Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 469
Filter
1.
Pakistan Journal of Medical and Health Sciences ; 16(3):492-494, 2022.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1819188

ABSTRACT

Introduction: The rapid and extensive spread of COVID-19 has increased the number of confirmed cases even higher. The COVID-19 vaccine policy is one strategy for reducing COVID-19 spread by establishing a joint herd immunity pattern. The vaccine policy is one of the policies, along with the 3M and 3T policies. Objectives: This paper aimed to analyze the implementation of the COVID-19 vaccination policy to achieve herd immunity. Research Methodology: This research uses a normative method (qualitative) and descriptive-analytical (research specification). The choice of this method is based on the fact that this research examines the government’s policies and their impact on the achievement of national herd immunity. Conclusion: This study found that the COVID-19 vaccine policy was effective in encouraging people to get vaccinated immediately. The COVID-19 vaccine policy has achieved 94.71 percent coverage for dose I, 77.30 percent coverage for dose II, and 12.63 percent coverage for dose III. Herd immunity can be achieved if at least 70% of Indonesians have been vaccinated.

2.
Pakistan Journal of Medical and Health Sciences ; 16(3):429-431, 2022.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1819185

ABSTRACT

Objective: To determine the frequency and pattern of myths and misconceptions regarding COVID-19 vaccine in the general population at Isra University Hospital Hyderabad Material and Methods: This cross-sectional survey base study was conducted at the Isra University Hospital Hyderabad, during a period of six months from August 2021 to January 2022. All the patients who visited the OPD and their attendants of any age or gender, were included. All the subjects were properly counseled that their privacy was fully secured and their name and contact numbers were taken. After obtaining sociodemographic information, the participants were interviewed regarding COVID-19 infection in the past, previous vaccination history for diseases other than COVID-19, conceptions, and myths regarding COVID-19 vaccination, acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination, reasons to vaccinate for COVID-19, and reasons not to vaccinate for COVID-19. All the information was gathered via study proforma including questioner and SPSS version 26 was used for the purpose of data analysis. Results: A total of 145 individuals of either gender were studied regarding myths and misconceptions of COVID-19 vaccine, their average age was 27.71+9.86 years and females were in majority 62.1%. Among the study population, doctors, private employee and housewives were the most common as 44.1%, 11%, 11.7% and 9% respectively. Most of the cases 62.1% were unmarried. According to the myths and misconceptions, 8.3% said it can affect fertility, 23.4% had no trust on its effectiveness and safety, 14.5% said it is an artificial infection procedure, 11% were afraid from its dangerous side effects, 3.4% said the vaccine will change their DNA, 13.8% said it is a controversial substance and 6.9% afraid that they will die within 2 years. 24.1% cases heard myths from family, 24.8% heard from friends and 51% heard by social media. 17.2% had idea that it is an international conspiracy and 4.8% said this may cause sexual dysfunction and 4.8% said it is a procedure of implanting microchip to control them. Conclusion: There were several misconceptions in the general population, most myths like effects of male fertility, distrust on vaccine efficacy, they will be infected artificially, fear of dangerous side effects, controversial substances were observed to be the commonest myths and misconceptions regarding the COVID-19 vaccine in the general population. Above ideas were adopted mostly by the friends and social media.

3.
Iranian Journal of Dermatology ; 24(4):331-338, 2021.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1818965

ABSTRACT

Since coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines were approved without long-term monitoring, tracking their adverse effects appears to be necessary. Mucocutaneous adverse events are of great importance due to their visibility and the potential effect on inducing fear in patients leading to vaccine hesitancy. We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus in this regard, and all of the relevant papers published until June 28, 2021, were included if we could access their full texts. Moreover, we included some of our cases from Iran. We found various mucocutaneous manifestations after COVID-19 vaccination, including local injection site reactions (acute or delayed), urticarial lesions, pityriasis rosea-like rashes, angioedema, morbilliform rashes, pernio-like lesions, acrocyanosis, petechial/ purpuric/ecchymotic lesions, herpes flare-up, herpetiform rashes, oral erosive lesions, acral pustular rashes, erythema multiform, dermographism, herpes zoster, generalized pruritus, contact dermatitis, reaction to dermal fillers and non-specific rashes. We categorized them by their time of initiation (acute or delayed) and site of involvement (local injection site, remote area, or generalized). Delayed local reactions, local injection site reactions, urticarial lesions, and pityriasis rosea-like and morbilliform rashes were among the most common cutaneous adverse events. Dermatologists should be aware of these potential reactions to manage them properly, reassure patients, and encourage them to continue their vaccination.

