Addressing Persistent Vaccine Hesitancy in a Military Community Through a Physician-Led Intervention.

INTRODUCTION: Following the identification of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in China, the virus has spread rapidly around the world causing severe illness and death. Several vaccines were found to be safe and effective and made available first to those most at risk and then to the general public. Despite the safety and efficacy profiles, vaccine hesitancy remains a significant barrier to widespread immunity. Within the military community at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, we provided multiple physician-led educational seminars to address vaccination concerns and decrease vaccine hesitancy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors presented a PowerPoint presentation of the available vaccinations, their safety data, and efficacy, followed by a town hall-style question-and-answer period where questions were presented from the previous submission, as well as real-time submissions through Facebook Live. The questions were fielded by specialists in Internal Medicine, Infectious Disease, Pulmonary-Critical Care, Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Rheumatology. The entire presentation was streamed through Facebook Live and was freely available. Following the presentation, an online survey was provided for willing participants to complete which included demographic data and addressed their previous and current attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccinations and their opinions on the presentation. Data from the survey were then analyzed through IBM SPSS Statistics 25.0 to find any associations or risk factors for hesitancy. RESULTS: There were 73 respondents to the assessment, most of which were nonmedical. Of the 73, the majority (45) had already received a vaccine for COVID-19. Of those unvaccinated, 17 did not want a vaccination before or after the seminar. Two did change their mind about being receptive to vaccination, and one changed from receptive to hesitant. The only statistically significant risk factors for vaccine hesitancy were those with a moderate to great amount of trust in their health care provider compared to those with little to no trust (73% vs. 4%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Our intervention was limited in its effectiveness to address vaccine hesitancy late in the pandemic, with our study limited by our small sample size. Regardless, it identified a peculiar discrepancy with those with the most trust in health care providers being the most likely to be vaccine-hesitant. This highlights the importance of the information that trusted health care providers are providing to their patients and may identify more effective routes to address vaccine hesitancy in the future.

Outcomes of Heated High Flow Nasal Cannula in Patients With Severe or Life-Threatening COVID-19 at a Military Treatment Facility-A Retrospective Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) pandemic has forced radical changes in management of healthcare in military treatment facilities (MTFs). Military treatment facilities serve unique patients that have a service connection; thus, research and data on this population are relatively sparse. The purpose of this study was to provide descriptive data on characteristics and outcomes of MTF patients with COVID-19 who are treated with heated high-flow nasal cannula (HHFNC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a single-center retrospective cohort study at the Wright-Patterson Medical Center, a 52-bed hospital in an urban setting. We received approval from our Institutional Review Board. The cohort included patients admitted from June 1, 2020, through May 15, 2021 with severe or life-threatening COVID-19 from a positive severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2 reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction test who were placed on HHFNC during their hospital stay. Severe disease was defined as dyspnea, respiratory rate ≥30/min, blood oxygen saturation ≤93% without supplemental oxygen, partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio <300, or lung infiltrates involving >50% of lung fields within 24-48 hours. Life-threatening disease was defined as having septic shock or multiple organ dysfunction or requiring intubation. Patients meeting these criteria were retrieved from a quality improvement cohort that represents a consecutive group of patients with COVID-19 admitted to the Wright-Patterson Medical Center. RESULTS: Our MTF managed 70 cases of severe or life-threatening COVID-19 from June 1, 2020, to May 15, 2021. Of the 70 cases, 19 (27%) were placed on HHFNC. After initiation of HHFNC, median SpO2/FiO2 was 281.8 and at 24 hours 145.4. Median respiratory rate oxygenation at these times were 10.7 and 9.4, respectively. Fifty percent required mechanical ventilation during hospitalization. Median intensive care unit length of stay was 11 days, with a maximum stay of 39 days. Median hospital length of stay was 12 days, with a maximum of 39 days. CONCLUSION: Our retrospective cohort study characterized and analyzed outcomes observed in a MTF population, with severe or life-threatening COVID-19, who were treated with HHFNC. While the study did not have the power to make concrete conclusions on the optimal form of respiratory support for COVID-19 patients, our data support HHFNC as a reasonable treatment modality despite some notable differences between our cohort and prior studied patient populations.

