"Poison" or "protection"? A mixed methods exploration of Australian parents' COVID-19 vaccination intentions.

OBJECTIVE: The success of COVID-19 vaccination programs relies on community attitudes, yet little is known about parents' views. We aimed to explore the reasons behind Australian parents' vaccine intentions for themselves and for their children. METHOD: This mixed methods study relates to Wave 13 (January 2021) of a longitudinal study of Australian parents' experiences during COVID-19 and contained 1094 participants (83% mothers). We used multinomial logistic regression to understand demographic predictors of vaccine intention, and a descriptive template thematic analysis to analyse open-ended questions about parents' reasons for vaccine intentions for themselves and their children. RESULTS: 64% of Australian parents intend on vaccination, 26% are unsure and 9% intend to decline; 48% intend to vaccinate their children, 38% are unsure, and 14% intend to decline. Relative to those intending to vaccinate, parents unsure (OR = -0.63, 95% CI: 0.46, -0.84, p = .002) or not intending (OR = -0.41, 95% CI: 0.24, 0.67 p < .001) to vaccinate were more likely to have lower trust in doctors. Similar predictors emerged for parents who did not intend to vaccinate their children (OR = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.31, 0.70, p < .001). Qualitative data indicated that many parents had not made a firm decision, including a lack of alignment between intentions and reasons. For example, parents who said 'yes' to vaccination, often then expressed hesitance and a focus on risks in their written response. Reasons for hesitancy for themselves included concerns about testing, side effects, and long-term outcomes. Similar themes were present for children, but parents expressed a strong desire to protect their children, and an eagerness for health information. CONCLUSION: Based on prior research and the themes identified here, a multipronged campaign that includes education/promotion, good access to vaccines and role models, is likely to support parents to make informed decisions regarding COVID-19 vaccination.

Low-molecular-weight heparin is a superior anticoagulant to unfractionated heparin for renal replacement therapy in patients with AKI due to coronavirus disease 2019

Background: Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) not only causes acute pulmonary pathology leading to acute respiratory distress syndrome needing intubation, but also leads to acute kidney injury (AKI) requiring renal replacement therapy (RRT). Due to hemodynamic instability, these patients (pts) often need either continuous RRT (CRRT) or prolonged intermittent RRT (PIRRT). Accelerated Veno-Venous Hemodialysis (AVVHD), a form of PIRRT with typically 40-50 liter of dialysate used over 8-10 hours has been successfully used to treat hemodynamically unstable pts. In the past, we have published extracorporeal circuit clotting (ECC) to be low (5%) even without anticoagulation. However as hypercoagulability is extreme with COVID-19, we noticed a marked increase in ECC. Unfractionated heparin (UFH) was the initial anticoagulation of choice during the early phase of the pandemic but was ineffective in preventing ECC, prompting a trial of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH). Methods: We conducted a single-center retrospective study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LMWH vs UFH in preventing ECC in pts with AKI due to COVID-19 who received AVVHD from 3/25/20 through 4/30/20 at a large academic medical center. Data collected included pt demographics, type of anticoagulation and thrombolytic use, treatment characteristics including clotting frequency as well as bleeding complications. ECC was defined as any event that required an unexpected interruption in treatment or the use of thrombolytics. Results: A total of 58 pts received 408 AVVHD treatments. The average pt age was 58 years, 65% were male, 66% were black and 69% were obese with body mass index >;30 kg/m2. 188/408 (46%) of AVVHD treatments received anticoagulation with UFH while 165/408 (40%) of treatments received LMWH. ECC occurred in 30% of AVVHD treatments who received UFH vs 15% in the LMWH group, a relative risk reduction of 50% (P = 0.001). 47.1% pts who were on UFH had ECC on the first RRT treatment compared to 13.6% on LMWH (P = 0.01). Only 1 pt experienced a major bleeding event in the UFH group and none with LMWH. Conclusions: Anticoagulation with LMWH is superior to UFH in reducing ECC in pts receiving AVVHD for AKI due to COVID-19 without an increased risk of bleeding.