4.
Journal of Contemporary Clinical Practice ; 7(2):65-76, 2021.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1818892

ABSTRACT

Introduction This study aimed to explore the factors contributing to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy (VH) among healthcare workers (HCWs) who missed the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine in Nigeria. Methods We conducted a qualitative study of the factors contributing to COVID-19 VH among HCWs at the University College Hospital, Ibadan using purposive sampling technique. Each interview session was held through telephone conversation. Qualitative data were analyzed using Colaizzi's phenomenological method. Results The mean age of the 15 HCWs was 34.33±3.77 years;10 (66.7%) were females;6 (40.0%) were physiotherapists. Three themes were identified. The first theme, “Factors contributing to COVID-19 VH among healthcare workers” had five clusters: i) Lack of adequate information regarding the COVID-19 vaccine;ii) Challenges with immunization schedule;iii) Fear of side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine;iv) Lack of trust in the government;and v) Concerns about the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine. The second theme, “Healthcare workers' perception on the solution to COVID-19” had three clusters: i) Adherence to non-pharmaceutical measures;ii) Vaccine production: key to submerging the COVID-19 pandemic;and iii) Healthcare workers' perception of their roles in patient education on the COVID-19 vaccine. The third theme;“Recommendations to encourage COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among healthcare workers” had three clusters: i) Disclosure of extensive information on COVID-19 vaccine components;ii) Decentralization of COVID-19 vaccine collection points;and iii) Procurement of other brands of the COVID-19 vaccine. Conclusions Public health authorities should promote information on the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine.

5.
GERMS ; 12(1):7-9, 2022.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1818891
6.
Journal of Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology ; 32(1):7-12, 2022.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1818564

ABSTRACT

Objective: As approval of one of many coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) vaccines' use for pregnancy is getting closer, vaccine hesitancy may take place in pregnant individuals for this new vaccine. Our study aimed to evaluate vaccine acceptance and factors affecting vaccine acceptance in case of an approved COVID-19 vaccine for pregnant individuals. Material and Methods: Our study was designed as one group, cross-sectional, prospective study. Sample consisted of pregnant individuals who didn't have any chronic illnesses and didn't contract COVID-19 in the last 6 months. In-person style survey was used to collect data about demographics, knowledge about COVID- 19 disease and it's effects on pregnant individuals, vaccine acceptance and reasons for acceptance or refusal. Results were analyzed with descriptive statistics, chi-square test and Shapiro-Wilk test of normality using Number Cruncher Statistical System. Results: Among 250 participants, 183 (73.2%) reported they wouldn't accept COVID-19 vaccination if there was a safe and effective vaccine approved for use in pregnancy. Main reasons of refusal were the belief that vaccine hadn't been studied on humans enough or that it might have adverse effectes on baby and/or pregnant individual. Only factor associated with vaccine acceptance was found to be knowing someone who had severe COVID-19 disease (p=0.022). Conclusion: Our study shows that vaccine hesitancy rates may be high among pregnant individuals when a COVID-19 vaccine is approved for use in pregnancy. The main reason for vaccine hesitancy is safety concerns.

