The Value(s) of Vaccination: Building the Scientific Evidence According to a Value-Based Healthcare Approach.

Objectives: To provide a new value-based immunization approach collating the available scientific evidence on the topic. Methods: Four value pillars (personal, allocative, technical, and societal) applied to vaccination field were investigated. A systematic literature review was performed querying three database from December 24th, 2010 to May 27th, 2020. It included studies on vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs) that mentioned the term value in any part and which were conducted in advanced economies. An in-depth analysis was performed on studies addressing value as key element. Results: Overall, 107 studies were considered. Approximately half of the studies addressed value as a key element but in most of cases (83.3%) only a single pillar was assessed. Furthermore, the majority of papers addressed the technical value by looking only at classical methods for economic assessment of vaccinations whereas very few dealt with societal and allocative pillars. Conclusions: Estimating the vaccinations value is very complex, even though their usefulness is certain. The assessment of the whole value of vaccines and vaccinations is still limited to some domains and should encompass the wider impact on economic growth and societies.

Organisational Model and Coverage of At-Home COVID-19 Vaccination in an Italian Urban Context.

The COVID-19 pandemic called for a reorganisation of the methods for providing health services. The aim of this paper is to describe the organisational model implemented by one of Rome's Local Health Units (LHU), ASL Roma 1, for the "at-home COVID-19 vaccination campaign" dedicated to a target population and to outline data related to vaccination coverage stratified by health districts. A cross-sectional study was designed to describe the strategies implemented by LHU to deliver at-home vaccination programmes. People eligible for the at-home vaccination programme included patients living in the area of the LHU, being assisted by the district home care centre or not transportable or individuals with social situations that make traveling difficult. Priority for vaccination was given to (I) age > 80 years, (II) ventilated patients with no age limit, (III) very seriously disabled people with no age limit. Patients' data were acquired from regional and LHU databases. From 5 February until the 16 May, 6127 people got at least one dose of Pfizer-Biontech Comirnaty® vaccine, while 5278 (86.14%) completed the necessary two doses. The highest number of vaccines was administered during the first week of April, reaching 1296 doses overall. The number of vaccines administered were similar across the districts. The average number of people vaccinated at home was 6 per 1000 inhabitants in the LHU. This model proved to be extremely complex but effective, reaching satisfying results in terms of vaccination coverage.

Is COVID-19 a Real Incentive for Flu Vaccination? Let the Numbers Speak for Themselves.

Seasonal flu vaccination is one of the most important strategies for preventing influenza. The attitude towards flu vaccination in light of the COVID-19 pandemic has so far been studied in the literature mostly with the help of surveys and questionnaires. Whether a person chooses to be vaccinated or not during the COVID-19 pandemic, however, speaks louder than any declaration of intention. In our teaching hospital, we registered a statistically significant increase in flu vaccination coverage across all professional categories between the 2019/2020 and the 2020/2021 campaign (24.19% vs. 54.56%, p < 0.0001). A linear regression model, based on data from four previous campaigns, predicted for the 2020/2021 campaign a total flu vaccination coverage of 30.35%. A coverage of 54.46% was, instead, observed, with a statistically significant difference from the predicted value (p < 0.0001). The COVID-19 pandemic can, therefore, be considered as an incentive that significantly and dramatically increased adherence to flu vaccination among our healthcare workers.

COVID-19 Seroprevalence among Healthcare Workers of a Large COVID-19 Hospital in Rome Reveals Strengths and Limits of Two Different Serological Tests.

Healthcare workers are at the forefront against COVID-19, worldwide. Since Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli (FPG) IRCCS was enlisted as a COVID-19 hospital, the healthcare workers deployed to COVID-19 wards were separated from those with limited/no exposure, whereas the administrative staff were designated to work from home. Between 4 June and 3 July 2020, an investigation was conducted to evaluate the seroprevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) immunoglobulin (IgG) antibodies among the employees of the FPG using point-of-care (POC) and venous blood tests. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were determined with reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction on nasal/oropharyngeal swabs as the diagnostic gold standard. The participants enrolled amounted to 4777. Seroprevalence was 3.66% using the POC test and 1.19% using the venous blood test, with a significant difference (p < 0.05). The POC test sensitivity and specificity were, respectively, 63.64% (95% confidence interval (CI): 62.20% to 65.04%) and 96.64% (95% CI: 96.05% to 97.13%), while those of the venous blood test were, respectively, 78.79% (95% CI: 77.58% to 79.94%) and 99.36% (95% CI: 99.07% to 99.55%). Among the low-risk populations, the POC test's predictive values were 58.33% (positive) and 98.23% (negative), whereas those of the venous blood test were 92.86% (positive) and 98.53% (negative). According to our study, these serological tests cannot be a valid alternative to diagnose COVID-19 infection in progress.