Impact of an Education Intervention on COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in a Military Base Population.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hesitancy is a major impediment to achieving herd immunity and overcoming the current pandemic. Our aim was to decrease the prevalence of vaccine hesitancy through an education intervention. METHOD: An education intervention, consisting of a PowerPoint presentation addressing the two mRNA COVID-19 vaccine concerns/myths and a question and answer panel comprising health care providers from various specialties, was implemented to address vaccine hesitancy among personnel associated with Wright-Patterson Air Force Base through a series of virtual and in-person seminars. Participants completed a post-seminar survey as a retrospective self-assessment to identify attitudes and views surrounding vaccine hesitancy and the impact of the education intervention. Chi-squared test was used to examine relationships between categorical variables, and multiple logistic regression was used to identify risk factors for vaccine hesitancy pre- and post-seminar. All analyses were done using SPSS Statistics Version 25.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY). Institutional Review Board approval was not obtained before this study as it began as a non-research initiative and received non-research determination post hoc. RESULTS: Five hundred participants completed the survey. Mean age was 44.7 years with 13.4 and 86.6% medical and non-medical personnel, respectively. Nearly all (98.8%) had not received their first shot of the vaccine series. 402 (80.9%) were receptive to vaccination, and 95 (19.1%) were hesitant post-seminar. Of the 139 participants who reported they were initially hesitant after our intervention, 50 (36%) indicated that they were now receptive to the vaccine, while 89 (64%) remained hesitant. Of those 50, 48 (96%) had moderate to great amount of trust in COVID-19 vaccine information presented by physicians/other providers. Six respondents who wanted the vaccine before the intervention no longer wanted the vaccine. A medical occupation (OR = 4.85, 95% CI = 2.63-8.96, P < .001), little or no trust in COVID-19 vaccine information from physicians/other providers (OR = 19.48, 95% CI = 7.31-51.90, P < 0.001), and being age 30 or younger (OR = 1.81, 95% CI = 1.02-3.2, P = 0.041) were independent predictors of vaccine hesitancy. Trust in providers was a significant factor in change of intent from vaccine hesitant to receptive post-intervention (OR 0.13, 95% CI = 0.03-0.59, P = .008). Age and occupation were not significant factors associated with change in intent. CONCLUSION: Our education intervention was effective in reducing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in a military base population. Study limitations include applications toward other military and non-military populations, the possibility of nonresponse bias, and absence of prior validated interventions. Area for future studies includes improvement upon educational intervention, development of other effective methods, and application of intervention in other populations.

Perceptions and Concerns Regarding COVID-19 Vaccination in a Military Base Population.