7.
International Journal of Preventive Medicine ; 13(1):42, 2022.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1818392
8.
Journal of Pharmacopuncture ; 24(4):165-172, 2021.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1818249

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19, the most infectious pandemic disease arising due to SARS-CoV-2 (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2) has caused huge issues globally. In this review, we discuss the impact of COVID-19 on the immune system of the human body and the protective mechanisms of the host immune system opposing viral infections. Here, we summarize the effect of the pandemic of the novel coronavirus disease on the immune system such as sleep and Behavioral Immune System (BIS) together with consideration of researcher’s observation points of view. We draw particular attention to recent up-to-date reports concerning COVID-19 drugs as well as information about the landscape document for COVID-19 vaccines released by WHO (World Health Organization), and some adverse events of COVID-19 vaccination. Additionally, can take part in the preventive appraise in opposition within this pandemic severe COVID-19 infections disease may affect some outcome in physical exercise, physical movement, healthy diets, and good nutrition are significant for supporting the immune systems and summarize AYUSH (Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, and Homeopathy) Indian medicinal systems guidelines for immunity boosting procedures during COVID-19 pandemic.

9.
Vaccines ; 10(3), 2022.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1818229

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Onset of oral lichenoid lesions (OLL) or oral lichen planus (OLP) can be rare adverse reactions to vaccines. Recently, the first solitary cases were reported after COVID-19 vaccination. The aim of the present study was to assess if an increased frequency of OLL/OLP can be found after COVID-19 vaccination within a large real-world cohort. It was assumed that the incidence of OLL/OLP was significantly higher in subjects who received COVID-19 vaccine (cohort I) compared to individuals who were not vaccinated (cohort II). Patients and Methods: Initial cohorts of 274,481 vaccinated and 9,429,892 not vaccinated patients were retrieved from the TriNetX database (TriNetX, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA), and matched for age, gender and the frequency of use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, beta blockers, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Results: After matching each cohort, we accounted for 217,863 patients. Among cohort I, 146 individuals had developed OLL/OLP within 6 days after COVID-19 vaccination (88 and 58 subjects had received mRNA-and adenovirus vector-based vaccines), whereas in cohort II, 59 patients were newly diagnosed with OLL/OLP within 6 days after having visited the clinic for any other reason. The risk of developing OLL/OLP was calculated as 0.067% vs. 0.027%, for cohorts I and II, whereby the risk difference was highly significant (p < 0.001;log-rank test). RR and OR were 2.475 (95% CI = 1.829;3.348) and 2.476 (95% CI = 1.830;3.350), respectively. Discussion: The hypothesis was confirmed. Accordingly, the obtained results suggest that the onset of OLL/OLP is a rare adverse drug reaction to COVID-19 vaccines, especially to mRNA vaccines. Thus far, it remains unknown if specific components of the formulations cause a type IV hypersensitive reaction corresponding to OLL, or if the immune response post vaccination triggers a T cell-driven autoimmune reaction directed against the basal layer of keratinocytes of the oral mucosa in terms of OLP. Although OLL and OLP are both classified as premalignant lesions, spontaneous remission may be expected over time, at least in the case of OLL. Therefore, the presented findings should not place any limitation toward the use of COVID-19-vaccines in broad levels of the population.

10.
Vaccines ; 10(3), 2022.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1818228

ABSTRACT

Background: Several countries are implementing COVID-19 booster vaccination campaigns. The objective of this study was to model the impact of different primary and booster vaccination strategies. Methods: We used a compartmental model fitted to hospital admission data in France to analyze the impact of primary and booster vaccination strategies on morbidity and mortality, assuming waning of immunity and various levels of virus transmissibility during winter. Results: Strategies prioritizing primary vaccinations were systematically more effective than strategies prioritizing boosters. Regarding booster strategies targeting different age groups, their effectiveness varied with immunity and virus transmissibility levels. If the waning of immunity affects all adults, people aged 30 to 49 years should be boosted in priority, even for low transmissibility levels. Conclu-sions: Increasing the primary vaccination coverage should remain a priority. If a plateau has been reached, boosting the immunity of younger adults could be the most effective strategy, especially if SARS-CoV-2 transmissibility is high.

