Diseases associated with feline leukemia virus and feline immunodeficiency virus infection: A retrospective study of 1470 necropsied cats (2010-2020).

Feline leukemia virus (FeLV) and feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) are retroviruses affecting cats worldwide, and the prevalence of infection varies considerably according to the geographic area. We retrospectively described FIV- and FeLV-associated diseases in a population of 1470 necropsied cats, of which 396 (26.9%) were infected with FeLV, 199 (13.5%) with FIV, and 134 (9.1%) with FeLV and FIV concomitantly. Cats infected with FeLV (OR 3.4) and co-infected with FeLV and FIV (OR 1.9) were more likely to have neoplasms. The diagnosis of lymphoma and leukemia was higher in cats infected with FeLV (OR 3.9 and 19.4, respectively) and coinfected with FeLV and FIV (OR 1.9 and 19.3, respectively). The odds of diagnosing bacterial diseases were higher in cats coinfected with FeLV and FIV (OR: 2.8), whereas the odds of viral diseases were higher in those infected with FeLV (OR: 2.8), with 2.2 times more diagnoses of feline infectious peritonitis. Neoplastic and infectious diseases in FIV-infected cats did not differ significantly from those in uninfected cats. According to our results, a high prevalence of retroviral infections was observed in southern Brazil, mainly in relation to FeLV. Infected cats were significantly younger than uninfected cats. The main causes of death associated with FeLV infection and FeLV and FIV coinfection were neoplastic and infectious diseases. In contrast, FIV infection was not associated with any specific condition.

Long-term effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against infections, hospitalisations, and mortality in adults: findings from a rapid living systematic evidence synthesis and meta-analysis up to December, 2022.

BACKGROUND: Synthesising evidence on the long-term vaccine effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines (BNT162b2 [Pfizer-BioNTech], mRNA-1273 [Moderna], ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 [AZD1222; Oxford-AstraZeneca], and Ad26.COV2.S [Janssen]) against infections, hospitalisations, and mortality is crucial to making evidence-based pandemic policy decisions. METHODS: In this rapid living systematic evidence synthesis and meta-analysis, we searched EMBASE and the US National Institutes of Health's iSearch COVID-19 Portfolio, supplemented by manual searches of COVID-19-specific sources, until Dec 1, 2022, for studies that reported vaccine effectiveness immediately and at least 112 days after a primary vaccine series or at least 84 days after a booster dose. Single reviewers assessed titles, abstracts, and full-text articles, and extracted data, with a second reviewer verifying included studies. The primary outcomes were vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infections, hospitalisations, and mortality, which were assessed using three-level meta-analytic models. This study is registered with the National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools, review 473. FINDINGS: We screened 16 696 records at the title and abstract level, appraised 832 (5·0%) full texts, and initially included 73 (0·4%) studies. Of these, we excluded five (7%) studies because of critical risk of bias, leaving 68 (93%) studies that were extracted for analysis. For infections caused by any SARS-CoV-2 strain, vaccine effectiveness for the primary series reduced from 83% (95% CI 80-86) at baseline (14-42 days) to 62% (53-69) by 112-139 days. Vaccine effectiveness at baseline was 92% (88-94) for hospitalisations and 91% (85-95) for mortality, and reduced to 79% (65-87) at 224-251 days for hospitalisations and 86% (73-93) at 168-195 days for mortality. Estimated vaccine effectiveness was lower for the omicron variant for infections, hospitalisations, and mortality at baseline compared with that of other variants, but subsequent reductions occurred at a similar rate across variants. For booster doses, which covered mostly omicron studies, vaccine effectiveness at baseline was 70% (56-80) against infections and 89% (82-93) against hospitalisations, and reduced to 43% (14-62) against infections and 71% (51-83) against hospitalisations at 112 days or later. Not enough studies were available to report on booster vaccine effectiveness against mortality. INTERPRETATION: Our analyses indicate that vaccine effectiveness generally decreases over time against SARS-CoV-2 infections, hospitalisations, and mortality. The baseline vaccine effectiveness levels for the omicron variant were notably lower than for other variants. Therefore, other preventive measures (eg, face-mask wearing and physical distancing) might be necessary to manage the pandemic in the long term. FUNDING: Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Public Health Agency of Canada.

Understanding national trends in COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Canada: results from five sequential cross-sectional representative surveys spanning April 2020-March 2021.

OBJECTIVE: To examine rates of vaccine hesitancy and their correlates among Canadian adults between April 2020 and March 2021. DESIGN: Five sequential cross-sectional age, sex and province-weighted population-based samples who completed online surveys. SETTING: Canada. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 15 019 Canadians aged 18 years and over were recruited through a recognised polling firm (Leger Opinion). Respondents were 51.5% female with a mean age of 48.1 (SD 17.2) years (range 18-95 years) and predominantly white (80.8%). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of vaccine hesitancy over the five surveys (time points) and their sociodemographic, clinical and psychological correlates. RESULTS: A total of 42.2% of respondents reported some degree of vaccine hesitancy, which was lowest during surveys 1 (April 2020) and 5 (March 2021) and highest during survey 3 (November 2020). Fully adjusted multivariate logistic regression analyses revealed that women, those aged 50 and younger, non-white, those with high school education or less, and those with annual household incomes below the poverty line in Canada were significantly more likely to report vaccine hesitancy, as were essential and healthcare workers, parents of children under the age of 18 and those who do not get regular influenza vaccines. Endorsing prevention behaviours as important for reducing virus transmission and high COVID-19 health concerns were associated with 77% and 54% reduction in vaccine hesitancy, respectively. Having high personal financial concerns was associated with 1.33 times increased odds of vaccine hesitancy. CONCLUSIONS: Results highlight the importance of targeting vaccine efforts to specific groups by emphasising the outsized health benefits compared with risks of vaccination. Future research should monitor changes in vaccine intentions and behaviour to better understand underlying factors.

Global Trends and Correlates of COVID-19 Vaccination Hesitancy: Findings from the iCARE Study.

The success of large-scale COVID-19 vaccination campaigns is contingent upon people being willing to receive the vaccine. Our study explored COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and its correlates in eight different countries around the globe. We analyzed convenience sample data collected between March 2020 and January 2021 as part of the iCARE cross-sectional study. Univariate and multivariate statistical analyses were conducted to explore the correlates of vaccine hesitancy. We included 32,028 participants from eight countries, and observed that 27% of the participants exhibited vaccine hesitancy, with increases over time. France reported the highest level of hesitancy (47.3%) and Brazil reported the lowest (9.6%). Women, younger individuals (≤29 years), people living in rural areas, and those with a lower perceived income were more likely to be hesitant. People who previously received an influenza vaccine were 70% less likely to report COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. We observed that people reporting greater COVID-19 health concerns were less likely to be hesitant, whereas people with higher personal financial concerns were more likely to be hesitant. Our findings indicate that there is substantial vaccine hesitancy in several countries, with cross-national differences in the magnitude and direction of the trend. Vaccination communication initiatives should target hesitant individuals (women, younger adults, people with lower incomes and those living in rural areas), and should highlight the immediate health, social and economic benefits of vaccination across these settings. Country-level analyses are warranted to understand the complex psychological, socio-environmental, and cultural factors associated with vaccine hesitancy.