ABSTRACT
Background: Cancer patients (pts) were among the first to receive vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 (vac). However, their attitude towards as well as experience with vac remain unclear. Methods: Between 04-11/2021 cancer pts at our university cancer center completed a baseline (BL) and follow-up (FU) questionnaire (Q) containing multiple choice questions and ten eleven-level Likert items ranging from 1 (“totally disagree”) to 11 (“totally agree”). Data was analyzed using Student's t-test or Chi-square test. Results: 219 pts (43% female) completed BLQ (110 FUQ). Mean age was 64 (24-87) years. 82% had solid tumors, 93% were on active therapy (80% chemotherapy). 4% had history of COVID-19. 78% had already received at least one vac at BL, mainly BNT162b2 (91%) or ChAdOx1-S (8%). Only 1% refused vac. Most pts completely agreed to “definitely get vaccinated” (82%) and completely disagreed with “vac is dispensable due to COVID-19 being no serious threat” (82%;more dissent among men, p = 0.037) or “being against vaccination in general” (81%). Self-assessment as member of a risk group (p = 0.03) and fear of COVID-19 (p = 0.002) were more common among women. Every third patient (31%) completely agreed to “being afraid of COVID-19”, every second thinks “SARSCoV-2 infection would be very dangerous” (56%). Only 41% expressed “complete confidence in the vaccine being safe” and 37% “not being afraid of side effects”. Fear of side effects (SE) was more common among women (p = 0.0016), pts with solid tumors (p = 0.05), with GI tumors (p < 0.0001) and below mean age (p = 0.006). The latter expressed less “confidence in the vaccine being safe” (p = 0.0029). At FUQ, most pts (91%) reported their vac to be well tolerated, 44% reported no SE, especially men (p = 0.001) and pts above age average (p = 0.002). Most common SE was local pain at injection site (36%), which was more frequent among women (p = 0.002), younger pts (p = 0.024) and pts with solid tumors (p = 0.04). Other common SE included fatigue (18%) and myalgia (8%). No thromboembolic events occurred. Only 3 pts had their therapy postponed due to SE. Almost all pts felt retrospectively sufficiently informed about vac and possible SE (94%), would have it again (88%) and agree to get it yearly, if recommended (78%). After vac, pts felt safe meeting friends or family (91%) or shopping (62%). Vacation (32%), work (22%), public transport (21%) or sports (19%) were considered less safe (less frequent among men, p < 0.05). Most pts (70%) did not feel that the COVID-19 pandemic negatively influenced their treatment and regarded the hospitals protective measures as adequate (91%). Conclusions: Willingness to get vac is high among cancer pts and vac is well tolerated in this sensitive cohort. However, concerns about vac safety remain an issue. Those as well as gender differences need to be addressed to increase vac rates and tolerability. The present results may help identify pts that benefit from more detailed pre-vac consultation.
ABSTRACT
Study design: Hospital personnel with contact to COVID-19 patients is regarded to be at risk for SARS-CoV-2 infections. So far, there is no longitudinal data on the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in healthcare personnel working within clinical COVID-19 risk-areas compared to non-exposed personnel and considering the intensity of exposure, the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and the regional infection rate of new infections. Therefore, a repetitive cross-sectional study of the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infections in a risk and a control group within a German university hospital specialized in the care of COVID-19 patients was performed. Methods: From May to November 2020, healthcare personnel working within risk areas of a German university hospital and controls were regularly tested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA and anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Furthermore, participants were interviewed on COVID-19 exposure, symptoms, and the use of PPE. Results: In total, 199 persons (106 (53.3%) working in risk-areas and 93 (46.7%) controls) participated, corresponding to 77.4% of all healthcare- workers in risk-areas of the hospital. No participant in either group was tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA in any of the 984 tests performed. Antibody incidence did not differ between the groups. Upon contact with COVID- 19 patients, FFP-2/KN95-masks or higher standard were always used, while other PPE (e.g., gloves) were used inconsistently. Symptoms did not differ between the groups. Conclusion: The incidence of SARSCoV- 2 infection in healthcare staff working in clinical COVID-19 risk areas using PPE, especially FFP-2/KN95- masks, is not increased compared to non-exposed controls. © 2021 mhp-Verlag GmbH. All rights reserved.