11.
Vaccines ; 10(3), 2022.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1818226

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 vaccination has been the subject of unprecedented misinformation, false news, and public concerns. This study presents a unique analysis comprising persons who were not vaccinated and became ill. It investigates reasons for not vaccinating and evaluates how the personal experience of COVID-19 affected further attitudes and decisions related to health. The study included 730 consecutive unvaccinated patients hospitalized in 12 centers in Poland during the autumn 2021 pandemic wave. The most frequent reason behind the refusal to receive the vaccine was concern over the adverse effects, disbelief that the vaccine was sufficiently tested, and one’s conviction that COVID-19 will not affect a patient. Online information, friends, spouse, children/grandchildren, and other family members were most often the source of discouragement from vaccination. Most individuals regretted their decision not to receive a vaccine (66.0%), declared to promote COVID-19 vaccination after discharge (64.0%), and to receive a COVID-19 vaccine in the time recommended for convalescents (69.5%). Individuals expressing no regrets of vaccine refusal more frequently revealed conspiracy beliefs. The study shows that personal experience with severe COVID-19 can influence the perception of vaccination, but approximately one-third of unvaccinated hospitalized patients still appear to express vaccine hesitancy.

12.
Vaccines ; 10(3), 2022.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1818225

ABSTRACT

In Italy, following the start of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination campaign, community pharmacies (CPs) were recruited on a voluntary basis in order to administer COVID-19 vaccines as part of their activities. The aim of the present study was to investigate the knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding SARS-CoV-2 infection prevention, and vaccine acceptance/hesitancy towards COVID-19 and influenza vaccinations among the community pharmacists operating in the Palermo Province. A cross-sectional study was conducted, with two different questionnaires administered before and after the conduction of the vaccination campaign against SARS-CoV-2 at the COVID-19 vaccination center of the Palermo University Hospital (PUH). The baseline survey showed that 64% of community pharmacists (CPs) declared that they planned to vaccinate against SARS-CoV-2, and 58% were vaccinated against influenza during the 2020/2021 season. Factors significantly associated with willingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccination were confidence in vaccines (adjOR 1.76;CI 1.11–2.80), fear of contracting SARS-CoV-2 infection (adjOR 1.50;CI 1.06–2.11), considering COVID-19 vaccination to be the best strategy to counteract SARS-CoV-2 (adjOR 1.79;CI 1.39–2.29), and adherence to influenza vaccination during the 2020/2021 season (adjOR 3.25;CI 2.23–4.25). The adherence among CPs of the Palermo Province to COVID-19 vaccination was 96.5%. From the post-vac-cination survey, the main reasons for changing opinions on vaccination adherence were the introduction of mandatory vaccinations, fear of contracting COVID-19, and limitations on work activities in the case of vaccine refusal. The achievement of very high COVID-19 vaccination coverage rates among healthcare professionals (HCPs) in the present study was mainly due to the mandatory vaccination policies;nevertheless, a willingness for COVID-19 vaccination was relatively high among pharmacists before the beginning of the vaccination campaign. HCPs and CPs should receive train-ing on vaccination, which is recommended in the national immunization plan and is also suggested by the respondents in our study, in order to routinely re-evaluate their own vaccination profiles, as well as those of their patients.

13.
Vaccines ; 10(3), 2022.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1818221

ABSTRACT

Health care professionals (HCPs) working in pediatric and perinatal settings have a strong influence on parental vaccine decision making. Furthermore, HCPs’ motivations behind vaccine acceptance are associated with their likelihood of recommending vaccines to their patients. Understanding these motivations in the context of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign may aid in the development of interventions that improve pediatric practitioners’ vaccine confidence and prescription. We aimed at studying the motivations affecting COVID-19 vaccination behavior among a sample of vaccinated Italian HCPs working in pediatric settings. A sample (n = 162) of HCPs completed an online self-reported survey exploring motivations behind getting vaccinated against COVID-19. Emotions of HCPs at the moment of COVID-19 vaccination injection were also recorded to collect data about the main feelings connected to the vaccination decision-making process. Data were collected between 19 March 2021 and 21 April 2021. The most effective motivational incentives were the beliefs that vaccination helped protect vulnerable members of the community (97.5% agreement), could protect one’s own health (93.7%), health authorities could be trusted (58.7%), and the vaccine had been rigorously tested (53.8%). Actual personal exposure to COVID was less important (reported importance agreement 16–24%), and the influence of news and social media was still lower (4–6%). Differences between physicians’ and other HCPs’ ratings were also found. Finally, emotional status at vaccination showed high ratings for positive emotions surrounding the vaccination act. This study provided additional evidence about the multifaceted motivations behind COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and showed the potential of understanding the psychosocial roots of vaccine behaviors for shaping public communication campaigns. The highly emotionally charged response obtained underscores the importance of strengthening the community feeling among HCPs.

