large number of publications related to laboratory data and their use in COVID-19 disease, many areas remain unexplored or under-reported.