INTRODUCTION: Safe and effective vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome-associated coronavirus 2 are essential tools in the fight against the coronavirus disease 2019  (COVID-19) pandemic. However, hesitancy to vaccination is a major barrier to achieving herd immunity, particularly among a population working on a military base. To better understand the perceptions and concerns of these individuals, a voluntary survey was conducted. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An interactive, online survey was constructed and disseminated to individuals associated with Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (WPAFB) in Dayton, OH. Survey participation was voluntary with responses collected over the initial weeks in which WPAFB began to distribute COVID-19 vaccines in a series of phases. Although initially designed to collect demographic data and identify reasons for potential vaccine hesitancy among WPAFB 88th Medical Group personnel, the study population was expanded to include all WPAFB-affiliated personnel at the direction of base leadership. The chi-squared test was used to examine the relationships between categorical variables, while multivariable logistic regression was used to assess age and occupation as independent risk factors for vaccine hesitancy. RESULTS: A total of 816 individuals completed the survey, of whom 22.7% (n = 185) self-identified as vaccine hesitant (VH). The VH group had a lower mean age than the not vaccine hesitant (NVH) group (39.3 ± 14.2 vs. 45.9 ± 13.4, P < .001). Respondents whose occupation was medical were more likely to be VH than their non-medical colleagues (49% vs. 18%, P < .001). The VH group was more concerned about short-term side effects (43% vs. 26%, P < .001), long-term side effects (82% vs. 50%, P < 0.001), vaccine effectiveness (23% vs. 5%, P < .001), vaccine making them feel sick (22% vs. 13%, P = .002), being infected with COVID-19 from the vaccine (10% vs. 5%, P = 0.008), and worry about misinformation/political agenda (43% vs. 31%, P = 0.003). Younger respondents and medical personnel were more likely to be concerned about long-term side effects and vaccine effectiveness, and the younger group was also more likely to be concerned about pregnancy/breastfeeding issues and worry about misinformation/political agenda. Age (younger vs. older, odds ratio 2.15) and occupation (medical vs. non-medical, odds ratio 3.74) were independent risk factors for vaccine hesitancy. The NVH group was more likely to recommend the COVID-19 vaccine to a friend or family member than the VH group (93% vs. 20%, P < .001) as were the older age group (79% vs. 67%, P = .001) and non-medical personnel (81% vs. 52%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Younger age and medical occupation were independent risk factors for vaccine hesitancy and these individuals were less likely to recommend vaccination to a friend or family member. We also identified several key concerns related to vaccination hesitancy, in particular those related to short- and long-term side effects, and the spread of misinformation. Among military personnel, these findings carry important implications that may negatively impact mission readiness, a matter that merits further investigation. Our COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy findings can be used to guide targeted interventions at future vaccination campaigns in a military population.

Bamlanivimab Use in a Military Treatment Facility.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), was first identified in 2019 in Wuhan, China, and has rapidly spread across the world. As of April 2021, SARS-CoV-2 has infected more than 140,000,000 and caused more than 3,000,000 deaths globally. In November 2020, the monoclonal antibody bamlanivimab was approved by the FDA for non-hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) who possessed risk factors for progression to severe COVID-19. This provided a treatment option that may help prevent hospitalization. METHODS: Patients who regularly received ambulatory care at a military treatment facility and who were diagnosed with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 and possessed risk factors for progression to severe COVID-19 were treated with a single, intravenous infusion (700 mg) of the virus-neutralizing monoclonal antibody bamlanivimab. The primary outcome was improvement of self-reported symptoms within 24 to 72 hours of receiving the infusion. The secondary outcome was prevention of disease progression requiring emergency department (ED) utilization or hospitalization related to COVID-19 within 30 days of infusion. Bamlanivimab was administered in accordance with the FDA's approval and Defense Health Agency's guidance, including follow-up within 72 hours of administration. Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was obtained. RESULTS: Of the COVID-19 patients who were given the option of a bamlanivimab infusion, 40 accepted and 6 did not (40/46, 86.9%). Thirty-six of 40 patients in the treatment group were contacted within 72 hours. ED/hospitalization information was available for all 46 patients. In the treatment group, 94.4% (34/36) reported global improvement. Three of 40 (7.5%) patients in the treatment group required inpatient admission, and 2 of 40 patients (5%) required ED evaluation within 30 days of infusion. Therefore, 5 of 40 (12.5%) patients required evaluation shortly after infusion, while 2 of 6 (33.3%) patients who declined treatment required hospital evaluation or admission related to COVID-19 within 30 days of infusion (P = .15). CONCLUSIONS: Global improvement of symptoms within 24 to 72 hours of infusion was reported by 94.4% of patients receiving bamlanivimab; however, statistical significance could not be determined due to the small sample size and lack of placebo group due to study design. Furthermore, ED visits and hospital admissions were analyzed, but with only six patients in the comparison group, the relative risk was not statistically significant and could not be precisely estimated. In the future, this study can be replicated with both larger control/treatment arms to validate the initial results of this small, retrospective, cohort study.