14.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health ; 19(9), 2022.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1818138

ABSTRACT

Background: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is a global concern. Many individuals are concerned about the potential side-effects of the COVID-19 vaccine and vaccine boosters. The purpose of this study was to assess attitudes and satisfaction concerning COVID-19 vaccines and vaccine boosters in the population in Bangkok, Thailand. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey measuring COVID-19 vaccine attitudes and satisfaction was distributed from September to December 2021. Multiple linear regression was used to explore associations between demographic variables and questionnaire results. Spearman’s correlation analysis was used to examine associations between attitude and satisfaction scores. Results: A total of 780 questionnaire responses were obtained. The largest groups of participants reported having obtained a first vaccination dose via viral vaccine (52.8%), a second vaccination booster via viral vaccine (49.5%), and a third vaccination booster via mRNA vaccine (28.8%). Multiple linear regression revealed a lower association between vaccine attitude scores and having earned less than a bachelor’s degree (β −0.109;95% CI −2.541, −0.451) and infection risk without self-isolating (β −0.154;95% CI −4.152, −0.670) compared with attaining a bachelor’s degree or higher and never having being at risk of infection, respectively. Higher vaccine satisfaction scores were more closely associated with being married than being single (β 0.074;95% CI −0.073, 3.022), whereas lower vaccine satisfaction scores were less closely associated with non-healthcare workers (β −0.143;95% CI −4.698, −0.831) and infection risk without self-isolating (β −0.132;95% CI −6.034, −0.502) compared with non-healthcare workers and never being at risk of infection. There was weak but significant positive correlation between attitude and satisfaction scores (r = 0.338, p-value < 0.001). Hence, a gradual decline in protection following vaccination and the positive effects of a booster dose after primary vaccination have made the decision to administer booster doses. Conclusion: The results suggest that policymakers need to develop more effective strategies to raise awareness about the importance of vaccination.

15.
Cardiogenetics ; 12(2):133-141, 2022.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1818054

ABSTRACT

Eosinophilic pancarditis (EP) is a rare, often unrecognized condition caused by endomyocardial infiltration of eosinophil granulocytes (referred as eosinophilic myocarditis, EM) associated with pericardial involvement. EM has a variable clinical presentation, ranging from asymptomatic cases to acute cardiogenic shock requiring mechanical circulatory support (MCS) or chronic restrictive cardiomyopathy at high risk of progression to dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). EP is associated with high in‐hospital mortality, particularly when associated to endomyocardial thrombosis, coronary arteries vasculitis or severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction. To date, there is a lack of consensus about the optimal diagnostic algorithm and clinical management of patients with biopsy‐proven EP. The differential diagnosis includes hypersensitivity myocarditis, eosinophil granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA), hypereosinophilic syndrome, parasitic infections, pregnancy‐related hypereosinophilia, malignancies, drug overdose (particularly clozapine) and Omenn syndrome (OMIM 603554). To our knowledge, we report the first case of pancarditis associated to eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) with negative anti‐neutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies (ANCA). Treatment with steroids and azathioprine was promptly started. Six months later, the patient developed a relapse: treatment with subcutaneous mepolizumab was added on the top of standard therapy, with prompt disease activity remission. This case highlights the role of a multimodality approach for the diagnosis of cardiac involvement associated to systemic immune disorders.

16.
Frontiers in Medicine ; 9, 2022.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1817976

ABSTRACT

The imposition of compulsory health treatments has always been a subject of animated legal and bioethical debate. What is at stake are two opposing interests that are in their own way protected by international treaties and constitutional provisions: the right to individual self-determination and the duty to defend and preserve collective safety. The global health crisis related to the COVID-19 pandemic has placed the issue of the legitimacy of imposing compulsory vaccination at the center of the multifaceted debate on pandemic health policies. Indonesia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and the Federated States of Micronesia are currently the only four countries in the world where the COVID-19 vaccine is mandatory for all citizens. Italy was the first country in the European Union to introduce this obligation, effective from 8 January 2022 by virtue of the decree-law approved on 5 January 2022, which imposed vaccination compulsory for everyone over the age of 50. Similar paths have been undertaken by Greece and Austria, where the obligation will start respectively on 16 January 2022 (for citizens aged over 60) and 1 February 2022 (for citizens of all ages). However, in many civilized countries, “selective” forms of compulsory vaccination, i.e., aimed at specific categories of individuals, especially healthcare professionals, are already provided for. The present work aims to offer a concise and as much as possible exhaustive overview of the main ethical and legal issues related to compulsory COVID-19 vaccination, with reference to both the Italian and the international context, mainly European.

17.
Allergy, Asthma and Clinical Immunology ; 18(SUPPL 1), 2022.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1817262

ABSTRACT

Background: Individuals with myasthenia gravis (MG) are of particular importance with regards to COVID-19 vulnerability and vaccination precedence (1). However, evidence suggests COVID vaccines may contribute to exacerbations within these populations (2). It is important to consider pre existing conditions in MG patients who have expressed subsequent symptoms to COVID-19 vaccinations, even after negative allergic testing. Case Presentation: A 65 year old female with corticosteroid dependent MG was referred for allergy assessment to COVID vaccine components. The patient presented with lightheadedness, numbness/blisters in mouth, difficulty swallowing, chest pain, high pulse rate (96bpm), and low blood pressure (112/72) after receiving her first dose (D1) of the Pfizer vaccine. The patient tested negative to the main allergic components, polyethylene glycol (PEG) and polysorbate 80, but displayed symptoms of dizziness and respiratory distress after skin testing (ST). Physical examination was reassuringly normal, including vitals and respiratory examination. A vasovagal episode and anxiety was felt to be the cause of patients' reactions. The patient was encouraged to continue with her second vaccine dose (D2), and advised antihistamine usage the day before, day of, and day after for reassurance purposes. Further consultation with a neuromuscular specialist recommended corticosteroid augmentation 48 hours prior to one week post D2 to prevent MG exacerbation. The patient was advised to increase prednisone dosage (6mg to 8mg) two days prior to D2, and continue with 8mg for 1 week following. No adverse outcomes were reported following administration of D2. It was suspected the patient's D1 triggered her myasthenia, presenting with allergy-like symptoms. Conclusions: Negative allergic testing is insufficient to dismiss patients with preexisting MG. It is imperative to recognize underlying health conditions which may manifest adverse COVID-19 vaccine complications. In certain autoimmune conditions, such as MG, modest corticosteroid augmentation will prevent symptom presentation mimicking allergy from COVID vaccination.

18.
Allergy, Asthma and Clinical Immunology ; 18(SUPPL 1), 2022.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1817261

ABSTRACT

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic presents an enormous challenge for public health and clinicians globally (1). Messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccines contain polyethylene glycol (PEG) 2000, associated with allergic reactions at 2.5-11.1 cases/1 million doses (2). Our aim is to assess the validity of PEG skin prick testing (SPT) and the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in potentially high-risk candidates. Methods: From January 1st to June 17th 2021, adult patients referred to the MUHC allergy clinics considered at risk of anaphylaxis were prospectively recruited. The entry criteria was any documented history of anaphylaxis. Evaluated patients underwent SPT with PEGs: PEG 35 (cremophor), PEG 3000 (50% w/v), PEG 3350 (50% w/v), Polysorbate 80 (20% w/v), PEG 20,000 (0.01%, 0.1%, 1%, and 10% w/v) (3). Following SPT, placebo-controlled vaccine challenges were carried out. Results: Of the 70-patients that met the enrollment criteria;16 (22.8%) had reacted to the first vaccine dose. Forty-two patients underwent SPT and 4 (9.5%) had a positive test. One had a positive challenge with oral PEG-3350, the others did not undergo oral challenge. Two tolerated the AstraZeneca vaccine. Of the remaining two patients, one had a delayed positive SPT to PEG and tolerated the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, while the other is pending vaccine challenge. Thirty-one patients (44.3%) underwent COVID vaccine challenge at the allergy clinic, 28 (40%) at the vaccination center, and 11 (15.7%) are pending challenge. Thirty-one (44.3%) tolerated the vaccine: 23 (74.2%) received single full-dose and 8 (25.8%) 2-split dose. Of the 28 who received the vaccine at a vaccination center, one reported a delayed large local erythema following both doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Conclusions: In a cohort with a history of anaphylaxis and increased risk of allergic reactions to the COVID-19 vaccines, following allergist evaluation, including negative PEG skin testing, vaccine administration was safe without serious adverse events.

19.
Allergy, Asthma and Clinical Immunology ; 18(SUPPL 1), 2022.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1817258

ABSTRACT

Background: There have been reported reactions to the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines in the literature ranging from mild dermatologic reactions to anaphylaxis. [1,2] To date, there exists little data as to whether patients can be challenged safely with the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine if they have had a prior severe allergic reaction. Methods: We present a case series of patients at a single community based allergy clinic with a history consistent with possible IgE mediated reaction to a SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine who received treatment with epinephrine. Epicutaneous prick testing was performed with either the Pfizer-BioNtech or Moderna SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine, 1:10 dilution and then 1:1 dilution, with positive and negative controls. Patients with negative skin tests then went on to receive a two or three-step graded challenge with the tested vaccine. Steps were done in 30 minutes increments and each patient was observed for 1 hour after receiving the final dose. Patients were consented to a case series as part of our institution's protocol. Results: We did not identify any patients with positive skin prick testing to the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines, nor did any patients have objective findings of allergy on vaccine challenge. Conclusions: In conclusion, graded challenge with the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine can be safely performed by an allergist in patients with a prior history of possible IgE mediated reaction to an mRNA vaccine.

20.
Allergy, Asthma and Clinical Immunology ; 18(SUPPL 1), 2022.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1817256

ABSTRACT

Background: COVID-19 vaccination efforts focus on adolescents and adults and are expected to include children< age 12 years shortly. We aim to assess barriers and identify solutions for vaccination, especially in parents and their children. Methods: Families seen at the outpatient allergy clinic at the Montreal Children's Hospital and at a private allergy clinic were invited to complete an anonymous online survey on COVID-19 and vaccination. Statistical results were analyzed using R (version 4.0.0). Uni and multivariate logistic regressions were compared to estimate factors associated with vaccine hesitancy. Results: Between May and June 2021, 97 parents and children responded to the survey. The majority (36.1%) of children were 6 to 10 years old (range: 0 - 17years). Most parents (56.7%) were 40-49 years (range: 20-59 years) and 41.2% had at least college level education. The most common barrier to vaccination was fear of adverse effects. (49.5%). Over half of families (56.7%) believed that a history of allergies was a contra indication for vaccination. Fifty-nine (60.8%) participants stated that dissemination of additional information would increase their willingness to be vaccinated. Educational videos (59.8%) were preferred by respondent. Health professionals i.e. (physicians, nurses and pharmacists) were the favored sources of information. Most (96.9%) parents reported that their children's vaccinations were up to date. Interestingly 76.3% of parents indicated they would vaccinate their children for while only 44.3% stated a plan to vaccinate for seasonal influenza in 2021 COVID (28.1% difference, 95%CI: 17.9%, 46.0%). Hesitant parents were less likely to have children between the ages of 11-14 and were more likely to be of Asian descent while controlling for parental sex and education level. Conclusions: Most families of children with food allergy plan to vaccinate their children for COVID-19. Videos addressing identified concerns and misinformation, especially the adverse effects of this vaccine would be reassuring.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL